Childs has to be The Thing at the end..
-
cokezero99 — 9 years ago(June 10, 2016 10:14 AM)
There's a problem with this theory of Childs being a thing. The problem was something that might not have occurred to the filmmakers then but is a point that the 2011 prequel and highlighted. The problem is this: Childs has an earring at the end.
So this poses a problem. In Thing canon, a thing cannot copy metal meaning he could not, technically, be a thing. However the issue is now this: I think this problem is so minute a detail that it reasonable to think the filmmakers did not even consider it but still wrote Childs as a thing. -
KthulhuX — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 09:59 PM)
I don't think they wrote either one of them as definative human or the Thing, even for themselves. Ambiguity is the best ending, and what better way to make it ambiguous to the audience than to write it where it's even ambiguous to the writer?
-
theguitarman18 — 9 years ago(July 04, 2016 07:09 AM)
If Childs was copied, he'd still need to breath. Norris-thing suffered a heart attack, so clearly normal human functions are retained by the thing. I can't remember whether his breath is visible or not, but it doesn't mean anything.
-
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 09:42 AM)
You may need a blu ray or hdx copy to see Child's breath. Mac's breath is more prominent, nevertheless, you can see Child's breath a number of times.
Not only that, but earlier when the Bennings-thing lets out its yell, you can see its breath very clearly. So a lack of breath is not proof that Childs is a thing.
You are sin. -
Jetfire1959 — 9 years ago(June 18, 2016 10:58 PM)
I found this in the trivia section for the 2011 prequel:
This film may have purposely solved a long-standing mystery in the 1982 film. This film reveals that The Thing cannot replicate abiotic things such as fillings, earrings, clothes, etc. and at a pivotal moment near the end, Kate realizes that Carter's earring is missing as well as the hole for the piercing revealing him to be a Thing. At the end of the 1982 film, the character Childs still has his earring in his right ear. It can be seen just before he takes a drink from the bottle of J&B.
The louder paranormal "debunkers" argue,the more terrified they are it's all true. -
Donna2.0 — 1 month ago(February 07, 2026 08:58 AM)
The Thing copies Childs and then takes his earring.
Yes. Also we learn from the prequel that the Thing adapts. It learns from its mistakes. So when it copies now, it copies better than it did before. So it would have learned to put the earring in the correct part of the body.
Put a muzzle on Tits Malone, PI -
mountaindewslave — 9 years ago(August 10, 2016 06:18 AM)
its meant to be entirely left up in the air based on what those involved with the project have said. I believe the director claimed he (personally) felt Macready was a "Thing" at the end while Kurt Russel has claimed he most certainly felt Macready was human at the end
again, no one in the project made a concrete decision. Its open ended
she fell through a hole, and was never seen again -
kcott44 — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 02:43 PM)
You know what is so weird, every time I watch the film, I never think it's either Childs or Mac. You never see the fate of Nauls and I believe he is the thing. I believe the thing in the disguise of Nauls will try to come back into the picture and try to attack Mac and Childs, that's just my theory though.
-
hafabee — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 09:56 PM)
Childs is not a Thing because it's difficult to see his breath;
- This doesn't mean anything. His breath is simply difficult to see, but even if he is a Thing he's a perfect copy of Childs, and therefore anything Childs' body would normally do, its would do. Including having warm breath.
Childs is not a Thing because he wears an earring; - Ignoring the fact that it's a retcon from the remake/reboot/prequel of a few years back that states the Thing cannot imitate inorganic material, and was not present in this original movie, Childs, if he was a Thing, could have and would have easily reinserted his earring after it had assimilated him. The Thing is capable of dressing itself in the same manner as its host would.
Childs is a Thing because of the following;
#1) He's wearing a different coat at the end of the movie than the last time we saw him. We know the Thing rips through your clothing when it takes you over and thus Childs' sudden, and otherwise needless change of apparel suggests he has been absorbed by the alien entity, and it got itself a new coat after it tore through his original one.
#2) A rather damning shot. I actually put in my DVD copy of
The Thing
to find the exact time of this shot just now heh heh, so you can all see it for yourselves (if you own a copy, if not don't worry I'll describe the shot in detail here), and it's at the 1 hour, 29 minutes and 17 second mark.
The shot begins looking down the vacant hallway of the Outpost, then pans down to the stairway and doorway that leads to the generator room, then pans back up and moves over to the cloak room where Childs was suppose to be waiting for the others to come back from checking Blair's shack.
Except Childs isn't there.
The room is empty.
The shot heavily suggests that Childs was dragged down to the generator room, where Blair-Thing is revealed to be later. The slow pan down to the generator doorway, and then back up to reveal that Childs is missing from his post suggests that he's down in the generator room below, with Blair. And he was at his post just a few minutes before, at 1:26:40. But by 1:29:17, he's gone. And it's nice and convenient for the Thing to grab a new jacket for him from the cloak room Childs was suppose to be guarding, as we see several unused coats, pants and boots sitting right there.
That shot was completely intentional, although it's an easy one to dismiss at first glance because it seems meaningless, but it's not, there is definitely a reason why John Carpenter chose to put that shot in there, right after showing Childs in the exact same shot present at his post just a few minutes before. Blair-Thing came up behind him while he was watching his friends out the window, grabbed him, and dragged him down below to the generator room to be assimilated into the beast.
- This doesn't mean anything. His breath is simply difficult to see, but even if he is a Thing he's a perfect copy of Childs, and therefore anything Childs' body would normally do, its would do. Including having warm breath.
-
DrAndreiSmyslov — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 11:21 PM)
Not a bad theory, but it's possible you're basing all that on a continuity error, hence not intentional.
In shot 1: Childs (looking out the window) is wearing a medium blue coat. There are a total of 6 coats hanging on the wall shown on screen.
In shot 2: Childs missing. There are still 6 coats, if Childs is now a Thing, grabbed one of those coats, wouldn't there only be 5 coats left? Plus, now the coats are a mixture of different colors, likely because when the film crew re-staged it with props they didn't place everything back accurately. There's other indicators it's a continuity error, so I can't get on board it was intentional, but you make a good case.One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
-
hafabee — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 12:19 PM)
Well I don't think that Childs was done being assimilated yet by the time shot #2 comes up, I think that shot reveals that Childs is down in the generator room at that point in the story, and probably being imitated at that very moment.
I do think the shot is intentional, I can see no other reason why they would have chosen to include that shot, in particular the ominous pan down to the stairway leading to the generator room, unless it was to suggest that Childs is down there. I think he was carried off right before by Blair-Thing, and that he got fresh clothing later on, likely from that cloak room, to replace the garments that the Thing would have torn through when it attacked him.
As for my first point, it could have been a continuity error yes. They may have accidentally given Keith David a wrong coloured winter coat when they shot the final scene. They did do a pretty good job of clothing continuity throughout the rest of the film though. I think it's more likely, and more fun, to believe it was an intentional choice by John Carpenter! We'll never know if Childs (or Mac, for that matter) was a Thing or not at the end of the movie, but I'd say the slow pan down to the generator room hints at something sinister.