We know that Macready was suspicious,
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Thing
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(December 02, 2016 08:07 AM)
We know that Macready was suspicious,
And nothing in the final scene would have demonstrated to him that Childs was human.
Therefore at best, he's still suspicious at the end.
So the only question is, do you think the film really ended with Macready suddenly not giving a damn if Childs was infected or not, or does he know Childs is the thing. It's that simple.
Conversely there are a number of reasons why he would be convinced Child's was the thing. He last saw Childs after they went to test Blair, and suddenly neither can be found. Why would Childs run off by himself after Blair anyway, when it makes no sense to put himself at risk like that? Childs was wearing a black coat, so why did he switch to a light one? Why is Childs not suspicious of Macready, as he should be? Why does Childs take the risk of drinking after Macready? Then of course the breathing and the musical cue.
But my main focus is that we know Macready was suspicious, and nothing about that scene would have reassured him. -
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(December 02, 2016 12:34 PM)
But my main focus is that we know Macready was suspicious, and nothing about that scene would have reassured him.
How does MacReady being suspicious prove that Childs was a Thing? MacReady suspected Garry and Clark of being Things too. Neither of them were. And how exactly was Childs supposed to reassure him? By repeating the blood test there and then, just for MacReady's benefit?
He last saw Childs after they went to test Blair, and suddenly neither can be found. Why would Childs run off by himself after Blair anyway, when it makes no sense to put himself at risk like that?
Because Childs was an aggressive man who acted on impulse, as we saw throughout the movie.
Childs was wearing a black coat, so why did he switch to a light one?
I guess you've never heard of continuity errors between scenes, or considered the possibility that Childs was wearing a lighter coat indoors and switched to a heavier parka before going outside.
Why is Childs not suspicious of Macready, as he should be?
Childs is armed with a flame thrower, MacReady isn't.
Why does Childs take the risk of drinking after Macready?
See above, plus he felt that he had nothing to lose at that point.
Then of course the breathing and the musical cue.
The breathing claim has been refuted about a thousand times, so you're basically making up fan fiction and pretending that it's something in the movie. Bennings was indisputably a Thing before he's burned, but he's breathing and there's vapor on his breath. Light and camera angles made the vapor of MacReady's breath more obvious than Childs'. -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(December 02, 2016 03:26 PM)
I had responded to all of your points, and then I realized none of it matters.
Again, it's simple.
If you are Macready, Childs has to be treated as the thing until proven not to be. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that he is, and none that demonstrate he's human.
As a small example of why most of what you wrote is irrelevant, you suggested that maybe he switched to a heavier coat. Well for no reason other that to conclude that he's human you are assuming he was wearing a different size coat, and on top of that we have already been given evidence numerous times that the Thing destroys clothing when it assimilates a person, which gives him an actual reason to change coats.
Likewise you suggested Childs was aggressive and it made since that he would run out on his own, when actually the evidence is that he is the one who wanted to leave Macready outside to die rather than risk him letting a thing in. So no, he wasn't like that at all. -
alwaysannoying — 9 years ago(December 10, 2016 10:16 PM)
None of this simply, or otherwise, shows Child's to be the thing.
Throughout the whole of the movie characters wrongly point out very good reasons why other characters should be suspect.
Copper and Garry were the only people with access to the blood that was sabotaged neither was a thing.
Clark was alone with the dog thing for long periods of time not a thing.
Some of Macready's clothes are found hidden and torn not a thing.
Macready does have reason to be suspicious as he would with anyone out of his sight for any period of time after the blood test , but it's entirely unreasonable to assume those suspicions are definitive proof of anything
One could just as easily argue that if Child's were a thing it would be entirely unreasonable to even approach a dangerous and unpredictable Macready.
here is little Effie's head
whose brains are made of gingerbread -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 07:03 AM)
The simple reason is that given the suspicion, and extreme safety concern, he has to be assumed to be a thing until proven otherwise.
Nobody said definitive proof of anything. I don't know why people like you respond saying I haven't proved anything. Of course I haven't. I didn't say I was trying to prove it. It has nothing to do with proving it. -
alwaysannoying — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 10:37 PM)
Childs Is The Thing For A Very Simple Reason.
Was a completely misleading title for the thread then, wasn't it?
Note the words 'IS' and 'REASON'.
Giving the REASON Childs IS the thing would constitute what?
Perhaps the prefix 'MacReady should assume' would've helped.
I don't know why people like you always have to blame others for their own inadequacies.
here is little Effie's head
whose brains are made of gingerbread -
jt2002b — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 08:10 PM)
This OP guy is a real stubborn tard who doesn't stop. I posted a thread explaining why I have always assumed Childs and MacReady to be human at the end and this guy spammed the page over and over blabbing almost a copy and pasted version of what he's saying now "It must be assumed Childs is a thing because" Blah blah blah. We're the audience, we're not in danger watching the movie so we don't have to assume jack as far as suspicions go because they don't relate to our fate. I think Childs was human because if he was truly a thing he would realize how dangerous MacReady was to his survival and immediately torch MacReady upon approach instead of sitting down and trying to re earn his trust But that's just my OPINION.
-
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 06:51 AM)
We're the audience, we're not in danger watching the movie so we don't have to assume jack as far as suspicions go because they don't relate to our fate.
I'm glad someone else realized this.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead. -