Current Events > Who was infected at the end of The Thing (SPOILERS)?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Macready or Childs?

---

I always thought Childs.

I liked the theory that Childs isnt showing his breath where Macready is sold me.

---

the ps2 game answers this question kinda

its neither of them

---

ToadallyAwesome posted...

I liked the theory that Childs isnt showing his breath where Macready is sold me.

It's wrong tho. Not only can you see Child's breath clearly visible at several points during that scene, earlier in the movie you can very obviously see Thing Benning's breath when he screams during his transformation.

---

Both of them are.

---

SSJGrimReaper posted...

the ps2 game answers this question kinda

its neither of them

That was a fun game...

---

The audience.

Good night, sleep tight, CE. :P

---

The theory that Macready gives him a bottle of gas instead of whiskey, and The Thing doesn't know the flavor difference, is great. That's why Mac laughs.

---

Theres no way to know for sure.

I like it better that way. The movie is decades old and we are still talking about it.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Theres no way to know for sure.

I like it better that way. The movie is decades old and we are still talking about it.

I like it better too, the whole theme of the movie was paranoia, even more than the actual "monster".

---

you now remember the 2011 thing movie exists

---

SSJGrimReaper posted...

you now remember the 2011 thing movie exists

Never understand the hate that movie gets. I thought it was excellent

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Theres no way to know for sure.

I like it better that way. The movie is decades old and we are still talking about it.

There is. Carpenter said so years ago, though he still wants audiences to draw their own conclusions *after* watching the movie.

---

The video game is considered canon, and it explains that neither of them is infected.
---

andri_g posted...

There is. Carpenter said so years ago, though he still wants audiences to draw their own conclusions *after* watching the movie.

Nah, that doesnt count. Carpenter didnt even write the story or the screenplay. Plus he didnt put it in the actual movie, so anything he says after is like JK Rowling saying Dumbledore is sorta, kinda, maybe gay and wizards used magic on poop.

---

I like the bottle of gas theory.

The 2011 prequel is good BTW.

---

it doesnt matter
they have no where to go. they are both going to freeze to death either way
so it doesnt matter who the thing is or even if neither of them are the thing. both are as good as dead
they were willing to die to make sure the thing froze to death and they succeeded

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Nah, that doesnt count. Carpenter didnt even write the story or the screenplay. Plus he didnt put it in the actual movie, so anything he says after is like JK Rowling saying Dumbledore is sorta, kinda, maybe gay and wizards used magic on poop.

Dumbledore was gay in the books

The insinuation was always there. It only came out of the left field for people who watched the movies only
---

Samman123 posted...

Never understand the hate that movie gets. I thought it was excellent

It was a solid movie, it's just a cg monster is a huge slap in the face.

Otherwise it was good. Most people I know who saw it also agree. It's just the original is soooo amazing

---

yusiko posted...

it doesnt matter
they have no where to go. they are both going to freeze to death either way
so it doesnt matter who the thing is or even if neither of them are the thing. both are as good as dead
they were willing to die to make sure the thing froze to death and they succeeded

But the Thing can survive freezing. All it has to do is wait for the inevitable s&r, then it reanimates during the autopsy.

Neither.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Nah, that doesnt count. Carpenter didnt even write the story or the screenplay.

The screenplay confirms what Carpenter said even though he did not include those details in final scenes of the film.

[ He cut those details to create doubt in the minds of the audience and to preserve that tension for the closing shot. ]

---

andri_g posted...

The screenplay confirms what Carpenter said even though he did not include those details in final scenes of the film.

[ He cut those details to create doubt in the minds of the audience and to preserve that tension for the closing shot. ]

That is interesting and its been too long for me to remember if Id ever even heard of that. I will have to make time eventually to check it out. Thanks!

---

Carpenter wanted the ending to be left up to the audience, but there is the whole eye gleam theory.

---

nevershine posted...

Carpenter wanted the ending to be left up to the audience, but there is the whole eye gleam theory.

It's not applied consistently, though
---

Its ambiguous on purpose. This is up there with debates about Deckard being a replicant.

That shadow of the guy we see grabbed by the Thing early in the movie? Not even a cast member. There are no clues. The movie works by inflicting the same paranoia on the audience that the characters feel. JC did not include any cheeky winks.

---

Maybe the thing was actually the friends we made along the way
---

EnragedSlith posted...

JC did not include any cheeky winks.

Also, because of the way Carpenter presented things in the film, your memory can play tricks on you.

If you like, try your recall of crew deaths with my The Thing 1982 Cluedo quiz (even I forgot some of these details...).
https://www.sporcle.com/games/andri_g/cluedo-the-thing-1982-edition

---

Neither of them.

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

The video game is considered canon, and it explains that neither of them is infected.

How does the game end?

Ruvan22 posted...

How does the game end?

The main character is saved by Macready in a chopper

---

Samman123 posted...

Macready or Childs?

Assuming one of them was infected, my guess is it's the one whose breath wasn't visible.

---

I've always thought neither of them are infected, both of them sitting on that distrust where they can't be sure and just deciding that they are dead anyway makes the most sense to me.

FortuneCookie posted...

Samman123 posted...

Macready or Childs?

Assuming one of them was infected, my guess is it's the one whose breath wasn't visible.

Both of them have visible breath. MacReady's is just more easily visible because of the lighting
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Both of them have visible breath. MacReady's is just more easily visible because of the lighting

Eh, I don't know. MacReady's breath was billowing out. With Childs, it seems like effort was made to hide his breath.

---

Not knowing is the point

---

So the prevailing theories are:
Eye gleam: Can be debunked because both have eye gleam.
No breath: Can be debunked because you can see both person's breath.
Gas drink: Possible, but can be debunked because bottled has label and Macready was going to drink some himself.
Different jacket: Some say Child's having a different color jacket means he is a thing since it rips your clothes. Can be debunked because it's possible the jacket is covered in frost just like Macready's was during the first dynamite scene in the store room. Childs did say he went out looking for Blair so frost could have collected on his jacket.

One theory I have is that Childs never knew the smallest of cells could infect you. This was only discussed between Fuchs and Macready. Childs believes only blood is the way to get infected. When he takes a drink, Macready knows he is a thing because the real Childs wouldn't have shared it. Or they both dont care anymore which doesn't make since to me.


---

FortuneCookie posted...

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Both of them have visible breath. MacReady's is just more easily visible because of the lighting

Eh, I don't know. MacReady's breath was billowing out. With Childs, it seems like effort was made to hide his breath.

https://youtu.be/GA4Ozqt7338

You can see his breath in that clip just before he's handed the whiskey.

Really, I think the whole breath theory is problematic on its face because it relies on the Thing not actually being able to make a perfect copy of a person, which we have no reason to believe is the case.
---

ZEROWOLF posted...

Or they both dont care anymore which doesn't make since to me.

More than likely they both would freeze or starve to death anyway.

Of course this means that if one was infected they could go into some hibernation mode and infect others after found.

---