วีดีโอ

My brother in Christ analization is what I do to your mother, analysis is the word you're looking for

That is actually super compelling but I think you're relying a lot on the idea of MacReady being good at chess which I think he is explicitly shown not to be lol

Check the video again. The dog licks his left glove. He grabs the J&B with his right glove.

What about Thing the game. This is good theory tho.

the assumption section is mixed - there's no support for the selfishness idea. Palmer & Norris -oids worked together to foment discord & redirect suspicion. If a Thing was immediately in competition with other -oids, it wouldn't make them. ultimately there's no reason to think anyone managed to escape infection. not knowing you're turned while obeying Thing's subconscious instructions is shown pretty clearly - there's a distinction between levels of consciousness & Thing knows how to manipulate it. whoever wasn't a Thing by the end certainly was after it. they scattered its bits all over the place. death is something that happens to constructs - not Thing thingself. we lose ^_^ <3

Bro these were allot of bad faith arguments. You really preffer your baseless assumptions based on off screen unknowns over a deleted scene. You use the argument that if it was cut that means it’s not valid ignoring the fact that John carpenter still filmed an entire scene showing his intent for the story so at least we know for sure McReady being the thing was NOT intended for most of the production. Your entire argument is based on “it was off screen so anything I say could’ve happened” which is NOT a valid argument in anyway I could easily say “nuh uh I don’t think that happened off screen” and that would be equally valid. You still don’t explain why MacReady killed Blair if they’re both the thing. You explain your reasoning as if they are different entities but No They are the same being they are both the thing why would they have any animosity towards them selves? HOW could there be a conflict of interest between itself, The Things goal is to assimilate why would Thing McReady and thing Blair not both have that goal? Not to mention how according to your theory McReady is the one that infected Blair so more than anyone else it would understand McReady’s plan. It’s also a damn big leap of faith to just assume the bottle at the beginning MUST be the same one McReady drinks from. That’s not on screen evidence that’s an off screen assumption. I know this comment may come off angry but no this is not a personal attack. I’m simply debating the argument you put forward. If anything this video has given me a greater appreciation for how many decisions John Carpenter made to make us distrust every character.

I just rewatched it last week n I was CONVINCED It was Macready n now I’m seeing this vid, crazy lol

*PS:* If you want a _really_ curly one, go and watch the 2007, Danny Boyle movie _Sunshine,_ and then try to figure out who the character "Pinbacker" actually is -- himself; an incarnation of the Devil; a mass delusion by the crew; or the character "Capa"... 👈🏻😏

The bottle plot device is well spotted... But, it's not enough to _assume_ that MacReady drank from it again off-screen at some point. The implied scene would be too integral to the film to just leave it out. Moreover, if we assume the aforementioned, we can even more assuredly assume that there are myriad identical bottles of the liquor at the camp -- a far more plausible assumption than just one bottle being re-drunk from; and especially given the context in which that bottle was given to the injured character -- to quell his pain -- indicating that it would most probably have been finished off. The blood cabinet key part is interesting... Though, again, a lot of incongruous assumptions must be made in order for the proceding propositions to hold together. I've always accepted that neither MacReady or Childs were infected, and that they simply died* shorty after the closing scene. As a sidebar, the enmity between said, two characters seemed to simply be a play on the race dynamic, as it related to their respective "alpha male" / leadership roles. When Carpenter first pitched the finished product to distributors, they refused it unless he changed the ending to be less ambiguous and more "RAR! RAR! U - S - A!!" in nature -- think: MacReady emerging with a buxom blonde in his arms and the star-spangled banner draped over one shoulder. Carpenter stuck to his guns, and after a delay, it eventually got distribution -- to what was, at the time, a mixed reception; later to become a classic. To me, this suggests that the ambiguity of the ending -- lit., it being left open to audience interpretation -- was intentional; which can then be construed as the director deliberately omitting any allusions as to who or what survived, if anything did. Conversely, if one of the two characters at the end _were_ infected, it would have been so as to lay the groundwork for a sequel; as such, would have had to have been, at the very least, cryptically inserted into a scene -- as distinct from just left to be borne from speculation. Lastly, if the alien indeed survived, I highly doubt that they would have gone with the 2011 prequel, over a pure sequel; as the former method of captalising on a classic, has a far higher chance of failing -- the overriding consensus being that the 2011 film did fail to live up to expectations -- because it has to interpolate and, sometimes, retcon events in order to situate itself _before_ the piece it is riding the coat tails of (a kind of cart before horse dynamic). Putting aside the many inconsistencies in the film -- e. g., Who infected Blair? How could the infected Blair, alone, possibly have accrued the materials to create a craft in that small cave, and in such a short space of time? -- my take is that the alien "died"; but, that its remnants are still all over the camp; even in the Norwegian camp. The rationale being that it breaks all suspension of disbelief to assume that _all_ of an organism that needs but one cell to technically "survive", could have been completely wiped out, and by both camps. Heck, there wasn't even an obvious fire at the Norwegian camp, and the guy they first found in the chair (the one who had offed himself) was still intact and *frozen* -- the very state the alien was trying to return to at the U. S. camp! Verdict: The Thing is still alive. It's just a matter of a good writer and director picking up the obvious loose ends and continuing the story... _(* Yes -- the game has MacReady alive... But, I don't understand how that's possible; and video game narratives are, at best, dumb; most times, trash and nonsensical... I also have no confirmation on whether or not the game narrative was Carpenter approved canon, or just some alternate take on events, where a high-profile character was simply inserted in order to better sell the product.)_

I really like your theory. It has holes, but I think the movie was purposely written so that multiple explanations can be convincing. So a few holes isn't the end of the World for a theory about The Thing. But I think you overlooked something when addressing criticism. You talk about how it doesn't make sense for a Human Macready to not attack Childs at the end, since he's trying to wipe out The Thing at all costs. There is a really big Elephant in the room to the idea that a Human Macready would attack. It's called a rather large and ready flamethrower. But, I think it also makes sense for a Thing Macready not to attack either. Because... Flamethrower... The one thing that's actually been killing the aliens... So I think this doesn't hurt your theory, I just don't think it hurts the opposing theory either.

You mention that Blair is drunk in the shed, but don't explain how he could be. I'll just explain it because I know it's true and I don't want people to get stuck on that point. We see them drug Blair in the same scene, so that he can calm down and stop trying to kill everyone.

Cant be the game and comic are canon so that means he wasnt

The danger of the power of assumption is that for example, the same way you could say it's not Mcready's blood, because we don't see him cut his hand, is the same way you could argue it was done off camera. If we assume that everything offscreen is also true, then there's no end to the litany of possibilities that can be deduced, and I don't think the film is framed in such a way that there's endless explanations. I saw you said in a comment down below that according to Carpenter, there's enough evidence in the film to prove a point. These are some interesting points.

just by the title i know you are wrong , no need to watch the long ass video

2 seconds into the video and i already know ur wrong

That makes sense, just like Mcready’s reaction to the chess game. When he’s about to lose he just destroys everything. Like the dynamite scene.

You should make this a series. You're pretty good at making these type of videos. So is your cameraman. However, I must take umbrage with the fact that the 3 biggest points people made, which heavily contradict your theory of Mac being the Thing, your counter argument to all 3 points is "C'mon it's a movie.". It is very disingenuous to use 4th wall breaking reasons to justify something that did, or didn't happen in the movie. When you start doing that, then technically you can use that same logic to refute all of the inconsistent or illogical aspects of the movie. You can't, on one hand, imply that Carpenter is this very detailed and meticulous director, who carefully picks and chooses elements of a scene to leave in or out, in order to convey a particular narrative; then on the other hand, fall back on the excuse of "It's a movie", when certain aspects of some scenes do not lend themselves to your theory. There needs to be legitimate reasons, within the narrative being conveyed to the viewer, for why these things did, or did not happen. Again, I like this series a lot, and encourage you two to continue to make more. The 'it's a movie" excuse, by far, stood out to me juxtaposed with the other convincing and interesting arguments you made to support Mac being infected.

The Thing game exists..... It's also Canon.

Everything you talk about is plausible, But I'd like to point out that, using the information provided on screen and emphasized in your video, using dynamite to blow up the big Thing just spreads Thing all over the place to freeze until it ends up in direct sunlight and thaws to hunt again.

not this rubbish... dude.. read the comics

You are wrong with your assessment of McCready being the thing. He couldn't have been the thing because he was still alive in the video game the thing. It was the continuation from the first movie.McCready actually saves the other rescuers at the end of the game by the way of a helicopter

Have to say brilliant breakdown ...and the proof was provided...very logical proof ... actually well done 👍

There are comic books after the movie and one shows maccready in a dorm room after leaving being rescued and he gives himself another blood test just to be sure.

True. I think that the thing has full control over it's entire anatomy as long as it's attached. When the blood for instance, is no longer attached it will act defensively. However, if the thing were to be cut, it could simply tell itself not to bleed. Then have hidden a needle, or have a pocket of cells store the blood inside it's flesh. That would explain the petree dish. Damn good video. 👍🏻

Its a good theory. Food for thought if its right or wrong. Personally idc either way its that we still talking about this movie years later. Hollywood will never make movies like this anymore

I wasn't expecting to find a recent video on how to make timeout/hide and seek dolls, I'm thinking of making one of these creepy little guys into a scarecrow or witch for fall.

I don't need to watch any follow up. John Carpenter and Kurt Russell both said there is no way of knowing. They left things in the movie that can't add up on purpose. You can't prove one way or another because the content of movie isn't there. You can speculate, you can discuss, but there is literally no proving anything. Just go find the lazer disc commentary somewhere on youtube. There is no proof one way or the other.

"Simmy Juice?" Why not "Thing Cooties?"

😂😂😂

They NEVER say anything about “molecular level”, rather cellular level. The Thing is not invulnerable, at all. Fire hurts it. I think it’s safe to assume that alcohol can kill it on the cellular level. Also, Bennings was NOT a Thing, Mac domed him. What about the scenes where it’s just Mac vs the Thing? Watch the movie again. You’re way way wrong.

Molecular Dog is the new name for my band

My Grandma said I was the most handsome. She was looking at a picture of me and my brothers and just blurted it out. She did have dementia though

1st assumption: Many parasites on earth target the host's nervous system ASAP. Then it has complete control. The movie repeatedly stresses the fact that the intruder is far more advanced than the humans so we can assume it will hijack the central nervous system as soon as it infects a victim. That means that the mind is gone before you can watch your hands. :)

No idea if this is true. I’m inclined to not believe it but it is a really great theory. I really appreciate how much thought went into this.

Wow, that was... pointless. You didn't approve anything but that you need to rewatch the movie. 😆 But, I respect you for taking a different angle on this, even if I don't agree with you.

Well done looking forward to more, new sub.

Or you can say that Blair was not killing humans but absorbing things like he did to Gary with his fingers going into his face 🤔 and Childs and Mac are both humans. At the end. The first thing was the spider head thing. The big guy in the sweater. Plus would the cook get infected by the blood clothes he pulled out the trash can maybe he was already the thing forgot and found his own blood clothes after it fully took over him he woke up in a daze 🥴 wondering why he's naked went to his room cleaned up took a nap woke up like a normal day found the longjohn's . Maybe the thing can move its self out the real blood so if you to give a sample it will give the blood of the host body 🤔 because it had time to unlike the skinny pot head that turn when tied to the chair. If you want to say Mac is the thing and that's how he was able to pass because it moved itself from the blood so it wouldn't react to the test. And the cook was a thing for a while and it caught on and the others that blood test they did the same..except pot head to slow to . So it could be all are the things and when they become separated from the main thing they get the personality of host. And Blair thing is from the main thing the dogs . The main thing absorbed the other dogs to get more mass with one or 2 getting away and when they burned it parts got away and later infected Blair before he was locked away that's when he started to dig the tunnel and build a ship. He want to get off the planet but Mac and Childs wanted to stay Mac kills Blair and the others supposedly from the explosion. As Childs sent off a sos and Mac and Childs working together as separated things maybe joining together if they have to. to become stronger. Blair the main thing and he knew who was a thing that why he trusted Mac but they been away from the main thing they have to absorbed back into the main thing to keeps it main thoughts but away to long they start acting like the thing it took over. And the guy Blair told Mac to watch out was human and his blood makes it hard for the thing to survive in. Who knows its a movie they didn't explain why Blair say that about him .

Bruh what it alcoholism is the thing

If mac is the thing, why does he constantly torch the things throughout the movie

I was my moms favourite 😅

It’s Childs

Greetings from Germany! I don't know HOW your videos ended up in my youtube list, but I enjoyed the whole "The Thing" videos very much! Keep up the entertaining work! I really like how much thought and effort you put into this theory, the way you handle all those comments (good ones as well as bad ones), and I really enjoy your sense of humor :D Looking forward to more content from you! Btw: I'm a believer now! From this day on, I'm in #TeamThingReady

Bro how do i DM you i have some proof that everyone has over looked and i have to side with you but i need to show you the proof ...

I’m not sure which of them is the Thing, however, none of your points are proof. Everything you claim is an assumption. None of your claims are valid.

That bottle being brought out of the shelter, macready was in and playing chess is all the proof I need that he is the thing. No normal person, even alcoholic person grabs a bottle of alcohol while running out to see why a guy is shooting at something. Childs was likely the alien, too. But changed later.

22:18 shit, I remember all these movies in the theater, and I was listening to Smurfs All Star Show on my record player. Should I do a ragtime dance and shine someone's shoes?

Watched the first video. Good points but, the dark horse comic that follows the movie has MacReady not being the Thing, John Carpenter also said that it would be a great sequel to his movie so in universe MacReady isn’t The Thing.

One point, because I think you might be confused (or maybe I'm confused about what you said) but Blair wasn't building a spaceship. He was building a UFO to fly from Antarctica to civilisation. As in: he wasn't planning on escaping from Earth, but of assimilating Earth.

MCready was never the thing in the sequel it is revealed that Childs was the thing. He kept himself hidden until the right time after they both got rescued.