THE THING (1982) BREAKDOWN! Ending FINALLY Explained! | The Deep Dive
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- THE THING Deep Dive Analysis by Erik Voss! If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor BetterHelp. Click betterhelp.com/deepdive for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a licensed professional specific to your needs.
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) is one of the best mystery whodunnits and horror films of all time, with fans over the decades debating endlessly over the final scene and the exact timeline of the assimilations / infections. Erik Voss scrutinizes every detail of this movie to try to decode the exact timeline and amazing attention to detail that director John Carpenter worked into the film!
Welcome to The Deep Dive, a new channel in the New Rockstars Digital Network. Hosted by Erik Voss, The Deep Dive is the destination for more pointed media investigations. From full seasons of Marvel streaming shows to cult classic films, Erik will dig to the roots of the hidden agendas beneath every title.
CHAPTERS:
00:00 - Is Childs The Thing?
01:50 - Alien Arrives
02:45 - No Women?
03:35 - Norwegians
05:30 - MacReady
07:44 - Assimilation Timeline
09:24 - The Suspects
11:27 - Watch the Dog
13:39 - Norway Camp
14:25 - The Thing Special Effects
15:55 - Dogs Assimilate
18:17 - The Thing Origin
20:22 - Bennings Death
22:21 - Palmer Clues
25:18 - MacReady Plays the Game
27:17 - Fuchs Mystery
30:33 - Craziest Scene
33:55 - Blood Test
37:15 - Most Important Clue
39:30 - Final Battle
41:33 - The Thing Ending Explained
Subscribe to The Deep Dive: / @deepdivenr
Subscribe to New Rockstars: / newrockstars
Follow The Deep Dive on Twitter: / deepdivenr
Follow The Deep Dive on Instagram: / deepdivenr
Follow The Deep Dive on TikTok: / deepdivenr
Follow Erik on Twitter: / eavoss
VIDEO CREDITS:
Written and Produced by Erik Voss
Lead Editor: Devin Cleary
Edited by Devin Cleary, Aaron Carrion, and Tanner DiGirolamo
Executive Producer: Erik Voss - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
How do you interpret the final scene of The Thing?
Dog runs into camp and licks Bennings gloves. MacREady places bottle in Bennings hand. MacReady drinks from bottle. Boom, Macready is the first infected. Bennings isn’t infected but thing saliva is in his gloves and MacReady places his bottle in Bennings gloves hands. If it moves through saliva, don’t share food or drink, when MacReady takes his bottle back he gets infected.MacReady does the same thing with the Doc, drinking from a bottle and leaving it for him to drink.
That they are both clear. We can see Childs' earrings. The Thing does not absorb inorganic material. That's how we know Copper is ok because of his nose ring. And if we look at the video game sequel as canon then they both were not infected.
Except for the fact that he he tests his own blood with the heated wire and then tries to kill Palmer instead of everyone else@@RyanDesmond
The Arbiter is unaffected...
Just as the introduction video it was intended, when it was showed in the B pod lounge at south pole station.
I watched that John Carpenter interview with Steven Colbert who asked him, "Can we figure out who is the thing at the end just by watching the movie?" And Carpenter's answer was, "Yes."
I saw this interview also.
He said if you're paying close attention, then you can figure out who The Thing is.
If you sent him a check
That awnser does infact imply that none of them could be the thing.
I really am leaning towards the macready as the thing explanation
When it comes to Childs, one of the red flags that is so often overlooked is the fact that, when he left the main building supposedly to go after Blair, he left that huge door *wide open* -- exposing the entire facility not only to incredibly low temperatures, but to the Thing. A human wouldn't do that.
But the thing was already inside. That's why they couldn't trust each other
That explanation actually contradicts itself. If Childs is telling the truth then he went out in the snow in the belief that he is about to kill the only Thing left in the camp.
Leaving the main building unguarded is therefore an irrelevancy to Childs in that moment, because as far as he is concerned he will shortly turn the last Thing into toast.
Remember his task: it is to burn Blair if he turns up without being in the company of the other three.
Well, as far as Childs is concerned he just glimpsed Blair out there in the storm..... time to toast him.
I get that there is ANOTHER tactic, which is to sit tight and wait for Blair to attempt to come through that door.
I get that. But throughout the movie it was stressed time and time again that Childs is impulsive and hot-tempered to the point where everyone panicked when he looked like he was going to pick up Garry's revolver.
And - never forget this point - the crew have already been through this scenario when they were barring the door to MacReady: he simply went around and came crashing through a window instead. As far as Childs is concerned fool me once....
Given all that why would Childs stand there and wait for Blair to come to him, when he has the option of rushing out to take Blair-Thing by surprise?
@@johnreynolds7996 A long comment in response to the fact that, in Antarctica - NO ONE goes through a door to the outside (or to interior subzero temperature spaces) without making sure it is immediately closed. You’d understand better if you’d ever had to live anywhere where it could be -50° for months on end.
@@podboq2 He leaves the door open because he doesn't want to take his eye of what he is chasing, and he wants a way of retreating quickly if it all goes pear-shaped.
What part of "Childs is hot-headed" are you having a problem with?
@@johnreynolds7996i think his point was that in Antarctica it's so cold that if you leave the door open things can freeze very quickly. I imagine being in sub 50 degree temperatures is quite an experience. I see what you're saying also and I just think you 2 were misunderstanding each other's points.
I still can't get over the irony of the biggest criticism levelled against this movie in 1982: "The special effects overwhelmed the story." Nowadays, it's praised all the damn time for its special effects.
Critics will get everything wrong and then get humbled by the audience later on
There are zero special effects though? EVERYTHING is practical. It's is immensely praised for being able to do what they did and have it look as great as it did. Special effects are great and have their place, but there is a reason these films with all practical still hold up to this day. You can beat REAL effects, these things actually existed, they were really there, the actors knew exactly what they were up against.
It's a marvel of human ingenuity
@@AzureRadio Google/Wikipedia are our friends: "Special effects (often abbreviated as SFX, F/X or simply FX) are illusions or visual tricks used in the theatre, film, television, video game, amusement park and simulator industries to simulate the imagined events in a story or virtual world."
"A practical effect is a special effect produced physically, without computer-generated imagery or other post-production techniques."
All practical effects are special effects. I think you're thinking of CGI or digital effects.
The Irony is, the Special Effects didn't overwelm the story. It overwhelmed the critics because even slasher films didn't get that grusome. It struck people as too much and uncesseary, which it was actually quite necessary for that type of story. People were a lot more conservative about such things back then.
*facts* @@jamestavella1398
The fact that we are discussing this movie 40yrs later and still havent agreed on many points shows the genius of John Carpenter.
Man wtf I just realized the movie is 40 years old, still a masterpiece but damn
That is the one thing everyone should realize and praise Carpenter for. Everyone can have their own theory, and none of them are necessarily right or wrong. I have a theory which ties everything together very neatly. That doesn't make it right, because after all it's a movie. There are clues in there that cannot be explained any other way. 1. Only Blair could have sabotaged that blood. 2. The light left on in Mac's shack was off when they first went to check on Blair. No one could have turned that light on, except for Fuchs, who must have faked his death. That is the crux of my theory, and it is also the basis of why I believe both Mac and Childs were human at the end. Childs also has the earring, which to me is proof enough. Mac was a thing killer, and passed the blood test, so I think he was human as well. There are those who disagree, and that's fine, but it's the fact that Carpenter left the right amount of ambiguity in the film to keep us discussing it 40 years later. Pure genius!
My favourite line in the film is about 45 minutes in when Fuchs insists MacReady come outside into the SkiDozer and reads a small portion of Blair’s notes to him and MacReady is supremely disinterested until Fuchs reads, “There is still cellular activity in these burned remains. They’re not dead yet.”
And then that horrible realising silence that follows.
The fact there's a before/after scene for Child's waiting in the room, where in the after scene he isn't there and everything is different, is proof enough that something happened there.
The cloak change is evidence enough that something was off.
I too first thought that both were human in the end but after seeing this breakdown then remembering the brief view of the room where Childs is waiting it does throw you into bit of confusion cause he said he went out after him but all the doors were left completely open? but part of the reason I think he's still human is why would it ask the only survivor if the other part of it had been killed? but coincides when Palmer exposed Norris thing trying to get away. if he was it it would've nabbed Macready the moment it had a chance but instead asks him if anyone else survived? So if he were assimilated it would know the others had been taken without having to go into question. But the fact that Palmer did this same exact thing when Norris was confirmed says all.
Or it can be just an error, an inconsistent work of the staff...
@@flankerpraha You gotta be joking
Off chance though given all the things that went on both during and after the blackout. Only reason why the other ten percent of me thinks he's still humans cause when it tried to sneak up on Fuchs and his back wasn't turned it walked by him meaning if he was potted it couldn't ambush. Only reason.
I'm still a big fan of the theory that both Childs and MacReady are human in the end. The whole movie plays on the viewer's paranoia and makes you believe that no one can be trusted. It does this so much and throws so much evidence for other theories that it's almost impossible to believe that the ending scene is literally just two friends enjoying a drink together, despite everything that has happened.
Then why would Childs drink from that bottle so readily? I mean I guess you could argue it didn't matter anymore as they are both screwed, but you'd think they'd still want to avoid assimilation because one day someone else might discover the camp. In fact it's almost a guarantee that will happen as it's a research outpost and the government will want to figure out what happened to their investment.
Why would the eye glint only be a thing for one scene? This rule is at play here. Childs has no breath or glint in his eyes. Mac laughs when he takes the drink. That isn’t unintentional. Does Childs drink gasoline? Does Childs even like scotch/drink booze?
Regardless JC has said multiple times it’s Childs. “Only one of then is breathing” JC said in interviews throughout the 80s/90s etc.
I mean like if Childs was the thing, it’d be in his best interest to assimilate MacReady. The Thing’s got the most dangerous threat to its survival so far at its weakest and most vulnerable point.
agreed.
@@johndickie6449 No it's not, because you never see it happen anywhere else in the film, including scenes where a confirmed Thing has eye shine.
At the end there, I think there's two possible reasons MacReady could have been laughing.
1) Because Childs confirmed he was a Thing. MacReady may have suspected him, but he didn't know for sure. But once Childs accepted the drink, the potential to swap saliva, that confirmed it for MacReady. Were the situation reversed, MacReady would not have accepted the drink, that would be a huge risk. But Childs, as a Thing, isn't concerned about contact (and anyway, knows MacReady isn't a Thing), and in a momentary slip - the tiny little mistake at the end of the chess match - he takes a sip. MacReady laughs because he knows he just won the chess match. He caught the Thing in a slip. And interesting side note, as you pointed out, again with alcohol :)
2) One other reason I can think of for MacReady laughing, is that the Childs Thing didn't CARE if MacReady knew, and took the drink on purpose, knowing full well it was giving itself away. Check mate to MacReady. There's nothing you can do MacReady, and I am so confident in this that I will willingly out myself. And MacReady laughs because he realizes he is now in the shit - something he would certainly be familiar with from his veteran background, and his laugh here is fatalistic. He knows he is about to die.
In either case, I absolutely do not buy the I Am Legend explanation, where MacReady sees himself as the bad guy, the odd duck in the New (Thing) World. He spends the whole movie fighting - not having internalized self-inspection. And I think it would be safe to say he'd be too tired for any serious introspection by the end of this ordeal. Yah, so definitely no I Am Legend ending here for me.
What about the Dark Horse comics? Is that canon?
Yeah. This video was spoilt right at the very end with the I Am Legend explanation. I've always seen it as MacReady gets final confirmation that Childs is the Thing and snorts as much as laughs at the revelation.
Wasn't it revealed in the novel that in order to assimilate something the thing had to make direct contact with something, meaning it can't infect things in the traditional sense, plus if child's was the thing what exactly was stopping him from assimilating someone who wasn't even 3 feet away
You got it! MACREADY IS THE THING! Childs was the last uninfected survivor. Fukes makes the POINT of saying that after reading Blair's work that they should all start eating & drinking from cans. We know Blair became the Thing and was infected BEFORE he was locked-up. As he is being Locked-up Macready hands Blair his bottle of J&B Scotch. Blair takes a sip then hands the bottle back to Macready who then takes a sip after the already infected Blair thus Macready becomes infected! At the very end he and Childs share a bottle thus infecting Childs too. I saw this is 1982 when I was 12 years old with my father & friends and watched it many times since. I finally pieced it together in 2007.
@@meanstavrakas1044alcohol kills living cells. The thing would react violently to it as when the hot copper wire touched the infected blood. Plus, Childs had an earring if Im not mistaken. Nauls found MacCready's ripped up clothes after they locked Blair in MacCready's cabin. Blair became infected and tried to set up MacCready while he was building the spacecraft... so he no longer needed MacCready's skill as a pilot. I believe Carpenter wants people to keep guessing because it's more publicity for the movie.
The most terrifying film I've ever seen. Absolutely brilliant story, acting, cinematography, dialogue, pacing, suspense. It truly is an absolute masterpiece.
Perhaps a perfect film
@@bbb462cid Except for the hanging thread that is Fuchs.
And what the hell sort of computer did Blair have that could do such whacky calculations?
That was a point that always jarred with me: throughout the movie characters makes logical conclusions based on the available evidence.
Many of those conclusions are revealed to be wrong, but on the facts they have at the time they make shrewd guesses.
But not Blair: everything he sees - the monstrosity from the Norwegian camp, the remains of the dog-massacre, the Bennings-Thing - informs him that being turned into a Thing is an extremely violent and disgustingly intrusive process that requires the sort of tentacled violation not normally seen outside of Japanese porn movies.
Yet he takes those available facts and concludes that a single-cell of a Thing can convert you into a Thing.
Hellooooooo. If Bennings could talk he'd tell you otherwise.
It is the ONE moment in the movie where a character makes a gigantic - and totally unsupported by any facts - leap of logic.
@@johnreynolds7996 Perhaps:
__something open to doubt or conjecture_
And the computer is the vehicle that the audience gets to travel on to see how Blair isn't just farting in the wind. The film wasn't a technology demonstrator for 1982.
Choreography? There was dancing? Maybe you mean cinematography.
@@Milkman4279 yes I did, my mistake. I changed it.
There isn’t actually a piece of the thing that escapes from the dog kennel, you’ll notice that when they torch the dog thing, you can see the one that climbed the roof also falls down. Also I’m
Pretty sure if a part of it did escape, they’d be VERY worried and looking for it
I was going to comment on that too. It fell down after being torched
was gonna say that, theres nothing that shows/implies this
Yup. Nothing indicates a part escaped. That would’ve been mentioned in the story if it did.
It was cornered and vulnerable (caught in the middle of it’s assimilation process) and simply raised itself up to get away from the hostile humans as much as it could. Like a natural defense tactic.
Later, Palmer Thing does the same when it jumps up to the ceiling to try and put distance between itself and danger.
Seems like a _fight or flight_ type of response for the creature.
Did yall forget the two dogs in the cage were still alive by the time MacReady shot one of them? This also explains on the deleted scenes of Bennings looking through the dog cages and he saw something that ended up him being assimilated.
Thank you, Tara I saw this after I already posted about this. Oh well. Yeah, further if you listen to Rob B's commentary and further yet - the story boards make it rather CLEAR a thing did NOT escape through the roof
I read 'The Things' because of this video, and it was pretty interesting. Reading an experienced author's take on the story from the alien's perspective was definitely worth the time to find it and read it.
However, if reading it made you view the alien as the protagonist, and made you sympathize with it...then you're a psychopath. "What kind of a world rejects communion?" One with individuals! I can't imagine any world with intelligent life would welcome this creature. I mean, the reason this movie works on a psychological level is because individual identity is so important to us as intelligent beings.
Exactamente! It was driving me nuts. It's like saying Lucifer in Paradise Lost is portrayed as some misunderstood hero rather than a sympathetic villain. Sure, on the surface level they both seem good but any kind of digging leads to lies and violence.
This reminded me of Mass Effect 3 trying to HEAVILY push synthesis ending... why the F would anyone want to combine ALL of Milky Way races with an omnicidal race of space Chtulchu murderbots? FINALLY watching the Thing fully now, main thing I liked is that it DOESN'T try to give the alien motivations beyond simply surviving and multiplying itself, like a parasite or virus, and that's GOOD. Absolute terror shouldn't have a sob story like Joker or something, it should be eldritch horror, incomprehensible by humans, a Thing That Should Not Be.
I should read the original story, but the movie alone made it clear there can be no reasoning, arguing or coexisting with the Thing, as it should've been done to Reapers, which would made the final story of main hero sitting and talking with dying Keith David (yes) character have much more meaning as he fought to the end to end it.
I think the only reason they had Palmer say “I know how this one ends” is to establish that there is no TV reception. They are watching VCR tapes. He immediately ejects the cassette after he says that.
The most genius part about this movie is how much was left ambiguous and unanswered. Its left us with decades of theorycrafting. People turn this movie into something that speaks to them. Absolutely amazing.
It follows a common line in a genre of alien monster fiction of mysteriously incorporating humanity into itself - much like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Five Million Years to Earth (aka Quatermass and the Pit) and The Blob, yet redesigns it into an Agatha Christie ‘who dunnit’, in combination with entirely realistic and believable characters. Men who are just men.
I think they are both still human
@@hansolo631 Even though Carpenter has said that one of them is?
He's a no good punk kid, he doesn't know for sure. He's just transferring the story to us, until it's on paper or film, it's up in the air. hell, it might die on the vine. Might peter out. If J.K Fowling gets dementia and decides Harry Potter identifies as a black woman, does that make it so?@@rhizomes.of.delight
@@hansolo631 Simple. You're talking crap.
One other scary factor: in so many movies about aliens, paranormal beings, etc., dogs are pretty much the go to animal that almost always detects a non human and starts barking.
The fact that the Thing can camouflage itself as a dog so well, that even real dogs can’t detect it, is pretty horrifying.
The dogs knew that something was off about the dog in the beginning. They spread with caution upon the new dog entering the kennel cage.
they knew it just took them a little longer than usual. but they knew to be weary and started to notice its strange behavior pretty early on
@@kenyontucker6469 Perhaps, but they were already spread out when Clarke let the dog into the kennel.
And when questioned by Blair, even Clarke couldn’t detect anything wrong.
My take anyway.
@@MarcoFAlfaro Maybe, but they freaked out the moment you heard it hiss. Even Clarke would say to Blair he didn’t notice anything wrong, and he prefers being around dogs to people, I thought?
@@padawanmage71 it's a good take on a great movie that's open to many interpretations.
I've always believed that Blair was slowly assimilated from the inside since the minute he touched the dead body of the Thing with his pencil and then promptly touched his mouth with the same end of the pencil.
I think someone just got out to him at the shed. He was secluded for a very long time.
that was confirmed to be a mistake by the actor that no one somehow didn't catch on about
I saw that scene differently. There wasn't any contact between Blair's pencil & the deadish Thing. You can see the pencil tremble freely, but the Thing's flesh doesn't move. No contact. The camera angle is deceptive.
You have to watch it, & watch closely. You hear me ? 😊
You - "The monster isn't the bad guy"
The Thing - "uses rape as metaphorically to describe what its going to do to humanity"
In Watts story the Thing and Childs have a conversation. The Thing doesn't understand this concept of 'rape', but that is how Childs describes it. In fact, it barely understands any concept outside that which is related to communion.
One of the best things about this flick is that it's over 40 years old and people are still on forums debating the lines of assimilation. In a fairly recent interview between Carpenter and Colbert (who is also a fan), Colbert asked if there was a definite solution and Carpenter said, "Yes. There is. I know which one is The Thing at the end and anyone can work it out if they watch the film carefully and don't over think it."
Still the don't overthink it doesn't help much.
One theory is that just rolling a few meters away would not have saved McReady from the huge explosion we see on the wide shot. So McReady must be a replica.
OTOH, Childs doesn't burn McReady, which is the only logical thing to do at that time, since there's no way he can test McReady and they are both dead anyway. Also McReady is a murderer in Childs' eyes. He goes further, accepting to share the bottle. Only the thing would do that.
McReady is very suspicious of Childs. Childs' question is also revealing, he doesn't count himself among the surviving humans. McReady corrects him. When Childs accepts the bottle, revealing he's the thing, McReady laughs, he knows he can't do anything. He's spent, Childs is the thing, and it's armed.
I think the missing coat is the key. I can't think of any reason for it other than thing-Childs replacing the one it destroyed when assimilating Childs.
Still the don't overthink it doesn't help much.
One theory is that just rolling a few meters away would not have saved McReady from the huge explosion we see on the wide shot. So McReady must be a replica.
OTOH, Childs doesn't burn McReady, which is the only logical thing to do at that time, since there's no way he can test McReady and they are both dead anyway. Also McReady is a murderer in Childs' eyes. He goes further, accepting to share the bottle. Only the thing would do that.
McReady is very suspicious of Childs. Childs' question is also revealing, he doesn't count himself among the surviving humans. McReady corrects him. When Childs accepts the bottle, revealing he's the thing, McReady laughs, he knows he can't do anything. He's spent, Childs is the thing, and it's armed.
I think the missing coat is the key. I can't think of any reason for it other than thing-Childs replacing the one it destroyed when assimilating Childs.
@@TheMule71 Yes I’d agree - the mixed coats and boots at the base entrance are a major give away. Also, earlier, when Nauls cuts the line and MacReady is trying to get back inside, Childs is really freaking out, yet at the base entrance, Childs is suddenly confident enough to just walk right out into the darkness without back up.
@@TheMule71 Yes. With the 'no sharing food' rule in place, there's no reason for Childs to accept the whiskey from MacReady unless Childs is The Thing. That is MacReady's test, and after Childs takes a swig, MacReady doesn't touch the bottle again.
@@rhizomes.of.delight I just thought they both were too tired to fight anymore. That if they're both human they both die. If one is the Thing then the human lost in that he would die and the Thing would just be in a frozen stasis to be discovered eventually. So might as well share the bottle. Carpenter said one of them is the Thing. But I want to believe otherwise. I want it to remain a mystery. But by saying one is then it opens a chance for a sequel. I don't want a sequel. It's an incredible movie and a sequel would do it a disservice. Leave us wondering and making theories is the beauty of it and makes it more profound.
My interpretation of the ending is that both Childs and MacReady are human, but the movie is trying to trick you into believing that one of them isn't what they seem to be. It fits much better with the movie's themes of paranoia and isolation, because by the end of the movie, you don't know who to trust. I've come to realize that the true monster of this movie isn't The Thing, or MacReady like Erik suggests - it's fear
Totally agree ..
And if the old comic book series is canon also, both Childs and MacReady are found in the morning, and tested to be human.
The only conclusion is that both Childs and MacReady are human, because if Childs was a Childs-Thing then it would have assimilated MacReady on the spot.
After all, there are no onlookers. Childs is armed with a flamethrower, MacReady is armed with a bottle of Scotch and a blanket. And we've seen throughout the movie that a Thing can overpower an unarmed human with ridiculous ease (Blair-Thing, to take one example, kills Garry one-handed).
A Thing knows that it can survive freezing, but it also knows that Two Things can also survive freezing. So why not double its chances of being found and thawed?
So while we have been shown throughout the movie that a Thing is a killing-machine when it surprises a human, in THIS one instance we are expected to believe that a Thing comes across a lone human and decides that, nah, it'll be fine, I'll just sit here and shoot the breeze while sharing a few drinks and a couple of wry chuckles.
It's akin to the alien in ... umm... Alien cornering Ripley and then pulling out a deck of cards and start to deal them out: one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me.....
Not fear, duty. They both know they need to die on the _risk alone_ the other isn't human.
@@tnbn55 can't be. They would be dead in an hour
MY personal interpretation has always been the Childs is obviously the thing. His lack of presence during the final moments of the film only to find MacReady and ask, "'You the only one who made it?". For me is the most damning evidence. The way it comes across as cold and direct feels very like he is asking if any other humans are still alive. Unsure if it is truly alone with the final survivor. The final drink is also a huge tell. Without specifically seeing whether Human Childs was privy to the saliva danger or not, its assumed most of the camp would know at this point in the film. Whenever Thing Childs takes the drink, he does so without hesitation. Why would he fear assimilation if he was already compromised? MacReady's laugh is him noticing Childs lack of hesitation and realizing that the problems he has been throwing alcohol at cannot solve this issue.
Also worthy to note that the "what do we do now" almost feels like the thing is talking to MacReady (who it doesnt want to assimilate and has trouble getting rid of). As if they are in a a sort of stand off. They are both the unstoppable force facing an unmovable object to each other.
I have always loved the gas in the bottle theory because it plays with the theme of MacReady's PTSD. Being the lone survivor clutching his last weapon to defend himself. As time has gone on though, it definitely feels more of fanfic thought process that is dope but not the most practical.
The question is, other than the bottle, what does Macready have as a weapon, in case Child tries to assimilate him?
It’s so funny how loud Windows dropping the keys is yet I still have arguments with people wondering where the keys went
Got to watch this in college as part of a literature and film class. We would read the short story then watch the films based on them. The professor asked who had not seen The Thing and I was the only one who did not raise my hand. I got to sit back in the dark and see everyone jump when the ribcage exploded. Friend of mine used to work at the Liberty Medical testing supply center near me. They announced one day that Wilford Brimley was coming to tour the facility and everyone and a plus one got to meet him. So she invited another friend of ours and he got to shake Wilford's hand, and talk to him about his roles, and got him to autograph his The Thing edition of Rue Morgue Magazine.
Id get an A on that project because of how many times I've watched it
@@Dogss6 We had to do a report on a film we had watched. I did one on Kronos. The Thing would have been good for the red scare 1950s and AIDS.
@@Jiddy12345 you think red scare doesn't have modern equivalent? Because russian spies keep getting caught worldwide... and AIDS pandemic definitely had more recent equivalent though easier to catch, though less deadly so paranoia wouldn't be the same. (I was absolutely angry of people coughing at me in 2020, and barely survived the result).
@@KasumiRINA I never said that...
The thing about Childs being assimilated and the blue coat is that there's a tan coat that's in the scene when Childs disappeared. Where the hell did that come from?
Well, Blair wears a tan coat, and now the blue coat is missing and the tan coat is on the rack.
Childs got got!!
There's a big mix around with both coats and boots next to Childs. When we and MacReady first see Childs, the coat order from left to right is: navy blue, dark green, olive green, beige - and 3 pairs of boots, all standing straight, first pair pointing inwards towards the wooden bench. After Childs has left the entrance and the door wide open, the coats and boots are, olive green, dark green, dark green, beige and the boots are: first pair facing outwards away from the wooden bench, middle pair has one boot knocked over. Quite a mix up of clothing - as if a scuffle occurred and was hastily corrected.
@@rhizomes.of.delight Which there would be from the chaos of the situation and people moving around behind the scenes either way.
That scene is from Childs' perspective; he lived because he saw Blair was there and killed him. We don't see Childs then because the movie wants us to be unsure if he lived.
Regardless, Childs approached MacReady which only a human would chance, which Mac realizes due to being intelligent. Childs HAS to be human. Ironic because they both spent the whole movie suspicious of each other and now they're going to die together as the only humans left, with Mac realizing he's glad he won't be alone.
@@WynneL Just screw up the continuity from one point to another? One would think they'd have picked that up in editing pretty fast.
When palmer stopped smoking was when I knew the thing had him
Good catch.
The dog infected Norris, Blair infected himself by doing the autopsy on the dog after the kennel attack. Norris and Blair infected all the others one by one. And if you read the follow up comic book that even John Carpenter says is canon, then you'd know Mac is human and Childs isn't.
I thought the comic said that Childs was human at the end here and that a Childs thing emerges after some accident afterward.
@connorism69 no.
yeah but there is also a game which carpenter said its canon and childs isnt the thing there xdd
yes i have it exactly the same way. im certain the silhouette was Norris or palmer we never get concrete proof on that. i think that blair was infected and then slowly assimilated while he was trapped in the hut. palmer thing is the only one that held a human form whilst interacting with any of the others - and he didnt talk or engage he was was simply there as stuff was happening. i dont think things got our personalities just our form.
@@user-lc8im5iu3i Nah, Windows was human until he was attacked by Palmer. They even tested his blood and he was clean, that's why Mac let him wear the flamethrower.
One big aspect to consider:
Infected DOES NOT mean Assimilated. A person could be infected and still act and basically be human. But eventually enough of the THING cells would replace the human ones for the process to be complete. And we actually do SEE when the assimilation process happens with Norris, when he "dies" from a heart attack/stroke and is replaced by the THING.
Infection is a crap theory anyway. If it can infect, why would it ever attack?
I was wondering why Blair's one-by-one cell infection model was given such a spotlight and about how it was never shown to actually happen but Norris' assimilation being completed by this exact way would be the only time it could've plausibly happened in the film excluding off-screen infection/assimilation. Also, Norris didn't show signs of having acute heart problems in the film prior to the scene where he was guarding the entrance (already well into the storm by then) so his insides being moulded by the thing cells would be the only possible cause in lieu of dumb unfortunate luck and the thing being vulnerable to and unable to compensate for physical human flaws.
Nope. Norris was assimilated by the thing. That's why his long John's shirt was ripped.
@@petecoogan Wait, you're talking about the long john's that Nauls found in the trash can, right? I'd say they're Palmer's and the Thing-Palmer had a change of attire.
@@smitemus Also Windows found a pair. We don't know which ones are Norris and which are Palmers. Thing-Palmer is wearing exactly the same thing before and after, which means Palmer got taken while just wearing his long johns on top (nor his denim). Same with norris. Norris was taken while he wasn't wearing his sweater or button shirt.
Something you haven't mentioned is that Windows uses the same scalpel to take everybody's blood during the blood test sequence which means that there should have been massive cross infection. Also had Macreadys's flamethrower not malfunctioned he would have badly burned or even killed Garry because he was sitting next to Palmer when he revealed himself to be the thing
You only see Windows take two blood samples: Nauls (not a Thing) and his own (also, not a Thing).
He doesn't sterilize the scalpel between those two because he's taken by surprise by MacReady's insistence that he do himself next and, let's face it, MacReady is pointing a flamethrower at him at that point.
Which would tend to concentrate the mind.
But we don't see any of the others - including MacReady - so we don't see if the scalpel is sterilized in those instances.
Note also that they appear to start with Nauls, who is on the left. If they then proceed from left-to-right then Palmer (the only Thing present) is the last to have his blood taken.
That's a good argument against the infection theory
Well since Blair(Wilford Brimley) was there, the Thing would’ve been doomed anyway, probably due to Blair’s “Diabeetuhs” caused self destruction 😂😂😂
"I'm Wilford Brimley, who played Blair in John Carpenter's 1982 movie The Thing. As some of you probably know, I turned out to be a thing in that movie. But I called Liberty Medical and they were able to help me get my uh... thing... under control. I checked my blood with a hot wire and checked it often! You should, too!"
The thing is my all-time favorite horror movie! The suspense, the confinement of being stuck on Antarctica, the paranoia. For the worst death was always Window's, I mean his head is pulled into Palmer's thing head so he's able to see the head getting closer and you hear his screams while his head is being chewed on.
Also, for any The Thing super fans I highly recommend also checking out Collative Learning's 8 videos on the thing. He goes into who tampered with the blood, the eye gleam theory, and other great theories and stuff on The Thing.
The Dog Thing never escaped the kennel. It just stood up there and was burned by Childs. It just wasn’t visually communicated correctly. You would think the crew would be worried and mention how part of it is still around but they don’t.
Yeah - that bit bothers me. The clawed arms break right through the wooden ceiling yet Childs only incinerates what's in the corner.
it got away lol. childs only burns the floor
I do think this video gets something fundamentally wrong: when talking about the Norris scene, Erik interprets this as Norris taking one for the team. The whole point is that the thing does not take one for the team - every part of it is out for itself. That’s literally the way that MacReady figures out how to beat it.
As to the ending, it only makes any sense if both men are human. Child completely has the drop on McCready and he is carrying a flamethrower whilst Mac is unarmed.
Even if his intention is not to assimilate McCready, he could remove him from the board, and then wait for the rescue team to find his own frozen body.
If you want to play a funny parlour game, though, watch the scene again, but this time imagine that both men have been assimilated. Now it sounds like McCready is telling Childs off for leaving him to kill the original Mac on his own, and that final chuckle is the things congratulating themselves and waiting to freeze, and then we thawed out by the rescue team.
Oh yeah, and Blair is not building a spaceship under the ice. He is just building some form of transport to get to the coast. He doesn’t want to leave the planet earth - why would he?? He just needs to send some of his own organic matter as far as the sea. Then it’s game over.
This is exactly how I see the ending making sense. IMO both are infected at the end.
@@jcar8531 I wonder if originally neither was meant to be the Thing. It only charged now so that there could be a sequel. But perhaps in 82 that wasn't the case. Perhaps is was meant to always be a mystery but greed has driven the desire to make a sequel. I honestly wish Aliens 3 and 4 were never made. And I really wish they had never made a sequel to Blade Runner. So many great syfy movies back then. Almost everything now is a sequel with the exception of The Creator. Which while I thought it carried a weighty message and was a good movie it's nowhere near on par with these greats.
@@tiffanymichaels2429 I didn't like Blade Runner sequel but glad it got some people to watch the first and Ana de Armas is always nice... Hated Alien 3 but 4 was okay. Now the only movie I refuse to acknowledge any sequels is after Terminator 2, they only needed to do a prequel ending with John sending Kyle Reese at the end for the loop, and in TR1/2 universe, not in the Post-3 one, but I digress. ANYWAY, there is no sequel to Thing, no? Not in movie form at least. A Prequel a videogame and comics... Since I watched the Thing after playing Mass Effect I never even considered Keith David's character not human in the end, Childs and Kurt Russel there are just so similar to David Anderson's final goodbye to Shepard.
Look at Norris's happy smile when he looks at the ship.
norris was norris untill his "heart attack" and the thing took him over.
God, I LOVE that this movie has become such a youtuber focus in recent years. It is, in my opinion, the best horror movie ever made. But it got shafted on the box office. And now everyone is obsessed with it. And I'm like "Hello! Welcome to the obsession I've had my whole life! Can't wait to see your take on it."
I absolutely love this film. I mentioned Alien being a great example of cosmic horror, The Thing is the best example of cosmic horror, something that H.P. Lovecraft would have made.
Yep. And we have really few damn good cosmic horror movies like this one.
Well the thing did come from space aka cosmos And it's form us true beyond description. Would definitely made insane out of sane men. Yeah I agree
If Lovecraft had written this there would be ZERO doubt that Childs was The Thing at the end of the movie.
Lovecraft maybe would have. But I don't think so. My main evidence is that most of his cosmic horror contained watery elements. It's monsters not really that pronounced and really in the eye. There are a few examples otherwise, but they're more the exception.
Besides, this was already based on Who Goes There, as stated earlier in the video.
And both films have that paranoid aspect of a Cold War scenario.
The detail of Blair's coat being left there really supports your theory that he got Childs, as well as the blue coat. This was an amazing breakdown that really brought a lot of things to light for me. I love this movie and this has only increased my love for it. It's really a brilliant film in every way.
Also, when Childs goes outside he looks pretty off. Like he's staggering or something. His walking looks a bit erratic. He disappears for too long as well. If they kept sharing that bottle, McCready got infected too. I'm not sure the creature is smart to the point of choosing who to infect. It just goes on acting by convenience and trying to survive at all costs. Just like viruses do. That way, McCready would be infected too.
A Thing can succumb to the cold, even if it doesn't kill it.
So it is perfectly possible that the Blair-Thing swapped its beige coat for a warmer blue coat, in which case the "missing blue coat" wasn't down to a Childs-Thing having to don that Blue Coat PLUS it explains why that Blue Coat was replaced on the hook by a Beige Coat.
But, really, this is all a stretch: just about ALL the coats in that room were rearranged between scenes, and the boots under the bench were moved.
If we are going to apply meaning to that one Blue Coat then we should also be required to come up with a logical, in-story explanation for all the other changes , and I for one can't come up with anything.
And, BTW, if Childs was attacked there and converted into a Thing then where's all the blood and torn clothing? Because I don't see any.
@@johnreynolds7996 I'm not sure we get to see that room again after Childs leave. And he changed his clothes for sure. The coats hanging could've been an error of continuity but a character changing a coat between scenes is very unusual.
@@paolagraciano5838 The entire scene is one big continuity error, since it is brightly lit.
But the camera shows us that Childs has already left his post.
Yet we see that the lights go out immediately after he leaves his post. As in: less than 10 seconds later.
So how did the camera be in a room that is brightly lit even though it is in a room that should be in complete darkness?
@@johnreynolds7996 now that is a good point. It's in the office. Childs and Blair are the only ones who could have rearranged the coat room. So one of them had to have done it. Blair didn't need a coat. He's in the basement. Blair thing must have made tentacles and pulled childs into the office. Childs struggles and knocks coats and boots around. After conversion, he picks up yhe blue coat. I think the tracking shot was a continuity error, so authorial intent didn't apply. But it's in the movie and firts the argument that childs got taken. No other possibility exists. Chikds is missing from that tracking shot, so he's in the building. He could have heard Blair and gone to look for him but there is no way to get from there to thinking he saw blair and running out. The moment t hff e power goes out if hes human he goes back inside to hunt Blair or for the shed. He has to be lying to Mac at the end.
Fun fact: Adrienne Barbeau, John Carpenter’s wife at the time and voice of the chess computer, went on to voice Catwoman in Batman the animated series
Video maker unironically praises the literal cancerous alien over human beings who he calls "cancerous" lol.
Two Things (pun unintended)
1. John Carpenter recently debunked Dean Cundey's eye gleam theory.
2. If Childs is the Thing, and he's holding the flame thrower at the end, why not just fry MacReady? He'd be the only one in the way of the Thing's survival game plan at that point. With that said, we don't technically see what happens afterwards. But we won't rule MacReady out on being the Thing.
Great breakdown as always.
Child Thing doesn't need a flame thrower if it can wait for MacReady to nod off and then it has two of itself. 😶😶
@@rhizomes.of.delight It also doesn't know if maybe Mac was infected too. It wouldn't want to burn "itself". There's all kinds of levels going on.
Macready handing him the bottle and him taking a swig was the test(do's not matter whats in the bottle). If Childs wasnt the thing he would not have drunk it because he would become infected but because he did drink it, it meant that he didnt care.
No, at that point Childs doesn't care. If MacReady is a Thing then Childs is a dead man. But if MacReady is a human then Childs is a dead man.
But he can be certain that what is in the bottle won't be what kills him, because the entire point of the one-cell-can-get-ya! theory is that it works slowly, and Childs only has an hour to live, if that.
He'll either be devoured by the MacReady-Thing, or they're both going to freeze to death.
Either way, sheeeet, hand me the bottle, I'm freekin' cold.
.
Creepy. Creepy. Creepy. That is how I feel about this movie. I was already not touchy-feely as a person, but after watching it, I went full paranoid!
They had all new practical effects made for the remake, and they looked amazing, but chose to go with CG instead.
SAD
Erik I am sorry that your deep dive is after so many other channel’s because it may not get the views it deserves. This is on a whole nuther level of analysis! You revealed details that no one else covered. You also had a great method of tracking the victims of the nightmare of a movie. Please keep up the great work.
it will. It reached me which I never knew about this channel.
Give it time, this one will do well.
@@fredvasquez4201 one of us. One of us 🧡🌷
Watts gets a few elements wrong
You watched Rob Agers vidoes over on Collative Learning?
The damn dog deserves an Academy Award from all the movie performances it's been 😂. This is one of the best movies ever made and I'm so glad we're all talking about it towards 2024.
Communion? I get “ Makes us whole again” vibes.
The blue coat theory has to be debunked for god sake‘s. McCready for example, his jacket was also a dark blue color, but when he was locked out in the storm, his jacket turns beige/white because of the frost and snow, just like Childs jacket would have. Note when McCready breaks back into the compound, his jacket is frosted, beige white, but as he “thaws” out, holding the dynamite and the flame thrower, you can see his jacket begin to come back to the dark blue/black original color. No one knows if Childs or McCready is the thing. 👍🏽
16:57 - correct me if I am wrong but the Thing didn't detach from itself, the whole mass rose up into the corner of the ceiling before it attacks Childs. As we can see, he only blasts the upper section of the kennel, not the floor if the thing had left a part of itself. So there wasn't a second 'thing' running around.
Absolutely. Erik’s got that wrong.
He got it wrong. Nothing indicates the Dog Thing detached from itself or went through the roof and escaped outside.
It was cornered and vulnerable (caught in the middle of it’s assimilation process) and simply raised itself up to get away from the hostile humans as much as it could. Like a natural defense tactic.
Later, Palmer Thing does the same when it jumps up to the ceiling to try and put distance between itself and danger.
Seems like a _fight or flight_ type of response for the creature.
he did not get it "wrong".
The thing is able to detach small parts which act themselves independently.
The assumption is that in that kennel secene a small part is detached to explain further off screen assimilations.
Of course off screen can be replaced by "magic" and every logicl conclusion fails.
The movie has ambiguity at 2 or 3 key events to create paranoia. Without a certain amount of assumption no deduction will provide a plausible result.
So there is not really a wrong. But obviously there is one idea John Carpenter had.
@@pst5345 While you have a point, the fact remains that the kennel thing did not split into two individual pieces, one on the floor and one up in the corner of the ceiling which Childs torches as the light of the flamethrower shows nothing on the floor. There is only a single 'thing' up in the ceiling. While you are correct that there is a possibility a piece of it survived up in the ceiling as we see the blood on the floor during the blood test scene flee during Palmer's transformation, there is no definitive evidence that indicates another unknown thing entity is skulking around which IMO skews some of the deductions made in the video such as how Palmer was infected etc
@@RVDDP2501agreeing with you on that but also we see a quick perspective of the thing’s point of view moving down and towards Childs who, by the way, is looking up at it.
The amount of joy I felt watching this breakdown, is immeasurable. I was young when The Thing came out. I was so terrified and intrigued. It became one of my all time favorite movies! Thank you for doing this deep dive! Just WOW!😮
wtf you tlking about? this video is totally misleading from waht actually happens in movie...mcready gets infected first in movie out of everyone in camp
I think they were both human, and they both kinda just laughed after everything that happened, and they actually won yet lost at the same time being as they will just freeze to death. So they were just fighting to stay alive just to die in the end. The irony is why Mac was laughing imo. People think so hard about who was the thing and who wasnt or if either of them were the thing at all. In the end it dosent matter.
It’s a yearly tradition for my family to watch this movie on Halloween, forever a CLASSIC!
I don't believe that Childs is the Thing, but I do believe that the Thing is still there. Why? Bennings, and mass. When the Thing assimilates someone, it consumes their mass then creates a duplicate. Bennings was assimilated by the Split-Face Thing, but when they chase after the Bennings-Thing, it's clearly only got the mass of one person. And it just gave up and died a bit too easily. I think that Split-Face Thing made a strategic sacrifice after being caught assimilating Bennings, and sent the Bennings-Thing off into the snow as a distraction while it escaped.
Jed's acting was incredible in this movie. There are so many subtle cues that the dog was not what it seemed. It immediately tried to infect Bennings upon arriving at the American camp, it watched everyone's behaviors so intently. The way it followed Clark, walked into the kennel, and lied down so calmly yet so deliberately as if it planned this all along. Jed did an absolutely outstanding job.
I thought it was established at this point that the dog thing didn’t spit and escape, but merely grew arms and pulled itself up into the corner where Childs burned it.
I was always of the opinion that NEITHER MacReady OR Childs was the Thing! Just to highlight the paranoia after they killed the bad guy, they're still distrustful. As a giant middle finger to the survivors and a testament to the cunning of the Thing.
BUT....after listening to ALL this theorizing, it was at 44:20 that the line "A lone survivor survives alone" really hit home. MacReady, the lone wolf of the group, is the sole survivor, and Childs is the Thing. As much as I prefer both of them being human, I do now believe that Childs is the Thing
I would actually prefer that.
Just those final lines. Your the sole survivor and McReady says not the only one. Then it all of sudden it hits him. Childs means only human. He chuckles in the realization of after all of that the Thing won the game of chess so to speak. A laugh of resignation. Like a congratulations you won you clever s.o.b., so might as well just sit for a moment and see if you decide to assimilate me or watch me freeze to death.
@@tiffanymichaels2429 great interpretation, this is what I was leaning into as well. In that moment McReady realized he won, but ultimately lost and instead of fighting just laughs, hands over the bottle and waits to see how his story ends.
You shouldn't. Your thematic interpretation was right. Logically, there is NO reason for Childs to approach MacReady--whom it knows can kill it tons of ways and definitely has weapons that he just killed another Thing with--if he's the Thing. Only by avoiding MacReady would the Thing re-freeze to survive while Mac freezes to death.
The bitter irony Mac and Childs are laughing about is that after all the lone wolf talk and suspicion, they are here doomed together, just wanting company.
@@WynneL that's one way to look at it. But since MacReady used up his entire defense arsenal then the Thing would no longer have to fear him. And it would explain why Childs had no fear of drinking from the bottle. If Childs is the Thing he'd have no fear of transmission since he already is one. The mystery of whether or not one of them is the Thing was a mystery that enhanced the movie. But since it has been announced that one of them is definitely the Thing we no longer have that which is kind of sad.
the reason the thing didn't/couldn't assimilate mccready was he was too full of alcohol
😂😂😂
It was MacReady. He had been infected for a long time. Remember what they say about the parts acting independently, and wanting to survive independently. MacReady Thing knew that in order for him to survive he would have to throw some of the other things under the bus, which is what he did. His plan was to freeze to death.
My final confirmation was when MacReady says "let's see what happens" after he's just given his saliva to Childs, and infected him. Now he knows that he's safe, and he'll freeze, and then be rescued later.
Facts.
Mac never told anybody what Fuchs said about fixing their own meals and eating outta cans.
plot twist neither are The Thing at the end. The film did such a good job creating paranoia that you have to think one of them is The Thing
THIS! The twist is that they're not infected but neither can be sure.
Mr. Voss drew out a freaking assimilation timeline, I'm sorry but he is the god of breakdowns. And I've been watching since he joined during Game of Thrones, he was very comprehensive even then.
One factor I don't see get mentioned often in these debates, is the situation with the Dog Thing. Whilst it's assimilating the other dogs, it grows rudimentary clawed hands and arms and hoists itself up through the wooden ceiling / floorboards above. Childs flame throws it from beneath, yet we have no evidence if he managed to get all of it. Childs fries most of it. Is it possible a portion of Dog Thing managed to get away and is flitting around in the ceiling?
Nope
One of the great movies of my teenagehood. Thanks for the deep dive. I, however, remember thinking back then how it sucks, them defeating the Thing and then facing inescapable frosty death.
With Fuchs, he went to Macready's shack and stuck the clothes in his furnace, realizing its a sham to frame Mac and got attacked after he did that but before he could burn the clothes hence why the shack light is on and why Nauls says "I found it in the furnace and then cut mac loose". Nauls didnt find the clothes in the snow.
You know, it's almost crazy to me how after 41 yrs there's still debate about the ending of this movie, and tbh all the revolutionary aspects of this movie aside, for this one in particular, John Carpenter deserves every ounce of all the praises he got. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm pretty sure Childs was The Thing, since McReady handed him over that bottle of fuel.
Agreed on Childs -- I just dunno if the J&B whiskey bottle had fuel in it. MacReady was totally gonna sip it before seeing that Childs was walking up behind him
@@DeepDiveNR Yes. That's the brilliance of John Carpenter, since he put some (almost) hidden clues to back this theory up. First the way McReady tested everyone in that Blood Test scene, established his cleverness and tricky methods to differentiate the Thing from others. Second and the most important one is the last minute of the movie where John Carpenter plays the Thing theme song over Childs sipping from the bottle. That Bass Theme (you know what I mean).
@@DeepDiveNRMaybe MacReady was going to drink gasoline to commit suicide?
No he was trying to up his blood alcohol level. @@carbine090909
Dog thing went into palmers and Childs room 1st. Palmer is patient 0. @@jake_gon_jinn
These deep dives are just the best. I haven't seen many of the one's Erik chose to analyze, but I def want to check them out now.
Carpenter at his best, this film is a masterpiece.
Macready out in the cold: you must not be from Wisconsin. My wife has pictures of me filling the bird feeders while I was in my gym shorts when it was 15 below zero. Cold weather is tolerable for short periods of time.
I saw this movie in the theaters when it came out, and there had been nothing like it before. It works very well as a horror movie; the effects ensure that. It was a powerful movie, in it's day, and I knew it would go on to become a Classic I had to have in my library. I've owned it on VHS, DVD and now cloud-based.
At the end of the movie, in 1982, I didn't think either one of the survivors was The Thing, so this review prompts me to watch the movie again with different eyes. Thanks.
One of my favourite films ever… a rabbit hole I never get tired of going down
Inception's spinning top is not a mystery or subjective experience. It's a red herring.
It was clearly stated that you cannot use someone else's totem or let someone be familiar with your totem. The top is *not* Cobb's totem and is therefore unreliable. His actual totem is his wedding ring.
The real dead ass giveaway for that ending is the children being the same exact age, size, wearing the same clothes as his memories of them, and doing the same thing from his recalls in scenes before. Cobb was on the run for 2 years and kids grow quickly.
Now that i've given you plenty of reasons to pay better attention let's get back to The Thing....
This breakdown was incredible. I love the ambiguity of the movie. MacCready is playing chess the whole time, trying to be one step ahead. I would say you're interpretation is a pretty standard way to see the events; He's human paying chess against the thing. Its interesting and worth a watch, seeing him as a thing playing chess against the humans. His behavior can be seen as suspicious pretty early one, but especially following the 'door swing' lol. Of course, if he was the thing prior to, he would have had to fake the blood test, which it a stretch.
However, watching the movie in this way does provide some cool parallels. Blair is both the provider of the info that the thing can take you over via slow infection, and the example. If you look at his cloths, he is wearing the same long johns and suspenders in the scene where they take him down, and at the end when he's a thing. You could even look at it as him getting infected by the vodka bottle MacCready intentionally contaminated. MacCready is both the provider of the info that each part of the thing is only concerned with its own personal survival, and the example. In his game of chess, he strategically divulged the info so he could exploit it, by sacrificing a pawn to gain trust. At the end, he is infecting Childs the same way he infected Blair.
Before you attack me, this is just a fun little way to watch the movie, not an attack on any other interpretation. I'm not saying, "this is what I think REALLY happened". Honestly, I don't actually have an opinion on what I think really happened, since the ending is left ambiguous. Either way, I hope you found this interesting and not infuriating lol. Thanks for reading.
I knew nothing about the Nauls deleted aspects and I'm a long time fan of this franchise. Thank you!! Killer deconstruction.
Very good deep dive. I saw this movie in the theater when I was 15 and have loved it ever since. I'd say it's probably my favorite movie of all time. It just amazed me because I'd never seen FX like that before, and to this day I still get the same fright factor every time.
I always thought it was Childs...
Fun fact, there are Thing comics that say Childs is not a Thing, but also the Thing is now just hunting down MacReady randomly, to the point MacReady can point out a Thing almost instinctively
Another movie I haven’t seen, but Erik Voss brings me in every time! Keep up these amazing breakdowns Erik! (New Rockstars and Deep Dive). Looking forward to the next Loki episode!
Thank you!
Watch it, I think it holds up even if you've had any twists spoiled. It's still a fantastic movie and has some of the greatest practical effects in history.
Ohh dude you’ve just seriously just robbed yourself of a great experience!
Then you have ruined the film for yourself by watching this 🤦🏼♂️
@@wainsworld84 I’m not a body horror fan. Sorry.
A cult classic. So good. Some of John Carpenters best work.
He's made so many great films, but The Thing is my favorite of his.
@@DeepDiveNR I think I've watched Big Trouble and They Live more, they're more *fun* but I agree. The Thing is his best movie.
The only thing that detracts for me is the relatively weak stop motion animation of the thing towards the end, but otherwise it's a perfect movie imo.
Cheating bih was Adrian kuntz
The whole pencil thing could have been an example of immunity. Maybe Blair's immune system reacted to the infection differently than the others.
Why wouldn't Childs flame MacReady up then if he were the Thing, and he's the only one with a flamethrower?
I think Childs doesn't want to become a murderer, and really frowns this idea as he tells Mac that he is one after he kills Clark. Which would explain why he doesn't use the flamethrower at the end, because he is still human.
Also, I refuse to think that the gold tooth and the earring at the end is just "not a John Carpenter rule". F that. Childs is human and so is Mac.
Great video though, love a good discussion on The Thing.
I regard the who's the Thing at the end the same way I do is Deckard a replicant in the original Blade Runner (which the symmetry of them being released on the same day in '82, both flopping before finding their audience years later & becoming beloved classics is just crazy) I find the the speculation fun but inessential to my enjoyment to the movie. And that we should never truly get the definitive answer despite the various opinions on the matter. While Halloween has proven to be Carpenter's most popular & influential, I think The Thing is his best & by a good distance.
Blair was infected when he touched his lips with his eraser. The reason why it took so long for him to get fully assimilated was because of the level of exposure was very small. So the thing had to take over his body slowly cell by cell. Now imagine what kind of effect that would have on your brain, where piece by piece your brain was taken apart and replaced. You would have psychotic episodes, extreme mood swings and erratic, violent behavior. Furthermore, by the way he spoke, it was as if he knew what the thing was doing, and understood its motives on a level more than what you could have gotten from information that was given by a 1980's computer simulation. It is very possible he was hearing voices of the thing in his head and in an act of defiance to the thing that was growing inside him, he smashed the radio equipment and destroyed the helicopter. So really, Blair was more of a hero than MacReady.
That is a possibility bc the whole film spends a great deal keeping up the continuation of what clothes everyone is wearing inside the base. The only one who slightly breaks that continuity is Blair. When we see him in front of his magic computer watching dog blood cells getting assimilated, he's wearing a creamy coloured shirt, green suspenders and an off-white under shirt beneath. But when we see him going ballistic with an axe and gun, his cream shirt is completely gone, leaving only the green suspenders over the off-white under shirt.
never thought of it like this an it’s mind blowing🤣 totally makes sense with the noose too as if he could feel he had little time left but didn’t act in time
Still, Blair himself says that it can assimilate transfer via only one cell and if that’s the case, it could be as rapid as hydrogen cyanide poisoning
The eraser doesn't actually touch the dog thing remains.
@@flea1972 Yeah - I don't think Blair gets it from the eraser either as even if the tip ever so lightly touches the horror, the tissue appears to be dry. I think Palmer assimilated him whilst bringing him food in the lock-up outside.
Honestly this is one of the best breakdowns you have done, please don't take that the wrong way I watch your breakdowns religiously on both channels and rate your analytical prowess so highly so that I encourage others to watch you also, but this is just exceptional, well done sir
Sharing this with my dad right away! I remember watching this with him! Thanks Eric!
Re: the MacReady door, I think your timeline answered the question. MacReady's clothes were found outside just minutes later -- seems like "The Thing" was in his room grabbing his clothes. Just a theory.
Love your breakdowns and this is one of my absolute favorite movies of all time!
Another thing to notice at the beggining of the film:
The "Dog Thing" is on his last body, if it's killed by the snipers or anything else it's going to be totally destroyed, so it's first instinc is to survive and transmit itself to other living things, thats why the Thing tries so hard and in such a "friendly" (desperate) way to lick Bennins face. Also, after the people trying to kill it are dead, you can see how the Thing is more calmed and tries to pass a a simple dog, so tath it can infect and multiply itself in a more safer way. A nice touch of behaviours by the thing that adds more depths to the alien.
Thing point of view. Makes zero sense (zero reasoning) to disregard its steath plan (licking) to open assimilation (starting with the other dogs)
Thank you so much for this breakdown I love the thing and I love this Channel and bringing them together is just amazing
Maybe the real thing was the friends we made along the way
That coat is definitely blue with frost on it. As a clue, it's a non starter. I don't like the Molotov Cocktail theory, and prefer to think they're just two guys who know they're going to die and so decide to literally chill out. The coat dilemma is just a continuity error. It's not that this one coat is missing, as you say. All the coats are different. Different hooks. a Beige coat appears where there was none. These are all fun theories, but ambiguous is better. MacReady chuckles at the end because two guys who have been hostile to each other through all this end up going out sharing a drink together.
"The Things" short story isn't canon and ends with the creature deciding it's going to force humanity to be assimilated, whether the like it or not, to "help" humanity. That's villainy. Most villains don't cackle while rubbing their hands together and relishing their evilness.
Yes I looked at the clips side by side from 37:26 and 44:02. It is a continuity error. Coats are different and in different positions. The boots under the bench are in different positions, too.
"You're the only one that made it?" I believe thats a give away for Childs at the end.
I respectfully disagree with the entire notion of MacReady being the "monster" of this piece. No matter how you look at it, the thing's perspective is alien to us. We do not share a hive mind - that's not who we are. If getting devoured by the thing lets our memories and knowledge live on, it still kills our individuality, which to us humans, means death as we know it. And that's a bad thing, because individuality defines us.
The thing may be thinking it's doing some twisted god's work for all we humans care, from our perspective it is the enemy, and MacReady understands that. He would never view himself as the "monster", nor would any observing human.
I think MacReady's chuckle is a sardonic one: he knows Childs is the thing, and there's nothing he can do about it. He admits defeat.
I agree. I don't really understand the ""what kind of a world rejects communion" point. I mean I think he's trying to say something about we all desire to be part of a community? But that point isn't clear since it's in the context of an alien parasite that wants to assimilate all living beings. lol.
This is my dad's (71yo) favorite 80s movie. And he also plotted the timeliness of infectees.
What was his conclusion about who is the Thing at the end?
This was a great breakdown and explanation of the film. Well thought out, well put together, with clear and concise information presented for the viewer. I'll be interested to see more from you Mr The Deep Dive.
@17:15 If you listen to the directors commentary, that part was lifting itself up but didn't get away. Carpenter mentions that his editing gave that impression unintentionally here.
I went back and rewatched a bunch of scenes and you're 100% right. I always thought part of it escaped into the ceiling until my last watch. It doesn't escape through the ceiling and none of the tentacle gets cut off by the kennel door being closed.
Nothing got away in the dog scene
2 or 3 dogs ran away when Clark opened the kennel. They could be infected.
Love that this film is still being looked into I watched it last October and loved it. The practical effects, the body horror, plus psychological element of who can you trust. Definitely became one of my favorite horror movie.
I recently saw a interview with John Carpenter, he was asked if only watching the movie will you know who the thing is? And John Carpenter said yes you will know if you pay attention to details.
Great job by explaining this great video it was fun and very entertaining!
Child is The Thing
Saliva from the glove would have spread to the J&B bottle that Bennings drinks from moments later tho, no? He grabs the bottle by its mouth with that glove, seconds after the dog licked the glove. So that could have been his moment of infection.
I literally looked yesterday to see if you had a video on the thing. I’m excited to dive in!
Watched this movie when I was 8 and didn't sleep till I was 9
John carpenters answer to the ending of the thing changes every time because he doesn't want to give the answer away he even said:
"I dont care, macready was the thing" in an interview
This is a good watch, and I appreciate all the behind the scenes info as you go through your theory.
I don't necessarily agree with everything, though...especially since I'm of the opinion that you don't actually KNOW you're assimilated until a threat to safety stimulates the cells to defend themselves reflexively.
Mcready is the helicopter pilot. The alien would WANT to assimilate him first out of anyone so it can escape and assimilate more people. This theory that the alien thinks Mcready is “cancerous” is kinda dumb. Especially since their spaceship is jacked up cuz it crashed here to begin with
Does McCready have cancer?
In the sequel, the game’s ending identifies MacReady piloting the Helicopter away.
I think that something the author of the story as well as the screenwiter and people in general did not considered is that the 100 thousand years that the ship was under the ice can also be the depth to where the ship land crashed, so, the ice surrounding the shipt is 100 thousand years old, but the ship land crashed much more recently. Something similar happens with animal burrowers, that sometimes are found associated with older animals, because the burrower reaches an older strata buried several meters deep under the earth surface, such as the finding of a modern wombat alongside a dinosaur in Australia.
If the Thing was so altruistic (according to the retcon story) why would it find it necessary to be sneaky and gruesomely violent?