MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > Childs has to be The Thing at the end..

Childs has to be The Thing at the end..

posted 8 years ago by southtxabstract
27 replies | jump to latest

There's many interesting theories out there wether Mac or Childs is the Thing and the ending is shot like that on purpose which makes it a great film. The one conclusion I came to it being Childs was the script. I seriously doubt the filmakers said "ok, you're gonna play Childs. This character toward the end of the movie, you're gonna go outside cause you thought you saw somebody walking outside, then disappear for a while and come in at the end of the closing shots. And that's all you're gonna do" His role has to be bigger than that at the end. I believe he is The Thing.

N I N

[–] razielim-2 8 years ago

That's just too on the nose, too convenient.

Because of that, I never considered that Childs may be an imitation - it's either Mac or neither.

If anything - it's MacReady who's the Thing, he got buried under plenty of thing-chunks after it exploded in his face.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cokezero99 8 years ago

There's a problem with this theory of Childs being a thing. The problem was something that might not have occurred to the filmmakers then but is a point that the 2011 prequel and highlighted. The problem is this: Childs has an earring at the end.

So this poses a problem. In Thing canon, a thing cannot copy metal meaning he could not, technically, be a thing. However the issue is now this: I think this problem is so minute a detail that it reasonable to think the filmmakers did not even consider it but still wrote Childs as a thing.

[–] KthulhuX 8 years ago

I don't think they wrote either one of them as definative human or the Thing, even for themselves. Ambiguity is the best ending, and what better way to make it ambiguous to the audience than to write it where it's even ambiguous to the writer?

[–] kcott44 8 years ago

Please man, don't count the awful prequel. I know I'm in the minority when I say I despise that film, the whole molar and earring theories are such garbage.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

I seriously doubt

Based on?

Let's be bad guys.

[–] chriscojo30 8 years ago

Childs is the thing. When they are both sitting there talking you can visibly see Kurt russels breath while talking and count see Keith David's breath.

[–] Jetfire1959 8 years ago

You're mstaken. Read my post above yours.

The louder paranormal "debunkers" argue,the more terrified they are it's all true.

[–] theguitarman18 8 years ago

If Childs was copied, he'd still need to breath. Norris-thing suffered a heart attack, so clearly normal human functions are retained by the thing. I can't remember whether his breath is visible or not, but it doesn't mean anything.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

You may need a blu ray or hdx copy to see Child's breath. Mac's breath is more prominent, nevertheless, you can see Child's breath a number of times.

Not only that, but earlier when the Bennings-thing lets out its yell, you can see its breath very clearly. So a lack of breath is not proof that Childs is a thing.

You are sin.

[–] Jetfire1959 8 years ago

I found this in the trivia section for the 2011 prequel:

This film may have purposely solved a long-standing mystery in the 1982 film. This film reveals that The Thing cannot replicate abiotic things such as fillings, earrings, clothes, etc. and at a pivotal moment near the end, Kate realizes that Carter's earring is missing as well as the hole for the piercing revealing him to be a Thing. At the end of the 1982 film, the character Childs still has his earring in his right ear. It can be seen just before he takes a drink from the bottle of J&B.

The louder paranormal "debunkers" argue,the more terrified they are it's all true.

[–] shiftylee 8 years ago

The Thing copies Childs and then takes his earring.

[–] jamielow1984 8 years ago

If you played the game it suggest that Childs was a human.......you find his body in the game.

[–] mountaindewslave 8 years ago

its meant to be entirely left up in the air based on what those involved with the project have said. I believe the director claimed he (personally) felt Macready was a "Thing" at the end while Kurt Russel has claimed he most certainly felt Macready was human at the end

again, no one in the project made a concrete decision. Its open ended

she fell through a hole, and was never seen again

[–] kcott44 8 years ago

You know what is so weird, every time I watch the film, I never think it's either Childs or Mac. You never see the fate of Nauls and I believe he is the thing. I believe the thing in the disguise of Nauls will try to come back into the picture and try to attack Mac and Childs, that's just my theory though.

[–] woodfin_a 8 years ago

I never thought about that, but it is a good guess at what could've happened. I never truly feel like someone is dead until I've seen it with my own eyes with these types of movies.