Was Childs the thing?
>>71725071
the children are our future, OP.
>>71725071
no because no violent reaction to hard liquour
Nope, it's confirmed it was Macready.
>>71725071
>Was Childs the thing?
At the end of the film you can see the vapor from MacReady's breathing, but not Child's.
So I'm going with Child's being the Thing.
>>71725150
>Nope, it's confirmed it was Macready.
Bullshit.
>>71725071
I think so. Wasn't the bottle he handed him to drink filled with gasoline? He even smirks when he sees him drink it and not react, because an alien wouldn't know the difference between beer and gasoline
>>71725157
?
>>71725188
The Thing video game for PS2 was endorsed by Carpenter (he even voiced a character in it) and it confirms Macready was the Thing.
There's a short story called "The Things" that recounts the events from the Thing's perspective. In it, Childs is definitely infected. It's a great read, but I don't know how canon anyone might consider it.
>>71725157
You can see it though
>>71725157
The reason you can't see his breath is because of poor lighting. It wasn't intentional for him to look like hes not breathing
>>71725071
Everyone is the thing...
The remake any good?
>>71725565
It's a prequel, not a remake.
Also it's just ok. The CGI effects are worse than the originals practical effects but otherwise it's ok. Does an ok job of leading up to the first one.
>>71725565
ayy Imao
>>71725701
Very good, the plot of both movies is about an alien.
Do you have any other poignant observations to add?
>>71725565
No. It's an absolute waste of time and money. The best thing I can say about it is it's so bad I can't really remember anything that happened in it.
In the comics neither was a thing either.
>>71725565
The Thing From Outer Space is better horror/sci-fi than the mediocre reboot.
WE WUZ THANGZ N SHIT
>>71725565
MEW is it's only saving grace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrpPqpjbwkY
i wish this was being made
>>71725157
>>71725201
Fucking kill yourselves
>>71725565
Why are the ships lights on?
In the end....it doesn't really matter....Childs is The Thing.
Regardless of the dialogue in that scene.
MacReady's scene with the Chess computer was a clear metaphor for the story.
He can't beat the chess computer, because it's impossible. The only way he can beat it, is by destroying it, which he does by giving it a drink of scotch...or pouring scotch on internal wiring to be precise.
And for the rest of the story, MacReady (metaphorically) is in a game of chess with the Thing. It takes out his team like pawns on a table, and constantly engaging in a constant Psychological battle with the creature. And like the Chess Computer, MacReady ends up winning with a drink of scotch. 'Why?'...well, everyone agreed at the time Bennings is ammiliated, not to share food/drinks in fear of contamination. Yet MacReady hands the Bottle of Scotch he's been drinking out of to Childs and he Childs doesn't hesitate to drink it, despite the fact neither one trusts the other. MacReady laughs at this point knowing Childs is the Thing, and yet IT doesn't realise that it's effectively just told Kurt Russell's character it's identity. But he knows he probably wouldn't be able to anything about it, which is why he rests his head, supposedly will try to kill it, after everything he's done, he wouldn't give up and let it kill him.
What is ambiguous about the ending, is what happens next. Does MacReady win, or does The Thing
>>71725157
This is bogus for two reasons, which I will call reason number 1), and reason number 2), and reason number 2) is never talked about, but it's a great point worth making that no one seems to pick up on, so I will discuss it right after reason number 1).
1) About the "Childs has no "cold-breath" thing: you're repeating something you've heard because you haven't actually watched the film multiple times, closely, to the sufficient degree to know what you are talking about. You're not a bad person or stupid or anything like that, you just didn't pay attention.
Go back and watch it again, back it up, watch it again a time or two. Childs is intentionally lit in much darker light (if that makes any sense), such that it is /difficult/, but /not impossible/ to see some of the cold-breath-vapor that he is emanating. Watch the whole thing closely and you can make out wisps of the usual vapor. It's just in bad light, on purpose, but you can make out some. Specifically, Childs' breath is slightly visible (and unmistakable in freeze-framing and advancing, etc) in mid-shot when he initially re-appears in the final sequence, and also when he "huffs" once or twice toward the end of the two-close-up exchange (try just after Russell's benediction: "why don't we just wait here a while, see what happens".
Also notice that Mac is just about to, /he himself/, drink out of a bottle (its neck is visible) just before he senses Childs' presence. Might not be the same bottle but it's a useful comment about the sequence.
cont.
>>71726671
NOW, THE MUCH MORE INTERESTING AND FRESH REASON NUMBER TWO!
2) The people who harp on the "no-breath" thing have already been disproven above. But let's really think about this. Suppose that it were true that an imitation somehow doesn't "breathe" the same, make the cold-breath. What would that mean?
First of all, it would mean that The Thing is somehow an imperfect imitation which even defies the laws of physics, because the actors' bodies at any one moment are supposed to be above-freezing-temperature masses of heat. So we would expect the normal cold-breath thing, to some extent, no matter WHAT is going on from an assimilation standpoint, unless the creature has previously assimilated something that modulates its temperature for whatever reason, and is "invoking" its form here. but this is a totally MOOT POINT!
This moot point is moot, BECAUSE Childs DOES give off some visually recognizable cold-breath, as we've already said, and in much darker shots! MOREOVER, what do we know about the thing? /It is a perfect imitation which must be directly attacked at the cellular level to be categorically revealed as fraud./ In other words... /OF COURSE EITHER one of a Thing or a real human bean should give off a "real human bean" version of cold-breath, as we have physical evidence of! But I'm not even through yet!
Not only do we have footage of Childs' cold breath once you look hard enough, BENNINGS-THING-ALMOST-DONE ALSO DOES A NICE "COLD-BREATH" WHEN IT IS CORNERED!!! AND IT'S NOT EVEN DONE YET, WHICH JUST STRENGTHENS MY ABOVE COMMON-SENSICAL ARGUMENT! There are other bits of fog and smoke in the shot, but once again, the actor's breath is unmistakable and indisputable when you frame-by-frame. SO WE HAVE DIRECT PREVIOUS EVIDENCE THAT "THINGS" REALLY DO HAVE THE COLD-BREATH THING JUST LIKE THE ORGANISM THEY'RE IMITATING! AND THIS IS BORNE OUT BY A CLOSE VIEW OF CHILDS' END-FOOTAGE!
