MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > Ending theory I haven't seen discussed a...

Ending theory I haven't seen discussed anywhere...


Just a thought.... mac gives the bottle of alcohol to childs at the end... and childs drinks it. then mac chuckles.

i see this as:
alcohol = poison
childs successfully drinks poison
mac chuckles = relief that childs is not the thing (b/c drank poison voluntarily and his body didn't react like the blood did to heat in the petri dish).

No?

If you wanna go all philosophical with the theory... the opening scene, you see the power of alcohol destroying the computer. Pretty random scene to start out the movie with and end the movie with alcohol. But this part may just be reading into it too much.

reply

This has actually been discussed a fair bit.

Either Mac has tested Childs with a whisky bottle filled with gasoline, or they are both drinking the molatov cocktail.

Or it's just whisky.

Nevertheless. I like the whisky scene at the beginning. It's Mac's response to being beaten. His Chess game couldn't handle it. Perhaps the Thing will have as hard a time with human vices when it tries to imitate them.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

From the script:

The Pub Area, like most of the rest of the camp, exposed to the outside. He sits down with his bottle of Scotch. A figure enters the frame. It's Childs. White and black blotches cover his frostbitten face. Both men speak guardedly and stare at each other suspiciously. He looks as weak as MacReady. A beat. Childs keeping his distance.

Scripts are not written for the audience or to "fool" the audience. They are written for the actors and film crew to understand the story. If Lancaster wanted the Scotch whisky to be poison or gasoline, he would have wrote that in for the actors to understand that ploy.

The bottle was filled with whisky, no fan fiction is ever going to change that.






-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

The final scene doesn't take place in the "pub area". So that iteration of the script isn't necessarily what made it to the screen.

If Lancaster wanted the Scotch whisky to be poison or gasoline, he would have wrote that in for the actors to understand that ploy.


If the writer or the director does not want the actors to overtly telegraph the intent of the scene then they don't necessarily express to the actors what he doesn't want to be expressed on the screen. The script does not tell the actors that they are The Thing until the point it is revealed to all the characters in the movie.

Even if it is not the intent of the director or screenwriter, the audience is right to consider what is possible from what isn't expressed.

The artist is not the definitive judge of their work. The final draft of the screenplay is created by the editor and the director in the editing room. You can make things appear in the edit that were not in the writing and there are things which are in the writing that can be overruled by the edit and I don't mean by cutting a whole scene out.

The director himself has stated that it's just a way for the movie to end on a grimly laconic note and freely admits that either or both could be the thing .This is all stated in the presence of the actor who is in the scene. Carpenter clearly doesn't care that the script may or may not be telling Russel what MacReady is doing or thinking here.


"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

The final scene doesn't take place in the "pub area". So that iteration of the script isn't necessarily what made it to the screen.
I see.

Then perhaps you can share with us all what area, a now destroyed interior or wherever, are Mac and Childs are sitting in?

The script does not tell the actors that they are The Thing until the point it is revealed to all the characters in the movie.
Umm...yes...the script indeed tells the actors who in fact turned into a thing.

Or are you seriously suggesting actors film the entire project without reading the script completely?

Even if it is not the intent of the director or screenwriter, the audience is right to consider what is possible from what isn't expressed.
Understood. Otherwise known as fan fiction.

The OP is basing his belief there is poison with no indicators from the film, script, or director input.

I'm basing my belief it is whisky from what the script says.

And in my corner, script trumps fan fiction all the live long day.




The director himself has stated that it's just a way for the movie to end on a grimly laconic note and freely admits that either or both could be the thing
That has nothing to do with the bottle's content.

Carpenter clearly doesn't care that the script may or may not be telling Russel what MacReady is doing or thinking here.
You are then admitting the bottle's contents is irrelevant. Nothing for the viewer to assume the bottle is filled with anything but whisky.

Well done.


The fan fiction the bottle is filled with poison is just too far fetched even for fan fiction. Where did Mac get poison?

So among the heap of destruction, he came across a bottle of poison and he surmised Childs must be alive even though he is nowhere in sight at the moment and comes up with the plan, "I'm going to pretend drinking from this bottle that I actually filled with poison - the very poison I miraculously found among the piles of destruction, on the off chance Childs shows up and I need a way to test if he is an alien. I will ignore the fact that the alien has the capability to taste other humanly consumed substances such as weed, food, and drink, but assume it cannot taste poison."



-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

I'm telling you that the film's director has alluded to fact that Mac and Childs may both be things. And he did so in the presence of Russell who was somewhat confident that in the completed movie he was human by the end (possibly due to he and Carpenter shooting a scene where it is established that he definitely is) and is not disturbed by the director's admission.

Seems that the director and star are considerably less concerned about literally interpreting the script than you are.

Of course the actors are going to study the script to learn the ultimate fate of their character. Produce this script that lets the actors in on whether they are human or not before it's actually revealed in the narrative. Are you saying that before the points in the story where Norris or Palmer thing out, the script already refers to them as aliens?

If the OP had asked if it was the writer's intent for the bottle to be filled with something poisonous to a human or an alien you might have a valid reason to get upset about theories. But you seem to have pulled the trigger a bit prematurely.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

I'm telling you that the film's director has alluded to fact that Mac and Childs may both be things. And he did so in the presence of Russell who was somewhat confident that in the completed movie he was human by the end (possibly due to he and Carpenter shooting a scene where it is established that he definitely is) and is not disturbed by the director's admission.
Nice speech.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the bottle's contents. But nice speech.

Seems that the director and star are considerably less concerned about literally interpreting the script than you are.
I have no idea the degree of concern Carpenter and Russell harbor for the script's interpretation, but again, this has nothing to do with the bottle's contents.

The OP's fan fiction claims there's poison in the bottle.

The script describes the the bottle's contents is Scotch.

I choose to believe the latter.

Pick any other scenario that pits the script against fan fiction and chances are 99.9999999% I will favor the script's credibility over fan fiction from here till eternity.

If the OP had asked if it was the writer's intent for the bottle to be filled with something poisonous to a human or an alien you might have a valid reason to get upset about theories.
You're under the delusion I'm upset, an ignorant assumption. Instead, I'm relishing small amusement in destroying a poorly thought out fan fiction.

And you still didn't answer my question. You seem to know what area of the camp Mac and Childs were at in the last scene. You claim it is NOT the pub area. So what area is it?




-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

You're not upset but you are preoccupied with asserting that it's fan fiction. Who said it wasn't? You are ignoring the intent of the OP. Clue is in the word "theory". Your chagrin and distress is rather hard to ignore.

We're discussing what's in the film. Not the script. Thanks for the info though. Carpenter and Russell may not be talking about the bottle or the script. I guess you must be as annoyed at them for discussing their theories as you are at us.

The pub area had a forklift of some sort crashed into the middle of it. There's no forklift where Mac and Childs are.

Still waiting for this script that informs the actors who is or isn't a thing before it takes place in the narrative.


"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

If Mac had been smart, he would have spiked the whisky bottle with cyanide. He was already in a no-win situation, so why not? Then again, the damned Thing might have been impervious to poison. And if that was the case, then God help the world!

reply

I think we're taking "poison" in too literal a sense. Anything is poisonous in sufficient proportions. It doesn't need to be cyanide.

We see the men making molotov cocktails with whatever bottles they have to hand earlier in the movie. So one might wonder if the bottle that he offers Childs is one of those cocktails.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

You're not upset but you are preoccupied with asserting that it's fan fiction. Who said it wasn't? You are ignoring the intent of the OP. Clue is in the word "theory". Your chagrin and distress is rather hard to ignore.
Not about whether it's fan fiction, it's about how I am perceiving his fan fiction as poorly thought out.


We're discussing what's in the film. Not the script. Thanks for the info though. Carpenter and Russell may not be talking about the bottle or the script. I guess you must be as annoyed at them for discussing their theories as you are at us.
Umm...you understand you're ploy to press emotions is a lame ploy. It's a sad forum rookie tactic and all you're doing is going off topic. If you can't stay on topic and wish to discuss "your feelings", IMDB has some miscellaneous topic forums.


The pub area had a forklift of some sort crashed into the middle of it. There's no forklift where Mac and Childs are.
Wait back up, so if an object is off screen, it no longer exists? You're one of those. lol

But hey, I can play. Let's suppose it is not the Pub area in the last scene. It's some other room. Your weak argument is still laughable, "The script said it was the pub area and it wasn't so therefore we must disregard anything the script says."

Hey this should be fun playing by your rules.

The script says the bottle contained Scotch. Nope it was filled Walrus urin. I am right, the script is wrong, just ask gorch, he'll back me up.

The script describes the spaceship's flight early in the story. Nope that is not a spaceship, it's a time machine from our own future transporting a virus that was created on future Earth. I am right, the script is wrong, just ask gorch, he'll back me up.

Still waiting for this script that informs the actors who is or isn't a thing before it takes place in the narrative.
So cute how you are splitting hairs. An actor reads the script. After he's finished, does he A) know about any characters that became a thing, or B) He still doesn't know?

You need to let that argument go, it's pathetically weak. You're claiming, "Technically the script doesn't tell the actors who is a Thing until they actually get to that page number where it tells them who became a thing." LOL!.......seriously........LOL!


We're discussing what's in the film. Not the script.
Bingo! Works for me!

Now since you seem to be a supporter of the gasoline/poison in the bottle theory, what IN THE FILM, indicates it's not filled with whisky?





-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

But hey, I can play. Let's suppose it is not the Pub area in the last scene. It's some other room. Your weak argument is still laughable, "The script said it was the pub area and it wasn't so therefore we must disregard anything the script says."


Nah it just demonstrates that the script is not necessarily the film.

You need to let that argument go, it's pathetically weak. You're claiming, "Technically the script doesn't tell the actors who is a Thing until they actually get to that page number where it tells them who became a thing."


One of the enduring things about this film is how fans and actors alike enjoy the ambiguity that the ending provides. That it's not certain if either or both the remaining men are human or alien.

It would be pretty strange for a movie to have an ambiguous conclusion and have it acknowledged by those involved, if they had a script that explains the true nature of the survivors but the dialogue and the stage direction goes out of it's way not to drop any definitive clues.

Short answer to you chum. Mac produces a whisky bottle. Your script may say "a bottle of scotch". The movie shows a whisky bottle without defining its actual contents. So, you see. We're talking about the movie. You're talking about the script.


"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

gorch: "blah, blah, blah, ...generalize....blah, blah, blah


Quit changing the subject at hand.........

Reminder, you said.....
We're discussing what's in the film. Not the script.


I repeat.....
What IN THE FILM, indicates it's not filled with whisky?





-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

Where in the film does it confirm that the contents are whisky?

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

That didn't answer my question.......at all.

I repeat......

What IN THE FILM indicates the bottle does not contain whisky?







-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

Yeah I know. You're asking me to confirm a negative.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

Failed to answer = poorly thought out fan fiction. 





-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

What is there in the film that precludes us from thinking about or discussing the unconfirmed contents of the bottle?

You appear to be struggling with the concept of theories.

What IN THE FILM, indicates it's not filled with whisky?


You're thinking about a different, unambiguous film from The Thing. We're talking about areas that are left unresolved, undefined and therefore fair game and open for discussion and theories. Like "What if it's not whisky we assume it to be in the bottle? How does that affect the final scene?" - cue theories, discussion, enjoyment etc.

Comprende? Or do you need a film to literally tell you that it's being ambiguous, and explicitly instruct you to ponder a mystery before you start thinking?



"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

You appear to be struggling with the concept of theories.
You appear to be struggling with the concept of the obvious. I already recognized it as theories in this thread, but apparently that just doesn't sink in to you. Apparently you are required to be told several times from me to penetrate that thick mass of ignorance of yours.

You're thinking about a different, unambiguous film from The Thing. We're talking about areas that are left unresolved, undefined and therefore fair game and open for discussion and theories. Like "What if it's not whisky we assume it to be in the bottle? How does that affect the final scene?" - cue theories, discussion, enjoyment etc.
And once again here I am having to repeat to you. You can't seem to maintain a hold on the flow of a conversation. You may have a condition, might be worthwhile you mention that to your nurse today.


Not a thing wrong with creating fan fiction. But.......as I already stated...... I see a poorly thought out fan fiction, I state why, which I did. It wasn't even addressed to you, it was addressed to the OP, but you got your feelings hurt over it anyway.

You repeatedly fail to answer a very simple question, hence it's a poorly thought out fan fiction.

You don't have a clue how to create fan fiction and probably have no business venturing there. You mentioned earlier, "where's the confirmation it's whisky?"

This is an idiotic approach to build fan fiction only kids would attempt. It would be like you saying, "R. J. MacReady does not have a penis. My proof: Never once do they show his penis. So I am right, now all of you try to prove me wrong."

Going by your idiotic logic, then Mac didn't pour whisky in his computer, right? According to you moronic thinking, they never once confirmed in that scene it was indeed whisky in that Scotch bottle.

Either you are incredibly too stupid to see this, or you do see this and you're just wanting to sooth your butt sting over me embarrassing you in the other thread.

I'm guessing you're still bitter over me shredding your daft logic in the 51 film thread. But I will at least credit you for not dragging in your sock puppet marmaduke in this thread. That restraint must have been quite taxing for you considering countless times in countless forums in countless threads he always miraculously appears to have your back.

See! You can indeed lose gracefully without the crutch of a fake buddy incessantly offering you phony endorsements.



-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

You're still asking for proof of a negative in order prove a theory and therefore validate it being expressed. Neither of which I'm obligated to do, since its merely an idea. You're confusing theory with thesis.

I don't expect or particularly desire it to be proved. Or for anyone to subscribe to it.

I'm afraid the onus is still on you to provide the one thing in the film that means the idea should not have been contemplated in the first place.

The movie is only about 2 hours long and you've had more than a day so I'll assume the thing that's in the film which is or should have been an obstacle to this conversation having ever started can't be found.

Thanks for thinking about it. Next time find the write thread to bring your analytical hang ups to though.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

You're still asking for proof of a negative in order prove a theory. ..I'm afraid the onus is still on you to provide the one thing in the film that means the idea should not have been contemplated in the first place.
You're too thick to understand the concept of fan fiction. You propose a theory and offer an indicator to support that theory. No indicator was offered, it's out of the blue lacking one single indicator....just like someone claiming Mac doesn't have a penis.

There is no onus on me, I offered no theory to be questioned. You are one blithering idiot. But then you showed you are an idiot early on with your belief the actors didn't know who became a thing despite reading the script. Or you are actually stupid enough to believe the actors do not bother reading the script.

Next time find the write thread
Next time find the "right" thread to pamper your bitterness, you once again failed miserably in this one. 





-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

[deleted]

This loser can't even keep track of what he claims.....

First he claims......

We're discussing what's in the film.


Then he does a 180 and claims......
Starting from an unknown is entirely valid.





Anyone has the right to propose any fan fiction, but that doesn't give it a free pass from being criticized....and that's exactly what I did. And you have been boohooing about it since.

Pretty obvious by now you have no issue with criticism on the OP's proposed theory. You're were just looking for an excuse to lash out at me for embarrassing you so bad in the other thread.



-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

In the film, there's no confirmation of the bottle's contents.

Bye.


"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

In the film, there's no confirmation of the bottle's contents.

Bye.
Going by this retards' logic, gorch is actually stupid enough to believe what Mac poured in his computer was NOT whisky! LOL!



-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

Does Mac pouring hus drink into the computer cone before or after it's established that the men are using whisky bottles to make molotov cocktails?

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[deleted]

Did Mac laugh at the end because he filled the bottle with fuel/poison?


by king_of_bob » Sun Feb 7 2016 11:16:45

Nonsense.







-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have no idea who Gorch is, if you want me to prove it somehow I will. I haven't posted before because I just made my IMDb account recently, and tbh I don't spend much time on this site except to keep track of movies that I want to watch and movies that I have watched.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well. I tried.

reply

Why do you even watch movies if your logic is this off? Why not just read the script if you do not allow yourself to interpret on what you see?

...And by the way, earlier, you mentioned that everything is always known to the cast and always is in the script. Well this is not exactly true. A good example of this is the film "the Usual Suspects" (you might have heard of it) where none of the cast knew who was actually Keiser Sose until after filming the movie, despite of it being one of the most important factors (if not the most) to the story.

reply

by Robin_Koeman » Sat Dec 26 2015 09:41:20
Did Mac laugh at the end because he filled the bottle with fuel/poison?



by king_of_bob » Sun Feb 7 2016 11:16:45

Nonsense. There's no reason for either of them to worry anymore because they're both definitely going to freeze out there in no time.

There is no reason to think that. So no.


by king_of_bob » Wed Jun 15 2016 03:54:27

Even if it was gas, what would be the point of feeding it to Childs? There are Thing cells all over the camp. Even if you destroy every infected cell in Childs body(assuming he is infected), there's still cells everywhere.


by ccr1633 » Sat Dec 26 2015 20:53:29

Nah. It was a chuckle of recognition shared between two guys who knew the game was over and their situation completely hopeless.


by Degree7 » Sun Dec 27 2015 12:35:28

why Mac would share a drink with a potential shape shifting alien is a little puzzling.


 Oh dear, look at all these members criticizing your precious fan fiction. Oh my, King of Bob called that fan fiction, "nonsense." Are you going to just sit back and let your retarded theory be attacked like that? How dare him!

You better get busy blasting your tantrums to them also, yes? 








-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

Nope. I don't have a problem with other people's theories. Why would I be annoyed that they don't see it that way?

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Not literal "Poison" , but poison to the Thing = alcohol

reply

The bottle may not have been a test,

But the only logical stance is you're Macready is assume Childs is a thing. And thus that's the stance we have to take as well. Not to mention there a number of good reasons to conclude that.

reply

There is nothing wrong with theories etc but the "you can cant see Child's breath" or "its petrol in the bottle" really is nonsense based on zero evidence. Whether you believe they both are, one is or both are not Things is down to the person. But the only hints to either of those theories is the dialogue and the proceeding 100 minutes.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Childs must be assumed to be a thing.

It's really not that complex. There are pieces of evidence which of course don't confirm that he is, but lend strong suspicion that he is. Regardless though, he still must be assumed to be one.

reply

Yeah I remember reading a few years back an interview with Carpenter himself, sorry can't cite it forget where it was, discussing the scene you mention above. Carpenter expressed surprise that many viewers hadn't noticed the clue to the truth about Childs. In the scene, we see Macready, heavy breathing being knackered having blown the camp to pieces, breathing out lots of water vapour, yet when Childs arrives after what is presumably a hefty walk in all his thermal gear, no visible breath for the duration of the scene. So Childs isn't breathing ergo, he is a Thing. Check it out, you can see it so.

That or Macready is hallucinating from drinking gasoline 😉

reply

I just re-viewed the movie, Matthew, and I agree.

I noticed the "no vapor" right away, and hadn't read your statement 'til just now.

Given the tone of the movie, ambiguity adds to the spice. But I actually expected to see a Husky running away from the flaming camp interspersed with the credits.

reply

There's absolutely no evidence that alcohol = poison to the thing.

So this theory is just completely imaginary.

reply

Most posters here seem to forget, if they ever knew, that the Thing could read minds. Go back and read the original short story, Who Goes There, by John Campbell. The story clearly shows the Thing has ESP. That's why it is always one step ahead of its pursuers. The mind reading capability is only hinted at in the movie but it is there. So at the end, if either Mac or Childs was a Thing, it would immediately know if the other was human or not. If both were human or both were Things, they would not attack each other. If one was human and the other a Thing, the Thing would assimilate the human. Since neither attacks the other, they are either both human or both Things. When Mac says, "Why don't we just wait here for a little while, see what happens", he's either using gallows humor knowing that they're both going to freeze to death or he means, let's wait until the rescue team comes and thaws us out.

https://archive.org/stream/WhoGoesThere_414/WhoGoesThere.txt

reply

Another theory is that it was just water and they drink water and then talk and stuff.

reply

Honestly, I always simply assumed that both Mac and Childs were human at the end. Mac definitely has a reason to suspect Childs (at first), but there's only two of them left. If one of them was The Thing there wouldn't be any need for posturing - One would simply attack the other.

reply

That is true - one would attack the other, I guess.

reply