Anybody else think


Mac was a Thing? I think he was the one who destroyed the blood samples, and from that moment put in motion plans to eliminate the rest of the crew.
Any thoughts?

reply

I kind of always thought so but it's all circumstantial.

reply

I don't think either was the thing.plus he would have attacked childs at the end when they were alone. Besides why would he have tipped off everyone on how to detect the thing if that were so?

reply

if the thing is one singular super-organism, that means only one piece of it really needs to live. And if it assimilates completely the organisms it encounters, including personality and intellect, then it kind of makes sense that Mac-version of the thing would foster paranoia in the rest of the crew to ensure its ultimate survival. Mac was already considered a leader, and was presumably quite intelligent.

On rewatching this movie last night, the idea just came to me. I'm not sure when he is assimilated, but it happens early on--before the tape-recorder scene (though I think he could have been infected in that scene by the torn up shirt...).

Watching the movie with this possibility in mind--which had never before occurred to me--puts the film in a totally different light.

I guess really I'm just praising the ambiguity of this film. Seen it multiple times and I'm still intrigued by new possibilities each time.

reply

I don't think it is likely Mac is a thing for a number of reasons. First being the blood test scene, my favorite scene. We see him take his blood and everyone elses directly from the cut fingers to the heated wire and his did not react. So up to that point at least he is not a thing.

Also there has been much discussion on the last scene between Childs and Mac, and I think the director even confirmed that Childs is a thing and Mac is still human. Because 1. we see Mac's breath in the air childs we do not 2. childs ear ring is missing 3. Mac's reaction to him taking a drink from the bottle suggest he knows but can't do anything.

But it is an interesting thought none the less that all of it was Mac/Thing's plan all along.

reply

if we consider all the media they released and/or planned to release (comics, games, tv series ..etc), so far all the outcomes have been consider: each of them, both of them and neither. as far as i know at least.

reply

Well correct me if I am wrong but I thought I read somewhere that the film's writer and director verified that Child's is a thing at the end and Mac is not. I could be remembering incorrectly so I wish someone would verify this, i don't feel like looking it up so hopefully someone else already has a link.

reply

But what if the blood scene is a red herring? Or a 'sacrifice' of sorts (as in a chess move, which we see Mac playing at the beginning).

Also, based on the logic of the scene, the thing defends itself from harm. So wouldn't cutting its finger alone be enough to cause some sort of reaction?

But, if Mac is indeed a thing, then it's possible none of what he says is true, adding further depth to his/it's elaborate ruse--I.e a chess sacrifice--misleading the enemy...

reply

I don't see how it is possible to be a red herring unless the thing can fully control each individual one of its cells. Which is not what the film suggest as far as I can see. It seems they function more independently which is why they have the ability to act 'against' each other. Unless the thing has full control and can think nearly infinite moves ahead I do not think that is likely. Possible of course.

Depends on what at a cellular level it 'interprets' as harm. Cutting the finger does not cause damage at a cell level, burning it would.

It does add an interesting extra possible depth. But it does not make logical sense. If mac was a thing in the scene were they were all tied up he could have just assimilated all of them there at will. why go through the elaborate show of the blood test when they are tied up and helpless. So IMO though it adds an interesting possibility of elaborate scheming by the creature, it would ruin the logic of that scene; which as I said is my favorite scene in the film so it would somewhat ruin the movie for me. Which is why I might be less willing to consider your suggestion.

reply

You make some valid points. In order for my theory to work there would have to be some kind of collective consciousness thing going on, or the thing would have to be able to control different parts of itself independently--like down to each individual cell, and the film does not outright say this, it was just conjecture on my own part.

Also, I am definitely not trying to ruin the movie for anyone--that scene is one of the best and most iconic horror scenes ever no matter how one chooses to interpret it. Same goes for the movie as a whole.

I thank you for your discourse.

reply

Hey no problem, thanks for the discussion. It was fun to speculate on the possible.

I always like to be challenged to in terms of thinking in logical analysis. Movies provide a good medium for analysis.

Cheers. :)

reply

Cheers!

reply

But what if the blood scene is a red herring? Or a 'sacrifice' of sorts (as in a chess move, which we see Mac playing at the beginning).


But how would that be a good stradegy for the thing. Every one is pretty much captured at that point. If the blood diliberatly reacted to the hot wire (when it didn't need too) then it just gave up some of its own for no reason. IE what did the thing gain at that point. Most of the team was tied up except for nauls and MacReady. In chess it makes sense to sacrifice a pawn for a knight but what is the profit in this transaction for the thing to fake a vulnerability or at worse intentionally reveal a real vulnerability when its already holding all the cards. At the point its not playing to win.

On the other hand if the thing is vulnerable to not giving up its extra cells then it looses even more by revealing its weakness to the team. Why would an infected MacReady dothat.

reply

That is the premise of the whole film. If your feeling like you don't trust MacReady even after he's demonstrated altruistic behavior then the movie is doing its job in making you paranoid about who is the thing. Logically it doesn't make sense for him being the thing but emotionally you don't trust anyone,

reply

I agree with you regarding the premise of the film. It's mood certainly breeds a feeling of paranoia in the viewer (myself admittedly included). But I have to disagree with your point regarding the 'chess sacrifice'. In chess, a good sacrifice also takes into account position. A piece is only as powerful as its position, and I feel like that element of the sacrifice must be taken into account regarding this situation.
Of course, this idea still relies on the presumption that the Thing(s)--though in separate physical forms--are somehow connected and able to communicate and conspire with each other.
I was thinking that, since they are a part of the same cellular organism, perhaps they could share between themselves the characteristics/knowledge of anyone (or anything) they've assimilated by simple skin to skin contact, such as a handshake or maybe by simply bumping into each other, and therefore be able to conspire with one another to foster a false sense of security in any of the un-assimilated crew. Hence, a sacrifice for 'position'.
But this is simply conjecture on my part.
However, if the Thing IS just one organism spread out through different hosts, this may be possible...

reply

But thats what I'm asking you. How can the thing get in a better position if its already got every one tied up? Why the pretense of faking a vulnerability or at worse divulging a real weakness?

reply

I think it's because the thing doesn't like to take chances. It only assimilates a single person at a time--an isolated member of the team--throughout the film. So even having everyone tied up was not enough for it to feel safe enough to assimilate one of them. It would be totally exposed. And what if someone got loose during the process?
The better position would be to fool the others into believing that it (Mac) could not possibly be a thing, therefore ensuring its survival in at least one form while widdling down the rest of the crew.

reply

That still requires it to take an even greater risk by trying to pull a ruse which would depend on the nievity of the rest of the team. If it wanted to insure just one survived it would have just killed every one at that point. I think you just want Mac to be the thing cause it makes the story more interesting in your opinion.

reply

I agree.

reply

No, Childs is likely the Thing.

reply