Only John Carpenter knows who’s the Thing at the end of The Thing
“I know who’s the Thing and who’s not in the very end.”
Aux News Thing
Don’t get it twisted: John Carpenter knows who is the Thing at the end of The Thing, and he’s not telling.
The Thing ends on one of the great open-ended conclusions in movie history when the director fades out on the two survivors of the alien’s shape-shifting, rib-cracking, goopy-as-all-hell attack in the icy tundra of Antarctica. Like 1982’s other beloved sci-fi movie with an inconclusive finale regarding who is and who is not a human, Blade Runner, everyone has a theory on what happened once the credits roll. Well, it’s time to put away childish things like plot tidiness because John Carpenter is here to chew bubblegum and debunk theories—and he’s all out of bubblegum.
The most prominent theory is the “Eye Gleam,” an idea popularized by Thing cinematography Dean Cudney. Again, similar to Blade Runner, the theory posits that a specific light is visible in the eyes of bodies inhabited by the Thing. At the end of the film, the character Childs (Keith David) has an eye gleam and MacReady (Kurt Russell) does not. Hence, Childs is the Thing if one follows Cudney’s logic, but, according to John Carpenter, Cudney’s “full of shit,” man. Only Carpenter knows the truth.
“He has no clue,“ Carpenter told ComicBook.com. “Yes, I know. I know who’s the Thing and who’s not in the very end.”
“[Dean Cundey] doesn’t know. He has no idea. He puts the lights up. He puts the lights up, and we were in the snow. He has no clue. You tell him that. Tell him he’s full of shit.”
As for whether he’s willing to share the answer with us, that’s a “Nope.” John Carpenter, who is promoting his Peacock series John Carpenter’s Suburban Screams, “cannot tell” the interviewer who the Thing is. “Sorry.”
We’re going to go out on a limb here and say that it’s a good thing that Carpenter keeps this to himself. At the very least, we know he’s not the Thing, so there’s nothing to worry about, right?
81 Comments
Cudney
three Cudneys and a Cundey in this story
Getting someone’s name wrong is a pretty Cundey thing to do.
DAMNIT JERRY
This fucking website.
He’s also called a cinematography…
“Eye gleam”?MacReady -breathes-! Childs doesn’t!(Okay, there’s a couple bits where Childs’ breath can be seen, but it almost looks like an accident; sometimes you have to take the budget into account.)
The best one I heard is that Childs would never take a sip out of MacReady’s flask if he was human.
I saw a video recently that pointed out the change in behavior of childs as the basis for him being the thing. All through the movie he was animated and worked up, but not at the end.That could be just the tone of the ending, knowing they were stranded, but the video laid out all the previous infections where the character became more docile once they became the thing. It made sense.I’m sad the gleam thing isn’t real. I thought it was a brilliant move by Carpenter and it actually detracts from the greatness of the film that he debunked it.
I don’t think he’s a reliable source on this- he has no reason to tell the truth here. He’s clearly being funny when he says to tell Dean Cundey he’s full of shit (ok, maybe he’s just being curmudgeonly John Carpenter).
But either way, it’s not like he’s going to come out after 40 years and say “ok, you got me, you figured it out”, when he knows the whole fun-not to mention the point of the fucking ending- is that you can’t know who the Thing is.
Yeah, and in fact, from a “defending the legacy of my film” perspective, this is the canniest thing he could say. Because let’s face it, the real answer is “it’s left deliberately ambiguous because that uncertainty is scarier than a definitive answer would have been.” But if he comes out and says that, it throws a bucket of cold water on the discussion. “There is totally an answer, but nobody’s cracked it yet. Keep overanalyzing individual frames, nerds!” encourages another forty years of debating it. He may or may not have a preferred conclusion in mind, but not only is there no reason to share it with us, he’s lightly incentivized to pretend it exists even if it doesn’t.
Exactly. It’s why people still debate what Maureen O’Hara says to John Wayne at the end of The Quiet Man.
Here’s the interesting thing that seems to go unnoticed concerning the ending: what if the Thing is really, truly dead? Let me explain.
Earlier in the movie, when they do the blood test, The Thing immediately begins responding to any damage done to its blood even when the blood is outside of the human host. At the end of the movie, McCready kills the final “big” Thing (pretty conclusively), but Childs isn’t around him when it happens. After that, Childs shows up.
Here’s the thing, at no other point in the movie did The Thing ever function with multiple independent “Things” going after multiple people. It only went after one person (or animal) at a time. This is important, because otherwise, the smartest thing for assimilation would’ve been to simply split into multiple parts and going after people simultaneously (this stands out because it would’ve been easy for the Dog Thing to quietly assimilate the other dogs, and then once they’re all released, assimilate multiple people at the same time. Instead, it formed a chimeric, gigantic dog thing, a singular large entity instead of multiple, smaller entities). Because of that, I don’t think Childs could be the Thing at the end, because he wasn’t physically around the final “big” Thing when it got destroyed (McCready would’ve seen him otherwise, and that explosion would’ve killed Childs much easier than The Thing anyways). Since The Thing cannot function as multiple, independent entities at the same time (it will always try to reform from serious damage instead of, as I said earlier, splitting into multiple smaller “Things” to assimilate entities simultaneously), I don’t believe there’s a period of time where Childs could’ve been assimilated (otherwise, he would’ve been part of the final “big” Thing). This is also why we don’t see an independent Nauls Thing at the end, even though we know he’s been assimilated.
That’s why I think The Thing is actually fully killed by McCready in the explosion, and the ending is less about who is The Thing, and more McCready and Childs realizing that they’re both gonna die in a miserable setting on Antarctica because they’ve destroyed all of their communications to the outside world, and there’s no transportation off of the continent. Ain’t shit else to do but drink some J&B, and die.
So, I think Carpenter has been fucking with people all these years, knowing that The Thing is truly dead from the explosion (and even then, assuming that McCready or Childs is The Thing, its still royally fucked because its still stuck on Antarctica with no way to get off, and presumably, it can’t hibernate in a human host like it could its alien form from earlier in the movie).
Love this.
I’d be glad if the gleam thing isn’t real because it’s basically the same way to tell who’s a Replicant.
I always assumed that the gleam was for the viewer, not something the other characters saw.I thought it was a genius detail the director included but guess not.
Yeah, that’s what I’ve always thought too, although I do like the idea that The Thing is already dead and they’re both just suiciding out of pure paranoia. I’ve never even heard the eye thing before.
Both the sequel game for the PS2 and sequel comics noted both men as fully human at the end.The comics had both men survive and follow up teams cause a whole new ‘Thing’ ‘outbreak’.
The game had that Childs freeze to death and never explained how MacReady got rescued, though it makes sense that he did with the plot. It also had a corporation try to weaponize the ‘Thing’ as a virus before someone screwed up containment procedures.
And Carpenter had a cameo in the game.
I forgot about that. Man, I loved that game.
My theory is that Mac is The Thing. Earlier in the movie he drinks from a bottle of vodka and offers it to Blair. It’s shot in a way that makes you wonder for a moment if Mac is The Thing. You even see Blair eye it suspiciously. So next time Mac offers the bottle he’s The Thing. Childs still has an earring in, and we’ve been told it can’t recreate inorganic matter.
You can see light reflecting off Childs’ earring at times at the end in the final scene. So that means he’s not the Thing as it rejected anything non-organic it couldn’t replicate.It’s certainly not because the thought of taking it out for that last scene regardless of whether he’s the thing or not never occurred to the production team at the time which is the most likely explanation.
The beauty of this open-ended finale is that it feels like the perfect setup for literally every possible scenario regarding whether one, both, or neither are “things” right then.But rather than follow through on any of those possibilities, it instead ends at the right moment to let your mind fill in the rest. Just brilliant.
For the record, I’m a fan of the theory that might honestly be the darkest, which is that both of them are completely human… but because of the reasonable paranoia of what they just went through, they’ll never, ever know that, and so they’ll just freeze to death.The end. 🙂
And the brilliance of the movie is that your interpretation is one of several completely consistent with what has been shown.
EXACTLY. And that’s why the ambiguity of the ending as is rules so much. Leaves room for several possibilities that are completely consistent with what has been shown. (good job finding a more concise way to put that, by the way. I was trying to say something similar in my original comment, but sometimes I struggle with brevity).
Wait, but even if they were each somehow sure that neither of them were Things aren’t they fucked anyway? As I recall they burnt their only shelter and all the vehicles had been disabled.
This is my read of it too. They’re both human and strongly suspect as much. They know however, that because the communications equipment and transport have all been compromised beyond repair, they are beyond help or rescue and so decide to die as noble friends, sharing the last of the liquor and comprehending the gravity of what they’d just encountered and defeated; an active, malevolent, complex life form from elsewhere, which is comparatively a much more significant issue than their impending deaths.
Yeah, they decided on this when the three guys go out to get Blair in the shed, they realize he/the thing has escaped. MacReady says something like “none of us are getting out of here alive” and “it wants to freeze so a rescue team will find it”. That’s when they decide to try to burn the thing up by torching the whole camp.
Yep. Even if neither of them is a Thing, it’s not like they have a shelter to mull it over and survive the day, so most likely, their suspicion will just keep them in place and they’ll freeze to death.
The ending actually is that they are Highlanders and it slips seamlessly into Highlander IV.
How many authors do I have to kill before you people understand the concept of “death of the author”?
It’s not the ‘60s any more. That fad has passed.
You’ve written a comment, and are therefore technically an author, and are now on my to-do list.
That is hilarious.
Do Dan Brown next.
*ka-click*
Six. But they have to be the RIGHT authors.
So much for pulling names out of a hat.
There’s an incredible amount of pop culture criticism and commentary including on this site that absolutely does not understand death of the author but OTOH will argue intent doesn’t matter. It’s a fascinating contradiction and I’m never sure if the people who do both are aware of the inconsistency or not.
All of them!
So basically John Carpenter is a walking time capsule who upon his passing has made arrangements to finally spill the beans? Hopefully??
“I know who the Thing is, because that film was a documentary. And that’s why the entity that’s claiming to be Kurt Russell is no longer welcome in my house.”
“At first I thought it would try to kill me and take over my body, but it turns out it just wants to mooch beer and tacos, which is why Russell is no longer invited to game night.”
https://www.theonion.com/the-events-depicted-in-star-wars-actually-happened-to-1819584868
“Highlander was a documentary, and it was shot in real time” – Master Shake
The ambiguity of the ending is the entire point. It could be anyone. Carpenter knows that. Film is the most emotional medium and the best never need to tell you exactly what to think or take away. All art is open to interpretation.
Or no one.
Exactly.
One thing that I’ve learned is that a great many people are very uncomfortable with ambiguity in movies. They have to know the answer, solve the puzzle, figure out what’s “real” or else they feel cheated. I find it disappointing that people can’t accept mystery, but I suppose it’s a human thing to want to have closure.It’s like Blade Runner, on whether Deckard is a replicant or not, the only answer is: maybe.
I grew to love the end of Inception for the exact same reason. It doesn’t matter that you don’t know if the top keeps spinning or not. In that movie, it truly didn’t matter.We audiences seek “closure” way too much in American movies.
I’m okay with ambiguity sometimes, sometimes I just want a movie/TV to have definitive answers, I suppose it depends on the media and what it makes me feel throughout, or just my general mood going in.It’s very human to want closure, actual, real life is always ambiguous, so sometimes people just want things to be definitive. I mean I guess that’s how I feel about it, other people could want non-ambiguity for other more simple reasons.
Sure, I understand. What I’m saying is that sometimes ambiguity is a deliberate choice – the ambiguity is literally the point, and it would be nice if the audience would reflect on that, and consider why that choice was made, instead of complaining that it’s not more definitive. The human mind expands when it is challenged, and not just given comfort food all the time.
I doubt John Carpenter knows which shoe goes on which foot any more.
That’s actually a condition which happens to folks who live in Antarctica. I saw a documentary about living year ‘round on the continent once, and that was something discussed — just a passing behavioral condition that might hit and a symptom might include trying repeatedly to put your left shoe on your right foot, or something similar, where for a little bit your brain just can’t ger around commanding certain normal functions.
The Thing was dead.They froze to death.Terrifying.
This.
Exactly.
The Thing can only assimilate one entity at a time, and was never shown to assimilate and function with multiple forms of itself. At the end, when McCready kills the final “big” Thing, Childs is nowhere to be found not because he was already assimilated, but because he was on another part of the base. Further, any other time the Thing has been damaged, any other “piece” has tried to reform or assimilate, so if Childs was already assimilated, it would’ve returned to the big Thing when McCready was harming it (just like the blood test caused The Thing to spaz out from damage).
As you said, the gag all along was that McCready killed The Thing, yet him and Childs are doomed to die because all of the comms are down, all of the transportation has been destroyed, their food reserves are toast, and no one knows they’re there. They’re drinking at the end because what the hell else are you gonna do while you freeze to death in the darkness of Antarctica?
…only assimilate one at a time? That’s absolutely not how the Thing works, did you even watch the movie? Literally the scene where Doc gets his arms torn off, the Thing separates its head into two separate entities and during the ENTIRE EVENT there’s a thing watching it all unfold.The whole threat that Blair wanted to avoid was the world being assimilated in rapid fashion.I’m sorry, I can’t even be polite about it, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I need to rewatch it to make sure but the last time I watched it I thought I noticed that any time someone is verified to be the Thing that they don’t talk.
Parker talks about blowing away Mac when he’s trapped outside, before the blood test. It’s possible he was turned after Mac came in but I don’t know where it would get the chance.
Doesn’t MacReady mumble under his breath, “It’s Clobberin’ Time”, before offering up the flask?
I seem to remember on the DVD commentary track for The Thing Carpenter saying that he probably knew which one of them was the thing when he filmed the last scene but he didn’t remember
It certainly sounds like he doesn’t remember.
And honestly, it’s better that way. Some mysteries should remain mysterious forever.
I know this method comes from the 2011 “The Thing” prequel, but now I need to go back and watch to see if one or both of them have any fillings in their teeth.
Childs has an earring in.
Pretty sure Childs has an earing still in his ear.
The thing (ha) is though… it doesn’t matter. Like, knowing it doesn’t open up any other part of the story. It’s just sort of an “….ok.” thing. Knowing it would be dumb.
Sounds like something THE THING WOULD SAY
SFF/horror author Sam J. Miller wrote a short story that he described as “my fanfic sequel” to “The Thing,” and in it he knows who is and isn’t a Thing. It’s called “Things With Beards.”
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/miller_06_16/
I will go you one better. MUCH better. What if a really good sci-fi author turned the whole idea on it’s head – and decided to tell the story of John Carpenter’s The Thing – from the point of view of the alien… Peter Watts (who is also an actual scientist and awesome person) did that. It ran also in clarksworld – and is free to read too – and possibly one of my favorite horror/sci-fi shorts ever: https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
Peter Watts story is so freaking good. Love the implication he brings that not even people assimilated by the Thing are fully aware what’s happened to them.
That is a fantastic story. I have no idea why I forgot about it! Time for a reread, thanks.
Definitely one of my favorite movies of all time, still creeps me out till this day.
I thought John Carpenter’s The Thing.
Does it actually matter all that much?!? Does know actually improve the movie or its ending in any way? Would the sense of doomed finality in that final scene still register if there was some glaringly obvious sign* that at least one of the last two was the Thing?*In a contemporary version of this, I’m sure this would be acheived with some just-long-enough-for-the-dumdums-to-notice CGI effect on the guilty party.
This was settled in The Thing video game for the PS2 which was a direct sequel to the movie.
“John Carpenter states that the video game is a canon sequel to the original movie, so Childs indeed has never been assimilated and froze to death.”There, now you know
Eh, John Carpenter says a lot of things if there’s money in it for him. It’s one of the reasons why I love the guy so much: he doesn’t even pretend to have a front.“Do you ever get tired of hearing the Halloween theme playing in stores during October?”“Nope. Because all I hear is money falling into my hand.”
Neither MacReady or Childs are the Thing at the end. But neither of them are going to survive long anyway.Fight me.