In a recent interview with John Carpenter on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Carpenter is asked if there is an answer to who (if anyone) is the Thing at the very, very end of the movie. Carpenter says yes, if you watch closely there is an answer but does not tell us. (see interview below…if it does not queue to the right part go to @1:45 for that bit).
I have seen the movie a few times and am still unsure. So, is there an answer to this that I missed?
Also, if you have not seen John Carpenter’s “The Thing” stop reading this now, go watch it and come back (unless you will never watch a horror film ever).
Either neither of them are the Thing, or both of them are.
That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it.
This was interesting,
You should be a politician. 
As president my first act will be to construct a flying saucer in a service shed and launch it so as to absorb all organic matter on this planet into myself.
Also I will keep Social Security solvent and I will solve the problem of illegal immigration by consuming and assimilating all immigrants.
When I was a kid, it was school yard canon that Childs was the Thing because his breath was not making smoke in the final scene but of course he was also not as well lit and also closer to the fire in the background so that is probably just BS.
I have seen that as well (no breath-steam). I’m not sure that is quite enough but, maybe, it is the little details that matter here. (I get we are all guessing)
One of my favorite films. I like the conclusion being left open-ended. Sometimes questions are better than answers.
The video game confirmed that it was Childs when Kurt Russel’s character shows up late in the game.
Is that canon? (I do not know)
Childs has an earing visible in the final scene. Are we to believe that the thing, after assimilating him found the earing and put it back in place?
There’s two answers.
The comic book sequel (which in interviews Carpenter said he would have adapted if he made a Thing sequel) had both survive and not be things.
The video game (which was endorsed by Carpenter to the point he voiced a character in it) has Childs frozen to death but it’s unknown if he was a thing or not
I love The Thing. I own comic books, the film, the video game (haven’t played yet) and action figures. My take- humanity is doomed regardless. Childs and Mac freeze. Their bodies (as well as others) are found and thawed. The horror begins all over again and inevitably, the Thing makes it to civilization and assimilates everybody
I get that but, if you want to believe the director, he says there is a definitive answer.
I get it may be more fun to not know (but I want to know).
Seems similar to Invasion of the Body Snatchers (inasmuch as people are assimilated and there is no way to stop it).
There’s two problems with this theory. One is that it makes spotting a thing super easy, because they’d have a radically different physiology even when disguised as a human - either they don’t have any body temperature (so their exhalation is the same temperature as the outside air) or they don’t actually breath at all. Either would be really obvious tells about who is and is not infected.
The other is that we see other characters that we know are assimilated, and have visible breath in the cold.
That’s fully believable to me. The Thing can perfectly mimic its assimilated victims, including both mannerisms, and memories, and is canny enough to trick people into not knowing who is and is not infected. If it had taken Childs, it makes absolute sense that after finishing the assimilation, it would check to make sure it hadn’t forgotten any details, including replacing ornamentation like missing earrings, etc.
Will it though?
I thought in the 2011 prequel movie we learn the Thing cannot mimic non-flesh things (like jewelry) and I thought that was a way to identify it (it didn’t know what jewelry to put on or was iffy at best about it or just didn’t have access to unique jewelry).
It doesn’t have to mimic the earring, it just has to use the one that Childs was already wearing when it ate him.
