Now that I know about Carpenter’s stating that the ending is not open-ended (to those who look closely enough), I too would like to know.
I remember (I’m sure it was another Thing thread on the SDMB) Carpenter said something about light not reflecting in the eyes of Things. I also remember, he intentionally did NOT use this sign in the final scene.
RE The Earring
The Thing is smart- whatever it once was, it is now inteligent. It doesn’t just immediately reveal itself and attack after outrunning the Norwegian. Blair says he knows this quite directly. “Ya think that thing wanted to be a dog? It wanted to be us!” Once assimilated, Blair doesn’t risk attacking anybody. He keeps to himself and uses terran technology to build a liferaft ship to get him to a populated area. My point is, the Thing is definitely smart enough to think ‘Childs wears an earing. I should either copy that detail- or pick up his earing and wear it too.’
But do you have the board game?
The Thing is a game that mixes different mechanisms to create an experience that is as faithful as possible to that of the original film. It is a “hidden role” game, in which one player is initially the Thing and the others players are humans. The purpose of the Thing is to infect others, to prevent the survivors from escaping from the base (which can happen three different ways), or to try to escape with them by behaving as a human.
In addition to these elements, players also have to manage Outpost 31. On the map are the same rooms as seen in the film, and each of these rooms allows players to perform a different action. Human players have to feed themselves and keep the boiler and the generator on to avoid being in the cold and dark. The Thing will try to sabotage these places to make life difficult for humans…or not, trying to camouflage itself among the humans and infect them when the perfect opportunity presents itself.
The goal of the game designers was to bring the same personal emotions and paranoia that the protagonists of the film experienced to the gaming table.
No, but I do have the Alien board game.
Did you send the cheque?
Neither is the Thing. No other answer really makes sense.
The cinematographer said that, and just a month ago Carpenter said that he was “full of shit“.
Thank you. I admit my error and sit corrected.
Ain’t no big Thing.
I still find it hard to believe that in 1982 The Thing didn’t do well at the box office and was panned by critics. Roger Ebert in particular thought the characters were one dimensional and behaved unrealistically. It’s been more than 40 years and we’re still talking about The Thing.
I think one issue was “The Thing” was released in close proximity to “ET” and people much preferred the nice alien in ET. The juxtaposition of the two did not work well for “The Thing”.
Anybody else now have visions of The Thing, Extraterrestrial running through their minds? Lil’ Elliot leaving a trail of candy to find a hideous alien who assimilates and copies him?
Roger Ebert was always pretty prudish about sex and violence, unless a movie was artistic (and sometimes even then, see Blue Velvet). That does not surprise me.
This recap of the original reception is pretty interesting
Listening to Carpenter/Russell DVD commentary (which hilarious in parts with Kurt laughing his ass off), they discuss the possibility of whether Childs or McReady had been “thing-ized” but leave the mystery intact.
Absolutely adore this movie. A genuine masterpiece. My take is that the proper ending must be irresolvable in its ambiguity. Part of the brilliance of the film is the escalating paranoia that practically seeps from the screen. In addition to being effective horror, it explores interesting themes about trust and risk.
For me, then, the perfect ending is one where we just cannot know. And I choose to believe the ending is perfect, and that Carpenter is yanking our chains. 
Ain’t nothin’ but a Thang.
We might have an actual answer to this:
Russo noted that MacReady is told about the notion that the creature can replicate at the cellular level, which means that, for their safety, they should only be eating or drinking things that they alone have had contact with. Despite knowing this crucial detail, MacReady shares his liquor with Childs at the end of the film. This could potentially mean MacReady just forgot what he was told, but in Russo’s theory it more likely means he is, in fact, The Thing. "As soon as Childs drinks from the bottle, The Thing has won,” Russo says. “It’s beaten its most skeptical, final threat.”
I dunno, I hear exists at the cellular level, I see 80 proof scotch, and I’m not sure that works.
ETA though the internet tells me that 40% alcohol may not be strong enough
It’s possible, but…Childs was also in the room when they were told to prepare their own food, so he, presumably, also knew of the restriction. Why would Childs accept the bottle from MacReady?
Was Mac just testing Childs?
Some theories suggest at that point all of Mac’s liquor bottles had been repurposed for Molotov cocktails and ChildsThing was drinking gasoline.