who knows? he could've just been seen something that he maybe THOUGHT was Blair and followed. it's easy to spot something you can't see out in those cold blizzards. OR Childs could have been infected, but i just find it highly unlikely because Blair-thing had extremely little time to take him over. I mean, it was only what, 5 or so minutes? i dont think Blair-thing could've taken over Childs, then Childs-thing gets ALL of his equipment back on to go out and confuse the rest of the crew in that amount of time.

i think so, childs was a tough and careful man , so with the flamethrower i dont think that the thing took over him, i still think childs was clean at the end. 8)

would the Childs Thing at the end burn Mac if he was human? probably not due to its need to assimilate and better its chances to survive. Of course if Childs was still human he might not burn him either. but just a thought. If I was Childs, and I was still human at the end I would have burned Mac in a second just to be sure of the survival of the human race. I could live with the mistake. Incedently I think human Childs would have thought exactly the same way, referencing his "Well then we're wrong" type mindset.

I don't think either of them were things. I do think, however, that there was still at least a small part of the thing living at the end, somewhere. On another note, I've heard several people say Childs couldn't be infected because his clothes aren't ripped, but doesn't Blair say the thing can replicate even your clothes?

I wonder if JC will ever release another version of The Thing with this so-called alternate ending that was discussed in the bonus commentary. maybe the studio will triple-dip us Thing fans and include it in some 30th anniversary edition.

I say that they should've already released a 25th anniversary edition. I can't wait for 2012 for a special edition!

I don't know about Childs but I SURE AS HELL WASN'T.

I like to believe that both are still humans. It makes me feel better because i feel that they both deserved it. But because the filmmakers chose this kind of ending with no one surviving the camp. And that the viewer never will know if childs was infected or not i believe that childs was the thing. When i watch this scene when childs meets mac theres just something about childs that makes me feel suspicious about him. The way he acts, talks. You clearly see that mac says like his confident that childs was up to something. Where where you Childs? Childs = I thought i saw blair, got lost in the storm. Just oozes with him being infected.

But Mac was definitely not infected. Period. Theres absolutely no question about it. I cant believe why someone would think that mac could be infected. Its ridiculous.

I don't think Mac was infected because he seemed surprised that Child's was alive. Therefore Mac or Mac-thing believed it was alone. If Mac were a Thing, I'm not sure it would have gone to the trouble of putting on clothes or a blanket although I do believe a Thing just might get a bottle of J&B (I don't think The Thing can replicate clothing, but I could be wrong. I don't remember Blair saying that). It would have just gone to sleep. Childs on the other hand... I have to agree with autopilot that Childs would have roasted Mac if Childs had been human, no questions asked. In my mind, he was infected and again, biding his time. Which doesn't make for a good outlook for Mac, unfortunately. Or the human race for that matter...

I know it's no a popular opinion, but ever since I saw this in 82 I assumed Mac was infected at the end, probably during the fight with Blair. Yeah I know, the clothes and everything would be inconsistent, and I get the counter arguments. The thing that always got me was the way Mac is watching Childs like a hawk during the conversation. However as soon as Childs drinks from the bottle Mac passes to him, he (Mac) chuckles a bit, rests his head on the barrel, and closes his eyes. I figured Childs was infected by the saliva, and Mac/thing felt it could relax and wait to freeze, now that the guy with the flame thrower was shortly going to be playing for the same team. Of course I'm also assuming that being exposed to a small amount of Thing cells would mean a more gradual takeover. Any way you slice it though, there are plenty of subtle clues to suggest either, neither, or both of them could be...um...either.

I must first of all excuse if I make some language mistakes, since I am not a natural English speaker. I think that you can look at this matter yet from another angle, which was so far only vaguely touched but is very important for the creators of the film. I mean the dramatic point of view. It's common that you foreshadow or symbolize some important actions in the end already earlier in a good film. I am referring here to the scene when Mac plays chess. This is the first scene where we see him. This is where we get to know him. He is fighting a monstrous adversary (computer), is convinced that he defeated it only to realize moments later that it was him who was defeated (basically because of Mac's own bad move). Then he pounds alcohol into it. Now this scene has no significance in any scientific way but is crucial on the dramatic level, since, as I already wrote, it is the scene which introduces the character. Now, in contrast to this, specualations about blood -*test*-('") manipulation or about that the thing could infest slowly with few tissue an organism instead of taking it over violently are not supported by the film itself or by more scenes underlining the relevance of this potential interpretations. Especially the claim that the thing is more of a disease and can already infest people with a little potion is never verified - instead it is very unplausible because why would the thing then attack anyone at all, if it could just infect everyone slowly and wait some time? In a dramatic interpretation it makes anyway no sense since a slow infection is boring, not visual etc. so I think it was not intended to give the thing the ability to operate in this way or letting it being relevant. Let's for a moment assume the thing cannot infect people by simple defiling or touch. Then this scene must have another sense, which again cannot be to simply create fear and confusion, since we never face a dramatic scene like for example people running out of food and being scared about what they can still eat. Such a scene does not exist. Once again, what could be the sense of this scene? I believe the intention is just to give Mac a possibility to find out that Childs is a thing. Since the thing can take over humans but probably not their mind completely (at least we never see that it can. Ok, it can interact like ANY human, but does it - in human disguise - ever show access to all areas of the memory of the persons taken over? also, this seems to be very implausible to an average viewer) and given the assumption thet the thing does also make mistakes like for example revealing itself in a clumsy way (Blair) or too early as we can see, it is very well possible that Mac realizes Childs is the thing because Childs drinks from the bottle (which Childs should not have done, since he knew most probably it was forbidden). So lets assume, Mac thinks he won, sees Childs, is convinced that Childs is the thing, while Childs cannot kill him since Mac is (maybe) equipped still with dynamite and now Mac realizes he has lost because he has destroyed the base and will freeze to death while thing will just wait. This situation of being not actively killed but being... stalemated bears a close resemblance to chess anyway. At last Mac has clarity (in his opinion) when Childs drinks and Mac therefore gets cynical. That would be an almost exact repetition of the scene in the beginning. Of course, it would still be possible Childs is not a thing and Mac only thinks he is, but this would contradict the chess computer scene, where the computer is really and in fact the enemy. Why, if computer was a true "monster" should it then be different in the end with Childs? That would be a sort of anticlimax where the claim is not fulfilled. We can not tell if Childs is really the thing but my speculation is that beyond leaving an open end, the director and author wanted to give a hint into the direction in which they would interpret their own film.

Alot of people have presented interesting theorys in this thread both for and against one or the other, or both Childs and MacReady being infected and has been a fun thread to read over the course of its posting history. Personally i don't believe that either are infected. For one i think thats part of the irony of the film, both men survive the infection/battle only to die from the elements. And second Mac offering Childs the whiskey bottle seems to me to be a -*test*-('") of his humanity. Can the Thing even ingest alcohol ? Would the thing know how to respond to the offering of a drink ? We never see the infected engaging in use of alcohol or drugs after they have been assimilated. That is also why i believe that Palmer is not the first infected and is in fact assimilated much later. Early we see him smoking pot all the time. then suddenly he stops and begins to act strange in a very subtle way. The foreshadowing of the computer chess game to me is evidence of childs' humanity as well. At the start of the film Mac loses to the computer (enemy) and pours his drink into it. The computer shorts out and creates a obvious reaction. At the end Mac tries the same tactic with Childs (suspected enemy) and nothing happens, this is why Mac laughs to himself because his suspicions have been proven false because Childs is in fact, human.