Great argument! I'm sold.

@Strannger18 said:

MacReady is breathing out freezing water vapor breath like a steam engine. Childs is not. He might not even be breathing.

Earlier on, we see at least one partially assimilated thing breathing mist, but it was still of human body temperature, and still had water vapor in its lungs, and still had lungs, probably, because it was still breathing. It didn't have time to reach ambient temperature. It hadn't time to complete assimilation.

Childs had plenty of time to complete assimilation. And plenty of time to cool to the ambient air temperature, where even if he had lungs with water vapor in them, his breath would not mist.

Plus he drinks the cocktail that could be full of fire fluid.

I figured Childs was turned for three reasons: Childs remark about how warm the compound is after ambushing Mac Gready is almost verbatim what Mac Gready told Nulds and Gary earlier when they planned to "heat things up a bit". If the thing has a hive mind like MacGreadys' theory suggests, then the thing has access to the memories of its hosts. Therefore, Childs would know that Mac Gready told Nulds and Gary that their last hope was to keep the thing from escaping or going into hibernation in the freeaing cold to be found by the rescue team. When asked about his whereabouts, Childs hints that he followed Blair after seeing him outside. Blair had already been turned at that point, was digging a tunnel underneath the cabin and rebuilding the space ship. Blair could have lured Childs outside and then turned him like he did to Nulds and Gary as they were planting the dynomite. Also, it's out of character for Childs demeanor to be relaxed like he's not worried that Mac Gready hasn't turned.

Those are good points and makes sense

Nope....Childs is not the Thing. Childs still has his earrings in his lobes. the Thing cannot replicate inanimate objects and metals. This is further proved by The Thing prequel when the Thing couldn't assimilate metal teeth filling from one of its victims.

I think I read that Carpenter wanted to keep it ambiguous as to who was the thing or if even any of them were infected. Paranoia right up to the very end.

If such is the case then MacReady is one too or going to be one in the near future since he drank from the same battle as Childs.

@RCH2288 said:

Nope....Childs is not the Thing. Childs still has his earrings in his lobes. the Thing cannot replicate inanimate objects and metals. This is further proved by The Thing prequel when the Thing couldn't assimilate metal teeth filling from one of its victims.

Could've taken the earrings and put them in... Learned from previous mistakes... From the shit prequel.

So it evolves it changes it's way how to assimilate humans in the prequel it first does aggressively attacks the humans directly in Carpenter's film it relies more on stealth and imitation.

I thought he was juking a drink. Meaning he smelled it, faked a drink and passed it on

@bluersun said:

@RCH2288 said:

Nope....Childs is not the Thing. Childs still has his earrings in his lobes. the Thing cannot replicate inanimate objects and metals. This is further proved by The Thing prequel when the Thing couldn't assimilate metal teeth filling from one of its victims.

Could've taken the earrings and put them in... Learned from previous mistakes... From the shit prequel.

I should probably add, any theories about Thing 82 based on events from the remake/prequel... requel... premake? should be void... I don't really hate that film, for a fan fiction piece it's remarkably good...

@bluersun said:

@RCH2288 said:

Nope....Childs is not the Thing. Childs still has his earrings in his lobes. the Thing cannot replicate inanimate objects and metals. This is further proved by The Thing prequel when the Thing couldn't assimilate metal teeth filling from one of its victims.

Could've taken the earrings and put them in... Learned from previous mistakes... From the shit prequel.

Exactly because it had already tried hiding evidence that it's a copy before like with the shredded clothing. It could have taken the earrings and put them to be more consistent.

Childs is a Thing at the end. Agreed.

Funny, Keith David--who played Childs--says that the lack of breath wasn't something they planned for. If you want to infer something from an unplanned event, okay, but I don't think there were any intentional "tells" in the film to infer whether or not The Thing survived. They played the scene so that in one version it was clear that they were both human, and in another that you weren't able to tell. Seems to me that Carpenter wanted audiences to remain uncertain.

BTW, if you have a copy of the movie (blu ray is best for clarity), Childs is breathing steam as he walks up to MacReady. When they filmed the close-up you're referring to, no you didn't see any. But I can clearly see shadows of the mist from his breath moving across his upper chest when he steps into view after MacReady sits down. (1:40.00-1:40.15)

As a last point, Childs has a weapon and Mac does not. If Childs were the thing, exactly what would have stopped him from killing Mac to remove that threat?

IMO, they were both human. But that's just an opinion, and not necessarily supported or refuted by the manner in which the scene was filmed.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-thing-at-35-cast-and-crew-clarify-that-famously-ambiguous-ending

https://youtu.be/rNM6FRxSvSM

Further speculation.

Childs was the thing Mac was not it was mentioned (I believe)on the audio commentary with both Russel and Carpenter of the early 2000 special edition DVD ,Russel had a flame thrower on him in that shot and was aiming it at Child's ready to incinerate him at the moment when the film ends.they decided to keep the flame thrower out of the frame so that the ending would be more ambiguous.It's no secret it was always scripted that way.