Can I Still Prove MacReady Is The Thing? Let’s Go Over The Responses

[@Lolaloveslemons]

I thought of something watching this. After Fuchs finds Macs clothes and he's killed offscreen, the clothes aren't at the scene. If the clothing was left to frame Mac, why would that person hide it before Fuchs body was found?? It would have been the perfect set up. Of all places to hide it, why in Macs shed? And not just laying around on the floor, it was STUFFED somewhere as if not to be found. So the clothes go from being a means to frame Mac to being a secret?

[@2DimmMedia]

Seems kind of like that's not the intent at all, right? Edit: finally a comment worth pinning on this video!

[@staxsonsuntoast1639]

@@Lolaloveslemons the things adopted the suspicion of the ppl and started trying to frame each other maybe? maybe that's why macready said F u too,.. hmm

[@michaeldavid6832]

@@staxsonsuntoast1639 They'd naturally each desire to use the others as red herrings. In a desperate survival situation, people can turn on each other pretty quickly. A thing is genetically the same as all others. There would only be a need for one to survive. You can drive your quarry insane chasing monsters around while the one who was most adept would be able to remain hidden. This movie was the ultimate in misdirection.

[@staxsonsuntoast1639]

@@michaeldavid6832 oh cool yeah makes sense

[@Atomic_Aegis45]

It is reasonable to assume that the clothes were hidden in Mac's shed to frame him though... Even if the body was discovered and then the clothes, either way suspicion would fall to Mac. Just another way for The Thing to draw attention away from itself. It wouldn't make any sense for it to draw attention to the person it has replaced, because in the 1982 movie it is acting to protect itself. In the 2011 movie it would definitely do this since that one is just a lesser rehashing of the 82 movie as it was just a slasher. It makes no sense for a creature trying to hide in plain sight to draw attention to himself when they all have proven they will burn the assimilated alive to ensure the thing won't escape. Even at the very end, it is in Character for Mac to hand off his bottle we saw him do it at the start when the guy got shot in the leg(I can't remember the man's name sue me). While yes they did also institute the rule of not sharing food or drink, the facility is burning, at that point it wouldn't matter if the Thing survived, It wouldn't have anywhere to go.

[@morbius_of_krell]

I would describe this film's narrative as "perfectly crafted ambiguousness". It's over 40 years old, and yet even younger generations can still have fun with it. Coming up with theories. Discussing them. Debating them. Insulting and attacking each other over them... It's great!

[@2DimmMedia]

For real. I agree 🤣

[@Gayngisconisgayngisconisgay]

Until you play the companion sequel games or listen to the commentary before it became fun to troll or make hypothesis. Mac isn't infected but it's fun to pretend.

[@lovingLOLA4ever]

Completely agree. I watched it when first released, on a driven-in big panel, from a balcony of a hotel in San Diego. No other vacationers cared or discovered the view. The audio was still fed thru those old school metal speakers so the audio was clear. Was great! At 14 ,I then had to wait for the vhs "viral" phenomenon to help make this the famous revolution . 👋

[@ajalvarez3111]

Childs is standing there with a flame thrower. That’s why human Mac (or Mac Thing) doesn’t attack him. Look close.

[@cedricdallaire3324]

true they don't make anything near this good right now....

[@section7173]

Twist ending: MacReady was just a psychopath who enjoys drinking gasoline and wanted everyone else to drink gasoline then as they got high on gasoline one-by-one they all shared gasoline induced hallucinations. That's how Fuchs burned so much, MacReady knew Fuchs was secretly consuming high-octane gasoline and didn't want to share. That's why Blair was building a vehicle, the natural companion to gasoline. That's why they did the blood test using a hot poker, to see how well they each combust. Moral of the story: Use gasoline responsibly.

[@2DimmMedia]

😱😱😱 I didn't even think of that

[@Jackthat1]

Game changer

[@datentanzbaer4912]

Okay, this is my most favorite theory from now on xD Ahahahaha! Awesome!

[@ChiefWombatCuddler]

Don't be RamaRama the petrol goes into your car!

[@NerdAlert78]

He should’ve been in The Lighthouse movie where they start drinking kerosene after all the provisions are gone 😂

[@GlizzySan]

It doesn’t make sense that MacReady is the thing because we are shown that the thing cares about its survival. MacReady was willing to blow himself up and everyone there. Also you cant use the fact that it wasn’t shown that MacReady cut his thumb in front of everyone in the blood test scene when we aren’t shown everyone doing that. I think in the end it’s more likely that neither one of them are the thing because we see from Blair that the thing isn’t affected by the cold that much because Blair was running around with no coat at the end of the movie seemingly unfazed by the cold. While Childs and MacReady are deeply affected by the cold at the end of the movie. And earlier in the movie when MacReady gets locked out and breaks in to grab the dynamite, he had to warm himself up and there is a scene of him trying to move his hand. It just makes sense that the true twist is that the thing is dead and Childs and MacReady are paranoid that either or might be the thing since they don’t know what the other has been up to and have no way to confirm if they are the thing.

[@MidiMail]

He didn’t heart your comment, it’s true 💀

[@robbcoleman469]

John carpenter said it's one of them forsure it's not neither and it's not both it's forsure one of them is the thing

[@TheDancerMacabre]

He never confirmed nor denied anything. He just slyly says "Maybe! We don't know!" However, I think MacReady is the thing because we see him share him share drinks with everyone after told not to. Childs wasn't there when they said to not do that. Also, McReady says The Alien just wants to go to sleep in the cold again. At the end Child's asks "What do we do now?" McReady says "We wait." I have other, more off the wall, nitpicky stuff that can just be continuity. But two things that were mentioned Explicitly to the Audience: "Don't share food or drinks" and "The Thing wants to go back to sleep in the cold" Both of those are what McReady wants to do at the end ​@@robbcoleman469

[@DannyRedCheeks]

If mcready or childs the thing wouldn’t they just kill the other one at the end?

[@DannyRedCheeks]

That is a great thought I agree 110%

[@DJMarcO138]

I think that neither Childs or MacReady are the Thing at the end, but they are now both sufficiently paranoid enough to let themselves die to prove it.

[@arturovandeley]

They were dying regardless what they thought

[@justsoicanfingcomment5814]

Play PS2 The Thing. As the rescue team. Then you find out 100% no guessing.😂

[@Mercurial_Phantom]

Carpenter said one of them is a Thing at the end

[@jaykaye594]

Maybe the real friends were the things we turned into along the way.

[@2DimmMedia]

🤣🤣 the closest of friends

[@jaykaye594]

@@2DimmMedia you know there has to be some messed up rule 34 stuff about how close Childs and MacCready got at the end. Real close friends, like the room mate your aunt keeps bringing along to Thanksgiving.

[@2DimmMedia]

There has to be, but I'm not gonna research that 😂😂

[@jayzeigel5772]

Now there is​@@jaykaye594

[@MetanoiaAm]

Im fine with Mac being the thing at the end, and Childs not. It makes sense to me, for two reasons. 1) we see Clark petting the Thing Dog at the beginning of the movie, like 5 minutes after the Thing Dog licks Bennings, and we know after he gets shot in the head and has is blood tested, that Clark is in fact not The Thing; further it is even mentioned that Clark spent MORE time then that with the Thing Dog off screen. With that, plus Bennings not showing any signs of being The Thing until we see him be assimilated by the Norwegian Corpse that thawed out, im will to go with the idea that the thing does not assimilate randomly, or just by touch, but has to make a conscious effort to assimilate. Reason 2) Mac is he only character, besides Bennings at the beginning, and Childs at the very end, that we see actually DRINK any alcohol. Sure we see a lot of open ore empty bottles, we see people with drinks in front of them and in their hands even. But we ONLY see Mac drink from either the JB bottle, or from a glass, through out the movie. It's not until the end of the movie that we see Mac NOT drink from the bottle of JB, but give it to Childs, that i think suggests a shift in the character, a shift that means something. IMO, since we know that contact with The Thing is not enough to guarantee assimilation, and Bennings being assimilated later, i think we can at least give it better then 50/50 odd thats either A) Mac is The Thing, Childs is not, or B) Both are human, and perhaps Mac is testing one last theory by giving Childs the bottle to drink from.

[@Psych1_-]

One of the major issues with what you said in the previous video is that Macready wacked the guy who told him about eating food from cans. The problem is Macready left the room to the right, and the figure is seen coming from the left... So did he make some huge circle or what?

[@tylersmith2849]

That's actually a very good catch.

[@kernsanders3973]

It just shows how amazing this movie is, that decades later, almost half century, we still discussing the plot and mystery

[@2DimmMedia]

Yep. It is ahead of its time while also being timeless. I love it!

[@ringodingo6990]

I love the movie but I hate this opinion people keep saying. No it wasn't such a great movie because half a century later we still talk about it. People literally talk about bad movies that are decades old. We are talking about it a decade later because it's on replayable media and some people enjoyed it. Such a microscopic percent of the population has seen, liked, or cares about this movie. The only reason you are seeing it is because you youtube and Google similar topics so the algorithm does what it's designed to and puts this niche video infront of you. It's not because of the films quality, which is amazing, it's because KZbin is literally programmed to send you stuff it thinks you'll watch. For example I watch alot of true crime, horror, and horror games. I've rewatched my favorite game Silent Hill 2 like 10 times in the last year. Because of that I get alot of recommendations for stuff that can be categorized under that. Such as obscure cult classic films like the Thing. But most people will never have anything like this pop up. TLDR; your favorite movie isn't special because it's old. You're not refined for liking an old movie.

[@AgentNintaku]

Man. That sequel was *so good* right up until the post production guys got hold of it. The entire point of making the film in the first place was a special effects team wanting to show off their practical effects skills, so they bought the rights and made this movie to present their incredible skills. It was all amazing. They didn't find out until the movie premier that all their hard work had been covered over by shabby CG. Like, not even good for 2011 CG, just totally phoned in. Aaaaand they never got work again. If you haven't seen any, watch some documentaries about the making of the 2011 Thing. It's so much lost potential.

[@2DimmMedia]

Oh I know. I have gone on a whole tanget about the sequel but decided to cut it out.. it was too much of a digression.. I fully agree cg killed it

[@nickmontanaro9638]

​@@2DimmMediaso there is a 2011 Thing version with animatronics instead of CGI? That's so depressing.

[@VaderPopsVicodin10]

I agree. We still get to see their excellent practical work during that autopsy scene near the beginning.. but alas, everything else afterwards though, is yeah.. bland cg.

[@Petahhhhh]

It's a prequel

[@AgentNintaku]

@@Petahhhhh Right, but I was more referring to it as the next movie in the series rather than the previous movie in the story.

[@clackymaracas2804]

I think that Macready taking a drink from Blair's bottle is clear evidence that he IS the thing as he knows not to share food and drink

[@DahvooYT]

I’ve seen your original video a few times and it’s a fascinating theory. 👍

[@morbius_of_krell]

It's certainly well thought out.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! I worked hard on both!

[@teknoskan4825]

I recently rewatched The Thing, and I’ve come to believe that MacReady is, in fact, the Thing. Childs’ line, "So, how do we know who's human? If I was an imitation, a perfect imitation, how would you know if it was really me?" is key. The Thing can replicate its prey with complete accuracy, meaning that from the moment it assimilates someone, it retains their knowledge, behavior, and memories. Throughout the film, MacReady exhibits traits that set him apart from the rest of the crew. He doesn't like being cheated, isolates himself in his own tower rather than staying in the barracks, and struggles to connect with the others-making him an outsider. This detachment raises suspicions about his true nature. There are several key decisions MacReady makes that point toward him being the Thing. First, after Blair sabotages the communication equipment and descends into madness, MacReady ensures Blair is isolated, neutralizing the potential threat he poses. When Childs challenges his leadership, MacReady steps in to take control, yet he doesn’t object earlier when Norris-who we later discover is infected-assumes the role. If MacReady were a perfect imitation, killing other infected crew members would be a calculated move to earn the group's trust and divert suspicion. After Fuchs’ death and the discovery of MacReady’s torn clothing, he eliminates threats one by one, such as Clark, whom he shoots even though he likely knows bullets won’t kill a Thing. This act isn’t just self-defense but a way to remove Clark, who was unpredictable and could jeopardize the Thing's plans. Consider MacReady's choices for assistants during the blood test: Windows and Nauls-arguably the weakest crew members-are selected, possibly because they are easier to manipulate. Later, when MacReady decides to destroy the entire base, he essentially dooms everyone, rationalizing it as their only option. He even convinces Garry and Nauls to sacrifice themselves, leading them down into the lower levels where they meet their demise, likely becoming assimilated. One critical moment is when Childs disappears, believing he saw Blair. No one pursues him, which is curious if MacReady were truly human. If MacReady is the Thing, ignoring Childs serves a purpose: with the base destroyed, the Thing’s survival is assured, as it can survive being frozen and wait for rescue. The humans, however, would perish in the cold. MacReady’s actions, when viewed through this lens, are not those of a hero but of a creature ensuring its survival by eliminating threats, manipulating trust, and securing its position.

[@donventura2116]

It's definitely interesting how the behaviors and symbols that depict a strong individualist hero archetype can also align with the depiction of the other, an alien separate from humanity that is determined to survive, prey on others, and deceive.

[@chad63]

yep and also after fuchs told mcready to tell the others to not share food we just assumed that mcready told them offscreen but in fact we are not sure if he really did as thats the most important thing ever and this is furthered by the scene where he took a drink from blair and at the end gives a drink to childs to which neither of them says anything against it which tells me mcready didnt tell anyone about fuchs big discovery. also fuchs died literally after that lol

[@isaacpaz9287]

I feel either mcready is the thing because in the prequel it didnt know how smart humans are at detective work and learned from its mistakes and it makes sense to act the most paranoid and infect the bottle at the end. OR They both are human and if indeed alchohol is somthing that the thing disliks Childs taking adrink confirms he is human and Mcready chuckles realizing he doesnt have to die the only human and the music at the end just empathizes the reaization they still lost to the thing. The thing still has blood and parts of itself undiscovered or forgotten in the area that can just reassemble itself at a later time when people come to investigate. Great video both this one and the one before. I agree tiktok brain attention span ruins appreciation for a lengthy explanation. Well done

[@akelly4207]

I’ve always thought Mac was the Thing. It just makes it more interesting to me that the hero we follow is the monster. It also makes logical sense to me by the rules of the movie/infection. But with an ambiguous ending there is the ability to doubt because Carpenter never decided and lots of movies don’t follow their own rules. So whatever you want the ending to be can be true. But you can’t say I’m wrong.

[@jimmydesouza4375]

Also mentioning why he doesn't kill Childs in the end. The original script had him do just that as a callback to the computer chess scene. Carpenter removed it for the sake of ambiguity.

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

The Thing and The Shining are both two very ambitious and ambiguous films with open interpretations. And they're both over 40 years old and they're still generating many new theories. This is the testament of what a well crafted film with even practical effects and good writing can produce. Your theory/film analysis is still really thought provoking. And I personally love that there's a new way to view/interpret this movie. Congrats!

[@2DimmMedia]

And both are on the top of my list! Thank you!

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

@@2DimmMedia Cool cool ... You're welcome dude.

[@Mind_ConTroll]

The dog scene may add credit to this, apparently the thing made the lights not work in the cage, homie left and turned off the light, then returns and the light just doesn't work. Later, Mac uses the light on in his cabin to separate them further. I think the "things" that just start turning into grotesque monsters are extensions to throw the others off, while protecting the primary.

[@josephcrawley7622]

While i dont fully subscribe to your theory, mostly because of the final boss argument doesn't satisfy my problem - what your theory does do, is make the movie ambiguous again. I thought i had it all figured out, amd while my breakdown of events and who gets turned when still makes sense, you introduced other ways that also make sense. Im no longer 99% sure i know who is who. You brought ambiguity and mystery back to my favorite movie. Thank you

[@RFBennett]

The original story was called "Who goes there?". The characters were never sure who was human, even thinking that they might not even know if they, themselves, were human anymore. Carpenter stayed very true to that vision. I think Carpenter purposely filled this movie with misleading information to throw the characters off the scent, and turn them against each other, as in the original story. He skillfully did it to the viewers too. I saw this movie when it premiered in the theaters, having already read the short story years before. I then read the novel based on the movie. Studios used to commission books of movies then. Through all of that, and much that has come since, I believe that Carpenter doesn't even know the whole story. I think it was never intended to be a riddle solved. I think he likes it that way. Sometimes a good storyteller likes to let the story tell itself. Great video, by the way.

[@joshportal2808]

So the original movie came out in 1951 based off a book from the 1940’s. John Carpenter’s version is actually much more similar to the original book. The most interesting thing in the book that is never started in both movies is that you don’t really become “The Thing” until you die. Now a more interesting theory is that MacReady never died but does know he is infected. In the book everyone doesn’t know they are infected except the main character. Once a character dies they start to turn into a monster. The monsters know everyone is infected and are purposely trying to kill people that have not turned yet. At the end of the book you find out the mind of “The Thing” and the main character combines into one entity. Everyone else had to die to become the thing except the main character. The idea is the real monster was man but the book takes an interesting and darker tone with some eugenics ideas involved.

[@gigantitan]

Agreeing or disagreeing with the theory doesn't really matter. Your video about the topic was really nice to watch regardless of it. I felt like watching The Thing right after it and paid more attention to these small details than ever before The theory doesn't need to be correct. The fact that so many people debated about it says enough. It has fulfilled its purpose, so congratulations on it.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! And that's all that matters! Makes it a fresh viewing for returning viewers!

[@Nicolas.Vincent]

Unlike movies like Alien, another one of the greatest Horror films ever made, where we're only shown 2 or 3 seconds of the Xenomorph gliding through the corridors or salivating in close up getting ready to strike, or Brucie in JAWS only being shown for a few seconds max at a time, forcing us to fill in the blanks in our imaginations, The Thing shows us everything. It lingers to such an extended degree of Horror that the Horror becomes the How's and Why's and Who's! Many people regard The Thing as a Whodunit, but it's actually about Suspicion and Paranoia. There's no real way of knowing who is The Thing at any given time unless explicitly shown. As many theories that naturally abound about all of the Red Harrings of the story, all we can really know for sure is that we can never really know for sure, such is the brilliance of The Thing.

[@2DimmMedia]

Correct

[@MetaITurtle]

My Dad said people were freaking out in theaters and even running out sick when Alien first came out

[@jimmyrolls37]

True ending with a twist: the entire movie was a dream john carpenter had while passed out on the toilet; a cold draft coming in from a cracked open window is why it seemed antartic, and the thing from another world was playing in the livingroom in the baclground

[@2DimmMedia]

I would lose it 🤣 sounds like a spongebob episode ending

[@AlexHunter2525]

Honestly I can see either way, and even see a theory that neither of them are infected. Its such a great movie

[@RAVENVROSE]

I've only watch your video 2-3 times but i always watched the entire thing. I've always heard one side to the theories but the McReady is the Thing is new and well crafted.

[@2DimmMedia]

Happy to hear that! I appreciate the support and I am glad to bring this theory to more people

[@ChadVader143]

I really like this theory, but I’m still torn which is honestly awesome because I think that’s the point of the movie. It has possibly the best ending ever. Every time Childs takes that sip and the “BUM BUM” starts playing I’m immediately thrown back into a state of paranoia, distrust, and a feeling that something’s off but I can’t quite put words to it. Incredible.

[@2DimmMedia]

Yes. It does its job very well. This movie is paranoia

[@cdevil9488]

One thing you fell for was the blood fridge/keys. The issue of the keys was a red herring to sow confusion. This is demonstrated by the blood oozing out of the bottom of the fridge as they approach it. A refrigerator maintains the cold inside using a soft rubber bumper which is slightly compressed when the door is closed, making a seal. Now, look at the blood bags when the door is opened. Every bag has numerous slashes in it, which would have taken time to do. If the thing had been too slow, there would already have been blood on the floor. Too quickly, and the blood wouldn't have poured out until the door was opened. Conclusion? The thing did NOT use the keys to open the door to the blood fridge. Rather, it slipped an appendage up between the rubber bumper on the bottom of the door and the body of the fridge, slashed the blood bags, then withdrew its appendage and got away. This would deform the bumper on the bottom of the door, thereby breaking the seal and letting the blood leak out before the door was opened.

[@Aeonbarr]

I appreciate your wild take even if I don't agree with it. I tend to lean on the idea that Childes and MacReady are both human at the end but neither of them trust each other and are ready to die freezing to keep an eye on each other

[@2DimmMedia]

Yeah. That would be the best case scenario for the situation. And hopefully that's the case for humans!

[@johnreynolds7996]

If Childs was a Thing then he has no reason to approach MacReady OTHER THAN to kill the last human left at the outpost. Which he doesn't do. He approaches MacReady because he wants to have a chat with him about what a whacky day they've had. And if MacReady was a Thing then it makes sense that he would keep up the disguise - Childs is armed with a flamethrower, after all. But why tell the truth about there being no other survivors? Tell Childs that, oh, I dunno, Nauls is still out there so we need to go look for him. Anything to get Childs to turn his back so a MacReady Thing can attack. But MacReady doesn't do that. He just sits down, shares a drink, and waits to freeze solid. And if BOTH were Things they wouldn't be having THAT conversation. They'd be talking about Thing... err.... things. They are both human.

[@goooseyyyy]

Came from your last Thing video and was glad to hear some of these explanations. Two things I noticed on a rewatch that you didn't address, one being much more important than the other: #1: Everybody automatically assumes the "dirty drawls" that were found came from Palmer after he assimilated. However, Mcready can be seen wearing the exact same longjohns in the opening sequence of the film under his grey shirt. In fact, just about every character is wearing this type of cloth. His labeled vest was obviously mangled and re-hidden after being discovered by fuchs, but nobody talks about the undergarments. Mcready is seen inspecting them by the radio before throwing them in the trashcan when the doctor calls him to the store room. This leads me to my second observation.. #2: NAULS was the one to find the torn up undergarments when he rolls into the lounge and says "who left their dirty drawls in the kitchen trash can?"... the next time we see what we can only assume to be the same garments are mcready throwing them away in the radio room. However, when we return to mcready's next radio diary scene, there's more drawls on his desk and he is again inspecting them, concluding it tears through your clothes. He tells the radio that WINDOWS found the shredded longjohns. He's either lying, has bad memory, or is referring to an off-screen scene where windows indeed finds additional clothes. I might be over-analyzing but i felt that was the only stone left unturned with your videos. Seriously great work man, i enjoyed diving back into this.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you for these observations! I'll have to look back at it again with this in mind!

[@michaelaltman7644]

I really like this theory, but this entire thing hinges on an assumption. An assumption that MacCready drank from the bottle. 👀 I have a bunch of other points relating to other characters, but because this is literally the crux and to keep this from not being an entire essay on the subject, I'll focus on this one glaring issue. So once Bennings has the bottle, MacCready goes out to the helicopter with the others to extinguish the flames. You're telling me that Bennings brought him the bottle? From how far the helicopter was from them? AFTER being shot in the leg? Mind you, he is currently dealing with the helicopter and didnt have a J&B bottle when we follow up with him later counting Kerosene jugs. Here he is told to basically get ready to fly. His cabin is separated from the rest of the compound. So he went in to find Bennings who he hasnt previously checked up on since he was still outside when we see him later at the Norwegian heli to get a bottle of J&B knowing full well this man has stacks in his cabin, since we see them littered EVERYWHERE. he then leaves for a MINIMUM of 2 and a half hours. Hour there, hour back, plus time to collect the burnt body. Comes back and drinks from that bottle thats been around people who are shown to share alcohol throughout the movie?

[@CherokeeWill]

I LOVE THIS MOVIE. I literally play it going to sleep almost every night.... for like almost 2 years now. That's like over 500 times, I do fall asleep early on but still that's alot. I treat this movie as a murder-mystery where paranoia is just as much as an enemy as the alien Thing is. We start off with 12 humans, well 14 but the Norwegians quickly die so down to 12. Bennings gets assimilated and burned, down to 11. Fuchs dies somehow, 10. Norris fakes death from a heartattack(presumedly) and kills Copper, now 8. Clark gets shot in the face, 7. The Palmer thing kills Windows and gets set on fire and TNT'd, down to 5. Nauls and Garry both get assimilated by Blair Thing, down to 3. MacReady blows up the combined Blair, Nauls, Garry Thing, now just 2. The murder mystery no longer matters, its just 2 now and we know MacReady knows if this Thing gets loose it'll be doom for the whole planet so the game is up, it doesn't matter if Childs is the Thing or is human.... the only way to MAKE SURE 100% without a doubt is to both burn themselves up, blow themselves up, and leave nothing. So why the conversation? at this point its not a mystery, its a search n destroy. If MacReady was human he would've instantly killed Childs with the revolver he has on his hip he's carried the last half of the movie, BLAMMO shoot Childs in the face then burn his body to be sure..... but he doesn't... he talks to him. Strange. The Thing has a natural need for self-preservation, and KNOWING it has no way out now it just wants to "die" and freeze to death that way the rescue team can find the frozen body so not instantly killing each other at the end and just accepting a slow freezing to death IS THE WAY TO CONTINUE LIVING. Now the one thing MacReady knows NOT to do is to SHARE MOLECULES, yet he hands Childs the bottle. Childs KNOWS not to share molecules as well so a human Childs would NEVER accept it, that's like rule number-fucking-1 is DO NOT SHARE MOLECULES. Also another theme present is the human action of suicide, something The Thing cannot do because of it's need for self-preservation. MacReady figured this out when he saw the frozen Norwegian with his neck and wrists slit in the Norwegian camp. Suicide is the ONE ACTION that the Thing CANNOT DO, and its the one thing MacReady is absolutely ready to do multiple times in the film. So by "accepting fate" and MacReady saying "lets just wait here a while, see what happens" is basically the opposite of what the search n destroy mission's goals are which is to find and BURN the Thing so nothing remains. If MacReady and Childs just wait around and freeze to death instead of burning each other to death then there is a chance The Thing survives, in the frozen body of them. Point is, MacReady should've burned Childs or shot him in the head the INSTANT he saw him at the end: if Childs was human then ok, Childs is dead and throw his body in the fire.... if CHilds was a thing then the bullet wouldn't do anything and he could grab a spare stick of dynamite he had strapped to him and light it and BOOM the Childs Thing is gone.... but if both Childs and MacReady are the Thing then they wouldn't immediately be kill-on-sight but still be playing the murder-mystery game instead of the search n destroy game.... oh who is it idk .... Anyway this is long enough. Something to think about.... suicide is something only humans do in this film and The Thing only tries to survive.... some food for thought.

[@BluminatiNinja]

I've watched this film over and over and over, one of my favorites and I never added all this up! Holy crap MACREADY was the THING!

[@2DimmMedia]

Now go back and watch it! It makes it a whole new movie!

[@Xizax41325]

As someone that knows people who work in the medical field, they teach you how to remove gloves without contaminating yourself. It's actually pretty interesting

[@squizill]

I think you are correct. After Bennings jumps out the window Macready looks out the broken window meaning he was in the room with the keys!!! Plus assimilation can happen without devouring the target. Remember when the dog walks into the room with the shadow, well guess what that person got assimilated and we still have a dog!! And it was specifically written in the script that he plays chess, why would that be important if it never comes up in the movie. Macready Thing was playing chess the whole movie!

[@MarbleArchMedia]

Please read because I’m curious about what your response to this is: first off I LOVE this take because you’re right that everyone is concerned about Childs, this is some great out of the box thinking. But I disagree for this reason: Mac gets everyone in the room with him where he’s the only one with a flame thrower during the blood test scene. If he was the thing, why doesn’t he hose the non-things or assimilate them at this time?

[@youcanhandlethetruth4695]

He needs a Excuse to get out when the Rescue Team comes. He Destroyed all evidence of the Thing, Blew the Whole Base up wich would explain why everybody is Dead. Not so much if they Find them Tied up in a Row.

[@2DimmMedia]

I talk about that question in my follow up video. And funny enough, I also mention what @youcanhandlethetruth4695 said as well!

[@lorand5578]

​@@youcanhandlethetruth4695 it doesn't anwser the question above

[@youcanhandlethetruth4695]

@@lorand5578 It 100% Does. The Thing wants to get out of the frozen Zone. To do that, it needs to be pickt up by a Rescue Team. And IT can not be Put under suspicion of any kind, wich It learned. So all Evidence of the Mutation Bodys, Written Notes etc must be Destroyed. So the Last Survivor Mc Ready/The Thing, can come up with some Excuse of what Happend. If a Team comes into the Camp and finds all Others Burned in a Row, but him. They would immediately Put him into Cuffs and under some "He is Crazy" Why Quarantäne. The Whole Thing hat to look like a Desaster. The Camp was blown up, the THINGs where Buried after Burned, There is no Obvious Evidence any of it ever Happend. Why would a HUMAN Mc Reedy, not make sure some Proof of it Exists? Just Put a Peace of Flesh into a Jar. So People Beleave him and do not think he was the Murderer. His Theory of MC Being the Thing is 100% Correct. He only Missed a view Points.

[@TheNoorVIG]

I never understood why people completely gloss over the fact that a smart chess player who knows sharing drinks could spread the thing hands Childs alcohal and suggests they wait and see what happens. Also did you notice how dramatic Childs was earlier in the movie, but at the end he is super calm? In my opinion they are both the thing in the end, but if I had to choose just one I think it’s Mac.

[@datentanzbaer4912]

Greetings from Germany! I don't know HOW your videos ended up in my youtube list, but I enjoyed the whole "The Thing" videos very much! Keep up the entertaining work! I really like how much thought and effort you put into this theory, the way you handle all those comments (good ones as well as bad ones), and I really enjoy your sense of humor :D Looking forward to more content from you! Btw: I'm a believer now! From this day on, I'm in #TeamThingReady

[@2DimmMedia]

Awesome! Thank you for watching and enjoying! That's awesome!

[@angiadcock8196]

I don’t know if we can ever prove one way or another who was the thing at any point, despite carpenter’s claim otherwise. But I do know it makes for a more interesting movie and one I like better if Mac is the thing from practically the beginning. Also, MacReady being the thing is the movie Carpenter wanted to make, so yeah. Regardless of the final cut I like to believe there is still a lot of that influence in the original takes. Plus, fuck the blood test honestly. It’s an excellent scene from a storytelling perspective but not from an evidentiary one. There is NO REASON to trust the results in that scene.

[@Koifin3]

Starting my watch now, I’ll edit this when I finish with my takeaway. Yeah, im still not really convinced. I could break it down into details, but it’s really not that important. I really like the theory and you’ve probably heard everything I would say anyway, but the fact is that it’s nice to have differing opinions on the Thing because that was ultimately the intent. The fact that we have two completely different theories with almost equal amount of validity is a testament to how good the movie is. Cheers, I’ll be sure to watch your videos to come.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! Cheers

[@rodneypauley4077]

My remember the critics talking trash about the dog scene saying “it looked bad because the dogs were wagging their tails.

[@Macketiplasiman]

I think because Childs had the flamethrower, McReady would have no choice but to assimilate him with the alcohol. This also was shown with Fuch's death as the thing is not afraid to eliminate someone with a flamethrower if they are alone. If Childs were the thing, he'd kill McReady then wait for himself to freeze, hoping to be discovered by humans. But this didn't happen. Or they could just both be human.

[@2DimmMedia]

I agree with this

[@TheTillmanSneakerReview]

Carpenter said that one of them is the creature, though...

[@shaneobrien5214]

They actually wrote an alternative ending where Childs and MacReady were both the thing, but carpenter didn't like it, I guess he wanted to keep the conclusion ambiguous, that's my theory. My take on MacRead, he gave blood and passed so that's what makes me say no to him being the thing, bui it is possible. The ambiguity is what makes this flick great imo.

[@2DimmMedia]

So the blood thing, you never see him cut his finger. But they took the time to show Nauls and Windows. Bystanders who weren't revealed to be a possible thing a few scenes earlier like Mac. That was intentional. There would be more credence if they didn't show anyone cut there fingers, but they deliberately showed 2 randoms instead of the man in question. Again, this was intentional for some reason

[@shaneobrien5214]

@@2DimmMedia his creepy smile at the end always left me feeling unsettled to be honest so it's highly possible

[@peterondrus7065]

@@2DimmMedia I think you reading to much into this. There are 6 people 8 if we count the corpses. We dont need to see every single one getting cut. It just saves time. And its perfect chance for Mac to assimilate them but he didnt so he is human at that point at least.

[@eddiespaghetti54321]

Ok so I came to a realization since I commented on your last video. How would McReady have gotten out alive or gotten a helicopter in the game sequel with his original goggles and hat? If it was one of the helicopters at the research facility then how did he repair it? Maybe he was The Thing assimilated and him picking you up at the end was a trick by the thing because that’s the only explanation I can think of for him being able to repair it. In the movie Blair builds a flying saucer with the parts from the helicopter. Now I’m not so sure anymore. :/

[@2DimmMedia]

I believe they just wanted to have Macready in the game for a surprise ending. So again like I say in the video, I wouldn't read too deep in the game. But it is an interesting thought experiment if we do consider the game Cannon

[@ThePallidor]

Unless Carpenter was involved in the game, which would be unusual for games based on movies, it's not canon.

[@alfredowong527]

Dark Horse Comics clearly portrayed R.J. MacReady as 100% human throughout all six issues. If you google (as of 9/23/24) "Why does MacReady laugh at the end?", then the reply is "The script describes MacReady secretly having a torch under his blanket and Kurt Russell said so himself" so MacReady's "willingness to share a drink shows his lack of concern for infection." Childs instinctively smiled after this nice gesture and maybe an additional reason that MacReady laughed confidently at the end is due to being in the same predicament. Both had no transportation, no communications, and nowhere to run/hide plus it now became an equal playing field (regardless if Childs is The Thing or not). But if you just stay within this 1982 "single standalone movie" universe only, then your theory about MacReady-becoming-The-Thing-as-the-2nd-victim-in-this-movie is super convincing & very plausible. Unfortunately, no video game here is acceptable canon due to nonmajor growths of main characters (unlike in MacReady's prime universe of movies & comic books together). I greatly enjoyed your efforts to entertain us, thank you very much!

[@larrygarms7230]

Although I don't agree with your theory, the 4D chess play by play is an amazing interpretation! Well done! They beauty of the movie is you can insert almost any character into the 4d chess model, with evidence and theory and still make the theory work. It's a MASTER class in writing! But no, Childs is def the Thing! Hahaha!

[@2DimmMedia]

Yes. The movie is a master piece. And he honestly could be The Thing. 🤷‍♂️

[@user-or1xh1vc8n]

I could retort to a lot of the assumptions I saw you make but I really gotta step back and remind myself younger people these days like making up a lot of fun fanfiction or what they choose to believe and defend it to the bitter end. This is evident to a lot of the stretching or reaching I am seeing here, characteristic of coming to a preferred conclusion and then trying to seek out anything that supports said conclusion and then discard anything that does not. Which is fine and fun. It is genuinely fun to watch newer generations talking about their new discoveries as if it's new to the world. Like for example, watching you talk about windows dropping the keys. I've seen people mention this before a few years back and all I could think was "this is stuff we all knew back in the 80s, I realize it's new to you and feels like a big apiphany, but..." Kids today trying to say childs is "the thing" or that macready is "the thing" are both just, well... Let me mention a "theory" I once saw from some kid from the newer fandom of a game called bloodborne. Someone was accidentally able to get their camera to enter the head of the doll girl in the hub world. They could see multiple eyes in the back of the eyeballs. This kid and several others began coming up with more fanfiction or "headcannon" as they like to call it now, saying she has multiple hidden eyes because of reason a b c and d and so on. When I pointed out it was simply because the artist had to alter the repeats of the eyeball texture file to make sure the iris is centered in the front (standard when texturing a mesh object eyeball in 3d programs), they immediately chased me with torches and pitch forks. You are one of those kids. No offense and nothing wrong with it. Have fun. Same thing happened when I bursted the bubble of a large group of James cameron aliens fans in some forum, on which films are, actually, cannon and how to tell when they are and are not (spoilers it is simply a matter of who paid for the licensing which shows in the billing poster). This is fine I don't mind. I know what I am about to say will feel offensive but you will experience it later in life if you haven't already: this is this same feeling I get when a 6 year old thinks they made a discovery about why the sky is blue, or why dogs do number 2 on the sidewalk, or where urine is stored (spoilers it isnt in the balls). If I try to tell them how it actually is they get angry and say I am wrong wrong extra wrong and are ready to fight. That's fine. I smile and say "ok cool, yup, your right, I'm wrong". What you say about "what carpenter said doesnt matter" is simultaneously dismissing anything that does not fit the conclusion you want, and also is correct at the same time. For example, George Lucas, what he says about Star wars back in 1978 or 1979 I'd call accurate and honest. What he says about it during or after the creation of the prequels however, I would not. It is the same for any creator. You asked for something to search up. Look up "camera tricks" (I still have it on VHS, with commercials for crazy Eddie and classic McDonald's and all that fun stuff) an old collection of movie maker interviews and specials on how effects were done. There you will find some unique info from people like George Lucas, James cameron, and yes, John Carpenter. Including what he had to say about the film ending: that neither childs nor macready were "the thing". They were both human, the creature was dead, and it was all over. They will both ironically freeze to death long before rescue comes. Hence irony. This film was made during a time when movies had a beginning, a middle and an end. Not.planned sequels or complicated prefixes and so on. At that time sequels required careful reconning. Which is what is necessary for the games,.comics, and so on, which do not have a license for canon contribution. (Meaning they are not canon), what they paid for is called a."use of likeness". This allows them to use characters they do not own, to create their own story. The point being, well.. ask yourself this, without ever watching the movie, if you asked yourself "are any of these male characters gay?". No. The thought wouldn't even cross the mind unless it was made obvious for part of the storytelling. Why? Because the movie was made in 1981. How about this: do any of the men in this film have anything against smoking or drinking? Everyone in 1981 will again give a resounding no. Why? Same reason. Now, does this movie have a comeback twist at the end where the monster survived and will be back later and all that jazz? No. Why? It was made in 1981. The early 80s was not yet over, the goofy 80s had not begun and the late era of big nose 80s was not even a dream. This probably makes no sense to people from today so how about this: we haven't yet gotten to the films like critters where after it's over we show eggs hidden somewhere that people haven't found, hear a laughing critter just before credits and so on. We haven't yet gotten to Freddy Kruegers dragging some poor kids mom through the peep hole of the front door. (It looks as silly as it sounds). Even the phantasm ending was meant to be a dream,.until all the reconning sequels. The bottom line? The newer generations have a habit of creating fanfiction and then presenting it as objective fact for everyone else. That's fine. They also have a habit of making up new words for things that already have words. Example,.calling it headcannon and forgetting that "fanfiction" is a word. (Here comes the kids desperately trying to explain away how the two words are somehow different, I even saw a kid make a KZbin video about how scifi is different from science fiction. No I'm not kidding) All of this is fine. It's part of who you are. I'm glad you love this stuff and enjoy it in your own way. The only material thing I will contribute is that tv special I mentioned from the 80s. If you can't find it (yes alot.of this stuff is lost to time), I will figure how to copy my VHS to my PC. Maybe convert the rca cables to HDMI and then just record it from my PC from start to finish. No the eye glare isn't a thing. Imitating perfectly means imitating perfectly. "Perfectly" had meaning. Norris didn't become the thing until he started feeling pain inside from it slowly taking over. Calling out at the window "hey guys cummere". If childs were the thing and he were given gasoline he would have known what gasoline and alcohol both smell and taste like because all of the memories of the victims are perfectly imitated. The actors even debated "it's so perfect that if you were the thing, would you even know it?" Talking about a dog licking a glove is scientifically sound, but does not make.ot to the minds of the movie makers who were from 1981. If you want to be scientifically accurate, cells capable of motorization (self propulsion) would have a spike protein, rendering them capable of surviving in atmosphere for various lengths of time measured in hours. In other words, the thing would be airborne, and everyone would catch it by simply breathing the same air in this enclosed space. This is why Ripley was able to open the air lock in the second film and everything was just fine ;) P.s. watching you jump through hoops for explain away macready diary was definitely entertaining. If John Carpenter released previously unseen footage that was recorded in 1981, showing macready and childs do a blood test again right then and there at the end, and carpenter says it was cut against his wishes to make the film slightly shorter in length, you'd definitely do some entertaining acrobatics to explain away that one too. Again no offense. I definitely love that you love this and take the time out to share your ideas. Hope you don't mind me sharing mine ;)

[@2DimmMedia]

So first of all. I'm not offended. Second, John Carpenter tweeted, on his official Twitter that 1 of them are the thing. Thus dismissing the commentary you are using as evidence. Meaning he changed his mind. And he also stated in an interview with Stephen Colbert that there is enough evidence in the film to figure out which one is the thing. And with the lack of onscreen evidence to argue Childs innocence, I have brought forth more than enough onscreen evidence or "coincidences" to prove Mac is the thing. Rather you want to believe my off screen speculation, the onscreen instances lead towards my conclusion alone. Third. A commenter brought up a point that on the tape recording, Mac is deliberately lying about the time line he is giving. I reccomend you go back and watch what Mac is saying and compare it to the times before and after the storm he mentions. But I understand the times of the 80's and the significant impact on this movie. My father talks about it all the time. But if in order to make this movie compelling. He had to put signs in the movie to lead to both outcomes. Meaning some things are intentional. And as I said. TLDR More onscreen evidence to support Mac as the thing versus Childs. And John Carpenter said 1 is definitively the thing on Twitter and in modern interviews. He deliberately left clues in the movie he stated. Soooo take it as you will 🤷‍♂️

[@user-or1xh1vc8n]

"John Carpenter said on Twitter" Twitter exists, hence it is no longer 1981. In your own words, "John says a lot of things, and he is also old". "A lot of the things they say in commentary are..." This looks like exactly what I described in my first comment. You dismiss what the creators have to say if it does not fit with your desired conclusion, but when it does support your desired conclusion, you consider it viable evidence. John Carpenter can, tomorrow, tweet that macready is actually trans. It won't change what the story was when it was made in 1981. You made this point yourself in the video above and then contradicted your own point by citing a tweet from John :) There is nothing in macreadys tape that would help "the thing" if that is what macready was. Again, this is just the same issue I described in my first comment: if John comes out tomorrow with a new tweet saying that he actually forgot and was mixed up from being drunk on his last post and the truth is neither of them are the thing at the end, you will dismiss it and point to the segment of this video saying "John Carpenter said". As I said before, I get it and it's fine. Glad you're not offended, I don't mind talking about this stuff. Though I will be brutal with potent brevity when it comes to articulating my position ;)

[@Lammy2023]

More I think about it, it makes sense. During the end, child's is supposedly wearing a different jacket, and he drank a molotov cocktail.

[@2DimmMedia]

I talk about that. I don't think it's Gasoline. I'm pretty sure it is J&B because he was going to drink it

[@Lammy2023]

@2DimmMedia maybe. In your other video, you mention the thing music playing in the beginning, and at the end, when child's takes a sip. It could mean several things, and it's really cool. Could mean child's is now infected, and that's why macready smiles. Could be that child's was already infected and when he takes a sip, he now infects the drink and they likely share the bottle. Or possibly the bottle contains gasoline because they used the bottles for the purpose of burning everything. The possibilities are endless. Also, macready gets beaten by the computer in the beginning, and in retaliation, spills his drink into the computer, killing it. Perhaps when he was defeated (had a flamethrower pointed at and him and not knowing if child's was the thing) poured the drink (gave child's a bottle that possibly could have had gasoline) and that's why he smiles. All really interesting!

[@pecker2-9]

I re watched the thing recently, what I did notice was when they take Blair to the shed & McCready takes a sip of the bottle & puts it down in front of Blair, the camera holds with Blair staring at the bottle for just a touch to long. As in for you to notice it. I think the McCready being the Thing is a pretty solid theory when you watch the whole film.

[@2DimmMedia]

I'll have to rewatch that scene. But do keep in mind Blair is plastered out his mind 😂 but I'll keep an eye out on that. Thank you!

[@beardoftears]

If MacReady is the Thing, it stands to reason that the hot wire blood test is a ruse: not actually effective at detecting Things. Remember that the test is MacReady's idea. It makes no sense for him to teach the humans how to detect him. The "successful positive" blood test is easily explained through sleight of hand; MacReady-Thing shoots the tendrils out of his hand. He sacrifices the other Thing to save himself, while simultaneously teaching the humans a fake Thing-detection method which seems conclusively proven effective.

[@2DimmMedia]

Yeah. I felt that sleight of hand was a good theory, but alot of people dismissed the idea but I can easily see him doing it. Like swapping the petri dish with a pre placed one. And the thought of it not being a true test and a ruse is an idea I hadn't considered 🤔

[@beardoftears]

No, not switching the dishes. He sticks the wire in blood, which doesn't do anything because the test is fake. Then he just shoots goop out of his hand at the same time so it looks like the test did something.

[@youcanhandlethetruth4695]

@@2DimmMedia Why would it even React. It can Tolerate Pain or it would have reacted as soon as they cut his Finger. The Whole Prozess of detaching its own Head must be as Painful as being Burned. Even Parts without a Brain can React Smart. Or the not Burned stuff inside one of them Could have just come out and take a New Shape. Jet it Waited inside of the Body before making its Move.

[@ChewsCarefully]

_That's_ good. This would imply all the different "Things" don't agree on stuff which would support our host's theory as to why MacReady would blow up the other one. But that's one hell of a leap in logic. No one else was around when Mac blew it up. & if they spread through infecting each other, how were there *other* "Things." They'd all be descendants of _one_ Thing. So this requires leaps in logic the narrative doesn't provide any background for. He wouldn't blow up the other Thing. This theory can't support that. & it's _really_ unlikely that he exposes how to detect them. If anything, the symbolism of the alcohol might be that it _prevents_ the spread of the Thing. It's been protecting him all along.

[@randallbesch2424]

@@ChewsCarefully it is still a hypothesis.

[@egads3696]

As for your question(and im on ur side btw)didnt Childs roll up w a flame thrower?

[@neosyndrome8931]

Not even 2 min in. Love the shirt haha. Just had to say that first.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! I love the series!

[@pcppbadminton]

The computer did cheat. The pieces move to completely different positions and it calls checkmate when McCready's king isn't even in danger 🤣 Also the technology to properly simulate cell assimilation like in the movie didn't exist in the early 80s, much less in an Antarctic base that was probably a decade old at that point so it's a doubly bad argument. I think the Thing spreads more like a disease than a virus, it's clearly shown that just skin to skin contact is enough to begin the assimilation process. And it _assimilates_ all of the host's cells, it doesn't replicate it's own cells within the host. It would explain why airborne transmission might not be possible and that just holding the tainted end of the J&B bottle with a bare hand is enough to get infected even without drinking from it. McCready's idea to use _the same scalpel_ to cut everyone's thumb is the perfect way to infect more people without raising too much suspicion. He collected the blood before testing it, so if he did cut his own thumb first then he's just infected literally everyone. Checkmate. Using false blood for his own sample is a more fool-proof idea though because he couldn't be sure how everyone would react to the idea. Fact is that, right up until they change or die, there are arguments both ways for every character in the movie, even the Norwegians and the huskies. The only reason the ending is so ambiguous is because you don't see them change or die, but the most likely explanation is that Childs and McCready are both Things at the end. Whether they know that the other has been assimilated or not is also ambiguous.

[@igodreamer7096]

"They both are the thing. THE END." - You can't be more metal and grim that that! xDDDD But, yeah. It's part of Apocalipse trilogy for a reason: the horror wins in the end, it can be delayed but will win eventually in the end. ⭐⭐⭐⭐

[@lorand5578]

Nope, Carpenter confirmed that only one of them was

[@igodreamer7096]

@@lorand5578 Yes. But don't change the fact that whatever one of them be human, he still will die from freezing. While the thing will just sleep, waiting the rescue team.

[@Red-vo3sk]

MacThing just really likes being MacReady. That's why he doesn't try to shapeshift at all, he much prefers the human body. This slows him down because he has to shapeshift to insta-assimilate targets, like his child Things and the Thule Station Things do, and there's enough of Mac left in him to enjoy the chess game.

[@custos3249]

Yeah, no. While I like this interpretation and won't be surprised if it's what they go with if we ever get a sequel, it's a bit crap. Reality is the movie lays out the thing's plan to let itself freeze again. There's absolutely no strategic advantage in the final confrontation for the thing(s) vs just walking off at any point, dropping a limb somewhere (where'd all that blood scurry to btw?), or just staying hidden. Especially after the facility is blown up by McCready, exposing itself just increases the likelihood it gets taken down. I like the sneeze idea too, but issue, how would the thing know humans can sneeze? As the saying goes, pics or it didn't happen. The "everyone is the thing" is also interesting, but I don't recall the movie setting up anything that could validate it. I'm not seeing how people have come to the conclusion things can't identify each other or are the type to wear lone wolf howling at the moon shirts. Especially as one obviously has to infect someone, meaning that one knows who it turned.

[@2DimmMedia]

There's no evidence to support alot of the theories. That's kind of the hang up. No proof they communicate nor that they can. No proof that they know one another or not too.

[@custos3249]

@@2DimmMedia Still a really interesting idea though. Literally went "oh I like that!" when it came up. Be a pain in the ass to find a way to sensibly justify it though beyond some handwavy bullshit like "because alien." Kinda pokes a hole in the point of taking over an entire planet if things can't tell who's who. Thinking about what that would look like, almost turns the idea onto a horror sitcom.

[@youcanhandlethetruth4695]

With all the Stations only 50 Miles Away. A Giant explosion could not only be seen, (at night) but detected, with the Seismic stuff. ( Since the Radio was gone) Wich would send a Rescue Team. Mc Reedy was the One that Burned all the Evidence down, even Buried the Bodys with the Bulldozer, because he wanted to get out NOT Frozen. With an Excuse why everybody is Dead and to reach Civilisation before someone else notices that the Norway Station is gone too. it was 100% Mcreedy Carpenter Build this Whole Story around.

[@killaronjones3933]

in the end there's no proof of Childs or Mac being the Thing. Childs is very suspicious, however if he was the Thing there isn't really a reason why he wouldn't kill Mac at the end of the movie, or just avoid Mac all together and freeze. I personally like the movie ending with paranoia and fear amongst two normal humans who ultimately don't know who's who.

[@dominicconti6278]

Thanks for your followup. How about this? MacReady is NOT the Thing until after he kills the giant monster Thing. After all, pivotal events occur off-screen. He could have been turned into a Thing. Then it makes sense for him to pass Childs the bottle, thus making Childs a Thing, as well. It disrupts your theory that he was a Thing much, much earlier in the movie, though, but does make sense thematically (the drinking and passing of the bottle is a legitimate motiff, as you mentioned). I'm not sure this is the case, but now that you've brought up the possibility of MacReady potentially being the Thing I can't see the movie in the same way ever again. Much appreciated, as the POV has value. But I'm not certain at all and will keep thinking about it.

[@charlesreid9337]

ive always thought this was what happened. And i used to think they just let themselves freeze Thing is.. we already know the things dont have to do this. They turned into husky's to survive. Once there were only things left they could have turned into husky's or sea lions or whatever and survived.

[@vloggingwithsam4811]

How would that be possible, the giant monster thing would be the last thing in that scenario, if it’s dead there’s nothing left to assimilate him?

[@TheHirohikoAraki]

Thanks to this video, The Thing video game is getting remastered in the near future. Can’t wait for this game to get released soon *(and maybe fix some bugs and continuity errors along the way)* 😄

[@BrandonOfJapan]

Your theory is not original, and has been plastered all over reddit for decades. Its been disproven time and time again, as there are significant leaps in logic youd have to make to have this theory work.

[@2DimmMedia]

I disagree on all points you just stated. While reddit has a few similar points, mine has more than double the proof and all on screen evidence is debunk proof 🤷‍♂️ mainly because it's on screen. And they arent leeps when evidence supports the big picture

[@beastslayer3228]

@@2DimmMedia I think the biggest flaw is Mac fighting the Blair Thing. The explanation doesn't wash. (First, Blair thing wasn't trying to leave Earth, just Antarctica, so that he could infect the world), which a Mac Thing would have wanted. An explanation of killing the monster Blair so that Mac could go stealth doesn't work. Blair only monstered out because it was cornered, and presumably, could have also gone back to being just Blair for any potential rescue team.

[@beastslayer3228]

@@2DimmMedia I'm waiting for you next video claiming that the mother in The Exorcist was also possessed by the demon all along, and she only called in the exorcists to avoid suspicion and go undetected. And at the end, she makes her escape with no one suspecting a thing.

[@Brianbri-nq3cc]

💡 I think that The Thing is a hive minded monster that was willing to sacrifice it's subjects to protect the main beast which was MacReady, just like the creatures in the ALIENS movie. So that would explain why macready was killing his fellow monsters/subjects in front of the humans to convince them/trick them to believe that he's human, because he was the boss of them💥👍

[@tskmaster3837]

I thought it was a given when MacReady said to Childs "Let's just wait here awhile... see what happens." Back to how the movie started, the Thing back in ice waiting for another thaw, another chance. If MacReady was still human, he should, no he WOULD have said "Let's get finishing burning down the place and go out in style... just in case." You don't have to prove anything, it's all right there. 30:33 You thought it happened then? Oh no, MacReady was still human even when he fought Blair. Carpenter did a really fun thing when he switch the POV to Childs at the end, we lost sight of MacCready. That's all it took, a bit of Blair and that's all they wrote for MacReady..

[@2DimmMedia]

I believe MacReady being the thing before that explains how Blair got infected. On screen I mean. Anything can happen off screen. But like I said in my original video. Mac drinks the smirnoff that Blair has and then Blair decides not to end himself anymore. Because he has fully assimilated by then

[@nathairius8753]

So then why would Childs drink from it knowing all that had taken place?

[@tskmaster3837]

@@nathairius8753 Why would Childs agree that freezing to death is the best solution? I think MacReady took the wrong lesson from the blood test. He thought proving himself human would result in everyone attacking him if they were all turned. However, I think that while each Thing can recognize other Things, that won't force them to work against their instinct of assimilation and self-preservation. Survival of the fittest replaced by survival of those who fit in best.... once they removed all the Thing sensing dogs at least. Wait... is it a hive mind too? Or would it be more akin to social insects... Oh. OOHH, it's BOTH! It's a cumulative existence, it keeps all the memories and knowledge of past being but then adds the new knowledge of its present body. So they're individuals who can work towards a common goal using shared knowledge like a hive mind but they can also sacrifice earlier versions of itself if it helps to lengthen the chain of new Things like social insects. Evolution, fear it.

[@davidqualls1766]

I don't believe Blair could leave the planet in the tiny ship he was cobbling in the tunnel as the presenter stated. Compare it to the HUGE ship they find crashed. That was an intergalactic vessel. Blair's little saucer is designed to reach civilization on Earth.

[@2DimmMedia]

I mean if we are going off size comparison that makes sense 🤔

[@kombatfighter]

Here's your entire theory thrown out the window: Macready was a pilot that could've easily flown away at any point. Roll credits and end movie! Even if you were to say that he was the 1st person to be infected, my guy.....your theory is thrown out again, because he would've just immediately gotten in the helicopter and flown away. Why do you think Blair built the space ship? Because all other vehicles got destroyed before he got turned. In the future when you present theories, drop the negative colorful language.

[@2DimmMedia]

Well, its a movie.... so that would be stupid. And about how i talk, thanks for the advice but nah I'm good crodie. 👍

[@boxculture]

I love this theory. I’m here for it! Looking forward to watching this!

[@2DimmMedia]

Me too! Have fun!

[@armoredgeo6621]

McCready is also the helicopter pilot! If he's the thing he has knowledge to escape. So he's going to focus on his own survival. He can't have people turn on him. Even if rescue comes, he can take them all out and fly the helicopter they arrive in 🤯 He also could kill the other things cause they been exposed! And maybe they can't change back. So that would ruin any chance of escaping cause he would be quarantined and tested instead of it just looking like a tragic accident. Omg! The same could go for child's and that's why they trust each other at the end. Cause they both kept their form and won. Bro my mind is like blown open right now. I'm mad I'm super late to this. I hope you see it lol

[@2DimmMedia]

That is a good point as to why they would expose themselves at the end regardless!

[@patrykzukowski7471]

I mean, I really don't know how people can so easily dismiss strong pieces of evidence such as MacReady's jacket in the snow or MacReady's insane response to the question about the cause of the "Maybe I Burned Myself Until It Got To Me" guy's death (sorry, forgot his name), so yeah, I think your theory is still the best one out there.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! And yeah, its crazy to me too..

[@shadowvessel]

This is awesome. I thought it'd be 6 more months or a year before we got this. Lol You're still doing great. Be as abrasive as you want, your presentation is on point as ever, don't let the haters get you down. 🤘 I'm 48 years old and grew up watching The Thing on video disc (vinyl not laser). My dad used to talk about his own theories every time and I wish he was here to see your videos. He would've loved 'em. SIMMY JUICE!!!

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! I'll take your advice and yeah, I figured people would think I would take forever 😅 also, your dad sounds like an awesome person!

[@shadowvessel]

@@2DimmMedia Are you on X? I went there to share the link and tag you but didn't see you. 🤷‍♂️

[@2DimmMedia]

x.com/Glytch_2Dimm?t=Cn_jdONcDanl3blt0vf6og&s=09 I have one but not under the media name!

[@shadowvessel]

Gotchas. And honestly, the Bennings drinking from the bottle before Macready hole is bigger than the blood test. You already made the point of off-screen take overs AND that he could've had a "pouch" in his finger for human blood (for the deleted scene argument). 🤷‍♂️

[@shadowvessel]

​@@2DimmMedia ...and f**k "gamervet". 😂

[@christophermiller8589]

"Wait and see what happens" always struck me as a bizarre final line. Only the Thing would want to freeze, yet both characters present accept this solution. They could have hugged a shared dynamite stick a la Aliens if they really wanted to be sure. But they didn't... despite all the struggle throughout the film, now they decide to be chill? Bennings not being infected first is a huge flaw in this theory. But! I like it regardless, especially the idea of both Mac and Childs being infected at the end.

[@highoffgaming.]

You did a great job explaining your opinion while being respectful and Relatable. I also think Child’s isn’t the thing and I can’t sleep right without this final answer

[@joelrosales5938]

Just came here from the last video, I like that you’re branching into the big what-ifs and talking about what most wouldn’t think of! I like that the movie does its job so well that it’s still being discussed today. It’s fun to think about! Like I said on the last video, good stuff!

[@backoffwayoff4687]

Absolutely love your analysis on my favorite movie of all time. Like a lot of other folks, i have this movie and have watched it at least 10 times but never even twigged that MacReady could be the thing from almost the start. Respect to the time you have taken to give your perspective. It has a lot of merit. You should be a lawyer

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! This movie absolutely deserves to be watched in the double digits

[@robbs96]

Your theory was solid with the exception of the dog licking the gloves then the gloves possibly touching the same place on the same bottle that Mac drinks from later. Aslo the opening chess scene shows it DID cheat by changing peice location / morphing. Like the thing. So then the ending scene could mirror the chess computer being killed by the contents of the J&B bottle just like childs being "killed" or at least found out via the contents of the bottle (gas because it was a maltov cocktail not whiskey)

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! My only issue with the bottle having gas in it is I don't see how the thing can assimilate humans and not carry over taste. There is no on screen evidence of that being the case... and we also see Mac about to drink from the bottle before Childs appears as well. Why would he if its gasoline?

[@TK1129]

Hey it was a good head canon explanation. My own is that there’s multiple possibilities. Paranoia is a big theme in the movie and it was left intentionally vague to never let the viewer relax.

[@anthraxmacabre5200]

You don’t use the disarranged coats as evidence because it’s a continuity error. Yet MacReady not showing him cutting himself during the blood test (an obvious continuity error) is not a continuity error. Interesting. This theory’s foundation is built upon thin straws my friend. There are a lot of holes in your theory.

[@2DimmMedia]

The coats are an obvious continuity error because they do not matter for the story. The finger from which the blood is drawn that proves whether the characters are human or not is a huge pivotal detail. There is no similarity in importance. What are you on? They show Nauls and Windows, 2 people who don't matter but the one who was put into question a few scenes earlier? This theory has less holes than all other my friend

[@akelly4207]

I heard carpenter on a commentary just the other day say they did plan to make Mac the Thing and then chose to keep it ambiguous. Kurt was talking to him and said “So Mac was never the Thing, right? Right?” And Carpenter just laughed. Both of them sitting waiting to die makes no sense unless they both 100% know they are both human . Because you don’t want it to freeze and continue to infect the rescuers.

[@2DimmMedia]

That is true! I mean unless they just don't care anymore. But I do like thinking that they are both the thing. That's the most poetic in my eyes

[@thecopperowl8386]

It's possible that all the actions of the Macready thing does is to try to perfectly copy Macready. Who would have become paranoid, and destroy the whole base. Even when the Thing tried to crawl away, it pointed itself out and incinerated itself. It is perfectly willing to destroy another Thing if it means it can get away. With that in mind, could it be that the Thing wanted to leave but was perfectly willing to sabotage its other selves in order to not be left behind? Only because it's what Macready would do, but also that it's probably afraid of humans. The blood test could also show that the Thing can't make a pocket of blood, but if the theory is true, shows that it's unaware that someone else is a Thing. I think the blood scene disproves the theory, only if the Thing is aware of the others who are also Things. Because if it was aware as to who else was a Thing, it would be have an advantage over everyone when they were tied up. But if it didn't know, then it would be afraid of Doc. Which is why it would help everyone

[@d_ruggs]

I agree. this has always been what made sense to me. the drinking is so intentional

[@Poochamoo]

I like the early sentiment that is what you return to. It's a movie, about paranoia, and this is theory not often (never probably) supported. "Proof" isn't an objective truth. Proof is just a evidence, and a preponderance of evidence is only then going to be classified as a fact. We don't outright dispense facts, we just find better evidence that supports another conclusion. The Thing is a fictional work, and so you're not wrong in your thinking. The Thing is SUPPOSED to be about this commentary! That's it's MAIN point! Even if the sequel sheds light, on the this movie, that doesn't invalidate the leading path. If this were historical, the conclusions are no-less profound, even if wrong. So...I like that you remind the viewer this is an analysis; "just a theory". It's just a collection of circumstantial evidence. None of us know with certainty.

[@markzambelli]

This movie was amazing when I first saw it back in 1985 (aged 15) and it immediately wedged itself into my top 5 movies of all time. I've shown it to both of my kids and they totally see why it's a favourite of mine. No matter how many times I've rewatched it (soooo many times) I can't believe how I never picked up on all of these points you put forward... your theory fits more than any I've ever heard and have ever been able to come up with myself... so well, btw, that you have me totally convinced, and for that I thank you sir for putting both these videos of yours together and put your theory firmly out there (despite all the haters). Thanks again🥰

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! I truly appreciate that!

[@jaylex666]

Is it possible that although the thing assimilates others to spread, but in doing so creates an individual entity in doing so. There may be one original "Thing", but there are individual things spawned when it assimilates others. I've always thought Mac was a Thing, so it's possible that Mac Thing was going rogue and playing his own game against its own kind, kinda like establishing it's own line and ensuring it's survival.

[@2DimmMedia]

That's absolutely possible and can be inferred by the blood syrome scene. As how every piece will act on their own to survive and leave a burning comrad or like the cpr scene when Palmer(who was a thing at the time), rats out the head crab thing just to seem more human.

[@jaylex666]

​@@2DimmMediagoing back to the chess analogy again. Each thing has an inbuilt desire to protect its own life. So by shifting suspicion onto others and establishing trust it makes it's own survival and job a lot easier. Notice how Mac isn't declared the leader or tries to take the role of leader up, people just trust him enough and are happy to do what he says. Mac Thing had the game rigged from the start and it knew it, had people willing to go alone with him all the time

[@2DimmMedia]

A game of trust and he had all the cards

[@jaylex666]

@@2DimmMedia It had all the cards. Still one of the greatest movies ever made because however many years later, we're still discussing it

[@2DimmMedia]

Absolutely. Number one on my list and to alot of people for sure! This movie will go down for sure as one of if not the best horror movie of all time and will be debated forever. Even if a sequel is made. Which like is said, is a possibility

[@Webhead123]

First of all, the original video was great, as well as this follow-up and I really appreciate the deep dive. Ultimately, my main contention with the theory of an infected MacReady, interestingly enough, comes from the "Fuchs in the lab" scene. In short, from the perspective of film making and storytelling, this is all simply too heavy-handed to serve as a tell to the audience. Think about it this way: in the span of just 7 minutes, we get: 1) MacReady showing up and acting suspicious in the lab 2) The power being cut and someone lurking in the darkness 3) Fuchs finding MacReady's torn long johns 4) Finding Fuchs' body 5) MacReady going alone with Nauls to the shack 6) Nauls returning with more of MacReady's torn clothes 7) MacReady finding his way back to the camp despite the storm All of these attempts to put suspicion on MacReady in the span of 7 minutes! But also pay attention to when/where in the movie this takes place. This is the transitional moment, at the end of the second act, where the tension is meant to be raised and the audience is made to question all previous assumptions. These events serve to undermine any sense of safety and make the audience suddenly feel as paranoid as the crew. This is the director/screenwriter deliberately trying to make MacReady, as the character the audience formerly trusted, look suspicious and make the audience uneasy. There's no subtlety to it at all. The problem is, as in most good mystery stories, the true villain is almost never who you most suspect, and putting such a big spotlight on MacReady like this is almost guaranteed to mean that he isn't the actual threat we're lead to think he might be. Assuming MacReady was infected from very early on also causes a lot of potential issues, some of which others have mentioned: a) Why not infect/assimilate Copper while alone at the Norwegian base? b) Why not infect Fuchs in the ski dozer? c) Why not infect Nauls in his shack? d) Why include details in his recordings about what the crew has learned about the Thing? e) While it's feasible that MacReady could have "cheated" the blood test...why come up with, and insist upon, the blood test at all? Performing the test only limits its own chances of survival. f) Why would an infected MacReady act surprised and alarmed when he hears no response from Garry or Nauls in the basement and why kill the Blair-Thing if it's apparent at that point that they have basically won? In any case, I'm definitely still more convinced that MacReady is human than not at the end. Obviously I don't *know* this (only Carpenter ever will, it seems) but based on what evidence and arguments have been put forth over the years, that's the position I'm forced to take.

[@2DimmMedia]

So alot of the answers to "Why didn't Mac infect so and so is dismissed by your earlier point. It's a movie and infecting them one by one like that wouldn't make for a compelling paranoia piece. My main question is while the scene can be read as a point to make the audience uneasy on the main character, my counter point is why show Nauls and Windows cut their finger and put blood in the petri dishes on screen. Especially when they arent the one under question? He did that intentionally. So the answer is still up in the air. And you ask why did he come up with the test? He had no choice. It was the only way to prove he wasn't a thing. And he had to sell another thing out to prove it works to add further credence to his innocence. It's all a chess game.

[@Glocktologist]

I don’t think ”well it’s necessary for the movie to be interesting” is a solid argument. Very often it’s true; lazy script writers make things happen because they must happen for the story to move forward. However, they should also make sense within the realm of the story itself. In the case of the Thing, a more appropriate answer to questions like ”why didn’t the Thing simply attack and assimilate everyone within 5 minutes?” is that we don’t know. We don’t know what the Thing is really capable or incapable of. We don’t know how it views and evaluates the situation. We don’t know if two Things would fight each other and why they would do that. People forget that mistakes happen. Even stupid ones. Very often mistakes by characters are viewed as plot holes as if the characters should be perfect, logical, and infallible all the time. Of course, too many convenient mistakes can become jarring. Sometimes writers make characters behave in ways that stretch the belief a little too thin. ”Why didn’t X do Y?” is a question people ask too often with the assumption that not having an answer proves something. It doesn’t.

[@YukonBloamie]

This is a pretty elaborate but also compelling theory. The true test is to start watching the movie with the theory in mind and see if it holds. Next time I watch The Thing I'm gonna test it but it looks solid to me. To make it work tho, MacReady would have to be the prime host with the ability to not change like the other infected did. Which is a power The Thing has which was shown from the first scene with the dog. The thing that needs clarification is if MacReady is a separate entity from the dog.

[@2DimmMedia]

It makes the movie a whole new experience with the theory in mind!

[@evili6668]

John Carpenter likes to keep the audience in suspense, you see him do that with alot of his movies. They Live, Christine, The Fog, Prince of Darkness.. there's always the I don't know.. is it dead factor and The Rhing is classic Carpenter doing what he does best.. leaving rhe audience guessing until it becomes a 42 yr. Old & still going debate. Thanks for playing! 😆🛸

[@godchi1dvonsteuben770]

I can settle it right now... End scene: McCready hands Childs the bottle of gasoline, Childs drinks it as though doing so is normal, because of this McCready now KNOWS beyond any doubt that Childs is a Thing... a profoundly deadly alien creature, sitting just a couple feet away... AND MCCREADY SMILES! If McCready were still human he'd be terrified by the result of his test, not happy. McCready IS a thing! MIC DROPPED!

[@2DimmMedia]

I do think that they both being The Thing at the end is the most poetic! but I don't think the bottle is gasoline. I find it hard to believe the thing perfectly replicates humans but doesn't replicate taste. But yes, it makes more sense then both being human for sure!

[@VideoGameKillCounts]

I really enjoyed this take! Thanks for sharing - also, if KZbin doesn’t like the word Kill: my channel is screwed 😂 I think I’ll kill count The Thing video game soonish, and I look forward to seeing the playthrough 👌

[@2DimmMedia]

Yes, if youtube hates that word, it would be unfortunate for you 🤣 imma check your channel out!

[@anthonymartino3693]

Your analysis is spot on! Macready was changed after he signed off on the tape. The JB bottle is in that scene waiting for him to take a gulp.

[@2DimmMedia]

Thank you! So someone mentioned that he lies on the tape. The timeliness of the storm doesn't add up to what is currently going on (no storm yet). I might do an update video talking about it

[@jasoncrispin2496]

That comment where they are both the Thing and the lack of trust between the two of them now i think that is a very good way to think of the ending.

[@2DimmMedia]

I agree. Very poetic

[@ASSLEVANIA]

I gotta watch these again; while there were a few stretches and things I disagree with, I do think there’s some compelling points I hadn’t thought of and I admire your audacity. It really says something about this film’s perfectly crafted ambiguity that people still debate about it 40+ years later.

[@2DimmMedia]

Yes. This film is a mater piece because of the Ambiguity. Chefs kiss

[@JappeChristian]

Regarding the whole earring argument: As far as I remember, in the prequel they show that the Thing can't replicate non-organic matter and so they can test to see if people are things by checking if they have dental fillings. Of course then the Thing wouldn't be able to recreate an earring. But then later in the prequel, the main character notices that another teammember has their earring in the opposite ear of what they usually do (It used to be in the right ear, is now in the left, or reverse). She concludes that the Thing has learned to grow around the earring, probably after it saw that the humans used this as a tactic to root it out. Since that happened in the prequel, the Thing in the original would know that it should pay attention to things like earrings.

[@blemishednicely8402]

For the game, the bit about the clothing being replicated as well is likely a plot device/design choice to explain how members of your team (often after just having passed a blood test if you were administering them strategically, which made NO sense other than to force confrontations, such as boss fights etc where teammates passed tests just before going in but still zerged after entering etc) suddenly being infected but looking exactly the same in areas where no clothes would reasonably be available. It would also save them a buttload of programming/character modelling & the likes by making their "turn" instances simpler, too (granted, I played on the PS2, not PC, but still likely why that change - which DOES directly contradict the movie) Also, the ending theme song when you beat it ("The World Is After Me" by Saliva, IIRC) kinda slapped & was oddly suiting IMHO (paranoia theme, esp'ly if you've had a teammate with a 9mm & a bad day go full [metal jacket] Private Pyle in the bathroom during a playthrough)~

[@2DimmMedia]

Yeah that all makes sense to me! You excited about the remaster of the game coming out? I am

[@blemishednicely8402]

@@2DimmMedia I actually hadn't heard of the remake TBH...but you can bet your sweet simmy juice I am NOW, LMFAO!!! Absolutely gonna buy it. I used to dislike game remakes intensely until Resident Evil (OG GameCube version...that was AMAZING - Resident Evil 0 too. Up til then it was basically unheard of to have gameplay about the same quality as cinematic sequences. Before then you could generally just tell by screenshots or back of box which was gameplay or video at a glance. The NGC RE-Make & the [then] new RE0 were some of the 1st to change that, at least for higher resolution games on console, anyway. Also VERY impressive considering the NGC was outclassed by PS & XBox in power & colour palette. I bought an NGC JUST for RE-Make, RE0 & Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes. $ well spent) With Dead Space, Metal Gear ∆ & now the news of a The Thing remake on the slate it seems getting spoiled with absolute BANGERS is in store for the future/can't WAIT. (Totally unrelated, but have you heard of a game called The Lies of P? It's a Souls-Like game based off Pinocchio...but more the OG one [where Gepetto, which means "God will increase" in Italian nomenclature, is imprisoned & the townsfolk go all Frankenstein's Monster & hang Pinocchio]...I found it to be an interesting take all-around. Though in Collodi's OG tale I would ABSOLUTELY KOS Jiminy if he was as annoying as he was in the game, rather than just being the nagging voice of reason/conscience...though IIRC in the book that just resulted in Jiminy haunting him & being dead it's 24/7 now & the lil F*er doesn't even need to sleep anymore) I also gotta get around to reading the OG short story inspirations to The Thing..."Who Goes There?" & I forget the other one (I THINK it was "Friend or Foe?", but I have to look it up to be sure) that was a re-write before The Thing was, well...a "thing"... Side note: I never noticed the Nauls significance. TBH I had always figured Childs was The Thing or neither (never really figured both), but as I watched the plausibility rose quite a bit...especially killing Fuchs, going for Nauls after the info Fuchs gave & if he indeed infected Blair (who WROTE the hypothesis Fuchs shared with MacReady as well as the sealed food etc recommendation), particularly with MacReady then not sharing said info with anyone while blatantly ignoring that (very good & accurate) advice/warning. I found it very interesting food for thought & potential added depth/subtlety & nuance on a franchise I enjoy VERY much. Well done~

[@2DimmMedia]

I have heard of The Lies of P, considering my friends love those kinds of games. I'm not particularly good at soul type games and especially RPG based games. So I haven't had the chance to actually look at the game. But when I have time, I might give it a try! And yeah, I'm very disappointed in myself that I didn't catch on to the Nauls detail on my first analysis. But it definitely gives more credence to the theory. And I'm glad it was put in the follow up! Side Note: I need them to remaster iNinja and I absolutely need them to bring Portal 1 and 2 to these next gen consoles. If you haven't played portal, that's another fun puzzle game with a dark secret too! Alot of hidden Easter eggs connecting to an underlying plot not told through the game play

[@blemishednicely8402]

@@2DimmMedia I know of the Portal games, played a bit of the 1st one ages ago....wasn't there also some weird tie-in to Black Mesa or w/e "The Company" was from Half-Life? (I seem to specifically remember a relatively gruesome tie-in to another franchise & IIRC the in-universe lore to do with the Portal "gun" or tech was created by them/their scientists...I think it was also possibly a large part of how the enemies appeared, kind of like Phobos Labs from DOOM but spanning 2 different games) Not what you'd generally expect from a puzzle game, I LOVE that schnikt~

[@blemishednicely8402]

@@2DimmMedia I vaguely re that, despite only having played a bit of Portal 1, cuz when it came out people balked at the idea...until it turned out to be 100% true. Epic tie-ins done SO subtly, it was a trip~ (EDIT) ...I would also personally love to see the Tenchu series (specifically the 1st 2: Stealth Assassins & Birth of the Stealth Assassins) get remade, as well as the FULL Resident Evil: Outbreak game (not busted up into several files the way they did to maximise sales/profits, which then ended up killing it; full price for what felt like an expansion, apparently 5× as "Files" - similar to how RE: Revelations did Chapters per release, but NOWHERE near as well implemented & like, ZERO advertising...died before File #3 came out. I only knew File #2 existed cuz I randomly saw 1 copy on a shelf & bought it on the spot, which was apparently as common a story as people feeling the pricing was off for what you got, good as it was it was just too small for the price/expansion feel at full-game $, etc)

[@QuillC]

Just want to point out a glaring flaw with the vid's logic here that you may have overlooked: While I do agree the open and close are nothing to write home about, as they're a bit slow and understated, the core verses of XXX are some fkn fiiirrrreeeeee. Don't skip this one, just scrub to 0:58 and listen to 2:30. You're welcome 👌 Seriously though, glad to see more vids from you, keep up the great work!

[@2DimmMedia]

I'll give it another chance. Just for you! And thank you!

[@QuillC]

​@@2DimmMedia 🥹 Best case.

[@brunoguedesguimaraes9859]

An interesting thing about that scene between MacReady and Fuchs (when Fuchs states that they should eat from cans and bottles), is that Fuchs reached for a test tube that seems to probably contain acid, meaning if MacReady was a thing (considering also mentioned that is a possibility that he looked around for witnsses before interacting with Fuchs) he surely would not had assimilated Fuchs then due to the chance of a fight breaking out and alarming other personell from the base

[@2DimmMedia]

Yep! That also makes sense!

[@Ron-ep3zl]

I actual like your theory. I also like the one where both are the thing. I think that would make a compelling sequel.

[@2DimmMedia]

I do too. A very compelling sequel

[@matttryner2380]

It (The Thing) makes sense if one of them at the end is thing, if none of them are thing, and it makes sense if both of them are thing..thang, thong...what’s plural for thing?

[@303Thatoneguy]

Things

[@mishmashmedley]

not sure i buy it, but i'll think about it next time i watch it.

[@tobiaslundqvist3209]

Depending on the type of virus or bacterial organism, even medical alcohol may be insuffiecient, particularly if you emidiately swallow the virus/bacteria in question.

[@natew5544]

i like that shout out to the movie, "the computer wore tennis shoes". also a kurt russell movie.

[@PhiltheuniKoRn]

How to tell you made a really compelling story... 40 years later and the ending is still debated on whos the thing

[@rickbrookes9491]

John Carpenter has said that all the clues to know who, if either, of the two survivors is the Thing… I think you may have picked up on them!