As Winston says, you're not missing anything. The first was moderately OK, but I hated the second film so much I don't even want to watch the third (and I already bought the disc before I watched the second).
But the difference between the endings of Halloween and The Thing is that Halloween is tailor made for a sequel and The Thing is not. Since the 1982 version is a remake, I can't complain about a sequel (or a remake) being made but I hope they just leave any confirmation of what happened to MacCready and Childs out of it.
That's fair but that was over by 1981 so doing a sequel (the eleventh entry in the series) to the original in 2018 was not a big deal in my mind. The Thing, on the other hand, hasn't had its ending confirmed or denied in more than forty years so I'd rather see them not do anything with that.
Honestly, I think everyone knows that a direct sequel to The Thing or even something in the vein of the recent Exorcist sequel is a fool's errand and they will avoid it entirely. If they just wanna redo the idea of guys trapped in the Arctic, I don't care at all because that doesn't tread on the ending of The Thing.
I always thought that neither was but they couldn’t take the chance to trust each other. The Thing had gone so far to even rob humanity of one of its basic qualities and forced them to choose death as a result.It's a reasonably well done film, all things (no pun intended) considered. The problem with it, and I suppose why I've not bothered to re-watch it -- despite it having some solid character actors in it -- is that it was completely unnecessary. From the Carpenter film itself, we pretty much know what happened to the Norwegian camp, and seeing it happen, in a way that feels like a remake more than a prequel, doesn't add anything.
I have problems with the idea of a sequel. I'll admit that I rather like the ambiguous ending of Carpenter's film: is either MacReady or Childs a Thing? (I confess that I think Childs is) but feel that a possible sequel going that way would ruin the elegance of that ending. In that respect, I'd go along with your idea that they both be dead (or "inactive").
But the idea of continuing the story doesn't sit well with me. The point here is, as MacReady pretty much says at the end of the Carpenter film, is that The Thing has to be dead or it's the end of humanity. It's a weakness that I think was present in John W. Campbell's original novella ("Who Goes There?). The way the narrative is set up, just a single drop of the Thing's blood can potentially wipe out all life on Earth. That leaves only two possible endpoints: either the The Thing is "really most sincerely dead" or humanity is well and truly fucked.
The best and only reason I can think of for there being a sequel to The Thing is if they give it the tagline "It's Just One Damned Thing After Another".
Obviously, it's all a matter of opinion but that's the correct answer.
The Thing is manipulating his vocal cords without need for air.
Nah, just my opinion but it was misdirection designed only to create the sense of distrust. I honestly don’t think Carpenter or Lancaster ( if he was still with us) would ever reveal their thoughts on it but their goal was just to create that sense of unease and distrust. The Thing didn’t have to be alive any longer to continue to damage people. They didn’t like each other much to begin with but, whatever trust they developed under pressure, was Completely destroyed. It wasn’t just the physical tolol but the psychological impact on everyone in the camp. It both brought them together and robbed them of their sense of trust at the same time. It was the cruel irony of the creature preying on humanity’s strength turning it into a weakness.
