What an utter garbage, especially compared to the far superior and faithful 1982 version. Can't believe some of you even praised this. It's just another forgettable straight to tv movie that essentially just reused the frankenstein costume to a pathetic effect. Disgraceful.
shareIt's a fav of mine. The monster isn't the story, in my opinion. But how the discovery impacts the humans. Some follow the rules, others don't, all in the name of science.
John Carpenter's version is true to the source material and a better picture. But this is still a good story.
Edit: my criteria for my comparison is the monster special effects.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
This film did not exactly suck, but the Carpenter version was much better and a hell of a lot more entertaining. Some of this has to do with the age of the film, but most has to do with the ridiculous, overdone and unrealistic rapid-fire dialogue. A low point in Hawks' and Hecht's careers.
If you put me on ignore, then how can I notify you when I win the lottery?
neither movie is totally true to the source material, assuming you actually read the novella. Carpenter's version departs quite abit as well, and it's inaccurate to say it's better unless your only criteria is special effects monsters.
shareIt's on my Horror wish list at Amazon to read. My post should state for the depiction of the monster. So that was my criteria. I enjoyed the earlier version for the behaviors explored, but was blown away by the latter version because of the fright factor.
Don't wake up giving yourself a pass. Challenge yourself to be better
the novella and 1951 film share the military (or humanity vs. it) camaraderie and successful conclusion which are both missing from the Carpenter version. The 1951 dialog also has a similar "feel" to the novella. Most of the men dont seem afraid of getting contaminated in hand-to-hand combat, whereas the Carpenter characters are - which makes more sense in reality. The novella still has some great scenes and concepts not in either film, if you can stick with it (the first 10 pages are unnecessarily obtuse - for a legendary editor Campbell was a so-so author).
I've read Campbell had twin Aunts who used to play tricks on him, and that the story was a result of that experience of not knowing who's who.
Btw, the author of "Logans Run" was hired to write a remake draft, and that's TOTALLY different from the story. Definitely not an improvement, but you can judge for yourself as his screen treatment was published along with the original novella:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Goes-There-Novella-Formed/dp/0982332203/ref= sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420392013&sr=1-1&keywords= who+goes+there
I have a pdf of both, now that I think about it, if you want I can upload them. They've very small files since they're only text.
You have convinced me to keep the book on my wish list. I will pass on your copies of the new version, thank-you for offering. I'm new to pubic domain sharing, so I'm more cautious these days when I say yes.
Don't wake up giving yourself a pass. Challenge yourself to be better
no problem. Hope you enjoy the story. There's one scene that always gives me goosebumps (I've re-read it over the years - wintertime is a good time to revisit it). Some critics have also compared it to Lovecraft's "Mountains of Madness," although that's more horror than scifi.
Btw, that publisher I linked to also put out an unabridged audiobook of the story.
I have a collection of Lovecraft stories on my Kindle I haven't read yet. But they are on my to-do list.
Don't wake up giving yourself a pass. Challenge yourself to be better
I read Lovecraft when I was a kid. He's his own genre - "gothic horror sci-fi" - rather than sci-fi in the HG Wells sense...which is why I never compared Who Goes There with At Mountains of Madness. But he influenced authors then and today, so I can see the probable connection.
shareHorror frightened me in my youth, but I became a fan of Stephen King. I read most of his fiction in my early adult years, but turned away, too busy to find time. Then, the horror genre was replaced with romance (gay and straight), and paranormal shape shifters. Today, I'm willing to read anything I find interesting, and have returned to the horror genre in both literature and the newly discovered live action arena.
Currently my favorite H G Wells story is "The Food for the Gods...", and look forward to a personal fave from Mr. Lovecraft.
Don't wake up giving yourself a pass. Challenge yourself to be better
the novella and 1951 film share the military (or humanity vs. it) camaraderie
Most of the posters here are comparing the 51 version to the 82 version. OP was comparing 51 version to Plan 9 From Outer Space. Let me do that. The Thing was better written, made more sense, had decent acting and good casting. It holds interest after the block of ice is secured because of interesting characters and decent writing. I can't think when I've seen so many characters together in one story, especially the scientists (who BTW look and act more like artists, beatniks and jazz musicians than scientists) and of course the military men who are less interesting. I did like the romance strictly because of the actress and how well her character related to the love interest.
Plan 9 on the other hand is a simple piece of schlock with a sketchy plot, poorly written with terribly boring characters and the acting is like they were making it up
as they went along with no script. Even Lugosi couldn't save this picture; he was almost dead (and did die during the filming and was replaced by a much taller body double who had to hide his face with his cape so it wouldn't be so obvious he was not Lugosi) and his scenes were arbitrarily shot and the rest of the movie concocted around "the death of the old man." The dialog is like school kids would write (not the smart ones of today but like those back in the 50s). There is no real comparison of TTFAW to P9FOS without an unbalanced scale. Between Lugosi (as ghoul man), Vampira and Tor Johnson as a zombie, the Keystone Cops and the awful narration the scales are overweighted on the side of The Thing. Of course some will disagree with my assessment but it's all a matter of opinion. Try comparing them by the facts and you'll see a big difference.
Most of the posters here are comparing the 51 version to the 82 version. OP was comparing 51 version to Plan 9 From Outer Space.This is the first sentence of the OP's post: "What an utter garbage, especially compared to the far superior and faithful 1982 version."