'Who Goes There?'

[@OneMan-wl1wj]

"it could be confused, lost!" "it could be a lot of things man!..but one thing it shouldn't be is alive!" classic.

[@mattf5973]

Who Goes There? is a science fiction horror novella by American author John W. Campbell Jr., written under the pen name Don A. Stuart. Its story follows a group of people trapped in an Antarctic research outpost with shapeshifting alien monsters able to absorb and imitate any living being. The novella was first published in the August 1938 issue of Astounding Science Fiction and was also printed as The Thing from Another World. Its extended novel version, found in an early manuscript titled Frozen Hell, was finally published in 2019. Who Goes There? has been directly adapted to film in 1951 as The Thing from Another World and again in 1982 as The Thing, a more faithful treatment by John Carpenter. Other adaptations and inspired works have spanned various media

[@davesparks9503]

Well done radio is like a good book..."Theater of the Mind".

[@deadsi]

@Joanna-Carol Lee does that include ppl who can't read?

[@TheTarikL]

This book is Awesome, the audio is excellent and John Carpenter´s movie is simply wonderfull. Thanks for showing

[@ohmss069]

That was terrific! Glad to see the origins of the movie the Thing. Makes it even more interesting.

[@TheActualCathal]

I love this adaptation. You don't get the spectacle of the Carpenter version but you get a much richer sense of the characters.

[@finally_startingtopost]

Damn this is good....I'm saving it to listen to at bed time...thanks for uploading this...great story and those actors are dynamite..

[@rainwaterjoseph4634]

Nice foreshadowing, "The Antarctic, it gets in your blood".

[@wevetra13]

I've always loved this short story. I enjoyed this.

[@Sublimarcher]

wow, i really gotta start listening to more of these radio plays these are legit

[@apelitium]

I enjoyed this very much. I loved the movies based off of this.

[@Johnlindsey289]

Do you agree The Thing wasn't a remake of the earlier film The Thing from Another World since they are 2 very completely different films and are 2 separate adaptations of the same book and do you think John Carpenter's The Thing is the quintessential adaptation of the book and The Thing from Another World was a very loose adaptation?

[@trikkerman1]

Watch J.Carpenter's The Thing with commentary and I believe you will get your answer. J.C. And Kurt R. do the commentary. Also you can watch a documentaries on 1)The Thing 2)Halloween 3)Alien 4)Aliens 5)Predator here on youtube.

[@admiralhaggunenon3435]

Thank you for uploading this. I am a great Thing fan. I heard this when it was first broadcast and it's terrific to hear it again.

[@1SeanBond]

A Fantastic audio drama! Appreciate your efforts in posting this! Thanks so very much!😉✌🍻

[@Autonomous1969]

BBC Radio first broadcast this version on 24 January 2002

[@theresesmilingmoon9186]

I really love the movie THE THING,,,,,never heard this before. Really great.

[@lillyrith]

“We’re not in an old horror movie!” ...Well-

[@gregstewart6429]

4,444th!! But seriously, thanks for uploading David Longhorn.

[@Tsnore]

This is excellent.

[@BlackSeranna]

Thanks David! I love this story!

[@chrisgreene2405]

More audio versions in the form of radio plays please.

[@Johnlindsey289]

Scary story i read in the early 2000s and i'm a fan of Carpenter's film. Yet i dunno why his film is mistaken sometimes as a "remake" of The Thing from Another World? First of all, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. Second, Carpenter's The Thing isn't a remake of the earlier film they have a similar name but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film as it's so different than the "original" film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation of Who Goes There which is the REAL original source material.. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 1 homages to the earlier film like the title card and those are it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its one of the worst book to film adaptations of all time just like The Running Man or The Lawmower Man or World War Z etc. where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all. Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books, novellas and comics/graphic novels like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't. To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

[@TerryHindsley-uw9bu]

This is a remake of the thing from another world. You have to consider they could not do back in the fifty's what Carpenter did in the eighty's. Both things could make more of itself but just in a different way. Both movies are based on the same story. They could do more with it in the eighty's then they could back in the fifty's. Go ahead and like both versions. Both are great

[@prawnhunter7238]

Love this 👍

[@JohnJohn-qq1cw]

thanks for putting this up, by the way.

[@Mecknavorz]

that escalated and ended quickly well done!

[@williamnorton9547]

Mecknavorz One person commented that this production was too short and I agree with them; it should have lasted an hour or so instead of 30 minutes.

[@КонанОладушкин]

BRILLIANT!! Great work guys!

[@wilde4445]

Thank you so much for sharing!

[@belladonna8506]

très utile et inspirant....Merci.

[@JohnJohn-qq1cw]

i would have liked this to be longer as well. still, i did enjoy it.

[@velveetaslingshot]

WOW! that was awesome! I like this ending so much better than the movie (both versions)

[@Johnlindsey289]

And do you think The Thing is the quintessential adaptation of the book?

[@melbea03]

this just like the 1982 movie

[@timetochronicle]

The 1982 movie was considered to be a more faithful adaptation of "Who goes There?"

[@williamnorton9547]

"Natural protective reaction: don't know what it is, fear it....destroy it." It's been that way since before Man walked upright and will likely be that way up to the moment of our extinction, which will no doubt be by our own hand.

[@Chucky3481]

Hello my name is Peter and I watch this audiobook I always listen to it when I’m asleep pretend I’m in the film so I think about other things

[@2msvalkyrie529]

A Scouser on an Antarctic expedition . ? !? They get everywhere .!

[@trikkerman1]

Too bad this movie was over looked because of "E.T." The movie wasn't even nominated for best F/X. The F/X in the Thing still looks bad ass. Don't get me wrong, there are time that you have to use CGI, but shouldn't if you don't have to. Superhero movies can only be made using CGI IMO.

[@KossolaxtheForesworn]

true its understandable from those. but the thing prequel didnt only suck because of the CGI...they brought up new rules that the creature did not follow in the original movie not to mention those rules had multiple holes in them, and the chase in the UFO. the creature for some reason could not reach her even tho it could simply just remove tentacles from hits body to attack her or simply change its shape to fit through the hole to get her. it sucked so damn much ass.

[@rafaelramirez3180]

winston smith I agree, Great point! 👍👍

[@TerryHindsley-uw9bu]

Blair kind of sounds like carrington from the original thing from another world. Him wanting to try to talk to it instead of treating it like the threat it really is at first. Then he wised up

[@steve531109]

This is probably the 2002 BBC radio adaptation of the story . Hence the accents .

[@prawnhunter7238]

Really enjoyed this honestly helps me sleep, could anyone recommend similar audio dramas on KZbin?

[@bentillotson8241]

check out the' Salems Lot ' drama, it's a classic

[@kimsey0000]

"I have no mouth, but i must scream" BBC radio drama like this one.

[@mattf5973]

" Outbreak of fear " is really good. One of many dramas by by RD Wingfield , also " Adequate Reasons " , " Cover Up " , " Three Days Of Frost " , " A Touch Of Frost " , and _ Letter Of The Law " all from the same author are excellent quality too. Also, I can recommend " The Dark Island " by " Robert Barr . They should keep you going for a while.

[@prawnhunter7238]

Thanks I'll check them out

[@entity1263]

The comics are read somewhere on KZbin, which takes place after Mac and Childs sitting and waiting

[@karlmoles6530]

Your out of your tiny mind Blair!

[@williamnorton9547]

karlmoles65 We're not stuck in an old horror movie here!

[@Looneyboy]

I read this right when he said it

[@danninmatthews5640]

"Sexy or small" This was in the story.

[@SquirrelASMR]

The sound of the monster 😨

[@izzynutz2000]

Well done a Little too Short maybe but well done

[@Thebossstage1]

Poor dogs

[@vincentvonblack140]

love it.

[@timetochronicle]

25:50 "WELL FUCK YOU TOO!" - MacReady

[@schinaro]

bill character - black actor who played adam okaro

[@Prizm44]

Uploader didn't credit the radio series / creator of this in the title, no year of production. Makes it really hard to search on KZbin 👎

[@christianwright5053]

Be nice to credit the origination...since you sent us to wikiP, i assume it's the one made by the BBC

[@velascowoodgrave]

THIS IS SPARTA!!!

[@RSEFX]

Well-produced but very thin version, lacking so much detail from the original as to make this only half of what it could've been. Too short too, which is one of the biggest problems. Great story deserves more, better.

[@borger9952]

yes it does deserve better so why not just read the oroginal short story... www.goldenageofscifi.info/ebook/Who_Goes_There.pdf

[@RSEFX]

@@borger9952 I love that story. I've read it many times. I originally read it when I was about 13 or so, which was before I'd seen THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (the RKO film). In high school, I wrote a script for a movie version of it I wanted to make---regular 8mm----based entirely on Campbell's story, not that first filmed version. It was quite ambitious and required having to create the impression of being in Antarctica while filming in an area in Michigan that was heavily forested (planned to use a hanging "foreground sky and horizon" piece of artwork on glass to hide the trees/after heavy snow in an area where construction was going on that had some big metal sheds, oil drums and a bulldozer parked, covered in tarps)...Anyway, proved too hard to organize and shoot mainly because of the need of so many "adult-looking" people who could actually act to play out the drama: we didn't know enough of those, and putting fake beards and grayed-hair on 16-17 year olds was kinda pushing things a bit too far. Anyway, thanks for the note and site reference. (Edward French does a great reading of this great story).

[@twobellz]

What would the world do without the BBC?

[@grubbuk]

pardon the pun

[@jeffsmith2022]

When was this radio play done???

[@safeashouses211]

The first broadcast was 24th January 2002.

[@Vejur9000]

Guess what… This is not the best… or scariest reading of this classic novel….

[@who_we_are______5926]

So there's a better one? Link

[@WitnessThe]

The original movie was Howard Hawks 1951 'The Thing from another World'. IMO much better than Carpenter's remake.

[@clauspeters8845]

+WitnessThe The second version is far more faithful to the book. In 1951 there was no way they could produce the effects necessary to show Campbell monster's behavior, so they just dressed James Arness and that was it. Besides, in the 1951 version characters talk, talk, talk, talk...

[@richmorris954]

+Claus Peters -Agreeing with Clous. Howard Hawks' film is just a boring old film with a Frankenstein's Monster ripoff cameo. John Carpenter's movie is a lot more like the story and many of Bottin's effects are still great!

[@RSEFX]

+Rich Morris The Nyby-Hawks film has great characters, dialogue and mood---that's my opinion, of course----, but....it's NOT the story. It's NOT Who Goes There, and that's a shame. The creature they built for the first film (three-eyes and tentacles and all) was vetoed by the censors in pre-production---yes, the original script---which I have----includes the nasty original creature, and there are witnesses who know about the original beastie that was built and tested, using a parapalegic--sp?---and pneumatic tentacles etc.). A shame too that they not only simplified the story, but the creature's appearance as well. I always found that a disappointment, however fine the acting and dialogue and general direction.

[@JohnJohn-qq1cw]

+WitnessThe i dint think much of the hawks version. the acting is pretty bad mun.

[@Johnlindsey289]

"Remake"? Hardly. First of all, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. Second, Carpenter's The Thing isn't a remake of the earlier film they have a similar name but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film as it's so different than the "original" film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 1 homages to the earlier film like the title card and those are it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations, Hawks film is a very good movie . where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all. Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books, novellas and comics/graphic novels like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't. To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

[@strabaneairsoftclub2399]

accents are way wrong

[@kaijucifer3544]

Why do these Americans sound English?

[@billanthony7896]

シンゴジラ Maybe because they're not Americans!

[@kaijucifer3544]

Bill Anthony Lol, I'm talking about the characters, not the voice actors. The characters are American, yet they sound British as fuck.

[@timetochronicle]

Thats because the characters in this adaptation are British

[@kaijucifer3544]

Iris Trismegistus That's stupid.

[@timetochronicle]

Considering it was the BBC that made this, I guess it was easier for them to make it a British team. Plus I like the idea of a Scottish Macready

[@chaoticiannunez2419]

Why are they British? Aren't they supposed to be American? Ah who cares.

[@JRTodd]

Because it's a BBC full audio production.

[@williamnorton9547]

JR Todd The BBC is still going strong with radio shows, while the US has fallen out of practice doing such stuff: one US production of this story had a good amount of dialogue taken directly from the original story.

[@peterabbit69]

There seems to be a lot of over intellectualising by students from "Gator College" on this site or is that "Trump University"? First, the story is based on a novella entitled "Who Goes There?" by John W Campbell junior published in 1938 - Yes 1938! Second, Howard Hawks made his black and white film in 1951 "The Thing - from another world" and which was loosely based on the novella. You can see the"cold war" themes throughout the Howard Hawks movie which is still hugely enjoyable. Thirdly, in 1982 John Carpenter decided to make "a remake". So why do I say "a remake" ? Because John Carpenter has adapted the title of Howard Hawks 1951 film instead of the title from the original novella. Howard Hawkes' "The Thing - from another world" is now shortened by John Carpenter to "The Thing". In my view, the 1951 movie is much more literate than the 1982 movie which relies on the bare minimum of "special effects" and was clearly made a s a "B Movie". The 1982 movie has a much simpler plot and lots of explicit, gory special effects which for the most part, replace narrative. This is why the 1982 movie appears to appeal to a much wider (lower) IQ range because there are less words and you do not have to think too much - mental bubble gum!

[@Johnlindsey289]

The name "The Thing" comes from the creature in the book and i consider both The Thing from Another World and The Thing to be 2 separate different adaptations of the book

[@JohnJohn-qq1cw]

everyone involved in the piss poor recent remake of carpenter's movie would have done well to listen to this first. That movie sucked donkey balls and was totally redundant.

[@branimirantic3625]

That wasn't a remake, but prequel.

[@AnGryMuFFinZXD]

First!!

[@offrampt]

Like Red Dwarf with no laughs.