Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Submit Your Thoughts On The Thing For The Deepest Dive! (Patreon)

Published:
2020-10-19 19:55:54
Edited:
2020-10-19 19:59:28
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

This week we're kicking off The Deepest Dive on The Thing and we need your comments to fuel our discussion that'll air on Wednesday. For the first discussion Ben Hanson, Leo Vader, Javy Gwaltney, and Mike Mahardy are tackling the original 1948 short story Who Goes There? by John W Campbell and the 1951 film The Thing From Another World. Please don't spoil anything about the 1982 film in the comments, we want folks to be able to experience that film fresh.

Also, because we're continuing to grow, please keep your one comment to around the length of a tweet. We want to get to as many comments as possible. We hope you understand.

Please submit a comment below with your specific thoughts on the original book and film. Let's talk about your favorite moment, thought experiment, dog, or thing, please get specific. The more specific you are, the higher the odds of us reading your comment during the discussion. We'll finish collecting comments on Tuesday morning.

We'll be looking for your feedback on these topics on these dates...

- The Thing (1982 film) - 10/26

- The video game (2002), tabletop game, and prequel film (2011) - 11/2

You can watch us record The Deepest Dive live on Tuesday at 5pm Central if you're at the $10 Backstage Pass tier on Patreon. The link will be in the Backstage Pass tier on the Discord. Thanks for your support!

Files

Comments

Riley Autumn Logue

as a lover of John Carpenter's remake, I loved this chance to read the original novella and watch the original 1951 movie. As far as the book goes, I really enjoyed all of the scientific explanations and reasoning, it offers a lot of insight into some specific things from Carpenter's film that wasn't exactly explained, such as how macreedy knows how to test the blood of the thing. I will say, However, that as "men of science" some of the characters don't really make rational, scientific decisions. For instance, when asked if unfreezing the thing could spread disease, Blair comments that couldn't happen because its biology is too different from ours. That's sound reasoning, but when it comes to discovering an alien for the first time in human history, I'd say that all earthly logic and assumptions should go out the window, and no "rational" guess could suffice. I'd also just like to add that I found the original movie to be really disheartening. I had always heard that when Carpenter's version was released, it got panned because it was nothing like the original movie, which is true. What I didn't know, however, was that the original movie has pretty much nothing to do with the original concept of the short story, short of "there's an expedition in one of the earth's poles and they run into a monster". None of the original tension from the short story, stemming from characters distrust and lack of knowledge as to whether any of the other people in the camp were thing or human was brought into the original movie. There is almost no reason that the movie should be set in the North Pole, the original story is set in Antarctica, which makes sense as it sets up the fact that this expedition is completely alone and isolated from the rest of the world, which in turn sets up a great atmosphere of tension and horror in its own right, but also sets up the idea that the scientists can't let the thing escape into civilization, or it will take over the entire world. That idea is completely absent in the original film, and it feels like anybody could just take a plane to the north pole if they wanted to, so I don't really see why the movie should be set in the north Pole in the first place. I think the movie would have been a pretty good schlocky sci fi movie had it been completely unrelated to the original story, and it's enjoyable from that perspective, but it's just not "the Thing"

Blake A

I love how the early chapters approach it from a "men of science" approach, and how the novella largely eschews action in favor of the scientific/trustworthiness aspect of the story. The argument they have about human body chemistry being closer to a wheat plant than this Thing I found fascinating. It's a horror story at its core, but its one where the characters involved all generally make smart choices, and I appreciated the characters were raising questions and making smart counter-arguments in ways that felt natural. It can be hard to write these kinds of stories without hand-waving much of the "science" away, but the novella does not shy away from it.

Travis M.

I have been a big fan of Carpenter's version, never read the novella, and had only ever seen The Thing From Another World once before, so this was all quite a treat to revisit/experience. What stood out most to me was how extremely well done the sequence of the Thing on fire in the barracks was. The lighting and length of the takes especially helped it to be a stand-out moment. I'd say it still holds up today, very much so. Thanks for the reason to revisit!

Mark Ramirez

Hey Ben & the Dive Team The most “the thing” content I have engaged with is the GI Replay of The Thing, so looking forward to this Deepest Dive! Reading the early parts of the book, I love the description of the thing encased in ice. Hate filled eyes as red as recently fresh spilled blood. And the blue worms writhing out where hair should be. I love seeing science fiction and people’s thoughts of extraterrestrial things in a pre-WWII era.

Erik Angel

The short story was enjoyable but it's a good thing it was short because it really lives on the premise alone. I couldn't tell you any of the names of the characters and I just read it yesterday. It does dampen the effect of paranoia about who is or isn't a monster when I don't even know anything about any character. Like at one point 2 or 3 characters are found out to be compromised in quick succession and I didn't really feel anything, just like okay let's move on. I enjoyed it but if you told me that it was some groundbreaking sci-fi story I would have been sceptical. I guess the premise is just that strong The movie was very good but to call it an adaptation of the short story might be giving it too much credit. Other than "expedition in cold area finds alien life that's been frozen" it has basically nothing in common. I enjoyed all the quips the characters made, especially the journalist (though I really question him being allowed to go with the military. Like you don't have to block a story from him if you never let him go in the first place, idk it seemed weird). Also it's just a side-effect of being made in the 50s but the monster design made me laugh out loud when you first get to see it. The idea of a plant based organism going through an evolutionary cycle that mirrors our own is interesting I wish the movie could have done more with this especially with the design of the creature, again it's the 50s so they could only do so much. I would definitely recommend this movie to people though, it was quite enjoyable

Allan

I've read Who Goes There? before, so to quickly revisit it for this Deepest Dive I listened to an audio drama version, which was a very well-made production complete with ambient wind sounds, dogs barking and yelping, and a full voice cast including a Scottish-accented McReady. It's so dialogue and exposition heavy that I think the radio play style format worked nicely. My main take away from this story is that the premise is so good, all the pieces are in place for it to eventually become one of the greatest horror movies ever made... but we're not talking about that one yet. So on the subject of The Thing From Another World I'll just say my favorite line of dialogue: "An intellectual carrot... The mind boggles!"

derek m

I just wanna say "Who Goes There?" is up there with "....All You Zombies" as a personal favorite title for classic Sci-fi short stories

Marshall Banana

This was a great film and I enjoyed watching it with my wife. However, couldn’t stop discussing how we both were super confused about the scene where the captain was tied up and escaped. Was it because they were alone together, that he had to be tied up? There was no context, nor another mention of them being interested in each other the rest of the film. Do you think there is a deleted scene(s) that would add more context?

The_Smak

Hey fellow Things in disguise, Novella Can we talk about the Blair’s plan to escape in the final scene? After being locked up in a shack for a week we find out the horrifying truth. Not only was he a Thing, but he was creating a super reactor to power an antigravity device to…make one big jump to civilization? On top of that it was made of tin cans? That is absolutely ludicrous! I love it! If you were The Thing what would be your plan to escape? Thank you all for letting me revisit this nightmare

Dan Willey

Having never seen the 1951 movie or read the short story, I expected the connective tissue to be the distrust and paranoia that a shapeshifting threat presents. Instead, it is the setting. The isolation and the inherent danger of the outside surroundings give both the book and film a sense of claustrophobia and desperation. The stories seem like a spiritual successor to some of H.P. Lovecraft's stories that draw on the same setting, like At the Mountains of Madness.

Shawn Mills

I enjoyed the short story but I feel like it's too fast paced for its own good. The premise is fantastic but it really is held back by thin characters who never get a chance to reflect on the crazy events happening around them. They can't even enjoy movie night without getting interrupted by alien hijinks. The movie is a classic from the 50s for a reason and I think it really stands the test of time. I thought there were a few moments that were genuinely terrifying including when they open the greenhouse door, finding the sled dog in the box, and counting the radiation on the geiger counter to track the monster’s movements. The also really enjoyed the final line from the reporter, “Watch the Skies” which Spielberg would use as the placeholder for Close Encounters and would serve as the title for a popular megagame.

DarkFishDays

In the Novella, I like that Kinner the cook asks, “Would I know if I was a monster? Would I know if the monster had already gotten me?” Suspecting others is disturbing enough. But to me, there’s something even more unsettling not knowing if I can trust myself.

DarkFishDays

(Sorry for posting two.) 1951, in the middle of McCarthyism, seems like the best and worst time to adapt a story about an alien imitating humans. The novella could be a great metaphor for communist paranoia, but maybe it was for that same reason that the film’s premise was changed? I can only imagine that someone would have been Blacklisted if they kept the original alien concept.

Adam Meran

Hi cohorts! Like a lot of people here I’m a big fan of John Carpenter’s version of The Thing but had never seen the 1951 version or read the short story. Although in the end I was disappointed with the lack of shape shifting in the 51 film, I actually found the characters interesting in a sort of pulpy way. Watching them realize they’ve underestimated The Things intelligence after it cuts the heat and course correct to outsmart it was actually really cool. I also thought the biology behind the creature was neat, even though it’s basically a giant vegetable. Favorite line...”An intellectual carrot, the mind boggles!”

Barrett Boswell

Hello Imitations, I just watched the 1951 movie and read the 1938 novella, both for the first time, and loved it. I highly recommend reading the novella while listening to Carpenter's The Thing soundtrack. I'm torn whether I like the novella or 1951 movie more. The novella feels more sinister with the nature of the alien and the side effects it causes among the group. The movie though, has a different take with well written dialouge and relationships, more epic alien encounters and more social commentary. Is their a tone of this story you like more between the two mediums? Thank you so much for doing this topic!

Stephen Mince

In Chapter 9 of “Who Goes There?” Copper and Garry both insist that they know they’re human but can’t prove it, which sends Copper into a breakdown and compels Garry to transfer command to McReady because he fears he’s been compromised (or maybe it’s just part of the Thing’s plan). More than any of the other versions, the novella seems to suggest the humans may not even know they’re possessed, which is even more frightening than an alien acting the part of a human.

Bob Buel

Never having seen this movie before, I went in relatively blind, but I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. From the familiar opening title burn to that weird romantic tension “tie his hands with rope” scene between Hendry and Nikki Snickleson, to some genuinely tense scenes like THROWING FIRE EVERYWHERE IN THAT ROOM where I was truly scared for the characters and actors involved. But since I was only familiar with the Carpenter version of this movie I was waiting for the “killer in disguise” gimmick to show up in this movie, but it never does. The closest they come is to the scientist doing shady things, which looking it up after the fact, is often pointed to a 1950s post-Hiroshima skepticism of science, which is why the script has The Thing punching science right in the face in the climactic battle and our ‘good ol’ boy’ soldiers saving the day. Also, during the infamous fire scene, the moment The Thing kicked down the door and entered the dark room, with the snowy arctic behind him, the first thing I thought of was the famous poster for the Carpenter movie from the 80s - a silhouette of a man with an explosion of light coming from his head. It’s not identical obviously, but it’s pretty dang close. Close enough that I figured that was the inspiration behind the iconic poster. There is an article from Screenrant that lends this a little bit of credence, saying that the poster (done by Drew Struzan) had to be finished very quickly and before the designer ever even saw the 80s version of the film, so he was told to go off of iconic moments from this 1951 version to make the poster. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but it kinda makes sense that this moment set the stage for one of the most iconic horror posters of all time.

Bob Buel

Also, super carrot?!

Adam W

Hey friends! Finally watched the 1951 film not once, but twice! It was not at all what I expected. It often felt ridiculous even for a film of its era. I was surprised at the shifts in tone throughout. Little jokes sprinkled here and there, science being questioned, romantic entanglements(literally), intelligent vegetables, a possible global invasion! But seriously, I could not get over one incident during the final encounter. When the creature was walking toward the group prior to being electrocuted, I was unable to suspend my disbelief at the need to slide a pickaxe across the floor to cause it to quickly step onto the walkway. I fully expected the Thing to briefly stop, raise his hand, wag his finger and go "nuh, uhuh." The ending, specifically the call to the mainland, gave me big Twilight Zone vibes. Ending with uncertainty and the fear of more to come. Things unseen that the greater public is unaware of. Clearly also just a product of the era, but I could not help being reminded of Serling.

Aegis of the Grail

Having only seen Carpenter's film before this, I was shocked at how much of the novella was science jargon. The majority of the beginning of the story was an extremely detailed explanation of why they were in Antarctica, exactly what happened with the ship they found, and scientific basis for why each character wanted or didn't want to thaw the creature. Why do you think the author decided to do it this way? Do you think the "hard" science fiction helped the story in any way, or was it mostly technobabble you glazed over?

Aegis of the Grail

In the novella, do y'all think the story just wrapped up really quick? We spent so long dealing with the tense nature of everyone distrusting each other and McReady's test to a very quick ending with them killing the Blair-thing and then the story just quickly glosses over this anti-gravity atomic energy mechanism it was making? How do you all feel about the ending?

Aegis of the Grail

The only thing the novella leaves open is who kills Kinner. Any theories on that?

Jeorin

Breaking this into two parts for the novella and film. The novella was a really cool short story. The element of distrust was so pervasive throughout, where imitation characters cast doubt on themselves in order to seem believable and human. Learning which, and just how few, characters were real people at the end was a great payoff. The panic over the potentially contaminated milk was also one of my favorite parts. Not knowing if you can even trust your food touches deeply on my personal fears. I think reading this will make me appreciate Among Us so much more. I recently played a match where I had to AFK. I was one of the traitors, and I would come back and kill someone randomly from time to time. I was largely left out of any suspicion while my traitor cohort messed with the ships controls and all the remaining crewmates turned on each other. Thinking to the novella where Blair and Kinner were locked away and thought of as harmless for the longest time really harkens to the same idea. How close the Thing was to victory because they were so focused on accusing each other presents a good moral lesson. As for the film, it made me deeply uncomfortable due to its McCarthy era nature. The white male Christian military centric focus was so overwhelming that it killed any enthusiasm I might've had for it. Some standout moments were the lone female character being an absolute horndog and serving no other purpose. A bondage scene!? Really!? The scientist being treated like a traitor for just wanting to communicate before resorting to violence. His reward? A backhand to the face. And the worst moment of the film, after victory was won, the reporter delivers the worst pun known to man, "Much like Noah saved the world with an Ark, we saved the world with an arc of electricity". Yikes. Also, there are so many sci-fi films from this era and before that had some effort put into special effects. The creature was just a large guy wearing full body pantyhose... c'mon.

Kris Calkins

I thoroughly enjoyed The Thing From Another World, there was good tension building through the entire movie but when it came to the big standoff moment I couldn't help but laugh when Dr. Carrington ran out and tried to plead with The Thing to share its knowledge with them. This Thing hadn't showed any motivation for anything other than trying to kill them all and the way that it just stood there looking at Carrington waiting for him to finish talking before swatting him aside really got me laughing.

Sandshrewd

I really liked the moment in the novel where they are discussing whether it "looks" evil. Blair the biologist says : "Just because it looks unlike men, you don't have to accuse it of being evil, or vicious or something. Maybe that expression on its face is its equivilent to a resignation of fate. White is the colour of mourning to the Chinese. If men can have different customs, why can't a so-different race have different understandings of facial expressions." I thought this was a really touching quote. I mean he's dead wrong, but his hearts in the right place. This is followed up by the best quote by Connant: "That thing grew up on evil, adolesced slowly roasting alive the local equivalent of kittens, and amused itself through maturity on new and ingenious torture."

Joshua Duperoy

Hey Ben and cohorts, While the novella was a bit dry and barebones at times for my taste I felt the strong premise and interesting characters were more than enough to make up for all the technical mumbo jumbo and drawn out exposition. In fact, my favorite character had to be Blair despite the fact he’s completely unlikeable from the get go, but in a way where I genuinely enjoyed hating him and the brand of caustic sarcasm he displays when dismissing the concerns of his fellow crew mates. For example, the passage where he’s arguing with Norris about the possibility of catching some sort of disease from the carcass and Norris confides in him about the troublesome dreams he’s been experiencing to which Blair simply responds, “So far the only thing you have said this thing gave off that was catching was dreams...I had some, too. So. It’s dream-infectious. No doubt an exceedingly dangerous malady”. God, what a dick. Also, the whole concept of the ‘thing’ being able to project it’s primal thoughts onto others in the form of dreams by means of telepathic powers is a really interesting idea that I just never considered or was even aware having only seen the John Carpenter movie.

Eric Seal

I feel like a lot of old sci-fi stories are so high concept that occasionally characters have to make unrealistically smart observations. I thought the 1938 short story had several moments where the characters, particularly Barclay and McReady, came to some pretty lofty conclusions about the alien (yes, even for scientists!). But the one that finally got me thinking "hell yeah, that's effin' cool" was when McReady said, "It doesn't fight. I don't think it ever fights. It must be a peaceable thing, in its own ­inimitable ­way. It never had to, because it always gained its end ­otherwise." That is such a good "alien" quality, that imitating is simply in its nature, and that its that quality that's going to wipe out all other life on Earth. Way more believable than a super carrot!

MickManga

I never read Who Goes There before and I knew very little about it. And after reading it, I have to say it's a true blue Sci Fi classic. I really enjoyed it, so thank you MinnMax for introducing me to such a great read. If there was one thing that stood out to me, it has to be the atmosphere throughout the entire novel. From the moment it starts, there is a sense of looming dread that hangs over everything. Also one question, was that Albatross a bird or an alien at the end?

Joemomma

Who goes there: Having only seen the John Carpenter adaptation, I was surprised how similar the novella was to the movie, the body horror aspects in particular. The description of mangled, half transformed bodies, the harsh and creepy description of the alien itself in the ice, and that final face off with the Blair-thing. The oppressive tone of the book is palpable and only made more so by horrific descriptions that shock the reader as much as they shock the characters. I wish I had not seen the Carpenter version first, as it deflated some tension because it is so similar to the book. What I didn't see coming was the "building a nuclear reactor out of spare parts" twist ending. I scoffed when I read it and it made me a bit mad. Still a great book though. The thing from another world: Huh? That ain't no adaptation of "Who goes there." I spent most of the movie waiting for the transformation moment I never got. When they find the dog in the green house I got excited, "here it is, it turned into a dog!" NOPE, just sucked the life out of it, cool I guess. I did like the dialogue of the movie and couldn't get enough of Nikki Nicholson (the broad with an alcohol tolerance that would make you say "Holy Cats!").

Hayden Hodge

For me, the environment of the “Who Goes There?” novella is what elevates the atmosphere from scary to scarier with a touch of cozy. The Antarctic and Big Magnet base camp aren’t just isolated, but snowy, windy, and dangerously cold. I can ‘feel’ the scenes where the entire crew is huddled up in one room. The scene where McReady electrocutes the blood samples, for example. The whole gang has come together to discover who among them is a monster, and I imagine they huddle close and rely on each other for warmth as much as sanity. This scene is the literary manifestation of cuddling up with a loved one during a scary movie, cuddling up for warmth and security, to keep away the fear and the cold.

Dustin Smith

**Re-posting here just in case it got missed on the Deepest Dive announcement post. To start off, John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of my favorite films ever, second only to the original "Alien". I had never read the original story or seen "The Thing from Another World", so this Deepest Dive was very exciting for me. I really enjoyed "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell Jr. I loved how methodical the author was with the science behind everything, lending more weight to the "science" behind the science-fiction. I was intrigued by the seemingly psychic aspects of the original version of the creature with it invading the dreams of the humans. I thought the story also conveyed the sense of horror and paranoia well. It makes the reader not sure who they can trust, which is an important factor of the story. It was a great story and I can see how it provided a fantastic basis for the media adaptations to follow. As for "The Thing from Another World" directed by Christian Nyby, I thought it was fine. It held up pretty well and I enjoyed watching it. However, it was surprising to me how much had changed from the original story to this version. I was especially disappointed with the change of the design/concept of the titular "Thing". Nothing about this film version captures the terror of the creature from the original story. While I think the film itself has a fair amount of creepiness and suspense to it (especially for the time it was made, despite limited technology), it's disappointing that the creature is reduced to a super-strong "carrot" and average movie monster when the original creature and premise are so much more interesting. With that major change, it makes the movie a fun classic film, but a fairly poor adaptation of the original material in my opinion. I also agree with Dylan about some of the other changes to the film, including his mention of the American-military-ized nature of the film version, as well as recognizing other aspects to make it appeal to a broader audience, such as the romance subplot. I'm really looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts, and excited for the weeks to come. Thanks!

Muffyn Crumbs

Hey did anyone listen to the audio version of Who Goes There? I found it on youtube narrated by Edward E. French and I thought he did a great job at playing each character. Also the addition of the eerie music and howling of the wind here and there adds a lot to the ambiance.

Geoff Enright

Hey everybody! Thanks for motivating me to engage in the material. I know of The Thing in pop culture but am otherwise unfamiliar to the media. I had to prioritize my time and didn't find enough to read and watch the movie. So I read the short story, and, criticism aside, loved it. I never knew how The Thing looked, so if you'll permit me the description in the short story: A single throw of the tarpaulin revealed the thing. The ice had melted somewhat in the of the room, and it was clear and blue as thick, good glass. It shone wet and sleek under the harsh light of the unshielded globe above...The broken half of the bronze ice-ax was still buried in the queer skull. Three mad, hate-filled eyes blazed up with a living fire, bright as fresh-spilled blood, from a face ringed with writhing, loathsome nest of worms, blue, mobile worms that crawled where hair should grow. There are more bits throughout the novella but this is the main chunk that's helped me imagine it. Cheers! - Geoff aka Groffles

Patrick Polk

I hadn't read "Who Goes There?" before and I loved it. My favorite part of The Thing has always been the psychological aspect of not knowing whether your friends, or possibly even yourself, were secretly existentially-threatening monsters. I loved that the short story was very focused on the distrust, and didn't lean heavily on gruesome creature horror. Another thing I liked about the story is that it was so tight, moving briskly and not overly holding your hand at all. It often would not directly spell out important plot points such as what precisely happened to the dogs and cattle, or exactly how poor Connant's fate played out. It kept me on my toes and made sure that I was paying close attention. Thanks for putting together this Deepest Dive!

James Martin

I'm a bit of a classic movie guy and I had never seen this - absolutely loved it. What I found most interesting was the dialogue - it was quite unique for the time. Lots of people, quick back and forth, snappy and natural. Almost like an early version of Sorkin.... I did some reading about Hawks style and he was a bit of a pioneer in that regard. Pretty cool! (Also interesting how they went very different from the short story - I assume due to Hollywood preferences and limitations of the time - the 82 film is much more like the short story)

Dylan Drazek

Alrighty Cohorts(or possibly not?), this might be a relatively long comment but here we go: So working chronologically startingf with Who Goes There, I like how at the beginning of the novella that it focused on the specifics of how a human sounded in the Antarctic environment, almost preparing you for paranoia that the rest of the story portrays. Also, the way that the scientist talks about life from nature seems very modern. He says that just because life takes a certain form, that doesn't necessarily speak to the intention of the lifeform (although he was wrong in this specific case). He mentioned that they suffered from something innately human: the fear of things that are different from you. I thought that was a pretty progressive view to see in a story of that time. I also enjoyed how the story never had a distinct change in perspective so you never truly got a grip on who was human and who was an imitation. It added a lot to the suspense. Oh, one last odd, yet kind of interesting thing. I was wondering why John W. Campbell would choose Antarctica of all places for the setting of his story. I searched "1938 Antarctica" to see if there was anything significant that came up and I happened upon articles about a German Antarctic expedition that took place in 1938 (the year of the story's initial release). This specific expedition was the third one by the Germans and there was territory that was disputed between them and the Norwegians in an effort to increase Germany's production of whale fat.....or was it?? But yeah just an interesting little tidbit I found. Now, as far as The Thing From Another World is concerned, I found it interesting that they chose to change the location to the Alaskan arctic and the north pole. It seemed like they wanted to use as much of the military as possible since WWII had just ended and Hollywood was looking to capitalize on the fondness the American people felt for the military after the war. I laughed when I saw the discount Frankenstein's Monster-looking alien they used but I was actually impressed when the oil to the compound got cut off and everyone's breath was visible. I'm having a ball with this deep dive yall. Im glad we did this!

Brian W

Loved the short story but that movie was terrible. Ben, do you think Spielberg was referencing it in Jurassic park when Muldoon and Hammond both are having conversations at the same time at the raptor pit? I instantly thought of that scene when the guy on the radio is talking over the other guy. It was a weird moment and stood out.

Donnie

I am always surprised by old films when I’m reminded of how long pop culture has held onto certain themes. In this case it’s the idea of the scientist having no morals and only wanting knowledge, and the likable characters just want to burn things down.

Tim Turi

Long time listener, first-time writer. Thanks for this excuse to finally read this! What immediately jumped out to me is how much this book dives into the pseudo-science of The Thing creature. I can't follow all of it, but it reminds me of something I love about the Resident Evil game, and the lengths they'll go to try to explain these insane viruses. Definitely enjoying the characters walking through their logic. Also The Thing from Outer Space is still a great film. I'll never forget seeing that door jump scare and fire stunt at The Heights theater together, Ben!

OddJackBourne

Who Goes There? was a bit too verbose for my tastes, but i wouldn't have guessed this was written in the 30's thanks to the timelessness of the story and setting. As The Thing From Another World, I was surprisesd with how the characters didn't seem too terrified by the fact that an alien was trying to kill them. I was expecting more screaming and close-ups of horrified looks, and just an overall B-movie feel, but the movie was better for avoiding that in my opinion. P.S. Kudos to the filmmakers for doing that wild "let's set the room on fire" stunt! In a weird coincidence, I had watched a Stuntmen Reacts video (https://youtu.be/tP0WJVzQ3J4) that featured said fire stunt not long before this Deepest Dive for The Thing announced!

Taylor Reinsch

First, on Who Goes there?: Do you think that it is implied that The Thing that they pull out of the Ice and see in the Ice is the Thing's true form? Or is this an alien that the Thing has taken over. As in, on that ship, The Thing went through the Crew and caused the ship to crashland on Earth and that it came out to a frozen wasteland and was irritated to find nothing to take over and froze there. On The Thing From Another World: It is interesting to watch this movie during the cold war that is so anti-science, or at least anti scientist and pro-military. It was made at the beginning of the cold war, and they chose to make it the North Pole instead of the South Pole seemingly just so they could make a comment about "the Russians always flying overhead" or something like that. Also weirdly Pro-Bondage sexy times for a movie made in the 50's. Thanks for doing a non-video game based Deepest Dive. I don't have time to play through most games in the time schedule that a deepest dive does but Watching a movie for a night and listening to an audiobook (especially one so short) while at work is much more doable! Thanks!

Lucy Yearwood

Laughed out loud at the line "Well, it applied for leave of absence and took it." when The Thing went for a jolly the first time