Talk:Invasion of the Body Snatchers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films     (Rated Start-Class) Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no WikiProject Horror     (Rated Start-Class) This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject Science Fiction     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 writing credits 2 Second Remake 3 Does this make sense? 4 Before Caller ID 5 Which month 6 Latest remake/reimagining/whatever 7 Theme item removed 8 irony 9 76 minutes important why? 10 "Canned music" 11 Continuity problem? 12 Trivia

[edit] writing credits

"The screenplay was adapted by Richard Collins (uncredited), Daniel Mainwaring and Sam Peckinpah from the novel The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney. It was directed by Don Siegel."

According to IMDB.com, Sam Peckinpah had little, if anything, to do with the script, despite his own claims to the contrary. unsigned comment by User:Pathogen1014 on 2005-08-10 03:47:07

Yep, I've removed him and moved Daniel Mainwaring to the front while I was at it. - Motor (talk) 09:04:12, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

My apologies for the unsigned comment, sometimes I forget. --Pathogen 14:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second Remake

The discussion of the second remake seems awfully dismissive. Doesn't it seem a little improbable that Abel Ferrara would remake Invasion of the Body Snatchers with no greater ambition than to make a scary movie?

[edit] Does this make sense?

There is a strong undercurrent in the film that serves as a relevant warning against a culture of fear. Within a culture where anyone may be suddenly changed into a communist or may secretly be a terrorist, society must guard against branding individuality as not being patriotic or being a danger to society's way of life.

It seems odd to say that the maker of a horror film intended it to be a "warning against a culture of fear." Whatever the horror is intended to stand for, isn't the filmmaker suggesting that you ought to be afraid of it? If the pod people are supposed to stand for Communism or terrorists, is the film really saying you should not overreact to the threat of such people? Nareek 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before Caller ID

"In one scene, Sutherland's character--named Matthew Bennell--calls Washington for help, only to find his calls are being intercepted and his name is known to the person on the other line before he gives it."

You should note that in 1978, caller ID phones were not widely available.

I think that this is widely known enough not to require mention...69.91.75.23 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Will

[edit] Which month

What month and day was this movie released —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs)

According to IMDb, February 5, 1956. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest remake/reimagining/whatever

It's just semantics to say that the newest version isn't a remake. Jack Finney is being credited with the story, end of discussion. Doesn't matter how much they change it, at the end of the day it is still a REMAKE. The Thing (film) is completely different from The Thing from Another World - in fact, far more faithful to the original story - but it is still called a "remake." RoyBatty42 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theme item removed

This statement is idiotic and it has been removed:

The film has been read as both an allegory for the loss of personal autonomy under Communism and as a satire of McCarthyist paranoia about Communism during the early stages of the Cold War.

The reason for the removal is because of this:

Despite the reported political connotations of the film, lead actor Kevin McCarthy said in an interview included on the 1998 DVD release that no political allegory was intended.

The first statement is directly contradicted by the citation of Kevin McCarthy. This is simple paranoia by lunatics. Anyone that wants to restore it should provide evidence from someone connected to the film that contradicts what Kevin McCarthy stated. Jtpaladin 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Did Kevin McCarthy write the film? Did Kevin McCarthy direct the film? So his thoughts aren't exactly the bottom line to what the filmmakers intended. The tone of the above person's rant clearly indicates a certain political bias, ironically enough. Yet the fact remains, in most discussions about Invasion of the Body Snatchers the supposed paranoia theme is mentioned again and again. To not mention this would be "idiotic." And the wording was very precise: "The film has been read..." Hence, I'm reinstating it until some debate and a consensus has been reached. RoyBatty42 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] irony

i think you would find this irony our teacher told us about a bit strange kevin macarthy came in a movie made during the red scare period and the name of senator Macarthy who hunted the communist during the same period and you know what's the funny thing no relations absolutley what's the possiblilty of that actually happening?--Missionimpossible 03:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 76 minutes important why?

both the '76' and the 'minutes' are linked independently to other pages one them in discussing movie lenght. This seems unnecessary...

Which makes even less sense when you consider that the link on the 76 went to the page for the year 76 not the number... I removed both the links-- 76.185.205.34 20:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Canned music"

While the speculation here about the "moral" of the movie may be superfluous, I'll say that the allegory I infer from the film is something very specific - it seems to echo the dispute in the early twentieth century about the replacement of live musicians by "canned music", i.e. recordings. (See Sound_recording_and_reproduction#Notes) There is one scene in the movie which otherwise seems inexplicable, in which the fugitives are lured out of their hiding place by a pod truck's radio, which mimics the emotion of a human singer. My gut feeling is that the reason why no remake or ripoff of this story has been able to approach the quality of the original film, is that they lack this deep historical inspiration and the lingering doubt it casts upon our own society. I have no source to support placing this impression in the article, but perhaps there is some way to link someone involved in its production to the early American Federation of Musicians protests? Mike Serfas 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity problem?

I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article, but there is a large continuity problem with the film's climax. When the character Becky falls asleep for a moment, she opens her eyes and is instantly a "pod person". This event seems to contradict the entire premise of the film: That the doubles are grown from pods and the originals are assumed to be disposed of in some way. Becky, however, isn't replaced by a double, she "becomes" a pod person by falling asleep. - Serious Cat 06:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I removed the "Parodies" and "Trivia" sections under WP:TRIV because they were just lists of references in Simpsons, DuckTales, etc. It is not necessary to prove the historical significance of the film; the Library of Congress has made that determination. If you honestly believe that some of the material removed has a place in an encyclopedia article, work it in as prose. WillOakland (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)