Talk:Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 film)

What is the twist ending?

The plot synopsis ends by saying there's a twist ending and having a picture of it, but it doesn't actually say what the twist ending is. Can someone please fill that in? To people like me who have not seen the movie, the picture of a man in trenchcoat standing in a parking lot explains nothing. --76.200.128.249 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look two sections below this for the answer. The image that actually depicted the twist ending had no fair use rationale, and ended up being deleted because of that. --AutoFire (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like a bad idea to give away the ending of the movie here. I don't think that spoilers are necessary or useful, and I think this one should be removed. If someone else agrees with me, I'd encourage them to change it. Karadoc** (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

The section on homages and the one citing differences between this film and the original film appear to consist almost entirely of original research. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Mea Culpa. I think the sections are worthwhile and informative. If you're a true fan of the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (as I am), can you help me out with references? The homages are obvious if the 1956 and 1978 versions are watched in tandem. I haven't found any outside articles that list them as extensively or in as much detail as I have. But there are reviews that mention the fact that the 1978 movie is full of homages. In the SciFi Scanner review of the latest DVD release, John Brownlee makes this statement: "The DVD release is widescreen with a commentary by Philip Kaufman (who shoved so many homages and references into the film that I'm sure his observations on the making of the film will be fascinating)." That's at http://blogs.amctv.com/scifiscanner/2007/08/invasion-of-the.html. Another review from the Sacramento Bee makes similar observations. Their article is at http://www.sacbee.com/624/story/315832.html. The 1978 changes section is not entirely mine. The comment on feminism could rightly be removed as personal opinion. However, the observation that the remake includes a "backstory" in the first scene on the alien planet, as well as the observation that the 1978 film is infused with "moody paranoia" is mentioned in several reviews. See especially the review at http://www.scifimoviepage.com/dvd/invasion-dvd.html. See also http://www.scifimoviepage.com/invasion.html. Other sources would be http://toxicuniverse.com/review.php?rid=10003160 and http://www.toxicuniverse.com/review.php?rid=10000816. The preponderance of articles that refer to the atmosphere of paranoia would seem to elevate that particular bit above the level of mere personal opinion. Even though Janet Maslin's original review in The New York Times is, for the most part, quite negative, she does mention the fact that the FX of the hatching pods is "brilliantly unsettling" and that Matthew taking a garden hoe to the head of his double is a "gruesome moment." Her review is found at http://movies2.nytimes.com/movie/review?_r=1&res=9C0CE1DF1E38E732A25751C2A9649D946990D6CF. Another review worth noting is found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/03/26/invasion_of_the_body_snatchers_1978_review.shtml. I'd like this to be a team effort on the part of lovers of the film to create a factual, informative, and lively article on the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers which conforms to Wikipedia's rules. --KDBROCK777 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC) KDBROCK777 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Keith Ellerbrock

I think most of the points in the "Homages" section are unnecessary - since this film is a remake of the 1956 film, some parallels are expected. The "changes" section is more like an essay than anything else. After reading it over, I think a lot of the content in the sections just isn't enyclopedic. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was 21 years old when the 1978 remake came out and I saw it in its first week of release. I was a blow-dried original denizen of the era in which the movie was made. Seeing the film on the big screen made a big impression on me. I've been a fan ever since. I agree that the homage section (written by me) and the changes section (not primarily written by me) don't comply with the wiki rules on such things. You can choose to reduce the entire section down to a mere stub if you want to. However, without any constructive suggestions from you (or from someone else who is enthusiastic about the movie), it will probably remain a stub for a long while. Terse, scolding posts from overseers do not build the kind of rapport and cooperation that, I think, is required to produce an article that is factually-based, well-referenced, but also of interest to fans of the genre and of this particular film. A little gentleness and patience in dealing with beginners' mistakes would go a long way toward bringing new contributors into the process. I'm a big sci-fi fan, but I don't think I'll be contributing any more to this Wiki Project. KDBROCK777 03:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sutherland screams.jpg

Image:Sutherland screams.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Invasion of the body snatchers movie poster 1978.jpg

Image:Invasion of the body snatchers movie poster 1978.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Remake?

Veronica Cartwright said in an interview that "Well, our film was a continuation of the story rather than a remake which is why the Kevin McCarthy character is still seen running."