Talk:Vanishing Point (1971 film)

message: I rewrote the article, gathering the car information in a separate section, since readers coming here are as likely to be interested in it as they are the plot. I integrated the UK version info into the summary, since doing so makes it more international without hurting the flow. I've reworked some parts that were chatty or trivial or that introduced speculation or original analysis. And I fixed a couple of simple mistakes. --Tysto (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Some points needing attention:
*chatty, unencylopedic style
*far too much stuff about engines and Dodge muscle cars: not comprehensible to non-experts
*trivia section is a mess
*1997 remake is mentioned both in the trivia section and in its own section
Cheers, Sam Clark 09:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: In Motor Trend recent issue, they tested the prototype Dodge Challenger, and actually invited Barry "Kowalski" Newman himself to take a test drive. Newman himself said that 1) He really hated the hitchhiker being cut from the film. The hitchhiker is symbol for death. By cutting the hitchhiker, the film lost most of the foreeshadowing and the meaning 2) Kowalski thought he *could* make it through the bulldozers. He sees the light beyond and he really thought he could make it. --Kschang77 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More trivia 

message: The vehicles used for filming included four 440 4-speed cars and one 383 automatic. There were no 426 Hemis used in filming, and there is no reference to the engine size in any dialog. The remake differs on this, and makes a point of the Challenger being powered by a 426 Hemi.
:In the movie, the police constantly say the engine is supercharged, though it may be just dialog of their guessing.
:The director says they destroyed 8 cars, and only had one left, this trivia piece only accounts for four.
:He also says that the last car was temporarily stolen by a hooker that the crew hooked up with.  Awesome. SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SchmuckyTheCat 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancies

message: "Despite Kowalski's new cult hero status among the counterculture, he repeatedly shows he doesn't want that status during the movie; Kowalski is at heart a despondent blue-collar worker."
I'm not sure if this true or immediately evident.  Can we get a citation? 24.164.77.105 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: It was a lonnngggg time ago, but I believe that it is true that the engine isn't definitively mentioned in the movie's dialog itself.  I **think** that the confusion factor comes from some of the trailer dialog...I seem to recall that part of it mentioned something like "...in a 440 cubic inch supercharged engine.."
I could be misremembering, but I am pretty sure it came from one of the trailers. LiveOnAPlane 19:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to set the record straight: One should not forget that the Hemi engine came in a two four-barrel version.  This engine didn't do a lot at low speed, but at about 45 mph, it would snap your neck when it shifted to first.  I know because I drove a '69 Road Runner with it.  I would have to believe that at highway speeds it would have been the engine to have.  I can believe that it would have been much stronger than the 440 with a six pack, and it was more efficient as well.  Definitely the highway machine of choice, especially since the 440 is such a gas hog. - KitchM (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The 440 Engine Dialog 

message: The article is odd.
First, we read the flat assertion that At night Kowalski picks, picks [sic] up a hitchhiker (Charlotte Rampling), a plot element utterly absent from the (non-US-market) DVD that I watched last night, in which the only hitchhikers are the two quaint stick-up queens and in which Rampling doesn't appear (as far as I noticed).
Below, we read: The current U.S. DVD release of Vanishing Point includes both the original version of the movie and the alternate version (my emphasis). Despite the the, there's been no explanation of this. It continues: the hitchhiker was a representation of Death, finally catching up to Kowalski, vaguely implying that she's in one version and not in the other. Ah. -- Hoary 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative version? Hitchhiker? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I removed the following tagline: Name Kowalski, occupation driver, a medal of honor in Vietnam, a former stock and bike racer, a former cop dishonorbly discharge. Because there is no mention of this tagline anywhere, no google hits and no citation. I hate to enter into a revert war but I would hate even more for the article to carry bogus information. Also no edit summary comment was provided by the user who insists on putting it in. Dr.K. (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagline 

message: The explanations given are good, but from the very first viewing of this film I got the distinct impression that it had something to do with something similar to reincarnation or some sort of time loop.  At some point, the driver is given a choice to die or live.  However, it does seem that he can have that same choice again.  Even if he dies in the bulldozer crash, he lives again in the eastern leg of his car delivery.  It is just one big circular choice.  It never ends.  This concept needs to be added to the ending interpretations. - KitchM (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another View 

message: This page states 106 minutes, but IMDB says 99 minutes. Which one is right? Or, is there different versions ?
Cmskog (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for noting the inconsistency. The United States theatrical release running time is 98 minutes, and the UK theatrical release running time is 105 minutes. I corrected the running time and added a footnote for the alternate running time. Bede735 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of film ? 

message: I've removed a link to Barry Hall, Australian Rules footballer born in 1977.  IMDB gives the name as an uncredited writer, but clearly the writer must have been born way before 1977 to work on a 1971 film.  Google doesn't throw up anything obvious about the writer, so I've removed the link rather than create a redlink or stub.  Any more information on Barry Hall (writer)? Cucamber (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Hall 

message: Lol... the Legacy --> Television part completely spoils the ending... for this reader, in fact.  Does wikipedia have expandable/collapsible SPOILER sections, like I've seen in some forums?  Anyway, I'll still watch the movie, and hope to enjoy it.  Tangent: Kenny Rogers The First Edition brought me here, lol...  
SPOILER:
...because Mike Settle, sometime of the Kenny Rogers group with Kenny's name, wrote three of the songs in the soundtrack, supposedly.
Happy life, y'all. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.225.77 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler -_- 

message: This film has been classified in the 1970s LGBT-related films category but lists no reason for this and I don't recall it having anything to do with gays or lesbians.  Either it should be removed from the category or have an explanation added. IRMacGuyver (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one rather negative scene involving two gay hitchikers, that is probably the connection. But as I said, it was quite a negative view of the two gay guys, so maybe this film dropped off the LGBT radar :)  116.231.75.71 (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT 

message: Is it possible there were alternate endings for this film? I saw this film several times in theaters in the 70's and I would swear that one time I saw it and the car didn't crash at the end of the film.  Instead the car vanished into thin air at the moment it should have impacted the bulldozers.  Which would have made the title more literal.
Also, I watched the DVD for the first time last night and I don't remember the crowd mulling around the wreakage after the crash or emergency crews digging threw it in the theatrical release.  But then it has been over 40 years...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelTransSLC (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Endings 

message: I saw this film as a matinee in 1971 when I was 14. I seem to remember that in the beginning of the film, it was a flashback of the driver escaping as he passed through the roadblock of the 2 earth movers. He vanishes at the point where he should hit them. I thought this was the whole point of the title of film "Vanishing Point". We all thought it was so sad that at the end of the movie, he doesn't vanish and plows into the tractors and explodes.
Doesn't anybody remember this?Aspenguy2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate beginning 

message: Who was in that E-type? Small role but significant. Reminds of Joe Don Baker  .com/articles/the-coolest-car-in-vanishing-point-isnt-the-challenger-hello-e-type/ Matthead  Discuß   11:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaguar driver? 

message: I am a little surprised that attempts at improving an overly long plot summary were almost instantly reverted. All edits were made in line with WP:PLOTSUM.
Nothing was removed that was essential to the understanding of the film. The parts removed were overly-specific detail, a paragraph that stepped outside of the bounds of a plot summary to summarise the flashbacks, and some unnecessary repetition of plot elements that had already been mentioned (along with some text that stepped into analysis/interpretation.
I would make all the same changes again, but as a revert war is no fun for everyone, I have opened the discussion as requested and in the meantime tagged the plot section in the article. 2A02:C7C:CC80:8200:D538:7BFE:89EB:8C78 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello and thanks for your note here and for placing the maintenance tag on the section. Just so you know, I have no interest whatsoever in revert wars, nor am I geared that way. I've checked with the manual of style for films, and the plot summary for this film is only 46 words over the suggested number of words. I'll go ahead and edit the Plot section so it is under 700 words (it is now at 746). Unfortunately, your previous edit cut out essential plot events that are key to understanding of the film. Thanks again for your comment about article improvement. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The length now falls within the MOS suggested range for film plot summaries. I will be removing the maintenance tag in my next edit. Thanks again, 2Ao2. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot changes reverted