Talk:Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 film)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Not to warm up a dead discussion, but there is no way he could have screamed that way if he was still human. In the scenes before, we see him on his daily activities, just as the other pods. -- megA (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the twist ending? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sutherland screams.jpg

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

message: 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." --DrBat (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A continuation of the original film in its original form!  The grafted-on prologue and epilogue of the 1956 version suggest that McCarthy's outlandish "story" gained acceptance.  But in the original, more powerful concept, he was still on the run at the fade out.WHPratt (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only Cartwright's opinion that it was a sequel rather than a remake. If it was indeed a sequel and McCarthy was still playing Miles Bennell, then he would have been credited as such. However, he is simply credited in this film as "running man". 88.104.14.94 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is Michael Douglas's character in Falling Down credited as D-FENS rather than William Foster? Not every character in every film is given a credit which reflects an in-universe perspective. The fact that McCarthy plays a "running man" does not mean that he isn't playing Miles Bennell. —Flax5 14:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything remotely allegorical about Cartwright's statement – "a continuation of the story rather than a remake" is the very definition of a sequel, and she follows it up by mentioning the connection of a shared character! Admittedly it's difficult to reconcile the stories in-universe. Then again, it's difficult to reconcile Schumacher's Batman with Burton's, and they're still intended as sequels to them. —Flax5 14:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens in Falling Down or the Batman films isn't relevant to this discussion because it's an entirely different situation. If McCarthy was playing Miles Bennell again, he would have been credited as Miles Bennell. He was the main character in the previous version, don't you think they would have made a big thing about that? If this was a sequel to the original film, it would have been billed as a sequel and not as a remake. Nobody can just assume McCarthy is playing Miles Bennell again, regardless of the opinions of others - and that's exactly what Veronica Cartwright's comment was, just an opinion. She didn't write the film or direct or produce it. McCarthy's appearance in this film is no different to Cartwright's appearance in 2007's The Invasion. Of course, you'll always get some loon who is determined to overthink things and suggest that Cartwright's character in The Invasion is actually Nancy Bellicec from the 1978 film, but she's been on the run for 30 years and has changed her name to Wendy, etc. In reality, her appearance is just a nice little nod to the versions that came before, but nothing more. 88.104.4.193 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cartwright's comment may be in relation to the fact that San Fransisco is referenced in the finale of the original 1956 film as the city that will be attacked next(along with a concurrent attack on Los Angeles). Pods are seen being shipped off to San Fransisco. It's possible that this film's setting is deliberately related to this fact, that the actors knew about it, and that this remake's entire plot may have been thematically and directly inspired by the concept that "San Fransisco is the next major target" taken from the finale of the original film. Although the film does show the alien life-form arriving in San Fransisco from space, that doesn't mean the lifeform hadn't arrived earlier in another location and identified San Fransisco as a good target. If the FBI had been informed(As in the studio imposed ending) perhaps the invasion was slowed down by the aliens so as not to arouse suspicion. Frankly I think the "hopeful/studio ending" actually explains why the aliens waited a decade or two and how they were able to infiltrate government agencies so quickly in this film if indeed it is a sequel. The appearance of McCarthy in the film having realized the invasion is now continuing unabated and finally "made it to San Fransisco", therefore may have also a been a deliberate link to the first movie, even though he was not credited specifically as playing his original role.Colliric (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: McCarthy's cameo was simply intended as a nod to the original. It doesn't mean he's playing the same character. Films do it all the time. Linda Harrison played Nova in the original Planet of the Apes film from 1968. She also had a cameo in Tim Burton's remake in 2001, as a fairly similar character. But it's just a fun nod to the original, like McCarthy's cameo here. If he was playing the same character, he'd be credited accordingly, and this film would have been released as a sequel. Even though its fun to speculate how it could be the same character and give him an "in universe" back story about how he's been trying to warn people for over 20 years, that's all it is - just speculation. But trying to assert this speculation as fact is basically WP:OR and WP:Synth. 51.9.138.183 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake? 

message: What in the world is Robert Duvall doing in this picture? He appears about 4 minutes into the film, dressed as a priest, on a swing in a playground. The camera briefly shows some children walking, as if seen through the eyes of the priest.  That's it.  Can anyone find any clue as to why this is in the film?
Lafong (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duvall Cameo?

message: I just edited the main article to remove the statement that Jerry Garcia plays the banjo-playing busker with the dog.  It is true that Garcia plays the banjo music that is heard in the busker scenes, but the busker himself is played by an actor named Joe Bellan.  I just watched the movie, and checked the end credits to be sure of these facts.  Bandolino (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerry Garcia

message: It is never suggested that the main characters are seeing each other, sure they are close. The first lines of the article, "The plot involves a San Francisco health inspector and his girlfriend discovering that human beings are being substituted by aliens." Should it not be, "The plot involves a San Francisco health inspector and his colleague discovering that human beings are being substituted by aliens." Or it this an American saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.145.67 (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Girlfriend