Talk:Village of the Damned (1960 film)

message: After only watching the movie (not reading any further literature that may exist), I find the last paragraph of the synopsis highly interpretative: Did the children (or their "essence") really survive? All one sees are the eyes, and I for my part didn't think much of it. I just thought it's a dramatic way of showing how those evil eyes--the "stare"--fade and disappear! If you have reasons to assume that something actually survives, please cite sources. Thanks.
: I have also seen this film, and the sequel. There is nothing in it to suggest to me that the final shot is anything other than dramatic licence. Does anyone have any sources that show the survival of the children? Mallanox 23:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dramatic License" you say.  Like many other works of the SF/Fant/Horror genre, this work has been the subject of study and interpretation by many different people over time.  Ambiguity is something many film producers/directors utilize to make the audience do more than watch the film with their brains left out in the parking lot.  Yes, it probably was "Dramatic License"; but it was clearly with the intent that the audience be left wondering.  Those "eyes", what could they have meant?  They appeared on screen and moved out of shot to who knows where.  The fact that they appeared at all must mean something.  If they were destroyed as Selby had intended, why did the eyes appear?  It's up to the viewer to decide.  Personally, I believe it was meant to show that they DID survive in non-coporial form.  They moved off screen to separate and start over.  The second attempt was later shown in the sequel movie.  As I said, it's open to interpretation by the viewer.  -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the children survive? 

message: '*The clock on the wall in the ending sequence does not have a 7 on it. It is actually an upside down 2!'
In certain fornts, 7s look like upside-down 2s. Removing this line. Mack-the-random (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: :Image:Kids votd1957.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) 17:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kids votd1957.jpg

message: I'm sure this touchstone scifi/horror film has been referenced in many notable ways, so some of these might merit inclusion in the article.  For example, an episode from season 10 of "the Simpsons" parodied the film extensively:  Wild Barts Can't Be Broken.  I didn't want to cram a new section into the article for that one example, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.164.190 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural references 

message: Any cite for this diff? Alastairward (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You must mean the non-glowing eye version, don't you?  According to a review of the film from that era (once on line, but I can't find it again)there WERE two versions.  One with the glowing eye effect; it was shown in the States.  The British censors of the time felt the effect was too scary, and insisted on it being cut from the film.  For that reason, a version existed without the effect for release in British theaters.  There is no information about its fate or if any copies survive today.  I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glowing eyes version 

message: Article states MGM/UA released a version in 1995, but I own an earlier MGM/UA version that shows a 1983 copyright on the packaging-- cardboard box styled like a book with hinged cover, and plastic holder for the cassette. This same type of packaging was also used for early copies of Forbidden Planet and Kubrick's 2001. 184.98.141.72 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Video 

message: ...Zellaby learns the Soviet government has used an atomic cannon to destroy the sole remaining alternate village containing their own spawn of mutant children.
The wikilink currently redirects to M65 atomic cannon which is ridiculous for this purpose as that was a US weapon.  The "See also" section of that article does have a link to 2A3 Kondensator 2P, a Soviet artillery gun that could fire a nuke. However, according to that article, it had a maximum firing range of just 15.9 miles, and if I recall correctly, in the film it is said that the Soviets fired the nuclear projectile from a distance of 60 miles from the village. So I will change the wikilink to link to nuclear artillery (and make some other, minor changes to that sentence). —⁠173.129.198.205 (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilink for ''atomic cannon''