Talk:Head (film)

message: Every Monkees biography I've read or seen does not mention LSD use during the Ojai weekend, but several of them mention copious marijuana use at the time. (Micky Dolenz does mention in his aubiography consuming a capsule of "compressed rye-bread mold" at the Monterey Pop Festival.) Zephyrad 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs 

message: In the list of credits, specifically the 'reversed credits', Jim Hanley (Yelnah Mij) is credited as playing the role of Sidorf (Frodis).  One of the last episodes of the Monkees TV show is entitled The Frodis Caper.  Does anybody know what the significance of the name Frodis to the Monkees?  Wwdgehead 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversed credits 

message: I saw an interview with Jack Nicholson some years ago (probably in a documentary about the Monkees) in which he stated that despite the failure of the movie, it earned him and his co-producers enough money to shoot Easy Rider. If someone could find a source for this, it would be useful info to add to the article. — Loadmaster 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: :Image:HEAD.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) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HEAD.jpg

message: :Image:Valley Auditorium.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) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Valley Auditorium.JPG

message: "There is a slight possibility that the opening credits were included in the DVD version of this feature."
This doesn't make sense to me. It seems to be unsure of whether any opening credits appear on the DVD. Is that it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.209.61 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening credits

message: "Arguably a major reason for the film's flop is that many theaters demanded, and got, a change in rating from a G to a Mature rating due to the psychedelic nature of the film (with posters that say it was for mature audiences only) even though there was no nudity, no foul language, and very little violence (most notably the Nguyen footage)."
HEAD was never officially re-rated M (for Mature Audiences) by the Motion Picture Association of America, so this reference appears to be fanciful and untrue. All ad copy and prints (as well as US posters and US VHS and DVD releases) all carry the G rating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LennyPhillips (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: There is no direct connection to Head and Easy Rider in terms of plot or story.  Peter Fonda has been quoted extensively, that he came up with the idea for Easy Rider in 1967, while doing a promotional tour for the movie The Trip.  He was in his hotel room in Toronto, and came up with the concept there.  Someone keeps putting a paragraph in that Nichalson came up with the idea of sending the Monkees on a motorcycle trip across America, a la Easy Rider.  Then it claims that it was picked up for use in Easy Rider.  Untrue.  The first film shoot for Easy Rider was during Mardi Gras 1968, about a few months before Head began production.  As well, Nicholson had nothing to do with the screenplay for Easy Rider. So please don't continue to add that it inspired the Easy Rider, it didn't.Abebenjoe (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Easy Rider and Head

message: I don't know which came first, but the "ching-ching-ching" of a pile driver was either used in head and Nicholson used it in easy rider, or he used it in easy rider and took it to head.  But it's identical, and was probably the same audio tape clip.  
HelviticaBold 19:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio reused

message: The Plot section includes several statements that are not explicitly made in the film (e.g., what the Monkees "discover" about themselves throughout the movie). Even if we have a reference for these interpretations (which I don't see listed), I don't think the Plot section is the place for them. I suggest the section be rewritten and limited to what is actually in the film. --Sm5574 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the section. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I believe it holds close to the film as presented, and so any future changes should follow that lead. --Sm5574 (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While it’s a decent synopsis / overview of the film … does it really describe “the plot” per se? ( i.e. what we see on screen ). On one level, it’s an opinion of the events. I have no issues with the synopsis - indeed I do not have a better answer / explanation / version - but, the film is open to various interpretations of what is going on, whether planned or not. ( Just noting. ) 75.106.32.81 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research in Plot 

message: Both sections end with the exact same Bob & Jack and their wacky bumper sticker on a cop’s helmet story. ( Funny once, less so when repeated.) 🤷🏼‍♂️ But, seriously , one needs to be edited out, dealer’s choice.75.106.32.81 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! -BuruRuru (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production & Marketing Rehash … 

message: The article mentions two different running times, does anyone know what changes happened, or what scenes were cut? I know of the “mirror sequences”, where each Monkees sees themselves differently; Micky as Pan, Peter as a sad clown, etc. But, were other things cut out? It seems like there is a 20 minute difference. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running Times - Missing Scenes?