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)

I think the image should be removed, it's a major spoiler (obviously) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.212.231 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How would it be useless and serve no purpose? In fact, wouldn't it be pointless to only give away almost all of the plot except the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.187.99 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just watched the movie a few days ago. I was very young when it came out and my original interpretation of the ending was simply that Dr. Bennell was finally duplicated and the woman who approached him was left as the very last of the group not yet duplicated. Now I am wondering what is the significance of the scene just before the final scene. Dr. Bennell goes into his office and looks around as if he is afraid of being caught. He clips an article, sticks it in his pocket and walks out. Now I think that he had a plan to destroy the aliens that involved some secret research for which he had to go back to his workplace at the health department. When the woman approached him on the street and let her guard down, Dr. Bennell realized that she would get in the way of his plan and it would be better to let her believe that he was an alien and maybe even turn her in. His shrieking scream was faked to protect his plan. This is ending is very optimistic because it implies something like the ending of War of the Worlds where there may be an earthly biological weapon to destroy the alien process. The duplicates do not need to be destroyed necessarily, just the pods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.180.150 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

The so-called Plot Twist in fact represents a clumsy distortion of the movie's main premise. The director wanted to play off the idea that a still human Matthew might be dissembling as a taken-over human-no-more pod person, only to shock the audience with the abrupt screaming demonstration that in fact he is now one of them. But this is both illogical and dramatically dishonest insofar as the wistful musing Matthew that we've just been shown, with music to match, would be completely "out of character" for a pod person. They wanted it both ways and for the most part a gullible audience let them have it. Orthotox (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2012 (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)

Arthurvasey (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one other subtle difference between the two Jack Bel(l)icecs in the films - Jack's surname is spelt with on L in the first and two in the second - in the 1956 version, as Miles drives up to the Belicec house, the sign outside reads BELICEC - in the 1978 version, we see BELLICEC BATHS.

I think it might be worth mentioning that the star of the original version from the 1950s, Kevin McCarthy, has a cameo in this version. He plays the seemingly crazy man who pounds on the car window of Sutherland, shouting, "They're coming! You're next!" He is then almost immediately killed, ostensibly by a car but more likely by the group of pod people pursuing him. I didn't know where to put it in the article, but I think it's an interesting aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.128.90.89 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2013 (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." --DrBat (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

But Kaufman alluded to it more being an allegorical sort of thing. That this guy has been running all his life, and no one believes him, right up until he dies. Certainly the film makes it clear that this is the first invasion of these creatures, and besides which, it is hardly the sort of event that the world would forget, had it happened before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.107.200 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Duvall Cameo?

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)

The director said that he believed that any scary movie should have a priest in it. No joke! And that this priest was the first of the pod people. Personally I had thought that maybe it was supposed to be allegorical about the descent of man or something, but nothing quite so high brow after all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.107.200 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Garcia

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)

Girlfriend

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)