Talk:Mars Attacks!/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Independence Day Thoughts

Could someone please tell me how the majority of the section on Independence Day is encyclopedic? If so, please revert the edit --CancerOfJuly

I wrote the majority of that section. Before, the article completely dismissed there being any deliberate relationship, whereas if you look up reviews and discussion of the film both at its release and since, there's a fair amount of speculation or at least puzzlement of what the relationship is. Maybe the tone/framing is wrong and it needs more weasel words, but discussion of this aspect of the film is completely encyclopaedic. --20:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And original research. Its good that its been taken out. Yes, I am replying to a discussion that's been dead for almost three years now! --Soetermans (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary?

Has one just not been typed up or does the movie have no plot? /sarcasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.134.64 (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll put one in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden124 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Peaceful Martians

From what I remember the Martians only became hostile when they saw the white pidgeons released by some pro-UFO-fanatics at their landing (ironically intended to symbolize peace), which resulted in an instant slaughter.

The Martians therefore weren't inherently hostile, just not very forgiving (when meeting the US president for new peace negotiations, they just killed the entire senate without prior provocation) and destructive. I suppose they just tended to end conflicts with genocide rather than an NAP.

Were they portrayed as hostile at any point prior to the landing disaster? Ashmodai 07:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I assumed that the circle arm jesture the Martians used was really just them saying "we have your planet surrounded" and not necessairily some sort of greeting.

Were they Walter Pidgeons? I could've sworn they were birds! :-) Tenebrae 02:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging from their mean-spiritedness (i.e. a Martian ship going out of its way to topple the Washington Monument onto a troop of boy scouts) and repeated claims of peace even as they gun down humans in large numbers, and their overall glee, I'd say the sadistic little creeps had no intention of playing nice, especially to birds. It's still funny, though. BryanEkers 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole point is they like toying with people, pretending to be nice and then doing killing them for a laugh. And their message to the earthlings includes the phrase "for the fundamental determination of the cosmos", which doesn't sound very friendly! The Singing Badger 02:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I just watched it again. After the massacre in the desert, the President broadcasts a message of peace. The Martian leader reads the transcript, laughs, and goes back to ogling the centerfold in a captured issue of Playboy. I don't see even the slightest intention of peace from these guys, birds or no birds. Give the bastards a good hard yodeling. BryanEkers 20:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The birds had nothing to do with the attack because there was a sign saying "No Birds" held up by the Military. It was truely evedent when they killed the president of the United States of America, who was just trying to end the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge2 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of "Mars Attacks"

There is no exclamation point on the trading-card series Mars Attacks, as seen on the cover card on this page of Norm Saunders' site http://www.normansaunders.com/MrzAtx%2C01.html The exclam pt is only on the movie title. Subsequently, moving entry. — Tenebrae 03:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

Shouldn't this page simply be a redirect to Mars Attacks! since the page coveres both (!) and without (!) ?Steve-O 01:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest keep Mars Attacks (sans "!") as the primary page since it, too, covers both, and since the source material, the original wellspring of all this, is the trading card series. If the header is Mars Attacks! that you're writing about the movie first, and backtracking to explain it came from the card set, and then you have to explain the card set. It just seems to make sense to start with the source material, and then go on to the spin-offs, IMHO. — Tenebrae 02:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it'd be better to divide this entry into Mars Attacks (trading cards) and Mars Attacks! (film), a la The Godfather (novel) and The Godfather (film)? — Tenebrae 06:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone will have to put a looooooooooot of work into the articles to make this a viable option -- otherwise we'll just end up with two stubs. ~CS 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Pahrump, Nevada

In the movie, the aliens blow up Art Bell's town, after some idiot releases a dove, and the bird flies over the aliens. Martial Law 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)

In the starting scene, were the American soliders using M1 Garands, and firing them automatic when the Garands are only semi-auotmatic? Phytos 05:58:36, 29 Novemeber 2006

Reviews

I changed this from having received "terrible" reviews to "mixed". Rotten Tomatoes' critics section gives this a rotten - granted - but only 53/100 critics gave it thumbs down, the other 47 thumbs up. In my book, this is much more like "mixed". Arild 23:57, 9 October 2006 (CET)

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

One paragraph of the article states:

Some have criticized this as being far too similar to another parody of B-movies, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, where the killer tomatoes were also caused to explode when subjected to a particularly bad song.

Actually, in the film, the song causes the tomatoes to shrink, thus allowing the townsfolk to stomp on the tomatoes, destroying them. (Ibaranoff24 18:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

Goof?

Wasn't the medal awarded by a shell-shocked person mourning the deaths of loved ones and half of America? It's a strech to call -that- a goof. After such chaos, it's lucky this person was -sane-. Just my opinion. Lots42 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deaths

I fail to see how the Deaths section is relevant. At the very, very least it should be part of a plot synopses. Lots42 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Production Notes Section

The production notes section is basically a trivia section. Please fix. Mercruz (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself? I deleted the whole lot of it, it was just a pile of complete and utter useless information. --Soetermans (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Er...

it says in the article,

"Placido Polanco - All Martians"

Is a baseball player really an actor, or is it some guy spewing some stupid POVvy rubbish. GRR! VANDALISM MAKE HULK ANGRY! RAGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mars Attacks!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am review this article for GA. I think the article is well written and interesting. I have done a little copy editing to fix a few small errors. I have only a few comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

"ack ack" dialogue - what is this?
"The A-list ensemble cast pays tribute to the 1970s Irwin Allen disaster films" - how does the caste pay tribute?
"The department workers studied Gloria Swanson's role as Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard (1950) for inspiration on the Martians' movement." - what did they get out of studing Gloria Swanson't role? How did this translate to the move?

All in all, the article is quite well done, in my opinion.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, sorry if I was acting strange earlier, I might have just been having a bad day. Anyway, I addressed your concerns for Mars Attacks! Good day. Wildroot (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focued on topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations. Very interesting article. (Makes me want to see the film!)

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)