Jump to content

Talk:They Live/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial text

The fact that SOAD's "BYOB" bares resemblance to "They Live" (which is dubious and highly debateable at best) can hardly be termed "trivia".

--Badharlick 07:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fun factoid: The actor who plays the lead character, Roderick Toombs, was born in Saskatoon where the three IGA supermarkets recently converted into Sobeys... Life imitates art? ;)

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->]]

-- Limulus 29 June 2005 09:19 (UTC)


They Live reference in the July 4, 2005 webcomic Nothing Nice to Say --Limulus 7 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)


I think the movie They Live shows how greed can change people. Other wise it's a good movie with cool action scenes. -- Anon

"Single longest fistfight in all cinema"?! I have trouble believing this...what about every Bruce Lee movie ever?


....

Watch the scene, it really is a long old cut. I think it serves to show you metaphorically just how difficult it is to get someone to 'put on the sunglasses' so they see what you can see. ....


Among the numerous other "gleanings" by The Matrix... was the notion of sunglasses as symbolic of strength/enlightenment lifted directly from They Live?

Another Reference?

I'm pretty sure that in the game "Bart Vs The Space mutants" Bart can get special glasses that make the aliens visible, so should someone add that to the trivia section of the article?

References to They Live in the video game Deus Ex

There is a sequence in the video game Deus Ex where the main character (which you play) walks between TV monitors hanging over cubicles. The TV monitors flash normal stuff and then switch to flat text such as "OBEY", in the same font and style as They Live.

Kaerondaes 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

quote?

Just say this - the film uses "chew bubblegum and kick ass". I haven't looked into the origin of the quote. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

source of text?

It looks to me as if there's a good deal of commentary copied from this article: http://www.geocities.com/j_nada/carp/interview/theyliveretro.html - but I don't see any clue to where the article originally appeared. Could be copyvio. ←Hob 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is the original source, altho, it also appears, here Count Ringworm 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Armitage?

The linked article (Lovecraft's Dunwich Horror) reports that the character's name is Dr. Henry Armitage. 200.48.20.67 21:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll vouch for that, and I checked my copy. Googling 'Frank Armitage' shows the majority of results claim it is from Neuromancer, but there do not appear to be any references to Frank in the actual book. In the absence of sources, remove the claim? 219.110.244.23 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Armitage is all over Neuromancer and plays an integral role. He shows up as early as page 28 in the novel. See here. Count Ringworm 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Frank Armitage is listed on Ray Nelson's webpage as one of his nom de plumes. This brings into question John Carpenter having written the film. Citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.240.157 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult film?

Why isn't this categorized as a cult film here on Wikipedia? I think it definitely fits into that classification. Javguerre 22:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that category may have been deleted. If not, it definitely belongs. Geoff B 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What "Television Pilot"?

A paragraph towards the end states "When They Live was released in 1988, Carpenter had hoped that it would have the same effect as his film's television pilot." Could somebody please clarify: What film's television pilot is being referred to, here? -- pedant 13:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, turns out that the strange phrase is a result of the bowdlerization of the original article (cited above) on the Erasing Clouds website. As far as I can tell, the whole essay is mostly lifted from that source. I corrected the reference, but lack the time to rewrite the whole thing so it becomes something less than thinly-veiled plagiarism. Who's up to it? -- pedant 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Professionalism, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

"He likes to look around at people and buildings and things a lot. A LOT."


This is just condescending and silly. Are there any other Wikipedia articles that have whole sentences in all caps? That's SHOUTING, and has been bad manners since WebTV days.

First, the main character, John Nada, is homeless or pretty close to it. Homeless, meaning very little to do which means walking around and looking at things when he's trying to find work, and it's clear he's doing what he can to find work and support himself. Part of the core of the story implied is that he will NEVER get ahead in life. Second, once he puts the glasses on, the stunning reality of the world becomes apparent to him. Wouldn't you amble around in a daze for a while too?

Shekwan (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical of the Finger

In a cable broadcast version of the show that was not obviously tampered with (judging by its last most memorable presentation of the Marry and Reproduce theme), the supposed "Finger" gesture was not very clear to me. You can see an index finger more curled and a middle finger less so, but it was not exactly the vigorous gesture familiar from popular sporting events; at best it was a sign for someone who'd used up all the Viagra for the month. What do you think? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely the finger. See: Whalen, Tom (2002). ""This is about one thing--dominion": John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars". Literature Film Quarterly. 30 (4). Maryland: Salisbury University: 4. Retrieved 2008-01-28. —Viriditas | Talk 00:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Subliminal messages?

It sits uneasily with me for the article to call the messages in the film "subliminal". I can't deny it's accurate in a way, yet ... the messages seem more like translations of the advertisements than irrelevant "secret messages". When someone advertises "a more transparent computing environment" - more transparent for who, really? Is the vacation ad truly just pulling people to the Caribbean, or promoting a life-style where people shrug off their Sisyphean burdens just long enough for a short romance so that they can commit to reproduction and get back to the daily grind? I feel that the audience is intended to walk out of the theater with their sunglasses still on. When Levi's, widely criticized for aggressive "testing" of RFID chips in consumer clothing, runs ads that show that you can't put on their jeans without a phone booth rising out of the floor, are they really only selling a product? What of another ad that shows a printer doing "scan copy print", then the operator taking time out to phone home? I think that is more what the movie is referring to. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of changes in the article are you recommending? —Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
...I wonder if Kevin Trudeau has seen this film. He'd probably love it. --Luigifan (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hofmann lenses"

The sunglasses are at one point in the film referred to as "Hofmann lenses". Acidhead friends of mine have always taken this as a reference to Albert Hofmann, discoverer of LSD. --FOo (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is devolving into trivia lists, so I thought I would nip it in the bud and move it here. Please turn this into prose and merge the content into the appropriate sections. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Artist Shepard Fairey, initially known for the Andre the Giant Has a Posse street art campaign, was inspired by the imagery in They Live; later naming it the OBEY Giant campaign.[1]

South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker parodied a key fight sequence from the film in their episode titled, "Cripple Fight".

"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubble gum," which is said by Piper (Nada) when he walks into the bank at the beginning of the shoot out, is used in the video game Duke Nukem 3D in the form of "It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all out of gum".

The phrase has also been used as a soundbyte in the Dr.Acula song "Piano Lessons Can Be Murder"

Fan site

I removed this fan site from the external link section. Surely, someone can find a useful page in this site and use it as a reference? Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate categories

I don't think we need to have Category:Films shot in California when the article is already categorized as Category:Films shot in Los Angeles. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

bubblegum

The text doesn't actually mention what all these bubblegum-references are about. 134.91.141.39 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the state of the article back in 1/7/09, but it does mention the quote now. I've added one use of the quote in a later work in the pop culture section. I'd imagine there are other works that have used that quote. If anyone knows of any, please add them. Once we have a few, we can rework them all into a paragraph about the quote that looks less like a list. IMHO (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The bubblegum meme is probably the most enduring outcome of the movie but is inexplicably not even mentioned anymore. Duke Nukem 3D took the quote from the movie and arguable popularised it as noted here. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I've readded it, with TVTropes as a source for many examples. Sorry for the lateness. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fight Scene Trivia

One of the highlights of the film is a five-and-half minute alley fight between David and Piper over a pair of the special sunglasses. Carpenter recalls that the fight took three weeks to rehearse: "It was an incredibly brutal and funny fight, along the lines of the slugfest between John Wayne and Victor McLaglen in The Quiet Man." [citation needed]

I deleted this from the page since no citation had been given in a long time. Still, since it sounds like it could be true, I'm posting it here so if anyone can find a citation for it, they can put it back.

76.102.182.184 (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the proper citation for this passage and reinstated it in the article.--J.D. (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Augmented reality

Is this the first movie to feature augmented reality? Did John Carpenter invent the concept of augmented reality?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

Obviously you'd need find a source - but my hunch is that the stalking-around-inside-a-series-of-commercials sequence in Looker (the 1981 Michael Crichton film) beat it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this "THEY LIVE" version (Mar 9 2011) has been edited to death. GONE are all trivia. HORRIBLY DENUDED

CONTEXT: I have never edited a wikipedia article in my life. I have never commented on a wikipedia article in my life -- until now. But I am an information designer/UX designer and I have watched over past 10 years or however long wikipedia has existed as it has emerged and developed rulesets, classification systems, templates, process methodologies, and methods of conflict resolution. It has been impressive, and I marvel at how well it works overall.

I'M AWARE of common problems including vandalism, or people pushing agendas, or factual inaccuracy, and many many other problems I;ve read about over the years when I have seen notice boxes atop various wikipedia pages, in effect notifying the reader "This may not be a fully accurate or reliable version", ... but we (a community) are working to improve it as we can.

THEREFORE, I come at this criticism with as very broad understanding of the parameters at hand, and the enormous sets of criteria all in balance to make such a living encyclopedia work so well.

WITH ALL THAT SAID, I find this version HORRIBLE; it's stripped of its soul. I have, over the years, periodically come to this page because of the "cult film" status of this film. I barely recognize it now, it is so sanitized of all its earlier political subtexts. I went and looked at prior versions and there are so many, thousands of entries, that I was not able to spend a whole night just to see where it went astray. This much I *do* know. I did go to the "earlist" page of edit entries, started at the beginning and worked up.

I soon saw entries added that included: John Carpenter write the music for They Live. And I remembered this, because he generally wrote the music for ALL his movies. This particular entry happened to be here -- I am not citing it as a Great Entry overall, but merely saying, it has a section called Trivia, and it has a VERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF TRIVIA that i would not even classify as trivia -- because it goes to to the multiple talents of John Carpenter the filmmaker -- he wrote his own music:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=They_Live&oldid=44346192

AND YET -- the current entry -- NOTHING! -- I would love to know who first stripped that out AND WHY? I would bet it's some tightwad authoritarian type more concerned with rule-sets and completely losing sight of the knowledge-transfer and knowledge sharing objectives of wikipedia.

I have seen MANY MANY music articles over the years trimmed down and fascinating details of groups like (JUST FOR EXAMPLE, The Allman Brothers) where a group splits off and reforms, or solisits go on to form othergroups -- slashed and denuded of these facts and details because some tightwad determines "IS IT NECESSARY?"

IT IS NECESSARY ??

What kind of ridiculous question is that as a high-order editing question to be posed here or anywhere else. Are we talking paper, or are we talking hyperlinks, and anchorlinks, that still enable CLEAN, easy to navigate TABLE OF CONTENTS, yet enable "TRIVIA" or whatever else you might call "JOHN CARPENTER WRITE THE MUSIC TO THEY LIVE"?

This project wikipedia? Does anyone think there's going to be another one? (well actually there is, technically... google's knol, but different methodology and its besides the point). The point is: CROWDSOURCING A LIVING KNOWLEDGE SET happens ONCE. People die off. If principles involved in a production, or band or whatever it may be have DETAILS, may i ask "WHERE ELSE IS APPROPRIATE THAT IT GO?" if not wikipedia? "WIKIPEDIA-LONGFORM.ORG"? -- "WIKIPEDIA-UNCUT.ORG"? ---

There is something really wrong that has motivated me to write this. It has been rising in me over the last two years. It;s as though the cleaner and neater and beautifullly consistent in formatting wikipedia becomes, the less colorful AND RELEVANT DETAILS are being published. This is a crime, and a complete co-opting of the intent of the system. Andthere are 'TYPES' of people behind this. People who favor format over content.

        • FOR GOD'S SAKE, anyone who actually has an interest in this film, tear down this current Readers Digest abomination, and restore MANY MANY aspects of this film that are absolutely releavnt to it, yet have been excised and expunged for god only knows what reason. But people COME HERE when they want "ONE STOP SHOPPING COMPREHENSIVE INFO" aboiut a subject -- and if you strip it bare, you might as well make this a home depot, and rename it WIKI-DEPOT.org -- and that will make all you "nice clean aisles" people very very happy.
        • THE SECOND MAJOR OMISSION, which is really the main oneI could not believe was expunged, is that many prior versions of this entry -- but god only knows where they are amidst thousands and thousands of entries (myabe they are keyword searchable) -- referenced that Carpenter made this not just as a reaction to CONSUMERISM, but also as a reaction to (gasp!) REAGANISM . Yes, Ronald Reagan and his policies. This film had a political subtext and the interviews of the time were all clear on that. YET NOT A WORD NOW.

So the FOW NEWS VANGUARD have filtered it out, of the "let's keep things neutral" have filtered it out.

Well, whoever did it, you've cut the guts and soul out of the entire listing. It's a complete whitewash of the listing, and disrespectful to the filmmaker.

I;'m curious -- those fo you who know anything about film. Hal Ashby edited his own films. is THAT contained in COMING HOME? Is it listed as FILM trivia? or is it expunged too as irrelevant? "IS THAT REALLY IMPORTANT?"

If THIS is what is running the mindset of wikipedia, you've lost me as a financial contributor. There';s plenty of room to reference SOUTH PARK, but no room to reference one of the promary subtexts of the movie: the filmmaker's reaction to the Ronald Reagan era and the celebratuon of greed. You may remember somebody --- who was it again -- made a film called WALL STREET that had a little something to do with that too.

sign me disgusted and disappounted at whoever is destroying the GOOD WORK OF COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTORS

Richard SF (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC) San Francisco, CA

  • Since you can get to any version of the article, it's its own time machine. Trivia got ripped soon after this version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.38.173 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The thing about trivia is that it's trivial. Of no importance. As for the OP, he may be "an information designer/UX designer" but he isn't capable of writing a coherent sentence in English, and doesn't understand how an encyclopaedia works. This pretty much disqualifies him from contributing to Wikipedia. He would enjoy TVTropes, perhaps he could there instead. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits to article - Plot

I edited the plot to make it more concise though it is still over 700 words. Also created a "Themes" section to flesh it out a bit more and move all relevant information on its themes; conspiracy, economy, politics etc there. I contributed to the legacy section which could use the popular culture references removed from the former Trivia section.--JTBX (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

consumerism/remake

There was a section called capitalism but the movie was a commentary on consumerism in the 80s not the capitalist system. Also there are plans for a remake. I do not have time to write about it(consumerism & remake), so if someone else could that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.204.194 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Off-Base

I think the article is a bit off-base. The movie is actually quite light hearded in many aspects and has a deliberate B movie feel. The article doesn't portray this at all. Judging by above comments the article has a history of having good material removed. Hopefully I'll have some time soon to revisit this. Robert Brockway (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:They_Live/Archive_1&oldid=1101290143"