Talk:Them!

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction High‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects: Ants Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as High-importance).
	It is requested that an audio file(s) be included in this article to improve its quality.

United States: Cinema High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled

Since Them! is just a redirect to Them! (1954 film) is there any reason not to make the main article Them!? --60.225.2.209 12:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. But since the page Them! already exists, I think the move requires administrator privileges. Slowmover 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top summary says Jack Warner cancelled the proposed 3-D version due to cost fears. The production section says the 3-D was cancelled because the 3-D camera malfunctioned. I also read an article that quoted one of the staff as saying it was filmed in 3-d but only edited for the flat version. Does anyone actually know the reason that Warners production records all list this as a 3-D film yet it is not. Philbertgray 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warner's production records do NOT list this as a 3-D film, in fact, if you go through the daily reports on the film, it's quite clear that they shot it flat. Tests were to be shot in color and 3-D shortly before pre-production. Color tests were shot, but the 3-D rig malfunctioned. The next day, a memo was sent out that 3-D was scrapped. In any case, WB was unsatisfied with the color results and slated it as flat and black and white.

Budget was probably one thing, but the bigger picture was that when the film was in production, 3-D had already started to mean Box-office poison. Trade mags carried the "color" and "3-D" moniker on their charts up until the day the film was released only because they were not updated with new information. The Photoplayer 05:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, thanks for the info - changed opening summary to reflect your remarks. Souunds like you may be a 3-D fan. Finally got to see Robot Monster and Cat-Women of the Moon in Dual strip 3-D. I was surprised that the 3-D actually was pretty decent in Robot Monster. But Cat-Women - what a mess!! Thanks again for the info. Philbertgray 12:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Robot Monster is especially well shot, particularly for a crew that had never used the rig previously. Cat Women isn't so much poorly shot as it has poor technical aspects. Many of the opticals are out of sync, etc. It was near the end of the game anyway-- I'm surprised they even bothered shooting it in 3-D. Glad my info helped. -The Photoplayer 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

color conflicts

I corrected the conflict regarding the color. Warner Brothers records indicate the color was cancelled because they were not satisfied with the results. Change top summary secction and lower color reference regarding title section—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbertgray (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part at the beginning about color and 3D needs to be reworded. It is very difficult to read. You may also consider moving it to a more relevent section of the article. Trivia, for instance. Fleagle11 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern youth-cultural trivia

I'm not sure how something is "indirectly referenced", it either is or isn't. I've also asked for some cites and changed the awkward title Alastairward (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links?

I'm new to Wikipedia and wish to discuss the proper use of an external link on film sites including this one.

Is it permitted to enclose an external link for a site where the film in question is reviewed and presented? The external link points to a site run by a published film writer, director, actor and television personality in Tokyo, Japan (English language).

I am trying to keep the link to The Cinemated Man alive and well because it is informative, useful and the author is a recognized authority.

But each day the links are removed under the guise of 'personal website'. The Cinemated Man site is published by blogspot and the editors are removing it for that reason or claiming the edit is 'spam'.

First of all, it is clearly not spam.

Secondly, even though is is published by blogspot, it is not a daily blog but rather a film review and presentation site. The site is non profit and contains no ads of any kind - not even ad sense, it is informational and is not a 'social networking' entity such as Myspace or Facebook.

Finally, the inclusion of The Cinemated Man link on Wikipedia is a helpful resource for those interested in the films in question. Keeping the link alive can only add to the wealth of resources at Wikipedia. Deleting it can only narrow Wiki's scope.

Also, the external links to Google Video, which has the film in its entirety are also being removed by the same editors for the same reasons. Humbleradio (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just read WP:EL sometime, that should clear things up for you. DreamGuy (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout3 reference

Edited the name of the Fallout3 mission, it's called "Those!" not "Them!". Reference can be found inside the game Fallout3, or p.ex. on Fallout Wikia Wood-be-pecker (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia entries are not considered reliable sources, and this is just pointless trivia of no importance to this article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: It Came from Red Alert

I can't believe that nobody mentioned this as Trivia. "It Came From Red Alert" is a series of four mini-missions included with the Red Alert: Counterstrike/Aftermath (PC) and in the Retaliation (PSX) discs. You can play "It Came From Red Alert" with both PC expansions installed (or only Aftermath, if you use a work-around), and on the PSX, the missions are a reward for completing the main game. "It Came From Red Alert" features the victor of that AU's World War II (using mainly Allied equipment) taking on atomic-generated giant ants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.198.30 (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What later movies were inspired by this one?

It seems sort of reminiscent of the movie Alien, for example. But is it actually known that some later, famous movies were inspired by Them! ? Might be interesting to have mentioned in the article, if so. --95.34.142.247 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some have pointed out that the scenes of the giant insect (megalon) in the coal mine and on the slag heap in "Rodan" (Toho, 1956) match scenes in Them! (1954) but I have not found a citable source with direct quotes from the screenwriter or director that it was intentional. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The elderly father-beautiful daughter team of scientists was a trope of that era. Also lampooned in the film Matinee (1993 film) PurpleChez (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFI

It's quite surprising that this important and influential film was never inducted into the Library of Congress by the AFI.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Ratio

The movie was apparently shot on 35mm and released on DVD full frame, then released on Blu-Ray at about 1.78:1. According to discussion on BluRay.com, the original aspect ratio was 1.75:1, although TCM puts it at 1.66:1. I'm assuming it was intended to be matted to widescreen, but the crew could have "protected" the entire frame knowing it would be on TV full-frame. The Wikipedia article states it was not filmed in widescreen -- maybe that just means it wasn't Cinemascope or whatever. The entire paragraph about pre-production is attributed to the book "The FBI and the Movies," but the information probably came from another source. There's an excerpt of the book on Google Books and it doesn't appear to have any technical information about the movies it references. So, are there any authoritative sources that have information about the theatrical aspect ratio? ClassicCF (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of unsourced and tagged info

Barker1987 with regard to this unexplained reversion, can you clarify why you've reinserted the info?

It's unsourced
It's been tagged as such since October
It doesn't make sense as it stands, and is too vague/unclear to be of use.

As far as I can see the only reason you reverted is because you originally inserted the info yourself back in 2017 here. That's not a valid reason to keep. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added this after it was blanked by Barker1987. Blanking a section without edit summary is not a good way to explain why you reinserted a section without edit summary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield Easter Egg

A frame from the film appears in Cloverfield during one of the camer glitches 2603:6011:3C08:3984:60FA:5F3F:E9FC:E74B (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]