Talk:A Boy and His Dog

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

Untitled[edit]

the few survivors who stayed above ground must forage and fight for food, ammo, and women.

Doesn't this imply that the women don't count as survivors?

--Kenji Yamada 13:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose it does but at the same time the movie portrays them as chattel Dominic
That would be the NICEST way to put it; If you’ve seen the movie you’d really “get” how badly women are treated in the world of ABAHD.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is explicitly stated in the short story that most of the women were killed during the war. Thus, almost all of the above-ground survivors are, indeed, men.205.127.162.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The whole concept of women as "merchandise" or prey in the ABAHD universe is actually one of the main premises in the story (also remember, Vic is a f*cking rapist and Blood actually helps him finding what he "needs" in exchange of food) Oh, and if you´re worrying about the lack of tact/machism in the film...is a damn psychedelic ´70 movie... MyLastDays

Are spoilers OK?[edit]

Seems like the spoiler where in this article where it is explained that Vic kills Quila to feed Blood should be flagged as a spoiler since it is supposed to be a shocking conclusion to the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.184.251 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site, and spoilers are not only fine, they should be included. A reference material for a story should include all relevant details, especially how the story ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with 12.40.5.69, when someone comes to look for something in Wikipedia, you want all the useful info possible gathered together in the same place, specially plots and details for movies, books, etc (most people who access this Wiki for that type of information, is for reviewal or analyzing, not for "recreational" purposes like in other sites) MyLastDays

Played by Brady Bunch dog Tiger?[edit]

According to this article, and the article Tiger (dog actor), the dog was played by Tiger from the Brady Bunch. According to Barry Williams Tiger died on the set of Brady Bunch during the filming of the episode "Katchoo." [1] Katchoo originally aired on October 24, 1969. [2] There is no way Tiger could have stared in a movie in 1975 when he died in 1969. I have posted a citation needed notice on the article. I, or someone else, will remove the mentioning of Tiger from the article if no one can explain this in a reasonable amount of time. --PoeticX 07:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As Tiger (dog) clarifies, the character "Tiger" was played by two dogs, the second of whom has the off-stage name of "Tiger".
--Jerzy•t 07:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain?[edit]

It's bandied all over the web that "A Boy and His Dog" has entered Public Domain, but I haven't found a reliable source to back this assertion. Help? --76.200.165.188 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie itself listed on Archive.org's Creative Commons database [3]. I can't find anything on the story itself, though. Rurik (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive has removed it. Anyone can claim it's in the PD and upload it. Need a better source for verification. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status[edit]

I've added this:

The film is commonly described as being in the public domain, however its real legal copyright status remains unclear.

What happens is, certain internet web sites will put copyright content online and say it is "public domain" and leave it up until the copyright holder asks them to take it down. Sometimes the copyright holder never does, for whatever reason (not watching, doesn't care, dead or missing, unknown). However the actual legal copyright status remains uncertain. Until there is a reliable source saying this movie is in the public domain (preferably that source would the copyright holder) we should assume it is still copyright, it would be unusual for this film to be in the public domain. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initially added the following contrib as a response to GC's preceding 17:30 contrib of last year (in what i have made this section's supersection), but it applies equally well following their 17:49 one of that same day.--Jerzy•t 07:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
   I've removed the following markup:

== Copyright status == {{Expand section|date=August 2009}} The original copyright notice is incomplete and contains an invalid date more than one year different from its actual release date. While a registration was lodged with the USCO in 1989, it gave false publication information and is therefore invalid. This makes the original film public domain. However, in 1990, Third LQJ Inc. made a claim on the 1982 version of the film that had new footage added, which appears to be valid. No copy of the original Public Domain version transferred to VHS or DVD currently exists, leaving only the 1982 copyrighted version.

<ref>[http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=12303 "Requests"], Internet Archive, 2004.</ref> <ref> [http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=249596], Internet Archive, 2009.</ref>
bcz the two refs are to a Web forum (a step below, IMO, the self-published blogs that we may not use as sources) where posters insinuate legal expertise but offer no legal credentials, e.g. notably (in the '09 posts) "Video-Cellar" a.k.a. "Shane Sullivan" whose Internet Archive Forums profile makes no claims of legal knowledge, let alone re US intellectual-property-law knowledge (he purports to live in Australia), and who tosses off refs like
See:
Maljack vs Goodtimes RE: "McLintock!"
Hofheinz vs A&E RE: "It Conquered the World" Trailer
[sic on the forum: the case names (abbreviated, as is customary) precede "RE" in both cases; inviting construction of both "RE:" and the film titles as portions of the titles of the court decisions could interfere with verification -- especially with the second link, which leads to the District Court's "Site Map", not to any case]
as if believing that court decisions in that area were addressed to anyone who can read English, rather than to other judges, and to the specialist attorneys who will come before them.
   I consider the inclusion well intended, and hope we can at some point responsibly discuss the rumors that the film is, or isn't, in the public domain, and perhaps identify fact, fiction, and speculation. But such essentially dogmatic assertions, couched as if they clearly explained why they verify the stated conclusions, but resting on sources incapable of verifying those conclusions, are the worst kind of misinformation.
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka[edit]

Having lived in Topeka I found it appropriate as the name of the religiously delusional group that lived under ground. I have always wondered if there was a connection between the author and Topeka and would like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing both this article and the film article setting the story in "Southwestern US" has stumped me. Which Topeka is in the SW US? KS, IL, IN, or MI?? Someone pls add a citation tag to the intro. Sadsaque (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article about the film?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be about the short story, not the film?216.189.133.142 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Michael C. Price talk 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   The article is about more than either the short story or the film, and i've corrected the lead to reflect that: the topic is the literary cycle that includes both, along with the other forms the tale has taken. The coverage of the written versions may be worth expanding, and it may be desirable to split it into two topics, namely the cycle as a whole and the principal film, each with its own article. Until that decision is made, we've got one article, and hence one topic, and the topic is the full cycle -- tho the early works of the cycle are probably under-discussed.
--Jerzy•t 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Story vs. film[edit]

This article is meant to be about the short story by Harlan Ellison, not the film. There's a separate page for the film. --AfterFX 20:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no there isn't! --Michael C. Price talk 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   It sounds like AFX knew of A Boy and His Dog (1946 film) and missed the fact that MCP was aware of: the 1946 film is based on a work (by Samuel A. Derieux, who died in the 1920s -- WP bio in progress, off-line) quite distinct from Ellison's franchise (related only by name, or by helping feed the meme that the Ellison took his title from).
--Jerzy•t 07:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the film novella mix confusing and inconsistent with the style of other Wikipedia Articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.57.219 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the backstory?[edit]

I just re-read the novella last night and I'm really curious about the source for the backstory provided (e.g. JFK surviving the assassination attempt, the detailed dates about WWIII, etc.). It's not in the story, and the dates that are given in the book do not match up with those in the article. I think a lot of this needs to be deleted unless a credible cite is provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot take-off[edit]

There is no mention that "A Boy and His Dog" is the name a classic plot summary. (Others are Boy Meets Girl, Boy Loses Girl, etc.) Harlan uses it ironically, of course. Is that all so obvious that it need not be mentioned? Surely some quotable critic has mentioned it somewhere. Snezzy (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well: No; (no;) of course; no (but...); (...then) come up w/ that critic's opinion.
   More specifically:
  1. No: "A Boy and His Dog" does evoke a situation (a motif, perhaps) that has probably supported a diversity of plots in the past; some of them are perhaps obvious, but it hardly summarizes any plot or is even associated only with any group of plots that are more similar to each other than plots involving other motifs.
  2. No: Neither "Boy Meets Girl" nor "Boy Loses Girl" encapsulates a plot, tho "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back" is indeed a classic skeleton on which to hang a variety of plots that probably constitute a coherent set of plots.
  3. Yes: he used it ironically; but that fact is not dismissible simply bcz it's been admitted to. That fact is a barrier to the relevance of the convention to the accompanying article.
  4. No, it is not bcz it's obvious that it's mentionability- and relevance-challenged. It may or not be of value to discuss it in a focused and thoro manner (that will make more than is said here seem obvious) in a separate article, in which case another Dab entry on A Boy and His Dog (disambiguation) will be needed to point to it, but the accompanying article would be affected only as to the revision of its HatNote Dab.
  5. "Surely" is cheap talk (and of course better than nothing). A specific citation will be needed eventually, and the sooner it is produced, the sooner we'll emerge from the stage of repeatedly discarding proposed poor wordings in favor of slightly better (perhaps worthwhile but still poor) ones.
--Jerzy•t 04:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animated version[edit]

   It appears (despite my having said "films", plural) to be too early to include the 2012-or-so animated remake listed by IMDb and mentioned some other places. On the other hand, editors of the accompanying article may want to keep their ears open, and their Google-alerts primed for it, in case it ever starts to gel.
--Jerzy•t 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Ira Holmes?[edit]

Quote:

" Vic uses the fact that Quilla June's father secretly desires sex with her as a distraction; instead of impregnating her, Vic lets Ira Holmes in to see Quilla lying naked from the waist down, legs akimbo; thus stunned at seeing his "secret desire", Vic is able to incapacitate or kill the father to enable the start of Vic's and Quilla's escape attempt."

This makes it look like Ira Holmes is Quilla June's father, but this is the only mention of Ira's name in the whole article. Elsewhere, it is stated that Lou Craddock is her father.

So who is Ira Holmes? Marchino61 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her uncle, IIRC. 2.31.166.155 (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Magazine[edit]

I can remember reading a short story with this plot line in "Solo" magazine in the UK (as sci-fi mag aimed at young teenagers, sister publication to TV21) in the early-mid 1960's. I can only assume this was a reprint of the original short story. It certainly wasn't novella length and as far as I can remember was only in one issue. The details are much the same as described here, but I've no recollection of the sexual content - I suspect that was edited out for the target audience. Olddemdike (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Who killed Jesus= ``

No one: There are no martyrs in a 1984-regime. sigh. ( Fubar Fenn_%E2%80%93_Hong_Kong_Pfui ) Look: I can do things like inventing time machine, but I am not carnivorous. Dog, you are carnivorous, but you are a social competent being. Let us make a deal: Dog, I will try to protect you, to the best of my ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A540:693:0:851E:1C0D:42AF:8941 (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Boy_and_His_Dog&oldid=1217245210"