Talk:The Stepford Wives (1975 film)/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Carol Van Sant.jpg
Image:Carol Van Sant.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Joanna and Bobbie picture
This says that "they are "Liberated Women" of the early-mid 70s". It should surely say either 'early' or 'mid'. 'Early-mid' sounds like exactly 1973.Myrvin (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nanette Newman's casting
I have some vague recollection Bryan Forbes said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that he was pressured by the film's producers to cast his wife. Verification? 78.146.86.175 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't say about the article, but according to documentary, they came as a pair. Seems like it was fine w the producers, but the writer wasn't happy about it, which created other hard feelings. Cbradshaw (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In Adventures in the Screen Trade, Goldman wrote a whole chapter about this film and how (he says) he ruined it (and more or less knew he was doing so) with the words "She's a perfectly good actress; I think she'd be fine" when Forbes asked him about Newman. In addition to what's already explained in the article about how this forced a change in the look he'd envisioned for the film (on the theory that if the men of Stepford were so fearful of their wives becoming liberated, they'd want them replaced with absolutely gorgeous robot versions rather than tamely domestic ones), he notes that they'd had trouble as it was finding a director and didn't want to have to go through that all again (or, rather, he didn't want to be the one whose fault it was that they had to. Also in that book (but not in that chapter), he complained that the studio's release strategy hurt the film ... they needed some cash fast, so they flooded the theaters with it for three weeks and then pulled it back drastically. Might be worth adding. I have the book somewhere but I can't remember. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious horror film?
"Serious horror film?" This sounds more like a fantasy film to me. 174.71.93.245 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A theme of patriarchal critique
The plot also continues a theme of patriarchal critique dating at least from Mary Shelley's 1818 novel "Frankenstein", which, unlike most movies of the same name, is intimately concerned with the implications of men's control of the manipulation of life, a concern of outstanding relevance today, when genetic engineering, DNA therapy, cloning, and synthetic life are all in the cards.

This is a feministic interpretation lacking any factual basis and should be removed from the article.217.94.195.76 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)