MovieChat Forums > Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) Discussion > The 70's version is a bit better, even w...

The 70's version is a bit better, even when disregarding the frame


The 50's version is a great movie, but the 70's is a bit better even if one disregards the studio-imposed frame nonsense and views the 50's version as it was intended to be.

Some of the reasons are:

- The 70's version is more visceral. The girlfriend's body falling apart in that movie is far more disturbing and shocking than the girlfriend turning into a pod in the 50's version.

- The 70's version ending is also more shocking and disturbing then the 50's version by having a pod instead of a human screaming at the camera. Both are great endings, but the 70's version is the greatest because it has more emotional impact.

- Some of the scenes in the 50's version are utterly ridiculous, like everyone being calm and acting like nothing is wrong after they know a pod is/was growing on the table behind them.

- Some of the dialogue in the 50's version is utterly ridiculous, like, "I want to love and be loved!...I want to have your children!" etc.

- The 50's version doesn't show the aliens coming from space whereas the 70's version does, which makes the 70's version better because it introduces the aliens in a more meaningful way.

- The pods and their screaming is far more scary in the 70's version.

- As has been pointed out many times already, the 50's version has a major plothole with the girlfriend turning into a pod out of the blue.

What say you guys to these points?

Do you have any counter-arguments of merit that can argue why the 50's version might be better?

reply

[deleted]

70's version sucked plain and simple. The original one is the best.

reply

[deleted]

I liked both versions, actually. But, I prefer the remake (I saw it first, but I just liked it more)...

Original- 7/10. I liked how it was in a small town, rather than a big city it seemed more natural the way the people were getting scared and believing their relatives and friends were changing. I liked the final chase scene a bit more. It was suspenseful.

Remake- 9/10. I really enjoyed this movie. It scared me a lot. The screaming was scarier in the remake than the original. I thought the big city provided a creepier setting and a more theatrical chase scene. The hopeless ending in the remake made it all the more terrifying.

I did like both. I just liked the remake more.

------------
You are being WATCHED right now...

Previously Maxelle/Nightmaric

reply

I haven't seen the 70's version since, well, the 70's (when it came out in the theaters).

And now that you mentioned the ending, and the screaming pods, those parts are coming back to me.

I think I saw the original before I saw the 70's version, and even back then, I considered the 50's version to be superior. Maybe not in big $ special effects, but in its compactness and pure efficiency in developing and telling its story. It laid on the psychological and intellectual terror, layer by layer. And maybe that's why I liked the 50's original version more - it created the impending, closing-in terror feeling without all the "visceral" effects the 70's version added.

It created an entirely believable premise of how something like this - as outrageous as it might seem if you could stand away and take a moment to think about it - could actually come to be.

However, I do concede one point about the 70's remake version - the one memorable, clearly original concept and image I still remember from that Donald Sutherland remake, is that "hybrid" dog. (Those of you who have seen the 70's version know exactly what I'm talking about.) Now, THAT was one shocking image - and clearly logical considering what action had just happened previously. And it was that entirely logical result that made the 70's version creepy in its own right.

reply

The 70s version was much better. The suspense was more believable compared to the original which seemed more like a rough draft. The 78 version polished the backstory making it much more effective toward audiences.

reply

I agree the 1978 version is slightly better


lol @

...Bodeh Snatchorz ...

reply

The first one I saw is the 70's version and I didn't like it at all. I recently saw the original and I think it is a masterpiece.

reply

You wrote it so wright. I adore 78 version - the best in the series of remakes. Brilliant acting, many scary moments, shocking ending......Too bad they didn't make a sequel. They always make remakes. 'Body Snatchers' (1993) was good and 2007 version was ok but I'd like to see a sequel to 78 version. It would be so great

reply

Point 1 - The girlfriend turning into dust was visually more grotesque but the entire scene where Bennell is on the verge of a mental breakdown only to have the last companion he can trust thrust her eyes open and you know she's been changed, well that was ultimately a more frightening scene.

Point 2 - The pod morphing scene went on for too long and actually detracted from my enjoyment of the film. I understand it was meant to make people stew in their chairs while Sutherland is slowly morphed but everyone knows that its nowhere near the end of the movie and that he's not going down at that scene. It ended up being a pointless reason to show off some of the effects. The performances of the characters huddled around seeing their bodies emerge from pods in the 50s version and being replicated right in front of their eyes actually resonated far more of an emotional impact with me.

Point 3 - In the 70s version the pods are able to take over humanity without being able to mimic their emotions, and the 50s version they take over by trying to act more human. Which is more believable? The aliens try to sow seeds of doubt into the characters minds by making them believe that nothing is wrong and that nothing has changed but themselves. People calm down in certain scenes because the pod people are manipulating them and the film actually benefits from those interactions in my opinion. During the table scene they have no idea what's going on, and they don't even know that's a pod person at that point.

Point 4 - Dialogue in films are constantly evolving and changing as the times change, and the dialogue in this film was reminiscent of the era. I didn't hear any lines in the film that were particularly grating or unrealistic. In fact, its more realistic that they would be professing love to one another as they were actually dating in the film whereas Sutherland's character was not.

Point 5 - This takes away part of the mystery which effectively destroys an important aspect of fear and that is that you always fear what you don't understand. The 70s movie made a grievous error in trying to tell us how the aliens came down and why they are here. Now that you know that the aliens are in a fight for survival you understand the motivation behind their menace and its not quite as scary. They give you a reason to become sympathetic and that's the last thing you want for a horror movie antagonist.

Point 6 - The pods look better in the 70s version but that's only because production values were much higher, and while the screaming is kind of a cool it doesn't translate as being very scary but rather a sly way to differentiate "hidden" beings from human beings. Meaning, it's neat addition but it seemed like a superfluous way to make distinctions between the two films.

Point 7 - You're right, this part of the film seems to jump the shark with it's internal logic but at the same time there was no pod around in the 70s version laying haphazardly in the field. It doesn't make sense in both versions of the film. If you criticize one movie for that mistake then you have to recognize it in another.

Counter Points

1. The aliens were far more believable as they could feign emotions and gain trust without fully understanding the feelings they were imitating hence the reason why they felt "off" to close relatives. I can't actually buy the aliens in the 70s version getting very far without at least trying to integrate themselves to some degree into society. People would have noticed that the 70s aliens weren't human pretty fast.

2. They gave the aliens an origin story and a background. I outlined why this is a negative above.

3. The performances were much stronger in the 50s version, and Kevin McCarthy believably transitions from an intelligent yet cynical man into a raving lunatic who knows his time is up. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland plays the role in a rather low-key manner and you can never really buy that he's in a situation that could spell doom for humanity.

4. Personally, I enjoyed the rapid fire pace of the original and it kept things frantic and on the edge of your seat while the 70s version kind of went at leisurely pace for much of the film. The change in pace makes the threat of the aliens seem like less of an issue than it should have been.

5. Without studio edits, the ending is simply genius as the whole film Bennell fights these aliens so that he doesn't have to suffer their through uncaring emotionless existence and when he finally meets back up with humanity he's met with the same uncaring emotionless attitude from mankind. It's the ultimate bit of irony and carries far more symbolism and impact than the 70s film.

"You're next!" - Classic



reply

I love both movies, but I have to give the edge to the 70's version. I thought it had a much creepier atmosphere throughout. And that ending really sticks with you. Great film.

reply

I agree with the OP though I thought the 50's version was very good, I still prefer the 70's version more.

reply

I must disagree. I think the original fifties version is superior. Plus, that version had Kevin McCarthy and Dana Winter.

reply

I like them both a lot, and I think they both have issues, but I'd agree that the 70s version is definitely the superior version, yes, even taking the framing devise out of the question. I actually like the use of the framing at the beginning, it's just the end that spoils it.

___
http://tinyurl.com/m746w8t

reply