Talk:Cat-Women of the Moon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cat-Women of the Moon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

'Them' removed from list of other schlock films. Them was not schlock. It was Universals highest grossing movie of the year and a drive-in classic. They don't stock schlock at your library.

You're right about that. Them was a good SF film, with some of the best expositional dialogue of its genre. --Chris 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very biased article[edit]

This article is really just a trashing of CWoTM, and not a very skillful trashing. Sure, there was a lot wrong with the movie, and it's fair for an article on Wikipedia to make that clear. But not this way. I'll undertake to fix it. --Chris 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did the fix, but it's too much like original research. I'll get to work on it in the next couple of days. --Chris 04:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the four edits of this article on 2006-07-02 were by me. --Chris 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed notation "It was one of the first 3-D films. The first 3-d film was released November 26, 1952 almost a year before this film. The first major 3-D films were released in April of 1953. This film was released September 1953. I thnk the plot summary is much too long as well and there are some misstatements in it. Philbertgray 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Synopsis" section as it was repeated in "Plot Section". Added several films section called comparisons moved info to Opening summary. Placed actors - roles into table. Philbertgray 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update to plot - production[edit]

the plot summary seemed to bounce back and forth in the film's structure and seemed a bit confusing to me. I tried to edit it while keeping the intent of the original author. I added production info and discussed some of the films short comings. I tried to list the information with NPOV but it's extremely hard considering the films reputation is based more on its ineptitude than its assets. Philbertgray 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trivia addition regarding Goldfinger[edit]

This has been removed from the Trivia Section:

Pussy Galore and her lesbian female band of acrobat cat-burglers ("Pussy Galore and the Abrocats") show up in the Ian Flemming's 1959 novel Goldfinger. They have become a dangerous Chicago gang called the cement-mixers. Pussy and her crew (somewhat toned down in the 1964 Goldfinger film) are a likely and lasting influence of this spate of 1950's Amazon-(cat)woman films.

The information really has no bearing on the film. Though interesting it is no more than speculation to state the film was an influence on Ian Flemngs work. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy regarding unsubstantiated statements. It would be better served on either the Goldfinger film page or James Bond.

Philbertgray 20:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have taken three deep breaths. First, if you're going to play the NPOV card, you'd better start on this article from word one. It has stuff like: "By 1957 his career was pretty much over and and he appeared only 6 more times in film or television. He remained the butt of many a comedian's jokes for his lack of acting skills and his constant scrapes with the law." Yeah, who says? Could that be a point of view? Second the Goldfinger comment went HERE because this is more than an article about this particular film-- rather it contains most of the interesting correlations and info about the entire Amazon-lesbian-catwoman genre of the 50's. Which verily did exist. Is it the source of the lesbian catwoman team in 1959 Goldfinger? Well, I don't have Fleming's word for it. However, I don't have anybody's word for the correlations between the films named in this article either, except for the fact that Missile to the Moon is indeed verifiably a remake of Cat Women on the Moon. That's it. So you have to take all that other stuff on the other films out, too, unless you can get quotes from screenwriters than they were influenced. Which you don't have. So there's your homework. Let me know when it's done, or otherwise it's YOU who is being POV, here. Remember, the rule in Wikipedia is improve, don't just delete. S B H arris 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot description[edit]

I have reverted the good faith edit(s) of 2601:300:4500:3112:28dc:f8a8:ee99:1032. Some of the removed passages, IMO, should be retained because they provide key, encyclopedic plot details that provide both explicit and implicit information about the film. Other components of the edit are to me perfectly fine, but because so many changes were made with a single edit I was unable to selectively retain the 'good' changes, and instead had to undo everything. In the spirit of WP:BRD let's work here to attain a consensus on what to retain and what to remove. For example, I believe the modern dance performance by the Cat-Women is an undeniable highlight of the film that deserves mention here. Although the scene emerges from seemingly nowhere, and some might argue that it brings the story to a complete stop, it is, uh, a uniquely artistic expression of the Cat-Women's mores and motivations. The scene also directly speaks to a larger cinematic theme of the time: science fiction films that feature women-only societies, and what happens to those societies when encountered by outsider men. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Legacy stuff[edit]

I just watched an episode of Dan Rather’s Big Interview with guest Pat Benatar. She stated this movie and the way the cat-women dressed directly influenced her signature look of spandex and heavy make-up. Would be a fun fact to put in, I’m just don’t know how to edit an article. 2601:281:C302:F10:5FC:2FF6:861D:1DE2 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]