Talk:Forbidden Planet/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Tricorder

The tricorder is a medical sensing device - replaced with communicator in this context Leonard G. 00:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Added in recent minor change to my more extensive change.Leonard G. 00:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... Stark Trek-centric review

Before I start editing, I wanted to see if anyone else agrees that this "review" is a bit heavy on the "like Star Trek" angle? The comment that this very influential movie (for better or for worse) is "like a better Star Trek episode" seems especially backwards. Star Trek (and Gene Roddenberry) took many of the ideas _from_ Forbidden Planet, and that it was a direct influence on that American television show which piloted about 7 years later? Many of the plotlines of Star Trek are so close... Anyone care to comment? Does this article need to be somewhat, well, de-Star Treked?

Also, the music for the film is a first - an all-electronic soundtrack (I made the edit credited to an IP address - just got my logon for Wikipedia for future credit/blame). I also removed the theremin misattribution. This movie, as far as I've read, doesn't have a theremin in it, but my research hasn't been exhastive. I only find references to the Barron's creating their own circuitry - anyone know more details?

Bebe and Louise Barron should have a Wikipedia article of their own. They worked with Jon Cage and were influential in the 1950s Grenwich Village minimalist and electronic music scenese from what I've read. But, that's another project. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightMonkey (talk • contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2004

Yes there's too mouch Star Trek. Cain Mosni 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about we omit all mention of Trek till the popular culture and later influence section, at the end? Have moved the offending Trek paragraph down to the specific Trek section at the end of article, where it seems to work O.K. as an intro for that section. See what you think.Steve 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys but I added back the Star Trek stuff before reading the Talk page. I think it's important to show both the Trek connection and the similarities. If we want to tone it down some that's ok but I think we should leave in at least the mappings of the characters from the specific Trek episode. FrankWilliams 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! And that Shakespeare guy? His work is so unoriginal!

His work is so derivative! Have you ever tried reading one of his plays? You will find at least one over-used cliche on every page! -- Geo Swan 06:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ooh what a wag you are... Cain Mosni 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The “1701” Connection

Why is it so impossible, whether it was done by Roddenberry or other series designers, that the registration number used by on the Enterprise not be a nod to the film as well? With the hundreds of “THX-1138” references that can be found in films and TV, is so beyond possibility that is something similar? Give how much Gene Roddenberry openly admitted having “borrowing” from the film, why would this one “Coincidence” be an exception? ...and If we're going to talk about stretching facts, how many of the current “influences” are themselves no more then conjecture, hearsay & speculation? Questarian 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but it's a stretch, and more to the point, it's uninteresting. The only reason for putting it in the article is to publicly pat yourself on the back for having noticed it. The numerous references to "THX 1138" are a little more interesting because they're part of a pattern. That said, I won't personally delete your edit again. KarlBunker 10:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Define how this is any more of as stretch then any of the other references? If we were talking about “1701” showing as part of a number in say “Gilligan's Island” or “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, yes that would be a stretch, but given Star Trek's strong , obvious and admitted connections to the film, it's not unreasonable to point it out as something possibly beyond pure coincidence. As far as being uninteresting, again how is this reference any less interesting or appropre then the others? The “THX-1138” references only seen more obvious because they're slightly more contemporary, their connection to “Star Wars” creator George Lucas, and their having been used to the point of becoming cliché. Because “1701” references may be more obscure then the “1138” does not invalidate them.

I think you're taking this way too personally. How does contributing a point, and in a forum where the public is encouraged to participate no less, equate to being self congratulatory? By that rational everyone that's contributes to the wiki is just being egocentric. Questarian 16:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR - if it's not reputably documented elsewhere, it's hearsay. End of. As you say - Roddenberry made documented admission to other influences. Cain Mosni 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By that rational, everything but “documented” Star Trek influences should be pulled, and again all the listed influences are entirely speculative so why aren't you weeding them? Where is the “documentable facts” that support those? The simple repetition of an unsupported fact does not make it any more valid. As far as I aware, the only “Forbidden Planet” influences that are directly attributed to Roddenberry statements where the primarily the use of a navel style command structure and color coding the uniforms. Questarian 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Until there is a consistent rational, other then that of a bruised ego, for deleting the entry, I will continue to put it back. Immature “fanboy” barbs hardly constitute a reasonable discourse. Questarian 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "fanboy" is a perfectly reasonable and accurate description of the apparent mindset behind including that edit, as well as describing what's wrong with including it. "Fanboys" are immature individuals who place excessive importance on the minutest details of the object of their fannish devotion. Your pet "1701' reference is about as minute as you can get, short of comparing the color of the shoelaces in FP/ST. And by including such a fanboy detail in a WP article, you make the article look immature.

However, personally I'll leave it there for the time being. I thought most people considered being a fanboy something to avoid, rather than aspire to, but maybe that's just me. --KarlBunker 15:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is rich commentary coming for someone who leaves untouched such classic entries as how the deceleration chambers look like the transporter, and the Uber fandom irrelevance of reference to no less then 3 series episodes with “it sorta of looks like” elements of the film… oh and lest we forget the deeply reasoned “ Ariel = "M4" The Sentry Robot” point… Please, check the attitude at the door.Questarian 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right - everything but the reputably documented Star Trek influences should be pulled. If it's in an interview by Gene, Majel, or anyone else connected with the series, or even as part of informed study by a respected published commentator on the series then it's worthy of inclusion, otherwise not. That basic principle of WP is not up for argument. Personal observations made by editors themselves, pet theories, or ruminations are not suitable WP material. Policy is not in the least bit vauge on that. It's not a question of whether it's reasonable, or even true, but whether it is independently VERIFIABLE. As to why I haven't personally dug through this article to clean it up - my focus is elsewhere. I was simply contributing to the discussion, in the - apparantly vain - hope that by pointing out a direct reference to policy it might help you understand.

As for your insistence on keep putting things back, presumably what you're saying is that until someone can devote enough effort to complelety cleaning up the article in one single shot, you are going to keep undoing the little steps in that direction?

PS By not indenting your own comments conventionally, it makes it very difficult to structure the conversation. (I've indented the whole thing accordingly.) Cain Mosni 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indenting aside, I didn't object to the removal because it demonstrated constancy... if it's all unsubstantiated remove it all rather then argue that one triviality is more relevant then another... So please, will the previous “objectors” explain why the “sort-of-kinda-looks-like” Babylon 5 and Firefly references aren't being challenged? Questarian 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't answer for the Firefly reference, but in the case of Babylon 5 Straczynski has acknowledged publicly that there is more than a passing resemblance, but that it wasn't an intentional reference on his part, so that particular one is clearly documented (officially re-published here, and frequently cited elsewhere). Cain Mosni 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If Straczynski regards the reference as unintentional, why is it listed under "Influences"? Clampton 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Cain Mosni 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the Firefly reference, in this audio interviewJoss Whedon specifically states that there were no deliberate references to Forbidden Planet in Serenity. So this should certainly be moved out of the "Influences" section and probably deleted altogether. Clampton 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to that last comment, I suspect from the Whedon interview that the "C-57D" in Serenity was a joke that the art department slipped past him, and in that sense FP would qualify as an "influence." But that seems a bit speculative. I'll see if I can find a statement by Whedon to that effect. Clampton 19:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Romancer is not the Captain

Althea's initial instructions in kissing come not from the Captain but from another character (Executive Officer? - not the Doctor).

Lt. Farman, played by Jack Kelly. -- Slowmover 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Captain is only presented to Althea as an galactic romancer by this character. The Captain initially resists his own (and obvious) attraction to her and his overt actions toward her appear to be more in the interest of maintaining discipline and focus within his crew. Only late in the movie to they fall in love (more clearly so on Althea's part). Leonard G. 15:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Althea"? -Canonblack 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Altaira - Leonard G. 01:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing section?

I think there is a section missing from the DVD - it finishes with Altaira running up a darkened hillside trail toward a tree outlined by a yellow twilight sky as she returns to her home from a liason with one of the characters. This I recall from the last time I saw it on TV a number of years ago and in the original. It was somewhat unforgettable as it was so obviously a set on a sound stage, and I consider that characteristic to be one of the charms of this movie. Leonard G. 15:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's never been in any version I've ever seen. As far as I can see the DVD (R1, not available R2) is entirely complete. Cain Mosni 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have never seen it then you have never seen a complete version. I did see this in the original theatrical release (1956), and in a release to a second run theater (1976 or so, to which I took my son, totally impressed by the monster graphics, even though he had seen it on TV, not known by myself at the time), and in several TV releases (do you begin to suspect that this is my favorite sci-fi movie?). - Leonard G. 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen it either, but to lend some credence to Leonard G's remarks, I have an early, aging copy of Leonard Maltin's TV Movie Guide which mentions a minor edit. There also appear to be two quoted running times differing by about 1 minute. Whatever was cut seems to have been forgotten and/or lost, or else they'd surely have stuck it on the DVD. -- Slowmover 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a visible edit at the end of the film when Adams is talking to Altaira. He says a line (probably the one about human beings rising up to the level of the Krell some day and Morbius' name being remembered) and you can see just a slight jump in the film, his expression changes just slightly. Looks like no more than a few words at most were cut. No idea what it could have been. Sir Rhosis 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Did the Krell "Plastic educator" really boost Morbius' IQ?

Here is a question that needs to be asked: Did the Krell "Plastic Educator" really boost Morbius' IQ?

I don't think it did. What I think it did was alter him so that he could use the Great Machine. The IQ measuring device was tied to a machine, whose purpose seemed to be tied to teaching you how to create objects using the Great Machine. However, if you're not mentally capable of doing so, the educator would alter your mind, making it easier for you to use the Great Machine.

Was Morbius any smarter after the supposed IQ boost? Not in my book, he was just as smart as he was before, but now, the Great Machine was at his unconscious beck and call. That brings to question how much of what we saw on Altair IV was the product of Morbius' mind and how much was "Real"?

Kedamono 00:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary view: Robby was (even in the story's days of supra-luminal transport) an exceptional accomplishment, noted by the wonderment of several the ship's officers. Morbius shrugs this off as unremarkable, saying "I tinkered him up in my first few months here". So the gist of the story is that Morbius did what the most advanced technologies of the known universe had been unable to accomplish - the creation of a flexible, autonomous, interactive, and general purpose robot, with speech recognition, synthesis, etc. Perhaps this is not much of a stretch from our present viewpoint, but definitely in the context of the story, and even from knowlege at the time the story was created. By the way, Morbius was a philologist, not an engineer/mechanic, so these skills are all the more remarkable - Leonard G. 03:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal: Yes Robby was a wonder. He could synthesize 7 tons of lead sheeting in his "morning run", create diamonds, and a hundred gallons of hooch, each in a pint glass bottle with labels identical to the one Cookie had. That's the bigger wonder, since, according to Morbius, he would use the little dispenser at the bottom of his chest panel to dispense the synthesized material. I for one would love to see that happen!

Robby may or may not have been built by Morbius. I find it odd that the first thing Morbius was able to decipher was the blueprints for Robby, as though he was being led there by the Great Machine. The next question would be: What did Morbius use to "tinker up" Robby? What tools did Morbius have? The Krell tools, if there were any left about, were more than likely to be completely corroded and useless. No, he did build Robby, but in his grief stricken state, with a young child to care for, the Great Machine did most of that work, and Morbius simply convinced himself that he built Robby with his own hands.

This brings up the point that Altaira may not be his actual daughter, but one created by his mind. Remember that his wife died soon after the Bellerophon was destroyed. Did they conceive their daughter during the voyage, or was she conceived from the tortured mind of Morbius, who killed all the other colonists, possibly his wife as well?

The other point to make, is that if you were to boost the IQ of a Homo Erectus to 120, say, would he then know how to drive a car, operate a complex bit of machinery? Or do you end up with a very bright Homo Erectus who figures out how to make better stone tools? I'd wager the latter.

Morbius did some impossible things: With his boosted IQ, he was able to build Robby, using skills a philologist more than likely doesn't have. He translates a language that has been dead for a million years, spoken and written by aliens. Unless there is some sort of Rosetta stone, it can't be done. About the only Rosetta stone he might find is the table of elements, but then that's something he, again, may have no knowledge of, and it certainly wouldn't lend to him then learning how to build something like Robby.

Morbius was at a level where he could use the Great Machine, but he didn't want to know, or was unwilling to accept the fact that had access to godlike powers. When the Bellerophon took off, he consciously swatted it from the sky. His id had nothing to do with that. He probably created all the Earth animals that were Altaira's friends, but only when she turn on him and fell in love with commander Adams, did they turn on her.

To put it bluntly, Morbius was insane, denying the fact that he had done some impossible things, things that even with an "elevated IQ" he still had no chance at all to do. He had created himself a little slice of paradise and would have continued to do so if the C-57D hadn't of showed up. Morbius and his daughter would have lived there forever happy, in his little world.

Kedamono 07:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but I'd like to point out that you're psychoanalysing a fiction film. You're putting more mental effort into interpreting the writer than he did writing it. You both make some very interesting points; the idea of Morbius as a psychotic living in a fantasy dream world of his own creation certainly adds to the texture of the character, and even strengthens the performance for modern viewers. I have to disagree, however, that Altaira was one of his mental creations. If so, without Morbius' mind and the machine to support her, wouldn't she have ceased to exist on the C-57D as they watched Altair IV explode? -Canonblack 14:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense that the Krell would design the Machine to require you to concentrate constantly to keep an imagined object in existence. Remember Altaira's pets, and possibly Robbie as well. The Id monster went away when Morbius woke up because his subconscious wanted to keep it hidden. So it is possible for Altaira to have been created by the Machine. Doubtful though, because her personality was a bit too independent and well developed for Morbius to have created. Clarityfiend 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that he made her as an 18 year old girl, I meant that he made her as a baby and from there she grew up, developing naturally. She was raised to be a rational person, but one whiff of testosterone and she fell into the arms of the alpha primate... I mean into Captain Adams' arms. :-)

As for him being smarter... How do you make someone smarter? I'd say Morbius was as smart as he would ever be, primarily due to the limits of his "ape brain". It's a feature that I doubt the Krell would implement in their teaching devices, though I think the "plastic educator" was more of a fast prototyper for the Great Machine designers, than as an actual teaching tool. The accidental modification of Morbius' brain was probably a side effect of the machine's testing of his ability to use the machine. I'd imagine that if you did a brain scan of Morbius, you'd see brain structures from Krell in certain areas.

The Plastic Educator is about using the machine, not in making smarter people. The supposed "IQ" scale was more about your ability to use the machine than about how smart you are. Think about it, you put the contacts on your head and the scale bobs up... showing how well you can control the scale with your mind. The normal human mind is just not compatible, making it 100% compatible is fatal. Or is it?

Of course there are other questions that need answering: "Did Doc really die?" and "Why did the Krell put a self destruct switch on the Great Machine?" When I get more time I'll pose my answers to those two questions. Kedamono 07:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think his daughter would have been happy, although likely never knowing why. (Yeh, I am spending time analyzing the work of fiction too - perhaps that is why this film endures) - Leonard G. 02:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Bill: Here are my comments. My name is Bill and I am a brand new reader of Wiki, I don't even have a logon name yet. But I simply HAD to respond to this discussion! But pardon me if I don't yet know how to format things properly or have violated some unspoken protocol in responding..... I'll learn.

Morbius himself, in the actual dialog of the film, states that his IQ was "permanently doubled" by his first use of the "plastic eduactor", otherwise his "researches here would have come to nothing, poor as they have been". Typically, when the director/screenwriter deliberately includes explanatory dialog in a film, it is meant to be taken as the real explanation, even when the character uttering it is speculating (which in this case Morbius most certainly is NOT). If Morbius' IQ had been permanently doubled, he would certainly be intelligent enough to know that it had been!

Writers who suggest that Morbius did things beyond the ability of a mere philologist apparently have neglected Morbius' own explanation that he acquired his knowledge from his translations of the Krell documents found in their library, a "sheer bulk surpassing many million Earthly libraries". Morbius himself states that he "began here with this page of geometrical theorems" and then "eventually I was able to deduce most of their huge logical aphabet", then "began to learn". After all, he IS a professional philologist, "an expert in languages and words, their origins and meanings", and with his doubled IQ, it seems perfectly logical to accept that he was able to begin to learn the Krell language. The length of time a language has been dead has, after all, no bearing on how difficult it may be to learn. "The first result", he says, in clear dialog, "was that robot of mine which you gentlemen appear to find so incredible". Morbius clearly did NOT "decipher the blueprints for Robby", as one writer suggests, since Robby is in humanoid, not Krell, form. (The Krell would not have made a robot in humanoid form would they.) Robby is obviously Morbius' own creation, made by him with the application of the knowledge from the Krell library.

Although I agree that Altaira is Morbius' natural daughter, the writer who also states this 'must be so' assumes that it must be so because otherwise the machine would have to continuously 'hold her together'. There is nothing in the film to suggest that a created object must be continously held together once it has been created. It is just as logical to 'assume' that once the molecules and atoms of the created object have been synthesized and placed in their final configuration, they would stay in that configuration by the laws of chemistry and atomic physics. Perhaps the writer was referring to the dialog the Doctor says when describing how the Id monster survived "10 billion electron volts", "There's your answer. It must have been renewing its molecular structure from one microsecond to the next." The Id monster needed to renew itself because it's structure was being continually destroyed by the electron beams; otherwise it wold have remained intact. (This is why the machine begins drawing enormous energy at this point) Likewise, when Morbius images his daughter in the plastic educator, he is creating and controlling a continuously projected image that must be continually replenished, instead of an actual physical object. (Interestingly, Morbius says at this point, that his "daughter is alive in my brain from one microsecond to the next", thus forshadowing and providing a connection to the audience of the Doctor's line about how the monster survived the electron beams).

The Id monster goes away when Morbius wakes up not because 'his subconcious wanted to keep it hidden', but because Morbius conscious mind is awake and the subconscious is not able to function, being overridden, as it were, by the waking state. Morbius' conscious mind cannot control the great Krell machine, and it is not till the end when his subconscious is able to break through and run the machine, when he is under great duress (subconsciously) to do so. In the penultimate scene where he denies himself and stops the marauding Id, both his conscious mind and his subconscious mind are functioning, but not before this scene.

Remember also that even though it is a fictional film it was written by a real human being who had a real psyche. Sometimes artists create things without consciously knowing how or why they did it; it just 'seemed right' at the time. The screenwriter could also be deliberately drawing upon his knowlege of human behavior and psyche when creating his characters. So it is not unreasonable to psychoanalyse a work of fiction; sometimes there are deep insights into the human condition to be found.

That's all I have to say for now. (Otherwise unsigned comment added by Bill. Bill, after your comments, just sign them by adding four tildes in a row: a tilde is a ~, it's the wavy uppercase thing just to the left of the exclamation mark on the upper row of your keyboard).

Forbidden Planet and "The Cage"

The connection drawn in the article between the original Star Trek pilot episode, "The Cage", and this movie is very strained. For example:

"A military/science crew sent on a mission to discover why a space colony lost contact". Not true. The Enterprise intercepted a distress call from a single ship, not a colony, and they almost didn't go as that wasn't their mission.
"A dashing leading man who falls in love with the female inhabitant". Not true. Captain Pike did not fall in love with Vina; that was part of the point of the story in that he rejected her.
"A race of extremely advanced beings living underground". Sort of right, but in the movie they were long dead, unlike the episode.
"The death of the majority of the colony crew" True, but in the movie they all died by murder; in the episode the crash did them in. And they weren't a colony!
"An actor who will later portray an alien in the Star Trek series. In Forbidden Planet, Warren Stevens portrays Lt. 'Doc' Ostrow. In the Star Trek episode By Any Other Name he would portray Rojan, the leader of the Kelvans." True, but irrelevant for comparisons to "The Cage".

In short, other than the planet having a woman, and the aliens using mental powers that cannot be stopped by conventional weapons, the story points noted are not very compelling in drawing comparisons. I think the whole section should be deleted as just plain wrong. 71.254.27.34 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, but I think a lot of editors have given up trying to raise articles on popular films above this level of fancruft because we're greatly outnumbered, and there are other things to work on. -- Slowmover 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: I'd like to add one small comment here, although there are MANY others. I could write a thesis on the comparison between Forbidden Planet and The Cage! But perhaps the most compelling comparison is that, in the Cage, Talos IV is described as "the only forbidden planet" in all the galaxy. Never mind that both planets are "IV"'s! KineticWizard 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been compactified, along with some other Trek references, and still others removed. Which I personally think is somewhat of a shame, since there really are a lot of other Trek original series plots or setups that look a LOT like somebody just finished watching this movie. The Man Trap episode where there's a planet of an extinct race, with just the scientist-archeologist and his wife, who want to be left ALONE, is very much this genre, and not something that really shows up in SF before this movie. In some ways also City on the Edge of Forever, with its empty planet of ruins, departed civilization, but one working all-powerful MACHINE. I've left out the many, many Treks where a low-tech civilization, or Eden-like superstructure, turns out to actually be running on top of some high-tech malevolant thing, like a computer. The reason is that I think that the "high-tech stuff running down below Eden" goes back through Lovecraft and at least as far as the Eloi with the Morlocks underneath, from The Time Traveler. As usual, you find H.G. Wells was there ahead of us. And Wells' Morlock/Eloi classes is more of a social commentary on 19th century industrialized Oliver-Twist-Britain, running out of sight of the country estates of the gentry, than anything elseS B H arris 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the connections being drawn here seem tangential or superficial to me. It's like saying a Star Trek episode has a thingy and Forbidden Planet has a thingy, therefore one influenced the other. It's also very WP:OR in nature, but I've just stopped caring. -- Slowmover 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

An apparently empty planet hiding an alien machine which reads thoughts and manufactures solid matter replicas accordingly, is hardly a "thingy." It's a pretty darn specific item. I'd like you to find me an instance of it occuring in SF before Forbidden Planet. It is the plot of two Star Treks, however. I am not counting M4, the all purpose sentry and duplication-robot of the genius living on the empty planet with the innocent female, in Requiem for Methuselah. Naw, he's not like Robby at all. Not a bit. And the plot only superficially resembles Forbidden Planet. Except, please reference any piece of pre-1956 SF which contains these plot elements. I have the feeling that people would be saying that Forbidden Planet really doesn't resemble The Tempest either. Except for the fact that the writer specifically named it as an influence... S B H arris 15:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless the writers named it as an influence it falls into the category of "original research," which is great for academic sites and great for fan sites, but on Wikipedia it's a no no. Clampton 18:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite correct, or else there would be no literary and artistic critical viewpoints summarized at all here on Wikipedia, other than what artists say about their own work. However, critical views do get summary. Basically, all Wikipedia requires for WP:V is a verifiable published critical source. Some of these are better than others, of course, which is where the fun comes in. Star Trek fans take a lot of guff for discussing their favorite piece of fiction, and it gets dismissed as "fancruft"-- but there's a fairly long academic literature now on (say) Frankenstein. What's the difference between Star Trek and Frankenstein? Merely that century and a half of aging. Stuff gathers respect as it gets old. If you want to read an article which considers the Krell machine as a precursor of the "Santa Claus Machines" of Theodore B. Taylor, Star Trek worlds, and in light of mythical warning tales like Faust and the Sorcerer's Apprentice, you might enjoy the article "A.I. and the Return of the Krell Machine," SKEPTIC magazine, 9.2, 2002. [1].S B H arris 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article suggests that some "critics" have suggested the resemblances, but I haven't found a citation as to who the critics are. Am I missing something? (I have a tendency to skim.) While it may be true that a respectable academic is simply a fanperson with a degree, I'd feel more comfortable if I knew who the academic fanpersons are. I tend to buy Roddenberry's assertion that he was influenced by FP because I noticed the resemblance the moment I saw the original edit of "The Cage" in the late 80s, before I even knew that Roddenberry had credited his source. But it's harder to believe that so many episodes have been derived from FP. As others have noted, these ideas are common coin in SF, not exactly in the same combination but in spirit, and could certainly have been reinvented independently. So in order to avoid making this article look like a Trek fansite some citations would at the very least seem necessary (though I'll check out that article you mention, which sounds interesting). Clampton 23:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you like it :). WP lets editors reference their own stuff, if published somewhere else, so long as they're not obscessive about it. I actually have had an "academic" article on S.F. published (in a book called Immortal Engines, University of Georgia Press [2]), but it was more along the line of Frankenstein myths. SKEPTIC is a national publication, but does it count as "academic"? Hmmm. And I have the wrong degree. I suppose it should be Ph.D.(lit). Maybe in philology. You know: those beyond-good-and-evil superman-philologists? They've been stirring up trouble for years, long before Morbius. (Samuel Rosenberg is notable for his thesis that Holmes' nemesis Moriarty, who sounds a lot like Morbius, was really inspired by Nietzsche....)

Anyway, you're right that some of these ideas are common coin in SF, but they didn't start to be until just about time of Forbidden Planet. The furthest back I can track then in print SF is probably stuff by Clarke, particularly The City and the Stars version 1956, which has a very Krell-like city (Diaspar) which certainly is the ultimate instrumentality. But on the screen, F.P. is probably the first it's seen. As for Trek-like gizmos, I would have guessed that the starship Enterprise owes at least as much to the saucer bridge and transport tubes seen in This Island Earth (1955). S B H arris 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant to read much into coincidences of plot and timing; some ideas simply emerge at a common moment. The 50s, for instance, were when SF began dealing with mental talents like telekinesis and ESP and the Krell were simply an exaggerated version of this. My favorite candidate for the story that influenced FP is Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness," which is about a scientific expedition that discovers the archaeological remains of an extinct nonhuman race that apparently destroyed itself with its own technology. And, yes, that technology is still operative and waiting for a chance to destroy the expedition. Yet I've never found any confirmation that the creators of FP were inspired by Lovecraft and I seem to recall that one of them explicitly stated that Lovecraft was not an influence. So, once again, assuming causality here is at best dangerous and at worst gives Wikipedia a reputation as a hangout for fanboys. Clampton 02:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a often a suggestion of Lovecraft in extinct(?) elder races wherever you find them, since he liked that idea so much. Of course it long preceeds Lovecraft (though he may be the first to suggest archeology from space = ancient astronauts). But I don't think the parallel with MofM is all that strong, inasmuch as there's just an abandoned stone city (mostly on a plateau) and a protean-monster, but there's no reading of thoughts, no Krell machine, and indeed no machinery at all. Lovecraft wasn't a gizmo-guy. His studies were in biology and archeology, and those are what he uses for his horror (great Cyclopean cities of odd geometry; cryopreserved monsters,etc). The technology you're talking about is remnant biotechnology, but that's not very close to gagetry. The remants of this are basically Frankenstein (in Lovecraft, even the monsters have their own monsters), and it's not at all any working machinery left. Frankenstein is not Krell machine. Just working perverted biology. Lovecraft's influence on The Thing, Navy vs. the Night Monsters, and later cryonics stories, is much clearer. Lovecraft's critters typically love to live in semi-primitive fashion, though they understand technology. They don't use rockets (just their wings) and they construct stone cities with bio-slaves as cranes, and so on. You'll see that kind of "primitive" race again and again in Heinlein, who must have been a big Lovecraft fan (Mi-Go = wormface.S B H arris 18:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If I don't cut this short I imagine this discussion will become as self-perpetuating as the Krell engines, but I just want to toss out this comment: Both FP and a lot of post-1945 SF tended to reflect a couple of WW2 technological developments -- computers (and the promise/threat that they could keep civilization running long after the extinction of the human race; see "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Ray Bradbury) and nuclear power, which theoretically could supply the near limitless energy reserves required for this to happen. In many ways FP is Lovecraft with these ideas (plus a form of telekinesis and a smattering of Shakespeare and Greek tragedy) pasted on top. Lovecraft himself was never influenced by these concepts because they weren't much in the air during his lifetime, but if he had lived past 47 I suspect he would have become at least a little more like Clarke, who I've always thought of as Lovecraft's non-evil twin. All of these ideas were available not only to the creators of FP, Clarke and Bradbury, but to the writers working for Roddenberry in the 60s. Clampton 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree fully. Not to have the last word, but to highlight the observation that the mad scientist after WW II (which Lovecraft never saw) transforms from biologist to physicist (or at least controller of physics), complete with Einstein hairdo. For obvious reasons. And sure, that's FP. It may change back in the next century. S B H arris 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that the resemblance between Star Trek and Forbidden Planet is strongest in "The Cage," though it's been too many years since I've seen the latter for me to comment in detail. Finding resemblances with other episodes, though, is dangerous and crufty. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that Ellison ("City on the Edge of Forever") and Sturgeon ("Shore Leave") were heavily influenced by Forbidden Planet. Those guys had been reading and writing science fiction for decades and knew the field too well to be influenced by a single, albeit well-made film. Clampton 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. -- Slowmover 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Manual Calculations to Navigate ?

Great article - but, it appears that possibly just sitting at a console does not constitute ' manual ' navigation, anymore than a space shuttle pilot is manually bringing in the shuttle to land (or be ready to take over). The computer programming is doing the heavy lifting - and a pilot or navigator is just making minor adjustments punching buttons, especially in the 24th century (I sure didn't see a steering wheel, there). -- PFS 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Navigation appears to assisted though the use of the astrogator - a location and visualization instrument that tells the pilots where they are and their orientation, not how to get to a specific location. This would be comperable (in modern terms) to have a GPS that did not compute a great circle or rhumb line course to a destination, requiring additional navigation efforts using manual calculations and simple analog computers (slide rule and vector computer) to compute a Dead_reckoning course, which is even today a required skill of pilots of ships and aircraft in case of equipment failure. And don't forget: its a work of fiction with whatever flaws are introduced by the author(s). Leonard G. 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle? What about Faust?

When I hear commander Adams talking about the machine setting free "the secret devil of every soul on the planet" I'm thinking of technology as unwitting pact with the devil, this time the devil of our darker-selves. In the post-atomic age, this pact with technology, while we ourselves remain imperfect due to our monkey-ids, has been understood in the context of the Faust myth, not anything like The Tempest. Certainly the German scientists at Los Alamos understood it so, ala Goethe! And I think that understanding is here in this film of 1956. There's at least as much Dr. Faustus in Dr. Morbius, whose own arcane studies turn on him, as there is any Aristotelian tragic hero. And Morbius really gets a much rougher time than the gentle wizard Prospero, who is always in control, who survives, and who, well, prospers (hence the name). So if we must mention Aristotle, why not Faust?

And by the way, as I remember, Morbius himself puts the machine into overload.Steve 02:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Robby, Ariel

Look, just google "Robby Ariel" okay? Even the Wiki on The Tempest makes this connection, so if you don't like it, start reverting THERE. Then you can go to all of the film critic sites and write them a nasty note. But don't start HERE, just because you thought of it. If you have reasons, write a short paragraph and give them (which I see somebody did). The alternate explanation is that Caliban is libidinous (he tries to do Miranda and has to be forcably stopped), whereas Ariel refuses to do Sycorax' bidding, in a rather Asimovian way. Robby's lockup when asked to do harm, is more or less Ariel's being imprisoned in a cloven pine. Robby cannot even act against the Id Monster when ordered to. This is yet another clue that he recognizes that it's actually Morbius. Steve 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ending Goof

When they get 100 million miles away, they see the planet blow up. But the light from the explosion wouldn't reach them immediately; it would take nearly 9 minutes. Of course, it would have been hard to film an ending that way. Clarityfiend 09:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So where's the goof? Presumably when they calculated the exact moment they expected to see the explosion, they would have taken those 9 minutes into account. Of course, how they calculated the exact moment is another question, since nobody seemed to start a stopwatch or oven timer when the overload sequence was started. KarlBunker 11:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. First the planet blows up. Then they pass the 100 million mile mark 8+ minutes later, turn on the viewer, and watch it. They have the extra time because nothing from the explosion (presumably lethal radiation) can reach them before then. Obviously the writers weren't thinking that, but it worked out correctly anyway. Like they say, even a broken watch is right twice a day. Clarityfiend 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To echo - how is that a goof? Morbius states in the dialogue that the explosion will take place "in 24 hours", or more accurately that by that time they must be a safe distance away. In common speech we say 24 hours to mean loosely a day. Besides, you'd expect a decent astrogator to have figured light-speed delays into his equations. If there's a goof it's in them pin-pointing the exact second at all. That's just Hollywood dramatic licence, not a goof as such - when someone gives a time limit it works out exactly to the second, and the protagonists always know miraculously or by some visual means exactly when time is up (qv Snake Plisken in Escape from New York (when the time limit is dependent on capsule decay and is subject to the normal natural chaotic influences in such things and couldn't possibly be timed to the split second).

Pardon the n00bish question,

but why is the talk page for an article under see also? is it that important? sorry if this is clear, i just want an answer.

Good question. I just removed it. If anybody knows a reason for it being there, go ahead and put it back. Clampton 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't noobish at all. There's no reason for it being there at all. Cain Mosni 17:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

There are multiple frame captures from the film used to illustrate this article. This is almost certainly a violation of "fair use". In the absence of any reasoned argument for their continued use, I will be tagging them for removal within the next week.

The images currently used in this manner are:

Cain Mosni 01:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Character Names

I see that someone has credited Cookie with the name only given in the novelization. Is this normally done for film cast lists. He was not called anything but "Cookie" in the film. Why not put Doc Ostrow's first name in which also was only revelaed in the novel. And, finally, I think Quinn may have been called "Lonnie" at one point in the film. In the novel he is Alonzo "Lonnie" Quinn. I'll check and add "Lonnie" when I get the new DVD if it is spoken on screen. Sir Rhosis 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Found some actors and character names that don't appear to be from the movie -- "Buddha Ellis," "Pete Doherty." Again, if these are character names from the novel, they shouldn't go here unless they were identified as such on screen. No cast listing I've seen shows these characters. If I'm wrong, and someone has a source (or time index from the film), feel free to reinsert. Also, Ostrow is a Lieutenant in the film, only in novelization is he a major. Sir Rhosis (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

HD DVD?

I have found some evidence that the film will be released in HD... http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/forbiddenplanet/4103 Hirav 17:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)H Singh

Influences

Some more uncited influences, I can't see any link between this and Lost Alastairward 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Film Archive Screening

Saturday March 10th 2007, Forbidden planet was shown at the Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley, California - This film has been displayed at this venue a number of times. This is a good quality wide screen film print with well saturated color and only minor white sparkles. mostly just after the reel leaders. The twilight wilderness scene between Altaira and Jerry was not included (this precedes the "runaway" noted above, also not seen), but otherwise appeared complete (only one film break repair was noticed). http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/calendar/index.html

My guest (grandson, age 14), who had not seen the presentation on video or film and new nothing of the plot, was duely impressed, and said that it was better than current sci-fi.

- Leonard G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard G. (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Request Article Changes

In article introduction:

"The film features a number of Oscar-nominated special effects, groundbreaking use of an all-electronic music score, and the first screen appearance of the famous Robby the Robot.[2]"

Change to also include: the first appearance of the famous C-57D flying saucer starship. And create a seperate article page for the C-57D flying saucer starship (which also appeared in several Twilight Zone episodes), and provide link to that article.

In "Production Aspects":

1) I think "quanto-gravitic Q-G drive system" should be changed to "quanto-gravitetic Q-G hyper-drive system". - Reference: http://www.scriptcity.net/details.asp?search=forbidden+planet&ID=1813 DRAFT: (XL). 5/14/55. 2) "The crew must place themselves in "DC Stations" (Deceleration tubes) as the ship comes out of light speed —". The "light speed" should be changed to "hyperspace". Otherwise, the sentence implies the ship is traveling faster than light 'in normal space'. And the dialog states the ship was in 'hyperspace' for 378 days. 3) "This was the first film in which humans constructed a flying saucer and used it to travel in outer space." Should be changed to: "This was the first film in which humans constructed flying saucers and used them to travel in outer space." It is not reasonable that the United Planets would construct only one patrol cruising flying saucer, and then number it '57'.

Thanks... 74.129.202.93 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Larry

Be bold, Larry, make the changes yourself, and see if they fly. Other editors will read and decide if they are acceptable, and if you're reverted, they mmost likely will courteously explain why. Your script city link is to an order form. I'd work on that before introducing it as a cite. Sir Rhosis (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... I think I did the modifications I mentioned. And created a linked C-57D article page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-57D I Is Larry (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up your C-57D page and added a pic of C-57D. Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sir Rhosis. I just noticed the changes. It looks better now. And the C-57D deserves a good wiki article page. I Is Larry (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cedric Gibbons & Arthur Longeran

Was this a joint company ("&") or two individuals ("and")? - Leonard G. (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the size of the Krell Lab 20 or 40 miles?

Your plot summery states the Lab is 20 miles on all sides, but the movie itself has a scene in which Morbius is giving a tour and he stop points in one direction and says 20 miles, then turns 180 degrees and again says 20 miles. There is a clip on youtube in which at the 3min 8sec mark, he says this. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZIuc1_Qg4A8 Coradon (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) and yet at the 4m 10s mark he says a its a cube 20 miles on a side.

When the starship is "radar scanned" as it approaches Altair IV, Quinn reports it's coming from an area "twenty miles square". Then Morbius does say what you've written. However, slightly later, he calls the Great Machine "a cube twenty miles on each side" and that its volume is 8000 cubic miles (correct for 20 miles per side). So three out of four comments jibe. Damn it Jim, he's a philologist, not a mathematician! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup desperately required

Hopefully, somebody has the time and inclination to fix this, but until then, it isn't ready for the article:

Precursors

{{Unencyclopedic}} The use of the name "Bellerophon" ties in with Morbius's character in several ways:

The mythical Greek hero Bellerophon was struck down by the gods for the crime of hubris in trying to reach Olympian heights.

One of Bellerophon's greatest feats was his victory over the Chimera, a monster with mismatched body parts appropriate to many other animals. When the ship's doctor tries to reconstruct the Monster from the Id based on a cast of its footprint, he is puzzled by its having attributes appropriate to many different and incompatible animals.

Morbius was taken to his unintended exile by a ship sharing the same name as the ship that transported Napoleon Bonaparte to his final exile, the HMS Bellerophon.

Morbius tells Adams and Farman to view the Krell thermonuclear reactions only in the mirror: "Man does not behold the face of the Gorgon and live."

As mentioned, the film was influenced by Shakespeare's The Tempest, though the plot of the film only superficially resembles the plot of the play. Some of the characters can more clearly be opposed:

Prospero = Morbius
Miranda = Altaira
Ariel = Robby the Robot
Caliban = Monster from the Id
Stephano and Trinculo = Cookie
Ferdinand = Commander Adams
Gonzalo = "Doc" Ostrow
Sycorax = The Krell

Robby the Robot can be identified with Caliban -- he's clumsy; he does the housework and in a humorous scene similar to Act II scene II of The Tempest, he provides alcohol and gets intoxicated with the ship's cook; "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine," Prospero says in The Tempest. The "monsters from the Id" represent the spirits, in addition to Ariel, who were invisible and controlled by Prospero. Alternately, most critical sources (see The Tempest) have identified the libidinous Caliban with the Id Monster, and the sexless Robby with Ariel, despite Robby's corporality. This is probably because Robby is entirely in Morbius' control, and because Robby, like Ariel, cannot be used to do harmful acts, going into lockup in somewhat the same way as Ariel when commanded to do "abhorred" acts by the witch Sycorax. Robby acts in accordance with Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, and is unable even to act against the Id Monster, which actually would require the killing of Morbius.

The title of the film surely alludes to forbidden fruit, as some critics have noted,^[1] reminding us that The Tempest itself is a version of the "Eden lost" story, in which isolated islands seem Brave New Worlds full of innocent people and different kinds of Serpents. Altaira, with her garden of tame animals and her ignorance of the meaning of nakedness, represents the innocence which is soon to be brought down by the forbidden fruit of knowledge, here represented both by the starship full of ordinary men, and by the re-awakening of the slumbering technologies of the Krell.

Unlike Prospero, the wizardly character Dr. Morbius is not in full command of the magic of the technology he discovers, and like the Krell he is ultimately destroyed by the combination of power and what Commander Adams calls "the secret devil of every soul on the planet." As the loser in a pact with technology and hidden desires, Dr. Morbius has something in common with Dr. Faustus, and this film of the post-atomic age also is keeping with the warnings of the Faust mythos.

Forbidden Planet follows Aristotle's rules for tragedy. A great man is brought down by a single "tragic flaw" or error of judgment — his belief in his moral superiority, which supposedly follows his intellectual superiority. The same flaw destroyed the "noble Krell" as well. And, as Aristotle preferred, the story takes place over many years (in this case, twenty), yet is told almost entirely through exposition.

Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

External link

"Geological Time Termination in a SciFi Biosphere: An Alternative View of THE FORBIDDEN PLANET"

Added via anon IP, I fixed up the link syntax. Reference article needs a critical review to determine if link is merited. (I think not) - Leonard G. (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one George Wallace

The GW in the film is George D. Wallace, an actor who also appeared on television in the early 50s adventure show as Commando Cody, and as the same character in the film Radar Men from the Moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFSLAKES1 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Walter Pidgeon

I was watching this film recently and was reminded of how Walter Pidgeon, though undoubtedly having strong screen presence, seemed to have trouble with his lines. He seemed to be saying, "um", and "er" a lot, and seemed to be just barely remembering his lines from time to time. Maybe it was just that retakes were too expensive so they lived with what they had. The one that jumps out to me, though, is when Nielsen asks him what the Id is. He answers, defiantly, "Id! Id! Id!" like he's being challenged, when the proper way to play would seem to be to be searching for the definition thoughtfully, like, "Id... Id... Id..." before he finally sits down and says, "It's an obsolete term," and calmly goes on to explain it. I wonder if any critic has ever commented on this point, of Pidgeon's acting, or if they're content to leave that subject alone in this outstanding 1950s sci-fi film. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, in a number of films I've seen him appear (mostly British), what you see & hear is what you get - that's his normal acting style.PFSLAKES1 (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that Morbius is being challenged in that scene. He knows exactly what "id" means, but he's in denial about its possible role in what happened to the Krell and in what's happening to the crew of the ship. He doesn't want to consider that the Krell engines are controlled by anything other than pure intellect, so he's dismissive about the whole idea. Clampton (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

'Plot' section, spoilers

All right, first off: I am aware that WP:SPOILER is not official policy. However, there is no good reason to remove spoiling information just because it spoils. If somebody did not want to find out what happens in a film, they would not look it up in an encyclopedia and read a section that describes the plot. Regarding the length of the plot section, I looked at the plot sections of several other (notable) films, and it seems somewhat in line with them. Perhaps it could stand to be shorter; I have not seen the film, so I am not the best judge of which details are important. I rewrote it in what I think is a more encyclopedic tone, but tried not to remove any information. If anybody would like to make any substantial changes to that section, please discuss them here first. --superioridad ^(discusión) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and worrying about "spoilers" from a film that's over fifty years old is rather silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bellerophon and the Chimera in Forbidden Planet

While reading about the mythical creature called the "Chimera" Which is a Lion with a Head of a goat on its back and a Snake for a tail, I was reminded of parts in Forbidden Planet. While I am well aware of the Shakespearian references such as Robby as the Sprite Ariel, and the Id Monster as Caliban, as well as the main characters Miranda and Prospero, I realized that there is also a connection to the myth of the Chimera. The Id Monster does have multiple characteristics of the Chimera such as the head of a Lion, invisibility and the genetic Chimera reference made by the Doctor "... a hybrid of a biped and a sloth". However the one fact that cemented the classical reference, was slayer of the Chimera in mythology being Ballerophon, which was the name of the party of explorers that first visited Altair of which Morbius and Alta were members.

Jeff Cameron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.105.233.158 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting theory. In the case of the last sentence, here it was the other way around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Merge and New Look

I originally added a bit of material to the prior separate articles. I must admit that it comes together now and defintely makes the landmark film about the fictional future adventure of the Cruiser C-57D crew on Altair-4 more interesting. Thanks to Bugs, Sinebot and anyone else who had a hand in the recent merging. PFSLAKES1 (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

There is also an old Czechoslovak animated Sci-Fi movie that was called "Forbidden Planet", at least in the release I saw on the silver screen. I can never find it referenced anywhere, however -- the Internet is not yet perfect. In any case, such as this (and the bookstore) would seem to call for a discrete disambiguation page; or at least an expanded section at the top of the article.

Pazouzou (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the bookstore at the top of this page. For two topics with the same name, where one name is much more readily known or links to significantly more articles (i.e. the film), the naming convention applied seems to suffice. If more references could be found to this other film and an article created, we might have more of a case to create such a disambiguation page. Alastairward (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Saved Comments

These comments were removed from the main text, so I figured to save them here.

Unique for the general audience science fiction genre of the period, the characters and plot were inspired by Shakespeare’s The Tempest. This freed the screen play to assume a novel form of the then contemporary science fiction motion picture script; that of an “adult” themed melodrama, in which adult characters and subject matter could be intelligently portrayed and the complexity of human intercourse between man, men, and their fates could be examined with irony, pathos, and tragedy.

That Dr. Morbius was a megalomaniac is unquestioned, but his fatalistic view of human nature’s response to what would be the nearly limitless power of his discovery on Altair IV, was a sobering rejoinder, to movie audiences in the early years of the atomic age. And in truth his principal antagonist, Commander Adams, offers no real response or answer the subconscious fear of the consequences of such power falling into the all too human hands of humanity.

The tragedy and irony of the plot’s scenario is that Dr. Morbius’ fear is both well placed and true, but it's too close to home (it's inside his own mind, deep in his subconscious), for him to be able to both see the danger; and to reason it out for himself. Morbius wrongly concludes that his own view of the explosion of his analytical capabilities (his expanded I.Q.) caused by the “plastic educator”, is nothing more than a benign blessing that allows him to “see” to the truth of difficult and complex issues, far beyond the powers of ordinary men.

But what he does not see is that his own analysis of his situation on Altair IV, is both extremely limited, and ultimately wrong. Morbius fails to realize that work on the problems discovered on Altair IV must continue (because they are not solved), and with as many different minds working on them as possible.

In Morbius’ contempt of Dr. Ostrow’s using the “plastic educator” to “boost” his I.Q. in the hope of discovering what is going on Altair IV, he completely misses the point; which is that Ostrow in that process; and at the cost of his life; solves the problem, by discovering what really happened and is continuing to happen on Altair IV. It was a rich and deeply nuanced plot. Kedamono (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

so I figured to save them here

Why? This is entirely original research - unsourced editorial analysis of the film - so it's unusable. I'd say bin it from here too. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Theremin vs Tonalities

I removed the following from the article; "The theremin (which was not used in Forbidden Planet) had been used as early as 1945, in Spellbound, but their score is widely credited with being the first completely electronic film score.".

We know the theremin isn't used in this film, we know it was used in Spellbound, but that last sentence is a little bit of speculation at the moment. The section reads a little confusingly if we keep it as is. I hope nobody minds the removal. Alastairward (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Booker, M. Keith (2006). "Forbidden Planet". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 43–58. ISBN 0275983951.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

New here, I noticed there is no mention of Robbie's cardboard legs in the final shots of the film. I watched the film a good 20-30 times before I ever noticed it. My guess is the articulation of the bottom is such that he could not sit in the navigators chair. Instead the took off the legs and put cardboard/foam-board legs in the scene. Always wondered why they simply did not pan the camera down. Just interesting for such a high budget flick, at the time. --Gorngonewild 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason you didn't previously notice the cardboard legs is that, in the original projection print, there was so much contrast buildup that they weren't identifiable as pieces of cardboard. As each transfer (first from the IP for Criterion, then from the composite negative for the deluxe DVD) has come closer to the camera negative, the contrast has dropped to the point where the legs are painfully obvious as cardboard. No one bothered to paint them, because no one realized they would ever be seen in a low-contrast transfer.

It appears there'll be a Forbidden Planet Blu-ray on September 7, 2010. Perhaps this problem will be fixed. Follow-up... It hasn't been fixed. It looks awful. The film itself looks, overall, better than I've ever seen it. The jumps to and from the effects shots are more-obvious and irritating than they were on the deluxe DVD (the contrast increase and loss of sharpness are quite visible). This is unavoidable, given that the non-effects shots will get a bigger boost in image quality from the HD transfer than will the effects shots. The static mattes in the scene with Anne Francis and the tiger are less noticeable. I find it odd that high-resolution transfers often do less to exaggerate what is wrong with an image. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

swims semi-nude

I came here through links from industrial robot (to which I am a contributer), robot, Asimov's three laws, Robbie the robot etc. This is my all time favorite film (I saw the first release) and I just wondered about 'semi-nude'. My impression was that she was nude - of course you don't see anything but isn't that the implication? Robotics1 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The intent (from the dialogue) is that she is swimming nude. Unfortunately this is spoiled by bad editing. As Anne Francis climbs from the pool, for just a split second, you can se that she is wearing a swimsuit (more like a nightgown-like "swim gown"). So, since the editor didn't snip the film soon enough, we must accept that she is swimming "semi" nude, despite her and Adams' dialogue (Altaira: "What's a swimsuit?" Adams: "Oh, brother!")Sir Rhosis 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the bad editing, yes you see that she's wearing a bathing suit when she gets out but you also clearly see it when she's swimming as well. OpenSesame01 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always interpreted Altaira as wearing a costume while she bathes. If there was to be a suggestion of nudity, Anne Francis would have worn something like a body suit or leotard. But you can plainly see she's wearing something rather more elaborate. Any "suggestion" she was bathing in the nude would have gotten a stern warning from the Breen Office. Of course, her line "What's a bathing suit?" comes across as contradictory, as she's wearing one. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

She's definitely not wearing a swimsuit. It looks very similar to the miniskirt she was wearing earlier which would make sense. There is nothing in the film inconsistent with her wearing what she wore earlier and it is probably deliberate. The film wanted to suggest naked which would attract more paying customers but was able to claim she wasn't to keep it's general rating. If made today she would have been unambiguously naked but then the romance would be far less. It was rather disturbing that all the officers were such sleazebags by taking advantage of a naive teenager who was emotionally only a child. Wayne (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The MPAA didn't rate movies in 1956 so, wasn't rated until 1972. :-) OpenSesame02 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Id monster goattee

The notion that the id monster has a goattee like its "creator", Dr. Morbius, while sourced to a comment on the DVD, is pure speculation and is more a matter of viewer's judgment. I don't see any goattee on that monster, but maybe someone else would. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check that comment if I get a chance (my copy of the DVD is not at hand), it would be speculation if the suggested link between the creature's "goatee" and Morbius' was not mentioned by the DVD feature. Alastairward (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be excellent. I'd be curious to know who said it and when. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I actually added it. It comes from a comment in a book called Screening Space which is about Sci-Fi pictures. On a blowup and I don't really see a goatee either -- the thing looks vaguely cat-like, or like the Tasmanian Devil in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. If you want to take out the reference I won't object.

However, while we're at it, I notice a fairly long section (see above) was removed as being possible OR, but it does contain one citation, to an article discussing the film's name. There's a reason it's called Forbidden Planet, and critics generally agree that this is an Eden reference. Which goes along with the tame animals, the disregard of nakedness in the innocent Altara, and so on. In addition, the theme of the movie is very much one of being burned by the Forbidden "Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge," with the Id monster as a sort of stand-in for Original Sin (will to destroy), in both the Krell and in humans. It's that animal nature that you think you've gotten over, until you get some power, and find out that you're not a God after all. The Krell thought themselves morally advanced, but their secret long-hidden past caught up with them, when they had the ultimate power. This film, like many in the 1950's, is a comment on monkey-nature being given nuclear weapons. It's really inappropriate. One does not look on the face of the Gorgon and live. S B H arris 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What's inappropriate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving beings who have not gotten beyond their animal-natures, the power of modern weapons. It tends to give you results like Hiroshima and Iraq. S B H arris 06:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the Blu-ray. Josh Meador's drawing for the id monster has "chin whiskers". If you look closely at the finished animation, you can indeed see it. This is not speculation, it is fact. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a valid source that states the id monster has a goatee, then you could use it. If it's strictly your own observations, that's getting into OR territory. I watched the monster frame-by-frame and didn't see anything that looked like a goatee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

However, if the DVD special states that it's there, then at least that verifies their intention, even if it's too subtle for some of us to discern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What was cut?

Can someone who knows more about this movie than I do please explain precisely what was cut out of the original version? Certainly not the swimming scene -- in which Anne Francis definately is not nude. I saw the swimming scene when the film screened on television in the '60s and it was also included in the VHS I bought in the '90s. Thanks! (71.22.47.232 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

Possible prequels

There may be some prequels made. Here's a link in case anyone wants to add the info to the article. [3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh. Trouble. [4] Maybe it's OK since the above info is a year more recent than this info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Special advisor

Wasn't the late Isaac Asimov retained as a special advisor during the making of this movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.113.11 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, though Robbie appears to follow The Three Laws and suffers an Asimovian lock-up if they conflict. S B H arris 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the id monster?

So I came here to Wikipedia to find out what the id monster is. Well, apparently, it's a monster with a goatee that can take a lot of abuse. But why do they call it the id monster? It's the internet's best kept secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Id, ego, and super-ego and it might explain. I'll add that link to the article if it's not already there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact it's already linked, in the quote "Monsters from the id." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained in the film, the id monster is a sub-conscious thought projection which is a part of Dr. Morbius' essence. That's why the robot is unable to fire its weapon at the monster, because it's part of a living human. The Krell (and Morbius) had figured out how to do thought projection, but had failed to take their still-remaining primitive and uncontrollable "ids" into account. The Krell's individual id monsters went out and slaughtered other Krell individuals, thus putting an end to the Krell species and leaving just their self-maintaining machinery. As Morbius lies dying, the monster produced by his subconscious dissolves and the protagonists are able to leave before the planet self-destructs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's explained pretty clearly in the both the movie and the plot section of this article; However, the Krell had forgotten one vital thing: "Monsters from the id!". Morbius objects, pointing out that there are no Krell left. Adams replies that Morbius's mind — expanded by the plastic educator and thus able to interact with the gigantic Krell device — had created subconsciously the monster that had killed the rest of his expedition 20 years earlier—after they had voted to return to the Earth. Morbius scoffs at Adams's theory. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The "id" link is easy to miss, being only 2 letters long, but between that and the explanation in the movie (which assumes that the viewer already kind of knows what the "id" refers to but suggests what it is anyway, through further explanation), I doubt very much that it's "the internet's best kept secret". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The mystery to me has always been, why did all the Krell die "in a single night", unless they each struck at a neighbor at the same instant. You'd think it would be like Highlander, with some (or one) left standing. Although even they weren't literally all killed off, they might have been so severely damaged as a species that they went extinct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that Morbius, having the mind of an infant Krell, was only able to summon something that wasn't the most proficient killer at first. The Krell however, having such towering intellects, created something much more horrible that wiped them out overnight. Either that or Morbius was being theatrical, and the Krell civilisation died in what might be considered "overnight", in comparison to the long time their civilisation had already stood. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I think you're onto it. And like Morbius, despite their great intellect they were in denial about their inner selves, and it proved costly, to put it mildly.

I would say Walter Pidgeon is nothing if not theatrical in that film. Given that they're doing Shakespeare-in-space, that seems fitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I also have to admit that when I see that movie nowadays, I keep expecting Commander Adams to tell Dr. Morbius, "I am serious, and don't call me Shirley! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Commander Adams died just yesterday. :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did he die in a single night!? Now there will never be a Forbiddenly Naked Planet. Sad! S B H arris 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll have to watch my special edition DVD again in memorial. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. Leslie was great. I can still hear him singing the theme from "Swamp Fox". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"first science fiction film set on an alien world in deep space"

I removed the sentence It is also the first science fiction film set on an alien world in deep space, far away from the Earth and its solar system, sourced to the studio website, "Forbidden Planet: Ultimate Collector's Edition from Warner Home Video on DVD - Special Edition". Whv.warnerbros.com. Retrieved 2010-08-15.. I think that This Island Earth is an earlier film with this distinction, unless the claim is that it is entirely set on such a world. In any event, the source seems not to be reliable for this purpose. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek homage?

I noticed in the Star Trek episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before" that the main doorway looked just like the distinctively pentagonal ones in this film. Probably too trivial to be mentioned in the article, but interesting, no? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that I compare the Star Trek version to the Forbidden Planet one, the resemblance isn't quite as striking as I thought. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha, caught ya talking to yourself. Something I never do. 0:) I was going to ask if it's possible they were actually parts of the same set. I haven't seen either one in a long time, though. It's worth pointing out that modern-looking retail stores here and there have also used that 5-sided entrance. I guess they think it looks nifty. Walter Pidgeon surmised that the Krell were shaped like that. Maybe the Krell also thought it simply looked nifty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Star Trek door is part of an obvious painted backdrop. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That figures. ST:TOS was not exactly done with a limitless budget. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Remake Limbo

Could someone wiki-skilled add this?

To section 9 "Remake", it should be mentioned that the script was leaked, that the studio and writer decided to scrap and start over. This should be placed before the sentence about Limbo.

CITATION LINK

Sirald66 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Freud vs Jung

The introduction cites Jung's theory of the "collective subconscious" as a reference point of the plot. But the Id, the irrational destructive force of primitive psyche, is a Freudian term and no appeal to a Jungian collective is needed to understand the theoretical underpinnings of the story. Presumably, each member of the Krell unconsciously loosed his or her own id against the other Krell until all were wiped out, just as the original party of earth settlers did, and ultimately Morbeus himself does against the rescue crew. Orthotox (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification... The members of the original party -- other than Morbius -- lacked the ability to invoke the Great Machine. They were killed by Morbius's unconscious thoughts. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Skinny dipping

Was Altaira meant to be skinny dipping before she puts on her new covering dress and the tiger attacks? It looked like the actress was wearing a flesh colored slip as she exited the water, perhaps not easy to notice underwater, but I get the impression the character was supposed to be, what with not knowing what a bathing suit is. 64.228.89.137 (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

other points

Robby is not the first movie robot who's more than "a tin can on legs". The author is forgetting The False Maria in Metropolis.

Doesn't say "the first," says "one of the first." Sir Rhosis (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an oblique reference to Frankenstein when Adams says "...afer all, we are not God". (The Great Machine can create living beings.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forbidden Planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629052848/http://www.robothalloffame.org/04inductees/robby.html to http://www.robothalloffame.org/04inductees/robby.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

^ Ingrid Richter (1999-11-23). "'Forbidden Planet', Forbidden Fruit". Parallax Reviews. Retrieved 2007-03-05.

[Parallax-1] Ingrid Richter (1999-11-23). "'Forbidden Planet', Forbidden Fruit". Parallax Reviews. Retrieved 2007-03-05.

[1]