Talk:Seconds (1966 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seconds (1966 film) 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.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Rock Hudson's best acting?[edit]

Some who believe this film exhibits Rock Hudson's best acting. [no poster given]

If it does, it's a terrible condemnation. Rock Hudson was not at all convincing in serious roles. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson and Seconds[edit]

What does it really have to do with the movie? -- Komowkwa (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Scala[edit]

I think IMDb is wrong here, she isn't the "Young Girl stomping on the grapes in the party scene". The first person to start stomping on the grapes is a nude blonde woman and she's the only one really focused on. There isn't a clear shot of her face, but from what I can tell it probably isn't Scala. I think Scala is in a later scene at a party briefly talking to Hudson's character. --67.214.20.93 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for the Wiki feature set crucially includes the internal links[edit]

Remember, that unless modernity turns out to be a suicide pact, we're writing for more than contemporaneous generations! I wikified by adding these links in the description of the dIversion for the GC Station scene:

... Playboy "bunny" to make-out ...

Not to deny, of course -- what cleverer internal (if not external) parodies than this one have repeatedly demonstrated --, to wit that there is ''such a thing as'' a silly, or even obnoxiously pointless, wiki-link.
--Jerzy•t 08:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamilton learns as he is wheeled into the operating room, before being sedated, that he is to be killed."!!![edit]

OMG&F'gJC, No!!!
That notion reflects an incredibly, either shallow or traumatized, reading of the plot as a whole. It's horribly complicated for me to back up see if I may have said so in my edit summary, but per the logic of the plot and a sober consideration of how close to realization such a plot could come, the guy had already gotten a second helping of career and wanted thirds. We look like we are idiots, or reckless enuf, not to quickly see that conceivably there could be "seconds", but the money and other infrastructure they would require would have to rest on two hypotheses:

what most of the clients wanted was seconds on choosing a career

nearly all of them fail to recognize that a "second" of this kind would rely on availability of corpses to create a convincing fake end of the first apparent career via a death!

Now, where is the second-career-provider going to get enuf clients to support the infrastructure required to accommodate even one client? Duh, by capitalizing an enterprise with a sustainable business plan, which requires serving those who (nearly inevitably) will want thirds, since they couldn't find satisfaction in their fairly renumerative and otherwise envy-evoking first career (and authentic "life"), and will naively ask for another surgical makeover that gives the "seconds"-providing-enterprise the next corpse (in a sustainable series of freshly-dead corpses) for a different client who is looking, not for a third, but for a second career and "life".
(They may or not take new clients full-time, since the professionals required may support their lifestyles by working legitimately between bouts of unsustainable windfall. But I like to imagine that unprincipled discontent among the disappointed-tho-prosperous could support a steady flow of new clients, each of whom would pay twice for what is actually delivered to each of them only once. I may have come in a tad late when I saw it on TV in the early '70s, as I don't recall how the client we followed made contact with the provider: perhaps the enterprise. had well-compensated bartenders as informers about drunks who can't recognize that being disillusioned, abt a career that many would welcome, is no excuse for turning to drink and/or too-true-to-be-good fraudulent schemes)
--Jerzy•t 10:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all my years as a greedy glutton, whether I only went back for second helpings or another after that (or yet more subsequently), it was always referred to as seconds, no matter how many ordinal numerals they actually ran to.

PS, have you an irrational fear of spelling enough properly? Nuttyskin (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]