Talk:Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfold

Edit To Article: A Question of Magnitude

Note: This movie is obviously a farce. There are so many problems with it. The only reason for making it is to show naked women in a silly manner.

After the first girl "Angel" grows big, the appearance of her white bikini could be explained as provided by the magazine editor. However, the appearance of the second girl's black bikini can not be explained. Where did she get it? There are no shrouds. When they shrink they are wrapped in what was the large bikini bottoms. No bikini tops are shown.

There is no stabilizing formula. After returning to normal size Angel is in danger of exploding.

The 8 foot rat is still missing. Why does the tabloid reveal an 8 foot rat when the companion lab rat was not 8 feet tall? The hole in the lab wall was not made by the rat.

The guy asks for 250 "fatburgers with fries" to feed Angel who is now 60 feet tall. Assume that Angel's normal height was less than 6 feet tall. She is now a little more than 10 times larger. There is no way she would eat 25 hamburgers with 25 orders of French fries when she was at her normal size. That was not 250 fatburgers with fries in the wheel barrow.

The tranquilizer needle/dart thrown at the magazine publisher entered his lower back and was long enough to go out the front of his abdomen. This was not shown. Also the quantity of tranquilizer was for the 60 foot Angel and not a 6 foot man. This dose would have been fatal. This was not shown. He soon after is seen cavorting with the third girl with no apparent injuries. I do not understand this?

Angel drinks what appears to be a liter ( 1000 cc ) bottle of Jack Daniel's Whiskey while at ten times bigger than normal size. That dose would have been 100 cc at her normal size. 30 cc = 1 ounce. 100 cc = 3.3 ounces. Angel shows no signs of intoxication.

Also: The actor Stanley Livingston a.k.a. Chip Douglas of American 1960's television show "My Three Sons" was the tabloid photographer. He seems to be left out of article.

I still liked the movie which had properties of a 1950's horror movie. 70.118.28.15 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) E.P. 7:22AM EST 15 DEC 2006

60 feet tall is not "10 times" as big as 6 feet tall unless you are only dealing with a single dimension. Assuming the proportions stayed the same, and a (greatly) simplified geometry, her total volume would have increased 10 cubed times. 208.81.43.46 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move consideration

This article may need to be moved to "Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfolds" because that is the correct title of the movie as per IMDb. As per IMDb, the singular form is used only for the USA DVD title. If there are no objections, please move the article and update all references. --AB (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the singular form is the correct title. IMDB now uses that form on their page about the movie, as do AllMovie, and Rotten Tomatoes. In addition, all the promotional material refers to it as Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfold, and the US Copyright Office Public Catalog has an entry for "Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfold", but none for "Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfolds". I suspect the title confusion is just a result of a mistake on the title card in the film itself (which does, admittedly, read "Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfolds"). HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfold. 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/20080729041728/http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=16354260 to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=16354260
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227162219/http://www.erotic4u.co.uk:80/ncma/names.htm?wert=&wo=alt&suchwort=Attack%20of%20the%2060%20Foot%20Centerfolds&jahr=1995&boolean=and to http://www.erotic4u.co.uk/ncma/names.htm?wert=&wo=alt&suchwort=Attack%20of%20the%2060%20Foot%20Centerfolds&jahr=1995&boolean=and

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What does this film parody?

The article says "The film is a parody of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958)". The source on this is a now-defunct store page. I believe the store page in question was incorrect - seeing as Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfold was released only 2 years after Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman (1993 film), it strikes me as likely that the '93 remake was more likely to be the direct inspiration. I cannot, however, find any reliable sources that give a clear answer to this one way or the other. This may warrant correction, but I'm not sure how to proceed. HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)