Even Bozo Miller couldn't be as empty.
Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.

I don't know about Andrew, not much on him and no tie-in under
William Cameron Menzies
. Could be coincidental.
Changing the rank who knows why? is one of the lessor details changed apparently for the sake of attempting make the story "fresh". A misguided tact.
Holy cow
Bud Cort
was wasted in more ways than one, becoming a poor man's
Dr. Arthur Carrington
character as in
The Thing from Another World
(1951)

I'v asked this in a few other places, but no one seems to know. Andrew Menzies, who is a production designer today and has worked on many fantasy and sci fi films, is he related to William Cameron who did the same thing as well as directing a few. And in the remake its "General Fielding", but in the original its "Col. Fielding. What up wid dat?!
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

Cameron Menzies
's version struck a chord with me when I was boy though I did not know why at the time. Years later I came to the same conclusions as you mention in your posting. It is the boy's nightmare and it explains all.
This movie was a bit too rich in detail for it to be a dream. Had the sets and costumes been saved for another story, well no point in going into
"what if"
And your observation about the indecision
"if this was a parody or straight"
is the whole problem. It is as if someone chickened out along the way and said something like,
"This isn't going to worklet's throw in some gags!"
and so the little "in-jokes" started. Nudge, mudge - wink,wink.
I may have suggested it before on this page but I'll say it again this title works better as a silent movie.

Tobe Hooper is staying true to the original version. In the Fifties version, everything is from David's POV and generally angled upward at times to stress that he is a small boy in an adult world. Even the sets are sometimes built to play up that, as when David goes to the police station. The desk looks very high and very large, making him appear even smaller.
This wasn't some creative decision on Hooper's part. HE didn't think to do that; the original director did it first.
I know many people have seen only this version, and I've been seeing the remarks about Tobe Hooper showing it from a child's angle. I just wanted to clear up that he's following someone else's lead.
As it is: This does not come close to matching the original. I've watched it twice today, and it just has too many bad performances. It's as if they couldn't decide if this was a parody or a straight approach. It just doesn't work though there are some effective moments. I like the redesign of the Martian leader but still prefer the original, which also has a neater cave design.
MystMoonstruck

The Invaders plan
worked!
I watch some horrible movies strictly for "mindless" entertainment mainly because they are short
usually
.
I'll watch this title again someday.
Invaders from Mars
(1986) features some nice cinematography.

just watched this again last night for some mindless entertainment. worked great for that. I enjoyed it again.