Talk:Silent Running/Archive 1

1972

Is the release date 1972 correct? --Wetman 15:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both IMDB and the external link referenced in the article say 1972. I'll wait a few days and if there is no objection I'll change it. Lefty 17:28, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Made the changeLefty 18:08, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Is Lowell the Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski? He kills to save the trees. --Señor Cardgage

Does someone have a reference for MST3K starting off as a Silent Running joke?

System Shock

The concept of the spacecraft with the greenhouse domes being jettisoned was used in the computer game System Shock as well. In the first game of the series greenhouse domes are jettisoned from a space station by the protagonist in order to prevent them being used for biological warfare against Earth, and in the second game, one of the domes is found again, deep in space. Is this noteworthy enough to be added to the article? --Mickel (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to have an unbiased 3rd-party reference that show that the concept in the game was inspired or otherwise based/related to Silent Running. Without the citation, the edit would be considered WP:OR as it is your opinion/observation. SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of freighters

While we only see three freighters on screen, the call signs of the freighters heard over the radio as they jettison their domes appears to more like six or seven. Any other source for this count? Rillian 19:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Answered my own question. IMDB confirms eight ship names. Rillian 20:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually IMDb's trivia section for this movie states that the extra names mentioned are for the various domes (or natural habitats) that are carried by the three ships and a careful listening to the films dialogue confirms this so I have made a slight alteration in the trivia section here at wikip. User:MarnetteD | Talk 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDb and this editor got it wrong. A second watching and even closer listening of this film than was done last week show that at the 11m 43s mark in the film Con Central sends a message that only goes Valley Forge, Berkshire and Sequoia leaving the impression that there are only 3 ships. At the 33m 58s mark (while Lowell is trying to decide what to do about saving the last dome) the other five names come up and it is clearly implied that they are all ships that have jettisoned their domes and "Big Billy" wants to go home. Many apologies for the confusion I caused at the page for this little gem of a film.User:MarnetteD | Talk 13:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The first message was directed to the 3 ships in the group of which Valley Forge was part. The message was read out by Anderson, who was on board Berkshire and was the project leader. The project must have included other groups, each under a group leader/commander. Undoubtedly, the other grops got their orders from those individuals at the same time. -- 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I believed we saw four (three ships in the background from within the fourth ship) but now suspect I was thinking of the album cover. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Filming at the Missouri Botanical Garden Climatron

I have read somewhere that the filming was to also have taken place at the Climatron at the what is now the Missour Botanical Garden, then known as Shaw's Garden. We here in St. Louis had the one of the first domes built in the US like that. What was the source of this infromation?

Submarine Trick???

Where does this info about a submarine ruse or trick purportedly called 'silent running' from? As far as I know, in the context of submarines, 'silent running' means simply operating the boat as quietly as possible in order to minimize the risk of sonar detection.

Indeed. Corrected. Dan100 (Talk) 12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The information you refer to is from an interview with Doug Trunbull about the film. He described the original treatment where the protagonist hijacked his ship and went into silent running in an attempt to elude capture by the authorities. It was published in a short-live SF film review magazine back in the late '70s. --Jason Palpatine 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambuguation needed

"Silent Running" is also the name of a song by the band Mike + the Mechanics. AFAIK, the song has nothing to do with this film. Shador5529 22:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I chose a simple "for other uses" template since there are only a few uses and this page, I'm guessing, is likely the intended target for the search "Silent Running". Fracture98 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

R2D2

Didn't George Lucas site the droids from this movie as his inspiration for R2D2?

Yes, he did. --Jason Palpatine 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to track down an opinion made in a legal case, authored by Jerry Pournelle. He was retained to see if Battlestar Galactica ripped off Star Wars. He determined neither one was original, and borrowed heavily from earlier works, with the Star Wars droids deriving from the drones here. Opinion, but arguably authoratative. The subject is brought up here:

http://blog.mises.org/11129/jerry-pournelle-on-copyright-star-wars-and-battlestar-galactica/

and I can confirm that Jerry repeated the story to me last year. The link above indicates this is already included elsewhere in Wikipedia.Tomligon (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Names of the Freighters: Derivation

The article states that the names of the freighters are the names of National Parks in the United States. Berkshire is not a National Park, and at the time of the movie, Mojave was not one, either. And, of course, Valley Forge is not a National Park. I would recommend that this assertion about the names be removed. Doug 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Silen063.jpg

Image:Silen063.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

music in film

• Unusual for a science fiction film, the soundtrack contains two songs — "Silent Running" and "Rejoice in the Sun" — written by Peter Schickele and Diane Lampert and performed by Joan Baez.

What's unusual about this?

Jdrice8 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Removed. —Viriditas | Talk 07:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote (cited above) was apparently first published in either a press release of a review of the movie or soundtrack, it appears on several web sites describing the movie. At the time (early 1970s), it was unusual (but not unique) for a science fiction film to have ballads sung by any notable vocalist. Clockwork Orange (1971) apparently had "Singing in the Rain" with Gene Kelly as part of the end. Previous science fiction soundtracks would have mostly had mood/thematic instrumentals. If they contained ballads, it was usually incidental (like music playing in the background or on a radio), and usually not thematic to the plot (it usually did not give you a clue as to what was about to happen next). Over time, soundtracks containing ballads (as part of the theme) became much more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeheckaG (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable assumption. Can you find the press release or the review? Viriditas (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited info on the vinyl releases and the cd. I know alot about this movie and have all the soundtracks, but this is the first time I have tried to edit. I see the external link for the cd is gone, I just listed it in case someone wanted more info.

DVD Release/UK Certificate

I've removed the section about the DVD release because it seems to be basically a criticism of the BBFC's certification of the film. The certificate is in keeping with the BBFC's guidelines so there's nothing remarkable about it.80.7.59.211 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When does it take place?

I read the article on 2008 and it reads that the film took place in 2008, can this be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.96.37 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. If you go to Google Books, you'll find many sources, such as Kunii & Luciani's Cyberworlds (1998) and Dubeck et al. Fantastic Voyages: Learning Science Through Science Fiction Films (2003), just to name a few. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is implied on screen when we hear what sounds like a dedication speech which begins "On the first day of a new century...", Lowell remarks he's put eight years into the project and the voice of Berkshire reminds him he's been with it from the start. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, but to say that without specific citation that says that is synthesis. We can't note the date unless there is a citation for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Two citations are listed directly above Martin's comment. And, there are many more. Viriditas (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps those cites should be rendered in citable form. :) Unless those citations say, 2008, then we don't get to extrapolate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to check them out for yourself and add them to the article. It is also perfectly acceptable for sources to appear on the talk page, rather than the main article. Viriditas (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not my job, unless I have time. If all I have time is to note that they needs citations, so be it. It was nice of you, however, to note that we don;t get to extrapolate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw the film when it was first run in theaters (my age is showing). from the words "new century" I had been of the opinion that the new century might have the the 22nd century. True, all the advertising said 2008, but I really thought that was just not possible. Given the size of the ships and the level of technology they utilized (artificial gravity), I concluded that the film was no set in such a close to the then-present time period. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. in the movie, the voice-over in the beginning states "on this first day, of a new century" i.e. 2001 and later in the film Freeman Lowel states he has been with this project since the beginning and has spent "the last 7 years up here...". Do the math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdistheone (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

I've added some citation needed tags, as the information tagged needs citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not how we use {{cn}} tags. The entire article is already tagged as {{Unreferenced}}. Citation requests are usually made for specific claims that are difficult to verify; we don't add them to every sentence. If there is a particular section you are unable to find references for, then add {{Unreferencedsection}} to the entire section instead. Viriditas (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the tags stay, so as to firect editors where the unreferenced bits are. We don't toss a vague unreferenced tag and hope that someone uses the Force to suss out what needs citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable response. You've been warned by half a dozen long-term contributors to this project not to use {{cn}} tags in a disruptive manner. One notable incident is Talk:Ibiza where you were requested by many editors to stop editing in this manner. A third opinion also weighed in against you. That is only one example of many. Editors such as Lekoman, Wildthing61476, Vassyana, Neil, and Avb have asked you to cease and desist. If you can't follow Wikipedia conventions, guidelines, and consensus, then you should probably not edit here. Viriditas (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am a little too busy responding at the pot calling the kettle black to respond right now. maybe you simply forgot that consensus begins anew. Please don;t address my edits - you have nothing to add that I find all that instrumental. Cheers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "new consensus" on Template:Fact usage. Instructions appear in clear language in the section "contraindications". Please read it:

Many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously. This template is intended for specific passages which need citation. For articles or sections which have significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{unreferenced}}.

Please do not continue to engage in disruptive citation tagging. There are a significant number of diffs from other editors and administrators warning you of your obsessive behavior.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] If you wish to create a "new" consensus on this template usage, you are welcome to take your concerns to Template talk:Fact. This article, or any other article, however, is not the place for you to force your preferred usage of citation tags. Wikipedians do not use citation tags in the manner that you are using it, and those who do are noted for being highly disruptive and are asked to stop. You are welcome at any time to actually contribute to this article, which means doing actual research looking for citations. If you can't find the time to do that, then drive-by tagging is not acceptable. If your disruptive behavior continues, an WP:AN/I report will be filed. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your interesting opinion has been noted, Thank you for sharing it. I do not agree with it, of course, but thank you nonetheless. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, but an observation of the template instructions and of what other editors have been telling you over and over again. On this very point, Neil reminded you that "consensus seems to say the boilerplate tags are the way to go" and asked you to remember to "Please, do not continue to impose your own preferred version against consensus. Additionally, removing uncited information is only really appropriate if it cannot be verified. Not when it is not presently verified".[9] These are extremely important points that you need to remember when using the fact tag, which the template makes clear should be used judiciously. If you disagree, then take your concerns to the template talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your opinion. It has been noted. Disagreed with, of course, but noted. Due to our personal interactions in the past, I would prefer to simply ignore you, if that is okay. Cheers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with personal interactions with a lot of editors. Didn't you say many times that you were going to be avoiding articles that I edit? It appears that you have gone back on your word...again. Why am I not surprised? Don't worry, I have the diffs. In any case, you need to explain why you have challenged the material. Have you tried looking for sources? Absence of sources is not evidence of a lack of verifiability. Since you are interested in this article and find it necessary to "challenge" the material with fact tags, I expect you to begin searching for citations. Please let me know what you find. In the four years that I have been here, I have never once used a fact tag unless I have already tried finding a source. I suggest you do the same, otherwise it appears you are abusing the citation process, and using it to disrupt articles where you have interpersonal conflicts with the editors. I note that two editors you claim to have difficulty with, myself and User:MarnetteD, appear in the recent page history. I am not altogether convinced that you have given up your old wikistalking ways. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, do you understand WP:BRD? You were bold, I reverted, and here we are discussing. According to that model, we discuss to avoid edit warring. I'm not sure you really understand it as you seem to edit war on every article. The BRD model exists to prevent people from edit warring. You may want to read that page again. Your strange interpretation of Template:Fact usage was reverted. At that point, you stop reverting and focus on the discussion. If you don't understand how this works, ask someone to explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did you say something that wasn;t uncivil in any of that? If so, repeat it. Otherwise, it gets ignored. Cheers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell: After making a bold edit (such as adding multiple fact tags to a section against Wikipedia best practices), and after having your changes reverted, go to the discussion page and work towards agreement. Do not continue to revert. BRD. Arcayne, may I make a suggestion? Please read User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was going to suggest that you read the same. I have discussed. I do not find your reasoning compelling Feel free to seek a neutral third opinion, if you wish. Cheers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not how BRD works. You are not supposed to continue reverting. Third opinion exists for a conflict between two users, and User:MarnetteD has shown up to revert your continued disruption. I suggest you take a step back and try doing some research. If you can't find references for particular content, say so on the talk page, and I'll help out. This is a collaborative enterprise; this isn't Arcayne.com. Please think about your role here. Are you here to write an encyclopedia or are you here to disrupt people who are trying to write? Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, BRD works when folk treat each other with respect. We both know there is too much bad blood between us to interact successfully. I am fully aware of policies, and wish to discuss my edits wih someone who is not you. Sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched

I'm removing this article from my watchlist. This is the second article I've had to stop editing because of Arcayne, and I've already unsubscribed and left WikiProject Films because of him. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left three articles to avoid you. This is a kettle argument, and I am sure folk are tired of it. I know I am. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the facts show you promised to avoid me, and yet you purposefully sought out interacting with me in article after article - articles that I had been editing before you showed up. So please forgive me for not being able to trust you or take you at your word, as past performance has been indicative of future results, in other words, wikistalking and fudging the facts. And contrary to what you claim, you have not left a single article because of me, and so I must call B.S. on yet-another-one-of-your-bogus-claims. Last time I checked, you were still disrupting all of the articles on my watchlist. It's been fun, but I have other things to do, like write encyclopedia articles. You might try it some time. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, whatever. Why on earth would I ever want to seek you out? Now, you said you were leaving. If you are desperate to have the last word, have it. This is the Silent Running article discussion, Why you think your gripe-fest is on topic is beyond me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a splendid example of Wikipedia's predominantly dysfunctional user base. Presented for the whole world to see; preserved forever. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd See Also section

I removed this from the article:

• The article "Special Effects In The Movies" in the 1974 Encyclopedia Britannica "Yearbook of Science and the Future" features detailed information about the production of this film.

Why not just add and cite info from the publication?--Drat (Talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)