Talk:Star Trek: The Motion Picture/Archive 2

Concerning the script
Shouldn't it be mentioned that "In Thy Image" is a retooling of sorts of "The Changeling"?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned some critics found it derivative of "The Changeling", but think about it; if you ripped off your own episode you wouldn't exactly mention it. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Home Video
The text states that "although no new scenes were added, the MPAA rated the revised edition "PG" in contrast to the "G" rating of the original release." The Director's cut does contain certain scenes that were not part of the original release. For example the subplot about the self-destruct.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All these scenes were at times seen (such as the televised release, et al). -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite right: no new scenes were added to the extended tv version. But the text about the revised MPAA rating compares the original release to the director's cut, not the televised release.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's what the source says, so *shrug* -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits to summary
I wanted to discuss my changes to the summary. Every single detail I deleted from it is a) in the main article and, more importantly, b) is not relevant for what is supposed to be a brief summary a few paragraphs in length. Do we really need to have in the summary:
 * "largest press conference held at the studio since the 1950s"
 * "Constant revisions to the story meant that new versions of the shooting script were distributed hourly"
 * "The film came together only days before the premiere; Wise took the just-completed film to its Washington, D.C., opening, but always felt that the theatrical version was a rough cut of the film he wanted to make."
 * Discussion of Roddenberry losing control for the sequel

Etc., etc.?

Note that the summary still covers everything important about the film, including a brief summary of the plot, the motivations for greenlighting (twice) the film, the lengthy development process, the cost overrun, the mixed reviews and somewhat-disappointing box office, and even what's in the DVD version. YLee (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Put it this way: more than seven people found nothing wrong with it during the article FAC. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That an article achieved FA status doesn't mean there isn't anything that can't be improved on it, even for a topic for which 99% of the relevant events occurred 30-35 years ago; otherwise we'd freeze such articles in amber. I non-humbly claim that the current article is meaningfully better than the way it was before my edits yesterday and today. YLee (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I entirely disagree. My point is that all seven of those editors presumably decided that the lead met WP:FA? which would argue against your revisions; the content hasn't changed, which means consensus is against your changes (and removal of other content in the body previously). -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree on the article's overall quality; as I was reading it yesterday the quality and quantity of the writing and citations repeatedly struck me. That the article is/was a FA didn't surprise me at all. My few changes to the body (which, given that this is a 115K article, comprises 99.44% of the FA-grade content) certainly didn't change anything significant; just tightening some wording and linkification here and there. The summary was, and is, also quite good (I didn't edit it with the others because, well, I skipped it entirely as I was interested in reading the entire body); I just don't find appropriate to discuss in the summary the details that I trimmed. Again, I am not aware of any Wikipolicy that states that FA articles are inviolate. YLee (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because something hasn't attracted criticism doesn't mean it can't be improved on. YLee's edit makes the summary more focused and fluent. I do find one problem with it--the reduction of the special effects passage. This now reads in its entirety: "Douglas Trumbull and his effects team were given carte blanche to meet the December 1979 release date." Though not inaccurate as a discrete fact, this rather misrepresents the history of the film's special effects work. While some reference to the previous work should be restored, I'd also argue for recasting the sentence to eliminate "the December 1979 release date." The beginning of the very next paragraph states that the film was "[r]eleased in North America on December 7, 1979." This sort of close repetition should be avoided, especially in the lead summary.


 * The one other point I could see as significant enough to restore--somewhat abbreviated--is this: "The film came together only days before the premiere; Wise always felt that the theatrical version was a rough cut of the film he wanted to make." (As a minor point, "tightened and new scenes" is a bit awkward; in this case, the previous phrasing--"tightened and added scenes"--is better and still works grammatically in the sentence's new structure.) DocKino (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the criticism, agree on all points, especially wince at missing the release date repetition, and will implement the suggestions. YLee (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The elements in the lead were chosen for a reason: I would consider the fact that the film rated the largest press conference assembled in decades as relevant, especially given the amount of hype, marketing, and money that was thrown at the production. The fact that the script was constantly in flux was one reason the production ran into huge delays. The fact that the director considered the film not what he wanted to make and eventually re-edited it is important. The fact that Star Trek's creator was kicked out of creative control is important and sets up a bit of a conclusion for the entire article. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited the summary incorporating both David and DocKino's criticisms without, in my view, reoverinflating the text. Let me know what you think. YLee (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * David's observations were certainly worthy of respect, and I think you've done a terrific job addressing the most significant ones, while keeping the summary focused and concise. DocKino (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I have an administrator and a professional copyeditor's attention, I have a stylistic question. The article both uses and does not use the definite article with "Enterprise". What do you suggest? I couldn't find anything in WP:STYLE that covers this, at a quick glance. (I personally prefer to not use it, myself.) YLee (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of convention, not rule, and in my reading and listening experience, the well-established convention in the specific case of the Enterprise is to use the definite article. Your preference to avoid it, however, reflects the general trend in usage. Still, my inclinations are conservative in high-profile instances such as this, where I think we may encounter reader resistance if the article is eliminated. DocKino (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're talking about "Enterprise" vs. "the Enterprise", correct? To be fair it's used interchangeably throughout all the movies and episodes, probably because it sounds good either way. If we were talking about the USS Voyager, I don't think they ever used the definite article because it sounds rather strange. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I must protest David Fuchs's most-recent edits. Claiming "rm junk edits to release section" as his motivation (note that I never made any edits to the Release section), he has reverted back all the way to [my first edit yesterday], conveniently undoing the summary changes that we've been discussing here in good faith. YLee (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've reverted David's recent edits.
 * That was extremely bad form, David, and gives the strong impression that you believe you own the article. DocKino (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go away, Kino, it was a mistake. I meant to delete IP additions of POV tags in the release section which were added between Ylee's additions, and I guess I pasted text into the wrong window. Do something useful. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're only embarrassing yourself, my friend, with your belligerent attitude. You have now ensured that, far from going away, I will do something useful by keeping a very close eye on this article and making sure your sense of ownership and entitlement do not interfere with its ongoing improvement. If you have any sense remaining this evening, you'd be advised to hush yourself. DocKino (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You do that. I'll disregard your comments as pointy, and we can all go on about our business. Anyhow, to get back to the point before all the wolf-crying: I'm still not seeing how the old lead was in any way, shape or form violating WP:LEAD, and how the new one is much better, especially as it glosses over important facts about the article. Frankly, it's added errors due to what I'm assuming is unfamiliarity with the text, for example you've made it sound as though the Enterprise was redesigned during filming rather than before. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Four points:
 * Contrary to your claim, I didn't use "filming" in the summary. I used "production process", which is a phrase that covers the entire lifecycle of filmmaking including preproduction, which is when the ship redesigns would've been finished. (The article itself clearly describes how the set design remained incomplete during the Phase II period.)
 * I never claimed that the summary ever violated WP:LEAD; that's why I called the prior version of the summary "quite good" above, as well as praising the entire article. I simply thought it could be improved further. You seem to be taking such edits very personally; that they occur does not denigrate you as an editor or as a person.
 * If there are errors to fix I invite one and all to do so, as opposed to making vague claims about my having added such.
 * Speaking of errors, if you are trying to disprove DocKino's warning to you about not acting as an owner of the article, may I suggest that saying pompous things like "frankly it's added errors due to what I'm assuming is unfamilarity with the text" is not the way to do so? Editing an article on a Star Trek film does not require specialized knowledge or intensive study of esoteric works. YLee (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're trimming a lead section to an article, I expect the editor to know the content. That's not ownership, that's simply a good idea. I'm not going to take an axe to the evolution article if I haven't read it. So if the original lead didn't violate WP:LEAD, I'm not sure how removing germane information and making it in my opinion a lot more boring is an improvement. It glosses over way too much. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs recently (again) restored the summary to his version predating my July edits, with the innocuous description "putting back." In view of his non-Good Faith behavior discussed above, I manually undid his edit (albeit retaining the subsequent mention of John Dykstra). I also again request that David justify his various claims above denigrating my edits' quality, but given his refusal to do so before I don't expect him to do so this time. PS - On second reading of the above discussion, I will exactly restore the special-effects discusson sentence as per DocKino's earlier advice. YLee (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have failed to show that the lead fails any guideline or policy. Your edits distorted the sources present in the article. Failing any good reason to cut the lead, I reverted.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, a) I have never claimed that your version of the summary violates WP:LEAD or any other policy, only that it could be improved upon slightly, and b) I request more-specific criticism of my edits than "distorted the sources." I will not engage in a revert war, though. YLee (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Among the more obvious: "The film earned $139 million worldwide, which fell short of studio expectations and forced Roddenberry to relinquish creative control of the sequel." Roddenberry didn't relinquish any control, he was forced out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You make no sense:
 * I think most people would agree that "forced Roddenberry to relinquish creative control of the sequel" is just a wordier way of saying "forced out."
 * This is immaterial, though, as the "forced Roddenberry to relinquish creative control" wording you criticize already existed in the summary before my first edit! See for yourself. You are criticizing your own writing! If there ever is a FAIL BLOG for Wikipedia, surely this moment must be a candidate. In the meanwhile, I continue to await some evidence, any evidence, that my edits have "distorted the sources" and "added errors." YLee (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record and given Fuchs' accusation of WP:MEAT, I also firmly deny that DocKino and I know each other, whether in real life or on the net (aside from the above discussion). I have no idea how long DocKino has been an editor but I have had this account for five years. YLee (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't insinuating Doc was a sock/vice versa. I was saying Doc is acting as a meatpuppet by responding to [User_talk:DocKino#David_Fuchs_again your message]. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given his prior participation in this discussion (of which I played absolutely no role in his entering)&mdash;and especially his stated intention of continuing to monitor the situation&mdash;I mentioned its resumption and asked for his advice on his Talk page. If that's WP:MEAT, I'd like to be a well-done New York strip steak, please. You have yet to explain your hilarious criticism of your own writing, by the way. YLee (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting how it must be "my writing" just because it existed before you edited the page... let's go through this line by line. In the current revision exactly what passages do you object to? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing COPYVIO
The Post-production section of this article is a very closely paraphrase of the book "The Making Of Star Trek The Motion Picture" by Susan Sackett, Copyright 1980, published by Wallaby books and atributed in the ref section to just "Sackett & Roddenberry". It seems to be a paragraph for paragraph "Cliiff-Notes" version with some sentence or parts of sentences being exact copies. Some small examples:


 * WP article: "At the time "In Thy Image" was being prepared as a television movie, the producers were keenly aware that after the groundbreaking optical effects of Star Wars, the television movie could not settle for outdated effects."


 * Book: At the time the first draft script, "In Thy Image" was being prepared for a two hour television special, it was realized that the quality of the special optical effects of Star Wars..... settle for the outdated tv optical(s) of ten years earlier.


 * WP article: When the television movie became The Motion Picture, the number and complexity of the effects increased.


 * Book: When the TV movie evolved into Star Trek, the number and complexity of the effects increased accordingly.

It keeps going like that, line for line. The rest of this article also sounds very familler. This needs to be looked into and cleaned up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This dif shows where the material was introduced and by who. Said editor can probably refer to ref and address problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

References list - one column, or two?
I changed the references list to use one column instead of two to make it more readable, David Fuchs changed it back, saying "it takes up a lot more space".

First, I'd like to dispute that statement. The current arrangement (two columns) result in many of the references spreading out over two lines. It is 206 pixels high. Using a one-column layout, the list is 255 pixels high. The difference is a mere 49 pixels (these measurements were made in my browser and wikt:YMMV, but the general idea should be consistent), which is hardly "a lot more".

Second - so what? meta:Wiki is not paper, and thus we have no such limitations. Instead of stuffing everything into the smallest rectangle possible, we can afford some whitespace to enhance readability.

Third, the real point: a one-column list for the references makes it more readable. If you are looking for, say, "Sackett & Roddenberry", it is easier to "scan" a one-column list than a two-column, since the linebreaks in a two-column layout introduce clutter where you'd think there would be names.

Would anyone mind if I changed it to a one-column list again?

Plrk (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On standard-size monitors, there is no issue of legibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What would constitute a standard-size monitor? My browser window is 1461 pixels wide, which is wider than most monitors. If a width of 1280 pixels is considered "standard-size", the space issue you raised in your original revert becomes even more negligible (1 column: 273 pixels high, 2 columns: 240 pixels high - difference: 33 pixels). What is the point of having two columns, considering that that makes it harder to "scan" the list for a full reference when you have the name(s)? Plrk (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
"its 56 neon panels required 168,000 volts"—could someone who has the book cited please check that quote? I believe they required 168,000 watts, not 168,000 volts.--Oneiros (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rated G
In the first paragraph of the sub-section Home video we find, "In 1983, an extended cut of the film was released on videotape and premiered on the ABC television network.[ref cite] It added roughly 12 minutes to the film.[ref cite] The added footage was largely unfinished and cobbled together for the network premiere; Wise never wanted the footage to be included in the final cut of the film.[ref cite]" Note that the only one of those three cites dates to the period, while the others both post-date the turn of the century. The reality as widely reported at the time is as follows. I'll go through what Starlog and Fantastic Films magazine issues from the time and other sources that I have to see what I can find to back this up, but this is wrong. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The home video release significantly preceded the ABC premiere, so much so that there was room for a run on the premium cable channel HBO between them; I think it too was the extended cut, but am in no position now to guarantee it.
 * 2) That material was all part of the initial cut, deleted because Paramount, for whatever unstated reason, wanted the "G" rating from the MPAA. In other words, that footage was not "largely unfinished" as claimed.
 * Well, depending on the source, I would trust later content. 22:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no sense to that, especially since "later content" tends to be interviews with aged people. News reports of the day are not subject to faded memories, which has been put forth as the explanation of some of the demonstrably wrong statements in Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz's audio commentary for the DVD of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut.
 * On the other hand, what I found was a February 1984 magazine article reporting that the earlier videotape edition and cablecasts that I mentioned were the original release version. It further stated that the video of the extended cut came out months after ABC's telecast, and that the only visual shortcomings came from unionized ABC having to do their own film-to-tape transfer because Paramount's had been done in a non-union shop; according to this account, that resulted in the color of the network showing having a badly washed-out look, one not present in the subsequent video. There was absolutely no implication of the added material being "largely unfinished." --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So there's no implication—so what? Some sources don't discuss a fact, that doesn't mean it's not true. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GOCE
Mlpearc Public (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.

Inaccurate photo caption
Under the Post-Production section, the image of the Enterprise and V'Ger is from the Director's Cut and not from the original motion picture. It is a digital shot produced by Foundation Imaging and not produced by the film's original visual effects companies.

98.71.177.178 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The above is correct. Removing the picture until I can find the right screencap from the dvd. 200.142.86.222 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stumbled into a source
I don't see this listed in the references or notes, so thought I'd pass along

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/01/20/star-trek-the-motion-picture-watch-a-lost-making-of-the-movie-video/

A quickie featurette from the studio about the film. *shrug* Might have a meaningful nugget not already in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I have a chance. Thanks for the find! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)