Talk:The Rocketeer (film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Fun article to read. Below are my comments...

Under Intro:
 * "concepted with directing" Shouldn't this be "considered directing"?
 * Change "but was able to receive" to "but received"

Under Plot:
 * Could you change this wording to be a bit less ambiguous: "...and deceives the FBI agents with a vacuum cleaner."

Under Development:
 * "Disney originally placed The Rocketeer to be released by Touchstone Pictures." I'm not sure "originally placed" is the right wording here. Could you reword.

Under Production, Casting:
 * I'm sort of on the fence about whether this is worth including, but this source says Billy Campbell and Jennifer Connelly dated after meeting on the set, and director Johnston thinks it helped with their on-screen chemistry. Maybe this is worth tossing in after the mention about Connelly being cast in this section? Or maybe worth mentioning somewhere else in the article?

Under Filming:
 * I tripped over this sentence: "In an attempt to try and secure as much artistic control he could between Disney, Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens had to ally himself with director Joe Johnston and production manager Ian Bryce to be heavily inovlved in the production process." I'd suggest rewording it to something like this: "Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens allied himself with director Joe Johnston and production manager Ian Bryce in an effort to be as heavily involved in the production process as possible and to try and secure as much artistic control as he could from Disney."
 * "The original production budget was set at $25 million, but rose $40 million." I'm guessing you mean "rose TO $40 million," right? Right now, it reads the budget rose $40 million (like, from $25 to $65).

Under Design:
 * "Disney relented but still tried a couple of their own prototype designs that no one liked." The wording here doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. Maybe something more like, "Disney relented, but only after creating a number of prototype designs that were ultimately rejected by the filmmakers."
 * "Stevens told Johnston to give him a week and he would produce a helmet that looked good and that they could use." Again, not very encyclopedia. I think something like this would be better: "Stevens asked Johnston for one week to produce a good helmet design."
 * "They produced a helmet that worked and looked good from all angles." Again, sorry, but not very encyclopedia. I'd rather see something like, "They produced a helmet that the filmmakers agreed looked appropriate from all angles."
 * Somewhere in this article there should definitely be a mention that Rick Baker did the makeup for the Lothar character. If you need a citation for this, you can use Leonard Maltin, and I provided a citation for you under my Critical analysis suggestion below. I guess Design would be the right section for this, but if you have a better suggestion let me know.

Under Visual effects: Under Box Office: Under Critical analysis:
 * The Entertainment Weekly source mentions that the zeppelin explosion special effect alone cost $400,000 (unless I'm reading that incorrectly). Maybe that's worth including in this section?
 * That same source mentions that the whole zeppelin climax scene was filmed peacemeal over a four month process. I think that too is worth including in the article; if not here, then in filming.
 * "Rocketeer eventually grossed $46.7 million in US box office totals..." Not to be a stickler, but according to the source, it's $46.6 million, not $46.7.
 * "Rocketeer eventually grossed $46.7 million in US box office totals and was declared to be a box office bomb because the film was unable to recoup its $40 million budget." I'm a bit confused by this because you say it was unable to recoup it's $40 million budget, yet in the same sentence say it made $46.7 million, which EXCEEDS the budget amount. Do you mean that it didn't recoup the budget immediately? Or do you mean it didn't recoup the film budget and advertising budget together?
 * "When The Rocketeer was released in all other markets outside of the US and Canada, it was through Touchstone Pictures as opposed to Disney in an attempt to attract teenage audiences that was not done in North America." I tripped over the wording a bit here. Maybe something like, "Outside the US and Canada, The Rocketeer was released through Touchstone Pictures rather than Disney in order to attract a teenage audiences it did not reach in North America."
 * I think you are a bit heavier in here on the positive reviews than the negative ones. Maybe you could add some quotes or mentions from at least one more negative review, like the one here by Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader'?
 * It might be worth including Leonard Maltin's comments about the movie, if only because of how respected he is as a movie reviewer. I've written out the entire blurb he included in his movie guide here... "Campbell plays a rough-and-ready 1930s pilot who stumbles onto a sought-after secret weapon: an air-pack taht turns him into a rocket-man. Film captures the look of hte '30s, as well as the gee-whiz innocence of Saturday matinee serials, but it's talky--and takes too much time to get where it's going. Dalton has fun as a villain patterned after Errol Flynn. Film buffs will get a kick out of the Rondo Hatton-esque bad guy (couresy of makeup whiz Rick Baker)." This is the citation you can use, although I haven't tested it in Wikipedia so there could be a typo or something wrong with the code, but you can fix that easily:

Under Sequel(s):
 * "Ever since Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens and screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo set The Rocketeer at Disney in 1986, they all intended to make a trilogy." Could you reword to something like "'From the beginning of the process of making The Rocketeer, creator Dave Stevens and screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo envisioned it was the first entry of a trilogy."
 * I think it might be worth throwing in based on this source that Billy Campbell said 18 years later that he still would have loved to have been in a sequel and, regarding the helmet, "My head hasnn't gotten any bigger." I'm not married to this addition, so if you don't agree with it, that's ok.
 * Thank you with that GA review. I have addressed every concern, but, sorry I do not really think that the last comment for the "Sequel(s) section is noteworthy enough. What do you think? Also, thank you for paying attention to my edits I made and for tracking my progress (using the thing was genius). Keep up the great work. Wildroot (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I was on the fence about it myself too. Nice job, this was a fun one to review~

A good article is:
 * 1) Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
 * 4) Neutral: Yes.
 * 5) Stable: Yes.
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.