User talk:47.149.101.246

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum.   Peaceray (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. I noticed that you recently removed content from Conquest of Space without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Leonidlednev (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ,


 * You commented in “View History” Oct. 7, yesterday: (Reverted 2 edits by 47.149.101.246 (talk) to last revision by UTILITY MESSIAH). Am I right in assuming that at least one of your “reversions” was the wholesale removal of my 1,000-word footnote within one day of my posting it. I haven’t been able to determine what the second edit of mine was that you also reverted. I believe that I would not be wrong to characterize your note above as a “bit vague.”
 * My understanding is that any material that could interfere with smooth reading of a Wikipedia article should be avoided. I’ve encountered this dictum before. A few times I‘ve been perplexed how to add material that I believed was vital, yet it would have slowed down the reading. I compromised and relegated those fresh facts and my observations to a footnote.  So far you are the only soul to delete one of my longish footnotes. At the time, a second thought that influenced the creation of the footnote was that if I put those thousand words into a footnote, then it is out of everybody’s hair.
 * The reason I included it at all is simple. Objectively George Pal was railroaded; the data that clearly demonstrates this has been ignored, despite it staring everyone in the face for 60+ years. Someone needs to say aloud and clearly that Pal was falsely accused, so I carefully enumerated many of the reasons or causes for Conquest’s lack of box-office in my footnote (none of which has anything directly to do with Pal). I’m sorry to say that all the evidence points to this injustice being the result of the fallibility of people.  To illustrate:
 * By happenstance, in the course of my writing and editing career, the study of genre movies has been of particular interest to me. Time and time again, I’ve unearthed the sad, sad fact that most critics are lemmings who mimic other critics. [I’ve written at length on this phenomenon.] Cases in point. :Regarding George Pal’s and Byron Haskin’s 1953 The War of the Worlds, within a few minutes following the start of the film of Dr. Clayton Forrester meets Sylvia Van Buren at the edge of the steaming meteorite crater. She is living in a small town where she knows everybody; she is intelligent and well-educated (probably the best educated person in the town) but unworldly in some ways. He is a self-absorbed scientist whose picture had been on the cover of Time magazine. They meet and at that exact same moment the world crashes down around them.
 * In my view, their relationship always seems authentic in the sense that they simply feel comfortable with one another, as neither has any other like-minded soul to lean on at that moment. Yet, OMG! that relationship is a point that has spilled an intolerable amount of ink and received countless unfair potshots over the years, to the degree that I can’t help but wonder if these critics are merely repeating one another. As I said, I’ve become convinced more than a few such critics mimic one another, consequences be damned. Check out the wording of the following quotes from critical reviews of The War of the worlds (1953). Frankly I find the similar wording very suspicious and concerning—the frequency of repetition of the expression “love interest” especially:
 * John Brosnan’s Future Tense: The Cinema of Science Fiction: “But the story was ... updated ... with one of Hollywood’s dreaded ‘love-interest’ subplots.”
 * Phil Hardy’s The Overlook Film Encyclopedia: Science Fiction: “Even less affective is the love interest placed awkwardly in the path of the plot.”
 * John Clute’s and Peter Nicholls’ The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: “A stereotyped Hollywood love interest is substituted for the original story of a husband searching for his wife.”
 * C.J. Henderson’s The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies: From 1897 to the Present: “The addition of a standard, one-size-fits all love story does nothing to enhance the narrative....”
 * John Clute’s The Science Fiction Encyclopedia: “Most damaging of all, a Hollywood ‘love interest’ typical of the period is added.”
 * John Clute’s Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: “Since this is an American film, the hero has to protect a silly female.”
 * James’s Gunn’s The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: “...adding a typical Hollywood love interest....”
 * One of John Clute’s phrases above refers to “a silly female.” Can anything be more silly than this lambasting of something positively organic to the film? John Brosnan in his Future Tense: The Cinema of Science Fiction speaks of “the absurdities of the dialogue and a deadening performance by Ann Robinson as the heroine.” Where on earth would that come from? She’s perfectly fine throughout the film. I can only derive from this kind of attitude that there are critics who are fundamentally mean-spirited and love to hear themselves talk.
 * All of which is my beating around the bush asking you if you could reinsert my footnote, please.47.149.101.246 (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, You might call my 1,000 words a personal essay. but I call it a succession of indisputable facts that really ought to have been noticed and changed the minds of a good many influential people.47.149.101.246 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)