This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Mlpearc Public ( talk) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
I don't see this listed in the references or notes, so thought I'd pass along
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Mlpearc Public ( talk) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
I don't see this listed in the references or notes, so thought I'd pass along
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)