Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Protonk comments

Images

• Image:Star-trek-II-spocks-funeral.png What element of the film's cinematography does this image show? Why is this image not replaceable by text or by free images of the principal cast members? I see that the scene itself (the addition of the casket and planetfall bit) is discussed but not the element that the image represents. Update I did note that the scene itself has received note, but IMO this picture doesn't really show that, see below.
• The roddenberry caption probably doesn't need "(above)" in it as Gene is the only figure in the photo.

removed the (above). As for the funeral shot, it provides context for the scene and the mentioned purpose on the image description page. I can't find a good shot of the actual torpedo moving as then the cast members are obscured. As stated on the image page, having free images of all seven or so main characters does not show how they appeared in the film, the uniforms which are specifically commented upon, and is simply more clunky than what a single nonfree image can provide.

Ok. I'm going to recommend that the pic be moved to the production section next to the discussion of the scene. the caption should also mention something about the shot itself. I hope this isn't too much, I just prefer to have rock-solid fair use claims for GA and FA's. Protonk (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Elcobbola to take a look at it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't participated in a GA since the change to these sub-pages, so apologies if my comments should not have gone here. As an image, this is probably one of the better screenshots that could be taken from the film; it's quite "rich" in that it simultaneously depicts setting, costume, principle characters, a principle scene and any inherit cinematography. Any one aspect may not be a significant contribution in and of itself (and I agree with Protonk's notion that free cast images are generally suitable replacements when characters lack substantial make-up), but the totality of the aforementioned illustrated aspects certainly seems to merit inclusion. I do agree, however, that the cast section is probably not the optimal place for the image. The production section does seem reasonable, but I note, as a matter of technicality, that the NFCC to not require adjacent discussion (so the cast section is also not unreasonable). The only recommendation I really have is to expand the rationale to articulate all that is being illustrated and why such illustration is important. Эlcobbola _talk 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. My suggestion for moving it was to allow the reader to better understand the statement made in the production section, but it is fine as is. It would be really cool to mock up an svg image or gif animation of what the production section is talking about (sort of an illustration of the moving dolly and the resulting restrictions on the frame), but that is neither here nor there. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be cool... I can't really do that unfortunately, because I'm not that great with making animations, and also because I don't know what the dolly actually looked like... I suppose I could shop around tho, that would be a great (free) way of illustrating a difficult aspect. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Formatting of citations seems consistent.
• fn 28: Why is Box Office Mojo a reliable source for box office figures? They have a wp page, but it doesn't cite any third party sources, so I can't tell from that if they have a rep. for fact checking.

BOM is used in FA-class film articles and is often used as a source by reliable sources; this link explains how they tabulate data. -12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS

• "the crew of the starship U.S.S. Enterprise must stop Khan from acquiring a powerful but unstable terraforming device." I understand the purpose of the different wikilink (for the starship rather than the exact hull #) but the link just redirects to the 1701. In that case we should remove one link, preferably from the plot section below.
• Khan Noonien Singh is linked 4 times in the article. Perhaps one can be removed. Also, the first mention of the character, in the lead, uses the shortened form. Was this deliberate?
• The plot section is a good size, 683 words. :)
• Cast section. I'm following the suggestions at MOS:FILM. I would recommend merging the cast section into the Production section as a level three header. Once you do that I would suggest integrating the case information for principal actors as prose. That, of course, is an editorial decision and I won't hold up a GA review for it. One thing I can say is that some of the cast/production elements can be better integrated as prose and it won't make the one-line descriptions stand out so obviously as they do in a bulleted list. Also, I don't think that the name/character names should be wikilinked, am I wrong about that?
• Star Trek: The Motion Picture is wikilinked three times. This may not be "overlinking", I leave that up to you. Just pointing it out.

I removed some of the wikilinks, and the Enterprise mention is linked to the ship that appears in the film. Khan is initially referred to by the shorthand name because that's how he is most often referred to. -12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the cast section: I think the article works better with the cast as a list, for example similar to The Mummy (1999 film). Most of the cast was already established long before the movie, and with such a large crew I don't think it would mesh well in paragraph form. I'm still waiting on some sources to beef up Sulu and Uhura's sections, so they shouldn't be so short. -13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Like I said, that is your choice--I think your feel for what the article should look like is probably the most accurate one. What about moving the cast list to the production section? Protonk (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Small issues

• Interesting that the paradox of shatner's scream being fake never made it into the commentary about the film. I remember reading about it somewhere, but it was probably a blog. It is the moment of raw emotion and weakness that people might look for in a multi-dimensional character, and it was contrived.
• "Charles Bluhdorn asked, "Can you make it for less than forty-five-fucking-million-dollars?" Bennett replied that "Where I come from, I can make five movies for that."" somewhere before this we should note the 46 million dollar price tag for TMP. Not directly before but in the first paragraph. It makes the line much better.
• "To compensate Bennett watched all the original episodes." A comma goes in there somewhere.
• "Significant attention was paid to the design of the Reliant, as the producers wanted to make sure that the Enterprise and Reliant could be easily distinguished from one another by viewers; the design was flipped after Bennett accidentally opened and notorized the preliminary Reliant designs upside-down" This needs to be adjusted to make clear what happened to the reader. Also, should it just say "approved", or does the source mean notarize? In which case it should be spelled correctly and wikilinked.
• "For a scene taking place at Starfleet Academy, for example, scenery was placed close to the camera..." I think "for example can be eliminated here.
• "Instead of having operational elevators, when the elevator doors were closed the outside corridor walls were wheeled around to change the hall configuration and make it appear the lift had moved between decks." This should also be clarified. Most movies don't use operational elevators. What does this mean?
• Trapunto quilting can be wikilinked.
• "at a budget of US$11,000,000[19]—far less than The Motion Picture's $46 million cost." I would move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
• "During Spock's funeral sequence Meyer wanted the camera..." In keeping with my FU suggestion about the picture above, I think that a picture showing the funeral can be used in this section so long as it can connect the reader to the image that the producers were forced to use due to budget constraints (the crew pic kind of does). As it stands the prose could be clearer, but a screenshot would probably help immensely. Maybe one of the DVD extras has some footage of the footage, as it were.
• "; the "remember" sequence was initially added without Kelley's prior knowledge." This clause does not follow in my mind. What does Kelley's knowledge of the scene change have to do with Nimoy's change of heart? Was it because it was so late or so sudden?
• "Test audiences at screenings of the film reacted badly to Spock's death (the tone of which was darker and more final)" the use of the comparative here suggests that we are placing one death scene against another. At this point in the prose, we are not. Perhaps we should insert "initial filming of..." etc.?
• Panning (camera) wikilink might help.
• "The programmers spent an inordinate amount of time and detail on the sixty-second sequence" How much is an inordinate amount of time? And shouldn't we have a different verb modifying detail than "spent"?
• ", hoping it would serve as a "commercial" for the studio's talents;" This is kind of interposed. I think the section would do better to make the claim that ILM spent gobs of time on the shot, semi-colon, they even made it so the stars would be "realistic", then provide the apparent motive in a new sentence.
• "James Horner was hired to score The Wrath of Khan, composing music evocative of seafaring and swashbuckling; The Washington Post described the style..." I think there are too many semi-colons in the article and I'm confused by them in this sentence. How is it supposed to flow? Wouldn't "Hired to score The Wrath of Khan, James Horner composed music evocative of seafaring and swashbuckling. The Washington Post described the style..." be better? Or some variation of that.
• "The Wrath of Khan' features several reoccurring themes" I think it is "recurring".
• fn 24, the reference to Hamlet, is probably not necessary. I think it might be cool to have an excerpt from the quote in that reference instead.

But that the dread of something after death,

The undiscovered country from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

• "The movie's release was credited with an increase in competitive VHS pricing, and an increase in the adoption of increasingly cheaper VHS players." This sentence should be reworded. At the least it is awkward to describe a lowering of prices as an "increase in competitive pricing". :)

I think I've taken care of most of these by rewording. I never have seen any reliable source on Shatner's scream. As to the Hamlet quote, I don't want to actually use the prose in the article because seeing as it's more relevant to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, I'd rather use it there. -12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was just suggesting putting it in the footnote rather than having a pointer to the act itself. Protonk (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sure, I can do that :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall

This is generally a well written and carefully patrolled article. I enjoyed reading it and I think it does a good service to the film and to the encyclopedia. I am going to place it on hold pending the resolution of some of the issues above. Thanks for the opportunity to review a fun article. :) Protonk (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let me know when you think you've taken care of close to all of the issues and I'll pass this article sometime later today. Thanks for jumping on this one so quickly. Good luck at FAC. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed all your concerns (I moved the image to production). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)