Talk:Journey to the Beginning of Time

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

I agree with much of the critcal assessment provided by this article, but such critical assessment simply does not belong in a wikipedia article. This article needs extensive clean-up. —70.166.81.2 (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically disagree that the article requires some "extensive clean-up". Most of the article just presents some dry facts about the movie and its director. And that one critical comment (concerning really unfortunate and strange American "version", where even no adequate credits were given to Zeman's original) are written even very gently, as in reality, most film experts would rather use much stronger expressions of criticism. ArepoEn (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article reads very well as is - the criticism of the American version is fully warranted and perhaps should be made even stronger that it reads now. Anyone who has watched both versions will testify that the Czech original is far superior to the US 'version' (which unfortunately is the one generally available commercially). Zeman's film set new standards in animation helped by the Burian influence in most of the reconstructions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria613 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst appreciating the work that has been put into this article, and Aria613's protestations, the article as it stood read like an advertisement. Consequently I have removed the most flagrant POV terminology, and have added cleanup tags in several instance. 193.82.198.157 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have re-worded a number of sections partly to correct the previous edit because the meaning of the text had been altered in some cases (possibly unintentionally) - eg. the claim that US animated films used contrived environments for filmimg which is not what the text implied. Note that factual observations do not require in-text citations (but may still serve a purpose) so I have removed a number of citation requests. Statements regarding the quality of commercial prints clearly fall into this category and are certainly not flagrant POVs. In the case of this film, which is so little known outside of Europe having never been commercially released in the west, it is most unlikely that anyone will source publications stating that the original print is of better quality than a commercially-available re-make (anyone who has access to the different versions, as I do, will verify that the original is the one that is sought by enthusiasts for obvious reasons, and that the US version in particular is of very poor quality). Removing such statements may not only reflect poorly on the original film but fails to alert readers to the fact that commercially-available DVDs may not represent the same quality (or even the same film) as the original. I also changed some of the text to reflect the fact that this film was made using unorthodox methods and added the very obvious similarities of the plot with that of Doyle's novel The Lost World. I hope this clarifies the situation. Maxzden Apr 22 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzden (talk • contribs) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]