Talk:Star Trek: First Contact/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources to use

Useful Sources, Please Do Not Remove

• BRITISH FILM INTERNATIONAL
• GERAGHTY, Lincoln: Creating and Comparing Myth in Twentieth-Century Science...Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.33 n.3 , November 2005, p.191-200, English, illus'...Fiction: Star Trek and Star Wars'. Compares these two science fiction worlds and how they use history and myth.
• KEMPSTER, Grant: Star Trek: First Contact Film Review (0957-1809) n.658 , July 2005, p.137, English, illus
• ERRIGO, Angie: RWD: Star Trek: First Contact Empire n.193 , July 2005, p.164, English, illus

• BOND, Jeff: In Review: DVD: DVD in brief Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.37 n.3 , June 2005, p.62, English, illus

• DAVID, Taylor: 20 Greatest Time Travels StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec. n.68 , March 2005, p.119, English, illus Part of a whole issue on time travel, this article looks at science fiction books, films and tv shows on the subject.

• LYONS, Steve: The future? It just ain't what it used to be StarBurst (0955-114X) n.292 , December 2002, p.50-54,57, English, illus An overview of the time travel stories used in the STAR TREK franchise, questioning the alteration of some history events and their consequences in the timeline of the ENTERPRISE in particular.

• SPRAGG, Paul & ERAMO, Steve: Borg Queen TV Zone (0957-3844) v.No.44 n.Villain , February 2002, p.84-88, English, illus Article on the character of the Borg Queen in STAR TREK, and interview with actress Alice Krige. Part of a TV Zone special issue devoted to the top twenty villains in sci-fi and cult television.

• VASSIE, Graham: Jerry's trek Legend (0957-4794) n.35 , September 2001, p.14-20, English, illus Accounts of Jerry Goldsmith's music for the STAR TREK motion pictures.

• Reviews: DVD file StarBurst (0955-114X) n.264 , August 2000, p.88, English, illus

• RICHARDSON, David: The future is shiny StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Spec n.44 , June 2000, p.104-108,110-120,122-130, English, illus Extended feature on sci-fi DVDs including a look at the advantages of the format, reviews of DVDs available in regions 1 and 2 and STAR TREK's DVD debut.

• ERAMO, Steven: Cliff Bole:alien motives TV Zone (0957-3844) n.125 , April 2000, p.34-39, English, illus Interview with Cliff Bole director of countless episodes of all three STAR TREK spinoffs, THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, FANTASY ISLAND and T.J.HOOKER.

• BROOKS, James E.: Film reviews Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec n.No.22 , February 1998, p.90, English, illus

• HOLBEN, Jay: Rendering new worlds American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.78 n.9 , September 1997, p.76-78,80,82-88, English, illus Part one of a two-part series which examines a variety of CG software programs providing feature films with digital imaging special effects. Films illustrated include SPAWN (1997), DRAGONHEART (1996), STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT (1996).

• Film Tutti i Film della Stagione v.4 sic n.28 , July 1997, p.32-36, Italian, illus

• HALL, Jeff: The Jeff Hall report New Zealand Film Music Bulletin n.98 , May 1997, p.14, English Short review of Jerry Goldsmith's soundtracks for STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT and for The GHOST AND THE DARKNESS.

• PLACE, Paul: CD review Music from the Movies (0967-8131) n.14/15 , April 1997, p.25, English, illus

• MARTIN, Kevin H.: Phoenix Rising Cinefex n.69 , March 1997, p.98-119, English, illus Article about the special effects in STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT on digital images, animation and visual effects for the space ships; prosthetics, make-up and other effects for the cyborg creatures;

• PICKARD, Christopher & URBAN, Andrew L: To boldly go Moving Pictures International (0959-6992) n.25 , March 1997, p.36-37, English, illus The STAR TREK television series is one of the most success- ful to be translated to the big screen. With imaginative marketing STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT, the eighth film, has had the highest grossing debut.

• American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.78 n.2 , February 1997, p.10, English Correction to information in the article in December 1996 issue of American Cinematographer.

• HOLLOWAY, Ron: Star Trek fever sweeps Germany Moving Pictures International (0959-6992) n.24 , February 1997, p.13, English United International Pictures Frankfurt press office reports best start for any STAR TREK release in Germany.

• BROOKS, James E.: Film reviews Film Review (0957-1809) , January 1997, p.16,17, English, illus

• MAY, Caroline: Enterprise Culture Film Review (0957-1809) , January 1997, p.28-34, English, illus Interview with actor Patrick Stewart about STYAR TREK FIRST CONTACT

• FELPERIN, Leslie: reviews Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.7 n.1 , January 1997, p.48-49, English, illus

• DAWSON, Jeff: Q&A: Patrick Stewart Premiere v.4 n.12 , January 1997, p.82,83, English, illus Interview with Patrick Stewart about becoming a STAR TREK actor and his past and future work

• SMITH, Adam: new films Empire n.91 , January 1997, p.32, English, illus

• EIMER, David: Talking 'bout my generation Empire n.91 , January 1997, p.84-90, English, illus Jonathan Frakes discusses his experience of directing STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT.

• PERENSON, Melissa: Prepare for Contact StarBurst (0955-114X) n.Special , December 1996, p.29-32, English, illus

• THOMPSON, Andrew O.: Battling the Borg American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.77 n.12 , December 1996, p.58-66, English, illus Cinematographer Matthew F. Leonetti discusses the technicalities of creating the visual style for Jonathan Frakes' STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT.

• MAGID, Ron: Where no Trek has gone before American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.77 n.12 , December 1996, p.68-74, English, illus A description of the special effects created by Industrial Light & Magic for Jonathan Frakes' STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT.

• ALEXANDER, Jeff: High Trek Premiere (0894-9263) v.10 n.4 , December 1996, p.104,105, English, illus props from STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT

• KAPLAN, Anna L.: Star Trek First Contact Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.28 n.6 , December 1996, p.16-31, English, illus Extended feature on STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT, including interviews with cast and crew, special effects and production design

• KAPLAN, Anna L.: Star Trek First Contact Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.28 n.6 , December 1996, p.19, English, illus Part of an extended feature on STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT. Brent Spiner talks about his role as Data

• KAPLAN, Anna L.: Star Trek First Contact Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.28 n.6 , December 1996, p.20, English, illus Part of an extended feature on STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT. Ron Moore and Brannon Braga talk about the script for the film

• THEWLIS, Russell C.: CD reviews Legend (0957-4794) n.22 , December 1996, p.35, English, illus

• GOODRIDGE, Mike: Reviews Screen International (0307-4617) n.1086 , 29 November 1996, p.26, English

• LEYDON, Joe: Film reviews Variety (0042-2738) , 18 November 1996, p.59,64, English, illus

• Star Trek: The undiscovered past StarBurst (0955-114X) n.219 , November 1996, p.26-39, English, illus Special on STAR TREK: VOYAGER episode FLASHBACK and on FIRST CONTACT: interveiws with actors and crew members

• ALEXANDER, Jeff: Premiering: the Month in Movies Premiere (0894-9263) v.10 n.3 , November 1996, p.29,30, English, illus

• KAPLAN, Anna L.: First Contact Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.28 n.4/5 , November 1996, p.16-19, English, illus On set for the making of STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT, including comments by director Jonathan Frakes

• GOODRIDGE, Mike: Christmas Preview: Turkeys & Crackers Screen International (0307-4617) n.1081 , 25 October 1996, p.14-18, English, illus List of films to be released in the US between 8/11/1996 and 27/12/1996 with short comment on their box office prospects; also list of previous year's Christmas releases

• EIMER, David: Front desk in production: a fruitful enterprise Empire n.88 , October 1996, p.14, English, illus

• JONES, Oliver; BERGMAN KRAUSE, Eliza; POTTER, Maximilian; SP: The Ultimate Fall Preview Premiere (0894-9263) v.10 n.2 , October 1996, p.60,61, English Part of several short features on films to be released until the end of 1996 in the US

• CLARK, Stuart; HARPER, Nikki; CALCUTT, Ian: Star Trek: First Contact / They're Coming StarBurst (0955-114X) n.217 , September 1996, p.27-37, English, illus Article about the pre-production, script-development and casting for STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT; also about the story of the STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION seasons

• LOGAN, Michael: Trekking into tomorrow TV Guide (0039-8543) v.44 n.30 , 27 July 1996, p.26-27, 31-33, English, illus TV Guide previews new series for DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER and a second NEXT GENERATION feature film.

• Thomas, Mike: STAR TREK: Thirty years of STAR TREK StarBurst (0955-114X) v.Star n.Trek , June 1996, p.4-11, English, illus Article about the success of the STAR TREK series, the feature films, spin-off series up to the STAR TREK VIII; part of a special issue on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of STAR TREK

• Fuson, Brian: Film Production Hollywood Reporter (0018-3660) v.342 n.23 , 21 May 1996, p.19, 20, English Further details

• FILM LITERATURE INDEX

• Taylor, Bill. Letters: Trek collective. American Cinematographer 79 Mar (1998): 10.

• Felperin, Leslie. "Star Trek First Contact." Sight & Sound 7 Jan (1997): 48-49.

• Saunders, Matthew F. "Star Trek: First Contact." Cinefantastique 28 n10 (1997): 60.

• Herries, Iain. "Star Trek: First Contact." Film Score Monthly 2 n2 (1997): 34-35.

• Bond, Jeff. Jeff Bond's special commemorative 30th anniversary ad hominem attack on "Star Trek's" Rick Berman. Film Score Monthly 2 n1 (1997): 27-30.

• Martin, Kevin H. Phoenix rising. Cinefex n69 Mar (1997): 98-119.

• Stedman, Rus. [ST: FC, as it's already...] Audience n193 Feb/Mar (1997): 28-29.

• Larson, Randall D. "Star Trek: First Contact." Soundtrack!: the Collector?s Quarterly 16 Mar (1997): 30.

• Schultz, Rick. "Star Trek: First Contact." Boxoffice 133 Feb (1997): 70-71.

• Biodrowski, Steve. Where we've gone before. Cinefantastique 28 n8 (1997): 53.

• Uram, Sue. Future generations. Cinefantastique 27 n10 (1996): 5.

• Magid, Ron. Where no "Trek" has gone before. American Cinematographer 77 Dec (1996): 68-70+ [5p].

• Corliss, Richard. Aliens! Adventure! Acting! Time 148 Nov 25 (1996): 106.

• Lane, Anthony. Starlight barking. The New Yorker 72 Dec 9 (1996): 119-123.

• Thompson, Andrew O. Battling the Borg. American Cinematographer 77 Dec (1996): 58-62+ [7p].

• McDonagh, Maitland. "Star Trek: First Contact." The Film Journal 99 Dec (1996): 83.

• Kaplan, Anna L. Zephram Cochrane. Cinefantastique 28 n6 (1996): 29-30.

• Kaplan, Anna L. Production design. Cinefantastique 28 n6 (1996): 26-27.

• Kaplan, Anna L. Borg. Cinefantastique 28 n6 (1996): 24-25.

• Kaplan, Anna L. Special effects. Cinefantastique 28 n6 (1996): 23.

• Kaplan, Anna L. Writing the script. Cinefantastique 28 n6 (1996): 20.

• Kaplan, Anna L. "Star Trek: First Contact." Cinefantastique 28 n6 (1996): 16-18+ [9p].

• Kaplan, Anna L. Number One director. Cinefantastique 28 n4/5 (1996): 18-19.

• Kaplan, Anna L. "Star Trek: First Contact." Cinefantastique 28 n4/5 (1996): 16-17+ [3p].

• Dauphin, Gary. Contact high. The Village Voice 41 Dec 3 (1996): 68.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 10:25, 1 April 2009

Further sources

• You already use Hochman, but it's interesting to note that the copy I found is titled "Lost in Space?" with "Holiday Movie Preview" as a subtitle.
• It's not easy being frakes. By: Croal, N'Gai, Stone, Brad, Newsweek, 00289604, 5/20/96, Vol. 127, Issue 21. Short, but an interesting note about heightened security around the movie production and red script pages so people couldn't photocopy them.
• Most illogical. By: Nashawaty, Chris, Murphy, Maggie, Entertainment Weekly, 10490434, 12/06/96, Issue 356. Mentions the "even-number" theory and ST:FC's opening numbers.
• Anderson K. Where no man has gone before. TLS [serial online]. January 03, 1997;4892:18. Available from: MasterFILE Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 1, 2009. Discusses cultural relativism as depicted in the motion picture `Star Trek: First Contact.' The scholarship found in `Enterprise Zones: Critical positions on Star Trek,' by Taylor Harrison and others; The state of multiculturalism in late twentieth century Western culture; The symbolism of the Borg from the Star Trek universe. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Voyager design links

The information is all sourced at the end of the paragraph. Please do not continue to remove the content. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Budget sources

I haven't finished searching yet, but I have found very few sources for the budget of this movie, other than 46 million, listed here. The other sources listed in the article, either don't back up the claim of 45 million, or I have been unable to get ahold of yet. Has anyone seen the article in the Orange County newspaper that's being used as a basis for "45 million"? Can someone quote the relevant section even? If no one has seen this article, I think we need to find a better source. I've had one editor claim that the-numbers.com is not a good site for reference but did not give a reason, does anyone else know why this site might be considered unreliable? If there is no reason, I think we would have to move forward either by putting the-numbers.com on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and/or using WP:Verifiable as a policy that supports this insertion. Thoughts and flames may now commence! --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 03:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OC-Register: "In fact, it is the eighth movie in the series, and many Hollywood insiders believe that the $ 45 million "Star Trek: First Contact," which opens Friday, may eclipse even the revered second Trek movie (with Ricardo Montalban as the Corinthian- clad villain) and the popular fourth film, which had a whale of an environmental theme". Happy now? The Numbers is hardly a great source, and when there are more reliable sources from the actual time the film was made, it's a no-brainer which to use. Once again: just because you can't find the source doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or someone is making something up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Yup, I'm happy now, and wasn't that easy once you decided to respond to my questions instead of edit war? I did not at any time suggest you made up your source, I only asked you to follow WP guidelines. Seems reasonable. Having said that, one throw-away line in an article hardly seems definitive, especially compared to a source who's only reason to exist is to collect the exact type of data we're looking for. What is your basis for the-numbers not being "a great source"? I'm not saying they are, but I don't know of any reason they aren't yet. The difference between 45 and 46 million, imo, isn't that big a gap (but I'll take that extra million if someone offers!), if the-numbers had been off by 5, 10, or more million, I could see the immediate problem with that site. Anwyay, I look forward to reading your reply. Thanks again for pasting that quote. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would trust two print sources from the actual time of the movie over a for-profit online database started a year after the film's release. I can find more, if necessary, but that's rather absurd to have the budget sourced like this. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning here...you're saying you shouldn't trust a company that gets paid to have the correct numbers because they started up after the movie was made? That's like saying I can't write a book about Pearl Harbour because I wasn't born yet. I do agree that we do not need 4 sources for this budget though. However, your article from the Toronto Star was not only written before the movie was released (ergo, there's no way they could know the final budget), you also completely mis-read the article. The Toronto Star article only talks about "Spawn" being $45 million. The EW cite is about as close to useless as possible, since it doesn't mention numbers, and Berman only confirms the movie has a fair amount of action and doesn't mention any budget numbers (it's the author who makes the assumption using the word "presumably" that a larger budget means more action, it could just as easily have been salaries that caused the budget to go up). Further, as I said previously, the line you quoted above from the OC Register is a bit of a "throw-away line". As a check, I pulled this article from the OCR (Watchdog Section) today, it says "A federal judge fined him $1.4 million but waived the fine based on his inability to pay". However, according to the SEC the judge was "ordering them to pay disgorgement of $8,974,033 and $1,042,000, respectively, plus prejudgment interest and, based upon their financial conditions, waiving payment of all such amounts." So as you can see, there might be a little room for improvement on the OC Register's number accuracy. I'm NOT saying it's not a source we can use here, but I AM saying it's certainly not the be all/end all of numbers. Consequently, I am going to remove your invalid Toronto Star reference and re-insert the-numbers. Which btw, was agreed to as a reliable source here. I'd be completely in favour of removing that EW reference too, but if you think it adds something that's missing from the article, I don't have a problem with it being there, I just don't see a reason for it. Footnote, If you'd like a copy of the Toronto Star article, I have a copy available. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One person chiming in does not make it a reliable source. I fail to see how an article released two days before a film's release is somehow invalidated. Guess what? We take OCR to RSN, I bet they'd say it's a reliable source too. So don't give me this. I've added another two citations for the budget. Let's see you contest these ones. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How many chimes would make you happy? Ya, I get that you fail to see that, kinda like you failed to see your article doesn't talk about the movie's budget, at all? Of course you can take OCR to RSN, if you would read before shifting your fingers into gear, you'd see I already said "I'm NOT saying it's not a source we can use here", so, since I'm not arguing that point, I'm curious what you would gain from that, so don't give me that either please. And as agreed on previously, we don't need 4 citations. I don't know why you are so confrontational about this, it sure does seem to be against the spirit of WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:COOPERATION. I think if we can both drop all the snippiness here, we're aiming for the same goal aren't we (The most accurate, informative page about this movie, without unnecessary fluff, written well)? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Spare me the lectures and the alphabet soup, and I'd be much happier; spare me your blithe hypocrisy, and I'd be even more so. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise on the lectures and the attitude, and we'll be even. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lead, release date

Currently the lead says that this film was released in November 1996, however, IMDB shows it was only released in a 3 countries at that time. The majority of countries actually didn't get a release of the film until 1997. Is there some convention that says we go with the release date in the USA or something? Or should we change the lead to say it was released worldwide between nov 96 and Aug 97, grossing approx $150,000,000.00, or something like that? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to go for the date it was first released, plus the date of release in the country of origin. As they're the same in this case, November 1996 seems fine. Steve ^T • C 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lead, trimming issue...

Any objection to removing the phrase "After two better known directors turned down the job," from the lead? It seems a little unnecessary and it's explained with more clarity in the article anyway. It's reasonable to assume that lots of production staff of various positions were changed at one point, they don't have too much to do with the movie, and grammatically that sentence is very hard to craft into one cohesive thought, unless we remove that phrase. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I thought I'd mention it here first and listen to any opinions (I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to chopping it into 2 sentences somehow either, although I am already looking at the lead thinking it could be tightened up a little bit, not expanded). Thoughts/flames? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to find some leading copy for mentioning Frakes so it's not abrupt; it has more relevance considering he was not the first choice and the decisions they made that led to him being picked. If you want to reword it, be my guest. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with anything any better. Any thoughts on trimming the lead down in general? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'm comfortable with the amount and general structure of the lead (it is a 50KB article, it's not like its excessive to have four paragraphs) but I'm sure the actual prose and what facts are contained therein could be tinkered with. I wrote most of it before I'd fully finished the article body, based on the originally GA status version, and obviously it's changed a lot. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Make-up section questions

The last sentence of the make-up section is

Zimmerman, Everton and Westmore combined their efforts to design and create the borgified sections of the Enterprise to build tension, and make the audience feel that "[they are being fed] the Borg."

Aside from not being at all clear to me what this sentence means, I don't see where the reference points me to somewhere I can look it up. I was going to try and dis-ambiguate this sentence, but does anyone (Dave?) know where this reference is exactly? I can't tell if the sentence is supposed to mean that the audience is being fed the borg look, or if the look is supposed to make the audience think the crew and the ship are being fed on by the borg. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Frakes' audio commentary (listed in "references"). It means the audience is being fed the Borg look, yes, if it were the other way around there would be an "on" or "by". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It would still be syntactically correct for either meaning without "on" or "by", albeit less obviously so, but that's beside the point. As it stands now, that sentence isn't great, the *actual* quote being used is "the borg", and the rest is written in as intent. Does that seem great to you? I think we can tweak it up a bit, I like the idea behind the sentence, just not the execution of that thought, if you know what I mean. I don't have that audio commentary from "The Making Of" DVD, so if you do, any chance you can make that clearer, and maybe somehow produce a better quote? (If you don't have it, I can go rent it if necessary). --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 06:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't have the DVD, unfortunately (I've been waiting to just buy the whole 10-film set and haven't gotten around to it yet.) Tweak it how you want. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I know that feeling, if they'd quit comin out with the "This one's even bigger and better than the last set, you *have* to have this one!" set, I woulda bought em all already too. I'll put that on my to-do list until I have the source in front of me so we can make sure we get it right. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 05:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions

The first sentence under "Design" is "First Contact was one of the Star Trek films to use purely computer-generated models, rather than physical miniatures." While syntactically correct, it doesn't quite make sense and reads as if a word is missing (like "... one of the first...", perhaps). Not having access to the DVD, I don't know what the original source states.

My other question regards "Magic Carpet Ride". Are we sure it's Steppenwolf? I recall the recording in the film being distinctly different from what I've heard countless times on the radio, and I'd always been under the impression it was a cover version.

-- Powers ^T 20:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is Steppenwolf. So says IMDb, and John Kay's voice is unmistakeable. Jrgilb (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Uniforms

I think it's important to note that the uniforms designed for this movie went on to be used in Deep Space Nine and in the next two films as well. It shows the lasting impact of the costume designs. Powers ^T 14:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine to add, so long as we have a source for it (you didn't). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's rather non-controversial, don't you think? No harm in letting the statement stand until a source can be found, is there? Powers ^T 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On a featured article? Yes. [there is harm] Rehevkor ✉ 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Awkward Sentences

I'm reluctant to edit this article so I'll talk a bit instead. My main beef is that many of the sentences are clunky. I don't mean to offend anyone - it just seems that there's often too much information or it's all jammed together awkwardly (or there's overuse of commas and semicolons). For example:

Empire magazine's Adam Scott wrote that some of the characters, particularly Troi and Crusher, were lost in the film, and that the rapid pacing of the film left no time for those unfamiliar with the series to know or care about the characters; likewise, Emily Carlisle of the BBC praised Woodard's, Spiner's, and Stewart's performances, but felt the film focused more on action than characterization.

It works, but my brain stammered through it. Scott said this:

But what he loses is the cosy sense of family which the TV series drew upon, with most characters looking thin and lost on the big screen, and some (Dr. Crusher and Councillor Troy, in particular) almost totally ignored. And with a script that plunges right into the action, there's nowhere near enough time for those not familiar with the series to get to know and care about the characters.

Given that, we can reword the first bit like this:

Empire Magazine's Adam Scott wrote that some characters were lost or ignored and that series newcomers wouldn't appreciate them due to the fast-paced script.

The Troi & Crusher references are asides to Scott's main point. I don't know that the mention is necessary - this could go either way, but taking it out definitely improves readability. If it's to be included I'd suggest making it parenthetical because parentheses don't break the flow of a sentence so harshly as commas.

The other bit of sentence reads perfectly well - it should just be by itself (it might stand losing its last comma, though). As another example, here's a sentence where a comma would be better replaced by a word:

First Contact was released on videotape in late 1997, one of several titles expected to boost sluggish sales at video retailers.

If that comma were an "as" instead the sentence would flow exquisitely. Again, this is a stylistic change more than anything - I don't want to go make little alterations like this if it's considered bad form (or otherwise prohibited by Wikipedia policy).--Jambeeno (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the above when I have more time to actually ponder sentence construction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You can edit this article. Anyone can. It's not protected in any way. Powers ^T 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Scholarly analysis"

The reference to this in the lead (last sentence) kind of jumps out a little. I mean, it's only a sci-fi adventure romp, isn't it? Looking down the article to the Themes section, it seems there are a couple of references that might just about justify this observation, but it still seems a bit pretentious for the lead. I don't think the article would be diminished by removal of that sentence. N-HH talk/edits 13:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How's it pretentious? Critics and scholars have examined aspects of the film, and since the themes section is a significant component of the article it should be mentioned in the lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about the works of Shakespeare here, which are indeed put to "scholarly analysis" - it's a 90 minute Star Trek feature film, and you don't have to be a cultural elitist (I'm not particularly) to see there's an issue about "exaggerated importance, worth or stature". The body of the article would appear to suggest that the film has been subject to brief comment in a vaguely academic context on a couple of occasions, but I'm not sure the lead should overplay that, or even needs to really mention it at all. Anyway, just an observation - I guess people will have different views on it. N-HH talk/edits 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lily Sloane

Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic, but why is the LIly Sloane redirect Google's first Wiki result for this movie? Is there a way to fix that, does anyone know? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. But it's a Google thing, I'm not sure how the average Wikipedia editor would know. Rehevkor ✉ 23:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Google-juice gives high rankings to Wikipedia articles, and so that's why a redirect rates so highly. It's their fault, not ours :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't sure if anyone may've had any ideas to correct Google. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2 questions about Cochrane

Since the film is largely about Cochrane's warp experiments. I would have liked to have seen these questions answered in the film. Since Earth is suffering the aftermath of a post-apocalyptic World War III environment, with little evidence of an organized government, where did he get:

1. A large enough quantity of antimatter to fuel a warp ship and 2. A large enough quantity, or even discovery of, dilithium crystals to control a warp drive reactor.

Kochamanita (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as these weren't asked or answered in the film, this is not the place to discuss it. Talk pages are for discussing article content only, not their subject. Rehevkor ✉ 19:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the novel, he didn't use either. Remember that antimatter is just a power source, and dilithium is just a moderator for the antimatter reaction. The Phoenix was a very small ship not designed for high speed, so would not have extreme power requirements (or at least not that extreme). According to the novel, the Phoenix is powered by a nuclear reactor, with the fuel coming from the materials of the nuclear warhead that the missile originally contained. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two plot points

Explanations for two changes I'm about to make to the plot summary:

• I've always thought, since seeing the film in the theater in 1996, that the reason Starfleet didn't want the Enterprise-E in battle against the Borg Cube was because it thought that Picard—who had been "once captured and assimilated by the Borg"—had been compromised by his experience, and might come under the enemy's control again. This is my own interpretation, but it seems to be no less supported by the film than the current explananation of concern about his being too "emotionally involved". I'm going to simply quote the film and say that Starfleet does not wish to introduce an "unstable element" to the battle.
• Right after Data complies with Picard's request for the current status of the cube, the audio clearly plays the Borg's "whispers" which Picard, pausing for a moment, can hear in his mind; that is what causes him to order the fleet to target a seemingly harmless section of the cube. (This, in turn, thematically closes up the previous plot point; he is indeed still tied into the Borg's mental network, but not in a subversive way.) That Picard hears the Borg is not WP:OR; as the Borg sphere ship heads to Earth, more whispers appear on the audio. Troi notices Picard's expression, and asks "What?" to which he responds, "I can hear them." YLee (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The first point is debatable; the second point is, I think, irrelevant in the context of describing the plot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to explain exactly how/why Picard decides to order the fleet to attack a seemingly useless section of the cube and why it immediately blows up. (I agree with your flow improvements.) YLee (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that the whispers would be telling him where to target; the fact that he used to be Locutus means that he knows their strengths and weaknesses. The way the article currently reads, it seems to suggest that the two are related, but it's just as easily read as being the sequence of events. However, it appears that it's sourced to Nemecek's book (which I don't have and can't verify). *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the cite was already there. I simply added the explanation of how Picard knows exactly where to attack, which otherwise would be something of a non sequitur. He shows no sign of such knowledge before the whispers, but orders the attack immediately afterwards. Again, why else does the film establish that he can "hear them"? It's not so he knows they are coming ahead of time (except, perhaps during the opening nightmare); the several times the whispers occur, the Borg are right in front of him. YLee (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's feasible, but it's still your analysis of what went on. The Nemecek book doesn't say anything on the matter, but the synopsis on the official site[1] suggests that your interpretation is erroneous, to wit: "As the starship Defiant is about to ram the Borg ship on a suicide run, the U.S.S. Enterprise beams aboard its crew, including Worf. Picard, having an inside perspective of the Borg and their vessel, focuses the firepower of the fleet on coordinates he knows to be critical. " Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the above leans slightly closer to EVula's interpretation than mine, but "inside perspective" could certainly come from eavesdropping on Borg comm traffic. In any case, the current text as it stands simply states that Picard hears Borg communications then orders the attack, which is factually true; readers are free to determine for themselves what contribution the former had to do with the latter. YLee (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)