Talk:A Trip to the Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article A Trip to the Moon has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Victory Parade[edit]

The article claims that the victory parade only appears on the colour version found in 2002. I watched La Voyage dans la lune yesterday (6th February 2007) at the National Film Theatre and it did include this victory parade, but the entire film was in black and white. Does anyone know more about this? On another note, shoudln't the article be titled "La Voyage dans la lune" - that is the film's title, with "A trip to the moon" a re-direct? Tompagenet 08:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the 'victory parade' section is confusing - maybe the BFI has some info? About the title, Wikipedia policy is to use the English release title. Cop 633 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My DVD of Georges Méliès films (released by Arte, NTSC version) shows a complete version of Le Voyage dans la lune, ending and all. Thus the information is wrong.User:some guy who don't know how Wikipedia works 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Sections needed[edit]

  • Initial release information (dates, places, reactions, etc.)
  • Subsequent critical analysis
  • Behind the scenes information (production information, how they did some of the special effects, etc.)
  • Impact on pop culture
What are the things you should know about this movie? -BiancaOfHell 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GAN on hold[edit]

  • Where's your GA/FA count, out of curiosity (AnonDiss)?
    • In Special:Contributions/Anonymous Dissident. I'd prefer to go out and actually contribute than fiddle with stats. And I guess I'd start worrying about where I could draw the line about calling a FA/GA my own, how many I have, whether I am x amount of numbers higher or lower than the next person... nup, not for me. I prefer to just mosey around, add a bit here and there, and maybe chip in a bit on various collabs. Much easier going I find. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The film runs 14 minutes if projected at 16 frames per second." - 16fps isn't the default, is it? Better to say the the time when running at whatever the default framerate is
    • Firstly, I suppose how long it went for when filmed gives historical context, secondly, I have no idea how would would work out the adjusted running time.
  • "It is also considered by many to" - also not necessary
    • Fixed
  • 2nd paragraph of lead should be longer than 1st, and about the same length as 3rd. For aesthetics and for general practice...needs reorganisation, basically.
    • Fixed
  • Quotes in 3rd paragraph need refs
    • Fixed
  • Ref 4 needs formatting like others
    • Fixed
  • "Exhausted by their journey, the astronomers" - they were the explorers in the last sentence. Be consistent
    • Fixed.
  • "wakens the explorers. The explorers then" - redundancies
    • Fixed
  • "(continuing to whack the pursuing Selenites on the way)" - Can you use a better word than "whack"?
  • Complete version section could probably be L3 (as part of the preceeding one)
    • Fixed.
  • There's a stack of white space under the Distribution section
    • Fixed
  • "same event is shown twice, and very differently" quote needs attribution
    • Fixed
  • Anything on "reception"?
    • That's kind of hashed over in the lead, where it is mentioned that it is the most celebrated film my the director, and also in the third para of Analysis.

And a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Seven refs to make it a GA?! Lugnuts (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Was the Moon a man or a woman?[edit]

This article mentions the "Man in the Moon" character in the film. The "Moon" was played by a woman, and IMDb list the character as "Lady in the moon". Is there any evidence that Méliès specified the Moon was meant to be a man? (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Man in the moon" (centuries old legend) was played by a woman, simple as that. There's no credits to the film, the character is clearly the "Man in the moon". (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to necro an old discussion, but the film's title is Le Voyage dans la lune. It's female. GRAPPLE X 07:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think this is Bleuette Bernon?
Why are you people assuming the face seen in the film is that of a woman? Just because of the thick lips and eyelashes? In the old silent film days, actors of both sexes often wore heavy makeup. And the filming of this movie is portrayed in From the Earth to the Moon (TV miniseries), which is carefully staged to seamlessly match the actual footage. Tom Hanks portrays Méliès's assistant, personally constructing the plaster Moon like a cream pie around a male actor's face. You have to be careful about IMDB; it's not always a reliable source. Our article says Bleuette Bernon is "one lady in the Moon", not the lady; she could have very well been one of several Moon maidens depicted in the film. Since she played Joan of Arc, I doubt very much that she's this ugly guy with the "cannon shell" stuck in his eye. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tonight, Tonight[edit]

There should be mention in the article of the Smashing Pumpkin's music video for "Tonight, Tonight" being based on the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesecake42 (talkcontribs) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:A Trip to the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I don't believe this article currently meets the GA criteria as it isn't that well written, is not broad in coverage and only has 7 references for the whole article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'ts really. This arcicle was'nt a good article. Botedance (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. Close too. The well-written-ness of this should get a speedy fail. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:A Trip to the Moon poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:A Trip to the Moon poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing scenes in embedded film[edit]

I think the film is supposed to end with some scenes of triumph, after the travellers' return to Earth. Yet in the film embedded in this article (stored in Commons) those scenes are missing: the film ends with the shell being towed to port.

I've been looking up in Commons and in and I found the following files:

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

The film embedded in the article is the file in case 1. There it's written that the source to the file in case 1 is the file in case 2. One can say for sure it is not the same file. Could it have been derived from?

To the matter in hand: what can one do now?, regarding the missing scenes

  • do nothing
  • upload another file to Commons and embed it in this article instead of the current file
  • add to the article a notice about the missing scenes and a link to another file Garsd (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Around the World in Eighty Days (1956 film)[edit]

The Oscar winning film Around the World in 80 Days, starts with a shorten version of a Trip to the Moon. MBG (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Moon sighting[edit]

Cory Doctorow posted on Boing Boing a few years back about a Méliès tribute on an iron fence in New York. I can't figure out whether this is notable enough to be mentioned the article (I highly suspect it isn't), but if somebody wants to add it in, here's the ref text:

Doctorow 2009

And here's the citation:

--Lemuellio (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Its cute, but I don't think its really notable. --GHcool (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

External links cleanup[edit]

I would appreciate suggestions on how to clean up the "External links" section of this article. Currently, in addition to the standard IMDb, AllMovie, and Rotten Tomatoes listings, the section includes the following miscellany (quoted from this edit of the page):

The first of these items seems of questionable value, but perhaps some readers would find it interesting, so I'm not sure whether to keep it. The second is merely a scan of two pages from a book about Méliès, and the information therein doesn't seem particularly notable, so I'd wager this link can be removed, but again, I'd value any suggestions.

What about the final five? Since the film is in the public domain, certainly a link to the complete film might be worthwhile, but five links seems like overkill at best. Each of the linked versions are slightly different, however, so it's tough to tell which (if any) to keep. Thoughts?--Lemuellio (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Trip to the Moon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within the week. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

General comments after glancing at the article but preceding the actual review
  • The lead needs expanding per WP:FILMLEAD, "... Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body".
  • There are 5 "Harv errors" in the Ref section. If you install this, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, the errors are immediately visible in red/bold.
  • Ref87: pp. 18 --> p. 18

More later. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The infobox uses the title card instead of the original theatrical poster, and according to Template:Infobox film, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article". I found many "contemporary" posters here, so please do upload something from there. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Thanks so much. I've installed the code and fixed the Harv errors, and will get to work on the lead.
Kailash29792: Thank you for your interest in the page. A contemporary theatrical poster for the film would be a great addition to the article, but, as far as I can tell, none survive. Following the links from the Google Image search reveals that the "posters" there are all modern images; for example, this one was made in 2012 as a collectible art print, this one used to be the WP article image but was taken down when it was proven to date from the mid 20th-century, and this one is the very title card I uploaded, digitally manipulated to look like a poster! It's true that posters and DVD covers exist related to the 2011 restoration with music by Air, but using one of those in the infobox would be tantamount to promoting a single copyrighted release of the film rather than the public-domain film itself, so that doesn't seem like a viable solution either.
So, given the lack of an authentic poster authorized by Méliès, I've turned to the advice on Template:Infobox film: "In the absence of an appropriate poster or cover image, a screenshot of the film's title card may also be used." Please let me know what you think, and thanks again.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've expanded the lead, and I think (mind you, I did say "think") that it now covers everything that WP:FILMLEAD asks of it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I also noticed that the lead section gives the official French title as "Voyage dans la Lune", but the infobox pic says "Le Voyage dans la Lune". Why is "Le" missing in the lead? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Good question. I took the titles from Jacques Malthête's 2008 Méliès filmography, which consistently uses the earliest available titles found in Méliès's official catalogues. However, Malthête also acknowledges that these titles were sometimes changed in later editions of the catalogues; in this case, it's clear that the film eventually became known as "Le Voyage dans la Lune". I've added a short explanation of the missing "Le" in footnote [a]; see what you think.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • add wl - silent film
  • " tow" - needs rewording
Done both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 3 only contains 1 sentence. Seems that more could be added to the paragraph.
  • Refs aren't needed in the lead unless there is an extraordinary claim
I think what is sourced is appropriate actually, one being in a footnote about the naming, and the second naming it as one of the 100 best films I think is actually a bold claim in which a citation doesn't look too out of place. Agreed on the UNESCO ref though which I've removed. The data in the infobox is OK sourced I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Méliès's - Méliès' (needs to be fixed elsewhere in the article as well)
I think I prefer Méliès's.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "At a meeting of the Astronomic Club, their president Professor Barbenfouillis..." - their vs. its; also, add comma after president
  • "calls down ..." - needs rewording
  • "dashes him..." - needs rewording
  • "exploding him" - needs rewording
  • "The astronomers run back to their capsule while continuing to hit the pursuing Selenites, and five get inside." - clarify that the astronomers get inside, not the Selenites
Addressed the above. I've actually added The sixth astronomer, to the next sentence so it should make it clear what is being referred to previously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "marines" - it's lc here but uc in the Cast section; go for consistency
What's lc and uc? sorry!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Georges Méliès as Professor Barbenfouillis.[1][12] Méliès, a pioneering French filmmaker and magician now generally regarded as the first person to recognize the potential of narrative film,[13] had already achieved considerable success with his film versions of Cinderella (1899) and Joan of Arc (1900);[14] his extensive involvement in all of his films—as director, producer, writer, designer, technician, publicist, editor, and often actor—makes him one of the first cinematic auteurs.[15] " - this sentence is too long
Done, also removed the dashes which I don't think are needed in a separate sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "have frequently suggested" - frequently suggested
  • add wl - Buffalo, New York
Altered both. I've also reworded it to Inspiration.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Méliès' longest film to date" - this suggests he's still making films
  • "mechanically operated" - mechanically-operated
  • "Many of the special effects in A Trip to the Moon, as in many of Méliès's films..." - many/many
Addressed all three.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • add wls - New York City, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Detroit, New Orleans, and Kansas City
Black-and-white print
  • In 1917 - add comma
  • In 1925 - add comma
  • add wl - Los Angeles
Done all expect Los Angeles which I can't find. MoS guidelines I believe advise against linking big cities like NYC and LA though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "(The stationary position of the camera, which became known as one of Méliès's characteristic trademarks, was one of the most important elements of the style; he often moved his camera when making actualities outdoors—for example, 15 of his 19 short films about the 1900 Paris Exposition were shot with a moving camera setup—but he considered a theatrical viewpoint more appropriate for the fiction films staged in his studio.)" - too much content in parentheses
Trimmed and split.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "A Trip to the Moon remains Méliès's most famous film as well as an iconic example of early cinema, with the image of the capsule stuck in the Man in the Moon's eye particularly famous" - famous/famous
Reworded, its the eye which is the iconic image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Filmsquish — Blog-A-Thon of critics celebrating the film - not encyclopedic so rmv it
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost done; will finish later. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Rosiestep:. I've addressed most points I think. Article looks in good shape at a glance, excellent work Lemuellio. I'll give it a full read and edit if necessary and see if I can add anything to it tomorrow if that's OK with both of you. Looks like it already has a very good grasp of the main elements though which is all that is needed for GA but we'll see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: and @Dr. Blofeld:: Thank you both so much! I appreciate the detailed review, and was surprised and delighted to find everything already taken care of.
Having studied the review and Dr. Blofeld's work, I've made a few small changes as follows, but am open to discussion about them:
Inspiration: It seems to me that "historians have frequently suggested X" implies that historians have often suggested X in the past and continue to suggest it occasionally, whereas "historians frequently suggested X" implies that they used to suggest X but no longer do. The former is what I meant, not the latter, so I've tentatively changed it back. Let me know if this seems wrong.
Filming: I had always heard (and a quick Google search seems to verify) that grammarians discourage using hyphens after adverbs, so I've changed "mechanically-operated" back to "mechanically operated."
Style: I completely agree that the parenthetical information about camera movement was awkwardly placed; thanks for addressing it. I fear, however, that the revised version may strike readers as a bit confusing. I'm experimenting with setting the whole passage as a footnote, which seems to work a little better.
Legacy: Good catch of the double "famous, and good point about what "iconic" should describe. I've tweaked the wording a bit, just so the paragraph will flow better.
Again, thanks so much. I look forward to continuing the review process.--Lemuellio (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lemuellio: and @Dr. Blofeld: - Good job, both of you. I think this is about ready to pass. I'll check back tomorrow in case you make additional improvements. P.S. lc = lower case; uc/UC = upper case. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just fixed the lc/uc inconsistency. And yes, @Dr. Blofeld:, please do feel free to make whatever additional edits you think appropriate.--Lemuellio (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've finished with it now @Rosiestep:, should be fine to pass now. It reads very well! Compare it with the French wiki article!! Should bring a smile to your face Lemuellio! Such an important film article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing mention of illegal copying in the Release section[edit]

IN the release section, several mentions were made that Edison and others illegally distributed the film. Reading of the source material does not support this interpretation. Also, movies were not covered by copyright law in the USA until the 1912 Townshend Amendment to the 1909 revision of copyright law, and neither the Amendment nor the 1909 law existed when Edison reproduced and distributed copies of the film. Deleted all uses of "illegal" in the section.

Realspool32 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

VPP discussion[edit]

This movie has come up in a VPP discussion, where some people are arguing it's always wrong to embed full length movies in Wikipedia. This article already had one film embedded, in the last section; I added the one for the film itself in this edit. In my opinion, we should make it quickly and visibly apparent to readers when a movie is genuinely available for them to watch right here, right now. I see there is past discussion of which embedded film to use, and maybe someone took it out, so I might have come into an existing controversy here; in any case I think the opinion from people editing this page would be useful. Wnt (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for opinions, Wnt!
The video clip in question was actually already on the page, in the "Release" section (where it was correctly identified as an incomplete version of the film), so I've removed it from the infobox. I would strongly recommend a cautious attitude toward putting full-length films on pages, and especially in infoboxes, for numerous reasons. Here are a few of them:
  • According to Template:Infobox film, the purpose of the "image" parameter is to supply "a relevant image for the film … Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded … In the absence of an appropriate poster or cover image, a screenshot of the film's title card may also be used." Using this parameter instead to host a full-length streaming film simply does not fit its intended purpose, creating an inconsistency.
  • This film, like almost every other silent film ever made, was intended to be experienced with a musical score. The versions on Wikipedia Commons are necessarily silent (for lack of a public-domain recording of a score for the film), so to call any of them "the complete film" is a bit deceptive: it's not the full experience which the filmmaker intended, and which you can get from any reputable home-video release of the film. In other words, it may look like the "movie is genuinely available for [readers] to watch right here, right now," but the experience they'll get is in fact missing an important component.
  • Preparing films, especially old films, for home-video releases is a complicated process that often involves all of the following steps: working with numerous public and private collections to determine what fragments/versions of the film survive; combining incomplete prints to reconstruct a complete version, often simply "as close to complete as possible"; restoring tints, tones, and/or hand-coloring missing from the prints in question; removing scratches and other film damage, using chemicals or digital tools or both; recreating title cards missing from the film; researching how fast the film was meant to be projected (i.e. how many frames per second); and compiling all this work into a DVD- or Blu-Ray-ready format. Much of this might be written off as sweat of the brow work, but can we really just rip a painstaking restoration from a DVD and write it off as public-domain? I honestly don't know. I wish there were a clearer policy at Commons about this.
Thank you for drawing my attention to the VPP discussion; I'll put a comment or two there as well, so that the conversation can continue.--Lemuellio (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Lemuellio: In general "image" is a deprecated equivalent of "file" - I see no reason why the film itself doesn't make a good image when it is available. A note that the soundtrack is not provided would however be useful. As to the morality of copyright, well, I see none. All the time we deny our readers access to content that ought to be available, except some court ruled it off limits to us. When the court rules in the public's favor, you want to change the rules? No, if we can provide it we should. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)