Did you know? That the first entirely CGI sequence in movie history was in 1981's The Wrath of Khan? That the film is credited as resurrecting the Star Trek franchise? That it helped launch the nascent VHS format's adoption in homes? If you didn't, then you didn't read this article. Thanks goes to Alientraveller and Protonk for fixes and reviews as well as Ruhr for providing helpful comments as always at peer review. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Images all check out: the 2 non-frees are appropriate and rationaled, Roddenberry's is free with appropriate notification of such. --MASEM 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I won't have time for a more in depth review until the weekend, but for now have a quick look through for overlinked terms. Do we really need to know what a television series is? :) SteveT • C 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I ran through everything besides the lead. I did another run-through and removed a few more linkies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
quick comment also - groovy read. I'm glad to see a variation in references (not just one good source and some simple other links). Readability off the toollink is maybe a touch high, but I don't think worth fussing. If individual sentences and paragraphs are evaluated for clear prose that will likely adjust those numbers.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
How are you determining what's a good result on the readability tool? Feel free to take to my talk if you think it not relevant for this page. SteveT • C 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking that a gradelevel readability of mid-US highschool is a bit high, general readability newspapers and magazines aim for about 7th/8th grade level. Makes it more accessible to a broader spectrum of readers. Not something that should be taken as an oppose to FAC for the article though. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - That's a terrible picture of Gene Roddenberry, or rather the back of someone's head. In this particular case I would prefer to see a fair use image or no image at all, rather than such a poor quality photo. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you crop out the someone-else's-head? Giggy (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If the source image was of high-enough resolution, I would probably have photoshopped out that stuff, but as it is that's infeasible given the position. I'm trying to get a free picture of Nicholas Meyer, but no one has responded back to me yet (If I did get it, I would probably replace the gene shot.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments I have some concerns about there being sufficient context for the unfamiliar reader. Now, I for one have seen this film many times, and am familiar with the Star Trek franchise, as I assume the primary editors of this article are as well. But it's important to make sure you aren't assuming too much of the readers. For example, the year of release wasn't even mentioned in the lead; I had to add it. There's other problems in the lead. Who's Kirk? Is he the protagonist? The lead makes it seem like Khan is the main character, when he isn't. Who plays Kirk? The character and death of Spock is mentioned an entire paragraph before the actor who played him is. Try and find someone who's unfamiliar with the topic and ask them to go through the article and give you feedback on its accessability. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; I think the prose could do with another pass to eliminate redundancies and ambiguities. Examples and other issues follow; none are unfixable during the lifetime of this FAC. Please take any seemingly-snarky comments as being firmly tongue-in-cheek:
Strike both. SteveT • C 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Missing information that's included in most, if not all, film articles: in which year was the film made and released? Who stars?
Almost done. The new wording ("based on the Star Trek science fiction television series, released in 1982 by Paramount Pictures") makes it sound as if the series was released in 1982. An "and was" after the comma might do the trick. SteveT • C 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"The film is a sequel to the original series episode "Space Seed", in which Ricardo Montalbán reprises his role as the genetically-engineered tyrant Khan Noonien Singh." This makes it sound as if Montalbán reprised his role in "Space Seed", not Wrath of Khan.
Mix of in-universe and out-of-universe wording: "The film concludes with the death of Spock, beginning a story arc that continues to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in 1986." While technically correct (they do go back in time to 1986, after all), I don't think this is quite what you meant. Or is it? Either way, clarify.
Use of "movie" and "film". I recommend picking one (my choice would be the latter) and sticking with it throughout.
Explanation accepted. SteveT • C 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"Nicholas Meyer was made director after writing a final script for the film in twelve days, without accepting a writing credit;" He was made director because he wrote the script in twelve days, or simply after? The article body doesn't make this clear either. Indeed, it doesn't really say how Meyer came to be involved at all. Also, there's no need for a semi-colon there; a new sentence would be better.
Much more understandable, ta. SteveT • C 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Some redundant wording: "for the film"/"of the film", "Upon release", etc.
"Production used various cost-cutting techniques to keep under budget, including utilizing old miniatures from past movies." One film, the original series, and other TV projects, so no plural, or switch "past movies" to "previous Star Trek projects" or similar.
Some redundant wording throughout: "itself", "externally", "in order to" (to), "The film opens with a female Vulcan in command of the USS Enterprise..." Why not mention Saavik's name here, instead of wasting words at the end of the paragraph?
"Project Genesis" is not the device itself, but the project/process. Suggest piping with "Genesis Device" or recasting the sentence to make clearer. Keep capitalisation (or not) of "Genesis Device" consistent throughout the article.
It always seemed to me that for a genetically advanced superman, Khan was pretty stupid to fall for Kirk and Spock's blatantly transparent code transmission. Nothing to do with the article, I just wanted to get that out there. :)
What was I thinking? SteveT • C 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The first line of each entry is a fragment. It really doesn't work when you follow it with properly-constructed prose.
Some redundancies: "the two actors'..." Might work better simply as "their". "...stated in promotional interviews for the film that..." Why not replace this whole bit with "said" or equivalent? "...Meyer's desire to direct him in scenes." As opposed to at the supermarket?
"Khan's anger at the death of his wife justifies his pursuit of Kirk." Is this still Montalbán's opinion? It reads like that of a third party. "According to Nimoy, he reasoned..." "Nimoy reasoned"? Several uses of "...in the film" or similar. Only use where necessary to disambiguate. "...as per the script" isn't needed; the scene is in the film, isn't it?
"Meyer made it clear in film commentary that..." Again, there's no particular reason to say where he said this. That information is in the citation, and naming the source in the text should only be done if it's contradicting another reliable source or is controversial in some way. Check for other instances throughout.
"Meyer was looking for an actor who looked beautiful enough that it was plausible a wandering womanizer such as Kirk would fall for her, yet could also project a sense of intelligence." Suggest removing "wandering" as irrelevant, and adding a "who" after "yet" to disambiguate.
"Kirk's son, who has grown up to be a scientist like his mother." A similar kind of scientist to his mother, or "a scientist, like his mother"?
To be honest, I think the whole of this section could do with another pass. Examples include: "Meyer said that he did everything within budget to change the look of Star Trek in order to create a nautical atmosphere". There are two ways in which that can be read. "The original ship miniatures were used when possible, or else modified to stand in as a new construction." Plural suddenly switches to singular.
"Costume designer Robert Fletcher decided to use the dark red due to the strong contrast it provided with the background to create The Wrath of Khan's naval-inspired uniforms, which would be used in the films until 1996's Star Trek: First Contact." A little tortuous, consider splitting and reordering the statements.
Redundant words throughout: "$46 million cost", "of the film", etc.
Unnecessarily verbose throughout. Example: "Scott plays "Amazing Grace" on the bagpipes during the scene, which was James Doohan's idea" could be pared down to "Scott's playing "Amazing Grace" during the scene was James Doohan's idea." Even that "during the scene" might be unnecessary.
"soft-landed" --> "soft-landing". Lose the semi-colon and start a new sentence. "Meyer objected to the changes, but did not stand in the way of the modifications." Either "to the changes" or "of the modifications" is redundant; I'd go with removal of the former.
"While many publications felt that Spock's death was dramatic and well-handled..." Weasel wording; citing "many" to just two reviews is problematic.
Struck, but are there any good cites that reflect properly on the film's critical reception? SteveT • C 20:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Negative reviews of the film also focused on the acting of the aged stars." Were the actors' ages a factor in the criticism of their acting? If not, remove the word. If so, clarify so it's less an implication.
I'm not entirely sure the layout conforms to Manual of Style guidance, but I can't find anything specific other than this, which is just a recommendation really. Generally speaking in film articles that feature cast sections as prose entries, the text isn't on a separate line to the "[actor] as [character]" entry. Examples include Changeling (film)#Casting or Iron Man (film)#Cast. If you keep it as is, there's no real reason to bold the names if they're on separate lines, it's more to make them stand out in text-heavy entries such as those. Again, this is your choice as far as I'm concerned, but be aware that someone else might come along armed with a better MOS link.SteveT • C
To keep the out of universe tone, the actors' names should go first. And "Shatner and his film nemesis Khan..." mixes OOU and IU tones disconcertingly. Use either "Kirk and Khan" or "Shatner and Montalbán".SteveT • C 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Release and reception" section, "Critical response" subsection:
Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source for the statement "Critical response to The Wrath of Khan was positive." The site is only really reliable for judging the critical consensus of films released after about 2000; for films before then, they're pretty selective (for example, Fight Club, which split critics right down the middle in 1999, has a very high score on the site too). If you note the dates of the reviews on the page, they range from this year all the way back through the 00s. Only two pre-date 2000.
Newer wording places less emphasis on it as a retrospective statement. SteveT • C 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
KHAAAAN! Sorry, I mean 'struck'. SteveT • C 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it another pass once you've either resolved (or successfully ignored!) these, as they may be obscuring other issues. All the best, SteveT • C 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review (I seem to be particularly blind to which/that grammar issues...) I've reformatted the cast section. It's still in the bullet form but there's not longer a separate line for each actor and I've removed the sentence fragments. I also believe I've done everything in Cast up to the Lead so far. On 'movie' and 'film', however, I used the two words to reduce redundant-sounding prose, and since they're basically interchangeable I'd rather leave that be. I'll leave you a note when I've gotten to all your concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I've gotten to most of your remaining issues. About the cast, I think it's somewhat awkward to have the actors first, as it doesn't provide context to the story. As for Rotten Tomatoes, it's not used to say it was well-received on release; it's used to provide a snapshot of aggregate reviews and point out its the highest-rated movie in the series. Finally, I've gone through and removed many of the 'of the films', etc., but I'm loath to remove all of them as I feel it makes some parts a bit unclear otherwise. Finally, about Meyer, I added a bit of an introductory language for him, so see how that works. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep an out-of-universe perspective. The actors are more important than the characters. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. Can you have another look at the lead, the last line in the plot section and Koenig's entry in the cast section? I think the "Star Trek" mentions here are italicised where they shouldn't be. The one in the lead, for example, is actually saying "the television series of the Star Trek franchise". But I may be wrong, which is why I haven't just gone ahead and changed it. SteveT • C 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I changed all of them besides the last line in plot; the speech is originally from Star Trek the series (and hadn't been adapted to other series yet) so I kept it like it is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you yet. Other than a couple of other bits of wording that can be tweaked on the fly, the only thing that's really standing in the way of a support vote right now is whether it's comprehensive enough. Several sections seem a little light on what I might expect to see (especially the filming section). This is highly likely to be down to the fact that the film is 26 years old, but I just wanted to be sure, so I'm planning of checking a few places tomorrow to see what else can be found. I'll let you know one way or the other by the close of play Monday. All the best, SteveT • C 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Unfortunately, and trust me I do feel like a complete tool for this, my oppose will have to stand for now on comprehensiveness grounds. It seems there are a lot of articles, some from peer-reviewed journals, available that would definitely flesh out certain sections if even a few of them were used. To prevent this page getting too long, I'll post them to the talk page of this FAC shortly. Obviously, nowhere near all of them need to be used; there's going to be a lot of redundancy between them, and probably between them and what you already have in the article, and some of them probably only mention the film in passing. But it just gives an idea as to the wealth of information out there, and you should definitely take a look at the list to see what you can get hold of. Again, you have my sincere apologies for making you jump through all those prose hoops and then dumping this on you; it really wasn't my intention. You've done a bang up job of this article so far. All the best, SteveT • C 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
←I've begun crawling through the sources. Some are already in the article (a few); I added one or two more to reception. As for the rest I can't find them on any online database, on their websites, or in my library. I've put some requests in for Interlibrary Loan, but it remains to be seen if they can find them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
SupportComment—Fairly decent so far, but I think it needs more work before I'll support it.
I know the Plot section has been edited down to tighten the prose, but to me it has become very dry and unappealing. It reads like a technical writing exercise and lacks a certain engaging element. I'm not real happy with it.
"Khan takes control of Chekov and Terrell and hijacks the Reliant." I don't much care for this sentence. It needs to be clarified in this sentence that Khan uses his control of Chekov and Terrell to perform the hijack, rather than performing the hijack himself. I tried to fix it but another editor re-introduced the issue.
The "Cast" section needs a lead-in saying something to the effect that much of the cast reprised the roles they had played in the original 1960s Star Trek television series. (The lead is intended as a summary of the article, but this fact is not mentioned after the lead.) You could also mention that Majel Barrett, the then wife of Roddenberry, was not part of the cast (after appearing in the first film). Any chance you could find out why? Is it related to Roddenberry's reassignment?
"...larger than it really was using forced perspective...", "...utilized camera and set tricks to..." and "...closing monologue were added to positive response...". These seem somewhat ambiguous, at least to me. Perhaps 'camera-and-set tricks'.
I (and other) editors have fixed most of the above. To the Majel Barrett part, I didn't find anything in my research about her absence. It makes sense if Roddenberry was moved up he wasn't in a position to place her anywhere, but that's just speculation. As to the prose, is there anything in specific you find unappealing? Better to be direct than cloud up the prose with "Meanwhiles" and redundancies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I reflected on what I bothered me about the plot section, and I think it is the fact that too many sentences begin with a character's name. I.e. "Khan does this; Khan does that; Kirk does something; Spock does something, Khan does something else, etc." It just seems a little on the stilted side.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to reword and reorganize some parts, or else use personal pronouns where it won't be too confusing... I can't do too much without compromising the clarity. Take a look now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Much improved now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Star Trek! Whoo! (Tamping down my own excitement - why aren't there more Trek FACs?) The article as it stands is generally well-written and organized (exceptions outlined below). However, like Steve, I have some concerns about comprehensiveness:
Spock's death was intended to be irrevocable, the only reason Leonard Nimoy reprised his role. Negative test audience reaction to the character's death led to significant revisions of the ending without Meyer's consent. - These sentences don't flow with the second paragraph of the lead, which discusses the nitty-gritty of making the movie. What about recasting them as part of the writing of the film?
The significance of the first paragraph of the plot is entirely unclear to someone unfamiliar with Star Trek and the movie. I'm not even sure if we need to explain the training mission in such detail. Perhps one sentence or two?
Nichols noted that she advocated on Gene Roddenberry's behalf to the producers over elements of the film, including the naval references and militaristic uniforms. - It is not entirely clear what this means.
Meyer attempted to change the look of Star Trek to match the nautical atmosphere - The "nautical atmosphere" of what? Since this is the beginning of a new subsection, we have to be especially clear.
The last paragraph of the "Filming" section is disorganized. Rather than a clear presentation of information about Spock's death, it is a random collection of facts. I would suggest reorganizing both the second and third paragraphs.
We learn, for example, that test audiences reacted badly to the scene twice.
It is unclear to a reader unfamiliar with the film what the "remember" sequence is.
The tone of the ending was changed from dark and final to what exactly?
The "Filming" section is thin, as it focuses almost exclusively on the death of Spock. Also, the "Music" section could do with an expansion. I checked the MLA database for articles on the "Wrath of Khan" - here are three that looked helpful. From Steve's list on the article talk page, it looks like there are many more sources from which to cull information.
Goldsmith, Jeff. "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Creative Screenwriting, 2007 May-June; 14 (3): 14.
Jenkins, Henry. "'If I Could Speak with Your Sound': Fan Music, Textual Proximity, and Liminal Identification". Camera Obscura: A Journal of Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. 1990 May; 23: 149-175.
Byers, Thomas B.; "Commodity Futures: Corporate State and Personal Style in Three Recent Science-Fiction Movies". Science-Fiction Studies, 1987 Nov.; 14 (3) (43): 326-339.
After a few more weeks spent researching and adding information, I think this article can easily become featured. If you need help obtaining any of the sources listed by myself or Steve, let me know. My university subscribes to many databases. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)