Talk:To Fly!

"a 1976 short documentary film which follows the history of flight, from the first hot air balloons in the 19th century to 21st century space probes. It was the first IMAX film shown at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. The movie is still shown in the Air and Space Museum today." Although the Library of Congress labeled the movie "culturally insignificant," it could be argued that many people who saw the movie in the 1970s as children are involved in aviation in no small part to the flying scenes in this movie.

Please reconcil "cultural significance|significance" in talk vs. main page.

The first hot air balloons were in 1783 in the 18th century; and how can a 1976 documentary include 21st century space probes?

S.

Artists making models was how probes was shown. Doug Trumbull models were popular. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've now seen 3 different films released in 1970 claiming to be the first film shot for IMAX. See list of IMAX films and the films entered for 1970. Anyone know which film was the first? - Jmartinsson (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Make that four. Circus World was reportedly released in 1974. [1] and [2] for citations on that. -Etoile (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• As far as I know, Tiger Child (1970), exhibited at Expo '70 was first. I know that there are at least two others that are earlier than To Fly (1976) -- I can recall seeing Catch the Sun in 1973, and North of Superior in June 1975. North of Superior is probably the second IMAX film made -- it was the premiere IMAX film for the opening of the Cinesphere (the first permanent IMAX theater) at Ontario Place in 1971. So I think there's plenty of evidence for dropping the claim that To Fly was the first IMAX film.--Voodude (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • I have removed the unsourced claim in the Wikipedia article that To Fly was the first film shot in IMAX format, based on Greg MacGillivray's quote that he reviewed all 12 IMAX films that were available prior to his filming To Fly. See http://www.moviemaker.com/magazine/issues/38/38_imax.htm Pmurph5 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, as requested, some thoughts. I'll perform an actual thorough line edit at some point too, but I wanted to get the lay of the land and suggest more high-level stuff too with an eye towards FAC. Overall, I think this is a solid start and it's got the bones it needs. Some higher-level thoughts follow:

General:

• Given the importance of the IMAX format to this film and its legacy, you probably need to introduce it a bit more than just "IMAX theater" and wikilinking it in the lead. Likewise a bit more in the body. Per accessibility, you really want to have a minimum viable article where I don't have to link away from the article to get the gist, and I'm not entirely sure that's reached here throughout.

  I added a very brief description for IMAX in the lead and a sentence at "Background", what do you think?

• I'm not really sure of the benefit of the notes in general. Minute variations in running time I don't think is something to worry about getting bogged down in, especially if the sources all vary, likewise how it was stylized. For the notes that are bundling refs (which is good!) I think those would be better off incorporated with the refs section itself. That leaves corporate takeover notes and inflation stuff, and I think you can just leave both out entirely. I rarely mention inflation unless you're specifically trying to relate a number to a modern context (like talking about how a ticket price was expensive back then, or how a budget was super-high for the time.)

  I removed portions of the minutes note (I think it's important to note that some sources are wrong since there's a possibility others might be like "But this very reliable Newspaper.com source says it's 30 minutes!"). I removed the stylization note, and per your reasoning, removed some inflation notes while keeping and adding some where I believe a comparison is encyclopedic. The Philips note is important as it additionally helps support the claim within the infobox, and the GSTA note is important too since some might confuse it with the more popular GSCA, who additionally also manages the IMAX Hall of Fame and also attributes their name to the induction of To Fly!. I think the bundling refs would be better staying in the notes section, since it would be really weird to have them in the refs section and the subrefereces are also in the refs section; SDFNC added them, and he uses it a lot in his articles. (Sorry for this very response lmao)

• Some of the staff mentions get a bit into the weeds. Especially since you don't mention the overall crew size, it seems really weird we're getting into listing individual grips here (sorry, Brad Ohlund, but I don't think you're super-important here.)

  This was probably because I wanted to erase a mistake. Many sources-- including this article prior to my nuking-- claim that Brad Ohlund was the cinematographer, when he was just assisting the cinematographers. However, if you feel strongly on removing him I can do it.

• As a general thing, the article likes introducing organizations and then using their acronyms a lot; while I didn't spot any issues where the acronyms were not introduced, I think reducing them would help read better. For example, you introduce the United States Navy and then only mention it once after that; just refer to them as the navy the second time rather than making readers rely on remembering the USN.

  I implemented your suggestion on the USN and NFR. My eyes can't find any other acronyms that fall into this category.

• I think we need more context on what the space sequence is for the space sequence production section to make more sense.

  Had a brief paragraph summarizing the sequence.

• In general I think there are a lot of subsections here that fall down in terms of presenting information in a useful manner. Just ending the space sequence with "oh and it took four months and change to do" versus having that frame the discussion of the sequence from the start, for example, or similarly how the post production process' length is only discussed at the end, randomly at the end of a discussion of test screenings.

  I merged the one-sentence paragraphs to their previous paragraph, and found a way to make the post-production one less random.

Prose:

• The film explores the search for national identity and humanity's innate relationship with aviation. — who says mankind has an "innate" relationship with aviation?

  Per the Themes and Style section, paragraph 1 last sentence. I changed it to "destined" for clarity, but I can drop it if you think it's for the better.

• with a narration written by Thomas McGrath—who actually narrated the thing? It's kind of weird to mention the narration (as written it kind of might suggest he voiced it) but not who actually performed it.

  Good question. The narrator isn't actually credited-- I think I left the article for two weeks writing that the narrator is Thomas, but rereading the source once more he's the writer. Should it be stated that the narrator is uncredited?

• I've edited some of this in the lead, but I feel like there's sometimes a bit of impreciseness in the language that feels wrong—e.g. To Fly! remained the highest-grossing giant-screen documentary for a long period and broke other records—what is a "long period"? What other records? Even for the lead it feels sort of weasel-wordy.

  I've tweaked it, and removed the latter, since I feel like it just makes the lead more vaguely long.

• I'm not sure the summary section really sells the importance of including the bit about the fictional hot-air balloonist, or his poem, especially since the next paragraph says the film starts with balloons. Could be cut entirely or just made into a single sentence mention (which would tie in a bit better to the mention in prepro of the humor.)

  The first paragraph summarizes a relatively significant part of the film, one that made the film as popular as it is now, and I think it's weird to not have it included. I found a source that will put the last sentence to context; I agree it seems trivial as of now.

• It was supported by then-deputy director Melvin B. Zisfein, who made two film treatments, both of which were later discarded. Did Zisfein himself write these treatments?

  Yep; reworded.

• Collins and Zisfein also gave a list of suggestions, 20 of which were fulfilled presumable Collins and Zisfein gave Mac and Freeman this list, but it's weird that's not made explicit, and odd that the total number of suggestions isn't mentioned but the ones they fulfilled are. (Another example of being oddly precise in a weird spot versus being vague in others.)

  I seriously need a checkup, cause it's literally stated in the source "about 30" and I forgot it. I placed it now, and I think this one is resolved. There's no information on all the suggestions, and I think listing them will be inappropriately indiscriminate.

• then-girlfriend (now-wife) Barbara Smith As with other spots, for the benefit of not writing prose that can easily go stale (especially without any later refs being around to adjust), I would just go with girlfriend here.

  Done.

• At the time, IMAX cameras weighed 80 pounds (36 kilograms) and had basic specifications—how are the cameras basic? What better specifications did they get?

  Gave attribution.

• a new set of filming rules were devised and many conventional rules were ignored gah, the same! A few sentences later we get some much more useful concrete examples, so I really think this stuff should be reworked so we're not left hanging for sentences figuring out what this means.

  Placed it before the relevant sentence with a few tweaks; what do you think?

• I think the reception section starts out strong, but by the third paragraph I lose the plot (it starts by talking about the story but then is just a laundry list of critics praising various parts of it.) WP:RECEPTION would be a useful guide here.

  I did implement WP:RECEPTION earlier but didn't use it much, especially in p3, since I didn't know on how to RECEPTIONify it. Now I reworked with the whole section, and it looks a bit more tidy now. Thoughts?

References:

• While there is no comprehensive cast list—does the ref included really properly support there not existing a cast list?

  There just simply isn't any; it's not supported by ref but I tried looking for all those actors in the film but there's none, only Ellen and Peter. Do you think this should just be dropped?

• Since material would move around I didn't really get into the weeds with references this go around, but I did notice there's a lot of primary sourcing used that should probably be replaced if possible: Instagram and Twitter posts are not the sourcing we'd prefer, and with FA's requirement for the highest-possible-quality sourcing it could be a concern.

  The Instagram sources I used are from the verified production company account, and are the only source where I can find those information after months of source digging. I tried finding books that contained those information but there aren't any. I think those primary sources are inevitable and it wouldn't be so comprehensive without them. I also think I've included enough secondary sources.

Images:

• File:To Fly! multiscreen.png really needs a better fair use rationale than what it's got, same with File:To Fly! balloon.png.

  I've modified the rationales to seem more robust. I copied it to the latter file since it's pretty much the same thing, but I can reword it if such copypasting isn't allowed. GeraldWL 01:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this awesome review! I will start looking through all these points throughout the week. I'll start off with some general replies, then will move on to the bigger stuff. GeraldWL 01:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

David Fuchs, I've resolved all the points, looking forward for response. GeraldWL 04:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll try to take a proper second look this weekend, if not then next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

David Fuchs, just your gentle reminder :) GeraldWL 21:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the slow process of going through the article. I'm continuing to do line edits, although one thing I'm noticing that I can't fully address without going to sources is the use of unattributed quotes, such as It was premiered to "packed audiences" at Langley Theater on July 1, 1976. or In the 1990s, they upgraded the theater's sound system to digital, "rejuvenating" the film's glory,—a lot of these come off as puffery and distracting, especially since they aren't actually telling us who actually said these quoted excerpts. In general I think every quote should be double-checked and seen if there's a better, more concise or neutral way of saying it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's no problem at all, take your time! I've tweaked those two sentences-- see if it's to your liking now-- and have tweaked the Release section as a whole GeraldWL 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

David Fuchs sorry if I seem impatient, but I am looking forward to putting this article to FAC. I'd like to hear on your thoughts thus far and any final checks necessary for it to be up and ready. Cheers! GeraldWL 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I will look at doing another run-through this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I think the article still feels a bit peacocky in its diction and phrasing. Contemporary reviewers hailed it as the most underrated, electric, cinematic spectacle and similar phrases feel like they're veering out of the realm of summary and into editorializing.

  Trimmed it to "Contemporary critics called it underrated and electric." and moved it earlier in the paragraph.

• The reception section is still pretty messy. It feels like the intent is that the first paragraph is general comments, second is cinematography, third is story, but there's lots of stray lines in and around that confuses those groupings; for example, why does the story section begin with To Fly!, especially its story, was well-received by contemporary critics. when that's duplicating stuff we've heard before? Why does Carl Sagan's opinion get mentioned next? Who described the opening scenes as intimate yet magical? There's tons of passive voice throughout too, which add to the issues.

  I trimmed that to "To Fly!'s story" to be more specific. Sagan's comments are now in the first paragraph to blend in with the other generic-ish acclaims. The one who described the opening scene was Norwalk News; I left out that attribution since I felt it would make the reception section monotone. Along with the above comment on the article's diction, I'll be looking further into the article to find these problems. Would appreciate if you help point some notable examples :) I'm not the best in English grammar/diction so this is kind of expected. I'll post further updates. GeraldWL 06:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• While I don't generally have issues with the sources (although I think self-published social media like the Twitter behinds the scenes stuff should get curtailed), I think some of their usage is questionable—if you're going to have a line like Audiences, regardless of demographics,[23] have been "astonished" by To Fly!'s IMAX vertiginous shots since its release. I think you need a secondary source, not using a Smithsonian source itself (they might be laying it on a bit thick.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I removed that NASM citation since the following citations are valid for the claim.