Talk:Journey to the Center of the Earth (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Iceland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Special effects

I had the sentence:

The film is more notable not for what it contains, but for what it contains because of when it was made, when special effects were still largely unheard of in Hollywood.

in the article. Twice, however, El Picante changed it to:

The film is notable for it's special effects.

I think my version is better, because it explains why it was notable for its effects and El Picante's version just says that it had special effects, without saying why they were notable. I vote to change it back to my original version (or something similar). Any objections? Why? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your version is incorrect in saying that "special effects were still largely unheard of in Hollywood." They are at least as old as photography itself, if you choose to exclude theater effects from the discussion. Also, consider the fact that the film was nominated for an Academy Award for Visual Effects, an award which has been around since 1939, which makes special effects a fairly well-established institution by that time. I think the short version makes the point clearly enough, since the next sentence goes on to explain the award nominations. intooblv 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)