Talk:The High and the Mighty (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review The High and the Mighty (film) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Film Portal
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.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Repetition

This article is maddeningly repetitious. I think it could do without the same line of information ("this is one of the first disaster films") being stated in every section. Aglie 05:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It was edited by a member of the Redundancy Society of Redundancy. Feel free to improve it. :) Wahkeenah 07:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I pared use of the word down again. I glark some editors only glance at the article before inserting the (somewhat thinly supported) phrase "disaster film" in the first subsection they see, then leave. It's not much of a disaster film at all, the plane makes it to SFO. A canny drama though! Gwen Gale 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Glark? Don't you mean grok? Clarityfiend 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up

I've cleaned it up thoroughly. The character summaries I think are a bit much but I loathe removing content so I at least factored them into the wikified structure of the article. I've removed quite a bit of unsupported stuff about "disaster" and "sister" films. I'm not even sure this can be truly called a fore-runner to those glitzy, soap-opera "airport" films of the 70s but I've left that in since I think it likely at least a few critics have said it is and yeah, it likely did have something to do with inspiring how they were done. Gwen Gale 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was a mess. Maybe it still is. Let's discuss what to do about it here. Thanks Gwen Gale 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the original complaints about the contents and structure of this article were posted in April, 2006. In response to them, I did my extensive rewrites of it (I have been a professional writer for more than 35 years) in December, 2006, and January, 2007 (see the page history), but I did not make any specific notation of that on this page at the time which I probably should have done. I expect that my faliure to do so is what may have misled you to think that the issues raised in April had never been addressed. The structure and order in which I organized the page were done very carefully, and the details about the characters and story, as well as the technical and aviation aspects (I am myself a pilot) relating to the plane and the flight, were all very extensively researched and confirmed. (As I mentioned above, this is what I do for a living.) I have retained a fair number of the changes that you made, but restored the formatting and structure which I carefully developed for the article when I did the rewrites over a period of several weeks in December and January. Thanks for your input and concern. I quite vividly remember when I first saw this film as a child in 1954 and it has always been one of my favorites. Centpacrr 08:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did you tell me you're a professional writer? Gwen Gale 09:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to say that the "disaster/sister" film references were not mine and I probably should have taken them out. (I did, however, add the references to the specific actors and other participants who were common to both films.) I mentioned that I am a professional writer as it seemed relevant to my bono fides in explaining why and how I researched, wrote, and structured my contributions in rewriting this article from what it had been prior to the first time I worked on it in December. Centpacrr 10:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a cheer, to hear what you have to say about the disaster/sister references. Now, that's bona fides isn't it? :) Never mind though, thanks for answering my quesiton. Now, what do you think of the long list of character rundowns? Gwen Gale 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The character descriptions of the passengers, crew, and the aircraft (which is as much of a "character" in the film as the people in my view) are mine and were each carefully researched and developed. I accept responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of my contributions to the article on which I spent a great many hours over a period of several weeks in December and January, and believe its content and structure are all fine as they are now. Thanks for your comments and input. Centpacrr 17:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the article still has some problems. Are you willing to discuss my thoughts on this? Gwen Gale 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me know what you think but I won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Centpacrr 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
First, the character capsules would in themselves be ok for like, a zine article but not, I think, for an encyclopedia article, too granular. Here are almost two dozen little paragraphs which could be helpfully skived down to about one 40 word para. I don't like rm'ing content and did try to format them for reading on a wiki but you reverted that, not sure why but no matter. I'd like to try making a single, helpful, narrative paragraph out of that section. Gwen Gale 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While nominally an "action/adventure" film, The High and the Mighty is really an intensely character driven ensemble piece. The film spends more than an hour carefully developing the viewer's understanding of the personality of each character starting by introducing each passenger individually with much basic biographical information (name, age, hometown, occupation, why they are traveling, etc) as they check-in for the flight in Honolulu. The crew is also extensively introduced before departure on the tarmac (Dan Roman) and the TOPAC dispatch office. After boarding the plane all the characters are further developed through extensive interactive dialogue as well as many long, expensively produced flashbacks sequences before the accident (the action/adventure element) ever happens more than half way through this unusually long (2:27) feature. Without this careful and exhaustive development of the character and background of each passenger, crewmember, and the aircraft itself, the reactions of each -- and their interactions with the others -- which is the essence of the drama would be all but lost and therefore make little sense to the viewer. Reducing that essential background and character development information to a "40 word paragraph" (or about two words per character) therefore makes no sense at all to me as this is what drives the entire film and makes the story work. The technique I selected of giving each character a single, concise caption-like sentence ("character capsules") organized as part of a character/cast list seems to me to be by far the most efficient and easy to follow way to present this essential information which is so crucial to the understanding of what happens (and why) in the rest of the film. Centpacrr 07:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I wholly agree with you, spot on, about the importance of character development in the film (and it was successful IMHO). I was talking about how to approach the article's description of character development. I like the capsules you wrote but think that section is too long, impeding encyclopedic narrative. Can you think of any way to keep the content but adapt it into narrative form? Gwen Gale 07:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your supportive comments on my views on the importance of how character development is the key to understanding this film. I considered a variety of ways to present the necessary information with sufficient detail in the most organized and concise way. After much thought I found the technique which I selected and employed here to be by far the most efficient and clearest approach. A narrative paragraph would probably work fine for many (if not most) films, but not, I strongly feel, in this particular case in which there is such a large ensemble cast of complex characters whose interactions with each other are so centrally driven by each of their individual situations. While this section may physically appear to be long when displayed on the page, trying to convert it to a narrative form without sacrificing clarity and essential information would in fact make it both longer and much less easy to follow. For this and the other reasons I noted earlier, I strongly feel that this is the best, clearest, most efficient, and most objective way to present the complex details of this information which is so essential to the overall understanding of the film, and that it should not be changed in any way. Thanks again for your input and for caring so much about this wonderful film. Centpacrr 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha thanks for thanking me so much :) I do think it breaks up the narrative but again, I truly understand your thinking and tend to agree with that too. For example, whilst in one way a narrative would be easier to read, comprehension of the ensemble capsules would indeed likely drop... I wonder if it's a layout thing. Something. I'll let you know first if I stumble onto any searingly helpful notions about it. Gwen Gale 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding of my views on this. Centpacrr 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some minor cleanup to the syntax and punctuation. For example, putting "quoted material" in italics is wholly redundant and non-standard (see Chicago Manual of Style). My only lingering worry is that there are bits of redundancy in the plot summary, which have already been covered in the character capsules. There isn't much of this though, I'll put some thought into how to resolve this without upsetting the pith of the article. Gwen Gale 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been rather WP:BOLD. See what you think. Clarityfiend 07:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and input. I have elected to delete all of my earlier contributions to this entry and thus restore the article to the way I originally found it. Centpacrr 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg

Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Revision

I have some concerns over the latest edit which is so verbiose and does not fit the original edit recently which was merely to conform to similar movie/film articles. I have tried to incorporate the new changes but I frankly liked the original edit better. Please comment. Gwen, did you write the original edit? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

After bit of a contretemps, I have restored the best of three editor's work and will continue to slave away. Coincidentally, I agree with all the edit choices made so far but have tried to integrate them more fluidly. FWIW Bruce, don't give up! Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
I wouldn't characterize any of our edits as "the best" and would only ask that we follow the editing guidelines outlined in the template above, keep the text as neutral as possible, add more citations and discuss things more here on the talk page. As for "the original edit" could you provide a diff since I'm not sure which edit you're referring to(!)? This said, it appears, Bzuk, as though you're generally supporting a factoring and narrative approach which I think may be the more helpful and encyclopedic... Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit by User:Centpacrr does not conform to the editing guidelines in the above template and contains WP:OR (lengthy discussion of "souls on board"). Moreover, the edit summary implied the editor had engaged in this current discussion, but User:Centpacrr has not done so. Hence, I have reverted the edit. Please, let's discuss this here and try to reach some kind of consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made several factual additions and corrections but have left the formatting alone with two exceptions. First I have moved the section relating to the aircraft so that it appears as its own section immediately after the cast list. It is clear to me that N4726V is intended to be every bit as much of a "character" in the film as any of the 22 passengers and crew on board. For that reason I strongly feel that it should not be a subsection under "Production" where it is treated as a physical "prop" as opposed to an essential character element. Second I have created a new section title ("Restoration and re-release") for the section of the article relating to its recent return to public view. It does not seem to me that this very different part of the film's history does not fit in the section relating to its public reception at the time of its original theatrical release a half century earlier. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for discussing this here. Have you read the editing guidelines in the template above? Please let us know if you have. Also, although I understand (and agree spot on with) what you mean by referring to the aircraft as a character in a literary sense, the aircraft is not a cast member, it is a prop. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agreed to the restoration of approximately 10,000 characters of contributions that I had made as far back as December, 2006, at the request of the User:Buzak (which he did in a posting to my user talk page) and was attempting to post my reasons for the additional edits he invited me to make when that was blocked by your posting of 09:38. I have deleted the discussion of "souls on board" (which Buzak had added) to which you objected, and also returned the "aircraft" section to "Production" (although I do not see how it does not conform to the template). If, however, for any reason you still do not feel that you can accept my contributions to this article, then please so advise and I will permanently delete all of them. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
You deleted both the {refimprove} tag and a citation from the lead, I have restored them. The factoring seems closer to the guideline now but maybe we should discuss this more. My biggest worry to start with though, is the lack of citations for many details in the text. This may be partly a formatting thing (some of the listed sources may cover more of this than it seems at first glance) but either way, all assertions in the narrative should be clearly referenced back to verifiable, independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources for everything I included in the narrative of the film, the characters, and the aviation related issues and technical details are found in the film and the screenplay themselves, my own experience as a pilot (since 1965), and my extensive professional research, knowledge, and writings on aviation and transportation history. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. First, I'm only talking about the article as a whole, not what you've added. This said,

  • The film itself is only an acceptable source for a plot description. Even then, editor consensus has sway. The film (other than its written credits) is not an acceptable source for anything else.
  • Your experience as a pilot sounds wonderful, but following WP:OR, anything you might contribute to this article which draws from your piloting experience would be original research and is not an acceptable source.
  • Likewise, your own "research, knowledge, and writings on aviation and transportation history," while no doubt fascinating and worthy, would be WP:OR and hence, not acceptable for use in this encyclopedia article. Rather, your past research should give you the knowledge and understanding to cite independent sources (WP:V) and not your own interpretations and conclusions. The exception here would be if your original research has been published by a verifiable and reliable publisher (if so, we could cite your published works, subject to editor consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT).
  • The screenplay may be an acceptable source for technical details, if assertions of these details are directly attributed to the screenplay by the narrative. Meanwhile, I don't see any citation of the screenplay in this article. Am I missing it somewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled about what you're driving at here, but by the film and screenplay as the source I mean including exact words as spoken by the characters. (These appear in quotation marks in such a way to be obvious that that's exactly what they are.) By my experience as a pilot and "research, knowledge, and writings on aviation and transportation history" I mean that these provide me with the background and experience in aviation to clearly understand and relate technical aspects that appear on the screen and/or are referred to by the characters (for instance the readings on flight instruments, ADF, radio altimeter, meaning of radio transmissions, check list items, weather conditions, flight operations and procedures, etc.) It would seem to me that the film itself is always the primary and definitive source of the plot. Relying on anything else would introduce interpretation and hearsay. I first saw this film when it was released in 1954 and have watched it many times since. It is what it is, and that is all I described .... objectively and without prejudice or artifice. I can't see that there is any better "source" as to plot, etc, then the film itself, i.e., Res ipse loquitur. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
Yes, as I said above, The film itself is only an acceptable source for a plot description. However, most of what I listed above had to do with WP:OR. You cannot cite your own experience or expertise as support for article content (although you may certainly use your experience or expertise to quickly track down and cite acceptable, independent sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I included all the appropriate technical reference hyperlinks long ago (most of these are in the section on the aircraft). (Centpacrr (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
Two of those are only photographs of DC-4s with no independently verified relationship to the film. Let's give this some time, I have no plan or wish to gut the article or anything and I think much of the text is likely supported by some of the provided sources, it may only be a question of getting footnotes placed throughout the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't either supply or post the two photographs of the aircraft. Please be specific about what (if anything) in my contributions (primarily in the plot and the aircraft sections) that you think may be insufficiently supported. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

User talk:Centpacrr, I am not talking specifically about your contributions, I am only addressing the article as a whole (thanks for telling me about the two images used as cites though). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In just taking a cursory look at the layout and content, I think you both have done an admirable job in creating an interesting and informative article. IMHO (standard aviation lexicon for "in my humble opinion"- just kiddin,' Bruce) the overall impression is highly favourable (Canajan spelling here) and stands up well against other similar film articles. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Cast

As for the cast list, if someone is missing from the credits as displayed in the film, are they notable enough to mention in the paragraph which follows the cast table? If so, let's put them there, if not, it is unacceptable for the narrative to refer readers to an external link for more information. Most commercial films since the 1920s have had hundreds of folks involved in their production and the participation of most of them (numerically speaking) is not notable. Although more recent movies have exhaustive end-credits which are an industry solution to the problem of unambiguously confirming creditable film work on an industry resume (among other issues), many of these names are still not of encyclopedic interest and there is no need for the narrative to go on about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The total list is actually referred to as a reference. All that is indicated is that the entire list can be obtained from that reference. The inclusion of many cast and crew in their first roles can be identified in the list which is mainly "standard issue" for Wicky film articles. Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC).
Yes. Any reader who wants to dig more deeply into the arcania of cast and crew will easily find a path through the citations to IMdB. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem, but the proviso to explain that the list is incomplete and production crews are not provided in the listing is a "standard" practise. Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC).
I don't agree that the list is incomplete in encyclopedic terms: The notable names are in the article. If other notable cast/crew have been missed, cast can always be added to text in the cast section, crew can be noted in the production section. Any "standard practice" of having the narrative point readers to an external source for "complete" information is wholly unacceptable and was clearly not thought through. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The only sourcing lack I see now has to do with how sundry props and aircraft were assembled to depict the airliner onscreen. I glark most of this text is accurate and easily supportable: I'll be going through the sources and adding footnotes as time allows (anyone else can do this too though!). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The aircraft seem to have adequate sourcing which is the normal one citation per main passage. There are a few missing citations that can be applied to other areas. For example, I just enlarged the peripheral details regarding casting problems. Wayne was never scheduled to do the film and Wellman was faced with the dilemma of finding "name" actors for lead roles. In the end, a large cast of unknowns and B-movie stars substituted although Wayne's name still had star authority. A new section on commercial success may also have to be developed. The film set box-office records for the fastest "return-from-take" until modern times. Bzuk (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC).
John Wayne hit on something with this film and I think critical appreciation for it will continue to grow over time. Also interesting that in the end, he didn't need that A-list of fussy actors to make this one fly (forgive me for that one haha!). As for the sources, I only want to go through them a bit more and make sure all the assertions are indeed supported, I'm sure they are though. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally Spencer Tracy was cast and the initial screenplay was written with him in mind. In this film, although Wayne was the producer, he gave casting decisions over to William Wellman. It's not that he didn't want A-list stars, he simply couldn't get anyone even after Wayne signed on as the "star." Barbara Stanwyck was a great "pet" of Wellman yet steadfastedly refused his entreties. Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC).
Yep and I meant to say, "although he wanted an A-list of fussy actors to play the passengers, as it happened, he didn't need them to make this one fly." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the number of citations and references now provides more than adequate attribution sources. Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Commercial success

I have just added a note about the commercial success of the film. Until modern times, it had been considered one of the fastest films to recover its production costs. Bzuk (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer

While perhaps not absolutely "essential" information, the violent death by justifiable homicide (self defense) of TH&TM actor Carl Switzer in January, 1959, is every bit as significant a fact about him as mentioning his five years playing "Alfalfa" in the Our Gang comedies as a child actor. Had George Reeves, Sal Mineo, or Phil Hartman, for instance, played a minor part in a film and been given a career note such a Switzer's, the unusual circumstances of their violent deaths (all of which were huge stories at the time) would surely have been included. If it is worth mentioning his career as a child actor from ages 7 to 12, it is IMHO every bit as legitimate to include the the fact that he was a victim of homicide at the young age of 31, just five years after appearing in this film. It seems to me that this information about a actor in the film also fits in with another sub-theme of the article relating to it being a "disaster film" that also had elements of real life disaster in it in that the airctaft "The Argentine Queen" also met a tragic and violent end ten years after its own appearance in the picture. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

The one main concern I have is that much of the detail is actually about his later life well after his involvement with this film. That's much the same reason why anecdotes about John Wayne after his work on the film, for example, he participated in disaster films and a real-life disaster of contracting cancer befell him, also would not fit. Unless Alfalfa continued to be notable because of his role in the film, perhaps a revival of his career but that did not occur. Where the unfortunate circumstances behind his untimely murder do fit is in a notation on the main page that details Carl Switzer's career and life. Have you thought of expanding the section about his death on the actor's main page? It is a bit of a stretch to see that Alfalfa playing a role in a disaster film and later is the victim of a tragic end, is a significant enough connecion. But then again, this is only presupposing that you do not come back with an even more convincing case for including his demise. Perhaps you can do a trial rewrite here on the "talk page" before inserting it into the body of the text. That's only a suggestion but it is often a "proving ground" to test out ideas and concepts. As for the connection of the airliner movie model to a real-live tragedy that mirrored the events of the film, its inclusion makes some sense. FWIW, as you can deduce, my entry here is mainly a "stream of consciousness" so take it as you will. Bzuk (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC).
Using only the phrase "his later tragic death" but then not specifying the circumstances thereof or why it is tragic seems to me to unnecessarily leave the reader "hanging" with insufficient information to understand what it means. (It is almost like saying "Guess what? There's another significant bit of information about this person here which we will allude to but will not tell you what it is or why it is relevant.") Either the full context of the circumstances of his sudden death by homicide at the young age of 31 should be included (which is what I strongly feel is the proper approach), or any reference to his "tragic death" be left out altogether. If Wikipedia were a printed encyclopedia in which editing for space is an economic necessity, then cutting out a few words here and there makes sense. As a digital encyclopedia, however, there is no such economic rationale for the tight editing out of such relevant details. Leaving it only as a "tragic death" is misleading IMHO, especially when what that phrase actually means can be clarified and nailed down in just a few more words. When the manner of death of a public figure is homicide, especially at a young age, it seems clear to me that this fact should always be included as an integral part of any reference to his or her demise. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
All that being said, the circumstances and untimely passing at a young age have little relevance to an article about a film where a minor character is merely noted. His background should be treated as an aside. Placing greater emphasis on one character over the many other main actors does not seem balanced. The main focus on the article should be on the story of the film not on the peripheral details of an individual character actor, no matter how interesting his death. One of the provisos of starting a talk page "string" of discussion is to uise this forum for formulating a consensus-driven approach. It is not as useful to use the mainspace for multiple revisions. I had conceded a point by introducing a phrase that would give the reader a better understanding of the person's notoriety. However, the original first edit on his name probably stands up the best. FWIW, I will alter the passage to reflect this until there is a consensus on how to proceed. Bzuk (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
As I mentioned above, my views on this are to either explain it completely or not mention it at all. While Switzer's death by homicide is certainly not a central piece of information about the film itself, I still think it is interesting and worth mentioning for the reasons I stated above but I will not press this any further. As I have said, my philosophy is that as this is an online, digital encyclopedia and is therefor not limited by the same economic constraints as a printed one. That being the case, I believe that opting for the inclusion of additional relevant detail when available is almost always appropriate. The process of how to achieve "consensus" on this, however, is unclear to me. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I have expanded the cast list to include all the actors whose names appear in the opening credits (in the order in which they appear), and also included a brief description of who each one is (with the exception of the passengers who are already described in detail elsewhere). I also included one uncredited actor (Robert Easton) because his character (TOPAC dispatcher, Honolulu) is mentioned in the plot section. Now that Carl Switzer in included in the cast list, I also changed the note about him to a footnote. I trust this meets with everyone's approval. Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Bruce, your latest addition is a good alternative. BTW, the means of gaining consensus can be either a formal or informal means of deciding "the best course forward." In terms of the normal process, merely an accord based on all interested parties accepting a decision is all that is needed. The present commercial or business management definition of consensus is an acceptance by all parties of a proposed plan. A formal call for consensus involves a recorded vote. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Far from its use being demeaning, actor Carl Switzer used the nickname "Alfalfa" as an integral part of his name in life, and it also how he is identified on his tombstone at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Images of TOPAC airliner

Although I really like the digital "watercolor" and even the CGI image is passable, perhaps the use of an actual screen image would suffice and be used to replace all the other images, or at least the DC-4 and CGI version. See: thumb|screenshot FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC).


I considered doing it that way (straight screenshot). Let me give it some thought. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
After some quirky uploading issues with the Wikipedia server which required me to upload the image multiple times, I have added a last screenshot from the film of the fire in Engine #1. I inserted the image in the plot section at the place where the engine seizure is described at full column width (750px) as in this one case I feel quite strongly that a smaller thumbnail would be completely inadequate to illustrate this, the central event which drives the rest of the film. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
Sorry Bruce, this is really waaaay over the guidelines. How about if I play with it a bit, scaling it down to an acceptable size that will pass FA review. Bzuk (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
Please provide me with a link to the guideline (presumably on images) to which you make reference as I have been unable to find it and am not sure where else to look. In the meantime I'll drop the image and give it some additional thought on how to make it acceptable. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Bruce, this is the relevant section from the Wiki "Help Page" Wikipedia:Picture tutorial: "Thumbnailing: Let us say that picture is too big. Let us say we want the user to get a smaller version (a "thumbnail") when he/she looks at the article. Thumbnails always include a frame, so when thumbnailing, you almost always want to specify a caption.

A thumbnail adds a gray border around a picture and lets you add a caption, like 'frame' above. See Wikipedia:Captions for caption writing tips.

But "thumb" also automatically resizes a large picture into a smaller display size, with an option for the user to click on the image and see the original large version. Because different people work to different screen resolutions, your preferred size of thumbnails can be set in special:preferences under "files". The default, which is also used for logged-out users is 180 pixels (px), but you can choose between 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 250px, and 300px sizes. If an image is smaller than the thumbnail size you specified then it is displayed at 100% resolution, that is, at its natural size. Generally speaking, thumbnails are the best way to display images."

Further, individual wiki groups have set standards for using images, including the Wiki"Film and Wiki:aviation groups which specify "thumb sizing" and no hard-coding. I am going to temporarily resize the image back to the image as last seen. It will probably be acceptable at 350 px size. Centering is a bit of an issue where "white space" is created. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Recommendation for a FA Review

Bruce, Gwen, the article looks great! Isn't it time for a Featured Article review? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

OK with me. Is there some formal process for that? (Centpacrr (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Yes, I will start by "tagging" the article and then asking for an independent reviewer to analyze the content. Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
One of the main criteria for an FA recommendation is "stability" in that the article appears to be complete, meets all other FA criteria and is not continually challenged or revised. (Bruce, this means that the article, once you are satisfied with it, is passed over for review and essentially "stays put" – no more changes, except for errors that require changes: dates, places, events, etc. Other minor "tweaking" changes should be put "on hold.") (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
I have made my final tweaks to the "Plot" and "Aircraft" sections and am satisfied that the article is now ready for FA review if it should be proposed for that. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
It has now begun – the first stages of a peer review were set in place today. Thanks for all your hard work, but get ready, this is only the first part of the process, and typically, an overall assessment will identify areas for improvement that are then undertaken by the primary editors involved in the development of the content. (BTW, the Italian slang was to be taken entirely in the context of good-natured ribbing. That's what the LOL means in this case, "don't take it seriously...") FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for the information on the "FA Review" process. Please keep me up to date on its progress. Re: "Varnish" This is a term used in railroading referring the company paint schemes on rail passenger cars. Re: "Capiche?" You have to understand that I come from Philadelphia which has a lot of really nasty Italian "Mob guys", and where using the expression "Capiche?" carries, among other things, some fairly unpleasant connotations. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
I assumed the term "varnished" may have been an obscure term but it does not seem to register as aviation jargon. "C'est la vie, c'est un autre l'expression à la française." (Being Canajan, we also have our idioms.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
Bruce, being plain, stability also means leaving everything in place, otherwise, there are always some little "tweak" to be made. The reviewers have to see that the article is essentially finished its development phase. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Minor changes

First, let me mention that I made some additions to this article back in the dim-and-misty. Coming back to it now, I find it improved beyond measure. Kudos, mostly to Gwen Gale, Centpacrr, and Bzuk.

Because of the effort that went into bringing the article to its present state, I feel obligated to justify the minor edits I have just made. The small grammar and puctuational corrections (the latter mainly inserting hyphens) need no explanation. The four minor items of any substance are:

Changed the wording from

Frank Briscoe (Paul Fix): an ailing, wheelchair bound, grandfatherly gentleman who, although apparently down on his luck, is still gracious and generous to a fault;

to

Frank Briscoe (Paul Fix): a wheelchair-bound, grandfatherly gentleman who, although ailing and in pain, is still gracious and generous to a fault;

as "down on his luck" implies poverty, which is not the case (he refers to his "heirs," buys steak dinners for Chen and Spalding, and has a chauffer, Pete).

The DVD commentary given as a source for

Wellman revealed later that the commercial prospects of a decidedly risky "theme" concept project which also had been filmed in the new Cinemascope format that limited theater use, had led to Joan Crawford, Ida Lupino, Barbara Stanwyck, Ginger Rogers and Dorothy McGuire, all in turn, declining lead female roles.

most decidedly says no such thing. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest such a dubious rationale before. The film could hardly have become the #1 money-maker for the year if theaters were unable to exhibit it. I have replaced the sentence with

After Trevor and Sterling were nominated for Academy Awards, Wellman revealed that Joan Crawford, Ida Lupino, Barbara Stanwyck, Ginger Rogers and Dorothy McGuire, declined the roles, apparently unwilling to essay the parts of "a broken-down broad" (Holst) or "a mess" (McKee).

which is in line with the DVD commentary source.

I made a tiny change as a grammar clarification. The first paragraph of the "Production" section speaks of The High and the Mighty and Island in the Sky. They are also the subject of the second paragraph. However, the wording "These films" could be taken as having "such films as Grand Hotel" as the direct antecedent. Thus the change to "Wellman's films," to make the reference clearer.

I find it unnecessary, and somewhat demeaning, to refer to Carl Switzer as "Alfalfa" every time he is mentioned. I limited myself to removing the second of the two such references, although I feel that both should have gone.

I make mention that the link to the source for "Spencer Tracy 'ankled the project'" does not bring one directly to such a source.

This Discussion entry is much longer than it is worth, but I wanted to demonstrate that I was not vandalising the article. Once again, "Nice job" to the revisers.B00P (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

B00P, Thanks for your comments and they are in large, very accurate and help the development of the article. As for the one minor point that was related to the DVD commentary in that in the behind-the-scenes DVD commentary on Wayne's production company as well as the Wayne bio listed in the references, there is a mention that the project was "risky" and that two factors were in play, the first being the use of the Cinemascope format and the second that it was a film that did not fit the standard Wayne formula. Both elements came into play, perhaps the roles being more important but the use of the new film format did cast a doubt in some movie people as to its viability. The fact that the film becomes a "blockbuster" is mainly due to its strong casting and "playing against type" which the actresses who were being sought out, were unwilling to take a chance on The High and Mighty. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
The basis I had for stating that Mr. Birscoe was "... apparently down on his luck ..." is his remark to Miss Spaulding about the chiming watch as being the "...last possession that I have not signed over to somebody else...". For that reason I have returned the phrase to his thumbnail description. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Centpacrr has misperceived the point of Briscoe's statement. Knowing that his time is short, he has been giving away his possessions. This will save his heirs paying inheritance taxes. He has been giving things away, not selling them. Briscoe is wealthy. Impoverished people don't vacation in Hawaii and get picked up by their personal chauffers. I am restoring my correction.

Bzuk partially reverted the second item even before I had finished typing the rather lengthy explanation for my edits.

Once again, the restored version's inclusion of "... the commercial prospects of a decidedly risky "theme" concept project had led to a number of "stars" declining lead female roles. The choice of the new Cinemascope format that limited theater use along with the perceived "unsympathetic" characters ..." fails for various reasons.

  • Neither "risky theme concept" nor "the new Cinemascope format" deterred star actors from wanting the two lead male roles (Roman and Sullivan).
  • How "risky" could a concept be (strangers on a journey) that has a pedigree going back to The Canturbury Tales and beyond, and coming from Gann's bestseller? Indeed, the article notes the similarity to Grand Hotel.
  • I repeat that the "limited theater use" business makes no sense for the #1 box office picture of the year. The DVD commentary discusses theater owners needing to compete with television. The conversion to wide screen was swift.
  • I reiterate that the DVD commentary given as the source tells no such story. It discusses the named actresses not willing to be physically unattractive on screen.
  • One wonders who perceived Holst and McKee as unsympathetic characters. Despite their facades, their vulnerabilities show through. They are the most sympathetic female characters. It is clearly Lydia Rice who is the unsympatheic female role. Nevertheless Laraine Day had no problem in taking it as Lydia's appearance is attractive.

Therefore I am removing the quoted portion of Bzuk's restoration (leaving in the new sentence about Stanwyck).

I am not interested in a "revert war." If, after reading this, he wishes to restore his claims, I shall not alter them any further. He mentions here that "the use of the new film format did cast a doubt in some movie people as to its viability." This is not stated on the DVD, nor are any reasons given other than looking bad on screen. If he wishes to reinsert these claims, I do feel that he should come up with a valid source for his assertion.B00P (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

B00P, no interest in edit mismashes either, and I did read your commentary before looking at a slight revision. I think our edits may have come one on top of another and I have moved the minor aspect of the Cinemascope format to a more appropriate section. Just sneaking some time away from a holiday in Mazatlan so some of the edits may be less than complete. BTW, if I hadn't mentioned it before, thanks for coming on board, I really enjoy editing with others. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
Upon further reflection, it seems to me to Mr. Briscoe's fiscal situation is actually ambiguous, and thus whether he is "down on his luck" or has voluntarily "given away" his possessions in contemplation of death are both unprovable conclusions based on speculation. To cure this I have therefore modified my original thumbnail to incorporate the description as to how his possessions had been disposed of -- i.e., "signed over" to others -- that appears in the script. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Airliner - aircraft

I traded out some of the instances of the word "airliner" when it was clear that "aircraft" was the more appropriate term. "Airliner" refers to a passenger configuration and the scheduled usage of an aircraft, and is appropriate when talking about the type in general. When the text talks about a specific airframe, "aircraft" is more apt. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)