Talk:Star Trek: Retribution/archive

Software question
may I ask what rendering program you used on this project? I would love to get my hands on those sets of yours.Cpthunt 08:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Bryce 7.1 for the sets, and Poser 7.4 for the characters. Tnpir4002 00:44, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Page Rework
This page reads like it was only written by the author of the project. It really needs some 3rd party folks to go over it and do a substantial cleanup. Perhaps the reception section should be expanded to include any controversies in the project (Particularly the author's apparent attack on helpers in one of the project threads listed under the external links) as well as general discussion points taken from these threads. After a brief runover the older scifi-meshes.com one, it appears the common complaint is the storyline is hard to follow with the author "out of universe" rationalizing what are apparently plotholes in the story.

There also appears to be sevearl comments on youtube that differ from the apparent "reception" as described below by the article writer. - 15.195.201.91 00:46, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it also absolutely necessary to include every little tidbit about the project? This isn't the projects website, it's an encyclopedia entry. - 15.195.201.91 00:47, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gotten started on cleaning up the page to meet wiki standards. A lot of biased and Non-POV material has been cited. Brandon Bridges or his team must provide corresponding information for this or it should be removed as per wiki standards. I have started to also include feedback on the project which includes negative responses to Bridge's decisions. - something that was scrubbed from the page initially and if it stays removed, it indicates the page itself is in violation of NPOV standards. Any material which needs citation and has not done so, should be removed. If the author is unhappy with that, the he should remove the page.
 * Again, encyclopedia, not product advertisment. - 15.195.201.91 01:40, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * You do have a point about balance and if you open yourself to criticism you should take the good and the bad. Plus there is nothing wrong with asking for a citation over claims in the article. However, you're demanding that cite some of his claims yet you enter new/conflicting facts without any citation, which does make it look like your more concerned about badmouthing than balance. That said, blanking away issues isn't what should be done either and as we can see it tends to end up in an edit war.


 * I've protected the articles (Retribution and Spectre) for now, if the IP still wants changes you are free to discuss them on this talk page, which Tnpir will hopefully choose to take part in, and if they are reasonable there isn't a reason why they can't be worked into the article. – 05:41, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jono: I'll do more than participate, I'll start. The main reason I undid all of the IP's changes was because the timing and nature of said changes was suspicious to me (the same day I cease to be involved with SFM a bunch of what I see as negative and frankly mean-spirited changes, including what I see as an arrogantly self-proclaimed "cleanup" of the Specter page), all by someone who either doesn't have an account or doesn't want to sign in...as you say, it seemed more like someone more interested in badmouthing me rather than actually trying to help make anything better, and hiding behind anonymity while doing so. I know people aren't required to have accounts to make edits around here, but given the nature and tone of what I was reading it rubbed me the wrong way. Regarding why I add the word "popular" to describe Specter on both pages, the sheer number of discussion threads is proof enough, and the Director's Edition on YouTube alone has been viewed thousands of times. It's not a box-office blockbuster, but seeing the public YouTube stats (remembering that I have access to Insight stats that are far more detailed) should be proof enough. Reaction to Specter was largely positive, I've read through all the discussion threads on it I can find (even those that aren't in English thanks to Babelfish), and with some exception so has Retribution (I acknowledged that it wasn't all positive by saying reaction was "mixed"). Retribution is a different animal and yet people have still responded mostly well to it, the plot is involved but so was the first one. Regarding why I changed venues for the Retribution project thread, I made my reasons plain: I felt that the feedback I was getting was starting to be more trouble than it was worth, plain and simple, for the reasons stated in the article entry. I'll add that when I closed that thread at SFM (and the staff over there has indeed locked it), one of the users there registered at 3DGladiators and as their first post they replied to the Retribution thread there and seemed intent on engaging me about my reasons for doing so. 3DG's admins promptly deleted that post, and it was shortly thereafter that what I term the vandalism of these four pages (two articles and two talk pages) began. Regardless, my point is that if it came right down to it, I could cite posts from any number of discussion threads (for Specter) and from SFM/3DG (Retribution) to back up what I've said here about how these projects were received, and the preponderance of evidence supports a largely positive reception for both. If this one user chooses to disagree with that, that's fine by me as they are entitled to their opinion--it just happens to be one I don't share. Tnpir4002 11:12, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Timing can be all well and good as an understandable justification, but regardless of what happened. If you want to make statements like the ones I cited as needing references, they need to be backed up. It's an encyclopedia and users should not be forced to "take your word on it" if you say something, youve gotta put an external link or a reference link to the direct connection between the comment you make and the exact link that has information backing up your claim, that's how a wiki works.
 * In regards to "popular", on a normal wiki, popular has to be backed up by notability, if you claim it's popular and it ends up on the news, or on the youtube homepage, sure, yea, it's popular. But a few thousand views on youtube is nothing. It's not popular, it's just another video, but that comes down to the definition of popular.
 * My problem with this page was that apart from the fact that the line, "Users on 3D Gladiators widly approve of the move and said they'd do the same thing" was a complete lie. there was no such reference at all on 3DG, in fact, when I created an account on 3DG and asked Taranis (an admin who was watching this topic), he said that it was a flat out lie. But your entire section appears to be negatively geared and passively aggressivly attacking folks on the SFM board who, at least from what my trawl tells me, did practically nothing of what you stated. I see a few light hearted comments and jokes, one person did go off on a segway for a while but apologised for it due to a misunderstanding. The only real offensive posts came from tnpir directly where he blew a gasket and practically attacked the only 4 people on SFM that were helping him.
 * And pretty much, yea it does come down to... you HAVE to cite the posts that were made, I see statements that "viewed in 20 different countries", anything on youtube can claim the same thing, that's not notable.
 * Retribution's page is nowhere near as bad as specter's, I only found one section that needed citing and that was in reception. My problem was, (and you brought this to my attention when you posted your "dispute" section) was that even before you had your rage dump on SFM, you've received a lot of negative criticism as well... most of which was not even mentioned. "mixed reviews" can mean anything but you specifically go out of your way to hide any negative results by only commenting that it was well written and received. I added a section that discussed the common complaints against your series, based on a few youtube comments and mentions in forums you linked below, and you blanked it all away.
 * But my biggest problem here though is, if I were just a vandal, why would i go to all the effort to post in your talk page, and your two articles talk pages saying exactly what I was doing and why? You didn't even bother to read any of it (especially your personal talk page, and just engaged in a revert war).
 * I prefer to stay anomyous because I can't be bothered logging in anywhere if i can avoid it, not because i'm hiding or the like. And you'll find i've posted in a fair few wikis in my day, the Memory Alpha and Beta, Tardispedia, dragonballz wiki, lots of them, and none of them are signed in.
 * In fact, I believe the 70. address that signed in and removed your "dispute" section probably was from SFM, I tried to counter your commentary by providing a counterviewpoint to maintain neutrality there but another user removed it completely.
 * But that brings me to my final point too, your "change of venue" section is very one sided and again, passive aggressive. After i read through the problems you had and the responding posts after you quit SFM, there was easily two sides of the story and you conveniently removed anything that didn't agree wtih you, which makes that entire section non-neutral, again. Like in your reception, to keep things neutral you need to state both points of view, not just your own.
 * - 15.195.201.88 00:05, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me give you an example from your list, this is the comments you wrote:
 * Let me give you an example from your list, this is the comments you wrote:
 * Let me give you an example from your list, this is the comments you wrote:


 * The propensity of certain users to repeatedly suggest ideas he termed "silly"

This is an opinion, not fact. You've written that you thought the ideas were silly, but you've not stated whether others felt the same way. I'm betting from the looks of things that enough people appear to have thought otherwise. If you wanted this to be non-biased, you would state something along the lines of "The Author and contributors had a dispute in relation to value of various concepts and ideas put forward"


 * The tendency of certain users to employ confusing metaphors rather than stating their feelings directly

Looking back at the thread, I can see the discussion you're referring to. Were you aware that the person in question spoke english as a 2nd language? You're attaking a person for not being able to communicate properly. This shouldn't even be listed, it's not relevant.


 * The tendency of certain users to post their own (oftentimes attempting to be humorous) interpretations of plot elements after Bridges had posted his "official" explanation

I see a few lighthearted jokes in regards to the appearance of one of your characters which sevearl posters thought was a bit lopsided. But again, this comment is unnecessary, you're saying that beacuse people were having fun discussing your project, you quit it. Reading through teh posts again, I see people making jokes with each other, having a bit of fun, this comes off as describing you as a spoil sport because people were enjoying your work too much.


 * The tendency of certain users to repeatedly drag the discussion off-topic to things only loosely related, if at all, to the primary topic

This seems to have stemmed from mistake, it appears one user mis-read what you wrote (apparently they mis-read cargo bay as shuttle bay) and started discussing a way to help you get the material you need for building the environment. Not a malicious act considering they were actively helping you find material, just a misguided one. To make this neutral, you should simply state, "discussions were regularly being side tracked", simple.


 * The self-admitted tendency of certain users to nitpick for the sake of nitpicking, rather than trying to be helpful

I dont see any admissions whatsoever in the last 20 pages on your original project thread of nitpicking. I see a number of contributors (ones whom you appear to thank in the ends credits of your first movie) finding large errors in your plot and attempting to resolve them as best they could, helping you along the way.

This entire section only attacks people when you left, there is no neutral stance here. most of these need to be re-written to be neutral (see both sides of view) or just flat out removed for lack of relevance. - 15.195.201.88 00:15, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

First, lose the "you need to" and "they need to" attitude. Those are your opinions, and as I mentioned, those aren't opinions I happen to share. Your belligerence isn't now nor has it ever been welcome.

Second, I'm not going to get into an argument with a user who "can't be bothered logging in anywhere" if you can avoid it. Your attitude was belligerent from the moment you started altering my two pages, and that's sharply reduced my willingness to indulge anything you say. First, your "trawl" of the threads at SFM and 3DG (a claim I find highly dubious given the lengths of both project threads on SFM) conveniently ignores the preponderance of positive feedback on the other sites, which was overwhelmingly positive. I don't feel the need to dwell on the negative feedback from SFM because it's one site among many. Further, you asked a 3DG admin about who said what--you accuse me of lying about what took place, but you also claim that the Specter and Retribution pages themselves held lies about the reception. If your "trawl" of the SFM project threads (and that's not even taking into account the Specter threads on the other sites) had been as complete as you say, you'd have realized that what I said is the truth: reactions have been provably and overwhelming positive to Specter, and have largely (though with some caveats, some justified and some not) been the same to Retribution. The fact that you seem obsessed with the Specter feedback at SFM shows me you're the one who's ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of positive feedback on the other sites...which proves Jono right, you're more interested in badmouthing and flaming than you are with making a constructive contribution.

And there's nothing "passive aggressive" about the Change of Venue section--it's precisely what happened, and my reasons why. "Mixed reviews" means exactly that--some people were positive and some people weren't, and there's really no room for interpretation. And I don't see where you get the bit about "YouTube comments" because none of the Retribution clips have been around long enough to rack them up, and the comments I can see on the pieces of Specter don't support your argument nor have they ever. I acknowledged right from the get-go that Retribution has had mixed reception, and that's all the acknowledgement I'm required to give--it's a statement that it's not universally loved, and I did provide examples of why people both do and do not like it.

Finally, regarding the SFM change of venue. There was no attack there, I can justify everything I said with a preponderance of posts from the Retribution thread. As far as the "English as a second language" excuse, that's no justification at all. Someone with a firm enough command of English to understand the dialogue in Retribution and participate in the discussion thread--and offer comprehensive rewrites of scenes besides--has the capacity to understand me when I say "I don't understand your metaphor, be careful when you do that because certain things can carry different contexts." Again, if you'd examined the discussion thread as closely as you claim to, you'd have realized I'd cautioned the same user several times about the use of metaphors. As for the others, most of them had been with me through most of the Specter discussion thread, and had either crossed the line or come very close to it more than once. As that was my first creative endeavor, I was willing to put up with it--not so the second time around.

I'm sorry but I don't find your opinions to be reasonable or helpful in any way. You're doing worse than that of which you accuse me--I can prove (and to my mind, I have by referring you to the non-SFM discussion threads, only some of which were even started by me) that Specter received a far greater volume of positive feedback than it did negative. Your citation of YouTube comments is also without merit, because if you look at the comments on the Specter pieces that are still up, the Director's Edition was very well received. Retribution's clips from the beginning have also gotten mostly positive commentary on YouTube. I routinely take down the short clips in favor of the full-length cuts, but every time a full-length cut goes up, someone always has something positive to say about it (if I'm not mistaken, a fan has already thumbs-upped the long clip up right now). Oh, and by the way--the number of "Likes" on the YT clips far outweighs the "Dislikes."

You, on the other hand, seem obsessively focused on the negative feedback on one site, namely SFM. I never said Retribution was perfect--I've acknowledged on several occasions the plot did have some flaws, and there's a part of the current cut with which I'm significantly less than satisfied. But as far as I'm concerned, pointing out weaknesses in the plot doesn't amount to negative feedback.

Your arguments all seem to have one goal in mind, to smear the good reputations of these two films I've worked so very hard to produce. The Specter page was up for well over six months before you came along, and I didn't see anyone else complain that it lacked "objectivity." The same can be said for Retribution--and I'm pretty sure that, if the problems with them were as severe as you say, someone would have said something to me about it sooner.

I'm sorry, but you've failed to convince me that what you say has any merit, or that you're trying to accomplish anything other than flaming me. Saying something has "mixed reviews" depletes your position of any merit, particularly since I gave some examples of criticisms people had. The fact that I didn't go out of my way to find and list every single criticism ever leveled against these two projects--which it's become painfully obvious is what you want--is not an attempt to omit or distort anything. It's a reflection of the fact that I choose to dwell on the positive, rather than the negative. I suggest you do the same.

The only way I would've listened to you is if you did what you demanded I do: cite me specific instances (including YouTube comments) of this wealth of negative feedback you seem so certain exists. I can assure you, had you done so, I would've buried you under quotes from the Specter discussion threads and the archived YouTube comments I have of the Retribution clips, that beg to differ.

This discussion is over. Any further alterations you make to either page will be immediately undone.Tnpir4002 00:41, August 12, 2011 (UTC)