Stupid reviews, incorrect info, dumb rumors over the years...

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I remember that the episode "Ferengi Love Songs" was also called "Of Love and Profit" in some kind of source, I don't remember well enough. It's like it almost doesn't matter what the title was, but I think "The closet" would have been the best title for that episode.

 

[Brandonv]

I remember reading a rumor that Spock was going to be in Nemesis, and that he was going to be the antagonist.

 

[RobertScorpio]

...Ebert doesn't print his reviews. Obviously who ever edited this review messed it up...

That makes no sense at all.

Ebert writes his reviews, and this is a mistake in the writing - it's not some bit of credit info inserted into the review after the fact by someone else.

Do really think that Roger Ebert didn't see the movie? is that what you're saying? Or is it more credible that something happening in the printing. If you don't think he wrote the review, then call up his editor and complain.

I think he saw it..I think a mistake was made. If not, then call his bluff...but for now its his words against yours and, well, I like Roger Ebert's reviews. I know very little of you. So weighing both sides? I'll go with Roger Ebert on this one.

Or, it maybe because he is not a fan like you and I, he may have been confused at the time. Apparently many people on this board don't like the movie because of elements. I could see someone like my grandfather seeing this movie and somehow confusing the two time eras of the movie. It is sci fi...and it is about time...

But again, I like Ebert..and I find this kind nitpicking quite needless and with out merit

Rob
Scorpio

Rob
Scorpio

 

[OmahaStar]

I find this kind nitpicking quite needless and with out merit

Rob
Scorpio

Perhaps we could take you more seriously if you hadn't already gay-bashed George Takei earlier in this thread.

 

[Mysterion]

My favorite was an article in "The Best of Trek" that appeared just before TNG actually began to air. They seemed to be mostly regurgitating rumors and news from whatever other sources were available. Some of it dead on, other parts not so much. The clincher for me, though, was the writer stating that Picard must be Deltan because he was bald.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Do really think that Roger Ebert didn't see the movie...
I think he saw it..I think a mistake was made.

Yep, Ebert made it.

It's right there in the middle of the review that he wrote - it's not a typo, mind you, it's a sentence or so of description identifying the character, the actor and the character's relationship to Kirk.

You say that Ebert didn't write what he put his name on, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. "It doesn't seem credible to me" doesn't wash as an argument; there are a few facts in evidence here and none of them favor your POV nor do you bring any new information to bear on the matter.

Try again.

...I find this kind nitpicking quite needless and with out[sic] merit

Good for you, but I didn't ask. You made an unfounded and rather silly statement; produce some evidence.

 

[Stag]

As far as Enterprise was concerned - I remember rumors that there was to FINALLY be a regular gay character. I think Reed was originally supposed to be gay. I also seem to remember Reed initially was to be a woman. Also that Mayweather was a freighter kid, never set foot on Earth and was to be the seasoned space farer of the bunch.

Also that Chef was supposed to be an ancestor of Kirk's.

 

[diankra]

Do really think that Roger Ebert didn't see the movie...
I think he saw it..I think a mistake was made.

Yep, Ebert made it.

It's right there in the middle of the review that he wrote - it's not a typo, mind you, it's a sentence or so of description identifying the character, the actor and the character's relationship to Kirk.

You say that Ebert didn't write what he put his name on, so the burden of proof is on you, not me. "It doesn't seem credible to me" doesn't wash as an argument; there are a few facts in evidence here and none of them favor your POV nor do you bring any new information to bear on the matter.

Try again.

...I find this kind nitpicking quite needless and with out[sic] merit

Good for you, but I didn't ask. You made an unfounded and rather silly statement; produce some evidence.

Ok, evidence.. you have no evidence that the error was in Ebert's original copy; those of us suggesting that it might be an error introduced by a sub have no evidence for that.. except, in my case, my own experience of having written for national newspapers and magazines, and subbed and edited them.

And that experience is that 'Just because your name is on it, it doesn't mean you wrote every word'. There are subs and editors in between your raw copy and the printer, and even if you have the clout to demand copy approval - which Ebert probably does - the practicalities of applying it on each and every occasion make it near impossible to do so unless you sleep in the office. (You just shout, loudly, if a really silly slip gets put out under your name. Like the notable Fantasy author who once got a sex change between my signing off a review I'd commissioned and it seeing print in 'edited' form).

I've got no evidence to show that it was a subbing error - any more than you've got Ebert's original copy as proof that the slip was in the material he wrote. But if I had to lay money... I'd go for the subbing slip.

 

[Luke Lightsaber]

There were a ton of sites I read that Morn would have the last line of dialog in the last DS9 episode.

 

[trevanian]

But if I had to lay money... I'd go for the subbing slip.

I can't tell you how embarassing it is when you see an editorial messup of something you wrote ... one of my CINEFEX articles has a mention of the Enterprise as seen on VOYAGER (!!!!) and you'd better believe that wasn't me. Likewise, the phrase "near subliminal barrel distortion" became "veneer" .... well something that was wrong and sounded venereal.

 

[Kryton]

Simpler yet, just a few months ago CNN.com ran a preliminary article on ST:XI a few months back and they called it both "Star Trek" AND "Star Trak" on the same page!

 

[diankra]

But if I had to lay money... I'd go for the subbing slip.

I can't tell you how embarassing it is when you see an editorial messup of something you wrote ... one of my CINEFEX articles has a mention of the Enterprise as seen on VOYAGER (!!!!) and you'd better believe that wasn't me. Likewise, the phrase "near subliminal barrel distortion" became "veneer" .... well something that was wrong and sounded venereal.

It's the tiny little things that irritate you - I had to dictate a review of First Contact down a trans-atlantic phoneline, and had included a reference to the new Enterprise and crewmembers (ie, Hawk), being introduced without fanfare - 'already part of the furniture'. That somehow became a reference to them being moved around like furniture, as if I was implying that Neal McDonough's acting was a bit wooden...

Mind you, the worst one I almost suffered was when, in discussing a TV documentary, my write-up referring to 'the tragic story of a drug addict whose addiction led to the murder of his girlfriend and child' got subbed into 'who murdered his girlfriend and child' - the crucial difference being that he didn't kill them (the drug dealers to whom he owed money did). Fortunately it got spotted before it got printed and we all ended up before the libel courts...

 

[diankra]

Simpler yet, just a few months ago CNN.com ran a preliminary article on ST:XI a few months back and they called it both "Star Trek" AND "Star Trak" on the same page!

A cautionary tale from a British newspaper from about 15 years back. They meant to refer to 'therapist Sid Bloggs' (not the real name, obviously).
Unfortunately, an unwanted space appeared three letters into the word 'therapist'. And as both of the resulting words are words, the spell check didn't point it out. And a few months later, Mr 'Bloggs' got a very large cheque to compensate for this libellous attack on his reputation...

 

[Wowbagger]

Anyone remember when "Subcommander T'Pol" was going to be a Romulan?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ok, evidence.. you have no evidence that the error was in Ebert's original copy; those of us suggesting that it might be an error introduced by a sub have no evidence for that...

Except, of course, for the fact that his name is on it, the fact that the text has been transposed through several media without editorial or authorial correction, and the fact that it is not a typographical error or one of attribution but several misstatements put together based on a clear misunderstanding of the scene in question.

If Ebert didn't make this mistake, then the person who did actually watched the movie, wrote the review on Ebert's behalf and was allowed to attach his name to it.

That's not terribly likely now, is it?

The evidence I cite is in front of you; it's the review itself. Your alternative explanations are unsupported hypotheses intended to discount what evidence actually exists. Uh-uh.

 

[diankra]

Ok, evidence.. you have no evidence that the error was in Ebert's original copy; those of us suggesting that it might be an error introduced by a sub have no evidence for that...

Except, of course, for the fact that his name is on it, the fact that the text has been transposed through several media without editorial or authorial correction, and the fact that it is not a typographical error or one of attribution but several misstatements put together based on a clear misunderstanding of the scene in question.

If Ebert didn't make this mistake, then the person who did actually watched the movie, wrote the review on Ebert's behalf and was allowed to attach his name to it.

That's not terribly likely now, is it?

The evidence I cite is in front of you; it's the review itself. Your alternative explanations are unsupported hypotheses intended to discount what evidence actually exists. Uh-uh.

Ok, we're going round in circles here, but one last time.

Newspapers and magazines are a collaborative effort. The reporter or writer whose name is on the piece does not see his/her text through to actual printing - it goes through the hands of editors, layout designers and sub-editors, each of whom have the authority to make changes in the process of putting the entire package together.
Your interpretation of the evidence is potentially flawed, because it's based on the mistaken belief that every word that sees print is exactly as written by the person credited, and that is not always the case. Indeed, I'd say that it's very rarely the case, though usually changes will be no more than a word cut here or added there to avoid 'widows and orphans'.

It's entirely possible that the mistaken reference to the new captain being 'Picard, played by Patrick Stewart' could have been added by a sub who needed to pad an under-running piece, or felt that the readers needed more information, and misintereted the press pack. Sorry if you don't believe that's credible, but it is, and I personally think that's just as likely as the reviewer who'd actually seen the movie having misread the scene so massively.

But we can't know for sure without reading his original copy. Unless... does the newspaper in question have a 'Corrections and Clarifications' column? 1994's a bit early for them to be standard, but if it did, any correction would often include an explanation of how an error occured.

Still, it's all a storm in a tea cup, not worth keeping rehashing ad infinitum.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

Ok, evidence.. you have no evidence that the error was in Ebert's original copy; those of us suggesting that it might be an error introduced by a sub have no evidence for that...

Except, of course, for the fact that his name is on it, the fact that the text has been transposed through several media without editorial or authorial correction, and the fact that it is not a typographical error or one of attribution but several misstatements put together based on a clear misunderstanding of the scene in question.

If Ebert didn't make this mistake, then the person who did actually watched the movie, wrote the review on Ebert's behalf and was allowed to attach his name to it.

That's not terribly likely now, is it?

The evidence I cite is in front of you; it's the review itself. Your alternative explanations are unsupported hypotheses intended to discount what evidence actually exists. Uh-uh.

Ok, we're going round in circles here, but one last time.

Newspapers and magazines are a collaborative effort. The reporter or writer whose name is on the piece does not see his/her text through to actual printing - it goes through the hands of editors, layout designers and sub-editors, each of whom have the authority to make changes in the process of putting the entire package together.
Your interpretation of the evidence is potentially flawed, because it's based on the mistaken belief that every word that sees print is exactly as written by the person credited, and that is not always the case. Indeed, I'd say that it's very rarely the case, though usually changes will be no more than a word cut here or added there to avoid 'widows and orphans'.

It's entirely possible that the mistaken reference to the new captain being 'Picard, played by Patrick Stewart' could have been added by a sub who needed to pad an under-running piece, or felt that the readers needed more information, and misintereted the press pack. Sorry if you don't believe that's credible, but it is, and I personally think that's just as likely as the reviewer who'd actually seen the movie having misread the scene so massively.

But we can't know for sure without reading his original copy. Unless... does the newspaper in question have a 'Corrections and Clarifications' column? 1994's a bit early for them to be standard, but if it did, any correction would often include an explanation of how an error occured.

Still, it's all a storm in a tea cup, not worth keeping rehashing ad infinitum.

In my experience, it's highly unlikely a sub-editor was so desperate for extra copy that they felt it necessary to add text and then not get the journo to sign off on the changes. First of all, any extra copy would generally come from the journo.

Moreover, a journo often signs off on their copy after all changes have been made and the editor signs off on the final proofs (there are exceptions to this of course, particularly with online reporting and on daily publications, etc).

In any case, there are dozens of much faster and less complicated ways for a sub-editor or designer to flesh out a story that's a couple of words short than by adding text.

So I guess I'm saying this is all a bit of a stretch.

 

[Twain]

Except, of course, for the fact that his name is on it, the fact that the text has been transposed through several media without editorial or authorial correction, and the fact that it is not a typographical error or one of attribution but several misstatements put together based on a clear misunderstanding of the scene in question.

If Ebert didn't make this mistake, then the person who did actually watched the movie, wrote the review on Ebert's behalf and was allowed to attach his name to it.

That's not terribly likely now, is it?

The evidence I cite is in front of you; it's the review itself. Your alternative explanations are unsupported hypotheses intended to discount what evidence actually exists. Uh-uh.

Dennis - I often find myself agreeing with your observations, but here you're just being ornery for the sake of it.

I too am a journalist working on newspapers and magazines. The process Diankra describes is exactly how things happen. The journalist who wrote the submitted draft gets the byline - but that doesn't mean any errors are his or hers. There's a process called "sub-editing" which takes place before publication. Every piece goes through this. In theory, a sub-editor should just tighten up the copy, make sure the style is consistent with the publication, make grammatical and spelling corrections and edit for length (by padding or cutting). But changes are frequently made that add material or alter meaning. It's entirely plausible that a) the "Picard" error was introduced at the sub-editing stage, b) Ebert wasn't even aware the error was there until publication and c) couldn't give a toss anyway. He's Ebert, for christ's sake. He's churning that shit out all day.

You say that the evidence "doesn't exist". Yet it does exist, in the professional experience of people contributing to this thread.

And further...

In my experience, it's highly unlikely a sub-editor was so desperate for extra copy that they felt it necessary to add text and then not get the journo to sign off on the changes.

In 15 years of journalism, I've never been asked to "sign off" on changes that have been sub-edited into a piece I've submitted...

 

[Mysterion]

Anyone remember when "Subcommander T'Pol" was going to be a Romulan?

Anyone rememebr when T'Pol was gonna be T'Pau?

 

[Tulaberry whine]

In my experience, it's highly unlikely a sub-editor was so desperate for extra copy that they felt it necessary to add text and then not get the journo to sign off on the changes.

In 15 years of journalism, I've never been asked to "sign off" on changes that have been sub-edited into a piece I've submitted...

That's nice. Obviously, things are run differently where I am. OTOH, journalists blaming sub-editors for mistakes in their stories appears universal.