Three times an anon user has attempted to remove the following without explanation:
- Noteworthy is that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has not received any coverage in Cinefex, though an article about that film was apparently written at one point, as former freelance writer for the magazine, Kevin Martin, later recalled; "There was in fact a Star Trek II article commissioned by publisher/then-editor Don Shay, but he found it unsatisfactory and 'killed' it. I freelanced for the magazine from 1990 to 1998 and was staff writer there till the end of 2000 (wrote their coverage for ST TUC, GEN, FC and INS, though they really messed up the editing on GEN), and I spent a lot of that time trying to get a look at the TWOK manuscript without success. It must have been a real disaster, because I know of very few Cinefex pieces that were killed off rather than printed." (source)
Hello. This is Gregg Shay from Cinefex. I have tried to remove this paragraph because it was placed here by a disgruntled ex-writer of our, Kevin Martin. I won't go into the details about why he was fired, but I have been trying to remove his negative comments around the net.
I'm sorry I tried to edit this anon, I wasn't quite sure of the site's policies until I saw this notice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gregg Shay Creative Director Cinefex
- Indeed thanks for the reply. However, fact remains that Trek II has not received any coverage in your magazine...Was there a valid reason for that?--Sennim (talk) 13:36, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
Kevin here. I'd like to know what 'negative comments' he is referring to. I reported what I knew, and to put the trek reference in context I brought up the work done on their 2001 article (that's the edited-out bit, I guess?)
There's a real problem when accuracy in reporting is subject to revisionism; I'd refer any & all parties to the film THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALLANCE and its sad coda about when the legend is more popular than the truth, to print the legend. That's how we get stuff about klingon blood color being dependent on ratings instead of plot (the latter is what is true, btw.)--220.127.116.11 00:59, June 11, 2013 (UTC)