Talk:Who Killed the Electric Car?

message: rxdxt 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken

message: Not actually a TV ad at all! Ad in question:
A famous scene from the film depicts an advertisement for the EV1; a solemn voice-over asks "How does it go without gas and air?" and "How does it go without sparks and explosions?" Many viewers and media outlets interpreted this to be a television advertisement,http://www.sfbayguardian.com/entry.php?catid=85&entry_id=1007 complete with the camera fading to disturbing images of a family's shadows against a concrete surface, and what many liken to a blast mark. The scene in question actually depicts a print advertisement created by design firm Labyrinth Worldwide;http://www.labyrinthworldwide.com/advertising_ev1.htm the voice-over, soundtrack, and panning effects were part of the documentary.
AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Creepy Ad

message: But really, why complain about GM.  If California really wanted to have an electric car, they could have contracted with a local company to build one.  Electric motors are really simple technology.  BTW I've owned two electric bikes.  They cost under $300 each, and they go 20 miles on a ten cent charge.  
If government had any balls, it could control what happens.  Look at the chinese, they made running microsoft windows illegal and linux the standard.  Let's face it.  We have government by the corporations for the corporations.  For me the only solution is not to buy their products.  I have a car, but I rarely use it.  I would really love to get rid of it entirely.  I think I could get by renting a car a couple of times a month.  I never "joy ride."  For me, nothing is more joyless then sitting in traffic.  Nothing would please me more than an electric car - except perhaps to charge it by solar power.
To me the most telling section of the film had to do with the oil companies buying up the enhanced battery technology.  Of course this is a blatant antitrust issue.  Really, these companies should have the battery company interest seized by the government -  you know, the way meth dealers would have their assets seized.  For one, I would rather have a meth lab down the street then a petroleum distillation plant in my neighborhood.  A meth lab would probably kill fewer kids.  But don't worry big oil.  You are perfectly safe.  There is no way in hell that our government would ever protect us little people.
:SIGH - always it is "government is the answer. NO WAY!!!. And..ever see a meth lab explode? I have, very dangerous places. Ever see the people who run them? Not the college chem majors and engineers? The OTHERS? You want them in your neighborhood?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where can I get my boycott GM button?

message: This is a little ridiculous, don't you think? Criticizing critics smacks of bias (or POV issues) and is just pointless. Let people decide for themselves. I agree with the movie's message, but this is just too much. I'd remove it myself, but I thought I should at least ask first... 199.230.36.74 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's essentially someone's original research, and off topic.  So I took it out.  Like you, I pretty mjuch agree with the movie and think the Edmund's guy is nuts, but unless someone has rebutted him, we shouldn't take that on. Dicklyon 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I posted a rebuttals to Karl on Car's Edmunds article and they deleted it within hours.  I posted again and they deleted it within minuets on a Saturday.  You can see my empty post as erevman.  If they wont let people post rebuttals to their articles then I dont think they deserve to have a part of this page.  Let us please remove this junk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edmunds criticism 

message: This movie is a million times better than An Inconvenient Truth. Spiro Bob 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome movie 

message: The "Plot Summary" as it now stands reads like an advertisement.  It needs to be reworded or removed, especially the line 
It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. 
which is demonstrably false; electricity doesn't just magically appear, it has to be produced at power plants.  Most plants in the US burn fossil fuels, so charging the vehicle did indirectly produce air pollution.  Miraculouschaos 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure enough, it was copied word-for-word from the movie's official site.  Deleted.  Miraculouschaos 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: The Criticisms section is not encyclopedic.  It uses passive voice to introduce criticisms without saying who said what specifically.  This is not a place for us to make our own criticisms, which is what the hydrogen part is mostly.  I recommend a subsection for each criticism that should be reviewed.  One for the GM reponses, one for the Edmunds editor, and more as needed.  Focus on who said what, not on introducing new opinions here.  OK?  Dicklyon 19:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the criticism should be moved to a separate page (or deleted here).  Editors usually aren't happy about having their entire contribution removed completely, and I don't see the harm in a documenting the debate.  However, the debate in the "criticism" section is about facts and causation surrounding the reality that no production electric car is now available, not about the film itself.  While that debate is the subject of and reason for the film, I see it as separate from the entry about the film.Castellanet 03:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The criticism section might simply benefit from being included in a more general section called "response", or something similar. That is a legitimate part of an article, plus I have seen many Wikipedia articles document this aspect of a film, though maybe we've overdone it a bit in playing devil's advocate. That being said, any good documentary film is one that provokes thought and debate, so the criticism section shouldn't be deleted altogether.--Ryddragyn 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Rxdct, I think you missed the point of the Suspects section.  This is just to summarize the points made in the film, not to introduce any opinions of us editors.  The film is organized explicitly around this list of suspects.  As to the criticisms, I think it's not a bad idea to summarize who is criticizing the film, with what points.  Again, let's avoid introducing editor opinions.   Same with reviews section; it's to link and optionally summarize reviews, not to introduce our own.  NPOV should help make it all encyclopedic.  Dicklyon 05:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section needs a rewrite

message: http://hybridblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/test_spin_in_a_.html
75.35.113.208 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test spin in a plugin Prius 

message: Which is your favorite source for the stuff being taken out? 75.35.113.208 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is this related to the section that it has been put into?  Make a new section? Dicklyon 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that suggestion to the random contributors.  I've seen it twice; the second was useful in updating some sections; but I wanted to give the contributor of these a chance to attribute them.  Since they didn't, thanks for fixing them, Starcare. Dicklyon 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing the critique of GM's survey? 

message: GM's lease requirements included;
* minimum $125k income (think 10 years ago)
* EV-1 would be 3rd or 4th vehicle
A survey by the independent Doring Company found that 33.4% of Californians wanted to purchase an EV-1, even knowing the range limitation.   Skyemoor 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lease requirements

message: :Mr. Brauer's conjecture that "the average L.A. resident's daily driving need is...higher than that national average" is contradicted, however, by other sources such as California's Department of Transportion, which reports an average commute distance of 13.3 miles in Los Angeles County in 1993 .
Is somewhat misleading. The average LA resident is not necessarily "the average LA commuter." Anyone who has lived in LA will tell you that a commute across the 10 or the 405 is going to be longer than 13.3 miles. ... aa:talk 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add more refined, or less misleading, statistics, if you find a reliable source.  Keep in mind the whoever's inequality, though, which says that if the mean is 13.3, then the percentage of people that drive 10X that or more must be less than 10%.  With such interpretations, it seems clear a great majority of LA residents could easily use an electric car, while the ones who do the long commutes may still need to use gasoline.  The percentage of commute miles converted to electric would be smaller than the percentage of drivers converted, of course.  But this is my own WP:OR, not verifiable info unless you find a source. Dicklyon 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps not.  But it's hard to tell from an average whether the number makes sense.  I think the San Fernando valley is part of LA, but maybe they're not counting the inline empire.  The point, though, is that even those who commute twice the average, or more, could do so easily in an electric car.  That's got to be a majority.  If only the long-distance commuters need to stick with gasoline, that still leaves a huge potential market and benefit for electrics. Dicklyon 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading rebuttal to the los angeles commute 

message: The OC Weekly Review is not a movie review (as stated), but a political commentary loosely related to the movie.  It does not belong in the review section for this movie. Tomteboda 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there a reviews section at all?  I don't see reviewer blurbs on other movie articles. Phiwum 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where else are you going to find attributable reliable sources about the content of a movie if not from reviewers?  It doesn't have to be a section, but it seems to work OK that way. Dicklyon 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Is there any need for the "Spoiler" tags in the conclusions section? This isn't really a murder mystery.
—wwoods 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers? 

message: The GM section does not actually review the movie itself, so does not belong here; perhaps EV-1 article.  --Skyemoor 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is not "reveiw" per se, the GM blog entitle "Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?" mentions the movie title in its opening sentence and is obviously written as a reaction to the movie, not about the EV-1 more generally.  It belongs here. Dicklyon 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they claimed they didn't see the movie, their blog entry is not a criticism of the movie, and hence has no place in this article.  --Skyemoor 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the article already state that they said the didn't see the movie; still, it's a reliable source, and it's about the movie and the points made in the movie.  Why are you so keen to remove it?  Do you not like to see GM looking like fools? Dicklyon 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GM 'review' 

message: I wish the film had explored the typical electric bill increase for one who trades his car for an electric. I also wonder how the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001 influenced the consumer demand for electric cars and influenced GM's decision to pull the car. Would it be worthwhile to include links to this information?
:If the film did not explore it, why would think it would belong in the article? Dicklyon 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electricity Costs and Crisis 

message: It seems that the crushing of the cars was something that the companies were trying to hide; it was only possible to know about the crushing because this was filmed from a helicopter in Arizona. It should be examined in the article whether Dave Barthmuss's statement that "every part" of the decommissioned cars was to be recycled was true. He continues to claim that "crushing is part of the recycling process." I find this very difficult to believe. Badagnani 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cars were crushed because the program was being shelved. There was no ongoing way to service or maintain any of the vehicles, and the last thing GM wanted was vehicles with absolutely no support, service, parts, remaining out there. Hobbyists who may have wanted/been able to independently maintain their own EV-1s personally (arguments about whether this would even be possibly over long periods of time in any meaningful sense) are utterly irrelevant. If you want to believe that they were crushed because of a government conspiracy, Big Oil, aliens, or a combination of the above, be my guest. The film is extremely biased. The fact of the matter is that GM realizes it made a mistake by killing the EV-1 Hybrid, which was really where the market would be...but there was no way to know that then. There are numerous arguments about how poorly managed this process was; many of them true. But the focus on the fact that the cars were crushed is just too much. That's the ONLY way to insure they don't get back out into peoples' hands again via various means. It's not like GM is trying to hide anything; the EV-1's capabilities are well documented and well known. das (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has no bearing on the article and should be taken to the appropriate forum/blog.  --Skyemoor (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Did anyone else notice that the car transporters were half empty? And one was completely empty? They had at least two, possibly 3 too many car transporters carrying away the last of the EV1s. Each of the open bed variety could carry 8 vehicles. Most had 5 to 6 on them. The closed wall variety isn't clear, but I would expect they were just as inefficient there. I was disappointed that this mockery of efficiency wasn't mentioned in the movie, but hopefully people picked up on it anyway. I mean how hard is it to divide 78 cars by 8-car capacity transporters? How do you end up with extra room on some and an entirely empty additional one? What a joke. 75.162.213.243 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crushing of cars

message: Yesterday I saw RV1 in action; it is owned by California Edison and used in their private/public park near Shaver Lake, CA.  The operator I talked to loved it; said he usually got about 180 miles on a charge, driving in the hills in day light and darkness.  He said it took 5 hours to recharge.  He noted that Edison bought it outright so GM cannot take it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.205.251 (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who killed the electric car? 

message: "The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies. They were eliminated from the GM Line in 1999."
Whether you like the George W. Bush administration or not his administration did not start until 2001, a full two years before they were eliminated from the GM Line in 1999.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.186.179 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline off 

message: Mentioned in the Coker quote, what is it? Google failed me. Paradoctor (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANWAR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Who Killed the Electric Car?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060710160519/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002729006 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002729006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When were the GM test cars put on the road in California? When was the last one taken off the road?  Start date/end date? The movie reveals those dates, but, this article doesn't. 2603:8090:504:E4DB:6C11:1F88:F75C:824A (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing histrionics