Talk:Arrested Development/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Major vandalism

First someone put a picture of genitalia, then they just erased the whole thing.

This was terrible. I wanted to view this show's page at work and a big penis pops up on the screen. Wikipedia needs to do a better job defending against hackers.

  • Wikipedians are too used to this sort of thing. Most prominent articles get vandalized with genitalia, for the desired shock value. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 04:03
  • With the featured article most vandalism gets reverted in under a minute. Vandals get blocked after a few warnings. They could always protect the article, but protecting featured articles is sort-of counter-Wikipedian. Peyna 04:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ron Howard

  • Shouldn't Ron be listed as an uncredited creator? "Ron Howard had the original idea to create a comedy in the style of hand-held cameras and reality television, but with an elaborate, highly comical script resulting from repeated rewritings and rehearsals. Howard met with David Nevins, the president of Imagine Television, Katie O’Connell, a senior vice president, and two writers including Mitchell Hurwitz. In"
  • Done. In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page, not the top. --BRIAN0918 23:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Will do.

Presented like a documentary?

  • Not even close.

The narrator, the shaky cam, the archival footage, the censoring... what more do you need, for Michael to yell "Oh my God, this is a documentary!!"

  • there is no need to be a wikidick about it Rubber cat 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mitchell Hurwitz, Ron Howard, and several actors all say that "it is supposed to be like a documentary" on the DVD extras. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:29
    • Ron Howard isn't the creator. Mitchell Hurwitz is the creator.
      • You misunderstood my comma. I've clarified it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-27 05:27
        • Although it is obvious that it's supposed to be presented like a documentry, does anyone think it would be worth mentioning it's lack of consistancy in comparison to shows like The Office (UK) (I'm not sure about the American version)?
  • I think it is misleading to write that this is presented like a documentary. It implies it is belongs in the same category as "mockumentaries" like Christopher Guest films or, as noted above, The Office (UK). It obviously does not. Regardless what the creator involved may have said, a shaky camera, narration, and a few comedic devices like archival footage and censoring do not a documentary (or, rather, mockumentary) make. Sure it refernces documentary techniques, but this is not a parody of documentary film.
    • And if you can find a reputable source to back up your claim, that's fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 13:36
      • Why? The point about this statement being misunderstood is entirely self-evident. The point here is that, yes, this does have a "documentary feel" or, if you like, "documentary style" (this is what Hurwitz was geting at) but it does not "present" itself as a documentary (if it did, it would be a true mockumentary). I wonder if you think my saying this means I don't like the show. I love the show, it's just I feel this turn of phrase misrepresents what Hurwitz was saying and what the show is.
    • NYPD Blue featured a "shaky camera" as well, but I don't think we consider that documentary. Peyna 04:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it is presented like a documentary, just because it does not take the same form as mockumentaries you have seen before, does not mean it is not one itself. "Mockumentaries are often presented as... cinéma vérité pieces following people as they go through various events," this sounds like Arrested Development. I do not think that the actors need to acknowledge the presence of the documentary camera (which I think is what is at issue) for it to be a documentary/mockumentary. You wouldn't say that a Michael Moore documentary was not a documentary because it was not like an Errol Morris or Andrew Jarecki documentary. This just has a different documentary style than the aforementioned films/shows. Otherwise I would like to know what specific elements make it not presented like a documentary? TuesdayMush 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The creators, directors, producers, and writers explicitly said it is meant to be a ficticious documentary and they continue to view it as such. Who are we to tell them it's not?
  • If you think about it, it's similar to the kinds of documentaries where there aren't direct interviews. Kind of real-worldish.--Torourkeus 03:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the DVD commentary tracks they talk about this issue a fair bit. They don't quite say that the final product is a false documentary, although perhaps that was one of their original ideas. Something they specifically mention in the commentary track is, how would the documentary crew have so much access to the prison, at all hours of the day. Other scenes throughout the series you can just watch carefully and realize that it couldn't possibly be a documentary; for example, they cut back and forth between two characters having a conversation, and if it were a documentary you'd be able to see cameramen in the background in those sequences. Compare it to something like The Office, a true example of a mockumentary. --Mathew5000 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

2points: -To a documentary, the show is similar, perhaps only in, human speech timing, the illusion of a long pause between the actors lines,- which in nature is reflex and ponder,- but usually in visual fiction the actors talk right after the other very quickly, this is editing, and this is getting in more time for commercials. -This show is more similar to the "reality shows" of the past few years than a "documentary",- what a slipery semantic slope that is. Initially i thought this show was more a effort at british television comedy like Absolutely Fabulous. --User:Book_M 09.06|gregorian

  • "style of hand-held cameras and reality television", description from first talk article describing Ron Howard's initial proposal for a show,- Arrested Development is LIKE a documentary, with the narration dry camera style,- cut away's to background information, but this show also refers to very cheesey film and tv procedures, like sped up time building, and have they ever used the wavey lines for a character thinking about a flashback? One of the first 'reality shows' of the current parlance of the term was an Australian series called Sylvania Waters which is almost exactly like Arrested Development in setting, stories and characters only more fake in that it was supposed to be people acting natural only with a film crew following them:) Like any filmed experience people act strange in front of a camera, real or fiction.--
  • Added discussion, but if the film makers have stated "documentary style" then i suppose that that is it on some levels, Timing and filming style in hommage to documentary.

Book_M

      • On the DVD for the first season, which someone mentioned with the commentary track, the whole conversation ends up being that it started out as a fake documentary but is more like a reality television show or a cross between the two. This is in that it follows like a documentary as all the above arguments claimed, except with no "confessionals" and the stars ignoring the cameramen, to the most part.

Swearing

I was watching AD last night, and I distinctly heard George Micheal say 'fuck'. Is FOX allowed to do that? -Litefantastic 19:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • No. He said "pluck", in keeping with the whole flower metaphor thing he was saying to Maeby.--Patrick T. Wynne 20:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I just watched the episode and I thought he said "fucked" too. I feel like the audio has been intentionally edited to make it vague. George Michael's head is facing away from the camera, and it's really hard to distinguish. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • They're allowed to do anything, but the FCC can always fine them if they get complaints. Peyna 04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When they swear, it's always beeped and their mouths are always covered by a shoulder, their hands, a glass, etc.
  • Or they just show the reactions of other characters when they hear one swear, so they won't risk showing obvious swearing. It's pretty cleverly done.J.J. Bustamante 16:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jon Hurwitz

Does anyone know if Jon Hurwitz is Mitchell Hurwitz's brother? I suspect he is on the flimsy evidence of (a) the sharpness of the Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle script, and (b) the physical resemblance - see the pic at Jon Hurwitz at IMDb - but could find no real evidence. RMoloney 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went to high school with Jon Hurwitz. They're definitely not brothers. As far as I'm aware they're no relation. RandolphHighSchoolAlumni 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

character lost

shouldnt their be a mention of the asian kid who disapeared?

  • He (Annyong Bluth) is mentioned in the article Characters from Arrested Development. Apparently he spent all of Season 2 at boarding school, but I don't know if this was actually mentioned on-screen or was just explained by the producers in off-screen publicity. --Metropolitan90 05:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
It was mentioned onscreen at least once - he was sent off to that private school where children are neither seen nor heard. john k 17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

He showed up in an "On the next Arrested Development" segment earlier this year.Tweeq 03:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah, he's living inside the walls with a two-way radio. It's implied that he was the mole that the goverment was getting information from. The Feds must have turned him at Milford...ka1iban 16:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it might be more clever to just not discuss Annyong. To the more perceptive audience members like us, we'd notice he disappeared, and it would imply how Lucille really just didn't care about the kid, so much so that he disappeared and she didn't even notice. I noticed they use a lot of subtle signs like that. Like, remember Michael's retarded girlfriend in Wee Britain? In one part, she was sitting on a bench for Wee Britain, and her body was covering the i and t, so it said "Wee Brain," alluding to her stupidity. Also a couple episodes earlier, George Michael said he has a "stupid girl problem," and Michael says that he doesn't even have a stupid girl. Few would notice that's a foreshadowing of the retarded girl. Just forgetting Annyong like that would be funnier for us who have the DVDs and watch it over and over.

Continuity & Topicality

  • I belive one of the biggest draws for superfans of the show is it's heavy use of contiunity. Could anyone write a section about the show's soap-opera dynamic and it's frequent use of call backs, call fowards (a term Mitchell Hurwitz coined for foreshadowing of jokes episodes ahead of time), and running gags?
    • I started one. Daydream believer2 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Is this still there? I really get a kick out of the foreshadowing jokes. I think he calls it the punchline coming before the joke. There were SOOO many references to hands and seals in the second season. --Torourkeus 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

2-hour Arrested Development Marathon on Fridays on FOX

Hey I noticed there have been two 2-hour Arrested Development (season 2) marathons on fridays on FOX so far this summer. They are from 8PM to 10PM. BTW, the second one is on right now as I'm posting this so g2g. -Hyad 00:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

question

I was wondering to the person that gave the update that Arrested Development had been shortered from 24 to 15 episodes, do you have a link for this? I was trying to find information on this but was unable to. Thanks.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a rumour only one person has confirmed so far (on a blog so far); and no one in any way official has verified this. So yeah, second that call for a source. Daydream believer2 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a rumor. The season was cut from 22 episodes to 18: [1], [2] - Laszlo Panaflex 05:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No, not a rumor: it already came and went. But which season are discussing? These external links are from April 2005, and refer to last season, i.e. the one that started in autumn of 2004. When someone added this to the article it seemed as though they were referring to this season (i.e. ending in May 2006). Has anyone verifiably mentioned anything about cutting episodes from the current season? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? It is mentioned twice in the article, at the top of the Season Two section and in the Response section where it is also clearly discussing Season Two. There has been no mention of cutting this season short, it just started. Laszlo Panaflex 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, but I assumed the original question was referring to this edit. The statement has since been modified. (I had left for dinner and didn't see the subsequent edits.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this whole thread was over what amounted to some vandalism. The "24 to 15" bit was changed to "24 to 30" and then to "24 to 300" before being removed. So on behalf of everyone contributing to this sub-section, her she is, Miss Emily Latella! Emily: "Nevermind." - Laszlo Panaflex 17:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • How many episodes did Season one have?--Occono 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 22 for Season 1; 18 for Season 2 (after a cutback from 22); 13 --so far-- for Season 3 (after a cutback from 22).

Corleone-Bluth Connection?

This doesn't seem like a very concrete connection, as Michael is a very common name. Does anybody have any proof of this connection?

  • I'd say it would be more based upon personalities than simply the Michael connection: GOB being a hothead and the type to jump quickly into action; Michael the cooler head; Lindsay being the one trapped in a marriage to a man who is eventually disliked by the family, and finally Buster is not exactly the brightest bulb... so what you have is Gob/Sonny Coreleone; Michael/Michael Coroleone; Lindsay/Connie; and finally Buster/Fredo. There is also the criminal element, but beyond that, it has never been brought up within the series, but considering the intricate smaller parts of the series, the naming is hardly coincidental. ("Maeby Funke" comes to mind here with regard to George Michael's wondering whether she was adopted, which, if so, would open up George Michael to go for it with her) jlove1982 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

End spoilers tag

Here is the "end spoilers" tag:

{{endspoiler}}

Please insert it into the article. I may then withdraw my objection. --Hollow Wilerding 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Location of series

There seems to be some disagreement about where the series is portrayed as taking place. The reference of "Orange County" has been interpreted as meaning Orange County, New York but I think it is more likely that it refers to Orange County, California. In fact, the article even says that it is filmed in "Culver City and Marina Del Rey" (both of which are very near to Orange County, CA). "wee britain" is merely a fictional place that does not actually exist. Bovineone 18:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The series definitely takes place in Orange County, Califonia. I haven't seen the Britain episode yet. I only change the wikilink because it was originally pointing at the wikipage for the British Little Britain TV comedy skit show. I looked at the disambiguation page for Little Britain, and the Little Britain New York seemed the most obvious. So, if the phrase used in the episode was actually Wee Britain, than there shouldnt have been a wikilink in the first place. sorry for the confusion Bwithh 18:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There's also the fact that in the Season 2 episode "Afternoon Delight", a map of California shows up when Oscar's going to make his yearly trek up the coast, a trek that usually ends just miles away at UC-Irvine (where he can score some "Afternoon Deelite" for the brownies he gives to Lucille). jlove1982 05:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

In the first second of the pilot episode, the setting is identified as "Orange County, California." TuesdayMush 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Background

This is some background to the show, from the Season 1 DVD, to be prosified and put into the article:

  • According to creator Mitchell Hurwitz, the Bluth family does not represent his family "in any way."
  • The creator said the documentary-style was chosen in order to "inform the storytelling", so that, instead of everything being told in a linear fashion, the story could be told non-linearly. An example is the use of "archive footage" at key parts. He says it is a "great way, stylistically, to move the story along".
  • The narrator, as a result, becomes a central to the show. Test viewers who see "rough cuts" of episodes, without narration, find the story difficult to follow.
  • The actor behind George Sr. was informally asked to be a guest star on the show, but as a result of good audience testing, became a part of the cast.
  • Often times, an episode's script is created by the writers sitting together in a room and talking out the entire story, with random ideas thrown in as they go along.
  • Liza Minnelli was the first choice to play Lucille Austero. Ron Howard was previously directed by her father, and apparently she babysat for him. So he called her, and the creator discussed the part with her, and she was immediately interested. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 02:03

AD Canned

No more episodes. Someone should edit the article. Manmonk 04:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Not true. Yet another over-sensasionalization. Fox cut the number of episodes to 13, but have not said that the show is cancelled, despite the numerous news reports which would like to claim such. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-27 04:37
  • [1]--Torourkeus 03:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Character-driven

What is a character-driven comedy television series? Or, more interesting, what is a non-character-driven comedy series? America's Funniest Home Videos? -Acjelen 06:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Character-driven means that the comedy is based chiefly around unique traits of each character, and their interactions with other characters. This is usually seen in shows with large casts, such as Arrested Development or Firefly. Non-character driven could mean a lot of different things; it just means that the characters' personalities aren't necessarily the primary focus of the show. For example, it could be driven mainly by plot. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 06:48

Congratulations on making the main page

This is the best show on TV. Well done.--Richy 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Great page, well done all concerned! -- 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Er....

[[:Image:Arrested_Development_-_Rita.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Rita (Charlize Theron), wearing one of her various hats, used by the writers to give the appearance of being a hidden camera.]] ...what does the caption mean? It makes no sense! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've attempted to clarify it. Is that better? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 13:40

Uhm...

Is that origins section vandalism? Sounds like it, but I really don't know enough aboot the show, eh? WilyD 14:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

recent edits

somebody who knows more about the show, please check the recent edits, especially regarding cancelation. I doubt it's correct, but I don't follow the show. --Appleboy Talk 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. There's been no new news on the show's status. The editor who made that change no doubt got suckered by one of the many news articles from the Nov 11 timeframe that failed to distinguish between "pulled with no real chance of ever returning" and "officially cancelled." I've put it back to the way it was before. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does GOB live?

Does GOB live in the Bluth house? ike9898 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Never specified. He was living with Marta in the beginning, until they broke up, then he lived on the yacht, until he blew it up for an "illusion". He lived with Lucille 2 for a while. 130.160.84.232 17:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess someone else decided that the question of GOB's domicile was funny, because it was addressed in one of the episodes on Feb. 10th. As soon as one of the characters brought it up, I thought of the comments on this page. (One of the speculated homes was a lighthouse.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicken dance

Is the Chicken Dance really considered offensive in Mexico? ike9898 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The only way to find out would be to fly to Tijuana and try it out. No, shoot, I forgot WP:NOR again. Hmm. The world may never know. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wee Britain

  • I am looking for confirmation that Wee Britain is a topicality spoof of Old World Village located in Orange County, CA. From their website, "...it is like going to Europe without leaving Orange County...". Pattersonc 23:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought the same thing when I saw Wee Britain on AD. It's so much like Old World Village, only British instead of German. Catgil667

IPA pronunciation of GOB

Is there a reason the IPA pronunciation of GOB keeps getting deleted from the article? I'm going to add it back, since it was last removed by an anonymous editor, but if there's good reason I'd like to know. Thanks. Borksamoht 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have no problem with it, but what about adding the actual diacritical pronunciation, |jōb| , as well. I hate to sound dumb, but I can never figure out an IPA pronunciation.Pattersonc 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed...IPA is fairly esoteric. Borksamoht 07:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
What on earth is a "diacritical" pronunciation? how does o+macron in any way represent the dipthong in the pronunciation of GOB's name? --86.135.179.53 12:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "macron - A macron is a diacritic placed over a vowel originally to indicate that the vowel is long." "diacritical - A diacritical mark... is a mark added to a letter to alter a word's pronunciation or to distinguish between similar words." Pattersonc 17:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
here's another definition for you: sarcasm... My point was that the phrase "actual diacritical pronunciation" means nothing. Diacritics mean different things in different systems, the only "actual" pronounciation is that given by the IPA notation. <ō> (whatever that may mean in your notational system) has no meaning to me, and I don't know what meaning it might have to anyone else - but I find it extremely difficult to believe you seriously read <|jōb|> as being pronounced /dʒoʊb/. --86.135.179.53 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no need to get upset because you do not understand a form. I never suggested removing the IPA, but simply adding another common pronunciation type. If you must know IPA is not as international as it's initialism implies. In fact the IPA usage on the mainpage is the British/Euopeon format. The US IPA is |dʒɑb|. What is so difficult to believe about |ō| being pronounced ass a long O? it is the format in every school I've ever attended.
except of course the vowel in the character G.O.B's name is not a "long O" (what does that mean exactly?). In a pure phonemic transcription, it's much closer to the dipthong [oʊ]. And for the issue on the IPA vs. regional pronounciation notations, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). --86.135.179.53 01:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm confused as to you can claim it's not a 'long O' but also claim to not know what a 'long O' is. Here are some examples: |tōn| or |toʊn] for tone, |kōn| or |koʊn| for cone, |jōb| or |dʒoʊb| for Job (The latter being the exact pronunciation of the character in question) I hope that clear it up for you.
"Long O" = /oː/. Not /oʊ/. Describing /oʊ/ as "long" is a relic of the english vowel system as it was spoken hundreds of years ago, and in no way represents actual phonemic realization. See Vowel length for a discussion on this. Now I have no idea where your "|ō|" representation comes from, but to me it makes absolutely no sense. It's rooted in assumptions and conventions on representation of english sounds, and in no way represents pure phonetic distinction. This is a clear example of why the IPA is used on wikipedia for pronounciation guides, not alternate systems like yours that contain inherant inaccuracies. --86.135.179.53 13:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have 'no clue' because you choose not to. it's been explained to you and the appropraite links with frthur explainations have been given as well. As they say, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." There is a large portion of the world that has never been exposed to IPA. Wikipedia is an open resouce for everyone, not just you. Perhaps if I show another site other than wikipedia you'll realize that your method isn't the only method [Pronunciation Key]
Where did I say i had "no clue"? I said it makes no sense, in that it's based on assumptions and pre-formed prejudices, and horridly biased towards English pronounciation. The IPA, on the other hand, as it's name suggests, is international - biased towards no particular spelling convention; and capable of representing pure phonetic transcription. This is why IPA is used on wikipedia; whether it be in an article on linguistics or an article on a sitcom. --86.135.179.53 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • International does not mean Universal and despite it's inherient benefits the majority of Americans are not familiar with the British/European or American IPA formats. I have a stack of dictionaries that list, |jōb|, |jǔb|, |dʒoʊb| and |dʒəʊb| for the same word.

For God's sake, people. It's just two different formats for showing the pronunciation. I don't know about elsewhere, but in the US, "|jōb|" would be the most common way to do it. I'd guess the IPA format would be very confusing to most Americans. Check out www.dictionary.com.

I think the pronunciation is important, if only to differentiate between GOB and the British slang word "gob", meaning mouth. Renders it quite important for my fellow Brits who deserve to be introduced to this show while it's still worth their while. - Stevecov 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is IPA common in Britian? The initialism is unknown to the majority of Americans, much less how to understand how to use it. Pattersonc 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernist comedy?

The intro sentence now says that the show is a postmodernist comedy. Shouldn't that be postmodern comedy? And does it really need to be stated at all? From what I know about postmodernity (which I'll admit I find confusing), aren't all TV shows (along with everything else in popular culture) postmodern, at least according to postmodernists? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I can only answer your first question, postmodernist is most certainly a word and is usually interchangable with postmodern, though less often used. Any dictionary will confirm this. Personally, I've never liked the defintion.
  • It's postmodern due to the extensive use features like intertextuality and self-reflexivity, which aren't too common on network TV. But, while I think you could call AD postmodern, it doesn't need to be in the introductory sentence, so I moved it farther down. --TheMidnighters 05:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I figured that's what was meant by this particular instance of "postmodernist." But I've also seen the term used as a criticism, e.g. (to paraphrase) in postmodern society there's nothing new under the sun, we've seen this all before, everything is merely a pastiche of previous ideas. According to those holding this view, everything on TV is postmodern. This is what I meant about "postmodern" being confusing, maybe I'm just dense but no one's been able to successfully explain it to me. Of course now this has less to do with improving the article... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern more than postmodern? Very much a "modernist" comedy,- though with more references to the non-fictional aspect of what is presented on screen, i guess that would make the show more "postmodern" in our arbitrary parlance. This show employs the theatre effect Verfremdungseffekt, which is very old. Absinthe = Postmodernity?(qu) User:Book_M

buzzword-driven pre-ukuleleanism

this wannabe doctoral thesis schmarm just looks ridiculous to anybody with a brain. intertextuality? reflexivity? postmodernism! ha! somebody's very proud of knowing some words here. "ukulele-driven" -- bad attempt at funning on the overuse of "character-driven" in AD circles? hope so.

though i almost fell out of my chair reading some of the sticky goo slowing down this article, i "must admit that AD does give off the decided aroma of a postmodernalisticallyesque oeuvre." ...or is it shmoeuvre? is shmoeuvre the right word? something with an umlaut, perhaps. where's my umlaut book? "The use of intertextual call-forwards has also been used with bus stop benches." ahhh. "The show is presented with the typical presentation distinctions of a documentary". yes, i thought so. "BBC Two [...] has recently concluded screening the second season." right. "However, the unknowing Michael proposes to her and the couple run off to be wed. However, their love is not to be". 63.28.93.162 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes. This is what happens when one or two anonymous users go through and add random bits of crap throughout the article. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-28 17:10

an encyclopedia, not a magazine

attempting to summarize the first season using the "different characters struggle to change their identities" artifice has hamstrung the summary, since material must either be pasted into this "struggling to change" POV, or tacked into another paragraph. it should be abandoned. wikipedia's not the place for such stylish pooft.

"It is also revealed that George committed "light treason" by using the company to build mini-palaces for Saddam Hussein in Iraq." that's incorrect. george said there's a good chance he may have committed "some, uh... light... treason." him saying that doesn't mean what he did was treason, which is what the article states. that was in the 6th episode of season 1, but it's thrown onto the end of the "struggling to change" hack, completely screwing the order of events. 216.8.6.146 10:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The phrase "light treason" is used multiple times in other episodes, including by the narrator and by Michael. That is why it is used in quotes. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 16:42
um, okay. what does that have to do with stating, without foundation, that it was "revealed that George committed" any kind of treason? all he did was say he may have, so the only thing revealed was his opinion of a possibility — hardly evidence of what the article claims. wasn't talking about "light treason" being in quotes. 216.8.6.146 18:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

External links (SaveOurBluths.org)

"www.SaveOurBluths.org" was mentioned in the episode broadcast on January 2, 2005. As of this writing the website is non-existent. Someone is adding "www.SaveTheBluths.org" to the list of official sites, with the claim that it was mentioned in the episode (it wasn't; those are two different URLs). Furthermore (again, as of this writing) the latter site only consists of a Flash-type intro, with no other content. I mention this in case anyone notices the article's "External links" section being reverted again in the near future. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But, SaveOurBluths.com does exist. Does not seem to be an official Fox website. Focused on ways fans can organize to save the show. Is it possible the caption in the show was simply incorrect? ike9898 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's possible, but the article still shouldn't mention it as having been mentioned on the show . . . it simply was not. If SaveOurBluths.com is to be added to this article, it should be added as a bullet underneath the-op.com, as it is a sub-site of The-OP. In fact, I'll do that right now. raekwon 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, it's inaccurate to say that SaveOurBluths.org is "under construction", rather than non-existent. The domain is registered, but doesn't even have a DNS entry. The website simply does not yet exist. raekwon 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK . . . the continued change of the correct site mentioned in the show (SaveOurBluths.org) to other sites (SaveOurBluths.com and SaveTheBluths.org) amounts to spam. I ask my fellow legit editors to continue to revert the change when it's made, as I've hit 3RR for today. There has been a legit link to SaveOurBluths.com placed in the External links section, and that should suffice. There's no need to add false information to what was once a featured article. raekwon 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you don't realize it's likely someone who wants to save the show who adds the fan site. What harm to leave it there for awhile (with the clarifer of what Narrator actually said?)? It's not going to be a featured article again. It will always be a work in progress. BabuBhatt 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I realize that, and that's great. I'm also a HUGE fan of the show and want it to be saved. Still, that does not negate the fact that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a propaganda free-for-all. False information does not belong here. If you can find a way to include one of those sites in that paragraph, while still making it encyclopedic, be my guest. Otherwise, it does not belong. raekwon 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I did find a way, then someone else found another way .. that's how it works. And do you define encyclopedic by the way traditional printed encyclopedias read? Because the nature of wikipedia is very different. Plus, that particular site does not open it up to a propaganda free-for-all, it is definitely related to what was subtitled on the show, in that it is the same address with the exception of the URL suffix. BabuBhatt 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The most recent edit to the paragraph is satisfactory. It also was not there when I posted the last message. Good day. raekwon 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The suffix makes all the difference in the world. They are different addresses, just as in Rd. or St. or Dr. or Ln. or Ave. Related or not in context is irrelevent. www.saveourbluths.org was registered by 20th Cetnury Fox on 19-DEC-2005 and www.saveourbluths.com was registered by Kirk S. of Katy, TX on 16-MAY-2005. It seems FOX had the intention of doing something with the site, as they have with all the other's they've shown on AD, but dropped the ball. Pattersonc 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Fox dropped the ball? Pure speculation. A more likely scenario is the show being aware of the dot-com site, and slyly putting the similarly titled dot-org url on screen, knowing most Web users instinctively go for .com. Why? They're trying to save their show! I certainly didn't want to make the imprssion I don't know how url suffixes work. BabuBhatt 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Speculation? They purchased the domain, they advertised the domain (more clearly than any other shown on the show), but didn't --for the first time-- create the corresponding website. You speculate that they wanted viewers to go to Kirk Nobody's site comprised solely of a splash page. Talk about a leap of faith. There are many great sites out there for AD, Kirk's being the least of them. They did all the leg work and then *poof* nothing. At the very least they could have done a redirect to FOX's AD page, therefore they dropped they ball. If they hadn't this would not be a matter of dicussion on a dozen AD forums.
              • My understanding of a splash page comes from wikipedia — "usually providing no real information besides perhaps a note about browser requirements and sometimes a web counter." The Web page http://the-op.com/saveourbluths/, however appears to have a fair amount of info for fans interested in attempting to save the show and plenty of addresses and links for them to do so. Thusly, I do believe it could be Fox's line of thinking that they could get fans to spread the word (and raise viewership) without actually having to spend cash to develop the site. BabuBhatt 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Splash page, or spash screen, qualifies here. It was a simple* Flash presentation basically informing that a website will be up shortly. They have sense redirected to the-op.com, an excellent AD fan site. * I know you're going to misunderstand my use of 'simple' here. The flash had some animations and pics but no user-interaction, meaning clickable links to enter teh site or navigate through the site.
                  • I'm pretty sure you were looking at http://www.savethebluths.org. However, what I am suggesting is that Fox allowed http://www.saveourbluths.org to appear onscreen knowing many users would head straight to http://www.saveourbluths.com. Get it? BabuBhatt 10:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • If they wanted viewers to head to a particular fan site they could have done a seemless redirect to it from saveourbluths.ORG., or they could have simply put the correct address on the screen in the first place. It's as Ann as day on plain's face, they got lazy! Pattersonc 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                      • There is probably some reason Fox couldn't/wouldn't let them direct viewers to a site which Fox does not own. Qutezuce 20:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Or they registered the domain name to prevent someone else from registering it and thus using Fox for some free advertising. Qutezuce 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

S.O.B.'s has an entire paragraph?

I disagree that "S.O.B.'s" should have its own paragraph in the season three summary, mostly as it does not fit int hat section. There's also no paragraph about the episode where the "order is cut" from season two (the name escapes me right now), and though this episode is, yes, much more meta-referential than that, I think it would be much more fitting to move most of the current paragraph to the 'Intertextuality and reflexivity' section, or at least work much of it into the Intertextuality and reflexivity text. - Viewdrix January 3rd, 2006

Disbarred

The article says "Tobias, a disbarred psychiatrist". I think disbarred is the wrong word, but I don't know what the right word is. Help? ike9898 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 'disbarred' usually refers to lawyers being forbidden to practice. The equivalent for doctors (at least in my neck of the woods) is being 'struck off' (i.e. the medical register). Cheers, Ian Rose 04:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Tobias, a psychiatrist whos license (is/has been) revoked.", is how it's most often written in the states.
  • In Canada, it goes by license revoked as well -- Barry Zuckerkorn 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Previously it said that he is a "discredited psychiatrist," which is completely false; his medical license was revoked for using CPR on someone who was only sleeping and cracking their sternum (pilot episode). It has nothing to do with faulty psychiatrical theory, indeed he has published at least two books and no where do they come under scrutiny. Although "disbarred" is not the correct terminology it at least conveys the correct idea.
  • Disbar is incorrect because it literally means "to remove from the bar", the examintion that lawyers, and only lawyers, must pass to practice law.Pattersonc(Talk) 9:02 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)
Since there is no single verb which properly expresses that his medical license was revoked, I felt the sentence needed to be restructured. I rewrote the sentence as: "She is married to Tobias Fünke (David Cross), a "Never Nude," who became an aspiring actor after his psychiatrist's license was revoked, and whose language and behavior often have inadvertent homosexual connotations." — TuesdayMush 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice rewrite TuesdayMush.Pattersonc(Talk) 8:57 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)

Keeping this article FA quality

The nature of this article means that it will attract a lot of cruft, which in a single edit may not be so bad, but as it builds up, will completely destroy any coherence in the article (I've seen it happen several times before). To help keep this article featured, please revert any edits which do not improve the quality of the article, such as random insertions of factoids, or new paragraphs that go into unecessary and speculative detail. The only thing that really needs to be updated in this article is the content from new episodes, if/when they come out. Please, help keep this Featured-quality, revert copiously! :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-11 13:32

continuity subjuect heading

"benches have also been utilized for this purpose. In one scene Buster is partly obscuring an Army bench so our view reveals "ARM OFF" ..."

i believe that this is acutaly a joke after his hand has been rmoved...he looks at an "alarm off" button on an electric alarm clock.

can anyone verify? Classicalgit 21:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

benches have been used twice now. once when buster covers up the words "army officer" - "arm off" and again in the second season when rita covers up "wee brittin" - "wee brain" the arm off on the alarm clock is a seperate occurance of the joke. The buster bench happens moments BEFORE his hand is lost, and the rita bench happens soon before we find out that she is not smart. the writers have many hand/seal jokes in season two prior to the hand loss. hand chair, seal award from army etc. -wabiD


Spelling of GOB

In the pilot episode, GOB's name is written out on screen as G.O.B. (George Oscar Bluth II). Should the spelling of his name be changed to include the periods (G.O.B. rather than GOB)? TuesdayMush 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes it should.
ridiculous. his nickname is "gob", based on his initials. he is called "gob", not his initials. after explaining his nickname and its pronunciation, it should be spelled "Gob", just as on the DVD cases (where sense overruled the urge to show everybody, every time, that his name comes from his initials). yeah, we get it; his nickname comes from initials. now spell it like a name, for crying out loud. the same all-caps crowd still writes scuba as "SCUBA", and creates a scene whenever anybody refers to the first star wars movie as "the first star wars movie". probably doesn't matter though 216.8.14.211 16:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrested_Development/Archive_1&oldid=1136531357"