Talk:Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nanotechnology[edit]

>In addition, Sommers possessed nanomachines called anthrocytes which were capable of healing her body at a highly accelerated rate.[4]

Did they have true molecular Nanotechnology? If so, why didn't they use the nanomachines to grow real replacement limbs and organs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is this article premature[edit]

Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't put up articles on TV series that are only at the pilot stage. Perhaps this might be better off as part of the main The Bionic Woman article until such a time a series is actually announced. 68.146.41.17 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disregard the above as reports now say the series has been picked up. 68.146.41.17 14:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott?[edit]

I deleted the boycott section. Unless such a movement (which makes no sense, but anyway) reaches "Craig Not Bond" or "Kill Enterprise" notoriety, then let's talk. Otherwise it just comes off as POV violation. 23skidoo 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received Pronunciation[edit]

I altered the line "As Ryan is from England and naturally speaks in a received pronunciation accent ..." because it contained poor grammar. Correct is to say that she naturally "speaks in received pronunciation". RP isn't referred to as an accent because to call it an accent is tautological - the P already stands for pronunciation. See the wikipedia article on RP before considering referring to it as an accent. 82.10.108.49 23:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Bar[edit]

Does anyone know the name of the bar where Jaime Sommers works?

Controversy?[edit]

There seems to be a bit of complaining going on (via You-tube blogs) about the casting of a non-deaf actress to play Jamie's deaf sister. Has there been any (reputable) reports of backlash? 68.146.8.46 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott #2?[edit]

The gay community is starting a boycott of the show due to the casting of Isaiah Washington. Should this be mentioned on the front page?

Do you have a source for this? I've been looking around and have found nothing to support this in any reputable source. Similarly I never did find any reputable source to suggest the hearing impaired community had any serious plans to do anything before (or after) Jamie's sister's deafness was removed. If there's been media coverage, post it. If it's just idle chatter or message board gossip, it has no place here. As an aside, I can't see the gay community continuing to hound this guy till he commits suicide or something, all over an alleged incident that one party denies. I would hope to "gay community" (an abstract term if ever I heard one) would have more class. The alleged comments cost the guy a high-profile job on a successful show and now he's trying to rebuild his career in a show that may be cancelled after 3 episodes. He's been punished. 23skidoo 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Wiki isn't place to discuss whether you agree with this alleged boycott, 23skidoo. You and everyone else only need concern yourself with finding a reliable source that either verifies the boycott or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.11.189 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leak of Pilot episode?[edit]

Seems like the pilot episode has leaked. It seems to be ripped from a DVD that is for "pre-broadcast screening purposes". It has at least one scene that hasn't got fx finished. This seems quite unusual for me so maybe it should be mentioned?

You'll need to provide a reliable source for the leak, that doesn't violate WP:COPYRIGHT. Also, can you establish that this leak is any more notable than the rest? Matthew 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention of the leak to the article with a "citation needed" tag. Seeing as how it really has leaked (and I've watched it), that should do until somebody writes an article about the leak that can be cited as a source. Obviously, while pointing to a torrent site would be a reliable source, the copyright implications obviously don't permit that. Perhaps a screenshot of the torrent information on a torrent site would be sufficient? The most I can say here without violating copyright is that it was released by the same group that leaked The Sarah Connor Chronicles (as well as many other shows in the past few days), who seem to call themselves "CRX", and that the torrent is called "Bionic Woman S01E01 PREAIR DVDRip XviD-CRX". Interestingly enough, the leaked pilot predates the casting changes, so it features the hearing-impaired sister that won't be in the final version. Guspaz 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A torrent website isn't a reliable source. Matthew 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same thing happened with the Heroes PreAir. No one was able to verify it until it was "verified". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.38.26 (talk • contribs) 08:15, July 26, 2007 (UTC).
I have removed mention of the leak, as it asserts no notability other than it leaked. --JYi 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is the same as any other production information. If you want to remove information on the leak, I suggest you also remove the entire production section. The fact that an early version of the show with a different cast than the final version was leaked to the internet is quite notable, if only because of the cast differences. If all we need is reliable source, that's different. But to say this isn't notable would seem to invalidate the entire production section. Guspaz 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cast changes happen all the time, and I don't understand how leaking an episode is related to production. Now if the leaked episode causes the producers/directors to make changes to the show, then it is worth mentioning. --JYi 22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such early pilots generally do have some historical interest. For example, the pilot of The DIck Van Dyke Show that didn't star Dick Van Dyke. Or the first Star Trek pilot, which was never seen in its entirety for years. Odds are this pilot will not be released to DVD (because of the cast change), just as the original pilot for Wonderfalls was never released. Specific to the topic at hand, there has apparently been some media coverage of the leak of this and a number of other pilots at the same time, so if someone can find this media coverage and cite it, then yes by all means it should be included. 23skidoo 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording of the Leak section is good, but we need a source regarding the "speculation" mentioned, as speciulation is considered a weasel word. Once again there has been media coverage of this if anyone wants to look around, and that's where the speculation orignated. Also, would it be considered OR to make reference to the fact the leaked pilot was unfinished, as in it didn't include opening credits, made use of temporary music taken from another film, and also made use of "placeholder" special effects in some scenes which were polished and replaced later? Aside from a few blogs that make reference to this, the only other source is the pilot film itself and the Wiki community sends a mixed message as to whether referring directly to a primary source (even a film or TV episode) is considered original research. 23skidoo 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use/utilize[edit]

"best to utilize" is redundant- utilize already implies using practically or profitably. 63.237.20.195 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bionic Woman" redirect[edit]

"Bionic woman" redirects tp the original show, surely since the name of this new show is "Bionic Woman" (without "the") it should redirect here, wih the little note at the top saying "this article is about the 2007 Televieion series, for the original see......." which is already there, so should the redirect be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.209.217 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable. Anyone object? — Val42 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, or change the page to be a disambiguation page. --StuffOfInterest 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disambiguation page option is the best choice, as readers may be looking for either show. I've taken the liberty of creating one in the interim. Feel free to change it if the end result is a redirect. --Ckatzchatspy 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime vs. Jamie[edit]

It's quite obvious with the new show that the spelling of this character is Jamie - withe the "ie" - maybe the Jaime Sommers article should be split in two with the articles referencing each other. so:

Jaime Sommers would be the 1970s show character.
Jamie Sommers would be the 2007 show character.

Thoughts, anyone? - Davodd 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How certain are we of the spelling in the new series? I say that we wait until the new show premieres, then we split the article. This will give time for responses as well as quell anyone who claims that the source that you currently have isn't authoritative for the new series. — Val42 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know - you are correct - NBC press releases have BOTH spellings for the new show. Ugh. ... - Davodd 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we should go with Jamie. I'm sure David Eick will get asked about this at some point and give an official answer, but IMDB, press releases and blurbs for the show have it spelled Jamie. - BeX 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should go with the spelling that was in the file that she found about her in the second episode. The typeface was large enough to read on television. I wasn't looking at it at the time, but I saw it just before they cut away and saw that (if I'd been watching) I could have easily read the spelling. — Val42 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dossier shown in the second episode quite clearly says "SOMMERS, Jaime". It's spelled "Jaime" throughout the official NBC site. Unless someone can come up with sources more definitive, then I think this question is settled. Her name is spelled "Jaime". ProgHead777 11:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The questions was brought up because, before its premiere, NBC had used both spellings. I've added the reference to both this article and Jaime Sommers (Bionic Woman). — Val42 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This show sucked (like Painkiller Jane)[edit]

That's what it reminded me of, Painkiller Jane. Not good. - Theaveng 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes both good examples of terrible television series, perhaps this should be mentioned in the main article... :) 121.209.117.2 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Bionic Woman, while refreshing and having a lot of hype has inuendos of girl power. The show is science fiction, and things like hyper-running speed, which has no representation in nature, and implanted intelligence are far-fetched at current, someday they may be possible. The hyper running speed is problematic because the fastest two-legged movement on record is the kangaroo, and we all know they jump. In fact, due to its akwardness, no animal actually moves at its top speed by walking, they all jump, from kangaroos, to cheetahs to horses. First the hind legs, then the front to keep them in the air so they can jump again. While trying not to predict anything, science fiction generally caters to a male audience, and this show seems to cater to women. Not the best combination. Mysturray 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mysturray[reply]

This is not a review page[edit]

Please review the Talk Page rules at the top of this page. Discussion of the topic itself is not allowed and will be deleted. 23skidoo 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode pages[edit]

Is anyone going to start making a "list of episode" page?? (Wikirocks2 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll take care of it this evening. Hewinsj 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks! That sure was quick! (Wikirocks2 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No. of Episodes[edit]

Does anyone know how many episodes there are going to be in this season? (Wikirocks2 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • I don't think that's been confirmed yet. Generally shows get 13 episodes to start, then a full-season pickup of 22 episodes if they survive. It hasn't been announced whether such an agreement exists with this series. If the ratings collapse, NBC could order a halt in production, in which case less could be produced. Also, sometimes shows only produce 19-20 episodes rather than going for all 22. And on rare occasions more episodes are produced, but these days 22 episodes seems to be the norm for American commercial networks. 23skidoo 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just speculation at this point. According to IMDB, Mark Sheppard is in for 14 episodes. I'm just not comfortable enough with that to use it as a source, and it doesn't indicate how long the season will be. He wasn't in episode 2, so that could put it to 15. Hewinsj 03:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told there was a news report that NBC has ordered more scripts for the series, but I can't find a link. The pending writer's strike could make an impact if they don't officially order more scripts pretty soon. 23skidoo 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

This may be a useful citation for the article. Eagle Owl 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you be more specific? Looks to me as if this might be more appropriate for the biographical article on Michelle Ryan. 23skidoo 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about rebroadcast on Bravo[edit]

The pilot was rebroadcast on Bravo on the afternoon of 07 October 2007. Will episodes be regularly rebroadcast on Bravo? RahadyanS 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Summaries[edit]

Are we going to add the plot descriptions for the episodes? Right now, the table looks really wierd, so maybe we should delete the blank spaces, unless of course we are going to add the descriptions soon. (Wikirocks2 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd hate to loose those boxes because then no one would know to put them back and fill them in. I just added a short paragraph for the first 2 episodes. If you notice something is missing like that, don't be afraid to add it. The worst thing that could happen is that someone comes along and copy-edits it. Hewinsj 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well it is defenitely looking better! Um...why were the hyperlinks connecting the episodes to the Wikia removed? I thought they were really useful. (Wikirocks2 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The user that removed them cited that it was advertising a non-notable wikia or something like that. I didn't mind them being there myself, but I'm not sure what the policy on Wikia use is. There is code that allows the linkage, so I assume that it isn't discouraged. Hewinsj 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so could we put them back? If the user has a problem with it, they could come on the talk page and express why he removed them....this way everyone wins! (Wikirocks2 00:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've had a look and it's a small scale non-notable wiki - I agree with removing them. how I see that they are hosted by the for-profit business that Jimbo Wales and others are running, so I've got to wonder what will happen on the wider scale about those types of "adverts". --Fredrick day 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well could we then make our own pages for the episodes, and put that information into it. That info isn't copyright, so we could use it. How about that? (Wikirocks2 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Title problems[edit]

This article needs to be moved back to Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) as here is currently a disambiguation page called Bionic woman. 23skidoo 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But now that there is a disambiguation page, we have to have an administrator make the move, unless you want to lose the history. — Val42 02:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 23skidoo 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved back to original title[edit]

I have moved this article back to "Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) for the following reasons:

1. The title "Bionic woman" already existed as a disambiguation page.
2. The title "Bionic Woman" is also used extensively (without the "The" article) to refer to the original series.
3. The name "Bionic Woman" is also applied to the two versions of Jaime Sommers, and it could also be applied to Sarah Corvis when and if an article on that character is made.

To avoid confusion, and to stay in keeping with how other TV shows and movies of similar title are made (see Battlestar Galactica), the article on this series needs to be disambiguated in the title. I have gone through the "What Links Here" listings for "Bionic Woman" (undisambiguated title) and have sorted out all the links, including a few that were actually referring to the original series, supporing rationale #2 above. The article "Bionic Woman" is now a disambiguation page. 23skidoo 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I was wondering why it hadn't been done already. Hewinsj 00:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 stories that could be used.[edit]

Just not sure how to phrase it for the article.

  • AICN indicates that Katee Sackhoff will be in at least 5 episodes.
  • Tvshowblog indicates that the creative staff has changed/left/been replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewinsj (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation notice[edit]

Since the title of this article has been reverted back to the version that includes "(2007 TV series)" there is no longer a need for any disambiguation notice. Anyone looking for the original series will either type Bionic Woman, which will lead to the main disambiguation page or The Bionic Woman which will lead them to the article. OTOH a disambiguation note IS required at The Bionic Woman for the benefit of anyone looking for this article. 23skidoo 01:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But an "other series" note could be useful to anyone looking for the old series that winds up here. Battlestar Galactica does it. Hewinsj 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link to the original series article on the second line, so they don't need to look very far. 23skidoo 02:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Hewinsj 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible dean kootz refrence[edit]

From the intro there is an alarming resmeblence to Dean Kootz False Memory cover false memory cover Link287 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has anyone checked to see if the same designer was involved? 23skidoo 17:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator[edit]

I have corrected a glaring error. David Eick did not create The Bionic Woman. It was created by Kenneth Johnson, based upon concepts from the novel Cyborg. The current version is overseen and developed by Eick (which equates to created, so I did not change that wording), but let's keep our facts straight here. If someone can provide a source proving Eick created the series back in 1976, I'm willing to stand corrected. It's similar to the situation over at Doctor Who. Someone completely unaware of the show's history might think ti was created by Russell T. Davies, when in fact it was created by Sydney Newman, Verity Lambert and Donald Wilson years earlier. 23skidoo 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the lead should say something like "Bionic woman, a reboot of the series created by Kenneth Johnson" or "Bionic Woman, a Science Fiction television series based on the television series created by Kenneth Johnson". Something like that so long as it is brief and to the point. Just so long as you credit Eick for his contribution somewhere in the same paragraph I don't see a problem with it. Hewinsj 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Cyborg?[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the claim that this series is based on the novel Cyborg?

That seems very unlikely, considering that the whole reason they did not make a Six Million Dollar Man show and the reason they can't use characters like Oscar Goldman is that they *don't* have the rights to Cyborg, and can only use original material that doesn't come from the book. Ken Arromdee 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the character of Jaime Sommers originated in a television series that carried the credit "Based upon the novel Cyborg" so therefore despite the fact that such credit does not exist on the current show (most likely to avoid royality issues) that doesn't change the pedigree of the character, or of the series. 23skidoo (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The character of Jaime Sommers is one of the few elements of the original 70s bionic mythos that does not in fact owe to Caidin at all. The show, The Bionic Woman, carried the moniker "based on Cyborg" simply because it did use other Caidin-created characters such as Oscar Goldman, Steve Austin and Rudy Wells. Divorced from those other characters, there's nothing on which to base a credit all the way back to Caidin. Unless the show itself specifically credits Caidin, any reference to him should be removed from this article, and most especially from the sidebar. Kenneth Johnson, creator of Jaime Sommers, is the furthest this article should look backwards. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because while the characters have been changed, the fact the series still references bionics has not. And that's a major Caidin concept. In addition, Sommers has been given a bionic eye which is an explicit reference to Steve Austin. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit would mean that it says in the show that the bionic eye came was previously used in Steve Austin. As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened, so the best you can say is that it is an implicit reference. However, this would mean that someone is doing original research, so it wouldn't be allowed in an article on Wikipedia. — Val42 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weird formating[edit]

can someone fix the weird formating at the bottom of the page? --Fredrick day 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (Wikirocks2 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Two Things To Say[edit]

Um...first of all, I think we should make a new page for the episodes

And second of all, does anyone know the impact the strike will have on Bionic Woman? (Wikirocks2 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Episodes have been spun off. No answer on your second question, but I did see a story on a news site that some shows are running out of episodes to air (CBS's Cain being one instance of this). Hewinsj 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to this page on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_2007_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike_on_television it says 9 episodes have been completed, and also answers our question about how many episodes there was supposed to be - 13. The source is here: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/guide.aspx?id=strike_scripted (Wikirocks2 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Trivia[edit]

MayB we should say that in ep2 when Jamie and Ruth enter a house in that dead town, that there is an eposode of Battlestar Gaactica on TV? Just a thought... 83.157.165.71 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WGA Strike[edit]

I noticed a large edit war over the strike information. I suggest we make a new subheading titled "WGA Strike" or something along those lines. I did this before, but I guess someone reverted my edit. What do we think? (Wikirocks2 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure I'd call it an "edit war" - the low-edit IP that removed the text three times (twice here, once at the list of episodes) also removed similar material from Pushing Daisies. I suspect it's more of a "don't want to admit it's gone" thing. --Ckatzchatspy 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also got multiple sources now, so there's verifiability on our side. --Ckatzchatspy 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just make sure some keener don't equate "suspended production" with "cancelled". As of today the show has not been cancelled, though that could change tomorrow. In all likelihood we won't know its fate until either the strike concludes, or the networks start playing hardball against the unions and start canning shows (a possible scenario if the reality-show replacements do better ratings). 23skidoo (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this talk is great, but my question hasn't been answered. How about removing the info from the start, and putting it under a new subheading. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I guess my question would be "why?" Does it really warrant a section - I haven't seen similar treatment for other series. --Ckatzchatspy 09:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:x If you haven't noticed, I am just trying to ask a simple question: do we need a new subheading? Why are you asking me the same question? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think adding a WGA Strike section is a good idea, even if it's relatively short: some other articles could probably do with it too. The strike is presumably having a fairly notable effect on the series. There's a consensus amongst critics I've read that the series is about to be cancelled, but because the strike is on-going the decision to proceed or not is being delayed, with a knock-on affect on "fans" (well, viewers, heh. Ok, that's mean) and those involved in the making of the show alike.
Right now it's notable and something people would come to the article expecting comment upon. In two or three years it'll probably be less so but we can roll it into the history of the series at that point. That, I guess, is the benefit of having a living encyclopedia. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I certainly agree that the material is notable. However, I don't feel it needs to be split off into a separate section at the present time. I think it is better as is, since we would a) need to detail some of it in the lead anyway, and b) there's not much more we can say at this point (unless we've got some well-sourced material.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to sum up important material mentioned in the article. If this is the most recent status of the show it could be mentioned there, but it should also be mentioned elsewhere in (even if only slightly) more detail. We could end the lead with one sentence that states something like "Due to the current writers strike, production of Bionic Woman has been suspended" but add a paragraph under production under the sub-heading "WGA strike" that mentions the suspension, how many episodes are known to have been produced, and the air date of the last episode before the forced hiatus. Once the strike is over and (if) regular production resumes this can be removed from the lead, but left under production as evidence that it did happen. What do you think? Hewinsj (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:) I really like that suggestion! I think it's perfect. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

characters[edit]

The characters section of this article is completely unorganised. Nathan and Antonio (until he died) appeared in i think every single episode, and they play important roles too. And Will Anthros, who is lsited as a main character, died in the very first episode and has not been seen since. I think someone should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.147.160 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could split it up by living vs. dead characters or just re-evaluate who are standard vs. recurring characters in the show. Also, I was thinking of moving the mention of Mae Whitman to the list of characters considering it's been so long since the pilot was leaked. Hewinsj (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken McGill's character and put him into a separate category of "Announced characters" due to the fact his character has yet to appear on the series and we do not know for certain that the character will be recurring or only appear once or twice should the series only continue to episode 13 post-strike. (Or for that matter be dropped completely as part of the expected relaunching) 68.146.41.232 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Hewinsj (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 10:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) → Bionic Woman (TV series) — Another user reverted this move by saying their had been some long discussion on this page (which their clearly isn't one). No other TV series shares the same name. The 1970s show was called The Bionic Woman, similar but not the same and I already added a hatnote at the top of this article in the case that someone would type in "Bionic Woman (TV series)" looking for the 70s show. —TJ Spyke 09:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as the nominator. TJ Spyke 09:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The presence of the year makes it abundantly clear which series is being talked about, whereas the word "The" is so minor most people wouldn't be able to tell which is being talked about. I don't see the value of going through the effort to rename it to a slightly less redundant, but also slightly more ambiguous (in terms of what people are looking for), name - --Squiggleslash (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The use of the year makes it totally clear which series is being talked about. While this is a preference on my part, and not technically necessary, I think clarity is best here. It's what been used for a number of months now, and there's no need to ambiguate at this time. - BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The year may not strictly be necessary, but is very helpful for clarity. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The titles of the TV series are similar enough that the inclusion of the year is clearly helpful. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The '70s show is called "The Bionic Woman" and this one "Bionic Woman". So agree with nom. – Axman (☏) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. This is a classic case of splitting hairs. The two articles are close enough in title that this disambiguation is necessary. If there were no 2007 TV series, then Bionic Woman (TV series) would be a redirect to The Bionic Woman. 23skidoo (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The inclusion of the year makes it extremely easy for a casual reader to figure out which article they are looking at when they are here. The exclusion of the word The does not. Hewinsj (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Comments - As the editor who reverted the move, I commetned that there were "lengthy" discussions on why this page should stay here. I overstated my case, but there three headings (two back-two-back) covering aspects of the issue. These sections are:
  1. #Title problems
  2. #Article moved back to original title
  3. #Disambiguation notice

- BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're lengthy enough for me! It also seems to me looking at them that there was already a consensus to keep the year in the title. Andrewa (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions still establish support for the current name, enough at least that I believed this was not a non-controversial move. Anyway, this is the correct method to handle the issue per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: You were bold, as is your right; I reverted, as is my right, and you discussed, as is right. If the consensus supports your proposed move, I'll follow it without any problems. - BillCJ (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

DVD release[edit]

I've added a DVD release section because Universal has announced that one is forthcoming in just over a month and a half. TVShowsonDVD is a recognized source (I say that because there is a Wiki-bias against Web-based entertainment news sources, but this one is not a blog or anything). That said, if anyone can find a printed source or, better still, has acccess to Universal's actual announcement press release, that's probably a more Wikipedia-friendly source. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation rumor[edit]

We have contradictory infomation here: one source says Universal plans to at least complete the remaining episodes of the 13-episode commitment, and then we have a single newspaper column suggesting the series has been cancelled. As a search of the usual sites provides no support for the contention that the series has officially been cancelled (yet), I have rewritten the information accordingly. USAToday is a good source but it's still taken from a column. A similar column, I recall, reported that Sean Connery would appear as James Bond's father in Die Another Day (not kidding). So let's wait till a few more sources such as Variety, AP, etc. report an official announcement rather than a columnist's (possibly erroneous) speculation. And saying a show might be cancelled is not the same as saying it is cancelled. Remember Jericho. 23skidoo (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this, having removed the "cancelled" text earlier this morning for similar reasons. Before we proclaim it is "definitely cancelled", we need something more concrete to back it up. --Ckatzchatspy 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also freely admit this falls under "wishful thinking". However at the moment the most authoratative source we have in the article says production will resume to at least finish the remaining 4 or so episodes. And I've also heard (but don't have a source so can't include it) that NBC might be gambling that the "thank god TV is back" factor could result in the show getting an upswing of interest. In any regard, ABC just announced its renewals today. Presumably NBC will follow suit and then we'll have a definitive answer that we can cite. Otherwise it's all rumor or another kind of wishful thinking. ;) 23skidoo (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a link to an AP story that ran today on CNN.com and elsewhere. According to it BW is still "on the bubble", adding that the remaining episodes won't likely air till the fall "if ever". But that still means the show hasn't been cancelled yet. 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBC's announcement today of initial series renewals did not indicate Bionic Woman's fate, but the report I'm citing did indicate that production is done for the season, despite the earlier indication that NBC-Universal would produce the last few episodes of the contract, at least. Since most renewals and cancellations don't occur till May, we'll probably have to wait till then for a definitive announcement. It's possible NBC is waiting to see how well the DVD sells first. 23skidoo (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related to the above, I noticed someone had filled in the "last broadcast" field in the infobox. Unless and until NBC cancels the show, this should remain blank. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your devotion to reliable and official sources, but this is now bordering on the ridiculous. It's dead, Jim, even if they haven't announced the funeral! Of course, having seen every episode, I have a hard time believing the show was ever alive! - BillCJ (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a violation of WP:NPOV. I would just as easily add "John McCain will be the Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election" to that article, too. Please review WP:CRYSTAL. It is not our job nor our place to make judgement calls. We already have one reputable source (TV Guide for pete's sake) saying NBC-Universal is committed to finishing the 13-episode order, so the fact is we cannot and must not put anything in this article (or any others) that a show is finished until NBC puts out a press release to say it's finished. I'm not the one who invented WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE that basically says we have to include sources if we state the sky is blue. 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My sarcastic comments aren't in the article, and thus are not subject to NPOV. I'm well actually well aware of our policies on sources. My concerns are that you are unilaterally subjecting every remark concerning cancellation to your own judgment calls. The last episode has been aired, and there are no more episodes remaining to be air - that's verifiable. That may change in the future, but according to several reliable sources cited in the article, it's unlikely. The guidelines on the infobox don't specify that is has to be the "oficial" last episode, just the last air date. Qualify the entry if you want, but no episodes remain, thus there is a date for the last episode aired. - BillCJ (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please cite where the infobox rules have changed because last I looked the "last episode" field is only to be used when a show has been cancelled. I myself added sourced information that the season production is considered concluded. But unless a cancellation notice is received, it is plainly factually wrong to give a "final broadcast" date. That is not POV. That is a case of accuracy. Go to 24 (TV series). It isn't even airing again until 2009 and yet no one has put the date of the most recent episode broadcast in the final episode category. Unless NBC or a reputable media source reports that this series (or any other - such as the on the bubble Terminator series) is cancelled, to say so or to speculate so is wrong. Full stop. End of story. If you think that's a personal judgement call then there's not much I can say. However the moment I see anything about BW being cancelled, I promise you I will drop what I'm doing and run to the computer and post it. (PS. An anon added a blog message - we're not supposed to use blogs as sources but, hey -- that TV Guide heard a rumor that the series has been cancelled. Still no word from NBC. To make people happy I placed this with the proper context after slicing off a bunch of unsourced POV.) But please note that even the SyFy Portal story says it's just a rumor and to treat it as such. In order words the anon IP was in the wrong to post it as confirmed fact. 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last post on this topic. Feel free to respond, but I'm done here. I checked the Template:Infobox Television a second time, and I was wrong: I thought it said, under the "last_aired" field in the chart at the bottom. The original airdate of the last episode. Use "present" if it is ongoing, with no mention of any form of the word "cancelled". Instead, it said: The original airdate of the last episode. Use "present" if it is ongoing, clearly meaning "last episode" field is only to be used when a show has been cancelled. I hope you'll understand my confusion on the infobox instructions. I now leave this article in your capable hands, 23skidoo. I'll check back in 4 or 5 years to see if it's been cancelled yet. - BillCJ (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Hale's website (in her message center) says the series has been cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.20.38 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a link. I just checked and the most recent message I could find from her was from 2/24/08 and stated "Next season I hope to be in more episodes". If there aren't any more recent statements she's under the impression that there will be a season 2. Hewinsj (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now the Lucy Hale site is indicating that the show was canceled. Second page on the link I posted above. Not sure if that's the nail in the coffin, but it's a member of the cast. Hewinsj (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but The Ruler has spoken: Unless it's from an official NBC source which explicitly states that the show has been cancelled, it's still just a rumor. The official website of an actress on the show is in no way considered a reliable source by The Ruler. Perhaps Hale was only fired, and they lied to her so as not to hurt her felings. Anyway, we just keep waiting! Hopefull sometime in the next few years, NBC will tell us if the show was really cancelled. :) (Yes, I'm commenting again. Just too silly a situation to resist!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The show has been offically cancelled, just go to any Bionic Woman site and it says it. That's why I keep editing the info, Ckatz. Here's proof, The usually-accurate Mike Ausiello at TV Guide is now saying something that has been expected for a while: Bionic Woman’s systems have shut down.

“I’m told by multiple sources that Bionic staffers were informed late last week that the troubled reboot has indeed been canceled,” says Ausiello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg.mikael (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that you don't understnad the concept of Wikipedia's Reliable sources policies, or if you do understand them, you certainly aren't bothering to follow them. You might also review WP:3RR while you're reading up on how WP functions. It might prevent you from getting some well-deserved enforced off-time on WP. Ausiello repots rumors - that is what he does - but they aren't reliable as far as sourcing goes. NBC still has yet to release an official announcemt of the cancellation. It's OK to report what Ausiello said directly, citing his column on TV Guide's website, but we can pretend it's official word, because it's not. For whatever reasons, NBC hasn't officially announced the cancellation of the show, possibly becuse they are still showing episodes online, and want to keep getting the ad revenue. - BillCJ (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you allowing Awbeal, to say that it was cancelled, confirmed by David Eick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg.mikael (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two easons: One, User:Awbeal posted after I wrote the post above, while I was asleep, so obviously I hadn't seen it when I wrote the post. Two, it actually quotes a producer by name - it's not repeating a rumor. Since Sci-Fi is owned by the same company as NBC, NBC Universal, and re-broadcasted the show, I believe it counts as a reliable souce. Feel free to use it as the source for the info you had added earlier - it's dead, Jim! - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Sci-Fi source say that NBC still has not officially announced the cancellation of the series, so I've added that into the text by Awbeal. - BillCJ (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched around and couldn't find a cancellation confirmation. As these things tend to be very easy to find once a cancellation is official and public I'm drawing the conclusion that's not the case for this series. Thus, Wikipedia should not say anything to that effect. For our purposes, it's still in production. CapnZapp (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak to infobox[edit]

I've altered the writer credit wording a bit in the infobox to reflect more accurately the way the series was conceived. I think it's still important to include the lineage leading back to Caidin, but I think it's more accurate to go with the "based on a character" route re: Johnson and "suggested by" route re: Caidin. We can't speculate, but it would be interesting to see if there's been any controversy over Johnson not being credited. I can see Caidin being omitted (his inclusion here is admittedly anal but that's what we do here) but I found the fact Johnson wasn't credited to be troubling. 23skidoo (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updated for clarity[edit]

The article for this cancelled series needs to be updated. It reads like the show is still in production, which is misleading to the reader. - Davodd (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:I searched around and couldn't find a cancellation confirmation. As these things tend to be very easy to find once a cancellation is official and public I'm drawing the conclusion that's not the case for this series. Thus, Wikipedia should not say anything to that effect. For our purposes, it's still in production. Please don't change this unless you have a reliable source. CapnZapp (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't in production and we shouldn't say that it is just because we can't prove that it isn't. The cast has gone on to work on other projects, and the show was not renewed for a second season. If development of a second season isn't underway, the show isn't in production. Hewinsj (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the SciFi Channel is owned by NBC Universal, who also owns Bionic Woman. They ran a story back in March stating "David Eick, co-executive producer of NBC's SF series Bionic Woman, confirmed to SCI FI Wire that the network has indeed canceled the show, though the network has not yet officially said as much." The story can be found here. While I realize that this isn't an official press release from the network, this is a news source owned by the company that also owned the show in question, quoting that show's producer. If it wasn't true, NBC would have made them reverse the statement. Hewinsj (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in response to CapnZapp, if you check my edit history on the article, I was the one who kept pushing for it to remain neutral and make no pronouncements on the show's fate until something official came out. I reverted some edits, and exchanged words (via e-mail) with some users accusing me of "wishful thinking" and being anal. But once Sci-Fi's website, quoting the man in charge of the show as saying it was cancelled, even that was good enough for me, so I added the original note. The fact the show has ended production and has not been renewed for 2008-09, that's as authoritative as you can get. Certainly if someone wants to add a more recent source, please do. As far as I'm concerned all that's needed is a print or Internet source relating to NBC's upfront for 2008-09. 23skidoo (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Broadcasting error[edit]

It says that, in Australia, The Bionic Woman premiered in late June, 2008, on "The Sci-fi Channel"

I'm pretty positive that it aired at least several months prior to this, on a free-to-air channel. Not sure where I'd find sources for that, however. Murrawhip (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Woman was a flop[edit]

"Mixed reaction"? Bionic Woman is now synonymous with major flop. This wasn't just "a new show": NBC hyped it for months in advance as "THE show" of the new season....and the result, was a disgrace. I understand that you want more solid referencing and I agree; I don't have time now but I'll sort through the...myriad critical jibes and reviews taken at the series. But this article is almost as if...its based on just the pilot. As the 8 episode season wore on, critics just kept hating it more, as did viewers. It's sloppy garbage...but what do you expect from switching head writers so many times. At any rate: yes, I will have to spend time hunting around for critical reactions to source: though I would point out: what's your source that reaction was "mixed"? I've already cited sources saying it was awful. Regardless, yes, need more solid references. As for "concision"...it's simply not going to be a paragraph or short statement. While it will have more references, yes, a sizable amount of text is going to be devoted to listing all of the many criticisms of this show. Heck, many of the better reviews I've read summarizing the series (from SyfyPortal, AintItCoolNews, Io9.com, etc....I need to find links) have gone so far as to make point by point lists of how "Bionic Woman" is almost a guide to "how to make a bad series". Anything that could go wrong, did go wrong. Sort of like how one cannot just mention "Caddyshack II was given mixed reviews" but "Caddyshack II was given mixed reviews because...". Etc. A more thorough update with better sourcing of TV critics will be pending when I have the time. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's not the definitive "flop" that you make it out to be. (And I say that being fully aware of the series' many weaknesses.) While it was cancelled early, keep in mind that there are many new series that would have been happy to get as many episodes to air. (Remember Drive? Only four episodes aired. Some others only one or two.) As for the hype, networks promote a lot of shows that end up as failures for a host of reasons. Should we only praise the show? Of course not - but we do have to keep WP:UNDUE in mind; this is an article, not a critical review. --Ckatzchatspy 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that this is not a review; on a side note....no, "flop" doesn't equate to "canceled"...do you understand what "flop" means? Call it what you will, flop, failure etc....no, Bionic Woman is not comparable to "Drive" or the many shows that get canceled after 3-4 episodes. This was an awful series. but what I mean is.....the number of episodes they bothered to air is no reflection of the quality of the series and I'm surprised that you've confused this; heck, Firefly didn't even air some of their episodes...does this mean it was a failure or critically blasted as a bad series? No. Sir, Bionic Woman has been, *in as many words*, described by major critics as "the definitive flop" and "such a bad series that its like a guide to how to intentionally make a bad series". I do agree that I have to root around and find the actual review articles ( I know who made them but I forget the dates...) then I'll put that back up more formally. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to cite unfavorable reviews, but we should not use terms such as "flop" in the article as that violates WP:NPOV. Star Trek: Enterprise is also often described as a flop, even though it lasted 4 seasons and just shy of 100 episodes which de facto makes it a major long-running hit. It's only a flop because of the opinions of critics. Short-lived series, obviously, cannot be defended in such a way, nor should they, but the term has been so loosely applied that it is no longer valid. "Mixed reaction" works fine because you will find positive reviews of the thing out there, and to say something like "universally panned" would require cited proof that every printed and online publication in existence has been checked. Which of course is impossible. 23skidoo (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
....No. Yes, Enterprise got a pretty bad critical reaction but was kept on for 4 years and I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "flop" (nor am I gunning for using the word "flop" in this article) but it was "a failure".....if Bionic Woman wasn't "a failure", what is the criteria for that? Again, the fault is mine in that I don't have the time to look this all up now and I promise to later. But the point I want to make is this: most of the formal reviews cited so far (thanks for those, btw) are all based on the first episode premiere, and thus, skewed. Almost all of them are just based on the pilot rather than a reflection on the series as a whole. Of course, even then, the pilot episode met with indeed "mixed" reactions because people were trying to see the positives in it (even myself, though it did have some cringe-worthy moments like "I'm surprised a girl could do that mom!"....ugh). The point is, rarely will a critical review site make a commentary on "wow, lets devote an article on how bad a series is"....I guess they did a few around the cancellation, etc....but Bionic Woman wasn't formally cancelled until far into the Writer's Strike, when it had been on hiatus for a long time, so it wasn't much of a shock and it just peacefully died. Again, I do know that for example, SyfyPortal, AintItCool.com, and Io9.com at one point or another last spring wrote several articles listing all of the criticisms of the series as a whole and why it was so bad. Something more than just a review of the pilot episode. The NY Times and SF Chronicle reviews seem mostly based on the premiere. But part of a series is also...the actual series, which was laughably incoherent, had no real character development, and just oddly meandered around while aping the dark done of BSG (my real problem is that after 9 episodes, they still weren't bothering to introduce major characters and Sackhoff kind of upstaged Ryan, but that's just my view). But I am deeply confused why you are defending this awful show: what does constitute a "flop"? It's not just "the critics hated it", because many shows run years with negative criticism even from fans (Voyager, Enterprsie) Nor is it short running time and cancellation (i.e. Firefly was a critical hit but got cancelled without even airing some episodes...because Fox was full of morons). Further, many "small" series come and go without much notice; small series never intended to be major attractions often run for less than a season and get cancelled with bad critical reviews (New Amsterdam?). My point is, Bionic Woman meets all 3 criteria: critics hated it (initial reviews of the pilot were mixed but anything reviewing episode 2-9 simply grows to loathe it), the ratings dropped like a stone to half of their premiere ratings in a matter of weeks, it was cancelled without finishing a complete season, and ***it was hyped all summer and heavily promoted as a major tent-pole series for NBC, a new flagship series...hype matched only by the magnitude of its fall. I'm not trying to badger you or anything, and yes this needs to be an impartial collection of critic reviews and not our own words, but still:....if Bionic Woman wasn't a flop, what DO you consider a flop? What does it take? I am confused. Bionic Woman met every condition I consider that qualifies. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, per WP:NPOV what I think doesn't matter and I'm not allowed to say anything of my opinion in a Wikipedia article. Similarly, we can't call Enterprise a failure either because that requires us to violate NPOV to state why we might think it was a failure, but how can a series that ran 100 episodes be considered a failure? Because some fans didn't like it? Because it didn't run 7 seasons like the other shows (two of which - DS9 and Voyager - have been cited by some critics as having run 3 seasons too long)? Again, we aren't allowed to go into this ourselves. Not just because of WP:NPOV but also WP:NOR. And we can't say things like "universally panned" because we would need to cite a reputable source that indicated it had surveyed every single review worldwide of this program. All we can say is that a number of reviewers reacted negatively to this series (citing and quoting where appropriate) and that the ratings were not strong enough to justify renewal; although I've seen articles making reference to the mitigating circumstances of the strike, that Universal and NBC were ready to at least let the show go to 13 episodes, but the extended strike ended those plans. Ratings do not have any bearing on a show's quality and cannot be used as indicator of same, incidentally. Otherwise fans of shows like Firefly and Jericho might have something to say about it. Back to BW: yes, the three criteria you mention support the "flop" idea -- so we state these facts, give the sources to support them, and let the reader draw his own conclusion. We aren't allowed to interpret them in any way -- and yes that means there may be someone out there who will say "it's not a flop". But that's not our worry. 23skidoo (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.......please bother to read what I actually wrote instead of restating your earlier comments. I just said that Bionic Woman cannot be compared to Enterprise or Firefly, because "a failure" lets say provisionally, meets 3 requirements - critics don't like it, ratings are low, it gets canceled early, and further, if it was hyped as a major new series that was expected to last many years. No, it is not a matter of "fans of shows like Firefly or Jericho would say ratings don't matter and can't be used as an indicator"....you're right, they wouldn't; because those shows, while suffering low ratings, were critical hits from "reputable sources". .....I mean, you just said "critics hating a show doesn't mean its a failure Enterprise lasted for years"...so my response was "it didn't last for years and also got bad ratings"....so now you're reversing to say that "well ratings don't count"......it's because its both. My entire point is that the combined problems are what made Bionic Woman "a failure"; it wasn't just "a ratings failure", it wasn't just "a critical failure", what makes it "a failure" is that it didn't just suffer from one of these problems, but from all of them combined. As for the non-Point of View rules, they will be abided by, I just need time to go back and find all of the articles and reviews listing how bad it was. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you aren't reading my comments either so I am terminating this discussion to stop this becoming a pissing match. Fact remains we (and by we I mean Wikipedia editors) cannot label anything a flop. Period. Full stop. End of story. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unilaterally declaring the discussion "Period Full stop. End"...is like waving a big flag saying "I cannot think of an effective counterarguement so I'm throwing in the towel". I have read your comments and you are ignoring mine: so lets break it down again: a show can have ratings problems but be a critical success (Firefly), be a ratings success but critics hate it (Voyager), or even, the critics hate it and the ratings stink, but the network drags it out to grind out 100 episodes for DVD release (Enterprise) so its still "long running". What you probably grasp but seem to be unwilling to accept is that Bionic Woman is "a flop" because it failed on all three counts: it was a series that critics hated, on which the ratings sank like a stone, and which ran less than a season before being canceled. Your defense has been the ol strawman technique: if I say "the critics hated it" you say "so what, critics hated Voyager but that ran long", or if I say "the ratings were bad" you then say "so what? they were bad on Firefly". The crucial point is that it was a failure in both areas. It had no redeeming factor here; any way in which it could measurably fail, it did. I fully understand your point that we cannot label it "a flop" because wikipedia is supposed to be objective....thus if I do want to point out how many problems it had, I have to do the work of digging up critic reviews (aintitcool, io9, syfyportal) which considered it a laughably bad series (to the point that they now use it as their textbook example of a "flop"). Yes, I haven't had the time to do that yet, and until I do, we can't ourselves declare it a flop. So why am I writing now? Simply because as one viewer to another, I'm surprised that you feel a driving need to defend this awful failure of an attempt to make a series. And I can justifiably say it is a failure, because it was simultaneously a critical and ratings flop, which was not on the air a long time, even though NBC hyped it as a new tentpole series in their lineup. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction was not mixed which would indicate roughly a 50-50 reception. That is not so, but I agree you cannot say it was universally panned. I will however go for the slightly less harsh (but more realistic) "receieved largely negative reviews". Given the examples in the article, they're not good.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement[edit]

I did some clean-up of the article. All that it needs now is a minor copyedit, additional refs and formatted refs. Otherwise, I think pretty much everything else is covered for a GA nom. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

Hi, brand new here but noticed a huge mistake.... Katee Sackhoff played Starbuck in Battlestar not Number six as listed. Thanks

66.32.29.6 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)BARivers@aol.com Sat Jan. 21, 2009 4:47 pm CST[reply]

No worries. It doesn't say she played Number Six; it just says that she compared Sarah Corvus to Number Six. Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bionic Woman (2007 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bionic Woman (2007 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bionic Woman (2007 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bionic_Woman_(2007_TV_series)&oldid=1206305312"