Talk:Chuck (TV series)/Archive 1

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

Irene Demova Virus

Is this a real virus? Also, is Irene Demova a real person?

Xaritix 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a real virus. Lots42 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor is she a real person. 68.36.163.22 06:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Morgan's last name?

At the very beginning (just under the contents box), he's listed as Morgan Santos. In the Casting section, it's stated that his last name was changed from Pace to Grimes. The official NBC website has it as Grimes, so I'm changing the top one. Joliefille 07:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

An entry on the page under 'Goofs' states that though Chuck's computer broke, his email would still be on the internet. This is implying that Chuck could still access the email from the internet which is not always and necessarily true. Some people set their email clients on their computers to delete the email from the server when downloaded. Which would mean that if this scenario were true, the email would only be on the hard drive. I would argue that the NCS & the CIA could have an IT department smart enough to pull it from the hard drive in that case. Metamorphousthe 02:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and deleted the goof. Realistically, his ISP would have a copy stored on their backups even if Chuck downloaded it, but just as realistically, the NSA and CIA could have just gotten warrants to get the mail from the ISP (actually with the post-9/11 changes, they wouldn't need the legally required warrants), and/or could read the busted HD. And even more realistically, the NSA and CIA would have backups of the original critical database. 68.36.163.22 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Divine

I see the comparisons to Divine Right is back. If it's so noteable, please link for the love of bacon. Thank you. I still maintain my opinion it's only the vaguest of resembalances so far. Lots42 11:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, plot-wise, it bears a greater resemblance to The Scarecrow and Mrs. King. But I imagine the greater part of the show's demographic have no clue about that. :-)
The Dogfather 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A Chuck Page

can someone make a page for chuck and maybe even some of the other characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugatu3333 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At the least, there should be some episode synopses added to the article, or on a separate one. -Wilfredo Martinez 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lost crossover

any solid facts on a lost crossover?? http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.58.149 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Chuck mentions, "Oceanic Flight 815 was shot down" when he sees a variety of imgs.--Pathofme19 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't that just mean Chuck saw an image from the show? I certainly hope it doesn't mean Chuck could really meet Jack and Locke and so on. Lots42 11:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah. The doctor who invented the image encryption technology showed Chuck some test images to see if they would trigger the right response. Chuck starts rattling off data but the editing chops it into sentence fragments. At one point he says "Oceanic flight 815 was shot down by..." and it shifts to something else. I think it's just an Easter Egg for the fans. Thatcher131 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A few relevant links

I would suggest adding two links to the links section.

1) TV.COM - http://www.tv.com/chuck/show/68724/summary.html , and, 2) IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0934814/ .

Reason for adding these two links: (a) information is up-to-date and pretty authoritative, (b) information at these two sites is much more detail oriented than what is on Wikipedia. That is, more cast, crew, quotationos and episode information. (c) there is no relevant dmoz place for this info, no place on dmoz that I found that provides these cross references, so it seems appropriate to me that these be added to this wiki page.

I am going to this trouble to post here, because the Links section now has a big Warning! type preamble about not adding unless you practically swear an oath that it is essential to life - well, OK, not quite that severe, but it was dramatic enough when I read it.

Also, there are certainly many other wikipedia media show and movie pages that contain a direct link to both to the relevant page at IMDB and TV.com (which used to be TV Tome).

P.S. who votes on this anyway? -- Beginnersview 03:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2) Here is a link to each episode, its basically an episode guide... with a small description and even some video!! Chuck Episode Guide-Mahalo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkzdiva (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chuck New Opening.jpg

Image:Chuck New Opening.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChuckTV.jpg

Image:ChuckTV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Created and Awards section and added the awards that Chuck won on ign.com. I would personally say, and I think most people would agree, that since ign.com covers quite a but of TV and movie reviews including reviews for each episode for many TV series that these are relevant awards and worth mentioning on the page. I cited the "Best new series" page which has links to the other two awards it won, if people feel each should have a separate link I would be happy to add them. Also should the fact that it is a people's choice award finalist for best new TV series - comedy be mentioned? --Ngeunit1 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

From the edit history of List of music from episodes of Chuck

In case any of this warrants mention with a source. –Pomte 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pilot"

"Chuck Versus the Helicopter"

"Chuck Versus the Tango"

"Chuck Versus the Wookiee"

"Chuck Versus the Sizzling Shrimp"

"Chuck Versus the Sandworm"

"Chuck Versus the Alma Mater"

"Chuck Versus the Truth"

"Chuck Versus the Imported Hard Salami"

  • Meredith Bragg - "My Absent Will"

"Chuck Versus the Nemesis"

"Chuck Versus the Crown Vic"

Trivia

There is an awful lot of trivia all over this article that should be reduced or removed. "Cultural References" should be cited, so someone who thought they saw something doesn't arbitrarily add a "Reference" to the mix because the editor wanted to. How does the music section add to the encyclopedic nature of this article? It's just a list of a few songs throughout the series. Should be removed. I'm adding a trivia template to it, in any case. OK, maybe there's not an awful lot of trivia all OVER the article, but there's a lot in a small area. QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i will make a seperate article for it.--24.155.103.114 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes 12 and 13

Could I get some verification about these airing three days earlier in Canada? ASN would usually simulcast episodes with NBC, but this week there were no new episodes of Chuck. Was it aired on CityTV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.174.3 (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken link No. 5

A link to Yahoo News with NBS's announcement about the second season pickup [link no. 5] is broken. Can you replace it with a valid link? --Leshchenko (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

I removed all uncited trivia from the section. If we can find references, then we could put them back in.~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

bryce's "communication device"

Bryce's communication device is an OQO UMPC, also seen in Jericho the TV series. I dunno if anyone wants that in the article or not. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's really trivial information and non-notable. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"leading into Heroes"

The article says "leading into Heroes". Does this only mean that it airs immediately before Heroes, or is Chuck connected/crossing-over into Heroes? It it only means that it airs immediately before Heroes then I feel this should be frased unambiguously. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Martin.

I don't even see why that is an important fact. Shouldn't it be removed from the article? Languageleon (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Guest Stars

Is there a spot that points out that in ep 2x03, Chuck vs the Breakup, that the guys from the sports store are retires NY Giants players and plying the NY Giants on the Madden game? At least I think they are, I'd do it but I only recognize Michael Strahan as the guy who stuffs the wrap in Morgan's pocket, and the shaved head guy is former cornerback Jason Sehorn. Also, they're playing the NY Giants vs. the NE Patriots in a 'rematch' of the 2007-2008 Superbowl. 72.139.122.208 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned over at List of Chuck episodes. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable cultural ref?

In Chuck vs. Tom Sawyer, the first person Chuck flashes on is named Faroukh Bulsara. I'm pretty sure this is an allusion to Farrokh Bulsara, AKA Freddie Mercury.

Notable enough to be added page?67.177.48.190 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR without a reference, and more than a little trivial. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 01:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Webisodes

How come there nothing on this article about the Chuck Webisodes? They should at least be mentioned here. --Gman124 talk 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Added music

I added all the music from the first three episodes. Please add and correct things as needed! Feity 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

call of duty 4

I think Activision paid Sony, because thats the only game ever mentioned and shown on the episode for this week.--Playstationdude (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

...And? What exactly is your point? DeathNomad 04:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Weekly ratings section

Okay, I think that the weekly ratings section is getting entirely out of hand. It has grown far too long and it is getting far too much attention from the editors. In the Firefly (TV series) article (a featured article), they do not list the ratings for each individual episode, and there were only fourteen of them, and out of those fourteen, eleven aired. I suggest we deleted the weekly ratings section entirely, only include seasonal ratings, and merge the "viewers (m)" column into the List of Chuck episodes article in the manner of List of Lost episodes (also a featured article). Also, I would change that column's title to be more specific. Who agrees? kingdom2 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I've looked at several other articles (Lost, 24, 30 Rock), it seems no other main article includes a long table of weekly ratings, just the average for each season. Your suggestion sounds good, although if possible we should also transfer the weekly 18-49 results to the episodes page, since they give a better indication of a show's revenues than total viewers.Madcwa (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck HAS NOT been cancelled as of the timestamp on this post.

Please do not place any claims that Chuck has been cancelled or renewed(fingers crossed), without placing any sources on the page.

Thank You, William Anderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.207.248 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I think it's a good idea to mention that the status of a third season is in question. I'm trying to find a reliable source for that information, but I don't think it is absolutely necessary. And, anyways, the unofficial waiting period for finding a source will have surely not have passed by the time we have a definitive answer. — trlkly 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dramedy?

Is this show really a "dramedy?" It seems too over the top for that. I'd describe it as an Action Comedy. Calling it Science Fiction might not be correct either (Chuck didn't have the data downloaded directly into his brain, he just saw thousands of images on a PC screen, a process more like subliminal brainwashing.) Whether such a thing is feasible is questionable, but it's certainly not what most people would call Sci-Fi. Of course, this is only the first episode, more are needed to evaluate it properly. Just pointing it out. -Wilfredo Martinez 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Drama-comedy (or Comedy-drama) perhaps, Dramedy never. This "word" needs to be taken outside, beaten to a pulp, and then shot for good measure. --Squiggleslash 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's beside the point. So far, the dramatic elements (such as Sarah feeling hurt over Chuck not trusting her) have been few and not of lasting importance in the show. Even the deaths of some characters had little effect. So it's not a drama- yet. -Wilfredo Martinez 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! I hate it too. Dramedy is not a word, and the show is a comedy, not a drama. Fixed. Why must every comedy with a hint of relationships or a drama with a joke in it be called a 'dramedy'? Iorek 10:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'd consider M*A*S*H the prototypical dramedy. Chuck doesn't have that much comedy, so I'd consider Chuck to be a drama. — Val42 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, Chuck DOES have a lot of intended humor. Whether we find it funny or not is besides the point. On the other hand, I am convinced by now that it does have genuine emotional moments, so it is a drama as well.- Wilfredo Martinez 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh and it's definitely Science Fiction as well, as truth serums just don't work the way they did in "Chuck versus the Truth". -Wilfredo Martinez 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But we'll need citations to support saying that it is a drama or a comedy. I think that it qualifies as science fiction, but we'll need a citation for that as well. — Val42 03:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No we don't. The comedy/drama line is a little vaguer, I'll agree on that - the network likes to call it a drama as far as I recall (it certainly has character development and a bit of romantic angst, albeit not enough to take over the tone of the show with), but it reads like an action-comedy with drama portions to a lot of people; we could probably use citations to back up how its perceived in the media vs. how NBC's promoting it, vs. how the creator intended it, though frankly I think NBC was always intending to market it as a comedy AND drama series, what with the "new drama" label combined with the "saving the world for ten bucks an hour" tagline and such, which seemed more like they were pushing it as a comedy. Or, a strongly comedic drama. See, that's why it would be nice, at least, if we had cites for this part...
But, the Science Fiction genre is NOT debatable in this case. It just isn't, and if you think it is, you are, to be perfectly blunt... wrong. I normally would try to be less potentially-construed-as-pushy or whatnot on a point like this, but people are arguing "it's not this genre" when clearly don't know just how wide-ranging the genre really is, or they're arguing "people wouldn't think of it as sci-fi", which has nothing to do with the actual genre of the show in this case, and is speculation on "what people who aren't even me think". This has nothing to do with the noted misrepresentation of "truth serum", either, as that could certainly just be an error or carelessness on the part of the writers.
The reason I'm saying here that it is indisputably science fiction, is that the show blatantly and obviously uses, as part of its premise no less, a highly speculative (and potentially highly unlikely) use of future science and technology and/or mild alteration of the way science as we know it actually works... based on speculation of today's rough (but considerably less perfected) understanding of the human brain. (That's just if we ignore the less hard-to-swallow things like skin patch bugs that magically look like skin after being put on, or the level of technology built into Chuck's car or the level of connectivity and real-time video quality that TV has in the room where they contact their respective agencies...) Speculation on future (even if it's near-future) uses of technology and science that isn't in non-fiction form, is by default Science Fiction. So is anything that makes a scientific "tweak" to reality and examines the consequences, (which could quite easily be considered exactly what the show is doing. Hard to tell if it's more speculative, or more tweakative, if you will). Chuck just happens to be more naturalistic, less laser-gun heavy variation of SF set "now" or "nowish", is all. Re: the OP:
Calling it Science Fiction might not be correct either (Chuck didn't have the data downloaded directly into his brain, he just saw thousands of images on a PC screen, a process more like subliminal brainwashing.) Whether such a thing is feasible is questionable, but it's certainly not what most people would call Sci-Fi.
Bolding mine, for emphasis. Point by point, here is what is wrong with your assertions (though I appreciate the tentative "might not be" here):
(Chuck didn't have the data downloaded directly into his brain, he just saw thousands of images on a PC screen, a process more like subliminal brainwashing.)
"Subliminal brainwashing" may have been sensationalized in media or popular culture, but there's NEVER been definitive proof of its working, let alone to anywhere remotely near the extent or format of Chuck, in real life. Plus, there's that whole "Chuck's brain is special in that it can perceive more of these subliminal messages than average" thing, which is equally not based in very solid scientific research either, last I checked. Thus, it is "speculative fiction", and given the particular trope in use here, more clearly from the Science Fiction end than the Fantasy end, as it deals with using technological means (the flashing pictures on the screen) to tamper with the brain, as opposed to magical ones.
Whether such a thing is feasible is questionable, but it's certainly not what most people would call Sci-Fi.
Now, the truth serum thing could just be out of carelessness for all we know. But you can be damn sure the premise for the series was more deliberate. Not only is it "not feasible", the mere fact that even you find it "questionable" for it to be feasible without being necessarily aware of how debunked subliminal messages on that kind of scale are, only helps prove my point that it's incredibly speculative use of science. Also, how do you know what "most people" would "certainly not... call Sci-Fi"? I realize how tempting it is to go into statements like that, but it's a logical fallacy, as it's completely unprovable and really just a mask for one's opinion. Please avoid using it in the future.
Also, again - by objective standards, it counts as science fiction, because of just exactly how much obviously deliberate liberty it takes with the "science" behind the premise. That's all that matters on this end, really. (And now, I go to home ostensibly to sleep, for ye, I haveth a bloody cold -.-...) Runa27 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Fictional science, rather than science fiction; further, it's not science fiction as a genre. After all, would you call James Bond science fiction? Not as a genre, no, though it contains the same fictional science that Chuck features. Berym (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.136.172 (talk)
Perhaps Chuck is science fiction in the literal sense of the word, but not as a television genre-- I mean, you would categorize Chuck with Battlestar Galactica or Stargate Atlantis ? In any case, NBC describes it as an action comedy on their official show description page -- I can't think of a more authorative citation or reference than that-- and that's all that really matters on Wikipedia, not people's opinions. 69.106.244.111 (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Then we'll need a citation. — Val42 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the citation. Cws490 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's all I wanted. — Val42 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BUY MORE

I think a section needs to be created explaing the set, as well as the websites:

-- Danreilly123(talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they deserve a whole new section...maybe a paragraph or 2 under marketing? 166.214.104.252 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratings section

Why has all info on demos been removed? It makes no sense to only report total viewers; that number means little. The number of viewers within the 18-49 age range is much more important.

  • Not in 18-49 age group? TV execs write you off

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/apr/23/tv-column-not-18-49-age-group-tv-execs-wr-20090423

Friends was able to charge almost three times for a commercial as Murder, She Wrote, even though the two series had similar total viewer numbers during the seasons they were on the air together.
  • For Advertising Purposes, 'Grey's Anatomy' May Well be Colored Green

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/greys-anatomy/for-advertising-purposes-greys-11849.aspx

Demo powerhouse Grey's Anatomy was able to charge $419,000 per commercial, compared to only $248,000 for a commercial during CSI, even though CSI beat GA in total viewers by almost 5 million. This shows very clearly that demos trump total viewers in the TV industry.

Madcwa (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If anyone has the demo numbers, at very least add them to the total viewer numbers. DurandalsFate (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up this Talk page?

I see a lot of material that doesn't have to do with improving the article, or is very obsolete (some of it covered in pages for individual episodes and characters). This talk page is now over 32 KB. Can we start building consensus about deleting or archiving some of that material?

  • Settled topics:
    • Irene Demova virus
    • Morgan's last name
    • A Chuck page
    • Lost crossover
    • Broken link No. 5
    • Cultural references
    • Guest Stars
    • Chuck Webisodes
    • Chuck HAS NOT been cancelled as of the timestamp on this post.
  • Not relevant to improving the article (which is, after all, a general page about the series):
    • Irene Demova virus
    • Lost crossover
    • call of duty 4
    • bryce's "communication device"
    • Guest Stars
    • Notable cultural ref?

Yea or nay? DurandalsFate (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No deletions please, archiving is ok.
Archiving. With season 2 ended I would wait another few weeks (until it is even quiter here), and then archive every thread with no entry for at least 2 weeks (including this one ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I might go with three weeks, rather than two, and just set up Misza Bot to do it now. That way it will clean up all the stuff that's already pretty old and clean this thread up in three weeks, too. =D KhalfaniKhaldun 07:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Seriously, STOP DELETING items on the talk page unless it doesn't pertain to the article or potential article materials. Wait and then archive it. 64.150.129.11 (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what we're all talking about, thanks. Deleting non-pertinent material and/or archiving the rest. DurandalsFate (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as a note, I make it a personal policy not to delete any threads that have been around for a while just because they've been there. At this point, unless it's a clear attempt to use the talk page as a forum (like the call of duty 4 comment), I think it's better just to archive it. Then no one can complain about it being deleted and it's cleaned up and out of the way. KhalfaniKhaldun 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My Deletions

I deleted the two refs to 'My Computer Wore Tennis Shows' and 'Divine Right'. There were no citations backing it up. It'd be far, far different if one of the show's creators were quoted as saying 'Yeah, it's based off such and such' but there isn't and it's bad news in lawyer-town IF people start accusing each other of taking ideas. Also, I've read Divine Right and it's -nothing- like Chuck except in the most vague, vague way, i.e. 'Normal dude gets in deep crap over a message sent to him'. How many stories like that have been written? Thousands? (Not to mention the dude in Divine Right goes Captain Cuckoo Banannas)Lots42 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


You're right. It's closer to Holmes & Yo-Yo. --Farmer Iggy (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Spies Like Us

Do the several references to Spies Like Us warrant particular mention, or are there enough other references to a range of spy movies to essentially ignore the particular attention paid to SLU...? (In particular, Emmett Milbarge's name, Chevy Chase's role and the "Doctor." "Doctor." dialogue in "Chuck Versus the Broken Heart" stand out from other homages and suggest that SLU might be more of an influence than other films/tropes.) ntnon (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there's nothing to really justify singling out one specific source of references. The culture references should probably left to the individual episode pages. Ambaryer (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarities to Gemini Man / Riding with Death

Has the use of the government project INTERSECT and the use of the name Agent Casey in Chuck and Gemini Man (both NBC programs) been addressed? Could Agent Sam Casey from Gemini Man be related to John Casey from Chuck? 166.166.211.221 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Casey's real name is Alexander Coburn, I doubt it.Jbuckmaster (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hannah

Would she be classed as a season 3 recurring character (having appeared in at least 3 episodes already, with more airtime then Director Graham) or would she still be a minor character? as well, has anyone actually put an entry for her ANYWHERE yet? i've looked in the minor character and main charcter lists, she's not mentioned - 15.195.201.87 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah is currently listed under the "Other" characters under the Minor Characters page. I will move her to the Buy More page under the Nerd Herd, as this is the most appropriate place for her right now. Ambaryer (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comedy?

Should this tv show be classified as a comedy? I know the classification given to it buy the people who made it says it's a comedy, but that doesn't mean we have to follow what they say. I've watched the first 2 episodes and haven't laughted once. 118.209.217.183 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actully, we have to follow what others say, not what we think. If you have some reliable source that claims it isn't a comedy, we could change it. Otherwise, I think it should stay as it is. (Personally, I think calling it “action-comedy” is accurate.) Svick (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, his comment sounded suspiciously like a troll, to me.... Ambaryer (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Svick, it should be action-comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.134.84 (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Season 4 Cast

Should recurring cast for Season 4 be listed on this page yet? The season hasn't even started airing.Ambaryer (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam Baldwin higher in the starring list?

I don't really understand why Adam Baldwin is at the last position of the Starring list (right infobox). My point of view is that he's one of the main characters with Zachary Levi and Yvonne Strahovski. Shouldn't he be at the third position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.163.24 (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the order in which the names appear during the opening credits. Might be something along the lines of scientific articles where the first, second and last are the most important people. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly he has an "and" or "with" denotation in the credits. Typically in TV this does kind of line up with what you're saying about scientific articles. It's why people are always trying to add those notations to the infobox on films and tv. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of episode articles

Unless an individual episode is particularly notable in its own right, there is no need for us to maintain articles on each episode of the show that airs. We are not IMDB. It would be better to have an overall summary of the plot of each season, and have the episode articles just redirect to the article on the appropriate season. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree here. There's a tendency for so much to change from one episode to another, and so many different story threads once you work in the Buy More and family subplots, that trying to summarize by season in this manner would be difficult at best. There's also no rules that I'm aware of that dictates this (Otherwise we may as well start going through EVERY TV series and merging episodes. Star Trek TOS and TNG are good examples, where they have pages for almost every episode, even if they were only stubs). Ambaryer (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think as well, given how little developement there can be in individual episodes of Star Trek, that individual articles on Chuck episodes are justified. 80.6.122.57 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I would also agree on this. There is much individual plot development in each episode. Just as long as we don't start piling up all these useless stub articles it is fine by me. This does not seem to be a trouble in the individual episode articles I have viewed.meitme (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Onion on chuck

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nbc-admits-to-never-actually-making-an-episode-of,17241/ NBC Admits To Never Actually Making An Episode of 'Chuck' April 12, 2010 | ISSUE 46•15 LOS ANGELES—The NBC action-comedy Chuck, familiar to millions of viewers from its long-running promo bumpers, does not actually exist, network executives admitted Friday. "We had a very successful, very expensive promotional campaign, but to be honest, we never actually bothered making a pilot," NBC spokesperson Grant Twombly said. "I guess everybody just assumes everybody else is watching it, because advertisers have jumped on board, and DVD sales are somehow doing great." A ratings analyst reached for comment confirmed that "people can't get enough of that Chuck." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, ok. Exactly what does this contribute to the article? Ambaryer (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for breaking up my day with that hilarious comment. Sadly, this is not a chuck forum it is about the article and this is clearly not.meitme (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Julia Ling in the infobox?

Although she is no longer currently a cast member, she was formerly. And on various shows, such as Dexter, it's common to list even former cast members in the credits, because it's about who starred in the entire series, not just the current season.

(Note: On Dexter, I had formerly listed Erik King and Desmond Harrington similarly; King was out after season 2 and Harrington wasn't involved until season 3. That's the primary dilemma here, but I listed her as "Julia Ling (Seasons 1-2)", so I hope that will suffice.)--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves she is a recurring character in season 1 and a main character in season 2. But, I'm too lazy at the moment to check up on this. meitme (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Series renewal, 2010

I am not sure what is unclear about this section to require the template it seems crystal clear to me.meitme (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible "The Truman Show" reference

The main character of "The Truman Show" is Truman Burbank

In the movie some characters talk about the "Buy More"

These two elements are present in this TV Series, could it be a reference?

Lessio (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

More likely it's merely a coincidence. This is one that definitely needs a reference confirming intent. Ambaryer (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"8/7c"

Americans and Canadians know what that means.
But is that hieroglyphics for people from anywhere else?
Is the teenage girl from Sri Lanka going to be puzzling over that? Varlaam (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be better just to remove the time completely. It's probably good enough to say just "airing on Monday nights." --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Except that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We still like the time.
I don't look at a lot of TV pages; maybe there's a convention for this.
Like a link to a page that explains our North American TV time weirdness.
Varlaam (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Central Time and Newfoundland Time are both weird. Varlaam (talk)
I'm not sure if the baby/bathwater analogy is a good one. The problem is that there are 4 time zones in the US. If you really want to say "airing at 8:00 Eastern, and Pacific, 7:00 Central, and <whatever> Mountain", you can go ahead, I guess, but I think in this case getting rid of the time does away with a lot of headaches and doesn't harm the article much at all. Wikipedia isn't a substitute for TV listings (nor should it be), and I can't think of any other reason the specific time is notable. --Fru1tbat (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
These well-known shows all spell out the time in their opening sections: The National (CBC), Rick Mercer Report, and Being Erica.
But they don't employ a cryptic formulation. They use pm with ET and NT.
I think that's the way to go.
Varlaam (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Those are all Canadian shows, so there is no analogy. For an American-produced show, as inappropriate as it seems to me to mention only Eastern and Central time, I think using a Canadian convention would be even worse. Look at House (TV series), which is a featured article. In the lead, no time is mentioned at all. Times are only mentioned in the ratings section, which it seems to me is appropriate, as that's where they're really notable. Even there, only one time is used (Eastern). If anything, that's the example we should be following. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Technology

I propose a discussion on whether or not to include a section like this:

Technology

A brief note of the technology behind The Intersect: Steganography is a real world technology which includes embedding information within images and sound files. The “intersected” images require complex software to encode and decode, not as simple as Chuck's brain just remembering combinations of what he may have seen, however computers which find patterns amongst data provided is also the premise behind the movie Eagle Eye. See also Surveillance and Data mining. --Lookmomnohands (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source writes something about it. Eagle Eye is irrelevant since it was premiered after Chuck. I do remember an early episode of Kyle XY where Kyle is shown 100 images and remembers every one, but I don't know if Schwartz, Fedak, or anyone else has made the connection. --Boycool (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Campaign for series 5

For some reason eveytime i add a new paragraph to the Chuck (TV series) page, i come back to it finding out it has been removed. Why is this? What i have said in the paragraph is all true and based on the news surrounding the show. Why is it being deleted? I feel that this paragraph should be displayed as there is daily speculation surrounding the 5th season. 86.11.29.103 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because there is no campaign? 155.69.2.13 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Any specifically for the pilot? --Boycool (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Through various fan sites, I've found the following:
  • Won-2008 Eddie Award for Best Edited One-Hour Series for Commercial Television
  • Nominated-2008 Emmy Award for "Outstanding Main Title Design"
    • Interesting, considering the title sequence didn't come until the third episode.
  • Nominated-Casting Society of America's 2008 Artios Award for "Outstanding Achievement in Casting-Television Pilot-Comedy"
But I can't find a reliable source for any of them! --Boycool (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

#notaneislonfamily campaign

Shouldn't someone talk about the #notaneilsonfamily campaign? It is worth noting in the 2011 Renewal section.

Bellagio2 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Friday Night Death Slot

Once again, I've removed the mention of the Friday Night Death Slot from the Season 5 renewal section. As anybody who understands what the FNDS is will tell you, it's the timeslot that shows are moved to to kill them off.

When Chuck was renewed for Season 5, it was done so with the knowledge that it would be the show's final season. It was initially planned that it would stay in its traditional Monday slot. It was later moved to Fridays. As the show was already planned to end, the FNDS is completely irrelevant here and has no place in the article. DigiFluid (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, Friday Night Death Slot ITSELF is a concept that STRONGLY relies on individual opinion and Original Research. Even when it comes to referenced sources you have no consensus. One article might call Chuck's rescheduling as being sent to a Friday Night Death Slot, another might make no mention of the phenomenon at all and just note that the series is moving to Friday after NBC announced it would be the final season.Ambaryer (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation for a Quote Box in the Conception Section

I added a quote to the Conception section of the article in which co-creator Chris Fedak explains that initial concept of the show was a mash-up of The Office, 24, and Alias. I've heard variations of that quote more than once in articles explaining the series and thought it was worth including in the Wikipedia article. I've tried several times to add a citation for the source of the quote I added, but it never shows up in the references section of the article despite there being a bracketed, hyperlinked number at the end of the quote. Can anyone help me insert the url? I got the quote from the following website, which I accessed on January 21, 2014: http://blog.hulu.com/2011/04/06/the-green-room-chuck-co-creator-chris-fedak-thanks-fans/

Thanks in advance for your help.

Binx (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chuck (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 to let others know.

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 20:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuck (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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Individual Chuck episodes are showing up in TV series listings

If you look at the page for the category of American TV shows from the 2000s, you'll see that in addition the series itself, every individual episode of Chuck has been listed as if it were a tv series in the 2000s. Looking at the bottom of a typical episode page, you can see that the two categories 2000s American television series and 2010s American television series are listed.

However, it's not at all clear where those two categories are getting pulled in. They're not in the body of the individual episode pages, which from my very brief bit of googling, suggests that some template is doing it. But the list of templates is long, and it's not at all obvious where this extra link is coming in. I have looked a bit, but not found anything.

Anyone have a clue where to look, or where this should be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pholbrook (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1142547073"