User talk:Paul730/Archive 7

31.01.08

(I've started just placing dates on our conversations, as the Angel/Torchwood overlap is getting hard for me to follow.) I just read a spoiler on the Gwen article about why she's marrying Rhys, and besides that, he's already credited weekly (regardless of whether he appears) isn't he? So he officially counts as cast. Oh, Torchwood books are semi-canon, did you hear about the confirmation of PC Andy's surname? The Youtube video is fantastic!! Franco's art works well as moving images, and the "windows" of the Angel credits end it a real... credibility, perhaps? The cover for #5 would suit really well, too. I think Torchwood is improving a lot, I really enjoyed tonight's episode. My mum was completely floored by the gay kiss, she said "even though the character's bisexual, it still ruins him from my perspective... as a woman... to know that he kisses men." I laughed, and it would appear she is a fan of the show these days. Haha.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I find Gareth's acting hard to swallow, sometimes. I kind of want Jack to get with Gwen, dunno why. I hate her as a character, but the Ianto relationship doesn't work. I think they're going less for "Ianto's motives are unclear" and more for "Ianto's in love with Jack, maybe since before Season One began." Hopefully the flashback episode that goes into all their origins (Jack in C51, Toshiko dissecting pigs in Doctor Who, and Ianto being recruited from T1 and Owen... who knows) will add some credibility to the whole "I love by Cyberwoman girlfriend... and the man who killed her" complication. The more I look at Franco's art, the more I dig it, you know? I like that Lynch is really reachable as well, like... you can comment him, and he'll read it. Unlike Joss, who'll read it, but only condescend to comment if you spark some massive debate on Whedonesque (which I'm still not a member of, grr - I'll check on Valentine's Day to see if they're open.)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I resent her because she oscillates between this percieved human perfection and then utter uselessness? In today's episode she knew what she may encounter, but still screamed like a little girl when "oh no a one-legged man is walking towards meeeeee!" I don't HATE her hate her, I just find her Mary-Sueish.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I love the bit with all the fans' messages about aliens, so nice.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy as fuck, yet endearing. I guess now they have an edited pre-watershed version, some small percentage more more underage kiddies will be watching and likely to do a poor act. I demand Borat impressions!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What issues does "Earth-A" appear in, in She-Hulk? There's something to love about publishers deciding "out of character? that was their counterpart from Earth-721 wreaking havoc!"~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy #12 preview! Great dialogue. Lots of Andrew cuteness. And Renee cuteness. And Xander sweetness. And Willow spookiness.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think fans will have an especially hard time connecting to the new characters due to the lack of actor association. When we read Willow's lines, we hear Allison Hannigan's acting. Then again, Robin Balzer felt somewhat real. Recurring role could work.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Do you have a link? (Oh, and I officially think Georges has NAILED the artwork at last.) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah, I'd missed that. Simone! Buffy/Satsu? Xander/Andrew haha! Oh, there's a cover (by Jeanty) that depicts the Scoobs going Dracula, Xander, Renee, Buffy, Andrew, Willow, Satsu. One fan said all the gays were to the right of Buffy, and another said it was a spectrum - straightest to the left and gayest to the right. Wouldn't that be a strange way to take Buffy as a character? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Lynch's new podcast. He says his Spike comics are canon, after much of him being careful not to sound like he was trying to use Angel to sell his older stuff. He's very worried about becoming an evil pariah to the Buffy fans in general.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He's very worried about being hated by his own kind. Betta? NO HE'S NOTHING LIKE JAR-JAR. Yes, I was the confused Liam he was referring to. Confused? He's clearly never had sex with me.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I lost track of the series before Lynch brought him back. I like Lynch's answer though: if you liked that story, yes it's canon. If you didn't, Betta can easily stand as a new (reboot?) of the character, due to Whedon's fondness for him.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Freddy

It was no rush, I was in the process of writing it all up when you fixed the spacings. I saved and there was a conflict so I just saved my stuff over yours and then went back and added back what you did. Is it better now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No harm done. If I didn't do it I'm sure you would have stepped up to the plate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's funny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I enjoyed it more than Mark Steven Johnson's other effort.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It had a few redeeming qualities, but far more poor ones. IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I liked the costume as well, it gave a sense of grittiness to the character. Better than spandex. I think MCD as pretty well cast as Wilson Fisk, even if Fisk is really white in the comics. I don't generally have a problem with Ben Affleck as DD, it was the script that made him seem worse than usual. I liked the idea of him actually seeing the details of his surroundings from the sound waves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, I enjoying reading the comic panel samples. I stopped reading the actual Q&A after the first one (which is still linked on the sandbox page). I'll link the Michael article there as well so I don't lose it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen it. I saw it just the other day. It looks alright, but I haven't watched cartoons for awhile (a part from those Spider-Man: TAS movies that I bought).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good, and I like Wolverine being the star. He had a few episodes to himself in previous cartoons but overall wasn't a major character. So there's new Transformers, X-Men and Spider-Man for me to watch this year... I prefer animated shows to live action generally, unless it's Doctor Who. Last night's Torchwood was neat, I love whales. Alientraveller (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. If I made X4, I'd make it a buddy movie between Wolvie and Cyke. It's just Cyke is depressed in this series at first, so eventually Wolvie's determination will coaxe him out of it. And yes, I do watch the Fantastic Four cartoon, it is superb, and watching that version of Doom makes the films' attempts to modernise the character look all the more miserable. Alientraveller (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon Doom has elements of Ultimate Doom, but he's still a genius who built his armour, and rules Latveria, though this version cleverly chooses to live at an "embassy". By the way, what do you think of the Abomination in The Incredible Hulk? I saw an image of the toy on SuperHeroHype, and he's looks deliciously nasty. Grendel on steroids. Alientraveller (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My favourite Hulk enemy, apart from himself (obviously), was the Leader. But Abomination is not only a physical foil, but also someone who was jealous of Banner, as he could never turn back into a human. His role is this movie is being someone actually evil, not the poor, misunderstood and confused Hulk. In any case, these smash-ups better match up to Transformers. Alientraveller (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read World War yet, but I liked Planet Hulk, Greg Pak did a good job of turning Hulk into John Carter. A more satisfying and original take on the character. I thought it was certainly a bizzare decision to have Hercules hijack the very series Hulk debuted in, but comics are funny books. I look forward to reading about his son, Skaar.

I really want to know when the Hulk trailer is coming. Still, at least the Indy trailer is out on Valentine's Day. Indy is a contender for my favourite fictional character. Alientraveller (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To avoid being indiscriminate, I will admit I just prefer characters who give off a sense of age or experience. Hence, I prefer characters to Aragorn or Han Solo to the likes of Frodo or Luke, as interesting as they are in their own right. I also absolutely love villains, and humourous sidekicks. I do love a good sympathetic creature too, hence Hulk, Frankenstein, Gollum, Treebeard etc Alientraveller (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the originaly Batman: TAS was really good, and I have to say that I wouldn't mind getting those DVDs. The thing is, DC (which is owned by WB) is really good about getting their stuff on DVD formats (whole seasons), whereas the Marvel property is extremely hard to find. Take Spider-Man TAS for instance, it's only available as like 4 or 5 movies, which are select episodes of the show. I think that's because they license everything out to different companies, whereas with DC it's pretty much all in-house.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe over in your region, but there are no season (or volume) DVDs on Spider-Man (1994 TV series) for my region. Just those DVDs that contain select episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean, Green Arrow becoming the star of Smallville? No, because he's only in one episode this season. He's an excellent character, and I'd certainly watch the show, but he'll never be better than Clark. The only reason he overshadows Clark on the show in season six is because we've had 6 years of Clark, and we finally get a cool new guy on the show who can hold his own in the spotlight with our main hero. It was refreshing to see a decent character enter the show and stay for awhile.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't say that I ever got tired of him. I actually would have liked to have seen a bit more. He was only in a handful of episodes and they weren't always back-to-back. He left season six in the episode "Justice" (when Aquaman, Cyborg and Impulse showed up again).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

08.02.08

"Meat" and "A Beautiful Sunset" were both very good, weren't they? I liked seeing Ianto's fight scenes, and I liked the way Buffy handled Satsu's situation. Do you think Twilight (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) should be merged with List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know he has a male jawline, a sense of humour, is a bit sexist, can fly(?) and feels it's his duty to clean up the Slayer mess. So yeah, blatantly Quentin Travers? Err no. Jonathan? As Caleb was already cameod in the issue, it may be a bit... bizarre. Plus, Caleb HATES Buffy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Riley went through my head after the vague mention of him earlier in the book triggered it. Red Herring? I dunno, I can't understand what his motivation would be (although he is schedules to turn up, and Blucas has a similar jawline.)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Twilight is Xander! Twilight is Andrew! Twilight is Clem!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Two hours before the dreaded day

And looks like Torchwood is back on BBC3! Yay, Martha.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's tomorrow. I'll advise you avoid all character pages, and episode pages if you don't want the SHOCKER!! ending spoiled. Also, avoid my edit history too! It'll be on Pirate Bay (not that I advocate the use of such websites...) tomorrow, too. :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not Martha at all. A different character! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is your favourite superhero without powers? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Doom

The write-up would be great, thanks! David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The other characters will have to wait for now... one thing at a time :P Thanks a lot for the ref, though. Excelsior! David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think I want to do Iron Man next meself, but I'm sure I won't despair for lack of fictional characters that need improving... my favorite article is on the Master Chief, but I think that's 'cause I wrote it :P Comic book characters are a lot harder than I thought though... thanks for all the help, I think I've integrated your material in. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, tailor it the way you want... you're more familiar with it, after all. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

18.02.08

Hey Paul, I'm just fixing up the trainwreck that was the Martha Jones article. As you've clocked more experience with this than me, would you care to help summarize the "television" section of the character's appearances section? I think I've done an alright job condensing all the crap that used to be in the literature section.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been keeping up with it. Watched the first few episodes. I'm waiting for it to stop feeling like one long (loooong) serial and get more like, a proper forumalic TV series, you know? It feels like a 22-hour movie than a 22-part TV series, but I think that's got to do with issues of the series trying to find its' feet.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's not really "huge long serialized arc" and more "just goes on and on and on, waiting for something to happen". Do you think if we sorted out the Jack lead, we could FA it again?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost has episodic down pat. Lost is great. I can't fault it, personally.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heroes volume 2? Not so much with the fast pace. Lost series four hasn't disappointed me so far. I'm one of those people that don't mind episodes devoted to Hurley's daddy issues, and I loved Nikki and Paulo... because I'm ashamedly shallow.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't that bad. They were consistently written, and very pretty, and their episode was pretty neat (with a little Boone Might Be Gay moment) - I dug the on-island flashbacks... but fans just resented them for their shear Cousin Oliverness.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Is the last bit about "Last of the Time Lords" a little long? Maybe there can be some mention of the Master (as Mister Saxon) manipulating Tish from the start? I wouldn't know how to add it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to same idea! Grr, argh, edit conflict! :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it adding anything that wasn't evident from "Reset". Maybe it should go under the character development section, which is somewhat skimpy and can likely hold information about her off-screen maturation.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely right, revert me. After I make this (these?) final edit(s?) to Jack's article, would you nominate it? I did it last time, and don't want to jinx it this time.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, change the image. Also, maybe you and Bigs should Jack a once over before it goes near FA nomination again. Off to watch Skins! Yay E4+1.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Captain Harkness

Is it you or Zythe who is primary contributor? Just need to know because it's often one person who has to make the most controversial decisions for an article. Alientraveller (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Zythe ever institute that new lead section? The one that is there now seems like it could be beefed up more to summarize the entire article itself. Other than that, nominate it if you feel that it's ready. Just let me know so that I can remember to review it. I've got some things going on right now with school (plus that Smallville (season 1) FAC happening, so reading word for word any other articles is going to take a bit of time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when he puts it up for FAC, this way I know when I need to get on the ball and review it (though, I may find some time before then to do it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. I don't know. Where are you citing it from? Do you have a secondary source, or are you citing a commericial that appeared? Was this merely a trailer for the upcoming appearance?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My only problem would be that it wasn't some sort of "special" that aired to introduce the character, but was merely a trailer for the new season. Because of that, I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't be appropriate to say that is her "first appearance" in the sense that we all think of it. In that theory, Clark and the gang first appeared in the "Pilot" trailer. Every character's appearance would then be regulated by trailer appearances. I understand that it contained "separate" material from the show, but its' more of just a promo instead of a special airing that introduces the character by herself. That's really iffy, so you make the call and worry about it if someone else questions it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you might want to argue "Martha first appeared in a series of promotional stills released shortly after her casting was announced..." I think an original material trailer doesn't count, whereas a separate-material network pitch tape (as with Angel) might, if it were to get general release .~Zythe^{Talk to me!}23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You could use overwrite that image if you want (just hit "upload newer version" at the bottom). The problem becomes making sure that it is clear, from the source, that the image is a promotional image and not fan made. Then, you'd have to use the {{non-free promotional}} license, and make sure your fair-use rationale was appropriate. It would look like this, but with the appropriate source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a fan blog wouldn't be. You need a source that clearly identifies the license or owner, whether that is merely a statement saying "promotional image" or one that says "artwork by John Doe". If it's promotional, or a screenshot, then the copyright holder is the company that owns the show. In the case of Smallville, that would be The CW (The WB before the merger). If BBC is the network that produces Doctor Who, then that is your copyright source. The year would be the year the image was taken, but if you don't know then it isn't that important. Also, you can use this program to crop your image as you see fit. Just upload it (see top left "Browse"), and hit "crop" (also on the left). Then you can take out what you need.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, the image is fine. I forgot to tell you, when you save overtop of an older image the newer images "appears" distorted because you are working through the older image's resolution size. This is just a cookie issue. If you hit "refresh" on the browser it should refresh the cookies and the image will appear just fine. This goes for inside the article as well. I resized the image per the fair use guideline, so it's a bit smaller (though, not noticable on the article page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I was the same way. You learn from your experiences. As for the image size, I was recently told that 350px is generally the recommended size for images. What you had didn't really look all that huge, but someone else resized a couple of mine that were only about 400 + px, so I figure it's better safe than sorry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean this image?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on the image upload screen, where it says "upload newer version", there is a catalog of all the version the name has held. You can hit "rev" next to the image you want and it will revert to that image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No sweat.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what are your thoughts on my redirecting the 13 member "Starring" list in the infobox to the "Characters" section on Buffy the Vampire Slayer? I was met with objection when I was bold and just did it, but now no one seems to be taking part in the discussion that I was told to start.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it. The other editor basically demanded that I make a discussion, but never bothered to at least give a rebuttle. I asked you because I know you're a Buffy fan, and monitor the page. Oh, did you read TTN and my discussion on the Smallville characters pages? What are your thoughts on that?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious about your thoughts. I've copied everyone over to my sandbox for the characters that would be on the page. The sandbox is completely uncleaned, just a copy/paste job so bear that in mind. A lot of characters need to be trimmed down a lot, and some need some basic plot information. TTN's idea was to also have a home for the main characters, which is good because if I put "everything" I have on the series regulars in the main article, the section itself would become quite large. Right now, the sandbox is 80kb which could go up or go down when it's all cleaned up and sourced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They have their original articles, like Superman and Lex Luthor (well, some are regulated to things like "in other media). I think TTN is thinking about be able to give the show characters (which are not identical to their comic book counterparts) some room to breathe on their own (so to speak). I don't plan to chronicle everything that happens to them (you know me), but maybe summarize each's season actions. I haven't decided if I'm going to move all the real world information to a separate section or do it like I did on the main page for the series regulars. As for the "appearances", no, I don't. I'll probably just make note like "Sheriff Adams appeared in 35 episodes from season two through season five", or something along those lines. I don't know what I'll do with the Wikia links.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

break

I'm kind of disheartened that they are including all these characters that they didn't include in the X-Men movies, and they are doing it when they probably shouldn't do it. If they are doing Wolverine's biography, his reaction to Xavier in the first movie indicated that he wasn't aware of that many other mutants in the world, or at least had not had that much experience with them. It makes you wonder why they are going through the effort of introducing so many mutants to his storyline when they could keep it serious and focus on just him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more or less referring to Gambit, Sabertooth and all the other characters they want to introduce. The same goes for Deadpool, even though he isn't a "mutant". I think I should have said "comic character", because I think they are just piling too many characters into a movie that should really focus on just the one. I don't want to be distracted by seeing all these characters I think should have originally had their own movie, or should have been introduced in the X-Men movies. I don't think Mystique was over 100 in the X-Men movies though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I could see having "Victor Creed" in the film, but not "Sabretooth". I think it could be cool to have them be best friends who become rivals. I wouldn't mind seeing "Sabretooth" in a sequel. I mean, he has healing factors too, so it could easily be shown that he survived his fall from the SoL. I could see Deadpool if maybe you see him in passing at the Weapon X facility toward the end of the film. Through the dialogue exchange with Magneto and the one with Senator Kelly in the helicopter, she gave the impression that she wasn't 100+ years old. Oh, and Deadpool has abilities so I assume he is a "mutant" (maybe not born that way, but mutated by the Weapon X program).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would set a Wolverine sequel in a post X-Men world. Maybe set it between either the first and second, or the second and third (probably the first and second). We don't know what happened to him during that time, so it's the perfect time to set up a sequel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I had the idea that whatever Wolverine does to Gambit in this prequel, it could set up X4, where only the audience is none the wiser about Gambit trying to find the ol' canuck. Alientraveller (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I did read that. This movie is currently going downhill in potential.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not slagging the characters, or the actors portraying them, but more than number of them in the film. No one complained that there were too many Bonds in Casino Royale.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, the only other mutant I believe should be in the film is Sabertooth, and the movie should be about their friendship disolving into hatred for one another. Give them both contrasting personalities, and when they join the Weapon X program their memories are whiped. Afterward, their hatred is fueld by competition to be #1 in the program. They'd have no memory of ever being friends, which, to me, would add to the drama of their hatred for one another because it would have been something artificially created by Stryker and the Weapon X crew. I could see a couple of other mutants present, but for the most part not as many as are there now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No discrimination, that goes for human alike. I feel that unless they are pertinent to the story of the film, and don't distract from the star, then they don't need to be mentioned. In response to mutants in general, if you aren't familiar with the comics then you aren't going to know some joe schmoe human that walks across the screen. But, even if you aren't familiar with the comics, someone walking across the screen and doing something superpowered is going to catch your eye and make you start thinking about them more than you are thinking about Wolverine. All these mutants are nothing but glamor at the moment (unless there is some enriching storyline for them all, which I doubt because it would either make the movie really long, limit wolverine, or limit those characters), and good movies don't rely on the glamor. I'm not that familiar with either of those characters. But, the Wiki article does say that Sabertooth say Wolverine as competition, so my idea for a film with them wasn't far off. The way I see it, once in the Weapon X program, Creed's personality (which should be present early in the film) allows him to fully embrace the project, becoming Sabertooth...yet, the project also releases psychotic tendencies, which would drive his competitive nature with Wolverine into the more deadly rivalry that develops.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably meant it more like "don't be a girl", but you chose that profession. Did you think working in that department wasn't going to be spic-n-span clean? Just throw some gloves on, put a pin on your nose, and scrap the fishies out. ;) Does your boss know you're gay, or was it one of those comments in ignorance?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was being facetious about that first part. I'd wear gloves as well, if I could find some. I don't particularly like the feel (or smell) of fish guts and brains on my hands.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really a fish expert in the least. I like the taste though. I guess I don't need to tell you how easy a remark could be made about your statement: "I'm mainly a meat packer". LMAO. Anyway, the next time your boss says something to you in reference to you acting "gay" (whatever that really means), or something like that, just look at him and go "well, that's because I am"...and blow him a kiss. LOL. On second thought, do that on the day you plan to quit that job, because who knows what consequences you could indirectly cause for yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I'm going to school for social work so that I can one day get my license and open a private therapy office. I did volunteer work at hospice. I've seen grosser things than fish, and touched worse. Doesn't mean that I like it, or the fish though. Being able to stand something doesn't mean you like doing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, except not focusing on the brain and no drugs involved. I'm a procrastinator too. I tend to write all my research papers the night before they are due. Test the waters and maybe you'll find your niche.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinical social workers don't focus on what made you do the things you do, but on how we can help you find solutions to your problems in the here and now. Psychology is more psychoanalytic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we sit and nod as well. Our purpose is to help "you" find the solutions yourself, instead of relying on other people to find those answers for you. I've always been interested in therapy, but it wasn't until I interviewed one that I realized that not all therapists were psychologist (or psychiatrists), but had social work degrees as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at her "about me", she looks solid. A best selling author. I mean, we even gave her her own page. I think it'll be ok to use her. If you run into smack just be like, "well she's a best selling author. Leave the bit about the Wiki article out though, because TV.com and IMDB have articles but we don't use them. I think it's easier to just say she's an accomplished writer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. She has no claim under fair use laws. As long as you give her credit for what you use it's fine. Everything we use on Wikipedia is basically copyrighted to some degree.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all those things are probably true. With "boldness", it's something that's stated a bit in the AfterElton articles. It's hard to keep the prose interesting when you're being denied all use of adjectives not found in the source. Gah, what's this in the history comments about the article being messy - the layout is fairly straightforward!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram & Hart employees

Hi Paul730 -- I reverted your changes, and posted on Talk:Wolfram & Hart employees for discussion. Are you aware of the "injunction" on TV episode & character merges right now? --Lquilter (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

X-Men

It's very cool we're seeing Team X coming together. In Benioff's early draft, Wolvie was looking for his old friends to track down Sabretooth after getting an adamantium skeleton. Hopefully we'll get something more faithful to Barry Windsor-Smith's series.

Another thing: I bought an academic study of the X-Men. Would you be willing to blank your whole sandbox (bar the infobox, section headers and few cited bits) for me to lay the groundwork for you? Alientraveller (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

28.02.08

Yeah, saw it this morning and had a fucking nerdgasm!! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be very T2. Maybe Fray is from the world without shrimp anyway? Did you see any shrimp, in Fray, at all?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it suited Lorne very much. I think the line Lorne says about Wesley's punishment being the suit is a reponse to the complaints about Wesley's seeming mischaracterization in #1, Lynch trying his best to force that line in. Oh, I'm fairly confident that the 12 issues are well-paced, well-plotted and going to satisfy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The back of #4 promised "the gang's all here" next week, and the awesome JLI cover showcases that. I don't care if the minor characters do much, I'm falling in love with George, Loan Shark and the Dragon (who I'll call Myfanwy ala the Pterodactyl until Lynch says it's something else.) You know, all of Urru's funky demons are probably a reponse to the reviews that said he's not good at likeness, but great at letting loose. Woah, and She-Skip - that thing will be a bitch to kill.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No female Lords of Los Angeles? No Drusilla? It all feels more... male-pleasure-centric, than Buffy and ANgel normally do. Spider is an example of that.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess Illyria is female too. SORT OF. What's the legal status of using Angel characters who are predominantly Buffy characters. For example, Dark Horse can use Angel and Spike, but can't overdo it. Can Faith appear in Angel? I know the rights are complicated (Fox owns characters cos of the original movie, and then WB and UPN have their paws in there, with whatnot also being sold to DH and IDW) but... friendly cameos?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Still, I wonder if this Fray appearance is a backdoor pilot for Fray volume 2? Because that would be awesome. Better yet, would be an hour-long+ Fray movie. It wouldn't have to remake volume 1, it could be set at any point in the character's life... that's the beauty of it. Anyway, night.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

05/03/08 (Big News)

Guess what? Maybe I was right. This could be a massive spoiler about where Joss is going with Buffy's character. Remmeber the thing about, gays to the right, straights to the left... Buffy in the middle?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Buffy may now be gayer than Torchwood! Compare: Buffy (bi? at least not Kinsey 0), Willow (Lesbian mostly), Kennedy (Les), Tara (Les), Satsu (Les), Andrew (more gay than straight), Clem (gay), Scott Hope and Larry Bladseil (minor, recurring, gay), Angel (straight side of bi), Spike (straight side of bi). Torchwood we have Jack (bi/pan, seems to have a lot of ex-bfs), Ianto (bi), Tosh (bi), Mary (bi, les?), other Jack (gay), Captain John (I'd say "omni" but bi would also not be incorrect). To be fair, Xena was just as bad, except it was implicit. I'm all for it as long as it's not left TOO vague. One-liner explaining that Buffy still prefers guys? Have Joss externally apply the word "bisexual" to the character? Whatever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, BBC3 Torchwood tonight was A-MAZING. I loved every second. And browsing Wikia, they're really improved now they're getting all the wikilink traffic from the main articles. I particularly like the Satsu and Fray articles.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked the histories! Well, my favourite character in the Fray mythos is Harth. I don't have a scanner, but otherwise I'd like to snap his article into shape.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The gay thing has fit the fan and become very controversial. I think we will need to add a controversy section to Wolves at the Gate or Season Eight, and make some mention of it in Buffy's article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

More writers confirmed for Season Eight. [1] I'd LOVE if Gail Simone got to be the final writer. She writes every bit as fantastically as the Jossman himself.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Eeeeh sorry for three posts in a row, but I had another nerdgasm. Quote the Joss: "She’s not gay. Sexuality is a spectrum. Many of us have experimented in our youth – that’s what youths are for."[2] 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about Newsarama, and Comic Book Guys in general. I just got to read Buffy #12 (yay, free periods) and was blown away by Goddard. I hope the Andrew mini that Allie teases about actually comes to fruition. Bit disappointed with that free Marvel Secret Invasion comic, yet plesantly surprised by Countdown ~Zythe^{Talk to me!}08.11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read Antique on the DH website! :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy

I said that? Interesting. So what's the deal with these two slayers? Are they going to get a spin-off like the Dynamic Duo has, or is it more or less just the insinuation of a romance between the two? I couldn't get much from the Wikia page telling me more than just Satsu is in-love with Buffy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, I didn't see the first link, it was hidden behind the link to the Wikia. It's interesting. I love how Whedon was like, "No, we're not going to make her gay"...just have her have sex with a bunch of women...nothing wrong with that. lol. If she isn't "gay", or "bi", then I feel it's strange that she would revert back to that "one-night stand" that obviously worked well for her before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The most mature thing would be in that issue for none of her sidekicks to really take notice. That'd be cooler. Alientraveller (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll fill me in on how they handle this little escapade. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So, are we going to have to have the Buffy is Faith discussion over at the Faith article? This seems to be a problem again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One, like you said, is because they are free. Two, there would be no fair-use rationale for having all those images in one location. The only reason we are justified in using them in the infobox of their own article is because they have their own article and are thus notable by themselves. The fact that these are in a list means that they aren't notable by themselves, and unless there is something specific about their look that would justify using a non-free image, then finding free ones is better. I'll probably try and get away with the non-free "original cast" photo that I have linked at the top of the page though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You gotta also remember, the section doesn't just deal with the character, but also the actor, and since they are one in the same, using the free image over the non-free (so long as there isn't a legitimate reason to use the non-free, like when the image of the character is important to show) is probably better. As far as low res goes, just because we think they might not care doesn't make it any less illegal. Look at the Christopher Reeve section. In the episode, you don't really see that he's paralyzed, so a non-free image is actually better for the character, give the information about how they shot the scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One definite area I'll think about using a non-free over a free image would be for Brainiac. If I can find some source that compares the comic look of the character to the Smallville look, then I'd use a side-by-side comparison for the image. That seems like a good area to use the non-free, given the stark contrasts between the look of the comic version and the look in Smallville. The same can be said for Martian Manhunter. Most everyone else should be fine with their basic actor images.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given how much I'll probably have with the main stars of the show (which I haven't even begun to start with, with the exception of a small bit on Clark), I may end up ditching that "Returning characters" section altogether. Most of those characters appeared in multiple episodes, but they never really fueled much of the story in those episodes - they were really just background characters. Unlike Dr. Swann (Christopher Reeve), who did more as far as expanding the plot in just two episodes than some characters did in three or four episodes, I think most can easily be cut. Do we really need to mention Eric Summers, who stole Clark's powers in two episodes? It didn't have any real repurcussions on the show, or Clark for that matter. He's simply forgotten about - only being mentioned once again, in season seven, when a similar instances happens with Lana. Another big problem is that "Returning characters" get almost no coverage in those companion books, whereas "Recurring characters" tend to get some form of coverage.

As far the legality of it goes, any duplication is "illegal". But, the law covers limited duplication as far as it is for an educational purpose. So, you can't just go willy-nilly with images on a page, under the guise that they are "limited coverage", if you don't actually have anything education (or encyclopedic, in this instance) to say about them. Because, regardless of the size, or resolution, those are still copyrighted images (screenshots). The idea of "low resolution" and "limited coverage" are stipulations put on using those non-free images, in the presence of educational information. Simply retelling the plot of an TV episode, and providing a picture isn't educational - though, it is true that TV networks have better things to do than institute derivative work lawsuits over a single screenshot that pops up on Wikipedia. But, Wikipedia still wants to be safe, rather than sorry, and that's why their "uptight" about using non-free images on pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I enjoy images, just like I enjoy a lot of the stuff that we don't allow, but I understand that just because I like it doesn't make it okay.

I havne't written up the "intros" for each section. I sectioned them off based on story arc and episode appearance. If you appeared in like 6 episodes, you were recurring, whether you were part of a story arc or not (i.e. Sheriff Ethan appeared in over 10 episodes, but only really took part in a single story). If you were part of a story arc, like say Brainiac is, then you were also "Recurring". But, if you just appeared in two or three episodes, didn't really do anything but stand there, then you were "Returning". But, since I'm thinking of dropping them altogether, because they don't really need much more coverage than what they get in the season articles, if they get any there. My opinion is, and I'm sure this will be debated about when I propose that merger of pages, is that if they didn't play a significant role in the show, then they probably don't need to be mentioned. If they were merely some villain of the week, or a "mad scientist" that helped our series regular villains, but only appeared in a couple episodes and for the briefest of moments, then they probably don't need to be mentioned in the level of detail that this page is basically giving. Just to provide a decent couple of paragraphs you'd probably have to write up their every moment in the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at Dr. Tang. What did she do in the show? Nothing. Behind the scenes she helped to develop the serum that brought the dead back to life, but we don't know how much of a hand she had in developing it because they don't say, nor do we see. She keeps Adam alive when Lionel tells her not to, and then she is killed. What about her needs to be said in a separate section that couldn't be summarized and placed in Adam's section - a character who had a major B-story arc (A-story arc being the Superman mythos, obviously) for season three (the later half of the season focused on him). As far as Willow's girlfriend having her own article, the existence of an article is based on WP:NN, not on the subjective "significance" to the show. So, like I said, I'm sure I'll get the debate when I propose the merger and in which case I'll make my case for why those characters don't need a detailed section written about them, and we'll see who disagrees. I doubt there will be severly strong opposition given that I'm one of the few editors for any of the Smallville pages. Another example is Joseph Willowbrook. Do we need an entire section on him, or can he get a footnote in Clark's section about how he tells him about the legend of Na-Mon?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - Only if the information becomes so large that it needs to be split from a parent article into its own article does the idea of "independent from the subject" become disregarded. As far as "OR" in determining significance. It isn't. It's simple an opinion on whether they should be included, and not an opinion about what to write about them. I'm not researching anything, or coming up with some new information only supported by my opinion, I'm simply saying that there isn't anything to write about them in a private section that can't be said somewhere else in a more succinct manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For Vampires, given what they entail for the series, both Buffy and Angel, I could see where a lot of information (whether production information or notability information) could require a split off. Though, I doubt the same thing for Kennedy. As far as the character/OR thing, that's one of those "community" decisions things. Do like I'm doing and include who YOU think really deserves an entire section on their own (or just a mention in someone else's section) and then when you propose it to the Buffy crowd just defend your choices. If they want someone added, and consensus is against adding them, then they won't be added. If it's for adding them, but you disagree, then I guess you'll have to concede (as will if that's the case with Smallville).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. But, you can't really identify anyone clearly. Other than the strap guy, which as you said, isn't Jason's victim. Oh, could you lend some assistance at Smallville (season 7)? I don't want to break the 3RR, and this persistant IP keeps reverting unsourced information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the sleeping bag, and the cleaver didn't look like a cleaver...lol. I don't know which is the crushed-head guy though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I know which are Shelly and Banana-Girl, but they certainly don't look like their film counterparts. Shelly died in a wet-suit and I don't see a wet-suit on anyone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I think it helps that you read comics a bit more often than I do. I couldn't tell what the hell that was on the page (the banana end), though it looks more clear now that you mention it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'll wait till they release the book that contains all the issues. I generally like to read all that stuff at one time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All my comics that I have here at the house (I have a few lost ones at my mother's that aren't) are all paperback copies of stories.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was updating the Friday the 13th (film) page with box office information, and, did you know that adjusting for the 2008 inflation, if F13 was released today it would be at the top of the 2008 box office?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you also have to look at F13 was only released in 1100 theaters, as opposed to the typical 2500-3000 theaters films get today. Adjusted for inflation that averages out to $102k a theater, which is well above any other film out today. I think it's less about cinematic quality and more about people just liking the idea of going to a stupid movie, which they know is going to be stupid ahead of time, just for the hormonal increase they'll get from their dates (as that was the reason guys brought girls to horror films in the first place). I know it won't be the #1 film by the end of the year; based on the 2007 figures, if 2008 is any replica of that year then it'll probably end up being in the upper 20s in ranking (which isn't far off from its original 1980 ranking). I don't know what the criteria for the category is. I would say it sounds a bit hypocritical to say that she is an LGBT character by category, when you were arguing that the article shouldn't list her as lesbian given that Whedon has declared that she isn't a lesbian. It's like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either she is a lesbian or she isn't. Now, if LGBT characters are not defined by what they are, but by what they do (i.e. if they were "down-low" individuals). So, it becomes conflicted to list her in a category that contradicts what her article says. Based on my reading of the category though, that cat seems to be for characters who are gay, and not for characters who took part in a homosexual activity - since there is that difference between being gay, and having sex with men (or women for that matter). That's just my take on the end, you seem to have read more of the literature on her little "experiment" than I, so you probably have a better understanding of the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a hypocrit, just saying that arguing for one over the other would be kind of hypocritical. Regardless, I thought LGBT is for people (or characters) who identify as one of those sexualities, and not people who have had an experience with one of those sexualities (disregarding of course "transgendered", since it isn't a sexuality per say). Otherwise, if a fictional guy characters kisses another guy character, and the media has a field day over the event, does that make them a LGBT character, or a character who has simply just had an LGBT moment? Satsu is clearly LGBT, as is Willow, Jack, or what's his name on Desperate Housewives. To me, Buffy isn't LGBT (not gay, not lesbian, not even bi-sexual) since Whedon, and Buffy apparently, has clearly stated that they aren't and this was simply a "testing the waters" event. I don't think a single act really identifies a character as LGBT, unless they specifically identify themselves as such. That being said, that doesn't mean the media coverage on this event is any less important; on the contrary, I think it is far more important to discuss how the media sees the character as LGBT now, yet Whedon has strongly stated that that isn't the case.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

10/03/08

Care to take a look at Cameron Phillips and Talk:Cameron Phillips. There's a whole cabal of nazis trying to keep the title of the article as "Cameron Phillips" and reverting my revision of the article's lead section, despte the character only being called "Cameron Phillips" in the pilot, and being listed solely as "Cameron" in the series' credits thereafter. Do you know what Wiki policy says we should do in this situation? I'd like to think I'm in the right here.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in every episode it's "Cameron". Just Cameron at home, Cameron Phillips (school, pilot), Cameron Baum (school, thereafter). With Faith, that makes sense to me. Bree, I think Van De Kamp is preferable (a la Gwen Cooper). I'm pretty sure the Sarah Connor Chronicles just list Glau as playing "Cameron" as she has no last name (or first name, for that matter... except that she uses one consistently.)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, poor sweet Satsu. Many a lesbian has fallen in love with a straight girl who's tried it once and then decided they're sticking to men (accoridng to the AfterEllen coverage anyway.) But yeah, Gwen explicitly said "I'm nott doooin' anyyything about this aeeeli-en unteeel I am missus Goowen Will-eeAAAms." She's never been the fightsy feminist type, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I had to look it up. I suppose with Kaleds extinct, humans are the new templates for more emotional Daleks? Shame about these Doctor Who spoilers coming so regularly. It kinda ruins it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I was rereading my Angel comics - Lynch has done a really good job. Did you notice the time-travelly Fray crossover in #4? Oh, and who's the guy on the top left of the #5 cover - Lindsey? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Angel was also briefly scene in a futuristic setting in #3. Which re-reading today, I also noticed the implication that there's some barrier keeping the cavalry (ie. Slayers?) out of LA.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Lynch doing two more "somethings". One Whedonesque member guesses that it might be Buffy #30, which would be quite cool.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

They're clearly leaving as many doors open as possible. But we're only one year into a long 40-issue series, so we'll see where things go.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like "The Gift" and "Note Fade Aways" dragons to be one in the same?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they're compatible enough for dragonbabies, though. Angel's dragon has to be a chick.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Myfanwy" poisoned my ability to percieve the dragon as anything but a female? Wikia classifies a dragon as a demon - I know a demon in Buffy is basically anything (good or evil) that is uncommon or vaguely supernatural, but is it a demon.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We were right, weren't we? I present thee Spike: After the Fall.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whedon's costing me money now. Buffy, Angel and now Spike? The fans want Faith! Yeah, poor Urru! I can't believe Ryall listened to the naysayers. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

So what do you think of the new trailer? Bignole and I are in disagreement over the effects. LOL. Alientraveller (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are, the effects suck but maybe they're not finished? This is the first trailer we've even seen. And Norton looks good, and is acting in top form.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Smallville

Could you do me a favor? Could you check around for information (reviews, ratings, anything) for the season one finale "Tempest"? You'll probably get some different search results since you live overseas. Another editor and I are trying to get a page up to snuff to introduce it into the mainspace, and I want to get some more varied sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Most likely. I don't know how many Buffy episodes were individually reviewed by critics either, but Buffy received acclaim as a whole, which grew more when it was over. Smallville has to compete with itself because it'll always be seen as just a Superman show. Since it's on the CW (or Channel 4, A-channel, or whatever else there is), it doesn't garner the action that ABC, CBS, and NBC bring in for their shows of similar genre.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord, get those pages away...lol. My eyes, my eyes. Anyway, looking at them proved my point, none were really critically reviewed by television critics. Academic studies aside, I'm talking about the media attention they receive when they air, which seems to be on par with Smallville...and probably has more to do with their network location than anything else. As far as academic studies go, you're probably right, and that's most likely because Buffy is an original piece of work, and doesn't have to worry about standing in "Dad's" shadow, so to speak. As a matter of fact, not only does Smallville have to contend with Superman comics and films, but even Buffy's shadow, given that she paved the way for Smallville on the WB.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The only time Lana has had powers was when she got Clark's powers earlier this season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Shark-jumpy", how can you jump the shark from the start of the series? lol. I think fans don't like her because early on she really didn't do anything in the show but provide a love-knot in Clark's stomach, and a pain in the ass to everyone else that happened to be around Clark and his love-knot self. Personally, I don't think the show could have been the same if she wasn't around. I think her character has been used horribly in some seasons (mainly when she was with Lex and had a dramatic character change to where she was almost blatantly evil, and partially this season when that has carried over), but for the most part I enjoy Kreuk's performances. I did read that she wasn't coming back next season "full time", but that she wanted to come back as either a special guest, or a recurring guest. I'd be fine with that, as long as they gave her character a good send off. As for Durance, she certainly is one of the hotter Loises; to me, she is actually the first actress to portray Lois who I thought was the closests to the actual character. She had a hint of Kidder and a hint of Hatcher, and the rest was her and the comic character persona - and I think that was perfect for the character on Smallville. I'm really excited about these episodes coming (the one that just past, and the next two that follow), because they're supposed to change Smallville forever and think that Clark is about to get a violent shove toward his final destiny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean how Lois and Clark were for 50 years? ;) It would actually seem like the most obvious choice, because every time he reveals his secret to someone something terrible happens. When he first revealed it to Lana she was killed in a car accident running from Lex (though, thanks to a crystal Clark turned back time and didn't say anything). The story of Clark's life is that the people that truly can handle knowing the truth about who he is are the people that have to find out for themselves. Look at Pete; he couldn't handle Clark telling him the truth and eventually left Smallville. Now look at Lana and Chloe, both handle his secret with ease, because both learned of his secret without Clark knowing and eventually broke the news to him in subtle ways that they knew. He's got a permanent fear of how someone will see him if he says he's an alien - it's a fear that diminishes when he becomes Superman (as he's showing his powers to the public), but is still present in the fact that he doesn't reveal his secret to world, or even those that he loves. As for the "changing Smallville forever", I think that's going to be the death of one character and the comatose of another. I'm not aware of any gay people in Smallville, but that's probably more to do with the fact that the show primarily takes place in a small town, most likely highly conservative. If there are any gay people, they are probably about as hidden as Clark is with this secret. Too hot? She isn't a model, and Lois is the comics doesn't look as homely as Kidder does.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Clark was conservative, just that the town was. Clark/Superman is probably more liberal. He understands what it feels like to be different and to be viewed differently than others; I'd have to say that he would most likely have an open mind toward other's choice in sexuality. I wouldn't mind if they addressed that on the show, but I'm sure they aren't concerned with sending political messages, but with getting Clark to his destiny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Whedon hasn't created any gay male characters in any of his series? Oh, and Smallville did have a gay character, Maggie Sawyer. Well, she's gay in the comics...lol. She technically never acknowledges anything of the sort in the couple of episodes she appeared in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I doubt they would do a Smallville comic where Clark is Superman. They already have enough Superman comics. They certainly won't get to do a movie, because Singer is back on board for the Superman sequel (better get it right this time). Many fans, including myself, hope they don't end the show with Clark going on his 10 year trek of training and seeing the world. That would just be boring to see, and wouldn't satisfy the die-hard Superman fans, and certainly wouldn't satisfy the Smallville fans. As far as I know, just about everyone wants to see Welling in the suit, whether it be for an entire episode (I'd rather it not be), or just a quick glimpse as the final shot for the series (my preferred ending). What I would like is for them to save up their money and do an extended episode, one that amounts to a television movie. They did something similar with the season four finale, which was an hour long (hour and a half with commercials), and it was a really good episode (though, even with an extra 15 minutes it still seemed rushed in places).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have a few "adventures" as Clark first uses his new persona, but I at least want to see that on the small screen first. I'd trust Gough and Millar to create their own costume, which would probably mirror the comics more. Remember, Singer "fucked" with the costume on Superman Returns. First, he made the cape all rubbery, then he darkened all the colors. He also put the cape tight around Routh's neck, instead of allowing more of a wide collar like the previous films and the comics. I don't know what Gough and Millar would do, but I do know that we already know what the symbol will look like, because they're using it like Donner used it - as the current symbol for the House of El. Though, we don't know if they'd make it raised on the chest, like Singer did. We also know what the cape will look like, because they introduced the cape already, and it looks more like the traditional cloth cape that he always wears. As for Superman Returns in general, I was severly disappointed. The trailers looked so good, but it was a let down. I swear, 70% of the dialogue in that movie was stolen from the first two films. It's one thing to pay homage to the past, it's another to blatantly not even bother to develop your own dialogue - even the story was just a rip-off from the first film. Did you notice that Brandon Routh did not have that much dialogue in the film? It was like they didn't trust him to act, so they limited what he could say. A lot of his delivery was flat, especially that scene with him and Martha in the beginning. Can I get some emotion here? Then you had the obvious problem of the film not being able to distinguish between being a sequel and being a remake.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. When season seven started I kept telling my g/f, "Welling looks bigger". That scene right there was when I knew for sure that he had been working out more (and I read a review where the reviewer noticed the same thing). I thought that was a great scene, with him hanging the cape up on the post and a symbolic way of saying "it just isn't time yet".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, season 8 will be the last season of the show, so they'd better go out with a bang. I'm kind of hoping for something ala Buffy season 7. Laura Vandervoort is doing well as Kara. She's certainly growing on the show. I'm interested to see where her character goes, because at the moment, she is without her memory (and powers) and Lex is basically seducing her in order to get to the truth of Clark's secret. I didn't really care for Pete's stretchy powers. He was fun to see, and the powers themselves served a purpose of allowing Pete to express to Clark all the hostility he's had about having to move away from Smallville in order to keep Clark's secret.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone's going to die here soon...so not everyone is coming back. Kreuk and Rosenbaum are probably going to leave at the end of this season, and maybe become recurring guests. I don't know who will be there next season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Doom Revert

Ah, good call. Now just prepare for that anon user to get pissy with ya, went through his contrib history prior to posting on the Doom talk page and he seems to have a bit of a temper and a habit of calling everyone that disagrees/reverts his edits a "philistine" who "blocks knowledge". Heh. Th 2005 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Serenity comics

Do you buy them? My Firefly box set should be arriving soon, so I can get to watch all the episodes (not just whatever I have managed to catch on Sci-Fi Channel) and obsess about that show. However, I don't think its pull is strong enough to make me buy Those Left Behind or Better Days. What do you think? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Adrift was *really* good, and Fragments looks great too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the rain episode was plain abysmal. But yeah, Torchwood's on Fridays now, so you'll see what I mean about Adrift.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read both bits. And no, I'm probably not gonna get to read it till Saturday... maybe even Monday. I've have picked it up today were it not for the rain.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I rather enjoyed last night's Torchwood. So it wasn't sci-fi, but I wouldn't let such logic cloud my judgement of this creepy episode. There's some citations I put at Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day by the way, which could help your John Connor project. What's your thoughts on the return of Kyle Reese in Terminator 4? Alientraveller (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to further distract you, but I heard Fantastic Four 3 is not being made. Reboot under Marvel Studios time! Yay! Alientraveller (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what'll happen, because for all we know Fox will manage to keep their mits on the Four while making Silver Surfer movies. I don't think the origin story of the characters is all that interesting, and we can make do with a movie where they're just the Four.

It's not likely, but I hope they keep John Ottman's compositions. It's the only part of the franchise that attained real brilliance, IMO. Alientraveller (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fox seemed to have forgotten the fantastic in the film's title. They really shouldn't have aimed for the realism of all the other sci-fi franchises. Alientraveller (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

24/03/08

What do you think of this edit here? I didn't revert it as technically there's nothing wrong with it, as such. I had originally ommited surnames in an my writeup as they seemed unncecessary where they weren't particularly relevant (for example, Gwen and Ianto's names recur several times in the article but Rhys, Rose and Martha do not.) I guess we can leave it, but the word count thing bugs me.

Also, an editor raised some possibly somewhat valid claims on the talk page that I may be writing in a NPOV way when I have tried to summarise the Janto/Gwack stuff succintly. While I don't ship for either couple (fandom shipping? lame!) and don't particularly like Gwen or Ianto, is there some possible way to mention Gwen's wedding to Rhys with relevance to Jack ... without it seeming like a pro-Gwack campaign? I feel like I've tapped the wrath of Gwack-erasers who'd rather not see it mentioned, but we do have some sources from Eve Myles. And finally, the TW season two paragraph is a little bloated (what with the oodles of backstory Torchwood has given us this year), not leaving much room for the big finale character developments (Spoilers: Gray) or Doctor Who shizz. Care to assist with a rewrite, maybe after you've seen "Fragments"?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did some much-needed pruning.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No! Link me? (I suppose the "multiverse" explanation would be a way of holding the series canon in my mind, but the whole thing would complicate (and very much trivialise) the notion and importance of "canon" as a concept.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Buffy film adaptation be separate from the main Buffyverse, anyway? Alientraveller (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interpretting that the most kindly I can, I choose to believe Joss would stray away from Season Eight territory (as in, its setting etc.), hopefully without explicitly ruling out its events. With some "official" comics being canon and some being not (Fray, the scythe, appears in Buffy s7, Fray herself appears in s8, but then s8 is contradicted by "Buffy 2") it would be worse than the debate on Doctor Who canon.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion having a canon is boring. I love comparing alternate universes and film adaptations of novels / comic book series. Just look at the numerous Transformers comic book reboots, or compare Ian Fleming's Bond to Roger Moore. It certainly wasn't polite of Whedon though: unlike Lucas, who acknowledges a potential place for every Indiana Jones / Star Wars spin-off. Alientraveller (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Doctor Who canon is irrelevant to me. But some books are definitely canon to the TV series (e.g. The Monsters Inside) and others are similarly written by writers who have read ahead on the shooting scripts (The Twilight Streets) and then there are the adaptations (the Sally Sparrow short story became "Blink", the Jubilee audio became "Dalek", Spare Parts was dissected across all of s2's Cybermen episodes, and Human Nature became a fantastic double-episode.) At the same time, there are the totally uncanon (the spoofs, the strange movies, the worse of the books) and the times that the books are alluded to and expanded on in the series, and then the Eighth Doctor Adventures were three separate series (comic, book and audio) which were later explained in a book as three alternate universes which led to the three different Ninth Doctors we got. Remember, with "Scream of the Shalka", Richard E. Grant became the new canon 9th Doctor, until the 2005 revival was made... and that was more canon. I think the Eighth Doctor comic books were going to have a final issue where Destrii (the "Mary"-esque Butterfly companion) and the Doc absorbed the Time Vortex to end the War; RTD nixed the idea and used it for "Parting of the Ways", but it does suggest canonicity for that series... except that the ommiting of the scene makes it totally free for a writer to put any other story there. But yeah, the beauty is that alternate universes work very well for shows like Doctor Who, Terminator, Transformers and anything Marvel/DC anyway, so it's a moot point. For a guy who doesn't read/listen to any Who stuff, and only started watching in 2006, I'll assimilated a lot of geekpoints.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The stuff like Go Ask Malice though, I hold as semi-canon. As in, open to correction, but otherwise, it's what we know about the character.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, see Destrii#The Flood: interesting? I'd give it a read, if I came across some of the Destrii/8 stuff.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating! I liked the Oz series. Would T-canon be a bit like the "Lehane" surname in the Buffy TGC? N-canon would be the 1992 movie! All fandoms should accept that model. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Urru also said it was the concluding to part to what he felt was their "Spike trilogy", I suppose in terms of the creative journey and story-wise. Regardless of whether "sorta canon" or "super canon", I think between the whole interwined Betta Georginess and Lynch's careful continuity-groping, it's canon enough for me.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Lynch sort of admit it in an interview that it was considered "pretty much canon", but that he hates to declare his work canon because of his paranoid fear of backlash? Shadow Puppets was set not long after Asylum, and between "Smile Time" and "Not Fade Away", therefore Asylum takes place during Angel Season Five.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a complex web, where I ignore everything I don't personally agree with :) Just like real life. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Today, I picked up Angel #5, Booster Gold #7, Birds of Prey #116 and Countdown #6. The last three don't matter, but Booster Gold is a particularly fun title. Anyway, I had to go for the B cover on Angel this time. The Illyria/Wesley art is beautiful. When I was reading it today I realised why it's not as good as Buffy. While it's the official continuation, it doesn't try and find the style from the series - it's instead, the style of Brian Lynch... it's not at all Angel Season Six, it's Angel: After the Fall - it's just something that comes after Angel Season Five. So yeah, once I learn to appreciate it as that, one big long Lynchy miniseries, I suppose I don't have to put it up against the realism, Whedonism and general greatness of Buffy Season Eight.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre! I don't watch Big Brother, but I'm reading up. Currenly Big Brother US has a housemate called Joshuah, sho self-identifies as bi... but the series producers, and everyone else involved in the show and referring to the characters, refers to as gay? [3] One link has the CBS website saying "An openly gay man from Dallas who considers himself bisexual." Is that not bisexual erasure, offensive and inflammatory? Grr. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just dislike that they can write that on their official bio and no one gives a damn? It's like, the 70s, when people tolerated the opinion that all gays were mentally ill.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wolf Man

A bit late, but yes, I love the look of Del Toro as the Wolf Man. I expected nothing less of Rick Baker than to do a superb update of the original. Alientraveller (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy box

It looks good. I don't know how to change it with that template, because it's a set template. I would search around for more templates and try and find one without the generic color scheme. Then I'd see how they positioned the coding to acheive that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your Buffy template

I liked it. I made character templates to put into the character articles. I already put them in. We could use your template for the related articles and my character templates for the character pages and the main articles for the shows. What do you think? FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been around the star wars ones. Each Star Wars episode has their own character templates. Each has a character on more then one template. Also the templates does have the hide button on the upper right hand corner so it's not like it would clutter the pages.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones character list

Hey, I need some advice. I'm planning to create an article for minor characters in the Indiana Jones franchise, which would be better than just having Short Round redirect to Temple of Doom. Got any tips for organisation? By film? Alphabetical? First name or last? Title? Alientraveller (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New section

Hey, just wanted to let you know a tip -- if you go to a talk page, you can click the "+" between "edit this page" and "history" to add a new section. You don't have to scroll down to the bottom of a talk page and edit the most recent discussion to add your new one. Just noticed that on my watchlist, since it said User talk:Alientraveller‎; 12:46 . . (+811) . . Paul730 (Talk | contribs) (→Don't mean to be random, but...) Otherwise, hope all is well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! :) From what I've seen, you're an excellent editor. I keep hoping our paths will cross so we can collaborate on some project of equal interest some day. Good luck with the Buffy articles and templates! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Smallville 2

Dude, Al Gough and Miles Millar stepped down from their positions on the show. They're gone! I don't know how to take this. It would be like Joss Whedon leaving Buffy in her final season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling that it was a studio thing. In their letter they said that they had been fighting to keep their vision for awhile, and that after a long debate with each other they decided, grundgingly, to leave the show. My theory is that with the recent lawsuit that was won by the Siegels, who regained a portion of the Superman copyright, coupled with all the other lost lawsuits to the Siegels, that WB was going to make sure they didn't lose the Smallville lawsuit as well. The Seigels own the copyright on Superboy, and everything from that line of comics. Right now, they are trying to determine if Smallville is part of that ownership. I think WB told Gough and Millar that Clark needs to become a definitive "Superman" so that they can continue to own Smallville (at least for the 8th season). To me, that means they probably pressured Gough and Millar into making him fly, or wear the costume...or something that Gough and Millar felt detracted from what the show was supposed to be about. I'm not angry with them for leaving, I'm more shocked and almost scared by what could possibly happen to the show next season. We don't know who is going to be taking over the primary reigns (if it's someone who has a history with the show then we'll probably be ok), but whoever it is you'll most likely bet that they'll bend to whatever WB says.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn consider it shark jumpy if they introduced the costume and had him wear it, and then continued the show with him as "Superman". I mean, if that was the intention all along, great, but it wasn't. It was always about leading up to that moment, not the aftermath of doing it. I think the show is already having budget cuts, because they do less special effects (i.e. heat vision, x-ray vision, ..we haven't seen super breath since a random episode back in the beginning of season six..we barely get superspeed now). I don't know, we'll see what happens. We thought changing networks would make the show suck, and season six had some the best episodes of the series. Hey, did you ever watch Ed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I've read, the rest of this season is Lex finally settling into his "dark side". Next season is supposed to be an expansion of the Lois and Clark relationship. Not necessarily a romantic one, but certainly the two of them growing closer together. He doesn't work at the Planet yet, though Lois does.

Ah..Ed was this hilarious comedy show that came on a few years ago. I caught it in re-runs when I didn't have class or work a couple of years ago. I went to go look for the DVD and come to find out they haven't made them. I was pissed. Anyway, I was just hoping that someone else enjoyed it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to see what we'll see with Smallville. Damn, which Jason was it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What a potentially great April Fool's joke. Just dress up as the Jason in the store one day (obviously if it isn't April 1, then it's just a regular prank) and when people walk by jump out and scare them. Regulars will assume it's fake until you jump out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you aren't reading the franchise page. ;) lol. Michael Bay is working on a new Friday film. I remember our "season of fan fiction"...god, I'd love to see that show. LMAO. (thanks for the new FvJvA panels).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Bay has a good track record with getting film's off the ground and moving, and he's already shown he can remake other horror films into lucrative money-makers. Those were some cool trailers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Buffy/Angel...

Once again, I have yet to make it to a comic shop first thing on a Thursday. I'll make it, soon enough! :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No! That would by hypocritical of me ;P I merely have work on a Thursday, that's the only difference. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I had student finance forms and stuff, and college, and coursework, lay off! :P Haha, haven't seen it. They purposefully let us watch 2.10 and 2.11 in the same week and then gave us a 2 week wait for 2.13! We'll see, won't we? I'm excited for TW/DW weekend, too, heh. Right, I've written up my English essay, although it's a bit poor I'd say, and I'll finish my sociology in the morning. Goodnight! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather sad, though. Sayonara, favourite character. Lucky Jack, having all his fuckbuddies survive like that. I hope the rumours aren't true that they were killed off to make room for Mickey and Martha.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I want Jake to join Torchwood! The team needs a blonde! A gay one, who's not even slightly bi! Although he probably will be, it's just... I like variety amongst the characters. As for Captain John, I understand that they're (very suddenly) trying to redeem him, but I don't know if it's executed well. Gray as a villain was bland and uninteresting, in part due to the writing, in part to the acting, and you know what - the directing was shit too, when he made his boring entrance in that field. So yeah, maligned towards him as a character - conceptually he should be great, but he has no character other than that he's bad and the audience shouldn't like him. Marsters said he'll be in TW s3 though, so we'll enjoy that.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was watching it, but the channel got changed because my mum has Jonathan Rossophobia. So instead I'm being subjected to Discovery Home & Health. I'll force a channel change back. Captain John is a mess, I wasn't even impressed with James accent that much in this episode. It's sad that THE best actress on the show is gone. I agree about powerful emotions in killing off characters, but the episode shows that damn, Naoko can act. Rhys and Andy are good characters too. I saw Andy on the Triple Velvet ad today, can't believe I never realised it was him before.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would never want them to be member of the team, as characters they are too valuable in their current positions. Doctor Who series 4 will be the next set of Jack/Martha interactions - the TWS3 spoilers said that Tosh, Owen and Jack will all depart, with Martha replacing Jack as leader. The show will jump the shark, I think.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to accomodate "Exit Wounds" in Jack's appearances section, methinks. I've added a bit, but it's too long. At the same time, we can't skimp on important plot details, can we? I fear we need some other small section to discuss in-universe stuff, such as Jack's periods of sleeping under mud. He's about 2300 years old, maybe? I wish we could find a source for all of the HEAVY Christian imagery around Jack. From the "last supper" in "Adam", to the constant rebirths, the symbolic pose when he's all chained up in "Exit Wounds"... the focus on Jack offering forgiveness/absolution and taking penance. We're told the Doctor is God in Doctor Who, we're pretty much told Jack is Jesus in Torchwood.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And randomly, haha - To Bi or not to Bi?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My mum is vehemently disgusted by the bisexual Bond thing. I tried to explain that regardless, it is a new Bond, a new interpretation, and in character as he is a bit of a Lothario. I tried comparing it to Dumbledore, but he doesn't count, because he's not a "British institution". She lectured about how "if he'd always been written that way...", and I compared it to the reinterpretation of Jaime Sommers (a change in hair colour and essentially all other aspects of her character is not as bad as making them gay!) and the guy from I Am Legend, but she was having none of it. I feel sorry for that generation. Anyway, I consoled her with the knowledge that American studios would never permit a bi Bond - sad truth.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like an April Fools anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Racist Dracula was soooo funny. "Those filthy yellow swine!" I can't stop laughing, it has been the best joke in the series so far because it is so simply whatthefuck. Also, speaking of WTF, tonight's Skins certainly qualifies! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept any retcons about the two keeping in touch - I mean, did Xander just look up Drac's address? Actually, in the Buffyverse, probably. I'll fill you in on Skins - heartwrenchingly where the character randomly ends up in New York and you're wondering if it's trying to be all postmodern, especially when Adam leaves her a big apple and you're wondering if there are some apple metaphors and basically, just not fun to watch! LOok out for the review of that one.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Last question, before bed. I'll probably archive tomorrow afternoon. What did you think of "Partners in Crime"?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bond

Another argument I'd have is that it would only be a distraction. Why make Bond bisexual? Why not make your own bisexual hero (oh wait, there's a few). Just keep Bond as a heterosexual Scottish-French secret Royal Navy veteran like Fleming wanted him. I'd approve of making Nick Fury black because it has precedent in a comic Marvel seeks to legitamise like the 616 (and it doesn't stink, like metal Victor von Doom).

I wouldn't call the Doctor an atheist, or place him under any religious identity. He just is. A bit like Indiana Jones: there's no need for him to bat an eyelid considering he's seen everything. As shown in "The Satan Pit", he doesn't need to figure out what something is, just to stop it. He practises anonymity for himself afterall. Alientraveller (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant about Fury that making a social change to his character like making him black was one they endorsed, and extremely minor at that. 'Tis why I have no problem with Samuel L. Jackson playing him in Iron Man.

To put it simply regarding the religous imagery, the Doctor is Russell T. Davies' secular messiah. That's why he pours it in. And you'll find many religions have similar depictions of messiahs, if different from Jesus. Alientraveller (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bond is heterosexual from his brogues to his haircut (which cannot quite be said of Fleming, who had many gay friends and could on occasion be fantastically camp). 007 does not approve of homosexuals (“unhappy, sexual misfits”), or sexual equality, or even votes for women. His books, Fleming declared, were “written for warm-blooded heterosexuals”. Still, Bond did diss the Beatles in the '60s, the cold misogynist dinosaur.

And I enjoyed "Partners in Crime" too: reviews are being too harsh. It was a comic episode, there's room for that and Moffatish-spooks. Alientraveller (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The film incarnations of Bond are definitely not bigoted: I think Craig's depiction of the character certainly depicts the evolution of Fleming's Bond into his smoother film version(s). Because I see Bond as a good man (one who wants to protect his people from harm), I always saw his relationship with women as being overly paternal: back in the '60s, he saw most women as unable to take part in "man-talk". Or maybe he just likes the company of bimbos to make his himself more empowered to his duty. Lest we forget, Fleming's early Bond served under George, but our current versions of him serve Elizabeth (not to mention a female M since the 1990s).

As for my favourite Bond girls, I guess:

• Pussy Galore: If only to hear Sean say "Poosie".
• Both Domino Vitali and Fiona Volpe from Thunderball: Both really were independent and strong associates of Largo.
• Tracy Bond: She did marry Bond afterall. Diana Rigg gave a great performance, and what was even more romantic in the film is she gets kidnapped by Blofeld and Bond makes an effort to save her after she rescued him. Makes her death all the more powerful.
• Anya Amasova: Detente personified.
• Melina Havelock: Bond's relationship was really paternal, until the end.
• Kara Milovy: So cute!
• Both Natalya Simonova and Xenia Onatopp from GoldenEye: Real matches for James.
• Wai Lin: She comes from the Pussy/Domino/Anya/Melina class of awesome.
• Elektra King: Bond shooting her after her betrayal is so powerful.
• Vesper Lynd: She gives Bond a conscience, and I could just stare at Eva Green all day.

I guess really one must mention Judi Dench's M, Lois Maxwell and Samantha Bond were great as Moneypenny, and Rosa Klebb came from the school of great Bond women, though not romantic interests. Alientraveller (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, most Bond girls were bland dunderheads. By contrast, I love most of the villains, so in this case I'll have to mention the ones I didn't like Nick-Nack from The Man with the Golden Gun, everybody except Christopher Walken in the 1980s were forgettable, and the Die Another Day and the Casino Royale lots; the former were lame, the latter were overshadowed by Bond. I really hope Mathieu Amalric and Anatole Taubman will be memorable in QOS. If I had to pick a favourite, it would be Karl Stromberg: the best depiction of Blofeld in all but name. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack article

What do you think about skimming backstory details moreso in the "Appearances" section, and adding a paragraph about the development of Jack's past under "character development"? The backstory notes should still be mentioned under Appearances, but perhaps explicitly discussing how the backstory was seeded out across Torchwood could go somewhere else. This might even go further to appease Wikians who are not used to "real world" Doctor Who articles which seem to ommit real factual information ON PURPOSE!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking if it was under development we could put it rather straightforwardly. "When Jack was first introduced, relatively little was known about the character besides... appearing in Torchwood series 1, we begin to discover that Jack's identity is not as concrete... the character is heavily fleshed out in the second series of Torchwood where we are shown as an audience that...", sort of reiterating content but with a focus on how this constitutes development of the character. Yeah, I only saw the last episode of Declassified Series 2, the "Adam" and "Kiss Kiss" episodes may possibly have some goodies in them. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I really, really liked it. It was fun.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how's this work as a second paragraph under Character development:

Jack's backstory is initially unknown to the audience, but is gradually fleshed out over the course of his appearances in Doctor Who and Torchwood. While "The Empty Child" established Jack was a former "Time Agent" from the 51st century, details about the Time Agency and Jack's enlistment were not offered until Doctor Who's 2007 series, where we learnt Jack joined as a young man, and the Torchwood 2008 premiere, where we met Jack's Time Agent partner, Captain John. Torchwood offered many clues to Jack's history; in its first series we learnt that the name "Jack Harkness" was merely an alias; in series 2, we are shown flashbacks to Jack's childhood, which depicts a war with an alien race which kidnapped Jack's brother, Gray. We are also explicitly shown what happened to Jack between his appearanced in Doctor Who episode "The Parting of the Ways" and Torchwood's first episode, "Everything Changes". In "Fragments", the audience sees Jack begrudgingly join the Torchwood Institute in 1899 as a freelance operative, before being promoted to its leader in 1999 after the murder-suicide which took the previous team.

~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In-universe, presented out-of-universely? I don't know, nevermind.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great article

Thought I'd share it, it's not a long one. Marsters briefly discusses how Whedon wrote the Spike in "School Hard", and then in his comic relief days, and also how he thinks the Torchwood writers are ripping Spike off just a bit. [4] ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

Nice cleanup job. Did you see the Halloween sound clip in the music section? That section still needs major cleanup, but I felt the sound clip was relevant and applicable under fair use. F13 and Halloween seem to be the only ones that would really warrant a clip. There generally isn't anything recognizable music wise in the other horror franchises.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Psycho's music that recognizable, or is that one sound bite iconic (the one where Janet Leigh is murdered)? I never really saw any real musica theme that carried over to the other sequels. As for The Exorcist, I don't think the theme itself was ever something that people talked about away from the film. If it's one thing that Halloween and Friday the 13th share (in an original kind of way) is that they both have themes that fans recognize a mile a way. I love JC's music. I really want to get that CD that has all his major themes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Omen music has a lot of common elements that you find any any biblical-related movie. I don't think any really had the recognizability that Halloween and F13 had. JAWS certainly did. That score is certainly something that would be recognizable to random people on the street.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Wiki page lists it as "thriller", but it wasn't billed that way when it was released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)