Talk:Falling Skies/Archive 1

Image
There was a different title card in the episode, but I can't seem to find the image on Google. So, if anyone can find it, could you please upload? Arrested Developer (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the premier episode the title card was similar to the one included in the article. The main difference is "Falling Skies" heading is placed partially behind the Earth while the current caption places the title above it. Also, the Earth is much smaller in the original title and less detailed. I just re-watched the title on my DVR but I'm unsure of the legality of lifting the image and uploading it wikipedia. Wikifan Be nice  06:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but it was quite different and that's the official logo opposed to the one TNT advertises with, so I'd appreciate it if you could get it for the article. Arrested Developer (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to but a Wikipedia legal expert would have to weigh in. Wikifan Be nice  11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, to be honest. Don't most shows have their official series inter titles? If you use the proper licensing, everything should be fine. Arrested Developer (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks
Per WP:REDLINKS, redlinks can be useful in promoting Wikipedia growth. If the redlinked names in the article will never be notable enough for an article of their own, then unlinking makes sense. But IMHO it hasn't been around long enough to establish "never". Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that because they are Recurring cast it seems as though the page won't be created, if you know what I mean.. They has a very small arc on the show.. 89.204.188.4 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about the arc, but about the actor. As Lexein pointed out, a red link can point to an article that is likely to be or in the process of being created, but I'm inclined to agree with the IP that the supporting cast of a popular but critically average show aren't going to spark enough of an interest in the actors to produce a quality page any time soon.  Given the notability issues, most actor pages are created for actors with an established body of work, or, like Chris Colfer, cause a monumental impact with their early work.  Red links are usually more appropriate for episode titles, and usually only when it's been established that somebody has been creating those articles previously and with a relative promptness. And to the IP, there is a civility policy, as well as an important policy to assume good faith on the part of other eidtors, and calling people "idiots" when red links do happen is entirely inappropriate.   KnownAlias  X   22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Filming Locations
It looks as though the filming locations for this series are incorrectly listed as either a) Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (IMDB) or b) Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Lily Thompson, Boston Movies Examiner, www.examiner.com) It was in fact (at least in part) filmed in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. I have lived in the area for almost my whole life and I recognize the McLaughlin Bandshell (http://www.flickr.com/photos/11397310@N00/136595853/) from what I believe was the Pilot episode, as well as can be clearly seen in the background the words "Oshawa Senior" can be seen on one of the buildings. This is the Oshawa Senior Citizen's Centre, located right across John St. from the McLaughlin Bandshell. Additionally, the (former) Knob Hill Farms logo can be seen on the supermarket (top frame) as the characters approach the building to secure food. (Google Maps 463 Howard St, and rotate until you see the location.) Additionally, the scene where Pope steals the dirt bike from the car dealership were filmed in Ajax, Ontario, Canada (http://newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/160834) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.57.117 (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. It has been described in many sources (aside from examiner.com, not considered reliable, and IMDB), including interviews, as having been shot "in Toronto," but that certainly does not exclude location shooting elsewhere. "Toronto" might simply be a more widely recognized locale name than Ajax or Hamilton. That Durham news source looks good. Any others would be appreciated. I found these:
 * "Brampton Scores in the Film Industry". brampton.ca, February 10 2011
 * "Masters of his monstrous trade". The Province. States "Toronto-shot series Falling Skies".
 * "Comic-Con 2011: Drew Roy Shares ‘Falling Skies’ Season 1 Secrets" Roy mentions moving shooting locations from Toronto to Vancouver for season 2
 * (blog)"Dreamworks hails Hamilton for Falling Skies" July 5, 2010. Sadly, no source, and it's a blog.
 * (blog)"Dear Steven". Decries no identifiable Boston landmarks, and use of Canadian war memorial dates.
 * (press release)"BACKGROUNDER - Ontario Media Development Corporation - February 16, 2011 - Ontario Film and Television Production 2008 - 2010". OMDC.on.ca.
 * (press release)"Lights, Camera, Ontario". OMDC.on.ca. (Remember to sign your comments with --~ four tildes.) --Lexein (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reception / Ratings
It seems to me that the 25% falloff from episode 1 to episode 2 is notable and cited. Any perceived negative POV is neutralized by adding "viewership then stabilized at around 4 million viewers", which is supported in the rest of the citations. Initial viewership falloff is normal (25%is a lot), but stable followon numbers are a good sign. Not including the whole truth about ratings in a section called "Ratings" is (IMHO) too-positive POV. --Lexein (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the fall-off in viewership is notable, especially since the premiere was record-breaking for cable and/or the network. The info was properly sourced, and IMO it should be returned.  It is not unheard-of to have data like this in the Ratings section.  As you say, it is currently giving the overly positive POV. I believe the IP that made the edits is connected to our socks, who want the page to be only positive. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The logo
I currently favor over. The former is the original and unique intertitle for Falling Skies. The current title is a user-generated interpretation, not produced by Falling Skies. In other word, fan art. The fair use rationale is perfectly reasonable. Thoughts? Wikifan Be nice 08:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why a better file isn't uploaded of the intertitle like other TV series'.. AllianceApprovedMagician (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the actual Falling Skies title card doesn't allow for an upload because the title screen is distorted. It's not like The Walking Dead where it's black and white writing, this screen card flickers and changes. Why is it that Game of Thrones or The Office or Modern Family can have the series logo on their Wiki pages but not Falling Skies? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion was against consensus. SVG deletes planet, does not reflect the series title card designer's intent.  "Distorted" is not a reason for deletion, given that no distortion was introduced in the capture/edit/upload process.  Reverting deletion. --Lexein (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviews
I've reverted a mass deletion of mixed and negative review remarks. Now, let's discuss. First, Metacritic is not Lord God King Bufu. Its methodology is deeply flawed, so it (and Rotten Tomatoes) should not go first, before the damn sources. Second, let's discuss the individual review quotes. Nobody loved the series, nobody hated it. There was little agreement among reviewers about what was bad, though many agreed the action sequences, and a few performances (but definitely not all), were "good", but still not "great." So. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrying:, I reverted a bold mass deletion of reviews, wrote "See Talk" in the edit summary, and started the discussion above. --Lexein (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Talk has the generally accepted meaning of no edit warring: discuss and achieve consensus before any further major changes. It's not just me saying this: read WP:BRD - "bold, revert, discuss."  This means no deliberate repeated blasting away at the review section without discussion.
 * Edit summaries should (succinctly) faithfully describe the edits made. But the summary "Listing more mixed than positive" is in direct opposition to the review section lead sentence: "received positive reviews." That lead is a solidly misleading disservice to readers, and is outright POV. We don't do that at WP.
 * The lead sentence of any reviews section should sum up, on balance the totality of reviews positive and negative (or mixed). It is pushing POV not to do so.
 * There was not "only one" negative review - nearly every review was strongly mixed with mild approval with a couple of OMG likers. That's how the Metacritic score was only 71%, instead of 99%.
 * WP doesn't cite user scores: please see MOS:FILM.
 * WP doesn't cherrypick sources that say what we want. We cite the most representative sources.
 * Metacritic and RottenTomatoes are not reviewers. That's why we don't list them first in the Reception section. It's better to list them at the end, after a truly representative series of review quotes or paraphrases.

I agree with your statements. I have reverted another instance of a mass deletion of the negative reviews here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The destructive user seems to be refusing to discuss, unwilling to abide by consensus, and is determined to misrepresent the content of reviews to the readers. Also, claims that a framegrab of the actual broadcast HD video, under fair use, is "low quality." So, reverting due to WP:UNDUE emphasis of Metacritic over the actual WP:RS reliably sourced reviews, pushing WP:POV highly selective reviews, and lying about edits in edit summaries. --Lexein (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It actually received generally positive reviews. Tell me why you are writing "positive and mixed" when the amount of positive exceeds the amount of mixed and negative and yes there was only one negative. What about a show like Game of Thrones which has a similar score and just as many mixed reviews? AllianceApprovedMagician (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * this user has been blocked indefinitely, so this is a courtesy response. No, a glance at the list of all 26 reviews shows not one, but 5 reviews with a score of 50 or below, and every one of the middling reviews had hefty reservations. Not that it matters, because Metacritic is a derivative and not particularly reliable source, as they assign numeric scores to reviews which do not print their own scores. As for Game of Thrones, any undue bias there will be addressed there. --Lexein (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems feasible to say "generally". You say the score isn't 99% positive - Well, nobody is saying it was overwhelming well received - It was generally well received. There's more than one type of positive reception. FYI, Breaking Bad and Mad Men received similar reviews in their first season. Tate Langdon (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Broadcast
I've added a table for the international brodcast. Can some people help to add to it..? Tate Langdon (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot Question
As anyone found any refernces to how the plot or story line for this show is supposed to work? How to they explain how 90% of humanity (apx 6.3 billion people) get wiped out in a couple of day wwithout the whole of Earth's biosphere being wreaked? It would be nice if someone could find stuff like that to add to the article to help make it better. How do they explain all of the military being killed while all the cities and towns are still standing? That makes no sense. So perhaps some help here would be great. Stranded Pirate (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pope's Berserkers?
In the first season Pope had lost his gang (except for Margaret). Yet in the second season, he inexplicably is in charge of the renegade "Berserkers?" WTF? I guess many things can change within the lost 3 months between season 1 and 2, such as a murdering, untrusted felon who wasn't allowed to carry any weapons meta-morphing into a leader of a semi-autonomous, heavily armed squad of "Berserkers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.95.166 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd season, 2013
At the end of the second season another alien species land on earth. "Friend or foe?", should be the first episode of the third season, which is planned to be released in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.176.82 (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

El Eternauta
Spanish speakers have noticed some influence of the legendary comic strip "El Eternauta" by Oesterheld and Solano. Briefly:
 * Almost ruthless alien invasion. Almost complete annihilation of the human race.
 * Human isolation. Scattered groups.
 * The "skitters" are not what they seem (like "beetles", the "hands" or "Gurbos"). They have feelings (it looks like they dote on children). In fact, they fight because they are subjugated.
 * Hierarchy invading races:
 * Subjugated children (such as "robot- men").
 * Subjugated aliens ("skitters"). Similar anatomy: reptilians (Insectoids in "El Eternauta", but very similar) many-legged.
 * Flying machines.
 * Humanoids (such as "Hands").
 * In "El Eternauta" you never see "Them" but they are the bosses of the alien invasion. The other races fight and work, but they never do.

I would like to upload images of every point of the comparison but I think it is not legal... It's extremely famous and I think anybody can find it by themselves.
 * "Yokes" of identic design (Attached to the spine using nails).
 * Alien headquarters in downtown, where the bosses ("Them" in "El Eternauta") lives. The resistance tries to destroy their HQ. They first think it's impossible, but soon they change their mind.
 * Importance of radio in the plot.
 * Unknown alien motivations. The plot focuses on resistance and their feelings.
 * Civilian protagonists who owe their success to their intelligence.

I hope this brief comparison would be usefull to write a better version of it in the article. Greetings.--Judas Ali-Qu (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your description is clear enough, but have these similarities been noted in the press (or related blogs)? Magazines (or related blogs)? Until reliable sources make note of the similarities, we can't. The voice of Wikipedia is the voice of reliable, independent sources. --Lexein (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And you're the Voice, aren't you, Lexein? lulz  what a joke.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.7.134 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * good one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.2.77 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This show also bears a strong reassemble to the British book and TV series "The Tripods". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.140.37 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but "El Eternauta" is from 1957-1959 and "the tripods" is from 1984, and the "coincidences" between "El Eternauta" and Falling Skies are bigger.

To me this show is obviously a copy from "El eternauta" is not just very similar, is the same!!!, more than a coincidence, sadly the first comment don't describe all the similarities, it limits to enumerate some parts and specific things, but the plot is almost the same (except for the begining), the story is so similar it's difficult don't think it's "El eternauta" in TV, sadly the article in section "plot" in english version is not so complete than spanish article, so if you want to know the story you need to read spanish version, Why I say that?, I show you a simple proof: in this moment (Chapter 7 season 2) in falling skies the group is travelling across the country to Charleston, city safe for humans, in "El eternauta" they travel to a city called "Pergamino" because they hear that city is a human HQ, when they arrive to Pergamino, the city is a trap made by the aliens, after a battle just a few humans scape, if Charleston is the same trap in "Falling Skies", I'm sure, that's a copy, I don't need more proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.166.60 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Would this suffice for inclusion in the article? http://www.si.clarin.com/Seres-mismo-planeta_0_521947806.html
 * It's a small article from the Entertainment section of the most popular newspaper in Argentina, Clarin. It's in spanish but the title reads "Beings from the same planet. In what are Falling Skies, produced by Spielberg, and El Eternauta by H.G.Oesterheld alike? Between copying and tributing, earthlings battle another alien invasion." Then within the article it reads: "Tom Mason is the history professor from Boston that ends up leading a mixture of soldiers and civilians, that try to stand their ground, decode the invaders and continue with humanity. Armed kids and warrior women in his ranks, as long as they avoid being zombified with an organic harness that is shoved with steel needles into their spinal chord and....isn't this too much alike El Eternauta?" then saying about El Eternauta, "...Juan Salvo and professor Favalli join the resistance. The real invaders don't show themselves and dominate others (the "cascarudos" and the "gurbos") with telereceptors that are stuck in the back of their heads. OK, the "alien invasion" genre is as old as science fiction and the "homage" themselves.", implying a rather obvious copying from El Eternauta. The article itself has a link showing comparisons of visuals and themes/plots.
 * Another article from El Patagonico mentions a quote from famous cartoonist Liniers: "even Steven Spielberg is making a very similar tv show, suspiciously similar, Falling Skies." http://www.elpatagonico.net/nota/102707/ and which is repetead at Terra http://noticias.terra.com.ar/sociedad/era-un-genio-dijo-liniers,75d190d7c4eb1310VgnVCM20000099f154d0RCRD.html Arg2k (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversion
My edit was reverted with the summary "Previous version was better as it was more gramatically correct."

This is blatantly not true. For it to be "set" in the six months after the events, the whole series would have to all be within those six months, or soon after.

The second series (season AM:ENG) starts set well over a year after the initial events, and so makes a nonsense of that "Set in the six months ..." wording; which is why I changed it to "Starting in the six months ...". If there is an issue with that, then feel free to discuss it - but it has to be corrected.

If you cannot understand that, I suggest you get a third opinion. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how much time has passed since the opening episode...it is still Set 6 months after an invasion. For the record, I still don't like it and think the entire lead needs to be re-written. But given my expertise is not in this area, I leave the floor open to someone else. -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record: I'm agree with your last change Chaosdruid.
 * Arussom (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rated as 'B' class
I've rated this article up to 'B' class - the article is well-written and well-referenced, with good overall coverage and a variety of supporting materials. I also believe that this article would have a good chance as a good article nominee. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Season 5
Buying the fourth season was not a question for me. I just hope that I don't have to wait another full year to see yet another season of this show! I also wish that the show would not publish to Amazon on Sunday night... I spent the last 12 or so weeks staying up late every Sunday night to watch this, which didn't match well with my work schedule, but it was well worth it! If anyone has any info on whether this show will go up for a Season 5, can you please post a link to that info somewhere here on the wiki? News reports, statements from our man Stevie etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.199.112 (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Book Series
Does anyone know if a book series will be released on the story line? I am hoping to have some sort of book resource that I can buy so that I can dig into the non-Hollywood details that can't fit into the requirements needed to film a plot. If anyone knows on whether or not there is a book series that someone wrote up that the show is following - please fill us avid readers in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.199.112 (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Translations?
Somebody needs to do the research and open a translation section. Currently, in Canada, season 4 can be watched in French on Z. Urhixidur (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)