Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 10

Where the Production Team Gets Salary
Please, do not erase this part!!!: The whole production team quit their jobs after seeing the public's reception and worked full-time for the series to create more episodes after the first ones. To generate a revenue so that the whole team could be paid a salary, they set up an online store and sell t-shirts there. This is really true. I got it from Wired Magazine and it's in the References section: Thompson, Clive (December 2008). "100% Cotton. 20% Profit". Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved on January 4, 2009. --Danielign9 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Article tune-up
I just did some cleanup. The most important thing, now that there are multiple full-length series, is to distinguish between the original Blood Gulch Chronicles and the newer releases. Also, if people could find the news releases and jornals where some of the remaining uncited statements in the Background section where mentioned, that'd be helpful. I'll try to do it eventually if no one else gets to it first. — TKD:: Talk  06:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot length
We now are up to eight subsections for the plot. Despite the disclaimer of WP:NOT, it's likely that further series will be released eventually. But, even now, we have slightly more video time than both Star Wars trilogies combined. Does anyone think that it might be a good idea to follow the lead of Star Wars, and remove the hard paragraph boundaries among full-length works, instead presenting the plot of the overall series in a somewhat more condensed form? I feel that the length of the in-universe sections (Plot and Characters) is starting to become out of balance. — TKD:: Talk  10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Be worth a shot. You're right, it is getting a bit too long there.  The characters section doesn't seem to bad, but I agree as far as plot goes.  Dac (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just took a couple hours to try a rewrite. I got the size down by about 4KB and 800 words. We're now down to four longish paragraphs. Further condensation is possible, perhaps, but a bit hard, since, for a comedy series, Red vs. Blue tends to have a fairly mercurial plot. I consciously omitted, at least for the time, any mention of Relocated's uber-short plot, because there wouldn't be a whole lot to mention yet. That can be remedied as the series continues.


 * Also, we no longer have one paragraph, one series, I moved the release time spans to a separate table later in the article.


 * Finally, I renamed a few of the sections, and put Plot and Characters under a Synopsis heading; this is a pattern that I've seen on a few other film and video-game articles, and like. — TKD:: Talk  10:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. As time goes by we could probably stand to condense the details of Reconstruction a bit more...difficult, but it can be done.  I'll look into that.  Looks good, though.  Dac (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Season 5 could probably use some tightening, too. — TKD:: Talk  13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify (since I apparently forgot to respond to your point about the characters section): I was referring to the length of the in-universe sections combined as a whole (i.e., the new "Synopsis" section), not each one separately. Plot obviously dominates this combination, and is the one more in need of maintenance. I agree that the length of the characters section is fine. — TKD:: Talk  13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm really new at this whole "Wiking" thing. But I gotta tell you guys that I think that the story could be buffed out a bit more. Not to sound unhappy with your edits. I mean that was a huge plot. But I think it could be added to a bit more. Thank you for your time. ~ A Red Vs Blue fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.207.21 (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While the plot could be lengthened, a different point is that there needs to be some consistency in the length and depth of coverage. Currently the length of the Revelation summary (the summary is for 13 episodes at the time of this posting) is about as long as the entire Blood Gulch series (100 episodes). Primalmoon (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Relocated
I think we need to introduce a thing about RvB: Relo since it comes out tonight and is a 4 part mini-series. -TheJasonator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.171.45 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really that essential to the series, although it does describe more about Church, Tex, and the Freelance program 67.170.15.19 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenge for the season articles, if anyone's up to it
If anyone's up for a challenge and has sufficient free time, I was thinking that the season articles could be improved. Although most season articles on Wikipedia follow a list structure and aim for featured list status, it could be possible to follow the model of Smallville (season 1) and fill the articles with enough development history and production information to aim for FA status. I don't know whether it's feasible to do this for all seasons, but I would think that at least season 1 would have enough material, given the novelty of the series at the time. — TKD:: Talk  12:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * idk if i have the experince or not, but i'll give it a shot. έЯїᴄ_ᴐᴬṛṛ_ḟḁṉ (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Red vs Blue vs Blood Gulch Chronicles
Specifically with the "Reconstruction" series, it seems that Red vs Blue is going to become a series that continues beyond the original Blood Gulch Chronicles. As such, I think it is time that we seperate the two into distinct articles, making the Red vs Blue article be an umbrella article for the series, and creating a Red vs Blue: Blood Gulch Chronicles that deals specifically with that series. This seems the only logical step. The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that a split along that line is desirable or warranted at this point. The Blood Gulch Chronicles still constitutes the majority of Red vs. Blue content, and we'd end up repeating a ton of stuff that applies to both: development history, characters, reception, impact, etc. It's one big plot line. We already have separate season articles for each of the five Blood Gulch Chronicles seasons. We also have a bunch of character articles that need attention badly for sourcing and for original research removal. My preference would be to bring those up to standard before we consider yet another article. This is a featured article, after all. It would be better to focus on improving the other existing articles before worrying about splitting this structurally coherent one. — TKD:Talk 06:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's all one storyline. Red vs Blue is one big storyline.  However, The Blood Gulch Chronicles is only a part of this storyline.  Originally, Red vs Blue and Blood Gulch Chronicles were interchangeable.  However, now, Red vs Blue has grown beyong the now ended Blood Gulch Chronicles.  It's like Star Wars.  Star Wars doesn't just refer to the first movie anymore.  Now, it's an umbrella term for the entire series.  This article is entitled "Red vs Blue"  However, it reads like it's an article for Blood Gulch Chronicles.  This was how it was created, but its now become outdated.  This really creates a large problem with the article.  The plot has become overgrown and disjointed as Reconstruction has been tacked on to the Blood Gulch Chronicles plot.  This is all a bit large anyway, and should probably be trimmed to a quick summary of the story, wheras the larger BGC (got tired of writing it out) plot should be seperated.  I just think that the two seperate entities should be seperated.  Shoot off a BGC article (I have no problem doing it myself once there is an agreement here), take over the plot section, some of the introduction, add a little content of its own, and let the rest of the article stay here.  A little change of image here and a little different language there, and everything's peachy keen.  However, BGC deserves its own article seperate from the RvB article.  The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference between this and Star Wars is that Star Wars encompasses six differently named movies of equal length; in other words, you have the overall franchise, and the individual full-length work. The Blood Gulch Chronicles is neither; it's an arbitrary grouping of full-length works that the creators decided to create within the same continuity. They could have just as well named Reconstruction as Red vs. Blue VI. A more appropriate analogy is this: Even though the respective franchises are now broader, separate articles for the Halo trilogy and the Star Wars original trilogy don't exist; they redirect to the article on the franchise. When you have fewer than several subgroupings, all that a subgrouping article can do is reiterate things that are said (or should be said) either in the articles about the individual works or in the overall article on the franchise.


 * I also think that you are overstating the problem with the plot. The main issue with the plot is that it's complex, but that can be solved by careful wording, and it's not really disjoint, compared to other fictional universes that are continually retconned. Four long paragraphs of plot is acceptable for the amount of material covered. The overall size of the article is not yet an issue either; it is 29KB of prose (note: prose size is different from wiki markup size), which is well within the guidelines suggested by WP:SIZE. — TKD:: Talk  14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, the article does make an effort to properly distinguish between the franchise as a whole and The Blood Gulch Chronicles, where appropriate. If it fails to do so in some cases, then we should edit the article to make that clearer, rather than split off a whole new article. The point is that the majority of what is said about Red vs. Blue applies to both the franchise and The Blood Gulch Chronicles. — TKD:: Talk  15:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception from 2008 and later?
I've been starting to look for additional sources for this article, particularly reliable reviews of the actual content of later Red vs. Blue releases, particularly Reconstruction. Sites tend to regularly cover the fact that Rooster Teeth releases new stuff, but don't actually review the content in terms of merit as a film in any detail. Sustained popularity is mentioned, too, but we already know that. Has anyone been able to find anything? — TKD:: {talk}  06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Australia distribution info removed from article
Added by :"Red vs Blue is also available on DVD in Australia and New Zealand, the first time the show has been released outside of American stores. The entire Blood Gulch Chronicles and Red vs Blue Reconstruction have been released through Vendetta Films (New Zealand) and Siren Entertainment (Australia)."

Can this be sourced? —TKD  [talk]  [c] 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation format
Does anyone mind if I change the article to use footnoted Harvard citation (author-date) format? See machinima for an example of this. —TKD  [talk]  [c] 06:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * . —TKD  [talk]  [c] 06:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New episodes
Any info on when the next episodes and RvB animated are due to be released? That should be on there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.159.243 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and, to my knowledge, Rooster Teeth has not revealed any new information about further series. Without a verifiable source, there's no new information to add. —TKD  [talk]  [c] 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sooooooo why don't you add THAT to the front page so people will know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.159.243 (talk • contribs)
 * Because, unless some reliable source has stated that no new information has been released, a statement to that effect would also be practically unverifiable, because it is asserting the non-existence of some information that could have appeared in a number of places. —TKD  [talk]  [c] 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Recreation
Just a note explaining my recent reversions in more detail. Trailers can't be used as evidence of plot, because that's wholly subject to change before the main release; this article itself details an instance of that (the original Red vs. Blue trailer). Second, even though quite a bit happens in the trailer, it's no longer than a single short episode, so it skews the plot section to focus on it, particularly since we are aiming for concision there. Entire seasons are about half a paragraph. —TKD  [talk]  [c] 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Director credits
Did I miss a discussion where these credits were simplified? I swore Matt Hullum used to be credited too, wasn't he also a director in one of the earlier seasons? Plus, according to one of Burnie's Vimeo videos and one of the Drunk Tank podcasts (sorry, I can't remember which without going through them again, someone help?), former Rooster Teeth community member turned semi-regular production intern Gavino Free directed all the episodes of Red vs Blue: Relocation. -- Viewdrix (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Development History
How do we know that the Recreation series is going up to 19 episodes? I don't believe that Rooster Teeth ever mentioned a definite length for the series. I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.231.15 (talk • contribs)
 * We don't. Fixed.--Drat (Talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ODST
Should the three episode ODST series be entered, if so could someone do it. Blacksmith (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)