Talk:The Wild Wild West/Archives/2013

Citation needed
The article states that CBS bowed to pressure from watchdog groups and cancelled the series. I dispute this- I've never heard anything other than the show was cancelled due to low ratings as the secret agent boom came to an end (only Mission Impossible survived into the 1970s). I have flagged this as a fact that needs to be sourced, or removed. 23skidoo 03:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As no one has added a citation to back this up, I have deleted the statement. 23skidoo 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the statement because it was made by the series producer, Bruce Lansbury, in Susan Kesler's book, "The Wild Wild West: The Series."
 * Looks good - thanks! 23skidoo 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well now, hold on a minute. It's Bruce Lansbury's opinion that CBS cancelled the show due to outside pressure.  But Lansbury has absolutely no proof that this was the case.


 * Unless there's a CBS source that can confirm the show was cancelled due to outside pressure (which frankly, seems unlikely), I don't think this statement belongs. 172.130.253.189 (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon E Lewis and penny Stempel recite this story in their Cult TV Guide and attribute the decision to Dr Stanton, Head of CBS at the time. I have to say that I do not regard Stempel and Lewis as %100 percent reliable, however, as they make numerous mistakes in this volume, including getting Pamela Stephenson confused with Pamela Anderson! There can be no dispute (there isn't amongst fans) that in Season 4 the quality of Wild Wild West underwent a massive downturn, obviously due to the litany of disasters that hit the show - primarily Ross Martin's heart attack that left him absent for many episodes and resulted in what are obviously hasty, unsatisfactory rewrites. Add to this Robert Conrad throwing himself about doing stunts that must have made the insurance people blench (he ended up in a coma for a week or so after an accident at the end of season three) and you have a situation where T3W must have been an easy bone to throw to whatever moral panic groups were protesting at the time. I understand that it's rating held up but that is an easy thing to check with the Nielsen people, I would have thought?

Tanyajane (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding my voice here to doubting the series was cancelled only due to pressure about the violence. First, I remember reading many years ago that the problem of replacing Martin was a factor. Second, the show wasn't inherently violent, as for example a series about war would be. There were episodes where no one was hurt in any unusual way, and it wouldn't have been difficult to continue writing them. Third, the "cause" of changing a show is bound to include the posture of all the various people who benefited from the show. (As well as possibly those who benefited by the show being cancelled.) The Lost in Space article demonstrates: there are five documented reasons — given by different people involved — why that show was cancelled. Chances are? There's some truth to all of them. In fact, it might be instructive to go searching for the same reasons given in Lost in Space. Declining ratings, Conrad's boredom, executive antipathy — all must have played at least some part. Would the show have been canceled if it was the favorite of the CBS president? Piano non troppo (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "First": I don't know what you mean about "replacing Martin" as Ross missed only ten or so episodes in the middle of the season due to his heart attack; Kessler's book doesn't so much as imply there was any thought about replacing him once he had returned to work if a fifth season had ever been considered.
 * To be fair, if anything would "have made the insurance people blench" (Tanyajane's post), it was Martin's heart attack rather than Conrad's accident. Even though that put a premature end to third season filming, the simple solution was to have Bob stunt-doubled more often. Martin, according to Kessler, was essentially blackballed from any regular role on series television because insurance rates would have been prohibitive due to his heart condition. A TV-movie/pilot, The Return of Charlie Chan, which he starred in for Universal in 1971 was shelved for several years and then thrown away in mid-summer 1979 by the NBC network under the title Happiness is a Warm Clue, possibly because of this concern.
 * "Second": W3 (TW3, BTW, stands for That Was The Week That Was) was "inherently violent" in general, even though there were scattered episodes that were less than average in this department; exceptions, not evidence otherwise. The program was, Kessler to the contrary notwithstanding, deemed unreleasable in syndication for a few years; CBS ran a few carefully selected and edited episodes as a summer replacement a year or two after the original cancellation. The nature of the W3 's premise was such that it couldn't have possibly been brought into line with the anti-violence guidelines caused by the double-blast of the RFK & MLK assassinations of 1968. That it ran through the entire 68-69 season is a testament to CBS president William Paley's affection for it; Ross Martin's coronary on top of the violence concerns probably would have caused a mid-season cancellation otherwise. So, no, there's no genuine evidence of anything but the anti-violence wave as motive for the end of this series. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, I was hoping for a perspective on some larger truth, here. I lived in a radical, outspoken city when the series was canceled. That community was ever the advocate of the underdog: against war, for free sex, pro-drugs, etc., etc. Information dissemination was nothing like what it is today. That said, I don't remember a word about the series being canceled on account of violence. My memory could be faulty. If I had to put money on the table, Kessler just picked a particular aspect of the cancellation situation that she could document. (Unfortunately, even used copies of her book start at $80 on Amazon. We should all be so lucky.) Piano non troppo (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Conrad also claimed that complaints about violent content led to the cancellation in interviews and in the audio commentary on the DVDs. This was obviously a concern at the time, and has also been documented in works about Gunsmoke (which also also done by CBS). In fact, they actually changed the Gunsmoke introduction in an attempt to combat those accusations.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are reviewer comments NPOV?
Question regarding NPOV of this sentence in the article: A review at the Mile High Comics site praises it thusly: “This mini-series perfectly captures the fun mixture of western and spy action that marked the ground-breaking 1960s TV series.” Just in case, I went to the Mile High Comics website, found the synopsis with the above sentence and went ahead and added the link to the article as the source of the comment. Alan Smithee 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar naming conventions
Is the section about other television programmes with 'similar episode naming conventions' really particularly relevant to this show? --90.240.102.48 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. —Tamfang (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, unless we could get a quote from a producer, writer, director, stating categorically that they copied the convention. Chances are, that's not going to happen. Repetitive title names are not at all new, in fact, "The Wild Wild West" was probably copying the example set by pulp novels and early 20th century chapter books. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First two agents
I know the Will Smith movie ended with West and Gordon being named as the first two Secret Service agents, but I don't recall the series ever gave the characters that distinction. Sir Rhosis 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

-In the show, they may have been the first agents, but they weren't the ONLY agents. A few examples: in The Night of the Eccentrics (ep. 29) Jim and Artie are supposed to meet another agent, who is killed. In The Night of the Bottomless Pit (ep. 36) they are sent to rescue a fellow agent from prison.
 * The series NEVER made that claim. The pilot did set West as being something of a special troubleshooter, but that was as close as they ever got. Other agents appeared periodically throughout the run.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk
In the Backgound section, paragraph six, there is the following parenthetical clause, "(in a similar vein to steampunk)." The clause is being presented as a clarification of the term "science fiction/alternate history ideas." The term steampunk is far more obscure than either science fiction or alternate history. As the steampunk clause does not substantively add to the sentence and appears to be a non sequitur, it should be removed. --72.10.223.116 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The word means nothing to me, so I second the motion. Ted Watson (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Steampunk' is a subgenre of growing interest and importance, and is starting to bleed over into mainstream interest more and more (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the upcoming movie Igor, the musical group Abney Park, steampunk'd PCs). The Wild Wild West was steampunk before steampunk had even coalesced.  If it means nothing to you, it's simple enough to look it up; if you feel it is obscure, then only uses such as this will bring it to light.
 * Corgi (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The penultimate sentence in your comment gives the very reason why the series should not be labeled "steampunk". It would be like labeling the music of Stravinsky "psychedelic". Additionally, I read the citation/source which is given after the genre label steampunk (Strickland, Jonathan. "Famous Steampunk Works". HowStuffWorks. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/steampunk4.htm. ). The source does mention the TV series, but it does not, in fact, directly label it as steampunk - it is very careful not to do so. The source does not back up the assertion. Therefore I will remove the steampunk genre label. Rodney420 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to look up "Steampunk", which is proof enough that it is no more than jargon from a pseudo-authoritarian subculture that does not belong here.
 * Kid Bugs (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Via your link, I just read the source, and if one reads the very first page of the article, one finds the definition of the term: fiction set on an alternate 19th century Earth where technology was farther advanced than it was in reality. The author clearly refers to the era in general, which certainly cannot apply to TWWW, as it dealt with the work of one isolated genius (well, one isolated genius at a time, anyway). --Ted Watson (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After doing some research about the subject of steampunk, I have seen that the many sources provided cite the movie Wild, Wild West as steampunk, but not the television show itself. It is far more appropriate to have it noted in the Motion picture section as it is important to note. 68.33.184.112 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

freeze frames

 * The commercial break freeze frames usually didn't follow in the same order as the main title ....

Does this mean the title images are not replaced in the same order as the cartoon action, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what it means. Dlabtot (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference added after the fact
Recently a new reference to an article published in a magazine this year was added to long-established material in the section on The Train. I wrote the section on The Train years ago, and referenced the Nevada State Railroad Museum. I have removed the new citation. Plummer (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

4-6-0 Anachronism?
On reading the section on the train, I was left with a false impression that the train type did not exist in the time frame of the series. According to the 4-6-0 article on Wikipedia, the 4-6-0 train first appeared in 1847. Therefore, I don't believe the train should be noted as an anachronism since the 4-6-0 type actually is chronologically consistent, despite the physical train being built in 1891.

Perhaps this section can be worded differently to not leave such an impression? Sege1701 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"James Bond on horseback"
I removed the footnote crediting this to a 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times. This quote appeared in this Wiki entry two years before it was cited as originating in the Los Angeles Times article. It was a common description of the show in articles published when the show first debuted. I have instead credited Kessler's book, which should be referenced here more than it has been. -Plummer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plummer (talk • contribs) 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs Continuity Editing
I found this particular article very disjointed and difficult to follow. A subject matter expert who has some writing skills needs to rework the entire entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.56.43 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

rubber vs latex
According to Toy balloon, Faraday invented rubber balloons in 1824. Therefore I removed this alleged anachronism: ... and now it's back.
 * In "The Night of the Gruesome Games" (10/25/68), latex balloons are used. Latex balloons were not invented until 1930, during the Great Depression.

Is there an important difference between rubber and latex? Otherwise, I'm willing to believe that there was an important improvement in toy balloons in 1930, but then the entry ought to be more specific. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede expansion
Per the tag, I just took a shot at expanding the lede. Any thoughts or opinions? If you intend to be critical, so be it, but please then contribute a better version. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)