Talk:War of the Worlds (1988 TV series)

Did Pal really have an idea for a TV series?
George Pal really had an idea for a TV series? I find that rather hard to believe; the ending of the film was satisfying enough that he shouldn't have seen any need for a series. Besides, the book didn't have a sequel, so why should the film? Scorpionman 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What planet are you from? Since when did Hollywood ever need a literary sequel to proceded with a film sequel?  Jurassic Park was based on a novel by Michael Crichton, but the film sequel, The Lost World was not based specifically on Crichton's sequel novel, and Jurassic Park III and the fourth sequel were not based on any book at all.  The Godfather trilogy was based on a single novel, or rather the first and second films were based on a novel and the third film was simply a sequel not based on a novel.  The examples could go on and on.  Why shouldn't the film have had a sequel?  Besides, Pal's plan for a series is well documented; it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Canonblack 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And to note, I don't think his proposed series was going to be a sequel. The aliens look roughly the same and have the same war machines, but Earth is talked about as if it is a kind of utopia and humanity has the ability to easily travel into space to chase the aliens - way out to Alpha Centauri to be exact, origin of the invaders, so no Martians here. Assuming it's the future, there is no reference to a past invasion within the story, so I'm not entirely sure what the link to the film there was going to be. A TV series loosely inspired by a film loosely based on a novel? Say what you will, but the series that happened held strong links to its predecessors (no Sylvia or tripods in the presentation I saw). And on that note, to be honest, I'm kind of glad this vision didn't materalise. Some of the concepts are certainly interesting (like taking the fight to the fleeing invaders, and finding out that they are only an underling race to a greater evil), but the episode-to-episode idea that would fill out the time to carry the series to the meat of its premise came off as a little too derivative of Star Trek, and seemed very generic in terms of science fiction. --Bacteria 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Forrester and Van Buren: lovers?
I appreciate Bacteria's desire for accuracy, but the first season does not firmly indicate that Forrester and Van Buren had "only a professional relationship". Blackwood clearly indicates that she was a mother figure to him after Forrester adopted him. The Pal film indicates that they were (or would be) lovers, and in a second season episode Blackwood calls her "Mrs. Forrester". That is about the sum total of info we have on the matter. Taken as a whole, it would seem that they were an "item" and served as Blackwood's parents, or perhaps they were actually married but she kept her maiden name for professional reasons. At any rate, the clear indication in the film that a love interest existed between the two rules out any idea that they were "just colleagues". Canonblack 01:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not certain that they were indicated to be lovers for a few reasons:
 * Second season isn't canonical to the first. Any information that has to stand up to information in the film and/or first season has a very weak case. Different people behind the scenes and way too much contradictary information in general, so the whole "Mrs. Forrester" (in S2's "Time to Reap") vs. "Ms. Van Buren" doesn't hold water. Even supporters of The Second Invasion take the continuity with a grain of salt.
 * Blackwood never really calls Sylvia his mother. This has nothing to do with the issue of not being his biological parent, as he has no problem calling Clayton his father. A working relationship is the only kind Blackwood alludes to when putting them together in his statements.
 * The film is really the only strong case here. However, the look of the aliens changed, so if the first season can override information from the film (and we are addressing the nature of their relationship in the context of the first season), then that can be a moot point.
 * I'm willing to listen to differing opinions on this (and I'm not the only fan who doesn't see them as lovers), but unless there's something solid, I'd prefer a compromise - a rewording to keep it from being boldly stated, but not igorning the possibility. --Bacteria 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

POV
The current writing of the article is obviously biased. Large portions of the description are just an extended argument for the value of the first season and against the worth of the second. I suggest a full re-write by someone familiar with the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.119.236 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I tagged this article with a possible POV template. Sentences like: "The two saddest demises are that of fan favourites Norton and Ironhorse." or "Sadly, all this potential was lost as many plots, back-story, and characters were never picked up and carried into the second season.", shows the lack of neutrality in this article. I also added the original research template since the article is filled with unverified claims such as: "While the radical changes were often claimed to be for the better of the show, many fans were turned off for many reasons. Ultimately, the ratings were so poor that the series had to wrap things up just two episodes shy of a full season." or "Another issue for season two is the part of the Eternal. There is some debate about whether it was a genuine god, or if it was going to be revealed to be a false idol controlled by a villain (perhaps Malzor). " 129.16.49.4 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest those tags be moved to the second season section since the premise and first season sections don't seem to make a major violation, a conclusion that could be reached based on the examples brought to the surface by Anonymous #2. Although maybe in need of some tweaks, I don't think they warrant going the way of vast retooling as Anonymous #1 seemingly suggests - that's analogous to that saying about babies, bathwater, and how you throw them out. I step up to take some responsibility for the degraded state of the second season material. It's not necessarily that I hate it; it's that I can't seem to simply get into it, problems furthered by the obvious ignorance of the creative staff to keep a cohernt story. However, a part of the fault comes from the lack of additional contributors to help bring up the rear. I don't see many coming in and digging into the article. I'd say that I crafted 91.875 percent of the article as it stands. A majority of the rest of that tiny fraction was here when I joined in on the editing process - some of it I'm not sure should stand. What I refer to specifically are the Series end and Loose ends sections. Am I the only one who doesn't find them to be necessary? And dropping them off at the next editing stop could leave some of these questionable phrases out and lop off a part of the problem right there. Anyway, I shall push no resistence towards improving the aspects of the second season - just as long as we don't leave out the continuity problems, the damned near complete swapping of production staff, and Mancuso's on-record statement about not watching much of the first season (it's not cited now, but I can easily dig it up when I get the time and put up the effort). They shouldn't be the primary direction of the summary, I understand, but they are nevertheless important because they contribute to the shift the show takes, which has lead to the assaulting critique of the latter season. This trails to another difficult angle I bring up: that is to take in mind that some of the criticism of the second season is quite public and numerous in forums like that of the one attached to the profile page at IMDb, so it's not hard to disprove a few comments as original research... but for some reason, forum records don't seem to count for shit when it comes to verification. If we're bringing up a fanbase, I don't see why we can't cite a thread where they're aruging the pros and cons. And it's not as if there's a lot professional analysis in this particular case. That was a digress. The point I think I'm trying to make is... I don't know how to summarise very well. However, I think I've countered the issues that have been addressed with what I wanted to air out, so there. --Bacteria (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EYE7.jpg
Image:EYE7.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) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wotw1title.JPG
Image:Wotw1title.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) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steel drum.jpg
Image:Steel drum.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) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Second season DVD release?
Why hasn't the second season of War of the Worlds (aka War of the Worlds: The Second Invasion) been released on DVD from Paramount Home Entertainment? As far as I know, only the first season is currently available on DVD. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the second season was shit? Hell, it had Adrian Paul in it, that's reason enough to keep it off shelves. Optimus Sledge (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Adrian Paul the Highlander guy named Duncan MacLeod? AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research
Below information was tagged for original research in 2012. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of the Worlds (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303174259/http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_of_the_worlds_tv_pal.htm to http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_of_the_worlds_tv_pal.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Article title
The title of this article is under discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)

-- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)