Talk:Dawson's Creek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Main Page trophy Dawson's Creek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2005.
Peer review Dawson's Creek has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Contents

[edit] South Park

What this article needs is a mention of that time in South Park when Eric Cartman's Dawson's Creek Personal Organiser nearly took over the werld.

[edit] Rewrite Please

"The script's tendancy to give its supposedly teenage characters dialogue whose intellectual content resembling[?] cultural studies postgraduates[?] (in other words long sentences laden with references to books, old movies, and such, not to mention a total absence of contemporary slang) has been widely commented on, though as the characters age this incongruity is less noticable."

This period ought to be re-written in a clearer and less ungrammatical form.

S.

[edit] Episode List Necessary?

I completely replaced the article that was here--thus the first comment is no longer relevant--but did not include a list of the 128 episodes of the series as has been done with some programs, e.g. Gilmore Girls, Party of Five, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I didn't think it was necessary as I link to several sites that list them--TV Tome's is very nice, complete with episode summaries, guest stars, etc.--plus I didn't want to type them all in. Does anyone think we need to post an episode list here on Wikipedia when we'd simply be reinventing the wheel? Please let me know on my talk page. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] High-flying verbiage

An unregistered user altered a sentence in the "glowing reviews" section regarding the diction from Williams to Holmes. I've put it back because in my commonplace books I have noted an article where Williams says this. (If anyone wants the cite, I'll dig it out. I don't have my books with me at present, otherwise I'd cite it now.) PedanticallySpeaking 13:46, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] High-Flying, Part Two

In Jeffrey Zaslow's "Straight Talk" in USA Weekend (July 10, 1998, page 22), he quotes Michelle Williams as saying that she had to look up dialogue in the scripts in her dictionary. If the unregistered user who changed it to Katie Holmes can show me a source where Holmes said the same thing, then we can say Holmes and Williams--but until then, I'm reverting it to just Williams. PedanticallySpeaking 17:58, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Not as Good as it Used to Be

I cut this graf from the article in the interests of neutrality, but wanted to preserve it all the same.

Like those of The New Yorker, Dawson's Creek's critics from the very beginning complained it was not as good as it used to be--Williamson's departure at the end of the second season to create another show for ABC was blamed. Predictions of its swift demise were legion and not unjustified. The story arcs were not mapped out thoroughly and characters were introduced and dismissed with a breathtaking arbitrariness--Emma and Eve, for example. And quite a few of the couples were forced together by the writers, the absence of chemistry or sparks notwithstanding. Despite these palpable flaws, the show was addictive all the same, a true guilty pleasure.

[edit] Twins

An unregistered user changed the reference to Andie and Jack being twins. They were so. Do a Google search here for several citations. PedanticallySpeaking 17:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Andie and Jack are not twins. In the newsletter section of the official Dawson's Creek website [1], a member of the writing team addressed the issue as follows:

  • "Jack and Andie are not twins. Jack is age 17 and Andie is age 16. However, they are in the same grade because they started school at the same time -- both are now juniors in high school. This was stated at the beginning of season three. Jack therefore is officially older."
  • "The Jack and Andie question is always asked but never solved. Here's the deal: when the writers first created Jack they wanted him to be a year older or younger than Andie, they were leaning towards older but they weren't positive which way they wanted to go. But then Paul Stupin was doing an interview so he asked, "Is Jack older or younger?" and the writers said "older." But then we realized we liked Jack and we decided that even though he was a little older than Andie, they would be in the same grade. So the answer is: JACK AND ANDIE ARE IN THE SAME GRADE, BUT JACK IS OLDER THAN ANDIE! (Of course, it's our ongoing joke in the writer's room -- look in upcoming episode #404 for a joke regarding this very subject!)" (newsletter issue 97)

Rlw31 May 23, 2005

[edit] Jack

"in the season finale, after Jen had lived with the Leerys and the McPhees, she welcomed Jen back--as well as a now homeless and homosexual Jack."

Something about this placement seems POV to me. While I agree that Jack being gay is germane to the show, and should certainly be mentioned in the article, the placement of his orientation in this particular entry seems POV to me.

I removed the text "as well as a now homeless, yet still homosexual, Jack." from this position before because it was POV. "Yet" suggests that Jack wouldn't have been homeless if he weren't gay, and "still" suggests his sexuality could be altered, although no reputable scientific or medical organization supports the notion that sexual orientation can be changed.

Perhaps it is this earlier addition, by the same user, that is coloring my perception. Do others have opinions on this? --Essjay 10:00, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

As I've written nearly all of this article, I was almost ready to accept responsibilty for the phrase in question, but as it seemed a bit off, I went through the edit history and discovered this clause is a recent addition, made by User:216.201.117.202, who has two edits in total, both of them to this article. I do concur with Essjay's deletion on the grounds that, one, the clause is awkward, and, two, Jack being homosexual has been mentioned previously, so it is redundant here. Something could be said about Mrs. Ryan accepting him into her home considering the show's attitude toward her religious beliefes in the first season, but this is not the way to do it. PedanticallySpeaking 16:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the main page

This article is to be the featured article of the day on May 30, 2005. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. --Madchester 04:10, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake on front page

The end of the featured article text stops with a quotation mark. But where did it begin?

lots of issues | leave me a message 10:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The person who summarised the article for the Main Page "Featured article" section mislaid an important citation.

"It was the first series bold enough to pick up the mantle of Beverly Hills 90210 and an inspiration for many variations on the teenage angst theme, including The O.C. on Fox."

This line, correctly cited by the article itself, appears unattributed on today's Main Page. It originally appeared in the New York Times on Sept 10, 2004: [2] (You'll need an NYT subscription to see the article.) That's pretty bad, not to mention embarrassing. --151.205.100.241 16:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
That is awfully sloopy. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] scripts

"punchy dialogue"; "witty"? How are the strings of smarmy self-satisfied quips and painfully melodramatic monologues that make up Dawson's Creek scripts in any way punchy or clever? I agree that the standards of 'POV' shouldn't be quite as high when arts or drama are being discussed (otherwise it's difficult to describe the thing in question) - but stupid POVs are too much.

--163.1.167.63 11:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poor introductory sentence

"..aimed at and mostly about teenagers..." doesn't read very well. I would remove and mostly about. The comma is also unnecessary. I wouldn't want to 'spoil' the article on its big day, so I shan't edit it yet. Comments? reetep 23:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The lead is largely others handiwork. But you're right, it is awkward. PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Any Mention of J.Crew? --> American Eagle

This show was originally a branding stunt for the mail order catalogue J. Crew according to Naomi Klein's No Logo. Is there any plan of mentioning this? This could be another cause of: "The show generated an unusual amount of publicity before its debut...", rather than the supposed racy plots! Muxxa 23:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Anent the recent removal of a paragraph about American Eagle product placement: the inclusion of the text was a copyvio[3] but the point seems to be legitimate.[4] Can someone fill in the facts? 16:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following was snuck in by Luigi.bozzo, but I feel it was inappropriate and misplaced (see oldedit:

"Dawson's Creek is a teen-age soap opera closely aligned with the collegiate image. Dawson and his friends live their lives like a serialized clothing advertisement, inhabiting a world in which the characters are contractually obligated to wear American Eagle. So it is no surprise that the teen-agers who enjoy the clothing also enjoy the program. Or, as Marjorie Jaffe – a spokeswoman for American Eagle – said when explaining her company's product-placement deal with the show, "our customer is their viewer.""

The immersive marketing angle needs a better treatment. For someone not into Dawson's creek, this is the most interesting thing about the show, and it is a shame that wikipedia has no mention of this. Muxxa 05:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the following paragraph should be deleted:

"The show generated an unusual amount of publicity before its debut, with several television critics and watchdog groups expressing concerns about its anticipated "racy" plots and dialog; the controversy even drove one of the original production companies away from the project."

This alleged controversy sounds like hype, who was nearly driven away? How about something along these lines:

"The show was originally conceived as a type of immersive advertising for the clothing line American Eagle. As an extension of product placement, all characters wore clothing by that manufacturer and lived out idealized lives." Muxxa 06:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wrote most of this article and in all my research, I never once saw American Eagle mentioned. As for the bit about Naomi Klein, the show isn't mentioned in the index to her No Logo. I did see it with J. Crew--and the index's page cites were off on those references--and she says they cross-promoted one another. They put their clothes on the show and it the show was featured in their catalog. That sort of thing happens routinely in television. Always has. Look at Green Acres and you'll see Eva Gabor's designer's name mentioned. Or Botany 500 used to dress men on 60's shows. PedanticallySpeaking 14:51, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Oh. The controversy before it aired? Very true. The Procter and Gamble company was one of the original producers but they sold their interest after several highly critical articles in their hometown papers The Cincinnati Enquirer and Cincinnati Post. Those articles are cited in the bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you PedanticallySpeaking, point taken on the controversy issue. Yes, American Eagle was not mentioned in No Logo, but I understand that Naomi Klein was highlighting an important shift where content is generated by the marketing firm. I understand that the actors were originally employed as models for (a) clothing company. Can you refute this? Muxxa 03:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Junior Years

There were not two junior years as someone wrote. The first season began with the gang starting Capeside High in the tenth grade. The second season continued the sophomore year, picking up the morning after the first season finale. The third season was junior year and the fourth was senior year. PedanticallySpeaking 18:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I rolled back a change today. The series began just before they began high school. Their first year of high school was the tenth grade. See the transcript of the first episode here where Joey says "we start high school Monday". Later, Dawson tells Jen it's the tenth grade. PedanticallySpeaking 13:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Way too long

Am I the only one who thinks this article is far too long? The episode list should definitely be on a seperate page, and maybe even the various season summeries. The credits list could either be done away with or moved. And the finale could stand to be its own article. 209.51.77.64 21:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==A great story==

It's not the case in here if it is full of clever or lexical words. We have to analyze the photography, that's great, by the way, and the focus of the series. Who haven't passed by those dramas...may throw the first rock. And of course, there is still the great characters and very "good looking" actors and actressess. And by the way...it is classical. A cult series and anyone who could watch it with free-minded vision can see its value.

[edit] Katie Holmes

I've completely reworked the article on Katie Holmes and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/w/Talk%7EDawson%27s_Creek_79d3.html"