Talk:Lengths of science fiction film and television series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lengths of science fiction film and television series article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
  1. July 2005 – September 2006

Contents

[edit] Article move and archived discussions

In a comment back in June (now found here), Pegship (talk • contribs) pointed out that the Wikipedia convention is to use "film" instead of "movie". I noticed this during the AfD, and now that that is finished I decided to move the page. I did make one adjustment to the conversation, which I'm reporting here in the interest of honesty: I had originally responded to Pegship's comment in its original thread, but didn't archive my comment, because it seemed silly to have one new remark in the thread when all the others were from May and June — it sort of defeated the purpose of archiving the conversation. But I didn't want to leave one or two old threads un-archived either, so I archived the thread without my new comment, and am mentioning it here in case anyone wants to comment. (That's more info than you needed, but I didn't want anyone to think I was trying to fudge the history.) Whew! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form of citations

While I appreciate the work arctic.gnome has done in finding IMDb citations for all the films and series, I'm not crazy about giving the citations their own column; I think it clutters up the table. I've done up an alternate version of the table here, using cite.php to provide more full citations. It does make a long "references" section, but I think it makes the table more attractive. What do you all think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For series with just a TV show and movie it looks okay, but for series with several movies it looks awkward to have a footer after each number, those ones should somehow be changed around, then I can support the move. By the way, I added a second column to the references on your example so it didn't take up as much room. --Arctic Gnome 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What if we moved the links to the individual films from the table to the citation, so that instead of having:

we had

[edit] References

  1. ^ Alien at the Internet Movie Database
  2. ^ Aliens at the Internet Movie Database
  3. ^ Alien³ at the Internet Movie Database
  4. ^ Alien: Resurrection at the Internet Movie Database
  5. ^ Alien at the Internet Movie Database [1]
  6. ^ Aliens (1986 film) at the Internet Movie Database [2]
  7. ^ Alien³ at the Internet Movie Database [3]
  8. ^ Alien: Resurrection at the Internet Movie Database [4]

? That would be a bit more work, since we wouldn't be able to use the {{imdb title}} template, but it might avoid the juxtaposition of numbers, which I agree is a bit ungainly.

I don't understand why the imdb template wouldn't work with that format; but the big problem with it is that we would loose the link to the wikipedia articles about the movies. I guess we should either keep the alternating number/footer or have all the numbers followed by all the footers. --Arctic Gnome 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess it wasn't clear: the links to the Wikipedia articles would then be in the footnote, instead of in the table: see notes 5–8 above. But if that's no good, we could use one of the formats you suggest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I like having the superscript after each number better than listing the movies at the bottom. And the ref list at the bottom of the page is better than giving them their own column, as long as we keep the notes separate from the references. I say we make the switch. Unfortunately, the main list has been updated since your demo list, so converting will be a bit of work. --Arctic Gnome 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah — I'll do it when I get a big block of time (or when I get the proverbial "round tuit"). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this article even exist?

The AFD really did not establish why this article was created in the first place. It seems like it is just a random collection of info and is original research. Ponch's Disco 08:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Read through the AFD discussion again. We’ve already explained that how it is not random, not original research, and which people are finding this information useful. The admins seem to have agreed with our points. --Arctic Gnome 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Why does The American Card Catalog exist? Talk about listcruft. But to answer your question it is a very useful resource for people. As I said before I've seen people consulting it when they want to measure how long certain shows have run wrt others. Makgraf 17:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon.

Canon is not determined by marketing. There are no levels of Canon. These are misuses of the terms. Canon is that material which the extra material must agree with to be considered "correct".

It all comes from Bible canon. If something doesn't agree with the bible it is considered incorrect.

If something in the EU doesn't agree with Star Wars canon it is incorrect. AdamWankerNobby has listed given examples on my page of the EU being changed to match the films. This is because the films are the canon upon which the EU is based. Lucas did not consider the rest of the EU when writing the films, he wrote what he wanted to write.

Marketing may refer to levels of Canon, but they are misusing the term to place more importance on stuff they want to sell. Of course they want to call everything canon. They want to sell everything.

Lucas's comments about seeing the EU as a nice way for others to continue his story is all well and good, but it doesn't make the EU canon.

I'm fine with non-canon stuff being listed, but let's not call it canon when it clearly isn't.

Duggy 1138 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Star Wars canon has been divided into specific categories by the people who control the property, I think it's appropriate for this article to follow those divisions. Fans can debate whether the EU or C-canon or whatever is appropriately called "canon" or not, but for the purposes of Wikipedia we should just list what falls into each category. Assuming that the current division is accurate, I think that it's a good compromise.
I highly recommend that everyone settle on Josiah Rowe's solution for Star Wars canon. It shows the totals for both definitions of canon and looks pretty tidy. --Arctic Gnome 05:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, Duggy, please avoid personal attacks and name-calling. Wikipedia values civility. Please modify your tone. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That goes for Wookieepedian too in regards to your comments on Duggy’s talk page. --Arctic Gnome 05:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Marketing may refer to levels of Canon, but they are misusing the term to place more importance on stuff they want to sell. Of course they want to call everything canon. They want to sell everything. I'm sorry that you seem to be uncomfortable with the concept of a business, Duggy. Anyway, I think Josiah Rowe's changes are a good compromise between your purist views and what Lucas Licensing considers canon. The Wookieepedian 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at the Star Wars canon page. According to it the "What-if"/"Elseworlds" stuff has its own level of Canon. That negates the entire idea of canon.
I have no problem with marketing. And I understand why they do it. If people assume that something "doesn't count" they will be less inclined to buy it. So they apply the word canon falsely to sell the stuff. That's why Mongoose Publishing have called their Babylon 5 books 100% canon, despite the fact that JMS, the shows creator has said otherwise.
I have no problem with marketing. I have a problem with misuse of language. Wikipedia is not an arm of LucasFilms Licensing, it is an encyclopedia, it should use words correctly.
This is why I went through the Conan page and replaced the occurances of "Pastiche" with "Material not by Howard" because, sure it is the word used by fans and writers to decribe the non-Howard stuff, but Wikipedia is not a fan-site. It should use the actual definition of the word, not a fan-usage (although that usage should be noted). Much the same way, the actually meaning of canon should be used not one decided on my Lucasfilms Marketing.
I'm not a purist in terms of EU. I love some stuff, dislike some. Depends on the quality, my mood, etc, etc. Heck, some EU stuff is better than the prequels. However, I have an English degree, however, and hate to see the language misused.
Duggy 1138 05:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading Star Wars canon#The Holocron correctly, the "level of canon" for the "what-if" stories is "N-canon", with the "N" standing for "non". That's not, strictly speaking, a level of canon; it's a statement that "these stories are not canonical". Perhaps Lucasfilm Licensing's word choice is imprecise, and I do agree that the word "canon" is widely abused in fan circles. However, the no original research policy means that when there is an authority on a subject, Wikipedia has to follow it unless a reliable source can be found to support an alternative. I happen to think, for example, that the Bush administration's use of "enemy combatant" as a category distinct from "prisoner of war" represents an abuse of the English language, international law and common sense. However, for the purposes of Wikipedia my opinion is worthless; if I wanted to change the usage of the term on Wikipedia, I would need to find reliable sources agreeing with my opinion.
Now, I'm not a Star Wars expert. The page currently has the Ewok movies, etc. as "C-canon". I want to make sure that the division currently on the page is the one used by Lucasfilm. If it is, I think we have to go with it (even if it is technically a misuse of the term "canon"). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Lucas's comments prior to making the prequels about what he would and wouldn't count when writing the prequels (which mainly fell to the original trilogy) would be the thing to check, rather than any comments made to promote sales.
However, I'm happy right now that the spirit of my changes has got through. I'm not sure that a marketing arm of a company is the best "authority" on any subject. The Mongoose Publishing example from Babylon 5, I think is proof of this.
As I say, though, I'm pretty happy with the results now.
Duggy 1138 08:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Lucas doesn't really care about canon, He has never made any definitive statements about it, just a bunch of contradictory statements throughout the years. The use of canon in this article is NOT a misuse of the word, as Star Wars defines canon differently than it is normally defined. Lucas wants to make money, therefore he hired the good folks at Lucas Licensing to manage canon for him. And, it doesn't matter what the motivations of Lucas Licensing is. That's none of your concern. I say again, HE DOESN'T CARE one way or the other. His basic stance seems to be that the EU is canon, but not part of HIS story, just part of a much larger story. As I said Duggy, you can take it or leave it, but that is what the man has said. And for further proof, read Steve Sansweet's forward to the Star Wars Encyclopedia or ask Leland Chee (Lucas Licansing's keeper of official continuity) over at the StarWars.com forums. They'll set you straight. The Wookieepedian 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If I understand Duggy correctly, he's saying that the usage of the word "canon" by Lucas Licensing and throughout Star Wars fandom is inaccurate, according to the traditional (prescriptive) meaning of the word. His argument has some merit, but the point I was making is that Wikipedia's use of such terms is generally descriptive. That is, this is how the term is used by those who use it in this context, and there's no reliable source speaking out against that usage, so we have to follow it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
After over ten years as a regular on rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc, I object to your colouring of the use as "thoroughout Star Wars fandom." In that ng, at least, a distinction has always been made between the canon and the EU (although some debate as to whether the original editions count as canon after Lucas said that the Special Editions were the only canon.
I know that RASSM isn't the be-all-end-all of Star Wars fans, but it is a powerful section (creating the name Gonk, which later caused the renaming of the GNK droid) the naming of certain characters after the group/members.
The existence of the term "Expanded Universe" pretty much illustrates that the stuff is at a different level than the canon, and canon doesn't have levels.
Duggy 1138 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I said I wasn't a Star Wars expert. Sorry if I misrepresented the fan consensus. But my point still stands: unless you can point to a reliable source critiquing the way that Lucasfilm Licensing uses the word "fandom" in the Star Wars context, we're stuck with it. If they say canon has levels, then in the context of Star Wars it probably does.
And it's not like there's no precedent for deuterocanonical works... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The existence of the term "Expanded Universe" pretty much illustrates that the stuff is at a different level than the canon, and canon doesn't have levels. No, it implies that it expands on the core material. It makes no implications about canon status other than that the EU is of a lower canon status than the films. The Wookieepedian 10:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what I get for arguing in the abstract and not doing the 1 minute of research it took to find...
"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves - and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies."
- www.starwars.com -> beyond the movies -> expanded universe -> explore -> questions and answers -> "Are Gamer and Marvel Series Canon"
Duggy 1138 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And if you read on, he goes on to say that everything else is canon as well, just not "absolute canon":
"The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'""

The Wookieepedian 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read on it refers only to "continuity" and doesn't use the term "canon" to refer to the rest of the material.
Duggy 1138


Sounds to me like the films are protocanonical and the Expanded Universe is deuterocanonical. To me, the phrase "absolute canon" suggests that there is a form of canon that is less than absolute. Anyway, if the current format on the article page is OK, we should probably drop the discussion, per the header I just put on top of this page. Alternatively, if the conversation affects the Star Wars canon page, y'all can move it to Talk:Star Wars canon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Once upon a time they used to refer to the novelisations & radio plays of the films as being as canon as the films themselves. Then people started pointing out errors in the novelisations, so now they aren't absolute canon.
Protestants don't accept any deuterocannonical material, so it isn't in their eyes canon.
I think that you are still missing a basic point. Lucas has bad it very clear that he doesn't read the EU stuff. He has no problem with it, and like to see that people are continuing his story, but it isn't part of his story and he will happily ignore it when writing his films. The canon is his films. The only thing that counts when the films are made are the films.
Within the EU, rightly or wrongly, they try to fit in just about everything. The EU, obviously counts the canon(films) as an absolute and if the EU and the canon(films) disagree they EU will change to reflect that. Within the EU there are things that count and don't so much, so the EU has its own canon. But that's the EU (or continuity canon) not the actual Star Wars canon.
Duggy 1138 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
On the DVD commentary for ROTJ, Lucas says that he considered adding a shot for the 2004 DVDs where Boba Fett crawls out of the Sarlaac (as described in the EU), because "most people don't believe he died anyway". He goes on to say that, although he originally intended Fett to die, he doesn't have a problem with him surviving. He even refers to Fett's death in the film as "a misstep" since he revealed Fett's backstory in AOTC.
This seems to indicate that he accepts the EU as a continuation of his story, unless it contradicts with his vision for Star Wars. If he truly didn't care about the EU, or at least fans of it, he would have never considered adding such a scene in the first place. It's obvious from his comment that he simply made up his version of Fett's backstory when he made AOTC, and never had a "grand vision" like he claims. Had he even cared about HIS OWN original films, he wouldn't have built up Boba so much in the prequels, knowing that Boba becomes "just another minion" and goes out like a punk in ROTJ. The Wookieepedian 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"unless it contradicts with his vision for Star Wars." Pretty much the defintion of something not being canon. Canon is the thing that cannot be changed. The solid truth. Everything is either truth or not, and if it contradicts the canon, it is not. Hense, the EU, while true, is not canon because it is true, "unless it contradicts with his vision for Star Wars."
You seem to have confused the idea of an coherent continuity and the idea of canon.
Duggy 1138 01:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Guys, does this have anything to do with this article any more? If so, please focus on changes that need to be made to the page. If not, just drop it. There are lots of other places to discuss what is and isn't Star Wars canon — that's not what this page is for. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It comes from my finding the only reference to canon on starwars.com refers to the films as "absolute canon" and everything else as "Expanded Universe" which is an authoritive usage and not determined by the marketing arm which is aiming for sales rather than accuracy.
Duggy 1138 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a link to this on Wookieepedia. I don't know how official the blogs on starwars.com are, but there it is. What exactly is the issue with using the terms G-canon and C-canon? Is the current version (using both those terms and "absolute canon"/Expanded Universe) acceptable? (Note the wording of the footnote as well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, G-Canon and C-Canon require explaining that "Canon" and "Expanded Universe" don't. You have to go looking for the terms, whereas "Expanded Universe" is everywhere: The link you gave said "Next we have what we call continuity 'C' canon which is pretty much everything else from the EU." which defines it as the Expanded Universe (since the films are what they are expanding from), so the terms are clearly interchangable.
Duggy 1138 06:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hathor

The star gate section needs to be alterd to account for the episode hathor, it has been deemed non cannon 74.226.228.52 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? --Arctic Gnome 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium

Why is Millennium listed as part of X-Files canon? There was simply a crossover episode between the two shows. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding something.W Ed 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't merge them, but I guess as long as there is one crossover we know that the two take place in the same fictional universe. --Arctic Gnome 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not sure that every minor crossover counts as making shows in the same universe, the crossover of a character (Jose Chung) and the conclusion of Millenium within The X-Files as well as the same creators makes them shared.
Duggy 1138

[edit] Logan's Run

Are the movie & the TV show really in the same continuity? I haven't seen any of the series, but I'd heard it had its own pilot movie which retold part of the film.

Duggy 1138


[edit] Stargate movies

there are two upcoming stargate movies which need to be added to the article: http://www.gateworld.net/news/2007/01/mgm_reveals_movie_storylines.shtml Fegor 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSG

I've added a citation for BSG being a /re-imagining/, if you can provide a citation to the contrary then please do. However I've never seen it referred to by TPTB as a "remake", and frankly "remake" is incorrect imo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Matt, your opinion isn't always right. The description of the page says "It also separates original canon from remakes" which covers the remake of Battlestar. It covers the remake of Planet of the Apes which the creator also hyped as a "reimagining."
A reimagining is a remake. It's just one that doesn't follow the original as strictly as others do. This page isn't about deciding what is and isn't a strict remake, it's about comparing the lenghts of separate continuities. It's also not about parroting what the creators said in promotional material.
Duggy 1138 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
See Remake, burden of proof is yours. I've cited, you ain't, ta ta for now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I did see remake where it cites modernisations of Shakespeare plays, which are even further from the original then things painted with the modern buzz-word "reimaginating".
Sure I didn't site. I quoted the description on this page, which is more important to what appears on this page than the marketing for Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica.
Remake does the job. Get over yourself.
Duggy 1138 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT promotional, it IS a fact, if it was a remake, than the new BSG would by very cheesy.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read remake. A remake doesn't have to be exact. 10 Things I Hate About You, is used as an example of a remake of Shakespeare. Not an exact remake.
Now, the term reimagining has been used by some people to excuse changes. However, a reimaging is still a remake.
BSG was cheesy, yes. However, a remake could have removed the cheese without making wholesale changes. But that is a very different discussion that you really shouldn't have brought up here.
Duggy 1138 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between a remake and a "re-imagining" is subtle and ill-defined, but we may as well use the terms which the program's producers use. It's a silly thing to fight over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Duggy has violated 3RR now, I have no interest in perusing this any more. Better things to do then edit war with this guy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's subtle an ill-defined because:
a) it is a word invented by Tim Burton and used by himself and others to excuses they made to the original material without having to justify those changes.
b) because a reimagining is just a type of remake.
We should use the term that makes the most sense to the casual reader. On the BSG page, where there is time and descriptive room to discuss the view of the producers, reimagining works. Here we should use the same terms thoroughout the page for the sake of consistency.
A remake is a remake, no matter how far removed. If we start calling Planet of the Apes and Battlestar Galactica reimaginings because they are "unfaithful" remakes, we should call Lost in Space one too because Akiva Goldman made it clear he was using the name and the general idea, but not much else... he just never used the word reimagining because it wasn't being used yet.
And this starts to put us in the realm of original research. Best, really, just to leave all the remakes as remakes and not differenciate based on what a producer has or hasn't said.
Duggy 1138 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So you're admitting that you violated Wikipedia rules because of personal feeling the re-imagining is "un-faithful"? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
When did I 3RR "in one day"?
I reverted back to the original version of an edit under discussion. A number of times, over a number of days. Now, 3RR is there to stop the stupid to-and-froing like this, but it "takes two to tango".
All reimaginings are "unfaithful." The point of the term try to differenticate between straight remakes and those that stray from the original source. It's not a personal feeling. It is the entire point of the term.
Duggy 1138 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Duggy, you're acknowledging that there is a meaningful distinction between the terms "remake" and "reimagining". It's true that the term is used by the creators of a program or film to distinguish it from a (presumably more "faithful") remake. I suggest that we add a note explaining how the term is used, with citations of its use in BSG and Planet of the Apes. It's not original research to use the terms that the producers of a film/TV series use themselves.
Whatever you think about the matter, let's stop the edit war now. You're right that "it takes two to tango", but that cuts both ways. Let's talk it out like civilized people, OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/n/Talk%7ELengths_of_science_fiction_film_and_television_series_8195.html"