Talk:Lexx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian TV shows
This article is part of the Canadian TV shows WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] POV

This article has a really strong positive point of view, it should be edited for NPOV. 86.41.5.65 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be true. You have to make more of a specific argument to justify putting a NPOV template up, though. -- Craigtalbert 04:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole Key Themes sections is original research with no citations and sources.. And while I agree with most of it, I don't find it apropriate
Yes, I think the whole key themes section should be removed, it's not really appropriate for wikipedia. 86.41.15.235 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessarily Original Research: it may simply be unsourced. Have tagged it for {{review}} and {{references}} and will be back to delete it in a few days if the section is still there and the issues haven't been addressed. I don't have any particularly useful resources to do the supporting research myself. I agree that the section is strongly POV also. BreathingMeat 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
...and deleted. BreathingMeat 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the article is better for it. 83.71.8.58 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is, of course, an enviable goal for a peer-reviewed encyclopedia but I don't think too many people will be editing the articles on Shakespeare or Marlowe for neutrality, one can't expect a wealth of crit-lit sources to back up a relatively new TV show. I'd rather include a surfit of positively biased information compared with a desert of 'officialy sanctioned' critical appraisal. Less is not always more. Comparing articles in the Encyclopædia Britannica with those on Wiki often shows up the borderline paranoid over-editing that Wiki can engender, EB has many articles written by notables such as Einstein or Churchill that are, compared to thier Wiki counterparts, opinionated and invection filled, these articles are certainly no less authoratative or useful because of this.46golders 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem from this discussion the POV situation is resolved. I am removing the NPOV tag from the article until someone comes up with further POV arguments. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Achived

I just archived the Lexx Vs LEXX dicussion and some old discussions, just to clean up this talk page abit.--DivineShadow218 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Summaries

I am wondering if there is any one that can create more character summaries for this show? We basically need summaries from all Movies/Episodes. I can supply the pictures but since I am trying to get all the summaries for the episodes down. It would help if someone could do the character summaries. --DivineShadow218 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I intend to do more character summaries (I rewrote the Bunny & Priest pages a while ago) - LeonWhite 05:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Episodes with main body (NOT)

There seems to be a merge template, attempting to merge the episode descriptions back onto the main page. After looking at the Star Trek TNG episode guide, I can see that no expense has been spared in that department. Episode description is a whole page of text - blow by blow. By comparison, Lexx deserves at least a paragraph and a photo per episode. I too can supply photos for each episode, but am worried about the copyright implications. Bipedia 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting the descriptions should be merged back into this page. I'm suggesting they should all be merged in to List of LEXX episodes. This has been done for many other shows on wikipedia, including List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, List of South Park episodes among others. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Having a separate article page for the LEXX episodes (or each season?), and ultimately for each episode, isn't a bad idea. However, most of these articles have yet to be created (which would make summarising them easier), so having the eps listed on the main page seems fine for now. As a contributor to the TNG pages, note that most of those articles have been created or are in various states of development ... but even less so for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Enterprise. And managing them is daunting.
How about this: create a single article/page for all LEXX episodes, build on it and then fork into separate articles when details warrant? All the while, retain the list in the current parent article. As for pix, as long as there's just one per episode (fair use), we should be fine. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just discovered that there was an article/list of the episodes named List of Lexx episodes (note lower case); I have since moved this to List of LEXX episodes, nixing the redundant list (but retaining the dialectic) from this article, and tweaked both. Have at it! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't nix it very well. :) You've deleted the overview for series 1 and 2, and deleted my more expansive description of Series 3. I say keep one article for each episode, and that will enable a pic for each ep. You can't have 30 pics on one page. That would be dubious copyright (right?) and strain people's bandwidth. I'm glad you didnt delete my pithy episode descriptions Bipedia 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
In the current article, I've moved relevant (not all) details up into the single sxn; in the other article, I've retained and consolidated details. There's really no reason to recapitulate everything in both articles. Pay closer attention.  :)
As for other ways of moving forward, I tend to agree ... but articles need to be created for each of the eps first. For examples, take a look at one of the many lists for Star Trek episodes ... where a plethora of pix appear. Perhaps we should even develop an infobox/template for important data points? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(cont...) Yes, I know, Star Trek Episodes are very well catalogued, but I'm not sure how seriously to take Lexx, since far fewer people have seen it, and it may not form the backbone of humanist consciousness, yet. It depends upon whether we think Wikipedia is destined to be the sole repository of human knowledge after the future apocalyse. I mean, already we're thinking "what a pity that Socrates put nothing on paper". Could future generations depend on us for accurate philosophical information about Lexx? Or will they just go to Sadgeezer? Bipedia 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are questions you have to come to grips with. I generally believe that Wp will endure, but nothing is certain and various administrative/community dynamics may yield a different result eventually. And I'm unfamiliar with Sadgeezer.
Anyhow, I cannot lead such a Wp project regarding LEXX episodes, but I'd love to see one place and will assist. I can also craft the infobox template, etc. Given that it's a multinational production that ran over four seasons, I think it should be taken more seriously than various other series. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the hounds are at the door. I think the main thing being objected to is the emptyness of the list, and that is a problem. What I think I will have to do is start detailing the episodes on the list page, and put a few small screencaps in there. Individual links to episodes may be politically difficult to keep. I'm not prepared to do much work on something that will be deleted. Howvever, I'm spending more time on politics than writing. Bipedia 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The hound(s) need to chew on a new bone. 'Emptyness' is a condition that prevails in Wikipedia – that is, there's always room for improvement. I don't think individual ep articles will be problematic if they are given due attention. In any event, thanks for your attention to this and willingness to help enhance these articles. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, I have moved the page to my own install of MediaWiki, and am hacking the ep guide there. I have ripped off the format for the Buffy episode entries, which seems to look fine. It allows for a lot of future expansion. Bipedia 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Almost done Series 3 pics and descriptions. Hard work. Bipedia 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to future describers of Lexx episodes

Wikipedia strives to inform the reader of greater context, so, where possible, heady allegory/metaphor in Lexx should be noted. (I know this will be difficult in some episodes.) I'm already impressed by the inclusion of the word metonymy. I intend to use the word synecdoche at some point. Bipedia 13:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He he; I added the note about metonymy ... it was glaringly obvious that Ottawa was nixed by the Lexx due to variable funding of the Canadian Television Fund by the Canadian government (which supported the production of LEXX during its run) and regional disdain for it. ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spoiler warnings.

Hi there.

I think that there are spoilers early in the discussion of "the lexx" itself. e.g. that the ship dies in the last episode, that it gets pregnant while on the earth, etc.

The spoiler warning might be better put higher in the lexx article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netmedic (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fourth season time setting

"In the fourth and final season of 24 episodes, the Lexx arrives at Earth in the year 2000"

This contradicts with just about everything said in the fourth season episodes. Near the beginning of the first episode, Little Blue Planet (after the Newfoundland 1901 segment) it reads "Washington, D.C. In the very near future" – and the episode was originally aired July 13, 2001. Also, according to President Priest's hoaxed backstory, he was shot down in Vietnam in 1969, and lived in the jungle for 32 years; or until no earlier than 2001 (also, this event was likely set "in the very near past"). Therefore the presidential election in the first episode cannot be earlier than that of 2004; and since Priest takes office in said episode, the year must have changed by its end. I never noticed an exact year given, and "very near future" is a vague concept at best, so perhaps 2008/09 (or even later) is not out of the question – however, the earliest possible year of 2004/05 seems a likely choice. In any case, 2000 just doesn't add up.

--Anshelm '77 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, 2005 fits also because there was a Papal Election that year, just like there was one in Stan Down. Of course, the producers couldn't have known this at the time the episode was filmed. --Anshelm '77 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I just restarted watching the 4th season I will alter what needs to be done. DivineShadow218 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lexx shaped like erect Phallus/Scrotal sac when viewed from below

Mercifull says the main article already discusses the phallus-shaped design of the Lexx in another paragraph. I have found no such reference, but would be happy to move the note to a more appropriate spot. If anybody thinks it does not have the described shape from below, the internet disagrees with you. Go search.

"The Internet disagrees" is not a reference. Nor is "Go search". BreathingMeat 23:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously neither of those are formal references. In this particular case, the only definitive reference would be a quote from Paul Donovan, Lex Gigeroff, or Jeffrey Hirschfield describing the phallic form of the Lexx, and as far as I know such a quote does not exist. However, the question in this context is an appeal to something obvious that everybody can determine for themselves. The question is "does the Lexx, when viewed from below, look or not look like a phallus with a scrotal sack?", which in lack of any definitive answer from the writers, is open to debate. Any single reference in this case is useless (with the exception of a reference from the writers), so there is no point in providing any single reference to Joe Blow's thoughts on the matter. However, a large body of references to it can be found with this link. Again, it's not formally definitive, but it supports the case and I have not found any opinions that it does not look like a phallus. In addition to this, the show crammed as much sexual imagery into the screen as possible. The suggestion of yet one more sexual image, supported by a body of random people on the internet who also noticed the same image, is not a stretch. The internet disagrees. Go search.
Apparently it is a matter for debate whether or not the Lexx resembles a penis. Several different editors have removed text relating to the phallic shape of the Lexx. If you want the description to have any chance of remaining there permanently, you will have to reference it properly. This is standard good practice for adding text to any Wikipedia article. BreathingMeat 21:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks for the link to the good practices. I read it after you provided it. In the end, I'm sure I won't lose any sleep if somebody changes it yet again, as I have more imporant things to do than trying to convince people of this. :-) For reasons stated above, there is no definitive reference available, but there is an avenue for peer review: that is, take the image of the Lexx on the main page, rotate it counter-clockwise by about 110 or 120 degrees, and look for yourself. Just like in scientific research, where first reporters (i.e. no previous references available) provide a method to verify something for others, you (vous) now have the tools to either confirm or deny this for yourselves. Galileo didn't have a definitive authoritive reference to say Earth wasn't the centre of everything, but he could say "look at Juptiter ('s moons), there's all the proof you need!" I feel somewhat silly making a comparison in this to Galileo, but hopefully the point between "an authoritive reference" and "here's how to verify it for yourself" won't be lost. Whether or not the Lexx looks like a phallus under the previously described conditions can be independently (and subjectively) determined. Cheers!
I'm afraid that without a reference, both you and Galileo are guilty of Original Research in your respective observations. There is, of course, nothing wrong with performing such research; but submitting it to Wikipedia unpublished is counter to Wikipedia policy. BreathingMeat 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience in pointing out various wikipedia rules/guidelines. I've been a contributor for years, but learned a lot on this particular thread. I now understand why wikipedia doesn't want independent (unpublished) research and why Galileo himself would be edited out. Now, returning to the phallic question (specifically, "When viewed upside down from the normal televised orientation, some people think the Lexx also looks like an iconic erect phallus with scrotal sack."), could you show me how this statement would require a citation/reference as opposed to the following random lines grabbed from the article that apparently don't: (i'm not attempting to be argumentative, i'm really attempting to understand)
From the Overview, "Obliquely proffered in the first series as a muddle of Dante-esque and Orwellian references and more directly alluded to in the forth series with episodes such as "A Midsummer's nightmare" a rampaging parody of Shakespeare."
From Key Themes, "generally however Lexx seems to be attempting to expound the dichotomy of the human condition; juxtaposing the bestial urges that reside within the heart of man with the nobler instinct (or divine spark) that seeks to ennoble us whilst the universe is (literally) collapsing around us."
From Characters, "The crew of the Lexx is motivated largely by fear, lust, and hunger"
From The Lexx, "This possible explanation of both the ship's design and its name Lexx (as a homophone of "legs") is certainly in keeping with the risque and sometimes vulgar tone of the series."
(etc, etc) There are lots of unsubstantiated or speculative statements and points of view that don't seem to require a citation in this article. I don't understand how these unsubstantiated/unreferenced statements are any different in kind than saying "When viewed upside down from the normal televised orientation, some people think the Lexx also looks like an iconic erect phallus with scrotal sack", especially given the overt (and acknowledged by the article) sexual imagery of the show.
What am I missing?
I'd say any of those unsourced statements are subject to removal. I reckon the reason yours was picked on was that other people disagreed. BreathingMeat 22:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost certain I've either heard or read Paul say that any phallic resemblance was unintentional and the that Lexx was simply designed to look like a dragonfly. The problem would be finding it these days as a lot of stuff, most notably the old Lexx Bilbored, has been lost. Shiroi Hane 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have every single Lexx DVD. Not trying to brag, but here is what I will do. I will go though all of the specail features in all of the DVD's. If there is anything on this subject, I will add it personally. DivineShadow218 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
An icecream with two ball can be seen too as an erect fallic object, just like a cristian sword, a banana, a cobra snake or anything near cilindric or long and (more or less) narrow. Erotism is in the eye that sees.

[edit] Cleanup

Article tagged for cleanup for facts, grammar and usage of words (including capitalisations). --121.6.67.214 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi, I just wanted to say that a number of Lexx images were improperly uploaded as public domain and are now screenshots that require fair use rationales. The images in question are Image:TheLexxFires.jpg, Image:Lexx 790.jpg, Image:Lexx Giggerota.jpg, Image:Devine Precessors.jpg, and Image:Lexx Lyekka.jpg but in fact all the images from screenshots actually now require screenshots. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Scenes

I just bought the Australian copy of Season 1 and was disapointed to find that a lot of the more graphic scenes have been cut out. almost the entire scene where His Shadow cuts open his head, removes his brain and places the darkness within is missing (we see him begin the cutting and then it cuts to next scene, he is fine with no explination to what happened). Things like this should be noted in the DVD section. are the version released in other countries also edited? Mloren 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview and Key Themes sections

I've removed these two sections because, although reasonably well written, they're essentially loaded with opinion. I suggest that we start again and produce a brief, neutral, summary of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A referenced summary of the plot would be even better. BreathingMeat 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)