Talk:Tin Man (TV miniseries)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Maintenance Please add more information about the production, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for more advice.


Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tinmanmovie.jpg

Image:Tinmanmovie.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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added Collectonian (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Due to the explosion of vandalism attempts since the series actually started airing, I've put in a request for temporary page protection. Collectonian 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, much of the "vandalism" appears to be either good faith edits or commentary by n00bs that should belong on the talk page. Not really vandalism, just stuff that shouldn't really be there. 204.52.215.107 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Empathic, not emphatic.


As the entirety of the mini-series has been aired, I believe it would make sense that the page protection be removed so that the remaining plot and character information can be written up into the article, though I am sure many contributors have already prepared the remainder of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.107.176 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oz

The original Oz characters do deserve mention. And, no, please DON'T protect the page just yet! 204.52.215.107 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, not here. They are discussed in the original article. This is NOT the Wizard of Oz, but a complete reimagining. Sci Fi itself has already noted that only the barest of allusions are being made to the original novels. At best, such discussion, with proper sourcing (not your own guesses as to who is who) belongs under production details. Collectonian 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Without contextualization, this miniseries is no more relevant than any other crappy sci fi miniseries. Without it, this article becomes nothing more than another one of those plot summaries on wikipedia that goes on way too long about fictional details without discussing anything that matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.41.253 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There are sections waiting for what matters, including the production details and reaction. The production details would be where any sourced material about the creation of the series would go, and it must be cited. Just guessing or presuming anything is OR. Collectonian 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that guessing or presuming anything is OR, although I have to say that a lot of the parallels I've seen asserted here and on the TWOO pages for the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion occur in TV writers' reviews of the miniseries. Whether that counts as a citable source depends on whether columns written by professional television critics do (there is a related debate raging on some biographical pages about whether self-published critiques count as "like USENET and Amazon.com reviews"). I'd have to look up what Wikipedia policies and MOSes pertain, but I did want to point out that I did come across several such reviews and will come back and add sources in a few days I have the time. Banazir 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree context is necessary. In particular, allusions to the books or original movie should be included. For example, it seems likely that the house number of 39 alludes to the 1939 date of the original movie.

A re-imagining of an original work still, by definition, refers to the original work in some way or manner. Thus, one might as well discuss similarities and differences to the original Oz story. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
"seems likely" doesn't make it true. Unsourced claims are just WP:OR, which does not belong here. Collectonian 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This hints at the fundamental problem wikipedia has with dealing with fiction. Plot details are original research just as much as recognizing allusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.41.253 (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Plot details are not original research (you wouldn't be pixieface, perchance?). They are straight from the primary source, as has been discussed ad nausem in the Film and TV projects, as well as in the various policy boards. Adding your own interpretation or spin on the plot details IS original research. Collectonian 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out similarities to the original story is NOT original research, so why not do that? Compare the characters here to the original characters. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It IS original research. Read the policy WP:OR. You are committing original research the minute you decided that X was originally character Y and that the movie is based on a specific version of the Wizard of Oz (Did Sci Fi and RHI say if it was the books, one of the original films, etc.? not that I've seen). You have provided no sources for your suppositions. Collectonian 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-- The Tin Man website has character comparison for the original book characters and the characters in Tin Man. Please refer to the website and cite it if character references to the original story are made.
I did not decide that x was originally y. I pointed out that there were similarities and differences between x and y. That is not OR, that can be seen in how the story plays out in the original work. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur that this is an important difference. However, if the issue is whether there is a credible source for similarities, parallels, or derivation, shouldn't the key issue be a challenge to produce such sources (and critical review of such sources, once produced)? Banazir 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and in this case, producing reliable sources for much of this should be fairly easy to do. Please see my post below. — Satori Son 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree! I was just saying the same thing above. Banazir 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Plot details are original research in that the require a complicated and often fleeting context based on a massive library of words, images, and other symbols that at best are only conventions. And even assuming we hold to what the common sense approach to "plot" is, an author could turn it on its head by the end. However, since you say it has been discussed elsewhere, I'll assume that position isn't widely shared.

[edit] Spoiler alerts needed

This is pretty disappointing, even for Wikipedia. Since this is a current event, this article should be modified so it is clear which portions contain spoilers. Some of the character descriptions do, for example.

No, spoiler alerts are NOT needed. Wikipedia is NOT a spoiler free zone (hence the deletion of the spoiler tag). It is already tagged as a current event, which is all the hint anyone should need. Collectonian 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not what the current event tag is for. Current events are news events currently happening. While you may enjoy the show, it is not news or a current event. It is a television show. IrishLass 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I tagged it as current event because it is currently airing and was being rapidly edited during part 1 (which is why I also had the under construction tag).  :) Collectonian 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It just doesn't need to be there. You need to watch the phrase "editing during part one" as that is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. Just so you know. IrishLass 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How is "editing during part one" original research? Seems to me that it's a statement of someone (namely, we Wikipedia editors) editing during what the show has already stated to be part 1. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that is original research or disallowed. Part 1 of the miniseries aired last night. The article was rapidly being editing during the first airing? Its also not in the article text, so not sure OR applies to talk page discussions :P Collectonian 17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
(shrugs) beats me. :) at the :P — Rickyrab | Talk 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we have differing opinions of what OR means. When writing soap articles we are warned about OR heavily because we write what WE see which may differ based on what we perceive. And while you are watching and editing at the same time, how are you supposed to get a complete and accurate article? IrishLass 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character pages

Character pages are completely inappropriate for a single film per the MOS and will get AfDed quickly. Collectonian 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a miniseries. A miniseries is, by definition, more than one film. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not multiple films. It is a film broken up into chunks for televising. It is still a single film. Collectonian 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[citation needed] on that assertion? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's see Film MOS, TV series MOS, IMDB (though not a citable source in general), any other film site rally, and looking at any other miniseries article. Look at The 10th Kingdom. This is a much longer miniseries, but it is still considered a single film. Also notice it has NO character articles despite having a wealth of allusions to a multitude of classic fairy tales). Collectonian 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
One reason there aren't character pages for The 10th Kingdom is that characters such as the Wicked Sorceress (Virginia's mother) are amalgams across many stories, yet are deliberately unique by virtue of the generically derivative nature of The 10th Kingdom. It draws from dozens of fairy tales. Another reason is that some of its archetypal reimaginings have been done before quite a bit, even more so than for the Wicked Witch archetype. As evidence, consider the `Other "good" Wolves' section under "Big Bad Wolf: The Big Bad Wolf redeemed". There are no fewer than eight exemplars listed from modern fiction. My point is that by the very differences between these two works that are "inspired by the classic(s)", The 10th Kingdom and Tin Man, we cannot draw immediate inferences about proper style for the one set of Wikipedia pages from the other set. — Banazir (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea of what a MOS is. Care to explain? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
MOS = Manual of Style. A set of guidelines used to determine the format and content of various articles. Wikipedia has an over all WP:MOS, and there are MOS for Films and for TV shows. With mniniseries, a blend of the two is usually used (as they are fairly similar). They are the "template" to use in creating/editing articles under those areas and are what was used to put in the current sections for filling in for Tin Man. Collectonian 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Links to the MOS that you're citing, please? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do you people care? If people want to create a character page about Azkadellia, really, what's it to you? jengod 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, those silly Wikipedia notability guidelines (I'd hope you know WP:FICT since you are supposed to be an admin). Absolutely no notability or even a good reason for creating a character article for a still airing miniseries when its main article is still barely above stub status. Collectonian 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have supplied a detailed rationale at the AfD discussion page for Azkadellia, and given my defense of it there. Later, if the article survives and it is appropriate, I will archive that rationale to the Talk page for the article (with section headings so that it can be referenced by anchor). The miniseries has finished in the day or so since the above comment. — Banazir (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allusions to Oz

We've got Dorothy Gale! 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal tomb, the "original Slipper", met DG to give her the Emerald of the Eclipse. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC
How sad, Dorothy was still in black and white. Greenbomb101 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I live in Kansas, and I can definitely confirm that it's in color here.  ;-) In all seriousness, although it is stated that the Dorothy Gale who is DG's ancestress actually had the Ruby Slippers of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (WWOO) and was "first slipper" (an apparent allusion), it is not clear whether her history was actually that of WWOO. If so, it would indicate a strong aspect of history repeating itself to the world depicted in Tin Man, and make Tin Man a somewhat redundant sequel. Banazir (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems to be causing some confusion and people are running around making POV forks now, I'm going to try to clarify this. No one is saying that no mention of Oz belongs in the article. The intro to Tin Man notes it is a re-imagining of the original novels. However, unsourced guesses as to what is an allusion are NOT appropriate and will be removed. Nor should the character section be filled with comments about this person being this or that. Following both the film and TV manuals of style, a well sourced discussions of allusions to Oz belongs in the production details section, not in the character or plot sections. Collectonian 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

-- The Tin Man website has character comparison for the original book characters and the characters in Tin Man. Please refer to the website and cite it if character references to the original story are made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelightnight (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then provide a link to where people can make allusions about which characters are representations of which characters. If not, then we might as well do it here and challenge the OR policy on the grounds that it is inappropriate in certain areas, such as widely viewed fiction. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is NOT the place to argue the OR policy, nor will we simply disregard it because a few people want to disregard it. If you want to make up your own allusions or discuss them with others, go to a chat board or the like. That is not the purpose of any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a personal platform for what you consider to be allusions. Again, well sourced allusions can be included in the production details. Unsourced allusions that are just editor guessing and views will be removed per Wikipedia policy. Collectonian 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to lay out some of the (evident) allegory without betraying OR. I'd suggest:

1. O.Z., the acronym for Outer Zone, spells "Oz" (just a fact; draw your own conclusions)

2. D.G., the name by which the female lead is called, are the initials for "Dorthy Gale".

3. The former policeman, called Tin Man, is discovered immobilized and is freed by D.G. The Tin-man (of Oz) was discovered immobilized and freed by Dorothy.

4. The zipperhead guy "lost his marbles" after somehow his brain had been removed; the Scarecrow of Oz seeks a brain.

etc. etc. The individual comparisons are each common sense and simply quote the texts. BTW, I like the show visually, but there seems nothing to the writing other than the conceit. To me it's not a square meal of a show and I don't think I'll be following it. Pete St.John 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Side note, nothing in the movie or any of the official materials ever says that DG stands for Dorothy Gale. It may be an obvious conclusion, but unless the movie makers specifically state it (or another source is used to voice the threory), it should not actually be stated as fact. Collectonian 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a great example of the confusion. I agree that "D.G. is a metaphor for Dorothy" could be construed as Original Research, but the fact "D.G. are the initials of the name Dorothy Gale" is only fact. Note it is not the same as saying "The O.Z. (miniseriees) character D.G. is named for the initials of Dorothy Gale"; it's just saying "The letter pair D, G form the inials of Dorothy Gale, as well as Diehard Goombah". We are in fact making something of a mountain out of something of a molehill, as the allegory is blatant and at about the 3rd grade reading level. But it is possible to point out facts without drawing conclusions. Luckily we can just go with Satori Son below. Pete St.John 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides, we have a distinct character in the miniseries named Dorothy Gale who is someone other than DG. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the third episode of the mini-series, DG's father specifically states that she was named after her ancestor Dorothy Gale when they reach her tomb. Brinmat 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The solution to this problem is to simply rewrite the info and cite to reliable sources that link the characters (or any other similarities with the original story that have been drawn). For example, here are just a few of the many published sources that link the new Raw character with the original Cowardly Lion:
While WP:NOR concerns are legitimate, they are easily satisfied with research when a subject is this notable. — Satori Son 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection. This page should never have been protected like it has been. The "unsourced claims" were easily backed up, per above. Kyaa the Catlord 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The protection was requested because the page was being hit by multiple IP vandals adding their own commentary about the movie (it sucks and that kinda stuff) and blanking the page. It only keeps anon editors from vandalizing, and doesn't affect regular, registered editors. Collectonian 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocking vandals is good. Protecting the page from potentially hundreds of potentially good edits for the entire run of the program is BAD. Very bad. Kyaa the Catlord 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • shrug* I only requested three days, for the premiere nights of each part, figuring that would be the worse time for vandalism. It was an admin's choice to go for a longer time span. I don't see why it is bothering you. From your contrib, you should be fine for editing. Collectonian 07:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine, of course, but I hate that gigantic protection template. :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
SkierRMH fixed the template. — Satori Son 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
See, now you're making me spoil you. D.G. totally does stand for Dorothy Gale. She's named after her greatgrandmother...the original Dorothy Gale. Let's just let the miniseries roll out completely before pruning back everyone's edits so fiercely, okay? The text will bloom initially, and then as the energy fades over time, it can be cut back into an attractive shape... jengod 09:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of us haven't seen all of it yet, so until then it was reasonable to presume someone was guessing (interesting how it is starting to play out though). I see no one bothered with the plot summary for part 2. I was going to, but after all the ownership accusations and the seeming preference that an article be allowed to created in bad form and cleaned up rather than doing it right the first time, just didn't seem worth the effort or stress. I'm just gonna leave this article alone for now, let everyone mess it up. Maybe when the DVD comes out, people will be ready to let it be a decent article that actually follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of just being a glut of "but I want its." Collectonian 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


This is the beauty of art. Wikipedia is for facts; art leaves much opportunity for interpretation. Thus one cannot say with any specificity just what is what unless one of the writers cites something specific. It is my "guess" that the address marker on the fence, the heart with the #39 on it alludes to the year the "Wizard of Oz" came out - 1939. Can I prove it? Of course not. Is it obvious? To me it is. Is it fact? No. When little D.G. refers to her tutor as toto, can we reasonably assume it is a reference to the famous dog, especially when the shape-shifter/tutor makes himself into a terrier? Of course. It's more of a pun in my oh most so humble opinion. So let's wait and see where it goes. As of December 3rd, 2007, 10:49 PM EST, Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN0345332320071204 reported that 6.3 million viewers have tuned in making it the most-watched telecast in history! And we have the last part of this movie-mini-series tonight. Looking forward even if I did get a bit "spoiled" : ) reading this. Greenbomb101 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Who decided the queen was the analogue for the Glenda the Good Witch? I think it's much more likely "DG" will not be Dorothy Gale, as you all are assuming, but "Dorothy Glenda" in order to set up a final confrontation between the sisters. In any case, there's a little too much speculation in this article to really be encyclopedic. I realize the show is still running, but give it a rest until the dang thing is over. Newsboy85 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After all, who saved Dorothy and company from the poppy field in the original movie? Glenda, who made it snow. this time around, DG saved the gang from the pape by making their tree bloom. If DG is the analogue for both Dorothy and Glenda, this scene makes more sense. My point is, all these "sources" you people are coming up with don't mean squat for about 10 more hours until part three airs. Then it's worthy of being an encyclopedia article. It doesn't matter if my guess is right or wrong right now, because no one has any idea - just guesses of their own, which don't belong here. Newsboy85 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there are two Wizard characters in this miniseries, Mystic Man and Deegee's dad. I also suspect that the culture of the O.Z. really is anglophone in the movie (look at the Latin letters, the American clothes, the Anglo-American architecture in several places), like some sort of old British colony - and this may be because of Dorothy Gale (now that she's appeared in the series). — Rickyrab | Talk 03:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahamo is Omaha spelled backwards. In 'Tin Man' Ahamo's original home is revealed to be in Nebraska. IIRC, Omaha is mentioned in the book 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' and/or the MGM film 'The Wizard of Oz' but I'm not certain about that. Anyone? an unregistered person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.209.70 (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel or Re-imagining?

After watching the entire series it seems that though there may be allusions to the Wizard of Oz the plot of this story is meant to take place years later. DG is the great great grand daughter of Dorthy Gale as stated in the third part of the mini-series. I say this to say that Tinman is not a "retelling" of Dorthy Gale's adventure in a new way but rather a telling of something that happened much later but within the same world. I think that is going to have a lot of repercussions on comparisons being made. Does this make sense? Olandir (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is meant to be any sort of sequel. For example, the new Battlestar Galactica uses designs from the old one when having flashbacks and showing museum pieces, but it's very doubtful that they're saying the old series is actually the backstory for the new series. Same thing here.Rabidwolfe (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Olander, it makes much sense. "Tin Man" definitely takes place years later as shown by the reference to Dorothy Gale who, in this story, stayed in "OZ" while being the "Gray Gale" (still in black and white?). It's a sequel because it's a story told in the future that references back to a story in the past, even bringing elements from that story into it. But it's also a story that can stand on it's own because it has a different plot, different scenes, new characters, a more "Jules Verne" future element, etc. This time DG isn't trying to go home, she's trying to bring home back from the darkness. Without knowledge of the original story much is lost that I believer the writers wanted us to catch; a sort of "Easter Egg" ("she's off to see the wizard"; "lions and tigers and..." _cut to a wild bear-). At the same time it incorporates new charatcters. The Wizard and DG's father are both taken from the original wizard, just as in "Star Trek the Next Generation", personality traits seem to have been spread out over multiple characters so as to retain certain abilities, while creating a new story. Consider, Mr. Spock in the original is now the logical Mr. Data, the psychic half human-half Betazed Counsellor Troy, and Lieutenant Warf a Klingon among humans, who was raised by humans and has more than human strength, like Spock. Captain Kirk is divided into the commanding, solitary Captain Picard and the suave, physical, lady's man Commander Riker. Even the character of Mr. Scott, Cheif Engineer, is spread out over Lieutenant La Forge, Mr. Data, Chief O' Brien, and occasioanlly Will Crusher as the plot may require. Of course this is just my PPOV. Greenbomb101 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution for problems

I think a lot of the problems you're all having here is a lack of references. These videos clearly explain the origins of the characters, what the names stand for, and how they relate to The Wizard of Oz. SiFi Channel Video there's three behind the scenes videos that explain it all. They're entitled: A New Road, Strong Magic, and A Touch More Evil. misterdan 17:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The existence of this source has already been mentioned in the above topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelightnight (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There are actually four such videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ht1oQfEuHI (YouTube Mirror) - November 16, 2007
I've cited two of the four in Azkadellia. -Banazir (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ozma, Tik-Tok et al.

Where are they? I saw a hint of Tik-Tok (along with the original tin woodsman) in the Milltown robots, but I don't see any equivalent of Ozma or other famous characters of the later Oz books or movies. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure that "Tin Man" is pretty much a reimagining solely of either the first Oz book, or simply the old movie from 30's. Basically, they're most likely not using any characters or situations from any other source...which is probably one of the few disappointing things about the miniseries. --Promus Kaa (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Soundtrack

I wnet to Amazon.com and I searched Tin Man. I saw that the official soundtrack will be coming out December 11, 2007. If you want to add, here's a reference: [1] CRBR (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part 3 synopsis

...needs a rewrite to be more encyclopedic. It currently states: "In a stunning conclusion, as Princess Azkadellia, possessed by the evil witch, stands in the beams of the eclipse, her sister DG clasps hands with her and helps exorcise the demon from her." This is not NPOV. It's probably not even the POV of the majority of watchers (the ending is quite common in narratives of this genre, most would probably say it was predictable). In any case, whether it was predictable or stunning is a judgement call that should not be in the article. -PK9 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If no one else gets to it first, I'll do it tomorrow. Banazir (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I brought over and improved a little material from Azkadellia that belongs here. It's a start. Banazir (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parts 2 and 3 errors

Some of the events currently attributed to part 2 actually happened in part 3. All of this appears in the following paragraph: "During their journey south to the lake country of Finaqua, various elements are revealed. Glitch's real name is Ambrose, and he'd designed a machine called a Sun Seeder, which was meant to extend the growing season in O.Z. Azkadellia removed his brain to get the plans and turn it into an Anti-Sun Seeder, which she will use to lock the O.Z.'s two suns behind the moon during the double eclipse, which is due to happen soon. The group learn that Toto is a spy, but he insists that he changed his mind and now wants to help. The others accept his company on the condition that he remain in his smaller, canine form."

None of those events except for the trip south itself happened in part 2; they all happened in part 3. What did happen in part 2, and could be added in its place, is this:

"During their journey south to the lake country of Finaqua, the group again crosses the fields of the Papé, who were once farmers instead of hunters. DG rediscovers some of her magic by restoring one of the Papé's withered trees, after which the Papé leave the travelers in peace. The group meets some of the resistance, who help them cross a great chasm without alerting the Longcoats. In the south, Cain discovers the cabin where he was told his family had resettled, but he only finds his wife's grave and an empty iron suit. As they near Finaqua, Tutor is nearly discovered when Cain shoots and kills one of Azkadellia's mobats."

Then in part 3 I'd edit the first paragraph as follows:

"DG finds a magical recording left behind by her mother, which instructs her to go further south to find Ahamo, who is DG's father. Cain leads them to the Realm of the Unwanted, where Ahamo supposedly lives. Following their trail is Azkadellia, who also finds the recording and learns about Ahamo. The group learn that Tutor is a spy, but he insists that he wants to help, and he only dropped a few markers to buy DG time in order to relearn her magic. The others accept his company on the condition that he remain in his smaller, canine form."

Then finally I'd insert this paragraph in part 3 following the rescue by the reistance:

"The resistance learns the rest of Azkadellia's plan from Zero. Her great machine is run by a brain codenamed Ambrose, which is Glitch's real name. Ambrose had designed a machine called a Sun Seeder, which was meant to extend the growing season in O.Z. Azkadellia removed his brain to get the plans and turn it into an Anti-Sun Seeder, which she will use to lock the O.Z.'s two suns behind the moon during the double eclipse, which is due to happen soon. After convincing Jeb not to murder Zero, Cain locks Zero in the empty iron suit and tells Jeb they will return for him in a few days if they succeed."

Any objections to those changes? Lee Gaiteri (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

None at all, and thank you! Some of the material I wrote for part 3 got removed and rewritten into part 2, but you have it right. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays! - Banazir (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, both sections have been changed as noted above. Lee Gaiteri (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surely it's a Sequel?

I've just watched this excellent mini-series. I was led to believe it was a re-imagining. However, when DG visits the tomb of her ancestors, she's told that her Great-Grandmother was Dorothy Gale, the first to ever cross-over into this dimension. She then does actually meet Dorothy(who is in black and white). This implies to me very much that this is a sequel of sorts, borrowing heavily from the original in terms of characterization. I know someone mentioned this before - but this isn't pointed out in the article.87.127.178.28 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's a bit like Jekyll in that it's an adaptation or a sequel depending on which way you look at it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)