Jump to content

Talk:Torchwood: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Suzie Costello: new section
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Torchwood/Archive 3) (bot
Line 34: Line 34:
I think the most notable thing about Torchwood was the fact they managed to derail and destroy one of the most watched TV series' in history. There are countless primary and secondary sources supporting this. 13 episodes, 13 episodes, mini series, mini series. You tell me where the ratings plummeted. ;) Not to mention they kept screwing the time slots and changed the format of the show entirely and took freakin' years between each season, it went from a TV series to two mini series' with one banal narrative across each. But the article doesn't mention anything but it being on permanent hiatus due to personal reasons; which is kind of unbecoming of any article when the details are public knowledge. Just hoping the editors of this article could pick up their game and realistically address the fact this was a lesson of how to destroy a #1 global franchise, because Doctor Who is following the same tac, especially with the years between seasons and changed time slots. It's ratings are also taking a similar hit, and I can foresee it dropping off the radar again because people just can't be arsed watching a show on TV when they stuff around like that and instead will just download it. [[User:BaSH PR0MPT|BaSH PR0MPT]] ([[User talk:BaSH PR0MPT|talk]]) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the most notable thing about Torchwood was the fact they managed to derail and destroy one of the most watched TV series' in history. There are countless primary and secondary sources supporting this. 13 episodes, 13 episodes, mini series, mini series. You tell me where the ratings plummeted. ;) Not to mention they kept screwing the time slots and changed the format of the show entirely and took freakin' years between each season, it went from a TV series to two mini series' with one banal narrative across each. But the article doesn't mention anything but it being on permanent hiatus due to personal reasons; which is kind of unbecoming of any article when the details are public knowledge. Just hoping the editors of this article could pick up their game and realistically address the fact this was a lesson of how to destroy a #1 global franchise, because Doctor Who is following the same tac, especially with the years between seasons and changed time slots. It's ratings are also taking a similar hit, and I can foresee it dropping off the radar again because people just can't be arsed watching a show on TV when they stuff around like that and instead will just download it. [[User:BaSH PR0MPT|BaSH PR0MPT]] ([[User talk:BaSH PR0MPT|talk]]) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
:Torchwood wasn't as popular as you seem to state. But your opinion as to why it ended is original research and conjecture; Wikipedia cannot assert its own theories, only report what reliable sources say in a manner which gives due weighting. The fact that it underwent budget-driven format changes is mentioned, as was the critical reception of all the series, so readers can conclude what they like.[[User:Zythe|Zythe]] ([[User talk:Zythe|talk]]) 10:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:Torchwood wasn't as popular as you seem to state. But your opinion as to why it ended is original research and conjecture; Wikipedia cannot assert its own theories, only report what reliable sources say in a manner which gives due weighting. The fact that it underwent budget-driven format changes is mentioned, as was the critical reception of all the series, so readers can conclude what they like.[[User:Zythe|Zythe]] ([[User talk:Zythe|talk]]) 10:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

== Twaddle ==

Thorchwood is twaddle. This ought to be stated. [[Special:Contributions/86.155.0.186|86.155.0.186]] ([[User talk:86.155.0.186|talk]]) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


== Suzie Costello ==
== Suzie Costello ==

Revision as of 10:18, 29 June 2014

Ended for 'personal reasons?'

I think the most notable thing about Torchwood was the fact they managed to derail and destroy one of the most watched TV series' in history. There are countless primary and secondary sources supporting this. 13 episodes, 13 episodes, mini series, mini series. You tell me where the ratings plummeted. ;) Not to mention they kept screwing the time slots and changed the format of the show entirely and took freakin' years between each season, it went from a TV series to two mini series' with one banal narrative across each. But the article doesn't mention anything but it being on permanent hiatus due to personal reasons; which is kind of unbecoming of any article when the details are public knowledge. Just hoping the editors of this article could pick up their game and realistically address the fact this was a lesson of how to destroy a #1 global franchise, because Doctor Who is following the same tac, especially with the years between seasons and changed time slots. It's ratings are also taking a similar hit, and I can foresee it dropping off the radar again because people just can't be arsed watching a show on TV when they stuff around like that and instead will just download it. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood wasn't as popular as you seem to state. But your opinion as to why it ended is original research and conjecture; Wikipedia cannot assert its own theories, only report what reliable sources say in a manner which gives due weighting. The fact that it underwent budget-driven format changes is mentioned, as was the critical reception of all the series, so readers can conclude what they like.Zythe (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Costello

I find it pretty weird that a main cast member is left out of this article, Indira Varma as Suzie Costello. I tried to put her in but the edits are not sticking so I would not be able to rate this as a good article. 67.206.162.48 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Sybil Natawa sybilnatawa@efn.org june 28, 2014[reply]