Talk:Blue Harvest

Leslie Nielsen

Dr. Rumack (voiced by Leslie Nielsen) enters Han's pod and says "I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you". The producers considered using Nielsen, but they deemed him too expensive.

So did they use Nielsen or what? Lots42 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like they just used the recording from the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.127.195 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it´s a line voiced by Leslie Nielsen, but since the real Nielsen was too expensive, the line was taken directly from the movie Airplane!.
--93.133.233.117 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Is it just me or is this article excessively lengthy? The 'cultural references' and similar sections are all extremely long (and mostly unsourced/trivial). I think this article needs some significant trimming. (see Road to Germany's cultural references section; reasonably short and well sourced/notated). DP76764 (Talk) 21:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Notably, the "Family Guy Star Wars Clip Show" section lists EVERY SINGLE clip in the collection. Per WP:DIRECTORY, I think this needs to be reduced down to a prose paragraph listing only a few of the examples. DP76764 (Talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Half hour?

I was changing the channel to watch some late night Family Guy when I noticed it was the Star Wars episode. Originally I thought it was just a Star Wars reference I just missed in a previous episode but it was the Star Wars episode cut back.

Basically it started with the Star Wars opening except it obviously replace the title of Star Wars with "Family Guy". I forgot what was said when the words were moving through space, though.

The first scenes was the characters in the asteroid field. They skipped almost the entire half. It wasn't mentioned in the article but I wasn't sure if anyone else saw this.--12.72.47.34 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

""Blue Harvest" is an Emmy-nominated[1] hour-long premiere to the sixth season of the FOX series Family Guy." Channels usually chop it into 2 30 minute segments for broadcast; quite a standard thing to have happen. DP76764 (Talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Where i live, the FOX affiliate shows Family Guy at 10:30 and ends at 11:00. When they show this episode, they'll show the first 30 minutes, and then say "To Be Continued". the next day they'll play the other half.

Additional cameos in Blue Harvest

The Evil Monkey also makes an appearance in the cantina, at the table behind Bender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Music of the EarthBound series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I don't have a great eye for prose, but this article seems find in that regard.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Consistently puts information in parenthesis, when information, such as the identities of the characters, should be stated in the sentence rather than tacked on.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Lacks references for a part of the first section.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Same as above.

   C. No original research:

   Seems fine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Reception section is sorely lacking; in the span of five minutes, I found two sources that establish the success of the DVDs, so I doubt that it cannot be expanded. And I don't buy the argument that all Family Guy articles have about this much reception or less; it's one of the only FG episode articles that has been released on DVD or is more than 30 minutes long.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Lead image does not provide Alternate text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for a week. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As there has been little activity and the week deadline has came and went, I am failing this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. I'm not the reviewing type, but I've found many glaring flaws. First off, the entire plot summary is unsourced. What can you do to assure me that this isn't just a fan write-up and entirely made up?

Plot dose not need to be sourced as it is an episode.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is this stated? At the very least, one must cite the episode, or citing a quote from the episode. People shouldn't have to watch the episode to be able to verify the truth of the Plot section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the nominator taking care of this article, but I would like to note that Pedro is correct. WP:TVMOS#Plot_section specifically states that "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." For example, if you would look at every The Simpsons FA or GA (i.e., Homer at Bat, A Streetcar Named Marge, Bart Gets an F, etc.) you'll see plot summaries are left un-sourced because it is unnecessary to do so. The information in it is simply supported by the episode itself and it would be redundant to cite it. Just stepping in on this as I've noticed GA reviewers are commenting on this in their reviews for ep. articles when the policy states it's okay. :) The Flash ^{talk} 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The lead is very messy. It should be combined into one or two paragraphs and not have a single line paragraph.

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. References should not be included in the lead, due to the fact that the lead is to summarize things later said in the article. Logically, as long as the lead doesn't cover content that isn't in the rest of the article, the references should be reused anyway.

It should'nt but there are no rules about one or two refrences--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that references shouldn't be in the lead does indeed stand as a rule not to include them in the lead. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The second fair use image could use stronger rationale [since it could be reused for many images since any image could "illustrate the accompanying text"] or replacing with a screenshot of the show.

Took of--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. There has to be more reception than that? Is there nothing covering the sales of the DVD? And I'm sure there are more reviewers who have covered this song.

DO not think so this is the normal recep for episodes.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was also an hour-long episode and a standalone DVD release, and is significantly more famous than other episodes. There's bound to be something. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Character list is unnecessary; it's an in-universe list of characters to say "okay fans, this character plays this character" that is of no relevance to people who are not informed to the subject.

DONe--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The references to minor jokes could be trimmed down a ton. One of the first things I read after the first paragraph is the joke that you see in the beginning of the Star Wars spoof. I would suggest making a separate section to cover its references to popular culture, but also not mentioning every single little reference. The jokes are gone into excessive detail, explaining exactly how Luke is feeling at the moment when John Williams died.
2. Another problem is that parenthesis are used far too often. It can certainly be avoided with the compromise of saying "On the ship are the droids C-3PO and R2-D2, who are portrayed by Family Guy characters Quagmire and Cleveland respectively." That's the best way to actually do it, as the way it's done now assumes the readers know what a Quagmire is. Parenthesis are often used to explain the joke that happens too, making a reasonable plot sentence go into a joke.

Not needed as like on a movie or special you need to now whos who and that works.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in a film summary, one would list the actor who portrays the character, not the character. Listing the character as if they were an actor is very in-universe and is only important to Family Guy fans who want to learn who is who. This is acceptable, but keep it in the prose. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The "only actor whose career wasn't destroyed by this movie" line is really unnecessary, and is confusing to those who don't get the joke.
2. The argument about Robot Chicken, like almost every joke, goes into unnecessary detail.

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not done; the paragraph has not been fixed at all, and I don't believe you've actually edited the paragraph. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Who is Helen Reddy? I honestly have no idea who she is, and one mustn't assume that people will.

There is no need to tell who she is as she is a guest.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then why do we explain who every other guest star is besides her? I still have no idea who she is, and it presupposes that the reader understands this person and why she's so important to give mention to. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Looking back at the lead, it does in fact have content that should be in the actual body of the article, such as the meaning of the title.

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not done; there is still content that is only mentioned in the lead. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Plenty of unsourced content strewn throughout the DVD section.

DOne--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not done; there are still many unsourced statements in the section. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reviewing it, but if I was, I'd certainly quick fail it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently, two users are insisting on content being outright removed from the article because the information is unsourced, even though some of it is clearly sourceable [ie, one passage removed said an "interview with Seth McFarlane by IGN]. So at that point, I couldn't pass it by knowing that the article is incomplete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why no 'Cultural References' section?

Just about every other FG episode article has one, and Blue Harvest has plenty of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.143.66 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus against move — æk^Talk 08:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Blue Harvest (Family Guy) → Blue Harvest — The DVD and special are both exceptionally popular, and if you asked the average person on the street what it means, they'll say "it's that Family Guy thing, right?" Keeping the actual Star Wars subject at Blue Harvest is clearly for the sake of fans only, as you actually have to have researched the subject or read about it three decades ago to have any understanding about it. --The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment how about just turning "Blue Harvest" into a dab page? 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that MIGHT be an appropriate compromise, but I'm just not convinced that a pending name for RotJ is anywhere near the notability of this special, regardless of its name being based off of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Exceptionally popular in this present decade. Admittedly WP:CRYSTAL, but as a general rule the first notable instance of something is considered the most notable instance of something. For example, the 1939 film of The Wizard of Oz is today more famous than the book, but the book still "has dibs" on the title. (However, since in this case the book is called The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The Wizard of Oz is a disambiguation page.) — The Man in Question (in question) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are poor comparisons. The Wizard of Oz is a famous book and movie; Blue Harvest is a famous special [maybe not famous, but whatever]. It is not famous for being a fake name, and is only of interest to the hardcoriest of Star Wars fans. Tell me - even if Blue Harvest as a Family Guy special is only important for this decade, what does it matter since Blue Harvest as a fake name was never even remotely close to its fame? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree with you regarding the popularity of the Family Guy's Blue Harvest I would argue that the spirit of The Man in Question's comment still rings true. Since Blue Harvest was the working title of Return (or Revenge) of the Jedi there is meaning. If the working title had been different then Family Guy would more than likely not have named themselves Blue Harvest. Family Guy's Blue Harvest title therefore derives its meaning and origin from Blue Harvest making Blue Harvest significant. Similarly The Wizard of Oz derives its origin from the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz therefore its article title is given preference. The Nominator even states in his arguement that Blue Harvest is most commonly connected with Family Guy, therefore keeping the title as it is now makes sense. Snump (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think being the inspiration makes it equally known; If the creators weren't Star Wars fans, it would be somewhat noteworthy, but it's Star Wars fans making a Star Wars reference. And if it were most commonly connected to Family Guy, wouldn't that mean that adding such a disambig considering the circumstances would be redundant since it's obvious to most people that it's Family Guy without saying it in the title. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.