Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)

Dates in infobox

It is common practice to not include future dates in the infobox until the event has happened, no premiere dates until the first episode has aired, no finale dates until the final episode has aired, no episode count until the first episode has aired and only update gradually as episodes are released. Please stop adding them. Thanks. On the documentation note: it says "Date the show first aired." which is in past tense; as in, after it happened. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Common practice isn't always right, documentation should always be followed, since it doesn't say you can't put in, there must be nothing wrong in dong so. 117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you like to follow the documentation to the letter rather than consensus, lets lake another look at the documentation: "Date the show first aired." which is past tense, not "Date the show first airs." or "Date the show will first air." Indicating only to add it after the fact. Dates are only added when they have happened. This is common usage, and has consensus throughout the various articles, which might not be right but is what is followed. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

117, please do not add future dates to the infobox. By long-established convention, we do not do that; it falls under the "crystal-ball" concept in that we have no control over whether the event will actually occur as scheduled. Dates can be mentioned in the body copy, but we need to keep the fluid nature of television scheduling in mind there as well. Accordingly, we would say "is scheduled to air" rather than "will air", and use similar construction for other forward-looking statements, even if references exist to support the dates in question. One other note - template documentation pages are simply informational, and not the same as guidelines, and as such common practice (bolstered by related discussions) is typically a more accurate guide of what to do. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the date to the infobox isn't a CRYSTAL violation, we have a valid source. 117Avenue (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, we do not do that, based on long-established convention and subsequent discussions. Note that we don't update episode counts prior to a new episode airing for much the same reason. While the network may well intend to air the event at that time, there are too many variables that can affect it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Lang Character

What's Stephen Lang's character's name? Is it Frank Taylor or Nathanial Taylor? It's a little confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.226.249 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary insufficient detail warning box thingy

I think the current summary about an unaired show is exactly 100% perfectly fine. If I knew how to remove it I would! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.8.165 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporal What Now?

Really? That's the plan? Go back in time to start Humanity again 85 million years ago? Instead of space, which is feasible, and doesn't require fraking with time.

On that subject the first trip back would destroy the future timeline - hence no more trips back, because guess what...you just Marty McFly'd yourself into Robinson Crusoe: Temporal Campout Edition.

Can anyone say "Alternate 1985" *underlines with chalk* Wolfe202 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually read that it's more like they are going to an alternate Earth that is way in the past. 66.41.255.44 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! I was thinking of all these things after finding out of the premise of this show. There would be a paradox in so much that there would be a whole new past that would almost certainly belie the ancestry of these would-be time travelers; thus, no one to travel back in time; thus, no messing with the past; thus, messing with the past. Also, if they go back 85 million years, or whatever, this would result in over-population sooner because, let's be honest, after a few generations the lessons of the past will be forgotten and people will procreate like normal. I would have to suggest, not having seen the show, that it must be an alternate earth otherwise this would be a glaring oversight by the producers and writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless, despite having travelled back in time to save the human race, humanity becomes extinct shortly after the events of the series. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if humanity becomes extinct in the future (i.e., the group of humans from which the time travelers came) then this would not disrupt the time loop. But, if the travelers who go back in the past all die (i.e. go extinct), then humanity does not really go extinct but rather it would proceed, presumably, in its normal fashion. Albeit, with the potential for later archaeologists to find some really odd artifacts of a very advanced civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While this conversation is pretty interesting, Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. Please keep it to how to improve the article. Pretty please? Millahnna (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How about a link to a place where we can discuss it? Maybe someone's facebook wall?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

Why do we need to provide one for you, are you too lazy to use Google? I hear it is absolutely amazing for that. Seriously, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite; and there are so many of those, it really isn't too difficult to track a few down. They aren't exactly uncommon on the internet. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with Wikipedians wanting a forum?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

Melican makes appropriate objections. It isn't difficult to find forums and, while "Wikipedians" may want a forum, it is not in Wikipedia's scope to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.146.176 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Haysbert & Raven Symone?

I see them listed as recurring characters. Is this true? I'd love to see Haysbert on here but googling him and the show brings no other matches. i think somebody messed with this page.66.41.255.44 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's unsourced and the roles don't appear on either of their articles. I removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Concept?

The series is claimed to stem from an original concept by Kelly Marcel... Hardly. This concept reflects a plethora of earlier sci-fi; Julian May's The Saga of the Exiles, Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder, ITV's Primeval, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atticus Dogsbody (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but those don't rely on 'idiot plot' and cliche dialogue... there's your difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.89.118 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I added into the text that the major theme has been covered before - in the Star Trek (Original Series) episode All Our Yesterdays. By this I mean where people in peril go to the distant past to start anew. This is not an opinion, but a fact.

It was removed without reason. I re-edited it back in and it was removed again without reason. Is there someone protecting the series from edits that show that the series is no a truly original concept?

Montalban (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know who removed it the first time, but I removed it the last time. Your paranoid conspiracy theory about someone from the show notwithstanding, it's simple. Your personal opinions about what shows had similar themes is really WP:OR. If you find a reliable source that makes those assertions, then they might be relevent and added.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The theme of Terra Nova is that they go back in time to start anew - it's in the plot.

The theme of "All Our Yesterdays" is that they go back in time to start anew - it's in the plot.

I make no statement that one has a plot because of the other, only that the theme has been explored before. I made no inferences. I merely stated fact.

If one can avoid ad hom that would be great (paranoia being an inference).

It's a matter already discussed on fora around the world

quote

You know what's funny is Star Trek (TOS) already told this story with the episode All Our Yesterdays. In the episode the Enterprise crew encounters a planet where all the inhabitants have time traveled to the past because their sun is about to die out. I wonder if that's where they got the idea for this new series http://nightly.net/topic/69939-terra-nova/

quote

My main issue with Terra Nova tho is that ok yeah it's Speilburg but Brannon Braga is also involved. :/ But time travel always sound fun! Even if the plot is taken from the Star Trek ep All Our Yesterdays. http://forums.outpost10f.com/minibb/index.php?action=vthread&forum=6&topic=9592

Discussion

Terra Nova vs All Our Yesterdays http://www.freak-search.com/en/thread/5284781/terra_nova_vs_all_our_yesterdays

My noting a similiarity is what it is. I'm a sci-fi fan.

Montalban (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ad hominem? Get a grip sport. When you start with conspiracy theories about people from the show controlling entries, that is paranoid. It doesn't matter if you are a sci-fi fan or not. You're not a reliable source and neither are those discussion forums you presented. It might be in your best interest to read WP:RS. BTW, tough to take a "source" seriously when they can't even spell Spielberg's name correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, those fail WP:RS in a huge way. If you want to take them to the RSN, fine, but they will tell you the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Post Gazette article is a solid source, but we can't start making it the source for things the author didn't say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Enterprise also had a Terra Nova episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.61.8 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting too is that two of the Terra Nova people worked on Star Trek

Montalban (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Except that the episode is not about travelling back in time at all. It's colonizing a new planet (the TV series is not another planet). So what is similar? The name. Gee......both used the latin phrase for "new land". Remarkable. Maybe this is all related to the Terra Nova (newspaper) in Cape Verde or maybe the Canadian destroyer HMCS Terra Nova (DDE 259). I mean, they have the same name, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The site I added notes it's a cross between Outcasts and Jurassic Park

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11268/1174360-67.stm/#ixzz1ZDpmrwcQ

Apparently one can't know why the writer would say this because he doesn't explicitly say so. That's the thing about 'pop' culture. Montalban (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well welcome to the trials of proper sourcing. Just relax and give it a few days and the media will start making the comparison in reliable sources and it will all be good. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all wonderful mystery that for instance I read in the news about President Obama, and 'cause it doesn't mention he's black, he musn't be

Montalban (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't even make sense. There is no shortage of sources that confirm his race. You might find it enlightening to read the essay WP:TRUTH. To use a simple illustration: If you personally saw a bridge collapse today and wanted to edit the article, what you have to say may be true, but that doesn't mean it can go in the article. You have to wait for a reliable source to print it, even though that reporter might not have even been there. It sounds weird, but that is how Wikipedia works. It's not a question of what people know, it's a matter of what we can show via reliable sources. Again, why not just relax and wait a few days? Chances are someone at a reliable source will make the comparisons. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources that are available today will still be available tomorrow. Sources that will be available tomorrow are not available today. It takes time to build a good article, and as the show progresses and the overarching plot becomes more evident more information will be available to add to the article. There is no rush. Take time and craft it carefully. Rome wasn't built in a day. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to enjoy 'sacred cow' status, even a hint that it's not original gets waves of re-edits. Now a single review that actually shows this connection and I note it's been changed from 'mixed' reviews to 'overwhelmingly positive' reviews.

The issue about 'reliable sources' is a non-issue. I posted that it shared a similar theme. I noted that amongst fan-dom this observation has also been made. These citations were removed - but they showed what has been observed. That a professional film critic didn't make the observation doesn't make the fact it was observed any less so. I made no point that the observations show a direct relationship between the development of one show to the other... although it is interesting to note that a couple of key people were also on Star Trek.

With so much money at stake I guess the studios are allowed to exert some influence on film critics.

Montalban (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that only four or five reviews are even presented, only one of which is negative. Given the amount of hype this show received, I'm sure it was viewed by more than five critics. Saying it received "overwhelmingly" positive reviews is, I note, flying in the face of WP:NPOV. We should present the facts, not summarize them; that's just original research. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Several of the positive criticisms also note that the show has drawn on other themes with comments that it's a cross between Lost and Jurassic Park. I don't get why this was an issue. It's not a negative (nor a positive) statement, just an observation. I wonder if the editor who cited The Washington Post realises that they have now added an acknowledgement to this because it says it is a "Swiss Family Robinson-style" show. That is, it follows a theme of the Swiss Family Robinson - which incidentally followed Robinson Crusoe which itself is based on real-life events. None of these connections lessen my ability to enjoy a show.

critics aren't sci-fi fans

Montalban (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you guys on about? Most of Shakespeare's stories weren't totally original ideas. He and his plays are still well regarded. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the very thing I don't understand. Initially I noted that the theme of escaping into the distant past had been explored before – like in "All Our Yesterdays" (an Star Trek episode)

This was edited out. I don't see it as a negative. It's just a fact. However I get the feeling that some see it as a negative and they've tried to re-edit the article to give a spin that is nothing but positive. Even changing 'mixed reviews' to 'overwhelmingly positive reviews'.

Montalban (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing "original" about Terra Nova. The plot, the characters, the conflicts, and the political intrigue are so familiar as to be cliched. That does not mean it cannot be a good show. As long as the producers and writers maintain the production quality and can give new twists to old themes, I'll keep watching.PNW Raven (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

not as credited

"However, they are unaware that the colony is in the middle of a group of carnivorous dinosaurs.[4]" This reference not only doesn't contain this sentence but doesn't even state the idea. Further, if you land in the middle of a group of carnivorous dinosaurs, possible consequences include getting stepped on or getting mingled with the animal's flesh. Move the reference to something it actually states and then rewrite this sentence to make sense. 4.249.63.28 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Receiving the "Glee" Treatment

Did this show come under fire when Fox said it would receive the "Glee" treatment?P3771 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

tenth?

How is the tenth pilgrimage the first colony when the sixth is already there? Wouldn't the tenth be, well, the tenth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're misreading it. The colony, Terra Nova, is the first settlement established. Only one other (that of the Sixers) is, at this time known to exist. The tenth pilgrimmage is the tenth group of immigrants to that first colony. Each pilgrimmage doesn't set up its own colony. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot Hole?

I'm unclear as to just how it was determined that a colony could be established. If the time rift can only be traveled one way, how could the first person (presumably Taylor) let anyone know that he survived, what he found, that this was a gateway to the past, and that it was possible to colonize here. Did the people back in the 22nd century just assume he made it into the past and started sending supplies and colonist? Or is it possible for the two time periods to still communicate through the rift? If there's an explanation, I'm not seeing it. PNW Raven (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) PNW Raven (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that will be answered as time goes on. There have only been two episodes so far. I think people are looking too deeply into the mythology at this early point in time for details such as this to be considered plot holes worth inclusion in the article. And again, please note the header at the top of the talk page: Wikipedia is not a forum. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware this is not a forum. My question specifically pertained to the series' overall plot structure, and whether or not this detail had been explained by the show's writers. This is to help me with future edits. I'm sorry if that was unclear. PNW Raven (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood. The only possibility that strikes me is that, when they said it was an alternate timeline because the beacon/message never reached the present/future, they were lying about it (for some unknown reason that will become clear later on). Whatever the reason, I'm sure it will crop up as the season progresses. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some searching in reliable sources would help you more than asking here. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundant sneaky content?

In the Broadcast section we are told "Terra Nova was expected to premiere in May 2011 with a two-hour sneak preview..." I have two concerns here:

-Is there really any point telling us what WAS going to happen, but didn't? Is it encyclopaedic?

-What was sneaky about it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're right that "sneak" probably doesn't belong. The source simply calls it a preview and I've removed "sneak". However, the "what was going to happen" seems significant in this case. They planned an early preview, promoted it and then were forced to move it back due to production being more than they anticipated. That seems relevent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely it is relevant and encylopaedic. It is part of the information on development and production, and those details are often hard to come by depending on what the subject is. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But in the long term, is anyone going to care? Did Shakespeare encounter any delays getting any of his productions onto the stage? You probably don't know. Do you care? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually. It's all part of being comprehensive and is essential to develop the best articles on here. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Shakespeare production was delayed? Why do you care about it? Sorry. Was asking three questions in one post too much? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It was; the Shakespeare question was the one I was not replying to. But to answer your subsequent question, I care because it shows the development process of the play. Taking this hypothetical Shakespeare scenario, it would tell us about his writing process, and perhaps a little of the politics of theatre in his era. Was it delayed because of writer's block? Were elements of the play changed from the way he envisaged/first drew it out because of that? How did it change the theme, climax, or emotion of the show? Was it delayed because the people in power (ie. the theatre owners) disagreed with the play he had created (imagine their reaction if it centred around a homosexual relationship back in that day!)? Or was it perhaps the actors who disagreed with the roles they had to take on? Again that leads us into how Shakespeare worked around the writing problems so that the play could, eventually, go forwards. Or perhaps he had financial issues and that delayed aspects of production. I am not a fan of Billy Shakespeare, but I would find any and all of that information to be most interesing. I would counter that it is, in fact, essential information for the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• If this were the Shakespeare article, I'd be concerned. It's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have both missed the point. (I should have guessed three points in one post would be too much for some TV Sci-Fi fans.) We don't know if any Shakespeare production was delayed, and nobody cares. It's trivia. I'm quite looking forward to this show (t starts tonight where I live), but I don't want the article filled with fan column gossip. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Too much for some TV Sci-Fi fans"? There's no need to be uncivil or degrading; there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate and, quite frankly, I would much rather discuss it here on the talk page, with respect, than edit-war over it and sling insults. The Shakespeare scenario was hypothetical; we both acknowledged it as such. You consider the fact that the premiere was delayed to be trivia. I consider it important information on the development process. Neither 'side' (for lack of a better term) is more right or wrong than the other. That's why we have discussions like this and consensus to decide what is to be included. If you want an opinion from editors more experienced than either of us in television articles, might I suggest opening a discussion at one of the relevant Wikiprojects? Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of counting how many (alleged) points you made in a single reply, you should concentrate on making one of them a good one. Just because a question gets asked doesn't mean it merits an actual response. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that valid points I made, and that were not meant to be read in isolation, were ignored, gave me an impression that you were either being rude, or not understanding. I am willing to admit that I don't always understand complex issues, but I don't just ignore what others say. That's where the rudeness started. Once you ignore part of a post, your argument loses credibility. It's VERY frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever dude. Pat yourself on the back about these imagined "points" all you want. The bottom line is that THIS article has info about the delay and so far, 2 experienced editors disagree with you. Now, you can try to discuss something productive or you can keep whining about what didn't get addressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mixed reviews

It seems some object to the term mixed reviews in the sentence Terra Nova has received mixed reviews

Some have re-edited this to overwhelmingly positive reviews, or generally positive.

As far as I can see one can only qualify such if one does a survey of all reviews given and then looks at the ratio of positive to over-all figures. And this has not been done. The best is one magazine surveyed five or so reviews. It can then be said that its survey showed 'generally positive' reviews, but that this figure is only related to the limited data of their survey. Montalban (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the exact same thing could be said for 'mixed'. Such a sentence is inherently original research, regardless of whether the reviews are deemed positive, negative, or mixed. I would think that the best course of action would be to remove such a summarizing statement altogether and just say what the reviews are. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Mixed means simply that some are good and some are bad - which is evidenced by the fact that some good and bad have been cited. Mixed doesn't suggest proportion at all.

It is the proportional factor that is original research - unless someone can show all reviews given and how many are positive.

Montalban (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I gotta go with Montalban on this one. "Mixed" doesn't really imply a proportion to me. And while Montalban knows that I'm no fan or OR :), this isn't OR to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one negative review listed, and the real crux of that review is ignored by the entry. Reading the actual review, he essentially says the series is good as long as they keep the production values up, but he doubts that they will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.199 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the comment "Stargate:SGU by Dr. Seuss" not positive -unless one likes Dr Seuss' contribution to sci-fi. However we'll end up disagreeing on whether we perceive it to be negative, or positive. And, I don't say that the Boston Herald review is typical of negative comments. However this misses the point that there's no survey of all reviews done, therefore one can't say that they're overwhelmingly positive.

Montalban (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it's received critical reception, especially concerning what many consider to be bland characters. There's been a lot of talk about the cliches in it. The rebel son, wanting a new life, black people dying like they were wearing red shirts, etc. I'd say that most reviews were neutral but hopeful about the future.

"A lot of talk about it" means nothing. What is being chatted up on sci-fi forums etc has no encyclopedia value. When a reliable source writes about the "cliches", then we'll look at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Links to ACE and The Gold Coast need to be disambiguated to American Cinema Editors and Gold Coast, Queensland. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected against editing

Why is this? The page could do with some minor cleanup.

• Agreed. Semi-protect would have squashed most of the edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested, but full-protection was given instead. It should be lifted either later today or some point tomorrow I think. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.181.171.25, 4 October 2011

The character Reynolds is not fully described, it should add ",a soldier who seems to have a crush on Maddy"

69.181.171.25 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)