Talk:V (2009 TV series)

Television Start‑class

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about V (2009 TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about V (2009 TV series) at the Reference desk.

Globalize tag

Just because americans awaken doesn't mean the world does. The spaceships must appear during daytime in several countries if they appear simultaneously - thus, these inhabitants do not "awaken" to see them. CapnZapp (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... seriously? Where in the article does it say that the Visitors show up nightside in North America? For all you know, they'll depict the Visitors' ships arriving at four in the afternoon New York time. "The world awakens..." is an expressive, not literal phrase. Relax. Dave (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer clearly shows the Visitor ships arriving over the USA in the daytime. There is a very brief shot of a ship over London at night. If "the world awakens" is insufficiently global (and I don't think it's really important enough to worry about), it's because it doesn't include America. - Laterensis (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is OR (lol) but I watched the entire pilot and the ships arrive in the morning in the US, which is obviously not morning everywhere (they cut to other countries and show Anna speaking on other languages, but I don't recall the day/night stuff). It seems like a simple and logical fix.— TAnthony^Talk 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Does anyone know if any of the original cast from the 1984 series will appear in the remake? --Mikecraig (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, none of them have been announced as appearing.— TAnthony^Talk 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There has been some discussion that right wing subtext may permeate the show. It certainly appears that way from the trailers. This Salon article describes it fairly accurately, though showing people subtext is hard enough when they are unbiased about it. When they are biased against it, well...there will be a discussion I suppose. Still, this isn't exactly subtle. --67.149.196.50 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably watch the show first. The original TV miniseries painted the Visitors as Fascists (which they were). In news and entertainment media, fascists usually equal "right-wingers" (a highly debateable point). We'll have to see how the new show plays that out. But personally, I hope I'm wrong - a little right-wing bias in entertainment TV is so rare as it is! It would be refreshing! Btw, the Salon piece appears to be opinion/commentary, and is not a reliable source beyond quoting the author's opinion. Also, all the concepts presented in the quotes from the series were there in the original also. It's not the same script, obviously, but that's as it should be. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better question (although, perhaps not one that should be debated here) is not whether the show is right/left wing, but how it differs from the original. In the 1984 miniseries, scientists are depicted as the primary skeptics, who later become vilified through propaganda. But the description of the 2009 series, and the clips put online, don't seem to reference this idea. Instead, it looks like the role of "scientist" will be replaced with "FBI agent" and "pastor," which is awfully suggestive.129.2.167.219 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually good to include a portion about controversy. So far, the only ones picking up on it are blogs with opinions but, really, that won't keep. Give it a week or so. We'll probably be up to our eyeballs in articles about this subject. I actually do think the show is about the dangers of idolizing someone too much. Whether that's an allegory about Obama remains to be seen. The public wanting "hope" and "change", though? That's a bit suspect. Scientists being replaced by priests? Yeah, that's a bit much, too. But, no biggie. There are just as many left-wing shows as there are shows that lean to the right. I do find it humorously fitting, though. A small group thinks that "V" is propaganda but the majority just think it's some brilliant new show on TV...does the show really have an ulterior motive??? :D Good stuff. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's a political motive, although they may be playing a marketing game to stir up interest. The creators are definitely trying to tap into the current trend of paranoia and anti-elitism, which is obvious from the promotional material.129.2.167.219 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TabacoMan77 is on the right road with the "hope" and "change" part. Furthermore, the Visitors specifically promise "universal healthcare". On top of that, they're also shown to be terrorists, and a few right-wing nutjobs have called Obama a terrorist.96.234.154.13 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are all entiled to our opinions. The article isn't. - BilCat (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched the show last night, I can say, with certainty, that it is a thinly-veiled slap to the Obama Administration (you would have to be pretty dense not to see it - if the "hope" and "change" references didn't convince you, the bit where the aliens present a plan for "Universal Health Care" should just about seal that suspicion) but, really, to cover this in the article under "Controversy", you need sources.TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. Controversy section is now added complete with several reliable sources (reviews). I think I wanna bump this as a sub-section underneath "Reception" but not sure. I think it stands on its own. On another note, I think that the "First Episode" synopsis needs to be removed and put on its own page.TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, I agree. I created the pilot episode page and will remove "First Episode" from this page in a second. Though criticism is part of the reception and I feel it should go under "Reception" as a sub-section. I'll leave that for now. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply restore the original pre-controversy text, while keeping the various references in that section, I added the "Undue weight" tag, as this section give far too much coverage, balanced or not, to this issue. Usually edit conflict tags ae given some time for opinions of others to be eard, rather than being summarily removed - twice - by the person who added the section in the first place. I really should have known what would happen when I added that tag - "Screw it" sums up the editor's attitude towards the differing opinions of others so well! - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "controversy", by definition, is a "discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views". The controversy, in this case stems from the opposing viewpoints on this subject (people who thinks it's an Obama commentary vs. the producers who say "no, it isn't"). BOTH sides are represented in the article's section, therefore it's neutral. You cannot dispute the fact that it's there and verifiable and noteworthy. On a more personal note, the phrase, "screw it" was my attempt at being facetious and saying, "I got enough stuff to list here, I'm going for broke". But, honestly, I didn't really think that needed to be explained.TabascoMan77 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section does not contain any "controversy", just pure speculations. It should be removed as trivia.

P.S. Did anyone ever wonder whether Darth Vader is right or left wing? No, because invasion is war, not politics.85.130.10.106 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stations Not Airing...

Admittedly, I'm a bit pissed about this, which is why I won't add it to the article due to my bias, but it appears that at least one major market station (WKRN in Nashville) will not be airing this. --Smashville^talk 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This post is all I could find on the issue, and it sates that V will air at 12:05am EST. I haven't seen any reason as to why it's not airing at 7pm, but the Jeff Fisher Show is running instead. Do you have anything from reliable news sources? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

The wiki article for Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" mentions that the original "V" series has an opening scene based on the opening of his famous book. The preview of this new series certainly draws the same influence from Clarke. The Hulu promo mentions that the aliens come "bearing a universal message of hope to the world". This is similar to Clarke's aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.147.52 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity is not in and of itself evidence of influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.75.78 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]