Talk:Glee (TV series)

FA Status!

Just so I know, whats keeping this article from featured status? Whatever it is lets get it fixed!! Does it just need assesment for FA status? Or does somebody see something that needs changing? Thanks! Lets do it!! Flightx52 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Writer!

The show has received mostly positive reviews from critics and viewers. The series won the 2010 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series—Musical or Comedy and received three additional nominations for Best Actress (Lea Michele), Best Actor (Matthew Morrison), and Best Supporting Actress (Jane Lynch). The show won a People's Choice Award for Favorite New TV Comedy in 2010. Its first season also earned a Peabody Award. It received a comedy writing award at the Just for Laughs conference in Montreal in July 2010.[3] It won four Emmy Awards including Outstanding Supporting Actress – Jane Lynch, Outstanding Guest Actor for Neil Patrick Harris and Outstanding Direction of a Comedy Series for Ryan Murphy's direction of the pilot episode. It was also nominated for 15 other Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Comedy Series, Outstanding Actress – (Lea Michele), Outstanding Actor – (Matthew Morrison), Outstanding Supporting Actor – (Chris Colfer), Outstanding Guest Actress – Kristin Chenoweth, and Outstanding Guest Actor for Mike O'Malley. It also received one writing nomination and one other nomination for directing.

Awards

Given an 8-line list of awards, I think I might change "mostly positive" to "positive". Or what the heck, "excellent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.252.248 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the whole article, note Glee_(TV_series)#Reception how there are some negative reviews from Parents Television Council, which I absolutely despise, but for WP:Neutrality sake, we gotta list positive and negatives reviews. CTJF83 chat 02:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Revised lyrics of Imagine

I think that it's significant that Glee's version of Imagine omits the first verse that imagines a world without religion. It reflects a trend that I have seen in other copies (another well-known example is David Archuleta), where the performer wants to change the lyrics either because of their own religious bias or because of a desire to avoid controversy with fundamentalist groups. I think it's important to note significant changes in lyrics such as this, and believe that an editor's refusal to allow mention of it on the Glee wikipedia page only reinforces that it is a deliberate attempt to censor or sanitize Lennon's views and work for a mass audience.Keplerfan (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than your own personal opinion, why is this any more notable than any other edit they've done to any other song? CTJF83 chat 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Keplerfan - as I said in my edit summary, a lot of the songs covered in Glee are condensed from the original version. Do you have a reliable source which claims that the shortening of "Imagine" has these motivations? Without a good source, you run the risk of violating Wikipedia's original research policy. With a source, the main Glee article is probably not the best place for criticism of a single song (potentially giving it undue weight over the dozens of other songs covered), but it should certainly be acceptable in the reception section of the "Hairography" article. Frickative 04:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I also do not see why this is especially notable. As stated above, many Glee covers shorten songs (the most notorious being arguably show tunes), and this is just one of them, but without a reliable source, no verification can be done. I would also like to ask that if this trivial fact is especially notable, would there not be news articles or essays discussing this particular point of view? Yvesnimmo (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not violating the research policy because my edit merely noted that "Glee's cover omits the first verse of Lennon's original lyrics, which imagine a world without religion." That is fact, not opinion. Whether it gives undue weight IS a matter of opinion and we seem to disagree in this case... so who decides? Other than blog commentary, I cannot find a news source that discusses this, perhaps hampered by search engine capabilities or perhaps no one caught it or wanted the information highlighted... the absence of press coverage is in no way a barometer of worthiness for information sharing, in my opinion. Very doubtful that FOX News would go out of their way to point this out, for example. And of course, this show airs on FOX, doesn't it. The absent lyrics are discussed on Archuleta's wikipedia page, and were questioned in the press, by the way. I merely wanted to note that the Glee lyrics are similarly revised so that new, younger listeners realize that this is not the version Lennon intended.Keplerfan (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that this is a fact, but Wikipedia's core policy is about verifiability, not truth. I don't know how one would go about sourcing this, as the album booklet doesn't contain lyrics. And FOX is only one of hundreds of news channels of one country in the world. And, again, if we were to show that "Imagine"'s lyrics were revised from the original, why not for "I Dreamed a Dream", "Total Eclipse of the Heart", "Sweet Caroline", and many, many other arguably notable songs? Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I think you should listen to the song again; because they do imagine a world without religion.Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya, what are you talking about? http://www.hulu.com/watch/109904/glee-hairography the first words out of his mouth are "Imagine there's no heaven"...the video probably will expire today or tomorrow, due to a new episode tonight. CTJF83 chat 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fast forward to 31:30. CTJF83 chat 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen the episode... my remarks pertain solely to the cast album. Listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0mQvIiyMs0 As for verifying Lennon's lyrics, that's easy, just listen to him singing the song plus I don't think there is any controversy over his lyrics which were written and performed by him years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw . As for why mention that lyrics are missing from Imagine... well, they are *important* lyrics and removing them is a disservice to Lennon's legacy and intent.Keplerfan (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's when Mercedes starts singing in the episode. Either way, unfortunately "I don't think there is any controversy" and "removing them is a disservice to Lennon's legacy and intent" are both your opinion, and are not for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As we've all said, you need a reliable source to say why it's removal was for any specific reason...not sure what else we can say without repeating ourselves. CTJF83 chat 17:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that wikipedia in general is subjective, but hate to see it be the standard bearer of revisionism. I did not ask that the reason for removal of the lyrics be stated, I only wanted it noted, because I think that future generations who only hear sanitized versions of Lennon's work should at least be alerted that there has been a change. My question is, who has final authority on this? Are FOX staffers editing this page? I thought wikipedia was a peer collaboration. Keplerfan (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone from Fox is editing this page. No one has the final authority, per say, we just edit it based on policy, of which we've given you several. CTJF83 chat 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"...because I think that future generations who only hear sanitized versions of Lennon's work should at least be alerted that there has been a change": why? I don't. And I don't think reliable, third-party sources do, either. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the rights to "Imagine" are very, very, very difficult to acquire, and Yoko Ono only agreed to allow Glee to cover it when she understood the context; the song was sung with a actual deaf choir played by deaf thespians. I don't think can count as a "disservice to Lennon's legacy", then, whatever that may be. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And just for the record, I do not and have never worked for Fox, nor was my reversion a "deliberate attempt to censor or sanitize Lennon's views and work for a mass audience" ;) Frickative 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the recent covers of the song missing the "religion" portion is significant. I've seen this discussed before, but not about Glee. Maybe, you will find more luck in the article for "Imagine"? I am new to the structure of wikipedia, but I would imagine that the editors of the Imagine artice would be more open to mentioning changes to the song's meaning since they actually care about it.

Exohuman (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but who says they're not mutually exclusive? Also, I don't know why this discussion is ongoing, as the Glee cover actually does not omit any lyrics. The song was performed in its entirety in "Hairography". Yves (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Like a lot of other Glee articles, this one also has a messy Lead section. Can the annoying blue-link fest that is the third paragraph be summarised into neater prose by one of the more regular editors of this page, maybe highlighting its Emmys or the big ones, and consigning the rest to the Reception section? Also, because it's all consolidated it looks like it's been written by fans, there should probably be mention of the more negative reception on season 1's back 9 and critics' subsequent low expectations for the the season 2 première.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I'd read through the lead, but you're quite right, it is a bit of a mess. I'll take a stab at tidying it up later on. Re: the reception, do you know of any decent reviews that discuss the first season or back nine as a whole? I've struggled to find good post-season analyses, and don't want to stray into synthesis territory by comparing episode-by-episode reviews and concluding that later ones were more negative (however true that might be!). Frickative 22:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A good starting point would be the AV Club review of "Audition", it gives a good account of critical summaries of the back 9 and low expectations of season 2. That was sort of what I had in mind when I was saying the above. I totally understand what you mean about synthesis, it's best to stay clear of that, but AV Club's "Audition" review actually does the synthesis itself so it's okay to summarise what it takes to be the critical consensus of the back 9.

I would also suggest, although I'm not certain this is the case, DVD review websites? I suppose the issue is that DVD reviewers base reviews on the first couple of episodes, but perhaps there are some Glee – Volume 2: Road to Regionals reviews out there that tackle the issue more directly? Once the article, and the lead, covers it sufficiently to illustrate that the show's reception is not static (many articles treat the pilot's reception as the show's reception), it will go a long way to improving the overall quality of the article. Because Glee as a show is very responsive to fan criticism, critical reviews, the media and the music industry's responses to it, and whatnot, I suppose (in addition to a tidier, dedicated "Critical reception" section) summarising the seasons in a tree like

==History==
===Season one===
Glee premiered...
After a positively-reviewed half-season, the show's back nine debuted with lukewarm reviews..
background character Santana began to receive more screentime...
===Season two===
Speculation about season two had reflected on the weaknesses of the show's first season; Kristin Dos Santos... Michael Ausiello...
Murphy chose to write an opening segment to the season two opener which directly addressed these issue... praised by reviewer X, deemed unnecessary by reviewer Y...

etc., incorporating real-world information about critical reception and creative decisions alongside accounts of Glee's storylines.

That, however, is a big task. Probably one for a sandbox. But absolutely necessary for an FA, as it should be the article's main body. Compiling it all in a neutral style is an almost academic task, however.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, these are really useful suggestions! I've skimmed a couple of DVD reviews and they're looking like potentially good sources, as is the A.V. Club "Audition" review and a few from the tail end of season one. The proposed "History" section, though definitely a mammoth task, sounds as though it would improve the article a great deal, and is definitely something I'll start working on in a sandbox. I'm going to be a bit busier than expected for the next couple of days, so if anyone else reading wants to take a stab at fixing up the lead, please feel totally free - otherwise I'll get on it at the end of the week. Frickative 07:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The names of the actors on the right side are completely wrong. Someone please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.77.61 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done thank you very much. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone's vandalised the country of origin and the language section

Photo Controversy

Ok there is a big controversy over the GQ magazine pictures with Lea,Dianna,and Cory. Shouldn't we add this to the article? refrence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF5GM_blWZA&feature=fvsr

i know this is the show The Talk but it confirms the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebutton (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any non-youtube links stating it is controversial? CTJF83 chat 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a mention of the shoot and the Parents Television Council response in the article already. I condensed it down to a couple of sentences because an IP editor originally gave it a separate subsection and copied in the entire PTC press release, which I thought gave undue weight to a single incident. I don't mind at all if anyone thinks it deserves a few more lines of coverage, but I do think a whole section is too much. Frickative 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree..so tired of the PTC. CTJF83 chat 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Darren Criss

There have been many news stories recently claiming Darren Criss has been confirmed as a regular on the show, all of which seem to be based on an interview with AfterElton.com. However, a news article from The Associated Press says this is still unconfirmed and that he "could become a regular next year under a newly signed deal". Also, there has been no confirmation or press release from Fox—the press release for the November 30 episode still lists him as a guest star and the fact sheet does not include him, so I have removed him for now. Yves (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...I don't think Sam or Sunshine are even regular characters yet. CTJF83 chat 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the AfterElton wording is ambiguous (RM: He’ll definitely continue through the year and longer. We just signed a deal with him, so I don’t know. AE: He's confirmed to be a regular for the remainder of Season 2 and next season as well? RM: Yes.) On the face of it I can see why news sites are seizing onto the 'regular' comment, but it could just mean he'll be a regular feature on the show, like Mike or Sam, as opposed to a series regular. I agree with waiting until there's unambiguous official confirmation. Frickative 21:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely is ambiguous. And I don't think they would immediately sign him on as a regular cast member after one episode: Harry Shum, Jr. isn't even one of them yet. I think "regular feature" is what he is for now until unambiguity surfaces, like you said. Yves (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Directly from Criss, he's definitely not a series regular yet. Frickative 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the text here for tweaking and adjusting:

During season two, Darren Criss, who plays Blaine, will be made a series regular for the rest of that particular season, and also for season three.

--Ckatz^chat_spy 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, look at that: Harry Shum, Jr.'s regular for next season. Looking as all new regulars were former regular recurring characters, I'd say it is highly improbable for Criss to have become a regular, and his own words from the MTV News interview above confirms this. Yves (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)