Talk:Warehouse 13: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Pilot (Part I and II): confusing , wish it was fixed |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:So I took a look, and what I would call Part 2 (where the Comb story begins) starts slightly sooner than halfway, which makes me guess that it would be difficult to break the show into equal halves for syndication. Also, it aired all at once, while the ''Battlestar Galactica '' premiere was over two nights. So for now, I actually think it should be listed as one episode until we have reason not to. I'll make the change.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
:So I took a look, and what I would call Part 2 (where the Comb story begins) starts slightly sooner than halfway, which makes me guess that it would be difficult to break the show into equal halves for syndication. Also, it aired all at once, while the ''Battlestar Galactica '' premiere was over two nights. So for now, I actually think it should be listed as one episode until we have reason not to. I'll make the change.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
when looking at isohunt.com the pilot is listed in one file but labeled as episode 1 & 2. episode 3 is called resonance. the listing on wikipedia is confusing because of the difference. (UTC) |
|||
=="Benign" objects== |
=="Benign" objects== |
Revision as of 23:18, 6 August 2009
![]() | The article Pilot (Warehouse 13) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 July 2009 with a consensus to merge the content into Warehouse 13. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}. |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Television C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Science Fiction C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Question
Does this show have any relation to the GURPS book Warehouse 23? The underlying concepts (what little is described so far) sound identical to the concepts of the sourcebook. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
I believe a citation of similarity to The Librarian should be added since Friday the 13th: The Series is noted. When I watched the pilot I definately got a X-Files, Librarian, FTT:TS vibe from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
GURPS Warehouse 23 = This Show. Of course, Warehouse 23 = the warehouse at the end of Indiana Jones first movie. Regardless, though, it's like these guys read the Warehouse 23 book and said, "Hey, look, this is a functional script." 65.16.205.188 (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Terry Whisenant (Austin, TX)
This show seems a little like the FOX show "Fringe" doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.90.189 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Accompanying books
Is there a book to this series or are they just not out yet. I checked Amazon and could only find "Data Warehouse" suggestions (Darn preference history settings I guess - I hate those.)71.236.26.74 (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Pilot (Part I and II)
I think that both pilots should be put under the same heading in the table, though I'm not sure how one would go about formatting that properly. There are several reasons for this to happen. It wasn't really two episodes. Yes, it took 2 hours, but it was essentially just one, double length, episode. There was only one episodic story, and there wasn't a clear definition of where one "episode" would end, and the next begins. Furthermore, the plot description for the second pilot is lacking substance (because it's the same plot as the first).
Does anyone know how they could be merged properly? I've tried looking on other TV show pages, but most of them have only one hour pilots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.248.22 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dynasty premiered with a three-hour episode that was subsequently split into three episodes for syndication and the DVD, and it is listed as three episodes here. The reimagined Battlestar Galactica premiere is also listed in parts here. Though we obviously don't know yet how the Warehouse 13 episode will be packaged for syndication and DVDs, I don't see an issue with it staying listed the way it is; it seemed to me that the episode was somewhat clearly split, with the whole "welcome to the warehouse" thing in Part 1 and the Borgia comb story in Part 2. I'll get it out of the TiVo, watch it again, and report back ;) — TAnthonyTalk 04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- So I took a look, and what I would call Part 2 (where the Comb story begins) starts slightly sooner than halfway, which makes me guess that it would be difficult to break the show into equal halves for syndication. Also, it aired all at once, while the Battlestar Galactica premiere was over two nights. So for now, I actually think it should be listed as one episode until we have reason not to. I'll make the change.— TAnthonyTalk 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
when looking at isohunt.com the pilot is listed in one file but labeled as episode 1 & 2. episode 3 is called resonance. the listing on wikipedia is confusing because of the difference. (UTC)
"Benign" objects
Out of curiosity, what indications do we have that the rugby ball is special? To me, on first viewing, the impression was given that that was an effect of the Warehouse and not the ball. Seems that 'items' would be too important to leave outside like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.202.221 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- You make a good point, though it seemed to me like the ball was empowered or whatever but harmless enough not to need to be locked up. It definitely seems like a number of "benign" objects and contraptions like this will be worth noting in some manner (perhaps not in the same way as the "bad" ones), like the "Thomas Edison Concept Car," the video communicator device, the neutralizing agent, etc. etc.— TAnthonyTalk 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Comparisons
Given the steampunk style and 'feel' very similar to that of Sanctuary (even the theme music!) it would be nice to have a citation for such a link. Anyone come across one though? --AlisonW (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Item lists
The items in every episode don't need to be listed, especially since only one or two actually have any relevance to the plot. Unlike The Lost Room, where the items are the focus, this show focuses more on getting the items. Things like the mirror, the football, laughing bell, and so forth have no effect on the plot, no more so than M. C. Escher designing the Warhouse's electrical grid (at least at the moment). As WP:TRIVIA notes, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." These item lists apply. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- As I agree that it maybe isn't the best solution to put them in the episode list, I do however disagree that they are irrelevant to the story. These items are as important to the show as the objects from The Lost Room. Over half of those items where never named or even seen in the show (the belt, second cufflink, …) and had even less to do with the show, items like the mirror were actually used. Perhaps a new section with the items as a prose paragraph is more suitable. As WP:TRIVIA notes: "…it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." Xeworlebi (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good position to argue from. The object list has its problems, but those objects are quantifiable and for the most part relevant. The objects in this show are potentially limitless (whatever they happen to think up, basically) and almost meaningless to the plot at large. You can't tell me that Lattimer playing ping pong with his reflection has any bearing on the episode it appears in. I would agree that the primary objects (the head, comb, etc), would deserve mention, but listing things for the sake of listing things is what trivia explicitly warns against doing, and that is what these item lists are. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I made the comparison because the shows are so alike. A Warehouse 13 article without the items would be weird, because it's the core of the show. I agree that items that are just mentioned or seen should not necessarily be mentioned but the items that the episode is about definitely should. But then the problem presents what items should be included? I would suggest only the core items, those that they look for or play a vital part in the episode; Aztec Bloodstone, Lucretia Borgia's Comb, Unreleased Record (camera?) and James Braid's Chair. Perhaps add a new column like this example with just the item and no explanation. what it does/how it works should be in the summary of the episode. Xeworlebi (t•c) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- That would be fine. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I made the comparison because the shows are so alike. A Warehouse 13 article without the items would be weird, because it's the core of the show. I agree that items that are just mentioned or seen should not necessarily be mentioned but the items that the episode is about definitely should. But then the problem presents what items should be included? I would suggest only the core items, those that they look for or play a vital part in the episode; Aztec Bloodstone, Lucretia Borgia's Comb, Unreleased Record (camera?) and James Braid's Chair. Perhaps add a new column like this example with just the item and no explanation. what it does/how it works should be in the summary of the episode. Xeworlebi (t•c) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good position to argue from. The object list has its problems, but those objects are quantifiable and for the most part relevant. The objects in this show are potentially limitless (whatever they happen to think up, basically) and almost meaningless to the plot at large. You can't tell me that Lattimer playing ping pong with his reflection has any bearing on the episode it appears in. I would agree that the primary objects (the head, comb, etc), would deserve mention, but listing things for the sake of listing things is what trivia explicitly warns against doing, and that is what these item lists are. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Episode List
I think that the Episode List should be annexed into a separate article to avoid the main page getting longer than it should be. At the moment it is unneeded but doing it preemptively could be beneficial in the long run. Besides, this is how every other show I ever look at on Wikipedia does things, the have an article regarding basic plot, history, and characters (which are also annexed beyond the main cast) and then they have an article for an episode list (sometimes giving an article per episode but I don't think that is needed for this show). Thoughts? Jaj43123 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)