Talk:V (2009 TV series)

Long Breaks and Hulu Removal Unacceptable

Whats the deal with the huge break? First a layover for MLB, and then it just quits. Also whats the deal with hulu removal, ABC's website commercials are long and loud, so in the end people will simply torrent the episodes. It will be watched commercial free and ABC will get squat for advertising, zilch, zip, nada. But awesome show, stop slacking and getting greedy just start pumping out episodes already.

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is actually night in Paris and Moscow. It is also clearly stated in the pilot that it is around 9h20 in the morning in New York. The world does not awake by the V, they... get surprised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroppolo (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Why is there no mention of David Richmond-Peck in the cast? Although he may not be "officially" listed as a main cast member, his character (Georgie Sutton) has had at least as much air time and an equally important impact to the storyline as others in the "main cast". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.29.195 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It could also be a tongue-in-cheek poke at how certain groups in this country have vocally equated "Universal Health Care" with "fascism".99.154.119.218 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This isn't a list of unverifiable "facts" nor is this mere "speculation". It has been worked into the article as a follow-up to the "Reception" section. There are several articles on Wikipedia that have full "Controversy" sections as well and they are backed up by reliable and verifiable sources as this one is. If the controversy did not exist, there would be no reason for the producers to defend the show against those who pointed it out.

And as for your confusing observation that "invasion is not politics", I know many a Civics professor who would disagree with you. Invasion is war and as General Mao Tse-Tung once said, "War is politics with bloodshed."

Lastly, why don't you read this:[1] Hopefully, that will clue you in on just how much politics are in the Star Wars saga.TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not the right place for such a discussion, but politics is a science about government over a certain constituency. Invasion of another country or in this case another planet is an act of agression against a group of individuals, who do not belong to that constituency and are not a subject of the laws of the invaders. According to international law, war is a crime, commited by one country against the other. When it merges with politics, the result is an empire.(Much like the Roman Empire, where there was no distinction between the two terms.)85.130.10.106 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So, essentially, you are proving my point that politics and war and invasion are all one in the same and that war is, essentially, a perversion of just politics. Thanks.

Regardless, this argument means absolutely nothing in regards to the issue of the "Controversy" section which is going to be kept here since it has to do with the show. Thank you.TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder who is producing the show, ABC or FAUX(FOX)news? The continued disrespect shown to the President of The United States is repulsive. The last time I checked it was the American people, after eight years of George W. Bush, that heralded Obama as somekind of Messiah. However, the harsh reality is that he is a President (who has to go through the red tape and bureacracy)just like the 43 previous ones. The allegory was more transparent than saran wrap. Next, ABC will produce an anti-christ show starring Michael Ealy as President Osama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.247.253 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The producers are probably trying to generate controversy, so they probably love the controversy section in the Wikipedia article. Hell, maybe they even typed it themselves. It's a way to generate lots of publicity for their film, and judging by the 14 million viewers it worked. JettaMann (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In answering a previous rhetoric question, which was "Did anyone ever wonder whether Darth Vader is right or left wing? No..." I would like to point out that Darth Vader and the Empire, the Rebel Alliance, etc., sure smell a lot like World War Two, especially if you consider Darth's 'Imperial Stormtroopers' and Germany's Stoßtruppen, or Stormtroopers. If you watch old black and white reels on YouTube about how the National Socialist German Workers’ Party came into power under the leadership of Adolf Hitler you'd see that there are many, many similarities between the two socialists, that is, Hitler, and President Obama. I think this article does well to address the controversy which this TV series brings to light.Invmog (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a fascist not a socialist. I think this controversy section need to go beyond the Obama references (I can't see any in the show) to the obvious propaganda against socialism itself. e.g. the visitors have one world government provide universal health care etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.143.158 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Count me as one of those who feels the "controversy" section doesn't explain one bit why the show is "controversial". It just quotes a bunch of people calling it "controversial" without explaining why. That's the real problem here. It points out that many critics felt the story was an allegory to the Obama presidency. And? Beyond that, what's so controversial? Is there a legitimate uproar in opposition of this show? If there is, it needs to be described in this section, otherwise the content doesn't warrant the title of the section. Some say that there is one by "definition", and that the section should be included in anticipation of further controversy. Well...WP:BALL, and until there is significant coverage, it doesn't deserve mention. I'm all for including the information about how critics are viewing it as the Obama allegory, but not under the pretense of being "controversy". At least not yet. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes...except the first critic actually notes that there are viewers who have noticed and points out that the blogosphere (consisting of the viewing public - there were several of these blogs last time I looked) has also taken note of this as well. Whether you like it or not, it is a "controversy" if one side says it and the other side is vehemently denying it. We could, by all means, change it to something like "allegorical subtext" or something like "perceived allegories" but "controversy" pretty much sums up that up neatly seeing as both the critics and the viewing public have both made the same observations. TabascoMan77 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS...I am happy that somebody rightly pointed out that Hitler was a fascist dictator and not a Socialist. Whoever thinks Hitler is the definition of Socialism needs to repeat their Government Civics and Political History courses. Added to this, you cannot begin to compare Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. Especially when one just won the Nobel Peace Prize for their contributions in just the last few months and the other was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. Until Obama systematically, cruelly, and calculatedly murders millions of people unjustly, he's an American and believes in the same freedoms that you and I do. Bush was called Hitler before this and I seem to remember quite a few idiotic Republicans calling Clinton, "Hitler" before that. Both are ludicrous statements. Just because somebody does not agree with your ideals doesn't mean you condemn them as a Nazi and compare them to one of the most demented and sick people this world has ever seen. Seriously, if I even need to point this out to somebody, they need to repeat high school or grow a brain. TabascoMan77 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems largely off topic. --Lopside (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn´t this one of those controversy sections that makes an article worse and should be merged into for example the "reception" part? I mean, they said "úniversal healthcare" once. It seems overhyped.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I´m being bold and shortening the first sentence in the section. I don´t see a point in the "background" except perhaps have the words Obama and nazis in the same sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the show has stirred up some controversy, but is this not the trend in recent Science Fiction? The reimaging of Battlestar Galactica comes to mind, especially in the Third season plotlines, specifically the "Occupation" theme, including suicide bombers, resistance fighters, government collaborators etc. Also, this may just be seen as nitpicking but the above writers are incorrect in their belief that Hitler was not a socialist, Nazism, or National Socialist were indeed one variety of socialists, The mistaken belief that fascism was/is an expression of extreme "right wing" philosophy, was propogated by the Soviet's and was a form of propoganda, Fascist were the enemy of communists after all, so therefore MUST be right wingers (assuming one considers communists to be left wing) If you look at the individual philospophies each movement, Communist, and Fascist espoused you will see more similarities then differences, This is not the place to discuss such things, but a good reference is the book "Modern Fascism" by Rev. George Veith (Concordia Publishing House) which presents a very good discussion of the differences, and similarities between these two philosophies, and explores historically and currently where these philosophies find favor today. Now back to V, Part of the alleged controversy I see is not so much that the Visitor's are portrayed as an allegory of the Obama administration (I find the the similarities, interesting) but that the Visitors are presented in such a way as to "sugar coat" the bitter pill of totalitarianism. I think it works well because in real life these are the ways dictators come to power, not by warfare but through giving people what they want, I think the writers and producers of V should be applauded for taking the much subtler and in my oppinion interesting path to showing the Vistor's "villiany" - Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheldarstl1 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Arf! In addition to the flu vaccine worries seemingly stoked by the season finale, anyone notice the passing mention of long waits for health care? Mere coincidence that this is precisely the concern for health care reform expressed by so many conservative pundits? I found one rather amateur reviewer who took note, any pros out there in the real media comment on this? --Lopside (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some aspects of Hitler's "National Socialism" (Nazism) were indeed socialist, but not so much as it was nationalist. It must be remembered that Hitler gained the support of Germany's conservative establishment (including most of the top corporations and capitalists) before winning the popular (populist?) democratic support of the voters. The "socialist" (welfare-statist) parts of the Nazi program were mainly window dressing to appease German moderates who might have otherwise been open to Communism or democratic socialism; most true leftists were killed or imprisoned; it was a way that Germany's status quo thought they could continue to rule with impunity while minor "socialist" reforms would appease any popular appetite for true socialism. Although benefits were provided for soldiers and some workers, most Germans were commanded to work and punished or reeducated if they were seen as being lazy; the weak and disabled were sidelined or killed. Overall, Nazism was a right-wing authoritarian and totalitarian military dictatorship; it was right-wing because it glorified the military and war, the traditional power structure (church, aristocracy, Junkers, corporations, religion and moralism, tradition, hard-work, family values, altruism (self-sacrifice), doing your duty, serving your country, etc. (Communist dictators like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. did this too; that's why they are better described as "Red fascists and nationalists" than as leftists, let alone as "liberals"). While Hitler himself as an adult may not have privately held Christian views---and some of the SS may have dabbled in neo-paganism---traditional Christianity and its morality was enforced for all the rest, and regular Germans who lived through that era remember the very religious and Christian puritanical nature of Nazism, very contrary to the "atheistic, socialistic, ultra-modern" connotations that recent American conservatives have tried to recast it as. The producers of this revamped "V" must surely know what they are doing; if they are not right-wingers (Republicans or libertarians) themselves, they must just be opportunists who are in it solely for the money they can make by appealing to that audience, much unlike the 1980s series which was more pro-liberal; the chief hero was cast as a journalist instead of a Christian clergyman (although one of those was included too, albeit as a minor character). In the 1980s, the Visitors took control of the entire establishment: government, media, organized religion, etc., but their most formidable allies were the large private corporations who were their willing and knowing accomplices, all for the sake of power & profit. In the 2010's, I guess it's just the government/"liberal" media who are their allies, while religion and the corps are supposedly all against them. Really believable (if you're a dyed-in-the-wool Fox Newsie, that is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.125.178 (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some observers fail to notice the sops to the left that are also implicit. First, that "we'll make them dependent on Blue Energy and then shut it off" could be seen more directly as a commentary on the huge multi-national oil companies controlling human destiny than as a dig on a more vague sense of an emerging "dependence class" under Obama. Note that "Blue Energy" has to do with energy. Also, the series has definitely taken the stance that powerful interests are quick to label unpopular acts of political rebellion as 'terrorism', which is a much more resonant critique of the last administration than the current one.--tuttlemsm74.232.161.243 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons between the Visitors and the Obama administration are pure insanity. It reminds me of the famous "So how long have you been beating your wife" question. No matter how you hit that tar baby, your hands will get messy. The Slate article listed as support is barely literate and dangles irrelevant charge words left and right in an apparent attempt to be interesting, but which instead fails to approach a point that has anything to do whatsoever with the "supporting details" provided. From what I can tell, none of the sources listed have made any connection between "Universal health care" from the V and "Universal health care" the political agenda other than the name itself. The reason for that, of course, is because the implementations of the two ideas are non-overlapping. A better assumption regarding the origin of the V health care idea is that it came from just about any other science fiction involving advanced aliens who publicly come to earth. Examples include To Serve Man referenced from the 1983 V page (also one of the most famous Twilight Zone episodes of all time) and Earth:_Final_Conflict. The idea that an alien species coming to earth and trying to get our trust would offer us health care is almost as obvious as the idea that they would use space ships to do the travelling. Simple common sense should not be confused with right-wing agendas and vacuous arguments should not be referenced in wikipedia just because some simpleton somewhere said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.113.131 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

"According to information I've just received from the Hollywood Gulags, the current asking-price for Childhood's End is more than two hundred times that of the perfectly satisfactory fee I received in 1956. And if it never does make it to the big screen, millions of people have watched a very impressive variation on Chapter 2 in the TV serial V.

I must admit that when I viewed the first instalment of V, I was only marginally mollified by being referred to in the dialogue."

-preface to Childhood's End 1990 Del Rey Edition.

--76.102.12.104 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

I find it very weird to have an article on a show with a multi-paragraph introduction that doesn't say anything regarding what the show is about. Every time I've added something BillCat removes it. So maybe he can explain why we need to know the names of the producers, but not anything about the show itself beyond that it's Sci-Fi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I've updated the lead.— TAnthony^Talk 07:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A good candidate to semi-protect?

The new series "V" came out, and true to the opinions on both sides of the political divide, it caused immediate controversy.

Those who have been following my other opines in the "Cult of Personality" article will notice my stance, but for those who haven't here it is:

My personal opinions don't belong in a Wikipedia article ... and neither do yours. Our goal as Wikipedians is to be:

1) Impartial 2) Un-opinionated 3) Truthful, without distortion or concealment.

In my personal life, I'll freely admit that I have strong opinions and make them known. On Wikipedia, they don't belong.

However, by design or by intent or just by timing, this show is sitting on a polarizing issue ... and a political minefield where the mines are on hair triggers.

I'll be honest that I'm scared that this article, as well-written as it currently is, could be defaced in an edit-war that could be right around the corner. You'll notice I said 'could.' I've no evidence to support it could be defaced, but this is a political minefield.

I'm going to be adding this page to my watchlist, but I would like to request a 'pre-emptive strike' and semi-protect this page, at least for a short while.

Happy Trails!! Dr. Entropy (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Doc...

I started the "Controversy" section of the article because there, indeed, ARE critics who have

a) called the show, "controversial" and

b) who have noticed some subtle references to Obama Administration.

I stand neutral on the whole issue, myself, being an Independent and I really don't think that it bashes Obama by any means so much as it DOES make a not-so-subtle allegory. Like I've said above, if the "hope" and "change" phrasing don't make that obvious, the part where Anna offers the reporter the idea of "Universal Health Care" is painfully obvious and heavy-handed.

While I don't really care, I know people are going to talk about it because, while it's a small controversy, it's almost sure to get larger mention. "24" already has been in the news for this sort of thing and its controversial stance on torture.

Knowing the sensitivity of the issue, I wrote the section as balanced and neutral as I could. I put in

a) two critics who stated their views on it

b) one Libertarian who stood outside and observed both sides

c) the actress, cast, and crew who denied it and gave their side of the story.

It isn't a large controversy but there are both sides to this discussion, which makes it, by definition, a "controversy".

There have been users on this board who have tried to say, "there's no controversy", "you're not being balanced", and even tried to vandalize the section or add "neutrality" tags to subliminally call me a "Liberal". You cannot have an unbalanced piece when both sides are represented. It isn't possible.

There's no shame in making an allegory or even creating a metaphor but the best artists either have no comment on the matter (such as David Lynch) or admit that they were trying to make a statement, they don't outright deny that there is no allegory. "Wall-E", for instance, was an example of this. The message of the film (besides "don't take what you have for granted") was that we are reliant on greedy people who are helping us to ruin the Earth and that we are a hindrance to the planet. Instead of coming out and saying this, director Andrew Stanton sat there and played dumb and pretended that there was no message.

In any case, I agree with semi-protecting the page for now as the issue will probably come up but I feel the "Controversy" section is NOT based on my opinion. If the producers are having to defend themselves against those accusations, then it's obviously a concern on the part of the people who watch the show.

Aside from that, I hope that "V" does rebound because I thought the first episode was weak and boring and blew every mini-series surprise in 44 minutes. I want this show to succeed. I just hope that it gets the chance.

TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tabascoman77, and thank you for your comments. I do want to apologize to you and others reading this if I sounded as if I were implying that the "Controversy" section was biased. I certainly did not mean to. The section does, in my opinion, reflect the NPoV tennant quite well.

I'm going to further agree with you that on such a hot-button topic as this, some people (on both sides) are going to read it as they want it to read ... not as it actually says.

I too hope the show succeeds. Although I doubt Ms Baccarin remembers it, we actually met once at a convention.

Anyway, I'm for semi-protecting the page, and again apologize to you and others if it sounded as if I were implying you were biased. I certainly did not mean to.

Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

How sure are we about the ratings? ABC has been advertising (crowing, no less) that over 18 million viewers watched the pilot. 75.48.44.193 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The ratings are from TVbytheNumbers which is where nearly all ratings come from on wikipedia. What the rating is depends on which one you use; overnight, Live +7, DVR, sum of US and Canada, … Presumably ABC uses the biggest number. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This used to be in the article: The Onion's The A.V. Club gave V's premiere a 'C' rating, calling it "rote and by-the-numbers." But The Onion is a joke- I am not picking on it, it is literally a joke- so I dont think the joke things that it posts belong in actual articles. 69.123.8.50 (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. Yes, The Onion is satirical news, but the The A.V. Club is not. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

International Broadcast

I deleted the International Broadcast section as non-notable. Put simply WP:NOTNEWS and NOT TVGUIDE. Good television article do not include such a section. Some articles such as Battelstar Galactica do include some syndication information in prose form but they do not include a list. The WP:TV Style guidelines make no mention whatsoever of such a section. Even with citations the information is subject to change and awkward to verify again. Given the tendency of such a section to sprawl I'm deleting it now early and will watch out for it for the next while unless someone gives a strong justification to include it. -- Horkana (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe adding in prose that the series has been sold to other broadcaster in several countries would be good because it shows that the series is and/or going to been known internationally. I agree that listing all the international broadcaster is not really important. --Stroppolo (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did they stop after 4 chapters?

Adding info to the wiki about second season plans (or if the series was canceled) would be very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.142.10 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy misses the whole point.

I almost put this in the controversy-section, but this deserves its own section:

The show mocks Truthism. While it is at it, it mocks the teabaggers, birthers, 911-truthers, and other conspiracy-nuts. The references to teabaggers and birthers have thrown some off the trail. As a skeptic who has interacted with truthers and debuked , 911-truthers, moonhoaxers, birthers, teabaggers, timecubers, that crazy lady who is convinced that the rainbows she sees in her lawnsprinkers as a governmental conspiracy, et al; I get it.

I am not certain how to put this in the article, or even if I should since it might qualify as original research, but I put this on the talkpage for the contributors to consider. It surprises me that the article does not mention the obvious references to truthism.

Kanguruo (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, I object to your use of the term "teabaggers." I could continue on to show how your lumping of that particular group in with the other "undesirables" you list is at best heinously irresponsible and ignorant, but if you don't even recognize that "teabagger" is a vulgar sexual epithet, there's little point discussing any detail beyond this. -- Glynth (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles cited in the controversies are a bit more balanced than they seem from the quotes, and they include denials from the produces (although some of them seem weak denials). They writers probably don't have any strong political message but are probably more than happy to set things up to allow viewers to project their own ideas on it. -- Horkana (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.119.58 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And clearly you didn't bother to check the refs.Eaglestorm (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like sour grapes over his/her/its own OR being removed. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the citing is nothing of the sort. For example, "Bloggers have interpreted this line as a commentary on the dangers of a growing dependency class under the Obama administration.[28]". For one "Bloggers" requires multiple citations, and second there is no mention of Obama at all in the reference, and I can't see much political points in there at all, just a rant about the lack of freaky aliens, poor production values and acting ability. -- DeadKenny (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Characters

If we going to do the 2009 characters, are we going to add any regard to the New York Resistance? Most of the character pages need a lot of work. Ominae (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

what does "re-imagined mean? It doesn't seem to mean wha tthe word would normally mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.138.191.93 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

re-imagined

What does "re-imagined mean? It doesn't seem to mean wha tthe word would normally mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.138.191.93 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It means that they took the general concept and ideas from the original, but used them and made a largely different story. This makes it different than a true "remake" that closely follows the original plot.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Term seems valid to me- I have seen the term used in reference to the way the Batman movie series started over. Those were not sequels or prequels or remakes either. 69.123.8.50 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Host Cities

I took out the sections about host cities. It's just fan cruft, and absolutely not needed in the main article, especially the list labeling "possible host cities."--Jason Garrick (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

Cast lists usually just introduce the characters. Do we really need to keep up with the latest plot points on each entry? - BilCat (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No we don't. I just removed some of that stuff but there were some items I wasn't sure about removing. I left them for more experienced editors to figure out. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lisa is Queen?

Didn't someone refer to the character of Lisa as the Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greegan (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe they referred to her as a queen, or future queen; along with Anna's birthing of an army, it seems as though the show's mythology may be drawing parallels between this alien race and real-life ants/bees, where specialized young females become the leaders/mothers of their own colonies. But obviously none of that should be introduced into the article without reliable external sources noting it first.— TAnthony^Talk 04:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Individual character pages

Should we make pages about the characters? They have enough information to have their own articles. Leader Vladimir (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Title theme song

I can't find the Title theme song in the article. I think it is by the Muse, but can't verify this or even the name of the song. Its lyrics include: "We will be victorious..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiterussian1974 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

V has no theme song as it has no opening credits, it just displays the V logo. I think that song was just used for promos for the show. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The song is called "Uprising" by Muse, and yes it was just used in the original promos, not the series itself.— TAnthony^Talk 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

David Icke

Since David Icke's ideas have been heavily influenced by the original series, I wonder why there is no mention of the fact that the new series has reciprocated this, and that they seem to have taken some Ickean ideas onboard (infiltration of government/religious organisations etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.114.164 (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source (article perhaps) that makes this connection? If so, it may be notable information to add to the article.— TAnthony^Talk 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)