Talk:Altered Carbon (TV series)

Whitewashing

There has been a conversation about whitewashing in this TV series, and the Wikipedia article should summarize the conversation that has happened so far. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have sources or something in mind? I thought that was a flash in the pan argument by someone who was unfamiliar with the source material or show.--Jorm (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen, criticism was raised, and both the showrunner and the star replied to it. There was also a recent Forbes article about it, especially touching on why subject-matter fidelity is not necessarily a rationale. All the points made about the matter can be folded together per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it by any stretch, except in as far as (from my understanding) it was a relatively small thing and we may be providing undo weight to it. By all means, include it and we can discuss if it's appropriate after.--Jorm (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Even the Forbes article points out the character is white in the source material. They just say "It's an important discussion". That's absurd. You cannot basically say that it's not whitewashing, but it should be discussed as if it is. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote agendas, which is precisely what this does. Frankly the entire argument reads like someone who desperately wants to discuss an issue and just latched on th this show to do so.2601:283:4601:A446:7C0B:22C6:2B0C:B956 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this storm in a teacup from the Twitter outrage brigade was notable either, but long after (May 2020) Richard K Morgan gave his point of view. In short bemused, but more importantly thrilled by the excellent actors they were able to cast.[1] He writes more about the importance of representation. -- 109.78.198.70 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Terminology in the TV series

I recommend adding a section to the article giving terminology used in the show as per: https://screenrant.com/altered-carbon-terminology-guide-glossary/

I don't know if it is appropriate to a Wikipedia page or not. It is something that I would like to see, and actually searched for first on Wikipedia.

If this note does not receive any comments, I will add that content in 1 week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windrider6 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A full glossary for this series would be overkill, and some of the most important terms (sleeves, stacks) are covered in the synopsis and episode summaries. Perhaps a handful of others could be worked in, but an entire section or list would be trivial. For now, I'll add this url to external links as a resource.— TAnthony^Talk 00:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Cast list

I just discovered this series and really enjoyed it. I don't intend to become a full contributor to this article, but I did have a suggestion that I thought I'd share in case anyone watching was interested. Due to the nature of the series, the cast list is quite complicated and it is only going to get worse with a new main actor for the second season. This page currently follows the standard cast list formatting from MOS:TV, but I think the alternative suggestion there of a character list would really benefit this page. What I am suggesting is that the list be rearranged to be based on character, with the different actors who have portrayed that character then listed and explained. This would allow the first bullet in the list to be for Kovacs, with Kinnaman and Mackie both listed along with the other actors who have portrayed him. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

structure

The attempt to mush together all the cast in one giant cast list is madness. Clarity should be our guiding light here, and since this is a show that replaces 99% of the cast between seasons, craeting separate sections for each season is the only sensible option.

Same with plot and other sections. This really is separate shows that just happen to share the same name. CapnZapp (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I have to ask, have you read MOS:TVCAST, and have you seen other TV show character lists? I have never seen a list that repeats characters like this, and for no good reason. This is not "two separate" shows (especially since you do not know the plot of S2) just because there's a big cast change. If it were, we would require two separate articles. Homeland is a show that changed most of the cast every season after S3 based on the main character's relocation. I'm not sure I understand your need to keep seasons together when there are a few characters/actors that (will) appear in both seasons. The format I just applied is what we usually do. There are only 13 main characters here, it is not "madness" to list them together with season designations. Are you basing your format on any other series or just your own idea of what works best? If we had Altered Carbon (season 1) and Altered Carbon (season 2), I would expect different, season-specific lists. For a TV series main article, MOS:TVCAST reminds us that The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. It doesn't say anything about keeping actors together by season. In any case, I've reverted your revert for now, as you changed the character list format somewhat dramatically on 4/21/19, which makes the previous version the status quo from which we should not diverge without consensus per WP:STATUSQUO. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk

FYI I do appreciate most of the other interim changes you've made, including trimming unsourced cast one-offs from the list, removing actors from the plot section, etc. MOS:TVCAST was conceived as a way to end the constant edit warring we used to see a lot over cast order. Some people liked credits order, others preferred order of importance, or number of episodes, or alphabetical ... the current guideline is basically a compromise. I don't always agree with it either, but I never find it confusing or misleading, and we do have some wiggle room. I just don't see how the standard structure is detrimental to understanding the cast in this article, because most articles do it that way.— TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, a few notes.

1. You say (in the edit summary) You changed the list from its original format (one similar to mine) on 4/21, which means your version should be reverted pending discussion, per WP:STATUSQUO. Yet, this talk page section has existed since February, and you have not previously engaged in discussion yourself. Moreover, almost every single time, the standard formatting will be the status quo. That is not what WP:STATUSQUO is meant to combat! Somewhat ironically, I therefore see your WP:STATUSQUO and raise you one WP:BASH!
2. Second, you start by I have to ask, have you read MOS:TVCAST even though I left you a message on your talk page, specifically linking to exactly that page's talk page discussion. So, yes, obviously.
3. You thank me for opening up the discussion, but in your reply you do not actually respond to any of my arguments for change.

This doesn't mean I am angry with you. Just that I'm calling you out on some commonly employed arguing techniques. Can I ask you to step up the quality and sincerity of your approach, TAnthony or your attempt at civility risks coming off as a bad-faith ruse, which would not be helpful. Thank you.

That said, I find it very easy indeed to see how the standard structure muddles the message. The fact most other shows do it the standard way does not help, at all. I changed the Cast section because I found the previous attempt really unclear - the clutter made it really hard to find out who's in Season 1 (which the rest of the article busies itself with). I really hope you see this too, and that you do not put undue weight on preserving the standard format just for the sake of it. Clarity suggests it should be easy to find which actors work together (are in the same season). Also, the previous structure meant the prominence of Kinnaman's participation was utterly obscured, since now he's just one out of a string of actors playing the Kovacks role. In short, I saw no particular need to hew to the standard format since this is a so very non-standard show. As you would know from reading my MOS:TV talk discussion I am asking for other shows, to see how they solved similar issues. I am sure there are examples of shows which follow the standard format even though they would be much better served by other formats; these make bad examples to bring up here.

Note: I see you have found your way to the Talk page of MOS:TV, so perhaps it's best to await that discussion to conclude. CapnZapp (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

All I'll say about the revert/status quo business is that you made a somewhat dramatic change like a week ago to the article, you can't protest when someone challenges/reverts you because no one has noticed your change for a week or didn't comment on the talk page in time. That's not status quo. I make wp:bold edits like that all the time that may change something significant in a longstanding article, but if I'm challenged, I grumble and start a discussion LOL. That said, I know we are both editing and discussing in good faith and I apologize if any of my comments make me sound like a dick. I am really baffled, however, at how you find the "standard" version of the list unclear. You can find out who's in season 1 by looking at the first 9 people on the list, as we always do. Then 2nd season people. The three characters that appear in both are designated as such, like we always do. You're insulting the intelligence of the reader if you assume that they can't figure out that Chris Conner is in S2 because he's not listed next to Simone Missick. Like I said, Homeland is a similar case and that list does exactly what we're doing here. Same with The Man in the High Castle (TV series)#Cast. These articles are not formatted the way they are just because MOS:TVCAST told them to. The guideline arose out of the way most articles agreed was the best format. How is Altered Carbon so very non-standard? What am I missing?— TAnthony^Talk 18:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I should add, I'm not clinging to MOS:TVCAST like it's the Bible. I'm always willing to challenge a guideline or vary something slightly if the need arises. I can see your point with this, but I really don't agree that the "standard" way is detrimental to the information here.— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Genre

I am of the impression the three extra sources of the lede is there only to support the genres we ascribe the series: only once source is required to establish the base facts (a netflix series called altered carbon, and so on) Thus when the genres were moved to the infobox (to only be housed in the infobox, to be precise), I found it natural to move the references there too, as this will help the reader interested in verifying said genre attributation. In short: references near claims. WP:INFOBOXCITE says If the material requires a reference [..] and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article. I consider my ref move compliant with this guideline.

If I'm wrong about my initial assumption, however, feel free to rearrange as needed. CapnZapp (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is helpful listing more the primary genre. But if we are going to list multiple genres then it is redundant to list science fiction and cyberpunk. -- 109.76.134.165 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking a bit closer at the references, I wonder if the reference to The Conversation is there to support the "dystopian" genre (an unnecessary genre IMO) but if it is there to support the genre neo-noir that's funny because it says "Carbon readily exposes its noir-ish underbelly; however, this is tech-noir rather than neo-noir, with generous splashes of fantasy to keep things ambiguous." and splitting hairs and saying it isn't neo-noir. The Verge is being so negative about the show and making the point "An aesthetic isn’t the same thing as a world" is strange choice to use it to try and prove any genre, and it only seems to be saying the show is not good cyberpunk, rather than mentioning any other genre. These weren't good references, bordering on WP:COATRACK.

At this point I'd recommend cutting the genre's back down to cyberpunk only. At a stretch I'd keep neo-noir, since the books are sci-fi detective stories but the other genres are not necessary and not properly sourced. -- 109.76.221.165 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the Infobox so that it lists only the primary genre, namely cyberpunk. I've left the text of the lead to use the more generic description of the series as "science fiction". I'll check back on this later. -- 109.79.160.161 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Article locked

In case anyone is wondering why the article is locked Richard K. Morgan who wrote the Altered Carbon books, expressed support for JK Rowling and someone has decided to show their disagreement by persistently vandalizing any associated Wikipedia pages. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

More images

I suggest adding more images to the article, a vertical bar photos showing the actors who have portrayed Takeshi Kovacs so far. Here are links to images of the each of the three actors: Kinneman Mackie and Lee

The image of Lee isn't as good quality as the other two so I would understand leaving it out until a better image becomes available, but things that are not included don't tend to get improved either. Plenty of other images are available of Kinaman and Mackie in Wikimedia Commons but I thought these images would be suitable. I'd appreciate if someone could add these. -- 109.77.193.6 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add/insert the following markup for a vertical image strip showing the three main Takeshi Kovacs to the start of the Cast section.

{{multiple image
<!-- Layout parameters -->
 | align             = left 
 | direction         = vertical
 | total_width       = 

 | header_background = 
 | header_align      = <!-- center (default), left, right -->
 | header            = 

 | image1            = Joel_Kinnaman_2014_(cropped).jpg
 | alt1              = Joel Kinnaman
 | link1             = 
 | thumbtime1        =
 | caption1          = 

 | image2            = Anthony_Mackie_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
 | alt2              = Anthony Mackie
 | link2             = 
 | thumbtime2        =
 | caption2          = 

 | image3            = Will_Yun_Lee_01_(9511927429)_(cropped).jpg
 | alt3              = Will Yun Lee
 | link3             = 
 | thumbtime3        =
 | caption3          = 

 | footer_background = 
 | footer_align      = 
 | footer            = 
}}

Thanks. -- 109.78.198.70 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. First, this would inappropriately WP:SANDWICH text between the images and the (already obnoxiously overfull) infobox, which is a problem. But also, do we really need images of the cast members? There are lot of others too, and people would probably want to start adding them. We don't really need galleries of cast members; they're already linked if anyone really wants to get more info about any specific ones. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I get your point about the layout issues, and perhaps a different layout might be better, but in response to "do we really need images of the cast members" I think we do because in this story where a person can swap bodies these are not simply cast members but the three actors who have all played the central character Takeshi Kovacs. -- 109.78.198.70 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Appearance

Why does Kinnaman look so different on this show than on For All Mankind? Are there any CGI or prosthetics used to radically alter his normal face? Has he had plastic surgery or something in the time between both shows? I’ve watched both shows in 4K and his face looks totally different. Could this be simply attributed to the different camera lenses and equipment used in both shows, or just weight loss and gain? Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)