Talk:Spin-off (media)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Doctor Who[edit]

The article currently reads:

By 2007, the long-running BBC series Doctor Who with 9 in total, is the show with the most amount of spun off media. The first was a one episode spin off made in the 1980s based on the character of Sarah Jane Smith called K-9 and Company. The film Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans features one of the race of Dr Who Villains, but for licensing reasons not the Doctor himself. In 1989 the spin off [wartime] was made, about the adventures of some of the UNIT personnel. In the 1990s, Reeltime distributed PROBE a series of five made-for-video movies featuring Caroline John as her Pertwee-era character, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw. BBV, on their part, produced and released a series of movies based on one of Dr Who's Villains: Auton, Auton 2: Sentinel and Auton 3. In 2006 the BBC launched another spin-off, Torchwood, aimed at a more adult audience and featuring Captain Jack Harkness from the newer series. The Sarah Jane Adventures is currently airing, however is more child-oriented than Dr Who. K-9 is currently in production, and there is also an animated serial The Infinite Quest.

This seems kinda disingenuous to me. Shakedown, Wartime, PROBE, and BBV stuff hardly counts, does it? None of that was broadcast, and they aren't fully professional productions. The still-in-production K-9 is not a spin-off of Doctor Who, because the use of the character is intended to be in situations intentionally dissimilar to the Doctor Who usage. Even the character design is unfamiliar. For all we know, it might be K9 mk 14, effectively making it a wholly different character. And The Infinite Quest isn't even a series in its own right, but a segment of another series. To my mind, proper spin-offs of DW are:

K9 and Company
Torchwood
SJA
Doctor Who Confidential
Torchwood Declassified
Totally Doctor Who

Maybe I'm missing the definition of spin-off here, but I think this passage needs major restructuring to reflect only those broadcast television programmes that are official BBC products. CzechOut 08:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see Doctor Who Confidential is a spin-off, as it is based on the making of the show, not developing characters etc--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Grim & Evil[edit]

If I Am Weasel counts as a spin-off of Cow & Chicken, then shouldn't Billy & Mandy and Evil Con Carne each count as a spin-off of Grim & Evil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.88.84 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Expanded Universe[edit]

Should this term be inserted in the article in some way? 69.230.172.173 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Doug[edit]

"The original Doug was created anew with Disney's Doug" - I have removed that sentence as that is not a spinoff, in the same way that the Cartoon Addams Family isn't a spinoff from the live action series--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of spin-offs[edit]

The definitions presented in this article are baseless and poorly thought out. Just because a series or film share a minor character or two does not imply a spinoff relationship, just simply that the two projects lie within the same continuity.

Law &order SVU IS NOT a spinoff of Homicide: Life on the Street. Det. Munch existed in the same continuity with the crossovers between Homicide and the original L&O. As such, I will be deleting that and all references to shared characters in the same continuity. Oshaberi (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ben 10[edit]

Ben 10 Alien Force and Ultimate Alien are not spin-off, they're sequels. If they were Spin-off, they should be unrelated and focus on a different character other than Ben and it shouldn't be title Ben 10. (mich (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

King of the Hill[edit]

King of the Hill was not a spin-off of Beavis and Butthead. It was created by the same guy and he used a similar voice for Hank Hill and Mr Andersen, but the shows are not directly related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Department of Repetition Department[edit]

38 titles are mentioned two (or three) times in different sections ... —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fringe and Alcatraz[edit]

As far as I can tell, Alcatraz is not a spin-off of Fringe. They're both Abrams shows, but nothing I've found indicates that Alcatraz is a spin-off. Spenb (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)spenb

Tales of Symphonia[edit]

The video game section currently has Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World listed as a spin-off title. I don't believe this is the case. The game features several of the same characters, several years after the completion of the first game, in the same world with somewhat similar themes. I'm not sure why it's listed as a spin-off but I do not believe it should be classified as one. Lord Rai Sparks (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically A Sequel?[edit]

Spin-offs follow the same continuity of an existing work, right? Doesn't that technically make them sequels? Yet, your article on sequels lists prequels, midquels, interquels, sidequels, even reboots and spiritually successors (which are most certainly NOT sequels) as types of sequels, ignoring spin-offs which have more claim to sequelhood than all of those.

This article also doesn't mention that all spin-offs are technically sequels though, to be fair, it does mention that those that occur simultaneously as the source material are sidequels, which is a decent start. I would argue that either this needs to be corrected, or both articles should include some criteria describing the difference between a sequel and a spin-off. Something that explains why a spin-off isn't a type of sequel.68.32.125.241 (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I didn't mean to post this twice. It didn't show the first time, so I hit back and saved it again. Then, it posted both times. I can't seem to delete the duplicate.68.32.125.241 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Technically A Sequel?[edit]

Spin-offs follow the same continuity of an existing work, right? Doesn't that technically make them sequels? Yet, your article on sequels lists prequels, midquels, interquels, sidequels, even reboots and spiritually successors (which are most certainly NOT sequels) as types of sequels, ignoring spin-offs which have more claim to sequelhood than all of those.

This article also doesn't mention that all spin-offs are technically sequels though, to be fair, it does mention that those that occur simultaneously as the source material are sidequels, which is a decent start. I would argue that either this needs to be corrected, or both articles should include some criteria describing the difference between a sequel and a spin-off. Something that explains why a spin-off isn't a type of sequel.68.32.125.241 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)