Talk:Adventures of Superman (TV series)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] title
I think this article needs to be renamed Adventures of Superman (TV series). First of all, Adventures of Superman is the correct title as noted in the article. Second, there should be a clear disambiguation with the comic book series.Rhindle The Red 04:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just as the page The Mary Tyler Moore Show emphasizes that Mary Tyler Moore is the correct on-screen name of the series, Adventures of Superman (a title lifted directly from the comic books in both wording and style) is the correct on-screen name of this series. The complication comes later in the series when you have the voice of Charlie Lyons announcing, The Adventures of Superman over the title card which still does not include The. I'm inclined to agree with your approach, to have a disambiguation page and presumably to have this page redirect to it for those who expect it. Note that The Mary Tyler Moore Show is the title of that article despite its own explanation to the contrary, because that's what people expect to find, rather than a disambiguation page for "Mary Tyler Moore". However, in this case you simply have two different media with effectively the same name. Wahkeenah 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General Coherence and Presentation
Why is it important to deal with the question of Canadian returns of the initial DVD run in the body of the text? Surely this is an historical footage at best. Likewise, if there's a separate entry for Panic in the Sky (the best, no doubt about it), the comments about Seinfeld, et al, should be after the text, not as an introduction.
Neat to have all this info about the effects, but it should be... will be... coherently presented.User:Ted Newsom
- Good work, even if you gave away the ending of Panic in the Sky. :) The Canadian DVD problem might have been significant a year ago, but it's old news now, so zapping it makes sense. I think at the time that little news blurb was all there was about the DVD's. I added some stuff, which by now needed some editing. Wahkeenah 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, anybody, where does this Sep 19 1952 debut date come from? Grossman-- and he's right 95% of the time-- gives a specific LA premier date of Feb 9, 1953 on KECA, a NY debut on April 1 on WABC. Yes, some of the title cards may say "1952," but that doesn't mean they were shown that year. User:Ted Newsom
- I think if you look back through the lengthy talk pages from last spring or so (when that "George Reeves project" lunatic was constantly vandalizing the George Reeves page, and probably this one also) there is some information about it. That guy kept trying to change the dates for reasons known only to himself. That's a bit of a side issue by now. Sorry. Wahkeenah 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it comes from the IMDB site [1] which lists first-run dates for all the episodes. That begs the question of what their source is. Wahkeenah 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be too much duplicate info now, between the "visual effects" and the "series history". I am inclined to lift the info about effects out of the series history and blend it into the "effects" section, leaving the "series history" to be more about the presentation rather than the effects, for better balance and conciseness. What do you think? Wahkeenah 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. I was in the process of doing just that, simultaneously with your corrections-- and that wiped out a half-hour worth of rewrites. There's a lot of fannish comments in general that I think could be clipped, too. I love the show, but... hey...Ted Newsom
You didn't have to lose those rewrites. You could paste them elsewhere and work them in. I'm sorry about stumbling on each other. It's clear we're both fans of the series, and we want a good article about it. Maybe I'll just leave it alone for a little while and let you have at it some more. Wahkeenah 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should we include the Series Cancellation?
-
- Hey guys, we've written and posted series history, visual effects, popularity, filming locations, so why don't we include a section on why the series was cancelled? I can think of a few good reasons: First, the show became too campy and then too repetitive in plots (several of the last episodes had Supes saving Lois and Jimmy again and again, the fact that George Reeves was too old to play Superman (since Supes will always be 30-something), or the fact that the youth audience started listening to Elvis, Buddy Holly, and rock and roll as they grew up.
Seriously, we should also include the fact that Robert Shayne, who played Inspector Henderson, was also blacklisted as a Communist during that time. Although he was acquitted, this woulda done some damage to the show's reputation! What do you guys think? --Jonathan.Bruce 07:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's already covered to some extent, or at least it was unless somebody rubbed it out. And it's not up to us to think of reasons, they have to be researched. TV shows are typically cancelled either due to failing ratings or the non-interest of the participants. The fact that they were about ready to revive the series when Reeves died suggests it was more likely the latter, but that would be speculation, you need to find a credibile source. Shayne's political problems were settled early in the run of the series, so it was not a factor. Wahkeenah 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other Actor?
I just got wind of an interview with a John Fredrick (he acted in Ten Commandments and Cleopatra (the 1963 version), who said in an interview with DesMoinesRegister.com (article: Famous Iowans) that he played Superman for 18 unaired episodes in 1958 to 1959. Apparently, he said he was hired to try and bring George Reeves back into the fold. However, a guy at Supermanhomepage.com contacted Jack Larson (Jimmy Olsen) and Noel Neill (Lois), and they said they never heard of him or worked with him. Does anyone hear anything about this? Help me out, sounds like he's starting a rumor to get "fame," if that's what he's after. I have great doubts. It's right here: [[2]] --Jonathan.Bruce 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
This article should definately be added to the following articles, except that I don't actuallly know how to go about doing that, sadly enough.
Now, the reason should be fairly self-explanatory. However, there might be some controversey, in that it debuted in some markets in 1952 and others in 1953, according to commentary on the Season 1 DVD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiphone83 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).