Talk:Arrested Development/Archive 1

message: First someone put a picture of genitalia, then they just erased the whole thing.
This was terrible.  I wanted to view this show's page at work and a big penis pops up on the screen.  Wikipedia needs to do a better job defending against hackers.
*Wikipedians are too used to this sort of thing. Most prominent articles get vandalized with genitalia, for the desired shock value. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 04:03
*With the featured article most vandalism gets reverted in under a minute.  Vandals get blocked after a few warnings.  They could always protect the article, but protecting featured articles is sort-of counter-Wikipedian. Peyna 04:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major vandalism

message: * Shouldn't Ron be listed as an uncredited creator? "Ron Howard had the original idea to create a comedy in the style of hand-held cameras and reality television, but with an elaborate, highly comical script resulting from repeated rewritings and rehearsals. Howard met with David Nevins, the president of Imagine Television, Katie O’Connell, a senior vice president, and two writers including Mitchell Hurwitz. In"
*Done. In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page, not the top. --BRIAN0918 23:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron Howard

message: *Not even close.
The narrator, the shaky cam, the archival footage, the censoring... what more do you need, for Michael to yell "Oh my God, this is a documentary!!"
*there is no need to be a wikidick about it Rubber cat 05:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Presented like a documentary?

message: I was watching AD last night, and I distinctly heard George Micheal say 'fuck'. Is FOX allowed to do that? -Litefantastic 19:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Swearing

message: Does anyone know if Jon Hurwitz is Mitchell Hurwitz's brother? I suspect he is on the flimsy evidence of  (a) the sharpness of the Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle script, and (b) the physical resemblance - see the pic at  - but could find no real evidence. RMoloney 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Hurwitz 

message: *I belive one of the biggest draws for superfans of the show is it's heavy use of contiunity.  Could anyone write a section about the show's soap-opera dynamic and it's frequent use of call backs, call fowards (a term Mitchell Hurwitz coined for foreshadowing of jokes episodes ahead of time), and running gags?
**I started one. Daydream believer2 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity & Topicality 

message: I was wondering to the person that gave the update that Arrested Development had been shortered from 24 to 15 episodes, do you have a link for this? I was trying to find information on this but was unable to. Thanks.
To the best of my knowledge, this is a rumour only one person has confirmed so far (on a blog so far); and no one in any way official has verified this. So yeah, second that call for a source. Daydream believer2 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a rumor.  The season was cut from 22 episodes to 18: [1], [2] - Laszlo Panaflex 05:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a rumor: it already came and went. But which season are discussing? These external links are from April 2005, and refer to last season, i.e. the one that started in autumn of 2004. When someone added this to the article it seemed as though they were referring to this season (i.e. ending in May 2006). Has anyone verifiably mentioned anything about cutting episodes from the current season? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  It is mentioned twice in the article, at the top of the Season Two section and in the Response  section where it is also clearly discussing Season Two.  There has been no mention of cutting this season short, it just started.  Laszlo Panaflex 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion, but I assumed the original question was referring to this edit. The statement has since been modified. (I had left for dinner and didn't see the subsequent edits.) -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: This doesn't seem like a very concrete connection, as Michael is a very common name. Does anybody have any proof of this connection?
*I'd say it would be more based upon personalities than simply the Michael connection: GOB being a hothead and the type to jump quickly into action; Michael the cooler head; Lindsay being the one trapped in a marriage to a man who is eventually disliked by the family, and finally Buster is not exactly the brightest bulb... so what you have is Gob/Sonny Coreleone; Michael/Michael Coroleone; Lindsay/Connie; and finally Buster/Fredo.  There is also the criminal element, but beyond that, it has never been brought up within the series, but considering the intricate smaller parts of the series, the naming is hardly coincidental. ("Maeby Funke" comes to mind here with regard to George Michael's wondering whether she was adopted, which, if so, would open up George Michael to go for it with her)  jlove1982 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corleone-Bluth Connection? 

message: Here is the "end spoilers" tag:
Please insert it into the article. I may then withdraw my objection. --Hollow Wilerding 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  End spoilers tag 

message: There seems to be some disagreement about where the series is portrayed as taking place.  The reference of "Orange County" has been interpreted as meaning Orange County, New York but I think it is more likely that it refers to Orange County, California.  In fact, the article even says that it is filmed in "Culver City and Marina Del Rey" (both of which are very near to Orange County, CA).   "wee britain" is merely a fictional place that does not actually exist. Bovineone 18:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of series 

message: No more episodes. Someone should edit the article. Manmonk 04:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AD Canned

message: What is a character-driven comedy television series?  Or, more interesting, what is a non-character-driven comedy series?   America's Funniest Home Videos? -Acjelen 06:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character-driven 

message: This is the best show on TV. Well done.--Richy 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great page, well done all concerned! -- 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations on making the main page

message: thumb|right|200px|Rita (Charlize Theron), wearing one of her various hats, used by the writers to give the appearance of being a hidden camera.
...what does the caption mean? It makes no sense! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er.... 

message: Is that origins section vandalism?  Sounds like it, but I really don't know enough aboot the show, eh? WilyD 14:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uhm...

message: somebody who knows more about the show, please check the recent edits, especially regarding cancelation. I doubt it's correct, but I don't follow the show. --Appleboy  Talk 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. There's been no new news on the show's status. The editor who made that change no doubt got suckered by one of the many news articles from the Nov 11 timeframe that failed to distinguish between "pulled with no real chance of ever returning" and "officially cancelled." I've put it back to the way it was before. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: Does GOB live in the Bluth house?  
ike9898 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never specified.  He was living with Marta in the beginning, until they broke up, then he lived on the yacht, until he blew it up for an "illusion".  He lived with Lucille 2 for a while. 130.160.84.232 17:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess someone else decided that the question of GOB's domicile was funny, because it was addressed in one of the episodes on Feb. 10th. As soon as one of the characters brought it up, I thought of the comments on this page. (One of the speculated homes was a lighthouse.) -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does GOB live? 

message: Is the Chicken Dance really considered offensive in Mexico? ike9898 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to find out would be to fly to Tijuana and try it out. No, shoot, I forgot WP:NOR again. Hmm. The world may never know. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken dance 

message: *I am looking for confirmation that Wee Britain is a topicality spoof of Old World Village located in Orange County, CA. From their website, "...it is like going to Europe without leaving Orange County...". Pattersonc 23:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wee Britain 

message: The intro sentence now says that the show is a postmodernist comedy. Shouldn't that be postmodern comedy? And does it really need to be stated at all? From what I know about postmodernity (which I'll admit I find confusing), aren't all TV shows (along with everything else in popular culture) postmodern, at least according to postmodernists? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's postmodern due to the extensive use features like intertextuality and self-reflexivity, which aren't too common on network TV. But, while I think you could call AD postmodern, it doesn't need to be in the introductory sentence, so I moved it farther down. --TheMidnighters 05:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: **I figured that's what was meant by this particular instance of "postmodernist." But I've also seen the term used as a criticism, e.g. (to paraphrase) in postmodern society there's nothing new under the sun, we've seen this all before, everything is merely a pastiche of previous ideas. According to those holding this view, everything on TV is postmodern. This is what I meant about "postmodern" being confusing, maybe I'm just dense but no one's been able to successfully explain it to me. Of course now this has less to do with improving the article... -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodernist comedy? 

message: this wannabe doctoral thesis schmarm just looks ridiculous to anybody with a brain. intertextuality? reflexivity? postmodernism! ha! somebody's very proud of knowing some words here. "ukulele-driven" -- bad attempt at funning on the overuse of "character-driven" in AD circles? hope so.
though i almost fell out of my chair reading some of the sticky goo slowing down this article, i "must admit that AD does give off the decided aroma of a postmodernalisticallyesque oeuvre." ...or is it shmoeuvre? is shmoeuvre the right word? something with an umlaut, perhaps. where's my umlaut book? "The use of intertextual call-forwards has also been used with bus stop benches." ahhh. "The show is presented with the typical presentation distinctions of a documentary". yes, i thought so. "BBC Two [...] has recently concluded screening the second season." right. "However, the unknowing Michael proposes to her and the couple run off to be wed. However, their love is not to be". 63.28.93.162 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  buzzword-driven pre-ukuleleanism 

message: attempting to summarize the first season using the "different characters struggle to change their identities" artifice has hamstrung the summary, since material must either be pasted into this "struggling to change" POV, or tacked into another paragraph. it should be abandoned. wikipedia's not the place for such stylish pooft.
"It is also revealed that George committed "light treason" by using the company to build mini-palaces for Saddam Hussein in Iraq." that's incorrect. george said there's a good chance he may have committed "some, uh... light... treason." him saying that doesn't mean what he did was treason, which is what the article states. that was in the 6th episode of season 1, but it's thrown onto the end of the "struggling to change" hack, completely screwing the order of events. 216.8.6.146 10:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: um, okay. what does that have to do with stating, without foundation, that it was "revealed that George committed" any kind of treason? all he did was say he may have, so the only thing revealed was his opinion of a possibility — hardly evidence of what the article claims. wasn't talking about "light treason" being in quotes. 216.8.6.146 18:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  an encyclopedia, not a magazine 

message: "www.SaveOurBluths.org" was mentioned in the episode broadcast on January 2, 2005. As of this writing the website is non-existent. Someone is adding "www.SaveTheBluths.org" to the list of official sites, with the claim that it was mentioned in the episode (it wasn't; those are two different URLs). Furthermore (again, as of this writing) the latter site only consists of a Flash-type intro, with no other content. I mention this in case anyone notices the article's "External links" section being reverted again in the near future. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, SaveOurBluths.com does exist.  Does not seem to be an official Fox website.  Focused on ways fans can organize to save the show.  Is it possible the caption in the show was simply incorrect? ike9898 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it's possible, but the article still shouldn't mention it as having been mentioned on the show . . . it simply was not.  If SaveOurBluths.com is to be added to this article, it should be added as a bullet underneath the-op.com, as it is a sub-site of The-OP.  In fact, I'll do that right now. raekwon 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, it's inaccurate to say that SaveOurBluths.org is "under construction", rather than non-existent.  The domain is registered, but doesn't even have a DNS entry.  The website simply does not yet exist.  raekwon 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK . . . the continued change of the correct site mentioned in the show (SaveOurBluths.org) to other sites (SaveOurBluths.com and SaveTheBluths.org) amounts to spam.  I ask my fellow legit editors to continue to revert the change when it's made, as I've hit 3RR for today.  There has been a legit link to SaveOurBluths.com placed in the External links section, and that should suffice.  There's no need to add false information to what was once a featured article. raekwon 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (SaveOurBluths.org) 

message: "benches have also been utilized for this purpose. In one scene Buster is partly obscuring an Army bench so our view reveals "ARM OFF" ..."
i believe that this is acutaly a joke after his hand has been rmoved...he looks at an "alarm off" button on an electric alarm clock.  
can anyone verify? Classicalgit 21:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continuity subjuect heading 

message: In the pilot episode, GOB's name is written out on screen as G.O.B. (George Oscar Bluth II). Should the spelling of his name be changed to include the periods (G.O.B. rather than GOB)? TuesdayMush 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ridiculous. his nickname is "gob", based on his initials. he is called "gob", not his initials. after explaining his nickname and its pronunciation, it should be spelled "Gob", just as on the DVD cases (where sense overruled the urge to show everybody, every time, that his name comes from his initials). yeah, we get it; his nickname comes from initials. now spell it like a name, for crying out loud. the same all-caps crowd still writes scuba as "SCUBA", and creates a scene whenever anybody refers to the first star wars movie as "the first star wars movie". probably doesn't matter though 216.8.14.211 16:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of GOB