Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 5

message: Can anyone find concrete details of sales figures of the DVDs? And should mention be made of the merchandise they sell?--Drat (Talk) 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of the supposed deal with Microsoft, Rooster Teeth are not allowed to divulge what profit they make. And I don't think merchandise is necessary to mention, unless we throw it in briefly as part of the Impact section where it mentions they can profit of the series legally. -- Viewdrix 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the numbers of DVDs sold then? Can they publish that?--Drat (Talk) 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, no, or at least, they never have. -- Viewdrix 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WSJ (Delaney) article mentions that, at the time, RT was profitable despite US$150,000 in operating costs. It probably should be incorporated somewhere, but the rewording to make it flow wasn't immediately obvious to me at this early hour, and I have other things to work on at the moment. — TKD (Talk) 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales figures 

message: We know that there were two Marathon games used in filming, but throughout the forums, the concensus seems to be they were Marathon 2 and Marathon ∞ (pronounced Marathon Infinity, aka Marathon 3), not Marathon 1 and 2 as written in this article. I can't remember what the Season 3 DVD commentary says, but it was clear that they were very unsure when they were doing the commentary, and were guessing. In any case, the forums seem to be confident that they've settled the matter since the commentary was released, and that it was 2 and ∞. Can anyone look into this so we can be 100% sure, or should I just sub in ∞ for 1 anyway? -- Viewdrix 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty certian that the maps are from Marathon 2 and Marathon Infinity. If anything else, they're both from one game or the other (considering that Marathon Infinity has time-travel as part of it's plot and re-visits some of the levels from Marathon 2)Dr. B 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you guys think it's ∞, go ahead and change it. I was going off of Gus' guess in the season 3 DVD commentary that it was the original Marathon, but he wasn't 100% sure. — TKD (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the name of the game to 'Marathon Infinity' in the article... hope it doesn't bother. the rationale is on the game's talk page: Talk:Marathon Infinity. basically, the only place where the game is called with the '∞' symbol is in the application name. Anywhere else (ie: the manual, www.bungie.org, and most of the fan sites) it's called 'Marathon Infinity'. Yaco 16:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they redid their article to change it to Infinity after I changed it here. Thanks for checking and fixing that. -- Viewdrix 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marathon 1 or Marathon ∞? 

message: Now that it's a Featured Article Canadidate, I wanted to be careful with any changes. Burnie said on one of the commentaries that they also have edited down versions for film festival showings, and used the example of how the season one edit is missing episode 15 almost entirely. I wanted to add this in, but two things stopped me: First, it should have a reference, but I don't know if it's the season oen or two commentary, and hoped I wouldn't have to listen through for it. Second, was he talking of Sundance in particular? A mention of Sundance could really give even more of an impression that RvB is somewhat important. However, I only know for certain they attended Sundance in season 3 and this year. Not sure about seasons 1 and 2, so I don't know if they've actually said that the edited down versions appear at Sundance, which would be the ideal, all-in-one comment needed. If not, an example of what film festival(s) Burnie mentions with the example of the cut down season one would work just fine. Anyone know? -- Viewdrix 21:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that it's not in the season 1 commentary. But I do distinctly remember that comment somewhere, but I thought it applied to Lincoln Center showings. I could be wrong. I'll gradually listen to commentaries and see wheter I can find it, but if you find it first, go ahead and add it. — TKD (Talk) 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that this might be what you're looking for: . — TKD (Talk) 12:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Care to write it in yourself? It could be used as a reference, but I am too unsure of how to do that. Just put "and various film festivals" along with where it says that a third, shorter version of each season is made for the Lincoln Center, and as a second example, note how in the article Burnie notes he removes nearly an entire episode. -- Viewdrix 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally done. Just had to find time. — TKD (Talk) 12:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited for film festivals/Sundance, too? 

message: I remember reading that some US soldiers in Iraq have praised the show, but I cannot remember where I read it. I made cursory checks of the reference material and found nothing, and google didn't turn up anything useful. If someone can find something, it should probably go in too.--Drat (Talk) 12:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Konow (the TwitchGuru article), page 3 or 4. It's also in the season 1 DVD commentary (where Ramsey noted that military personnel have told RT that the military humor was dead on). I've gotta jet, or I'd add it in myself. — TKD (Talk) 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this. I was specifically looking for the article including the military vehicle honourarily renamed the Chupathingy, but this'll do until then. -- Viewdrix 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, both of you. I'll work on integrating that info. I also noticed in the Cult interview that they mention not knowing about machinima. That'll let me eliminate one reference link, as it will be redundant. Just means a change of quote.--Drat (Talk) 13:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I'll keep the gamespy interview and quote, as the one from the Cult article doesn't seem as good.--Drat (Talk) 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldier praise 

message: I wanted to get an opinion on creating a sub-section under Reception or Distribution regarding the Microsoft/Bungie agreement with Rooster Teeth. The problem is that I wish to work in information about Rooster Teeth, with exception to DVD's, only being able to sell merchandise without Halo trademarks and images on it, as well as how Microsoft has free access to all Red vs Blue footage for promotional rights, and the ability to commission Rooster Teeth in exchange for the continuation of the series. In part, this is to answer the question on the Featured Article Candidate page regarding Microsoft and Bungie profiting off the series. However, neither party has gone on record about such details (Burnie said in a Sponsor Q&A he couldn't speak about whether an agreement in detail existed), all this information in the correct wording to explain the unofficiality of it can't be worked into the Reception where the deal is mentioned now. Also, sources could either not be found, as much of this is educated guesses, or be a nightmare to find, such as digging through journals and Q&A threads (which would be a sponsor section, no doubt) for exactly where Burnie said that they couldn't put Halo images on merch. My idea is that, if introduced properly and given the right context, I could make it work without seeming speculatory. Should I do up version on my Talk page and see how it turns out? -- Viewdrix 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead. It's probably better, though, if you do it on a subpage of your userpage, rather than your talk page.--Drat (Talk) 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Drat; a subpage of your User: page is the norm. However, I guess that I'm a bit skeptical that it'll work, but go ahead and try. In the end, though, I think that it'd be tough to make it properly fit the verifiability criteria; the last thing that we need at this point is  slapped on. — TKD (Talk) 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I slept on it, and yeah, the verifiability is what's making me think that we should leave it as is, at least while being a Featured Candidate. I'll still do some work in the meantime on a rough version. -- Viewdrix 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement with Microsoft sub-section? 

message: I think that Andy should first be mentioned in Season 3, not 4. Problem is, I can't think how to work it in.--Drat (Talk) 06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never responded to this, but I worked it in. I ended up having to include Gary in the summaries/supporting characters to try and explain how Andy was defused in 52, though. -- Viewdrix 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season summaries 

message: Just thought that I'd drop a note that I found out that Rooster Teeth does, in fact, refer to the Battle Creek soldiers collectively as "Grunts" (it's in the season 3 DVD, roughly around the point at which they respawn for the first time in episode 39). I've worked this into the relevant places. Feel free to reword if the changes introduced awkwardness in the prose. — TKD (Talk) 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunts 

message: Just so that everyone has the benefit of a full explanation that's too long for an edit summary, I am reverting the addition of armor colors to the main characters in this article, for a few reasons:
*It seems to be consensus that armor color is a detail best left to the auxiliary character articles. See the Talk archives; the amount of detail (or whether the character blurbs should be there at all) has been discussed a couple of times previously.
*There are a few images that already establish armor colors.
*Armor color is not necessary to understand character personalities, which are the most salient points (since they drive the storyline).
— TKD::Talk 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor color 

message: Just as a heads-up, the article on Halo: Combat Evolved is up for peer review (I am not actively involved in the maintenance of the article), if any of you are interested in helping out. — TKD::Talk 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for ''[[Halo: Combat Evolved]]'' 

message: In the past, several edits to the character descriptions have been reverted. Please keep in mind that the summaries here are meant to be very short (no more than 2-3 sentences per main character, and little more than a sentence per supporting characters) descriptions of a character's most important traits, usually personality traits. Specific plot details are better left to the List of characters in Red vs Blue. Other things that have been rejected are:
*Other names for the Alien. Those are non-canonical. Just because Caboose calls a character a name doesn't mean that name is sanctioned (otherwise, Donut might as well be called Lieutenant McMuffin).
*Armor colors. These are considered to be too much detail, and can be gleaned from the screenshots anyway.
*Bit characters (characters who do not appear in more than one episode).
— TKD::Talk 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note about character descriptions

message: Hey, guys. Head over to the talk page of the Michael Burns article and vote on whether or not to move it to "Burnie Burns". :) The Filmaker 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael to Burnie

message: As I was reading, I found that the Plot section should go right at the bottom on the article, with Background, Production etc occuring above. --Commander Keane 08:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot is near the top on similar articles like Film, Book, etc atricles. --Viridis 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was able to acheive FA status with the plot near the top, I see little reason to change it now. Dr. B 08:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's always good to evaluate other options, but I've seen the "plot" section in various places on other FAs in the Media category, but, as Viridis noted, mostly at or near the top. Cf. Casablanca (film), Blade Runner, Triumph of the Will, Our Friends in the North, and Quatermass and the Pit. As ar as this particular article is concerned, the plot is indeed secondary. I guess that one possible idea would be to break off the detail of season summaries from where it currently is, move that after "Production" (but before "Reception"), leave the lead of the Plot summary and retitle the section "Overview" or similar. I think that the information there should, in any event, be left up-front, regardless of the placement of the actual season summaries. Thoughts? — TKD::Talk 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it. No one else has seemed to have a problem before. -- Viewdrix 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough,. — TKD::Talk 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot could go below other information 

message: Is there a paticular reason why we constantly put down: Michael "Burnie" Burns ? Goes the same for Geoff "gfunk" Ramsey. Why not just Burnie Burns. It's the same reason I requested the article move. Nobody refers to him as Michael Burns. The Filmaker 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed on Red vs Blue. Will get to other pages eventually. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the new "Burnie Burns"

message: If you look at my user page, I've posted a revised version of the season 4 summary to try and cut down on some space, and erase some detail and plot points not essential in the big picture (like mention of Sarge's contest for a new assistant). It's not much, but it's something, because as was seen by the (reverted) addition of 77 info from an anonymous user, the season 4 summary's already pretty damn long. I've also posted a possible addition for once 77 is released to the public tonight, only because I'm both bored and hoping we can try to summarize the new plot points well, right away. Please do not go to my page if you havn't seen the episode and don't want spoilers, and please do not make any changes involving my revision or your own of 77 until it's publicly released. If you want to see my revision and edit it for improvement, go ahead. -- Viewdrix 01:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a crack at some tweaks. Feel free to re-revise. We should probably find a good place to break this season's summary into two paragraphs (maybe at episode 77 point, maybe somewhere else, but it's quite long for a single paragraph). — TKD::Talk 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Once we post it, we can give the go ahead for RvB to be on the main page any day they have room, right? Dr. B 07:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it another 24 hours or so to see whether anyone has any more tweaks, and to let it stabilize. After that, any time in the next month or so should be fine. — TKD::Talk 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Main page feature requested for some time in the next month, roughly. No specific date. — TKD::Talk 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 summary (with 77) revision. 

message: One more thing before the main page feature: The article is 38 KB, and, per WP:LEAD, we probably should have a 3-paragraph lead, at least. Anyone object to this expansion?
Red vs Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles, sometimes abbreviated as RvB, is a science fiction comedy series created by Rooster Teeth Productions. The series is produced primarily by using the machinima technique of synchronizing video footage from computer and video games to pre-recorded dialogue and other audio. Footage is mostly from the multiplayer modes of Bungie Studios' first-person shooter (FPS) video games Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 on the Microsoft Xbox video game console. Chronicling the story of two opposing teams of soldiers fighting a civil war in the middle of a desolate box canyon, the series is an absurdist parody of FPS games, military life, and other science fiction films. 
Red vs Blue emerged from Burnie Burns' voiceover-enhaced gamplay videos of Halo: Combat Evoved. Initially intended to be a short series of six to eight episodes, the project quickly achieved significant popularity following its 1 April 2003 online premiere, and, as a result, Rooster Teeth decided to extend the series, which completed its fourth season on 1 April 2006.
Both within the machinima movement and among film critics, Red vs Blue has been generally well-received. Praised for its originality, the series has won four awards from the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences, and has been credited with bringing new popularity to machinima, helping it to gain more mainstream exposure, and attracting more people to the art form. Graham Leggat, a former  director of communications for Lincoln Center's film society, has called Red vs Blue "truly as sophisticated as Samuel Beckett". Although episodes continue to be released online, the first three seasons are also available on DVD, making Red vs Blue one of the first commercially released and successful machinima products.
-----
The real changes here are to add in a little more background information, to clarify distribution methods, and to rearrange the last paragraph to account for the new preceding paragraph. Oh, and apparently, the AMAS does use an ampersand rather than spelling out "and", so I fixed that. — TKD::Talk 10:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I say go with it.--Drat (Talk) 11:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer lead?