Talk:War of the Worlds (1988 TV series)

message: George Pal really had an idea for a TV series? I find that rather hard to believe; the ending of the film was satisfying enough that he shouldn't have seen any need for a series. Besides, the book didn't have a sequel, so why should the film? Scorpionman 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What planet are you from?  Since when did Hollywood ever need a literary sequel to proceded with a film sequel?  Jurassic Park was based on a novel by Michael Crichton, but the film sequel, The Lost World was not based specifically on Crichton's sequel novel, and Jurassic Park III and the fourth sequel were not based on any book at all.  The Godfather trilogy was based on a single novel, or rather the first and second films were based on a novel and the third film was simply a sequel not based on a novel.  The examples could go on and on.  Why shouldn't the film have had a sequel?  Besides, Pal's plan for a series is well documented; it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Canonblack 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Pal really have an idea for a TV series? 

message: The current writing of the article is obviously biased. Large portions of the description are just an extended argument for the value of the first season and against the worth of the second. I suggest a full re-write by someone familiar with the series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.119.236 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest those tags be moved to the second season section since the premise and first season sections don't seem to make a major violation, a conclusion that could be reached based on the examples brought to the surface by Anonymous #2. Although maybe in need of some tweaks, I don't think they warrant going the way of vast retooling as Anonymous #1 seemingly suggests - that's analogous to that saying about babies, bathwater, and how you throw them out. I step up to take some responsibility for the degraded state of the second season material. It's not necessarily that I hate it; it's that I can't seem to simply get into it, problems furthered by the obvious ignorance of the creative staff to keep a cohernt story. However, a part of the fault comes from the lack of additional contributors to help bring up the rear. I don't see many coming in and digging into the article. I'd say that I crafted 91.875 percent of the article as it stands. A majority of the rest of that tiny fraction was here when I joined in on the editing process - some of it I'm not sure should stand. What I refer to specifically are the Series end and Loose ends sections. Am I the only one who doesn't find them to be necessary? And dropping them off at the next editing stop could leave some of these questionable phrases out and lop off a part of the problem right there. Anyway, I shall push no resistence towards improving the aspects of the second season - just as long as we don't leave out the continuity problems, the damned near complete swapping of production staff, and Mancuso's on-record statement about not watching much of the first season (it's not cited now, but I can easily dig it up when I get the time and put up the effort). They shouldn't be the primary direction of the summary, I understand, but they are nevertheless important because they contribute to the shift the show takes, which has lead to the assaulting critique of the latter season. This trails to another difficult angle I bring up: that is to take in mind that some of the criticism of the second season is quite public and numerous in forums like that of the one attached to the profile page at IMDb, so it's not hard to disprove a few comments as original research... but for some reason, forum records don't seem to count for shit when it comes to verification. If we're bringing up a fanbase, I don't see why we can't cite a thread where they're aruging the pros and cons. And it's not as if there's a lot professional analysis in this particular case. That was a digress. The point I think I'm trying to make is... I don't know how to summarise very well. However, I think I've countered the issues that have been addressed with what I wanted to air out, so there. --Bacteria (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: :Image:EYE7.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EYE7.jpg

message: :Image:Wotw1title.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wotw1title.JPG

message: :Image:Steel drum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Steel drum.jpg

message: Why hasn't the second season of War of the Worlds (aka War of the Worlds: The Second Invasion) been released on DVD from Paramount Home Entertainment? As far as I know, only the first season is currently available on DVD. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the second season was shit? Hell, it had Adrian Paul in it, that's reason enough to keep it off shelves. Optimus Sledge (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't Adrian Paul the Highlander guy named Duncan MacLeod? AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second season DVD release? 

message: Below information was tagged for original research in 2012. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on War of the Worlds (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303174259/http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_of_the_worlds_tv_pal.htm to http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/war_of_the_worlds_tv_pal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The title of this article is under discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#The_War_of_the_Worlds
-- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title