Talk:Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)

message: >In addition, Sommers possessed nanomachines called anthrocytes which were capable of healing her body at a highly accelerated rate.[4]
Did they have true molecular Nanotechnology? If so, why didn't they use the nanomachines to grow real replacement limbs and organs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanotechnology

message: Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't put up articles on TV series that are only at the pilot stage. Perhaps this might be better off as part of the main The Bionic Woman article until such a time a series is actually announced. 68.146.41.17 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article premature

message: I deleted the boycott section. Unless such a movement (which makes no sense, but anyway) reaches "Craig Not Bond" or "Kill Enterprise" notoriety, then let's talk. Otherwise it just comes off as POV violation. 23skidoo 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boycott?

message: I altered the line "As Ryan is from England and naturally speaks in a received pronunciation accent ..." because it contained poor grammar. Correct is to say that she naturally "speaks in received pronunciation". RP isn't referred to as an accent because to call it an accent is tautological - the P already stands for pronunciation. See the wikipedia article on RP before considering referring to it as an accent. 82.10.108.49 23:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Received Pronunciation

message: There seems to be a bit of complaining going on (via You-tube blogs) about the casting of a non-deaf actress to play Jamie's deaf sister. Has there been any (reputable) reports of backlash? 68.146.8.46 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy?

message: The gay community is starting a boycott of the show due to the casting of Isaiah Washington. Should this be mentioned on the front page?
: Do you have a source for this? I've been looking around and have found nothing to support this in any reputable source. Similarly I never did find any reputable source to suggest the hearing impaired community had any serious plans to do anything before (or after) Jamie's sister's deafness was removed. If there's been media coverage, post it. If it's just idle chatter or message board gossip, it has no place here. As an aside, I can't see the gay community continuing to hound this guy till he commits suicide or something, all over an alleged incident that one party denies. I would hope to "gay community" (an abstract term if ever I heard one) would have more class. The alleged comments cost the guy a high-profile job on a successful show and now he's trying to rebuild his career in a show that may be cancelled after 3 episodes. He's been punished. 23skidoo 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wiki isn't place to discuss whether you agree with this alleged boycott, 23skidoo. You and everyone else only need concern yourself with finding a reliable source that either verifies the boycott or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.11.189 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boycott #2?

message: "best to utilize" is redundant- utilize already implies using practically or profitably.
63.237.20.195 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  use/utilize 

message: "Bionic woman" redirects tp the original show, surely since the name of this new show is "Bionic Woman" (without "the") it should redirect here, wih the little note at the top saying "this article is about the 2007 Televieion series, for the original see......." which is already there, so should the redirect be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.209.217 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds reasonable.  Anyone object? — Val42 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur, or change the page to be a disambiguation page. --StuffOfInterest 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the disambiguation page option is the best choice, as readers may be looking for either show. I've taken the liberty of creating one in the interim. Feel free to change it if the end result is a redirect. --Ckatzchatspy 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bionic Woman" redirect

message: It's quite obvious with the new show that the spelling of this character is Jamie - withe the "ie" - maybe the Jaime Sommers article should be split in two with the articles referencing each other. so:
:Jaime Sommers would be the 1970s show character.
:Jamie Sommers would be the 2007 show character.
Thoughts, anyone? - Davodd 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How certain are we of the spelling in the new series?  I say that we wait until the new show premieres, then we split the article. This will give time for responses as well as quell anyone who claims that the source that you currently have isn't authoritative for the new series. — Val42 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know - you are correct - NBC press releases have BOTH spellings for the new show. Ugh. ... - Davodd 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO we should go with Jamie. I'm sure David Eick will get asked about this at some point and give an official answer, but IMDB, press releases and blurbs for the show have it spelled Jamie. - BeX 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should go with the spelling that was in the file that she found about her in the second episode.  The typeface was large enough to read on television.  I wasn't looking at it at the time, but I saw it just before they cut away and saw that (if I'd been watching) I could have easily read the spelling. — Val42 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The dossier shown in the second episode quite clearly says "SOMMERS, Jaime". It's spelled "Jaime" throughout the official NBC site. Unless someone can come up with sources more definitive, then I think this question is settled. Her name is spelled "Jaime". ProgHead777 11:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions was brought up because, before its premiere, NBC had used both spellings.  I've added the reference to both this article and Jaime Sommers (Bionic Woman). — Val42 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaime vs. Jamie 

message: That's what it reminded me of, Painkiller Jane.  Not good.  -  Theaveng 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes both good examples of terrible television series, perhaps this should be mentioned in the main article... :) 121.209.117.2 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This show sucked (like Painkiller Jane)

message: Bionic Woman, while refreshing and having a lot of hype has inuendos of girl power.  The show is science fiction, and things like hyper-running speed, which has no representation in nature, and implanted intelligence are far-fetched at current, someday they may be possible.  The hyper running speed is problematic because the fastest two-legged movement on record is the kangaroo, and we all know they jump.  In fact, due to its akwardness, no animal actually moves at its top speed by walking, they all jump, from kangaroos, to cheetahs to horses.  First the hind legs, then the front to keep them in the air so they can jump again.
While trying not to predict anything, science fiction generally caters to a male audience, and this show seems to cater to women.  Not the best combination.
Mysturray 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Please review the Talk Page rules at the top of this page. Discussion of the topic itself is not allowed and will be deleted. 23skidoo 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not a review page

message: Is anyone going to start making a "list of episode" page?? (Wikirocks2 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll take care of it this evening. Hewinsj 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, thanks! That sure was quick! (Wikirocks2 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode pages 

message: Does anyone know how many episodes there are going to be in this season? (Wikirocks2 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just speculation at this point.  According to IMDB, Mark Sheppard is in for 14 episodes.  I'm just not comfortable enough with that to use it as a source, and it doesn't indicate how long the season will be.  He wasn't in episode 2, so that could put it to 15. Hewinsj 03:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm told there was a news report that NBC has ordered more scripts for the series, but I can't find a link. The pending writer's strike could make an impact if they don't officially order more scripts pretty soon. 23skidoo 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. of Episodes 

message: This may be a useful citation for the article. Eagle Owl 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: The pilot was rebroadcast on Bravo on the afternoon of 07 October 2007. Will episodes be regularly rebroadcast on Bravo? RahadyanS 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about rebroadcast on Bravo

message: Are we going to add the plot descriptions for the episodes? Right now, the table looks really wierd, so maybe we should delete the blank spaces, unless of course we are going to add the descriptions soon. (Wikirocks2 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to loose those boxes because then no one would know to put them back and fill them in.  I just added a short paragraph for the first 2 episodes.  If you notice something is missing like that, don't be afraid  to add it. The worst thing that could happen is that someone comes along and copy-edits it. Hewinsj 14:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok well it is defenitely looking better! Um...why were the hyperlinks connecting the episodes to the Wikia removed? I thought they were really useful. (Wikirocks2 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user that removed them cited that it was advertising a non-notable wikia or something like that.  I didn't mind them being there myself, but I'm not sure what the policy on Wikia use is. There is code that allows the linkage, so I assume that it isn't discouraged.  Hewinsj 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so could we put them back? If the user has a problem with it, they could come on the talk page and express why he removed them....this way everyone wins! (Wikirocks2 00:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a look and it's a small scale non-notable wiki - I agree with removing them. how I see that they are hosted by the for-profit business that Jimbo Wales and others are running, so I've got to wonder what will happen on the wider scale about those types of "adverts". --Fredrick day 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well could we then make our own pages for the episodes, and put that information into it. That info isn't copyright, so we could use it. How about that? (Wikirocks2 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Summaries 

message: This article needs to be moved back to Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) as here is currently a disambiguation page called Bionic woman. 23skidoo 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But now that there is a disambiguation page, we have to have an administrator make the move, unless you want to lose the history. — Val42 02:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 23skidoo 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title problems

message: I have moved this article back to "Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) for the following reasons:
: 1. The title "Bionic woman" already existed as a disambiguation page.
: 2. The title "Bionic Woman" is also used extensively (without the "The" article) to refer to the original series.
: 3. The name "Bionic Woman" is also applied to the two versions of Jaime Sommers, and it could also be applied to Sarah Corvis when and if an article on that character is made.
To avoid confusion, and to stay in keeping with how other TV shows and movies of similar title are made (see Battlestar Galactica), the article on this series needs to be disambiguated in the title. I have gone through the "What Links Here" listings for "Bionic Woman" (undisambiguated title) and have sorted out all the links, including a few that were actually referring to the original series, supporing rationale #2 above. The article "Bionic Woman" is now a disambiguation page. 23skidoo 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I was wondering why it hadn't been done already. Hewinsj 00:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article moved back to original title

message: Just not sure how to phrase it for the article.
*AICN indicates that Katee Sackhoff will be in at least 5 episodes.
*Tvshowblog indicates that the creative staff has changed/left/been replaced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewinsj (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 stories that could be used. 

message: Since the title of this article has been reverted back to the version that includes "(2007 TV series)" there is no longer a need for any disambiguation notice. Anyone looking for the original series will either type Bionic Woman, which will lead to the main disambiguation page or The Bionic Woman which will lead them to the article. OTOH a disambiguation note IS required at The Bionic Woman for the benefit of anyone looking for this article. 23skidoo 01:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But an "other series" note could be useful to anyone looking for the old series that winds up here.  Battlestar Galactica does it. Hewinsj 01:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link to the original series article on the second line, so they don't need to look very far. 23skidoo 02:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Hewinsj 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation notice

message: From the intro there is an alarming resmeblence to Dean Kootz False Memory cover
false memory cover Link287 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible dean kootz refrence 

message: I have corrected a glaring error. David Eick did not create The Bionic Woman. It was created by Kenneth Johnson, based upon concepts from the novel Cyborg. The current version is overseen and developed by Eick (which equates to created, so I did not change that wording), but let's keep our facts straight here. If someone can provide a source proving Eick created the series back in 1976, I'm willing to stand corrected. It's similar to the situation over at Doctor Who. Someone completely unaware of the show's history might think ti was created by Russell T. Davies, when in fact it was created by Sydney Newman, Verity Lambert and Donald Wilson years earlier. 23skidoo 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, the lead should say something like "Bionic woman, a reboot of the series created by Kenneth Johnson" or "Bionic Woman, a Science Fiction television series based on the television series created by Kenneth Johnson".  Something like that so long as it is brief and to the point. Just so long as you credit Eick for his contribution somewhere in the same paragraph I don't see a problem with it. Hewinsj 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creator

message: Does anyone have a source for the claim that this series is based on the novel Cyborg?
That seems very unlikely, considering that the whole reason they did not make a Six Million Dollar Man show and the reason they can't use characters like Oscar Goldman is that they *don't* have the rights to Cyborg, and can only use original material that doesn't come from the book. Ken Arromdee 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The character of Jaime Sommers is one of the few elements of the original 70s bionic mythos that does not in fact owe to Caidin at all.  The show, The Bionic Woman, carried the moniker "based on Cyborg" simply because it did use other Caidin-created characters such as Oscar Goldman, Steve  Austin and Rudy Wells.  Divorced from those other characters, there's nothing on which to base a credit all the way back to Caidin.  Unless the show itself specifically credits Caidin, any reference to him should be removed from this article, and most especially from the sidebar.   Kenneth Johnson, creator of Jaime Sommers, is the furthest this article should look backwards.  CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 19:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, because while the characters have been changed, the fact the series still references bionics has not. And that's a major Caidin concept. In addition, Sommers has been given a bionic eye which is an explicit reference to Steve Austin. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Explicit would mean that it says in the show that the bionic eye came was previously used in Steve Austin.  As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened, so the best you can say is that it is an implicit reference.  However, this would mean that someone is doing original research, so it wouldn't be allowed in an article on Wikipedia. — Val42 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on Cyborg? 

message: can someone fix the weird formating at the bottom of the page? --Fredrick day 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (Wikirocks2 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weird formating 

message: Um...first of all, I think we should make a new page for the episodes
And second of all, does anyone know the impact the strike will have on Bionic Woman? (Wikirocks2 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Episodes have been spun off.  No answer on your second question, but I did see a story on a news site that some shows are running out of episodes to air (CBS's Cain being one instance of this). Hewinsj 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you go to this page on wikipedia: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_2007_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike_on_television
it says 9 episodes have been completed, and also answers our question about how many episodes there was supposed to be - 13. 
The source is here:
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/guide.aspx?id=strike_scripted  (Wikirocks2 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Things To Say 

message: MayB we should say that in ep2 when Jamie and Ruth enter a house in that dead town, that there is an eposode of Battlestar Gaactica on TV? Just a thought... 83.157.165.71 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The characters section of this article is completely unorganised. Nathan and Antonio (until he died) appeared in i think every single episode, and they play important roles too. And Will Anthros, who is lsited as a main character, died in the very first episode and has not been seen since. I think someone should fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.147.160 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could split it up by living vs. dead characters or just re-evaluate who are standard vs. recurring characters in the show.  Also, I was thinking of moving the mention of Mae Whitman to the list of characters considering it's been so long since the pilot was leaked. Hewinsj (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken McGill's character and put him into a separate category of "Announced characters" due to the fact his character has yet to appear on the series and we do not know for certain that the character will be recurring or only appear once or twice should the series only continue to episode 13 post-strike. (Or for that matter be dropped completely as part of the expected relaunching) 68.146.41.232 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. Hewinsj (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  characters 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as the nominator. TJ Spyke 09:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I've added a DVD release section because Universal has announced that one is forthcoming in just over a month and a half. TVShowsonDVD is a recognized source (I say that because there is a Wiki-bias against Web-based entertainment news sources, but this one is not a blog or anything). That said, if anyone can find a printed source or, better still, has acccess to Universal's actual announcement press release, that's probably a more Wikipedia-friendly source. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD release

message: We have contradictory infomation here: one source says Universal plans to at least complete the remaining episodes of the 13-episode commitment, and then we have a single newspaper column suggesting the series has been cancelled. As a search of the usual sites provides no support for the contention that the series has officially been cancelled (yet), I have rewritten the information accordingly. USAToday is a good source but it's still taken from a column. A similar column, I recall, reported that Sean Connery would appear as James Bond's father in Die Another Day (not kidding). So let's wait till a few more sources such as Variety, AP, etc. report an official announcement rather than a columnist's (possibly erroneous) speculation. And saying a show might be cancelled is not the same as saying it is cancelled. Remember Jericho. 23skidoo (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support this, having removed the "cancelled" text earlier this morning for similar reasons. Before we proclaim it is "definitely cancelled", we need something more concrete to back it up. --Ckatzchatspy 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also freely admit this falls under "wishful thinking". However at the moment the most authoratative source we have in the article says production will resume to at least finish the remaining 4 or so episodes. And I've also heard (but don't have a source so can't include it) that NBC might be gambling that the "thank god TV is back" factor could result in the show getting an upswing of interest. In any regard, ABC just announced its renewals today. Presumably NBC will follow suit and then we'll have a definitive answer that we can cite. Otherwise it's all rumor or another kind of wishful thinking. ;) 23skidoo (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a link to an AP story that ran today on CNN.com and elsewhere. According to it BW is still "on the bubble", adding that the remaining episodes won't likely air till the fall "if ever". But that still means the show hasn't been cancelled yet. 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is my last post on this topic. Feel free to respond, but I'm done here. I checked the Template:Infobox Television a second time, and I was wrong: I thought it said, under the "last_aired" field in the chart at the bottom. The original airdate of the last episode. Use "present" if it is ongoing, with no mention of any form of the word "cancelled". Instead, it said: The original airdate of the last episode. Use "present" if it is ongoing, clearly meaning "last episode" field is only to be used when a show has been cancelled. I hope you'll understand my confusion on the infobox instructions. I now leave this article in your capable hands, 23skidoo. I'll check back in 4 or 5 years to see if it's been cancelled yet. - BillCJ (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Give us a link.  I just checked and the most recent message I could find from her was from 2/24/08 and stated "Next season I hope to be in more episodes". If there aren't any more recent statements she's under the impression that there will be a season 2.  Hewinsj (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now the Lucy Hale site is indicating that the show was canceled. Second page on the link I posted above.  Not sure if that's the nail in the coffin, but it's a member of the cast.  Hewinsj (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but The Ruler has spoken: Unless it's from an official NBC source which explicitly states that the show has been cancelled, it's still just a rumor. The official website of an actress on the show is in no way considered a reliable source by The Ruler. Perhaps Hale was only fired, and they lied to her so as not to hurt her felings. Anyway, we just keep waiting! Hopefull sometime in the next few years, NBC will tell us if the show was really cancelled. :) (Yes, I'm commenting again. Just too silly a situation to resist!) - BillCJ (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's pretty obvious that you don't understnad the concept of Wikipedia's Reliable sources policies, or if you do understand them, you certainly aren't bothering to follow them. You might also review WP:3RR while you're reading up on how WP functions. It might prevent you from getting some well-deserved enforced off-time on WP. Ausiello repots rumors - that is what he does - but they aren't reliable as far as sourcing goes. NBC still has yet to release an official announcemt of the cancellation. It's OK to report what Ausiello said directly, citing his column on TV Guide's website, but we can pretend it's official word, because it's not. For whatever reasons, NBC hasn't officially announced the cancellation of the show, possibly becuse they are still showing episodes online, and want to keep getting the ad revenue. - BillCJ (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Two easons: One, User:Awbeal posted after I wrote the post above, while I was asleep, so obviously I hadn't seen it when I wrote the post. Two, it actually quotes a producer by name - it's not repeating a rumor. Since Sci-Fi is owned by the same company as NBC, NBC Universal, and re-broadcasted the show, I believe it counts as a reliable souce. Feel free to use it as the source for the info you had added earlier - it's dead, Jim! - BillCJ (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Note that the Sci-Fi source say that NBC still has not officially announced the cancellation of the series, so I've added that into the text by Awbeal. - BillCJ (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I searched around and couldn't find a cancellation confirmation. As these things tend to be very easy to find once a cancellation is official and public I'm drawing the conclusion that's not the case for this series. Thus, Wikipedia should not say anything to that effect. For our purposes, it's still in production. CapnZapp (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancellation rumor

message: I've altered the writer credit wording a bit in the infobox to reflect more accurately the way the series was conceived. I think it's still important to include the lineage leading back to Caidin, but I think it's more accurate to go with the "based on a character" route re: Johnson and "suggested by" route re: Caidin. We can't speculate, but it would be interesting to see if there's been any controversy over Johnson not being credited. I can see Caidin being omitted (his inclusion here is admittedly anal but that's what we do here) but I found the fact Johnson wasn't credited to be troubling. 23skidoo (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tweak to infobox

message: The article for this cancelled series needs to be updated. It reads like the show is still in production, which is misleading to the reader. - Davodd (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched around and couldn't find a cancellation confirmation. As these things tend to be very easy to find once a cancellation is official and public I'm drawing the conclusion that's not the case for this series. Thus, Wikipedia should not say anything to that effect. For our purposes, it's still in production. Please don't change this unless you have a reliable source. CapnZapp (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it isn't in production and we shouldn't say that it is just because we can't prove that it isn't.  The cast has gone on to work on other projects, and the show was not renewed for a second season.  If development of a second season isn't underway, the show isn't in production. Hewinsj (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, the SciFi Channel is owned by NBC Universal, who also owns Bionic Woman. They ran a story back in March stating "David Eick, co-executive producer of NBC's SF series Bionic Woman, confirmed to SCI FI Wire that the network has indeed canceled the show, though the network has not yet officially said as much."  The story can be found  here.  While I realize that this isn't an official press release from the network, this is a news source owned by the company that also owned the show in question, quoting that show's producer. If it wasn't true, NBC would have made them reverse the statement.  Hewinsj (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updated for clarity 

message: It says that, in Australia, The Bionic Woman premiered in late June, 2008, on "The Sci-fi Channel"
I'm pretty positive that it aired at least several months prior to this, on a free-to-air channel.
Not sure where I'd find sources for that, however.
Murrawhip (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Broadcasting error 

message: "Mixed reaction"?  Bionic Woman is now synonymous with major flop.  This wasn't just "a new show": NBC hyped it for months in advance as "THE show" of the new season....and the result, was a disgrace.  I understand that you want more solid referencing and I agree; I don't have time now but I'll sort through the...myriad critical jibes and reviews taken at the series.  But this article is almost as if...its based on just the pilot.  As the 8 episode season wore on, critics just kept hating it more, as did viewers.  It's sloppy garbage...but what do you expect from switching head writers so many times.  At any rate:  yes, I will have to spend time hunting around for critical reactions to source:  though I would point out:  what's your source that reaction was "mixed"?  I've already cited sources saying it was awful.  Regardless, yes, need more solid references.  As for "concision"...it's simply not going to be a paragraph or short statement.  While it will have more references, yes, a sizable amount of text is going to be devoted to listing all of the many criticisms of this show.  Heck, many of the better reviews I've read summarizing the series (from SyfyPortal, AintItCoolNews, Io9.com, etc....I need to find links) have gone so far as to make point by point lists of how "Bionic Woman" is almost a guide to "how to make a bad series".  Anything that could go wrong, did go wrong.  Sort of like how one cannot just mention "Caddyshack II was given mixed reviews" but "Caddyshack II was given mixed reviews because...".  Etc.  A more thorough update with better sourcing of TV critics will be pending when I have the time. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it's not the definitive "flop" that you make it out to be. (And I say that being fully aware of the series' many weaknesses.) While it was cancelled early, keep in mind that there are many new series that would have been happy to get as many episodes to air. (Remember Drive? Only four episodes aired. Some others only one or two.) As for the hype, networks promote a lot of shows that end up as failures for a host of reasons. Should we only praise the show? Of course not - but we do have to keep WP:UNDUE in mind; this is an article, not a critical review. --Ckatzchatspy 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that this is not a review; on a side note....no, "flop" doesn't equate to "canceled"...do you understand what "flop" means?  Call it what you will, flop, failure etc....no, Bionic Woman is not comparable to "Drive" or the many shows that get canceled after 3-4 episodes.  This was an awful series.  but what I mean is.....the number of episodes they bothered to air is no reflection of the quality of the series and I'm surprised that you've confused this; heck, Firefly didn't even air some of their episodes...does this mean it was a failure or critically blasted as a bad series?  No.  Sir, Bionic Woman has been, *in as many words*, described by major critics as "the definitive flop" and "such a bad series that its like a guide to how to intentionally make a bad series".   I do agree that I have to root around and find the actual review articles ( I know who made them but I forget the dates...) then I'll put that back up more formally.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to cite unfavorable reviews, but we should not use terms such as "flop" in the article as that violates WP:NPOV. Star Trek: Enterprise is also often described as a flop, even though it lasted 4 seasons and just shy of 100 episodes which de facto makes it a major long-running hit. It's only a flop because of the opinions of critics. Short-lived series, obviously, cannot be defended in such a way, nor should they, but the term has been so loosely applied that it is no longer valid. "Mixed reaction" works fine because you will find positive reviews of the thing out there, and to say something like "universally panned" would require cited proof that every printed and online publication in existence has been checked. Which of course is impossible. 23skidoo (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ....No.  Yes, Enterprise got a pretty bad critical reaction but was kept on for 4 years and I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "flop" (nor am I gunning for using the word "flop" in this article) but it was "a failure".....if Bionic Woman wasn't "a failure", what is the criteria for that?  Again, the fault is mine in that I don't have the time to look this all up now and I promise to later.  But the point I want to make is this:  most of the formal reviews cited so far (thanks for those, btw) are all based on the first episode premiere, and thus, skewed.  Almost all of them are just based on the pilot rather than a reflection on the series as a whole.  Of course, even then, the pilot episode met with indeed "mixed" reactions because people were trying to see the positives in it (even myself, though it did have some cringe-worthy moments like "I'm surprised a girl could do that mom!"....ugh).  The point is, rarely will a critical review site make a commentary on "wow, lets devote an article on how bad a series is"....I guess they did a few around the cancellation, etc....but Bionic Woman wasn't formally cancelled until far into the Writer's Strike, when it had been on hiatus for a long time, so it wasn't much of a shock and it just peacefully died.  Again, I do know that for example, SyfyPortal, AintItCool.com, and Io9.com at one point or another last spring wrote several articles listing all of the criticisms of the series as a whole and why it was so bad.  Something more than just a review of the pilot episode.  The NY Times and SF Chronicle reviews seem mostly based on the premiere.  But part of a series is also...the actual series, which was laughably incoherent, had no real character development, and just oddly meandered around while aping the dark done of BSG (my real problem is that after 9 episodes, they still weren't bothering to introduce major characters and Sackhoff kind of upstaged Ryan, but that's just my view).  But I am deeply confused why you are defending this awful show:  what does constitute a "flop"?  It's not just "the critics hated it", because many shows run years with negative criticism even from fans (Voyager, Enterprsie) Nor is it short running time and cancellation (i.e. Firefly was a critical hit but got cancelled without even airing some episodes...because Fox was full of morons).  Further, many "small" series come and go without much notice; small series never intended to be major attractions often run for less than a season and get cancelled with bad critical reviews (New Amsterdam?).  My point is, Bionic Woman meets all 3 criteria:  critics hated it (initial reviews of the pilot were mixed but anything reviewing episode 2-9 simply grows to loathe it), the ratings dropped like a stone to half of their premiere ratings in a matter of weeks, it was cancelled without finishing a complete season, and ***it was hyped all summer and heavily promoted as a major tent-pole series for NBC, a new flagship series...hype matched only by the magnitude of its fall.  I'm not trying to badger you or anything, and yes this needs to be an impartial collection of critic reviews and not our own words, but still:....if Bionic Woman wasn't a flop, what DO you consider a flop?  What does it take?  I am confused.  Bionic Woman met every condition I consider that qualifies. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In answer to your question, per WP:NPOV what I think doesn't matter and I'm not allowed to say anything of my opinion in a Wikipedia article. Similarly, we can't call Enterprise a failure either because that requires us to violate NPOV to state why we might think it was a failure, but how can a series that ran 100 episodes be considered a failure? Because some fans didn't like it? Because it didn't run 7 seasons like the other shows (two of which - DS9 and Voyager - have been cited by some critics as having run 3 seasons too long)? Again, we aren't allowed to go into this ourselves. Not just because of WP:NPOV but also WP:NOR. And we can't say things like "universally panned" because we would need to cite a reputable source that indicated it had surveyed every single review worldwide of this program. All we can say is that a number of reviewers reacted negatively to this series (citing and quoting where appropriate) and that the ratings were not strong enough to justify renewal; although I've seen articles making reference to the mitigating circumstances of the strike, that Universal and NBC were ready to at least let the show go to 13 episodes, but the extended strike ended those plans. Ratings do not have any bearing on a show's quality and cannot be used as indicator of same, incidentally. Otherwise fans of shows like Firefly and Jericho might have something to say about it. Back to BW: yes, the three criteria you mention support the "flop" idea -- so we state these facts, give the sources to support them, and let the reader draw his own conclusion. We aren't allowed to interpret them in any way -- and yes that means there may be someone out there who will say "it's not a flop". But that's not our worry. 23skidoo (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: .......please bother to read what I actually wrote instead of restating your earlier comments.  I just said that Bionic Woman cannot be compared to Enterprise or Firefly, because "a failure" lets say provisionally, meets 3 requirements - critics don't like it, ratings are low, it gets canceled early, and further, if it was hyped as a major new series that was expected to last many years.  No, it is not a matter of "fans of shows like Firefly or Jericho would say ratings don't matter and can't be used as an indicator"....you're right, they wouldn't; because those shows, while suffering low ratings, were critical hits from "reputable sources".  .....I mean, you just said "critics hating a show doesn't mean its a failure Enterprise lasted for years"...so my response was "it didn't last for years and also got bad ratings"....so now you're reversing to say that "well ratings don't count"......it's because its both.  My entire point is that the combined problems are what made Bionic Woman "a failure"; it wasn't just "a ratings failure", it wasn't just "a critical failure", what makes it "a failure" is that it didn't just suffer from one of these problems, but from all of them combined. As for the non-Point of View rules, they will be abided by, I just need time to go back and find all of the articles and reviews listing how bad it was.   --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you aren't reading my comments either so I am terminating this discussion to stop this becoming a pissing match. Fact remains we (and by we I mean Wikipedia editors) cannot label anything a flop. Period. Full stop. End of story. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unilaterally declaring the discussion "Period Full stop. End"...is like waving a big flag saying "I cannot think of an effective counterarguement so I'm throwing in the towel".  I have read your comments and you are ignoring mine:  so lets break it down again:  a show can have ratings problems but be a critical success (Firefly), be a ratings success but critics hate it (Voyager), or even, the critics hate it and the ratings stink, but the network drags it out to grind out 100 episodes for DVD release (Enterprise) so its still "long running".  What you probably grasp but seem to be unwilling to accept is that Bionic Woman is "a flop" because it failed on all three counts:  it was a series that critics hated, on which the ratings sank like a stone, and which ran less than a season before being canceled.  Your defense has been the ol strawman technique:  if I say "the critics hated it" you say "so what, critics hated Voyager but that ran long", or if I say "the ratings were bad" you then say "so what? they were bad on Firefly".  The crucial point is that it was a failure in both areas.  It had no redeeming factor here; any way in which it could measurably fail, it did.  I fully understand your point that we cannot label it "a flop" because wikipedia is supposed to be objective....thus if I do want to point out how many problems it had, I have to do the work of digging up critic reviews (aintitcool, io9, syfyportal) which considered it a laughably bad series (to the point that they now use it as their textbook example of a "flop").  Yes, I haven't had the time to do that yet, and until I do, we can't ourselves declare it a flop.  So why am I writing now?  Simply because as one viewer to another, I'm surprised that you feel a driving need to defend this awful failure of an attempt to make a series.  And I can justifiably say it is a failure, because it was simultaneously a critical and ratings flop, which was not on the air a long time, even though NBC hyped it as a new tentpole series in their lineup.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bionic Woman was a flop

message: I did some clean-up of the article. All that it needs now is a minor copyedit, additional refs and formatted refs. Otherwise, I think pretty much everything else is covered for a GA nom. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement 

message: Hi, brand new here but noticed a huge mistake....
Katee Sackhoff played Starbuck in Battlestar  not Number six as listed.
Thanks
66.32.29.6 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  It doesn't say she played Number Six; it just says that she compared Sarah Corvus to Number Six.  Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bionic Woman (2007 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323141655/http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=1&id=50610 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=1&id=50610
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bionic Woman (2007 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/20080315011327/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Exclusive-Bionic-Recast/800017676 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Exclusive-Bionic-Recast/800017676
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i53270960c7c27f1c766156076407325a?imw=Y
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i0c6a315db8be49af2b7382a1268afba7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520043618/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Wga-Strike-Favorite/800032698 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Wga-Strike-Favorite/800032698
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228004715/http://www.syfyportal.com:80/news424740.html to http://www.syfyportal.com/news424740.html
*Added  tag to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-%20%20Report/Nbc-Schedule-Scoop/800036704
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Bionic Woman (2007 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/20100307000744/http://www.nbc.com:80/Fall_Preview/Bionic_Woman/ to http://www.nbc.com/Fall_Preview/Bionic_Woman/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306011051/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=8db3dfdd-9e29-4208-9aca-3b173ce91cba&k=71485 to http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=8db3dfdd-9e29-4208-9aca-3b173ce91cba&k=71485
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219112723/http://community.tvguide.com:80/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Bionic-Woman-Completely/800029476 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Bionic-Woman-Completely/800029476
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217023445/http://www.zap2it.com:80/tv/news/zap-nbcreturndates,0,5166001.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-nbcreturndates,0,5166001.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915030353/http://www.zap2it.com:80/tv/news/zap-lucyhalebionicwomancasting,0,826070.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-lucyhalebionicwomancasting,0,826070.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114013203/http://www.zap2it.com:80/tv/news/zap-jasonkatimsbionicwoman,0,5298492.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-jasonkatimsbionicwoman,0,5298492.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501042023/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218051739/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100907_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100907_06
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218044856/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101607_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101607_06
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) 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified