Talk:I Dream of Jeannie

message: Could anyone familiar with this show please explain to me why DePatie-Freleng Enterprises (DFE), the company who came up with the animation for the opening title sequences (not Hanna-Barbera as some IDOJ fans are led to believe, even though H-B would make a cartoon around Jeannie in 1973), was left uncredited? Thank you very much.
Could this be because of DFE and/or Friz was unhappy with the results of the animation?
WikiPro1981X (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DePatie-Freleng Enterprises -- Why Uncredited??? 

message: This is a very nice article, but it seems like a large section of it deals with inconsistencies and other general unsourced trivia about the show. Before I start to prune some of those away, does anyone have any ideas on how to work some of those into the main body of the article so it doesn't seem so trivial? Dayewalker (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to get rid of most of the trivia a while back, only to have another editor put it all back immediately. IMO, the only "Other inconsistencies" items worth keeping are the airing of the pilot episode (which could go in the Original Run section) and possibly the cross use of sets between this show and Bewitched. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, I just cut a lot of junk out of the article again. We don't allow original research, so the crufty "inconsistencies" section is gone. That's putting aside the other point that expecting accuracy from a show about an astronaut and his magic genie in a bottle is a bit ridiculous anyway. I also trimmed down the pop culture section which was a bit out of control. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Double "UGH!!" back at you! This was thoughtful, conscientious content, not "unresearched", not "junk"! And any "story" can be expected to exhibit internal consistency, regardless how fantastic the premise. Just because it didn't interest YOU ALL doesn't mean it wasn't salient! Leave this matter to those who have a better appreciation of the subject! 141.158.64.241 (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Beeblebrox. There was way too much trivia, and even with it removed, the article is too long. I'm going to revert the IP's reversion of Beeblebrox's edit. If the IP - or anyone else - wants to reinsert material back into the article, you need to specify exactly which material (not just generally), why it's relevant (and not just remotely relevant) and necessary to the article, and what source supports the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know I started this discussion, but I wanted to be clear that I fully support the removal. It was extremely trivial and unsourced, and most of it seemed to be original research. Dayewalker (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm always in favor of clarity. At this point, just in case it's unclear to the IP who restored the material, there is already a consensus for the removal. There are four editors (Dayewalker, Clarityfiend, Beeblebrox and I) generally in favor of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also policies, namely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that say this type of content should not be in here without sources that specifically discuss those inconsistencies.  Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add a belated fifth in support of the removal. To the anon IP: Source your material or expect to see it whacked and lose the attitude. JTRH (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I believe it should be eliminated as unnecessary. Are we going to include translations of all TV shows in Wikipedia articles? Unless someone objects, I will remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we can add interwiki links if people want to see what it was called in other languages, this is over the top. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages section 

message: Does anyone else feel the way the article is organized is bit off and we should re-arrange the order of the sections? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is badly organized and bloated. I would order it: Story, Cast, Setting, Show history, and References in popular culture. I would remove Multi-part story arcs, Theme music, Opening Sequence, The bottle, Jeannie's origin, and Merchandising, all of which are unsourced and not worthy of inclusion. Even much of what I would leave is unsourced and should be tagged, but I wouldn't remove it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  organization 

message: Aired March 23, 1963. There must be a connection. I did not see anything about this here nor in the article about the Twilight Zone episode. Did I miss it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.43.117 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twilight Zone episode "I dream of Genie" 

message: The cultural references section is a mess, with too many of the references seeming trivial. The Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content-section states:
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
# Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
# Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
# Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?
If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content.
I don't see that many of the items in the list currently fulfils these criteria. I think at least references that are of an "in passing", or "mentioned in an episode" nature should be removed. I will be bold and remove the items that in my opinion clearly does not justify inclusion, but wait a little while before pruning further. Dr bab (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Trivia section above. The article is too bloated with trivia. Generally, I agree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References Section 

message: Hello!
I believe that the very last time I saw Barbara Eden herself play the part of "Jeannie" was for a "JEEP" commercial that was aired on regular broadcast television. In that commercial it seemed to me like she finaly found a replacement for Tony in the role of her master. This commercial was made some time after her previous last appearance in that "Brady Bunch" movie. Is that event major enough to be a part of the list? If not, why not?
Also, could there be some confusion on the part of some people about how Paris Hilton may have been considered for the role of "Jeannie" in a remake? I ask, because after all, she did a guest starring role in the other now cancelled "NBC" series, "American Dreams", as "Barbara Eden", and then while in character as Eden, she then had to play as "Jeannie"! I bring that up, because I know of some Trekkies and Trekkers who were waiting for a live-action movie about "Starfleet Academy" to come out, without realizing that it was actually a live-action game made for computers, that was made like movies are made. (This was years before the most recent "Star Trek" movie that eventually did have such a setting. Ditto the confusion with the "Borg" game and the "Klingon" language game.) So knowing about that I wonder, if there could have been a similiar comfusion associated with Miss Paris Hilton and a new "Jeannie" movie. Granted, I see all of those other names listed as having been considered, so maybe not. But then again, maybe so!
By the way, what about mentioning how the series eventually becoming just a dream of a character in "The Bob Newhart Show" as did "Newhart", places the series into a very large crossover group in which all of the other linked shows, turn out to be merely an autistic fantasy of the boy from the series finale for "Saint Elsewhere"? Doesn't that also merit a mention? Being a mere dream that is part of a mere fantasy, would logically explain any and all continuity errors!
I'm just saying!  LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Commercial for "JEEP" & Paris Hilton as "Barbara Eden" in "American Dreams" also on "NBC" & the Big Crossover Group! 

message: LL Cool J - Big Ole Butt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84LUpG6ieis
has a genie/bottle sequence at start. Jidanni (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  L.L. Cool J - Big Ole Butt 

message: We read on Paul Lynde he made regular appearances, so please mention it. Jidanni (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Lynde 

message: I cannot remember where I read this (web or magazine article?) but the change in theme music  had to do with the change in direction of the show as a whole. The decision was made to de-emphasize the romantic aspects somewhat and increase the slapstick elements, perhaps due to Larry Hagman's ability to do physical comedy. It was felt that a lighter, "bouncier" tune was needed to reflect the new direction. I've read several articles, watched interviews and once owned the book "Dreaming of Jeannie" so this information could have come from any one of those sources.MARK VENTURE (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: THEME MUSIC CHANGE

message: Re: this edit.  
Per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial_websites#IMDb, IMDb is not generally regarded as a reliable source for cited facts within Wikipedia articles since it is largely a user-edited website.  The issue should be discussed here on this talkpage first before there are any more changes or edit reversions. Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the last change by the editor; it's unacceptable. I see you've left them a talkback. I've also left them a message. Hopefully, the user will discuss the issue rather than continue to insist on re-adding the material. Thanks for dealing with this in such a professional manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit that uses imdB as a source 

message: This may be in the Who Cares dept., but the info in the "Opening sequence" is wrong. It is true that the first eight episodes used an "expository opening narrated by Paul Frees," but it ALSO used the normal animated opening that was used for the rest of the year. The episode would begin with the recapitulation of how Tony and Jeannie met on the island, complete with the credits, then the introductory segment of the episode would be shown, and then the animated credit sequence would be shown. This was done presumably to let viewers who had initially missed the first episodes to know what was going on. My knowledge of this is based upon watching the syndicated broadcasts, which may or may not be different from the DVDs.
I'd be willing to change this but this would be considered "original research." It seems like there should be a distinction between synthetic and analytic research, but I guess that'll never happen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.113.135 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't anybody care that it's wrong?209.179.40.208 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this should be corrected. 2600:4041:5396:A600:C040:6461:3773:3C29 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entry for the "Opening sequence" has a mistake. 

message: In an episode of Growing Pains, Alan Thicke's character says he is attending a lecture at the "Dr Alfred Bellows Memorial Center" (Thicke's character also being a psychiatrist). Does anyone have more on this to add it to the main page? Barry.carter (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growing Pains reference 

message: Should the opening read that the programme "was" and sitcom? That is, past tense. 202.86.32.122 (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a sitcom even now. It didn't become something else after having been a sitcom in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is/Was 

message: The Jeannie bottle in the photo is not an authentic prop bottle. It may be labeled as such in the museum, but this appears to be a brass bottle reproduction (one that is readily available on ebay) as evidenced by the shape of the stopper which does not match that of the original glass bottle. There are many other photos available of the actual bottle as seen on the set of the television program. 2600:4041:5396:A600:C040:6461:3773:3C29 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of “Prop Bottle”