Talk:Continuum (TV series)

What's CPS?

You can't start a paragraph with "CPS Protector Kiera Cameron" without first defining what CPS is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.167.25 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

CPS stands for City Protective Services. Edited the article to state that. DarkProdigy (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Main reference

The referenced PDF-File "Continuum_Sponsorship_Opportunities.pdf" contains only the statement "Contact your sales rep for more details on Continuum" and three telephone/fax numbers. Is it possible to find a better reference — the main homepage of the series doesn't include the given facts? --Taschna (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How can i put this... Shaw swapped out the extremely detailed file for a very simple file. The version used in the reference is from 22 March 2012 and i have it if you want it. The file now found at the uri used in the reference is from 12 April 2012. There is another, not too different, version from 26 April 2012. The major differences are the presence of a title page, the last few pages are numbered, the image on the "Menu Options" page is a 2D version of the logo with the O out of phase in white on black instead of a frame from the trailers with the shades of blue dots, and "All concepts are subject to change and approval. Production fees may apply." is in the footer of all save the title page and as such some images have been re-sized to accommodate the expanded footer. One thing about future Vancouver seen in the sponsorship opportunities file that i must have completely missed in watching the show is that the city is submerged by what looks to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4 metres of the ocean depending on which concept images one looks at. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, the lesson here is that contributors who think they find a great reference, should use their experience to anticipate whether that url may go 404, and should use the wayback machine to archive the version they like.
• This url insideview spring2014 all.pdf contains some paragraphs about continuum. Deliriousandlost, if you were the one who originally used the missing reference could you check the URL I found, and refute or confirm whether it is a mirror of that file? Geo Swan (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, the file you found is more than 2 years newer than what was used way back in 2012 to reference the first season's episode count and debut date. It is also vastly different. What was used is the corresponding .pdf that goes with the html for 22 March 2012 from this url Inside Track: Archived Issues. Sadly, there is also no page save of the html for Shaw's newsletter to advertising customers. In addition to soliciting product placement, the only significance of that file is the concept art that showed Vancouver was in the 2070s a city risen out of the ocean. But it was just concept art. Is that really still important today? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Where are the summaries??

Where are the summaries of the episodes? -- LAW CSI (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

They were removed because they were copied from elsewhere. They must be written entirely from scratch to avoid such copyright violations. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please only review the first episode. Otherwise, you need to alert for spoilers. We want to give people enough information for them to know if they want to watch the show. Spoilers will just make them move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.205.201 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are totally wrong:

• Wikipedia does not censor any information or hold something back.
• What is or is not a spoiler is subjective and therefore a violation against the neutral point of view policy.
• We do not use any disclaimers in articles, especially no spoiler warnings.
• The purpose of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is NOT to get you hooked to a commercial product. We do not make something more interesting or provide a cliffhanger to stimulate you to buy a product or to consume a show! Wikipedia is about informing people neutral and without any restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.48.10 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened to episode 6?

Show airs on sundays but episode 6 never aired? Any idea why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.135.11 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it is a bit late but the answer is Canada Day. Any broadcaster who schedules a new episode of their new hit show on a national holiday long weekend in the summer needs to find better management. Odds are the 11th 10th episode of season 2 will not be scheduled for 30 June 2013 as that would be the same national holiday long weekend, though in that case the national holiday would itself not be on the day Continuum is broadcast but the day after. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) -- edited due to forgetting Victoria Day delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

External links

There is an actual liber8.com site they made. --95.34.4.130 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.tvrage.com/Continuum/episodes/1065184897. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://continuumtheseries.com/episodes/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is this show based?

"Vancouver", and she starts off posing as a "Portland" police officer. They're both ambiguous cities though. Vancouver Canada? Portland Oregon? What? 111.69.198.177 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kiera Cameron is a "CPS Protector", CPS being corporate-run police, 'City Protective Services', and lives in Vancouver. In the pilot it was clear that she only posed as a Portland, Oregon Police Officer so as to remain on the site where she and the others arrived so she could find clues. She had little knowledge of any government agency etcetera, otherwise she'd have played up being a fed instead. Her lack of 'modern day knowledge' is clear throughout the series. She only gave the name she did because as she looked away, she recalled (or saw on a nearby TV, didn't catch which) seeing that name and badge number. Presumably, a HDTV, you know, SDTV can't show such detail :P In summary, if she posed as local, she'd have been found out much more easily.92.234.135.79 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Vancouver in question is clearly the one that's most obvious: the large city in British Columbia, Canada. One solid piece of evidence is in season 1 episode 4, in which some of the action takes place at the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Classical Chinese Garden. Compare the images of the architecture shown at approximately 32:41 in the episode with this photo (which is linked at the article about the Chinese Garden). It's a perfect match. SEppley (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Character descriptions

I think we can use examples from Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Blade Runner to flesh out this section as well as suggestions from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. —Vorik111 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Eye color conflict

Kiera's eyes are blue, as well as her husband's. Their son has brown eyes. This is impossible (as of 2013) :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.240.35 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Blue eyed parents can have a brown eyed baby. The chances are very low, but it does happen. See http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask332 Ianbrettcooper (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the mechanics of time travel in the series

Young Alec points out that there are essentially two possibilities:

The first is that this is a time loop, and elderly Alec in 2077 had already met Kiera, remembered everything they did together, and was possibly even inspired to create cybernetic technology from encountering "his" future work in her implants. In this case, nothing can be changed, and the mega-corporations will still dominate the planet in 2077.

The second possibility is that the time travel of the terrorists and Kiera has altered the pre-existing timeline, and due to their intervention it is no longer certain what 2077 will be like.

The first possibility is indicated in Season 1 Episode 1, when during the escape of the Liber8, the 2077 Alec Sadler was the only witness who seemed totally unsurprised as events unfolded.

The theory is potentially contradicted in Season 1 Episode 5 when a woman believed to be the grandmother of Liber8 member Matthew Kellog is killed before she can have children and Kellog remains in existence, but the present Alec notes that there is no way to be sure if the woman in question actually was Kellog's grandmother, as he merely identified her based on the house she lived in and he could have found the house before his family moved in.

In season 1's tenth and final episode, "Endtime", we discover more evidence that the time loop possibility is indeed correct: Sadler knew precisely what would happen in 2077 and purposefully sent both Kiera and Liber8 back in time, for reasons yet unknown.

Above material transplanted from main article. Speculation until proven in-series. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you even watch the series? All that was mentioned in season 1! Hence why it was in the article. MisterShiney ✉ 21:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't always disagree with MisterShiney and this is one of those times i really do agree with him. Asking for proof in the show is like asking for the plot to be resolved and there be no more show since these two possibilities young Alec proffers are what the primary characters are essentially trying to determine the accuracy of so as to get Kiera back to the family she left behind. Then there is the matter of young Alec proffering these theories in the show and therefore already satisfying what you here demand. Could you be possibly trying to play Continuum like a child might play house? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the ad-hominem attack; truly, I wonder which of us is being more "childish" or "playing house" with the article. I've been burned for putting discussions like this into TV series articles before, having it called "wordcruft" or "original research" and summarily taken out by much more hardass editors. So pardon me for being cautious. If there is not explicit proof in the series, then it is speculation, and last time I checked, speculation and nitpicking discussions do not constitute a plot summary. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In some really simple terms the theories are the plot. Playing Continuum can be fun so i am not sure why you are so upset. Some might call it immersing yourself in the story. Maybe one day there will be a video game for Continuum. Wordcruft is what you label something when you seek to discredit or censor someone. Everything is original research unless it is nonsense since whomever adds whatever has to get the information from somwwhere; the spin on it to call it secondary or tertiary research should in theory actually make it less reliable. The speculations are part of the show itself; without speculating on multiple theories of what happened and how to undo it Kiera would be able to get home really easily and the show would be complete. Speculating on the speculations and theories found within the show wouldn't be appropriate, but what is found within the show is quite comprehensive and includes some speculation on the accuracy of the theories Alec puts forward. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. I've come up with a new summary of the time travel theories presented in the series, with a link to an article that touches upon the subject (in Simon Barry's own words, even). And I have watched the entire series so far, thanks for asking so politely. --24.150.178.154 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Caution is in order when considering adding explanations of the model(s) of time travel used in the series. I think policy would allow quoting or summarizing exposition from the characters themselves, or quoting or summarizing speculation from third party RS. Including our own interpretations, or material from blogs, would be counter-policy in article space. I think different policies should bar us discussing how time travel worked from this talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up the renewal paragraph

I noticed on the front page the renewal paragraph is cluttered, I don't think it needs to be heavily referenced with each renewal and mentioned in great detail that it premieres on Showcase and Syfy each time. Why not just have one line that mentions that it was renewed for 'Insert season here with source' and its premiere date for each network. Something like this..

On May 5, 2014 Showcase renewed Continuum for a fourth season(reference source here). And then mention the premiere date for each network afterwards(with source).

I would make the changes myself but I'm just an IP user and don't know how some of the more established editors on the page handle it. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

April 4 premiere SyFy

The lede of this article currently states that On June 5, 2013, Continuum was officially renewed for a third season which premiered on March 16, 2014 On Showcase in Canada and April 4, 2014 on Syfy in the US. If I'm not mistaken, April 4th hasn't arrived yet. I'm not suggesting any changes to the lede, but rather be careful about adding dated material.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The plot's political terminology is odd

The plot's second paragraph starts with : "When a group of anarcho-socialist self-proclaimed freedom fighters" It's everywhere on the internet to describe the show. The words Anarcho-socialist, since they're not linked to the dedicated wiki page, sound more like a way to say really bad activists guys . Therefore I would either, depending on the show:

• Add the link to the Social anarchism wikipedia page, to help people understand what Social anarchism is, if the show is that into politics.
• Remove this complex terminology and replace it by "terrorists", since they're identified as terrorists since the first minute of the pilot, when the towers fall.

Let's hear it from the fans ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikobcn (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. gsk 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Characters page in the works

I am currently working on a List of Characters page here. Any help will be grateful.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have set up a makeshift project in my sandbox which aims to improve the coverage of Continuum on Wikipedia. There is lots of work to do so please feel free to come on over and help.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I put your character list on my watchlist, though I likely won't help much (I have a long standing issue with such articles because they usually bloat with WP:FANCRUFT fairly quickly once they go live and working on them against such edits gives me a headache). You've got a good start just remember that list of characters articles are prone to having WP:INUNIVERSE problems. The article shouldn't be just a bunch of information from the show about the characters but should also provide real world information (how was the actor cast, did they do anything specific to prepare for the role, was the character written based on a specific real world person or with a specific actor in mind, etc.). Most of the list of character articles on wikipedia do not have as much of this as they should. Millahnna (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this [1] what you meant by real world coverage Millahnna?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A great example is the bit you have under Keira about how the character was originally male and how Nichols does a lot of her own stunts with the ref called Keira's casting (which, great find, btw). The most common cast related real world stuff I see is 1) other actors considered for the role before the current actor was cast 2) the role being written based on some other person (real or fictional) 3) inspiration and/or preparation or research the actors looked into to play a role. Not saying that's the only kind out there but it seems to be the easiest to find, in my experience. Millahnna (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Main/Regular Cast Members

What is the criteria for this, I've gone through a few opening credit sequences and found that quite a few Recurring characters are credited inbetween Starring/Regular cast members that we have listed. So what is the criteria for this exactly.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Millahnna, what are your thought on this? What determines a main character because for most series it is either title sequences like NCIS or just the actors names coming up after the "Previous on..." on opening scenes. While S3 is obvious as it specifically states them, what about S1 and S2?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I do more work on film articles than TV (and in both cases I don't do a lot of work on cast lists) but IIRC, the TV project MOS operates similarly in that it is according to contracts. Regular, recurring, starring (plus anyone with a "with so and so as" or "and so and so" notations in the credits): all of that is actually in the contracts (and those with/and/as people are actually getting special billing even though their names usually appear last). So checking the show's official site would be the first place I'd start. After that, I guess I'd google for casting news that was out at the time; those reports will often state the status of the actor (Mr. Whomever was cast to play Random Evil Guy and will be on recurring status for season blah, Ms. LadyPants, who plays Ms. PantsLady, has been moved from regular to recurring status for season yada, etc.).

Honestly, I think we sometimes break character lists up with such headings in a way that actually makes the articles more difficult to keep up on in the long run. Various characters will get moved from recurring to regular and back again and we end up having to move them around in their character articles and inevitably edit wars ensue. I often think a straight alpha list would be easier on many (but not all) list of character articles (or a strictly in credits order list). I'm not sure that would be a good plan here, though.

I usually skip the credits when I watch this show (they're lovely but I just want to get to my time travel headaches) so I can't recall... are they listed alphabetically? That might explain why you are seeing an odd mix of recurring to main (Sin City (film) is a good example of this). I also can't remember the credit sequence for the first two seasons at all. If they didn't really have one, they likely did the opening credits during the first few scenes of the show (Grey's Anatomy after they ditched their opening credit music sequence is a decent example of this; stars are still listed just during the scenes).

Sorry that this is probably not really all that helpful. Just kind of throwing ideas out there. I know more experienced folks than I watch the page so hopefully they'll chime in. Millahnna (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Green Kira?

The page mentions the Kira who was killed as Green Kira three times. Where does that come from? Not the show, I don't think. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Continuum (season 3) decided on names to make it easier and more consistent with episode summaries, the most the show did was say (something along the lines of) red timeline and green timeline when Catherine was explaining what Alec had done by time travelling. If you have any other suggestions on the naming coventions for the episode summaries then please add them to the talk page or add your opinion to the discussion.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• At the beginning of episode 3.1 the leader of the freelancers gives Kiera a minute or two of exposition as to how her group thinks time travel works.
• Her lecture includes a visual aid, a tree, with branches, showing how timelines can branch, at key events, where one timeline goes one way, and the other timeline goes the other way.
• Her visual aid sprouts a new branch, reflecting Alec's use of time travel. All previous branches on the visual aid were Red. The new and disruptive branches are rendered in Green.
• She explains that Alec's unplanned time travel has rendered the current branch unstable.
• She uses the freelancer technology to send Kiera from the decaying timeline, rendered in Red on the visual aid, to the new Green timeline, to try to clean up after time traveling Alec.
• Kiera is supposed to assassinate an Alec, so that timeline only has one Alec. So, the Alec and Kiera who traveled from the Red timeline to the Green timeline were referred to by fans and other commentators as Red Alec and Red Kiera, to distinguish them from the pair who belonged on the Green timeline. Everyone else in seasons 3 and 4 is from the Green timeline. But it was unnecessary to refer to them as Green Carlos, Green Betty, because their Red opposite numbers were back on the Red timeline, or disappeared when the Red timeline collapsed. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Web Series has duplicate name

There exists a "web/online" series also named Continuum, q.v. watchcontinuum.com/about/ which has two people and a computer trapped in a space shuttle. A wiki page was proposed "Continuum_(web_series)" which was never started.

Just to keep things straight, we ought to open that page as a place holder for them, so that a disambiguation can be set up to direct people searching for Continuum to our pages or their pages. Both titles are packaged as a series of seasons and episodes, making their classifications functionally indistinguishable. Maybe this will cut down the confusion to people who search the title Continuum. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@HiTechHiTouch: can you provide any secondary outside sources for it? That way we can cover the notability criteria.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Help the newbie, please... Are you asking for a second reference to the existence of the series? Wouldn't IMDB work? If you can be specific, I'll hunt you one down. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Find a source and I can probably tell you if it is a valid source. Some websites aren't particularly liked. IMDB in particular as it can be edited by anyone, like Wikipedia, or any of the wikias. The more sources you find, the easier it will be to actually, a: create the article and b: ensure it fulfills the notability requirements. I would say three or four would be the minimmumn when it comes to the number of sources to reach the required notability level. Though these sources must be from different websites. this for more information. this may also help.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, "Continuum_(web_series)" will probably never pass the notability test, and would end up a Wikipedia:Permastub. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

10 references?

Is it really necessary to have 10 sources to support half of a sentence in the lead? It looks ridiculous. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Given half of the sources are from Twitter which are unreliable (see WP:TWITTER), I believe it would better if someone went through and found 1 or 2 of the remaining 5 sources which succinctly reflect the comment made and then remove the rest. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• After reviewing a couple of the sources, it was mainly just the creator tweeting stuff. In the end, "After much deliberation" really added nothing to the lead. I just removed it. Way too much of this is sourced from TwitterNiteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Categories

I have removed this article from Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As is noted on the category page, this category is only for "Television shows whose events take place in the 2010s but which were made before that decade." As Continuum was made in the 2010s it should not be included in said category. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-added since the page no longer says that. Category is perfectly valid for this show. 12.32.71.154 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)