Talk:Dallas (2012 TV series)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Episode titles

Serienfan2010, why do you keep on reverting the episode listing for the series? Last I checked Ultimatedallas.com WAS the official site, and even says so on the link for the site on search engines. TheFutonCritic.com? what is that, and what are you talking about? Blakebs 02:55, 03 April 2012 (CST)

Franchise article

Dallas (TV franchise)

Shouldn't a franchise article be written? It can cover Dallas, Dallas TV movies, new Dallas, and Knots Landing. That would reduce the size of the old Dallas TV series article by some, since some of it should be in a franchise article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is if you follow close, it does not seem that new series accepts the tv movies as cannon. Not only are they repeatly heard say that this basicly "season 14" taking up where the series left off , just with a 14yr hiatus, but furthermore the key events fromt he movies seems to have washed away, Bobby getting back and being incharge of Ewing Oil(in the new series it says he's just been work the ranch 20 years.) JR becoming the chairman of West Star Oil( from the new series it looks like he's in the same depressive state he was left in at the series finale)So many things of the movies just doesn't appear to be involved, because their not. As for Knot's Landing, that world split from Dallas never to connect again it seems when it did not reboot from Dallas's season 9 "dream season". There is a precident of tv show moving from one network to another, it appears this is the closes example of what has happened, just with a 14 year break inbetween as it is the same Dallas, just running new episodes with new characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDD4J4J (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"this is basicly 'season 14'...." it's not, it would have been season 15 if the makers had decided to follow the logic of the original episode numbering. I wish they had, since this is plainly a continuation from the show that ended season 14 in 1991 (19 years, not 14...)

Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not a reboot?

it kind is a reboot of the old series, I think he article means that it is not a REMAKECaringtype1 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a continuation, not a reboot. - Dravecky (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what's the difference? Different actors (some), different stories, different century. that's a reboot.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caringtype1, I think that technically you are correct, in the sense that the show is being brought back after several years, which serves as a sequel and reboot. However, in the modern entertainment vernacular, there isn't much difference between a remake and a reboot, thus it's a bit deceptive to call this a reboot when it takes place in the same continuity.Rcarter555 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely not a reboot, although that word (as Rcarter55 mentions) is often misused. Nolan's Batman was a reboot. Bay's Transformers was a reboot. The current Hawaii 5-O is a reboot. This Dallas continues the continuity, with the majority of actors resuming their roles (J.R. III and Christopher are understandably recast, but as the article states their characters first appeared on the first show), and TNT is using old footage to introduce the new show to viewers. I even understand the theme song is unchanged. Heck, if this article didn't already exist, I'd suggest that the article on the old show be expanded upon, as opposed to creating a new one (plenty of shows have changed channels during their runs, after all). Ylee (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "continuation" isn't a real thing. Can you name one other example? I don't mean to start anything, but the article is unclear.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Continuation" is just as legitimately a word as "reboot". As Duffy says in the article, the show is attempting to act--as much as possible--as if it had been on continuously without having been canceled for the past 21 years; the network has changed but nothing else, not even the name. It's a very unusual thing to do; I can't think of another such example on American television. (For example, the followup series to What's Happening! and Leave it to Beaver also used the same continuities but had different names.) Ylee (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the word "continuation", and I definitely consider it a "real thing" (even if it is not that common in live action television, specially not dramas, it's hardly unheard of: Beverly Hills, 90210/90210 (TV series), M*A*S*H (TV series)/AfterMASH, Star Trek: The Original Series/Star Trek: The Next Generation, Get Smart/Get Smart (1995 TV series), and the upcoming Major Crimes which continues the story from The Closer)

Then again - if it's a problematic term, then why not use sequel; it describes the relation good. It just is not a reboot since it does not "discard much or even all previous continuity in the series and start anew with fresh ideas", to quote the wp article. --81.235.218.28 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still adding "remake" to the article because it is unclear, and it is 100% NOT a remake. That we can all agree on.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a soap opera. The change in actors is not significant, soap operas change actors all the time for the same characters. It's not a remake, since it doesn't cover the same territory differently, it's not a reboot, since it doesn't change the history of the show. It's a sequel series or a continuation. If you look at how Doctor Who does it, the fans of that show insisted on a unified article (which is very weird, since the BBC doesn't even consider it the same show, but a revival). A remake would be the Bionic Woman and the Bionic Woman. Reboots are what happened between Battlestar Galactica and Galactica 1980, the various seasons of Earth Final Conflict, etc. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the producers have, IMO wisely, chosen to ignore the movies, but this is certainly a continuation. "doctor who", which was cancelled by the BBC & went away for a similarly long time, is more like a "reboot", since a lot of continuity elements, the production style & the cast were all changed. "dallas" looks to this trained eye like it went away for a few years & came back. there are some stylistic changes- the lighting, the editing, & the characters' use of cellphones & laptops, but the essential character of the show is unchanged, & with one or two notable exceptions, the main cast members are all in place. there is more continuity with the end of season 14, nineteen years ago, than there was during the original run. Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article still say it's a "reboot" when the show clearly isn't one? Can we agree to remove this from the article? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. A reboot is when a story is started over from the beginning, ignoring all of the continuity that came before it. This is obviously not the case with Dallas 2012 as many of the old cast and characters are still in it. 88.110.244.216 (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family Tree

Any way to edit it so it doesn't extend off Wikipedia space??? — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be in the article at all. That's what Ewing family is for. Ylee (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The family tree lists Bobby as the son of Margaret Hunter Krebbs instead of Miss Ellie. I'm sure that's incorrect.--DVD-junkie | talk | 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed re the family tree having its own entry in wikipedia; there should be some space between the entry about the show & a biographical entry about a fictional family within the show.... or at least, this seems to be the trend with other tv shows. Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plot point

"until JR secretly bought it out from underneath him in Episode 6" (in the "characters" section)

well, I've only watched the first five episodes so far, & I'm pretty sure this has already happened, with JR leaving john ross nominally in charge of his affairs & (apparently) leaving dallas by helicopter at the end of episode 5.

if there are no objections, I'll change it.

Duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European premier

Just wondering how Ireland's TV3 can be showing the European premiere when other countries in Europe have been showing it since August. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

death of Larry Hagman

So... this will need updating to see how the death of Larry Hagman affects the show. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there. The theme song changed for the episode that JR was found dead in Series Episode 18 to a somber, funereal single lower-bass instrument. That should somehow be noted in the theme song section. In addition, since J.R. was the most important character in the Dallas franchise (though perhaps not of the 2012 series), some mention should be given to both Hagman's death as well as character J.R.'s death, but without unduly spoiling anything. Michaelopolis (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonor Varela played Veronica Martinez faking to be Marta Del Sol...

It doesn't make any sense that some Wikipedians still believe that the character played by Leonor Varela was actually named Marta Del Sol. It is perfectly clear in the third paragraph of the source given that the character was named Veronica Martinez and faked to be Marta Del Sol. (Source: [1] )

The identification of the character as Marta Del Sol is as wrong as it would be to identify the character Rebecca Barnes by the fake name Rebecca Sutter...

177.211.13.217 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it does make sense. The subject is fictional. She chose to be known as Marta Del Sol when her birth name was Veronica Martinez - but the production chose her to be known as Marta Del Sol. She is better known as Marta Del Sol. No one is denying the character has a secret alias, a birth name that is different. The character is known as Marta Del Sol - from the real world perspective. She was referred to as Marta Del Sol after it was acknowledged that she stole someone elses identity - and sources still referred to her as such - even if they too acknowledged that she once had a different name. But she never used the name in the series. Looking at the work of fiction in which she was a part of, she is known as Marta Del Sol. As for Rebecca Sutter - well some individual was very hasty and moved the article.Rain the 1 16:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK TV audiences

Its last UK viewing at 9pm attracted an audience of 1.22. Since then it dropped to 0.92m then 0.88m after its move to 11pm. http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30? (Coachtripfan (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dallas (2012 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dallas (2012 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/HOLD-FOR-WEDNESDAY-10PM-----Producer-of-Dallas-TV-show-hopes-hes-impressing-the-natives-162000705.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616011511/http://www.tntdrama.com/series/dallas/ to http://www.tntdrama.com/series/dallas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]