Talk:Danger Mouse (1981 TV series)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Danger Mouse (1981 TV series). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
revival changes query
Can anyone add other details to the characters section regarding changes to them in the revived series? Visokor (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but if you wishing to add alot of details we may need to look at having two sections? --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I would tend to agree with this based on some of the edits that came through today, like this one by Visokor. Though I'm sure he meant well, we cannot have editors retroactively changing character names, well-established personalities, etc. simply because there's a newer incarnation. You might consider dividing the character list into "Original series" and "2015 series" subheadings. We will have to keep our eyes open to be sure that people are editing in the correct place. At some point (discuss first) it might make sense to create a List of ... characters article.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)- Update I have created a new article for the 2015 series at Danger Mouse (2015 TV series). This should help resolve any confusion. I think that information about the 2015 characters should be removed from this article and readers should be directed to the new one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Move proposal
I propose this article be moved to Danger Mouse (1981 TV series) to help naturally disambiguate from the reboot, which is at Danger Mouse (2015 TV series). Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would make sense, though was it necessary to split the article into two in the first place? –anemoneprojectors– 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it absolutely warranted a split. It's a new series with new actors, new characters, by a new production company, for a new channel, with a new animation style, made 23 years after the first series ended. Precedents would be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series). Or Inspector Gadget and Inspector Gadget (2015 TV series). Or The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series), The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series), The Twilight Zone (2002 TV series). Editors had already started expanding the character list in a confusing way, by slapping new voice actors into old roles, tacking on new characters without differentiating them from the others, and so forth. If we'd continued with that plan, this article would quickly become a ponderous soppy mess and the character list would likely have to be split out eventually anyway. Anyhow, there was no clear reason to me to inflate this article with content for what is obviously a new series based on an old idea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, just wanted to check and I have to agree with you there! –anemoneprojectors– 16:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it absolutely warranted a split. It's a new series with new actors, new characters, by a new production company, for a new channel, with a new animation style, made 23 years after the first series ended. Precedents would be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series). Or Inspector Gadget and Inspector Gadget (2015 TV series). Or The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series), The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series), The Twilight Zone (2002 TV series). Editors had already started expanding the character list in a confusing way, by slapping new voice actors into old roles, tacking on new characters without differentiating them from the others, and so forth. If we'd continued with that plan, this article would quickly become a ponderous soppy mess and the character list would likely have to be split out eventually anyway. Anyhow, there was no clear reason to me to inflate this article with content for what is obviously a new series based on an old idea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
New film
It seem there will be a new film, so where shoudl this go? here or the new page?
- http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=45602
- http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/danger-house/37239/danger-mouse-movie-on-the-way
--Crazyseiko (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Reboot vs. Continuation?
In this edit, Crazyseiko changed the description of the 2015 series from "reboot" to "continuation", with the edit summary: "NOT A REBOOT since its clearly has refs to this Run of episodes. How do people not understand what the meaning of reboots mean." Typically reliable sources refer to it as a reboot.[1][2][3][4] Crazyseiko, what's your source-backed justification for calling it a continuation? I'm not sure that just because the 2015 series is self-referential and comments about the past that this means we necessarily describe it as a continuation. The series is obviously self-aware and does a lot of nontraditional things. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Cyphoidbomb the problem being is, its not a proper Reboot, although you are right to question the wording I chose to use "continuation", I dont think that is right either but its the best I could muster at that point in time. Is it a proper Reboot in the correct since?
"Reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning"
- Here the thing its not discarded the continuity and make plenty of refs to the older 1981 series, and to past episodes so its clearly carrying albeit with new voices but there haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water. Its pretty BAD that many of the sources have failed to fully understand what a reboot is, ie like Spiderman film etc . I dislike that word "continuation" and if you come up with a better word then please do.--Crazyseiko (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)