Jump to content

Talk:Deadwood (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Themes

It seems alot of these other Television articles have discussions of themes or ideas running through the show. Should do something similar here? This is such a layered show with a lot to discuss. Of course another question is how to approach it. What does everyone else think? Qjuad 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I love how the themes are shown in the Lost article. I think it would be awesome if we can incorporate some recurring themes from the show into the article. Sfufan2005 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Awesome. We should iron out ideas here and then if we all can agree there's a consensus, stick it in the article. Qjuad 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable Plots Lines

Should they be moved to a completely new article? Plus, I think they need an overhaul - some of the information is pretty misleading or not particuarly coherent. - Qjuad 10:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if the plot lines are a little wrong. Feel free to correct it. I propose we keep the plot lines on this page similar to that of Grey's Anatomy and The Sopranos since for (1) the article would be a lot smaller (since we really don't need a laundry list of subarticles on the main page). Also, without it the article would just contain the character list, broadcasting and timeframes. + we already have an article for episodes. Hope that is alright with everyone. Sfufan2005 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we all appreciate the work you put into this, but with the eventual addition of Season 3 plot points, it might be better if we create a new page for them and add season summaries to this main page.(Steampowered 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Sources

All sources for the Episode synopsises, writer credits, and director credits came from http://www.hbo.com. -Sfufan2005

Disambiguation

This page needs to be moved to Deadwood ""(Tv Show)"" and a disambiguation page built for the term Deadwood.Elde 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Someone moved the page to Deadwood (television program), after which I was considering moving it to Deadwood (television programme), i.e. the proper spelling of the word. But in an effort not to start up a BE/AE argument, I've erred for neutrality, and followed the example of The West Wing (television) by moving the page to Deadwood (television). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Reflex Reaction moved the page from Deadwood (television) to Deadwood (TV series).
I've since gone through the Special:Whatlinkshere/Deadwood (television) page and changed the vast majority of the links so they point to the new article title (and there were plenty).
However, I haven't altered the links on people's user pages ('cept my own) - I'll leave that for you guys to do yourselves... Gram 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


what about ricky jay's character?

Characters

I split the characters into Major, Secondary, and Minor. All the minor characters were only present for a few episodes. Some of the choices were tough, Sophia Metz has barely any speaking parts and is barely a plot driver, but she is in every episode - so she is secondary not minor. Farnum is in every episode, but he's not the focus of any plots, so he was secondary. I'm going to suggest that in the near future this entire section is split out to a second article. SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Good job! Exactly as I would have categorized them. Sfufan2005 02:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • be nice if I'd signed that. maybe between seasons some re-working of this article should take place prepping it to look like more of the shows that have long histories. ie, moving character lists and plots to devoted articles, etc... SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to split the characters into a separate article a la Characters of Lost. I'll create it and if the general consensus does not like the way it looks, we can always revert it. Sfufan2005 23:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd just make one sentence about the top few characters and keep linking to that Characters of Deadwood page. It gives us more "vertical" space to get stuff in about the show. There's more than just characters and plots by now. SchmuckyTheCat 03:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine just the way it is, because if you create sentences for only some of the characters, someone unknowingly will go in one day and make sentences for all characters. Or list their relationship to Deadwood what they are. JMHO. Sfufan2005 19:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Characters and History

the paragraph about historical figures seemed to want to list /all/ historical figures, which i think is a mistake -- there are simply too many. i reworded it a bit, left four characters in (feel free to quibble with my choices), and then added a column to the character table giving the fictionality status of all characters.

this is ... clumsy. to be honest, i think the table was already getting unwieldy for such a high spot in the main article. now i added a column as well as some missing characters and that cant have helped :-).

whats more, i can think of a handful more characters who could reasonably be included (eddie, lee, steve, hostetler, blazanov, carrie, mose) because they are integral to at least one plotline. plus, richardson would be an easy addition IF I COULD FIGURE OUT WHO PLAYS HIM! this show has a continuum from stars to guests such that wherever i try to draw the distinction, someone is left out or isolated in.

do we move the table to the characters page and leave a bare-bones table in its place? i really want to have the fictional -> real cross-reference somewhere on the site.

deadwood has so many characters, my inclination is to not list them all on the main page. i will probably start trimming fat tomorrow, unless someone else does it or tells me not to. Burgher 11:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I like the "based on" addition. I was going to suggest it. I think as many characters as possible should be listed - however, it is getting unwieldy and I'd (Still) suggest we somehow get that section to focus on a few characters (as text) and move the chart to the characters of deadwood article. SchmuckyTheCat 15:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I added professions to Deadwood, to describe a short description of what their relationship to the camp is. Remember on focus of shortening characters, "There are no small characters, just small actors". I think we should keep all the characters becuase they are all a vital part of the show. Thanks. Sfufan2005 23:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Fields

Is this character ever actually identified by name in the show? Isn't he just known as "Nigger General" in the series? -Bonalaw 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Episode 2.05: Complications. Sfufan2005 17:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. --Bonalaw 08:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Iambic Pentameter

I was watching Dinner For Five on IFC and David Milch said that all the dialoque was written in iambic pentameter. Anyone have more info on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.114.110 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I carefully watched episode 2.6 (my second time) with open eyes. I have to say, there are moments during the dialogue where it bears a strong resemblance to Shakespearean and Marlowean dramatic dialogue, in 19th century English. I didn't have a pen in hand to copy down dialogue and read it measure by measure, but there may very well be some truth to that iambic pentameter rumour. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure one way or the other if the dialog is 'pure' iambic pentameter. But I'm damn sure ppl on the outskirts of American territory didn't speak in a such, as has been suggested, Shakespearian style. Duluoz

Maybe Milch THINKS that SOME of the lines were written in a certain way... but were they, really? I can't hear any evidence of meter in the dialogue. Keep the "iambic pentameter" rumors out of the article until someone produces some proof or a source, please. -AG

This will be somewhat lengthy for a Wikipedia edit, because I know that many people will be eager to argue with what I'm going to say and I want to establish the truth of what I'm claiming. These terms — "iambic pentameter" and "blank verse" — have very specific meanings, but they are not very well understood these days, even by most writers, including most poets, and most English professors. In any case, after hearing that David Milch wrote the dialogue for Deadwood Seasons 1 and 2 in blank verse, and after getting excited about it, I spent more than an hour looking at all the scripts from Season 1 and several from Season 2. I can tell you, not as a matter of opinion, but very definitively, that Deadwood Seasons 1 and 2 (at least the many scripts I looked at before giving up) are NOT written in blank verse. . . . This needs a little qualification. . . . In the scripts I looked at, there _are_ occasional lines of straightforward iambic pentameter. But there are few enough that it can be said without controversy that the scripts are not meaningfully "written in blank verse" or "in iambic pentameter." There are few enough lines of iambic pentameter that it's unnecessary even to invoke "blank verse" (i.e., _unrhymed_ iambic pentameter) because there don't seem to be very many instances where there are more than one or two lines of arguable iambic pentameter in a row anyway, so periodic rhyme wouldn't really be a possibility, and periodic rhyme doesn't happen very often by accident. The only reason I can think of for people to claim with (totally unfounded) certainty that Deadwood's dialogue is blank verse is that they must imagine it can then be put in the same category as King Lear, Dr. Faustus, Paradise Lost, etc. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it's as finely tuned in its dramatic art, rhetoric, dialogue, etc., as those other works, it is definitely no stretch to say that there is no comparison whatsoever between Deadwood's dialogue and any work of drama or poetry commonly called blank verse. Still, I could believe that the lines of iambic pentameter I found in the scripts were intentional. The reason I think so is that, when iambic pentameter does appear in Deadwood's dialogue, it often corresponds to a single line of dialogue spoken by a character, e.g., "No law at all in Deadwood? Is that true?" (S1.E1); or "He's damn near blind and mostly paralyzed" (S1.E12). Then, usually, the pattern recedes, usually for a long time. There are also some swaths of dialogue that seem to approximate to iambic meter (i.e., metrical units of one offbeat followed by one beat—irrespective of any kind of line length), beyond what a person might expect to come about by chance. But even when this is true, they do so without ever quite amounting to an audible iambic norm for long enough to deserve even the "iambic" part of the name "iambic pentameter," and also without ever amounting to a sustained pentameter. And the fact that there are occasional single lines of clear audible iambic pentameter isn't especially impressive, whether or not they're written intentionally. I hear isolated lines of iambic pentameter in natural English-language speech all day long — not loose, impressionistic iambic pentameter, but correct, textbook iambic pentameter: "The Right Relationship Is Everything" (JPMorgan Chase slogan); "You wanna take a cab, we'll take a cab" (my wife); "I can't hear any evidence of meter" (from the paragraph immediately above this one). I've collected them for people who didn't believe that iambic pentameter is natural to English (it's OK to feel sorry for me), and I have literally _thousands_ of them. In other words, contrary to what many poets have claimed since meter became unpopular last century, iambic pentameter is very natural to English. The natural linguistic prosody of English (i.e., the way the language breaks up with respect to accented and non-accented syllables) and English-language phrasing mean that clear, chance iambic pentameters are statistically pretty likely. By those principles, it's almost surprising that Deadwood's dialogue doesn't contain much more _accidental_ pentameter. However—despite everything I'm saying, I don't mean to suggest that David Milch is lying. He may, without being an experienced writer of blank verse, consider that he's tipping his hat to the blank-verse tradition by trying to incorporate lots of iambs and some lines of iambic pentameter here and there in his dialogue. Or maybe he believes that he is writing blank verse more consistently than he really is. (Again, it would have to be much, much more consistent than it is, if he wanted to call it blank verse.) Or, maybe, he is using the term in an extremely impressionistic way, possibly without really understanding that even his impressionistic use of the term is far more impressionistic than the sense in which it is used by most people who use the term impressionistically. In other words, if Deadwood Seasons 1 and 2 are blank verse, then the term blank verse has very little meaning. Whatever his intention, and whatever his degree of sincerity, David Milch is at least mistaken about what blank verse and iambic pentameter are, and if he's not, then he's massively (really massively) exaggerating his achievements. (There are, by the way, whole plays in correct but famously terrible blank verse, e.g., _Gorboduc_, by Sackville and Norton. Simply writing blank verse doesn't ensure poetic or dramatic genius.) If David Milch misunderstands blank verse, he is not alone — many poets and English literature professors also have no idea how to define it with real accuracy, much less write it well. Someone will no doubt make the argument that Shakespeare's plays contain irregular lines but are still called blank verse. This is true. But there is no comparison. Shakespeare's plays were pirated or printed from actors' recollections 400+ years ago. They're full of textual problems and probably errors. And even when his verse is irregular as blank verse, it's often clear how it could be performed, in the given lines, so as to contain five clear beats. There is also copious evidence that Shakespeare was a brilliant author of many thousands of lines of technically "correct" and expressively brilliant blank verse, beyond the many metrically-indeterminate verses that also appear in his plays. And even text printed as prose in Shakespeare's plays is often more regularly iambic than Milch's dialogue. Finally — I'm as disappointed as anybody! I was hoping that the claims were true. . . . (Do my qualifications matter here? If not, I'm sorry for giving them unnecessarily. If so . . . I'm a poet who's been publishing for 25 years, in books printed by well-regarded university and commercial publishers, and in national magazines. Most of what I've written is metrical poetry, much or most in iambic pentameter. Because facts matter to me (more than ever), especially the facts of my dying art, and also because I know that people will want to argue with my claims, I'll go ahead and add that I'm cited as an author and a source in two of the handful of scholarly books about blank verse to appear since the 1890s. I don't know crap about most things. Blank verse I know. In short, unless all the blank verse in David Milch's dialogue is hidden in one of the episodes I didn't look at, then Deadwood is not in any meaningful sense composed in blank verse. —JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.4.222 (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hostetler

How could all of you forget him? ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How could we when he is the only African-American character in the whole show, ad he appears for about 4 seconds? I have watched 14 episodes and seen no other black or Hispanic chracters. There isn't much point arguing about the historical basis in fact for this character or that when the demographic of the whole show is so screwey. It is kind of like one of those 1950s biblical epics where Jesus and all the other Hebrews are played by blond haired, blue-eyed aryans. The west was settled, populated and colonised by a large number of African-Americans and Hispanics. The abject racism in Deadwood is disgusting (the word 'Chink' is clearly the scriptwriters mainfestation of the deeply held wish that they could repeatedly say 'nigger' on TV; but as he cannot do that they use 'Chink'. Over uses it to the point that it is kind of embarassing); but aside from the racism is the historical inaccuracy: there was a large number of African Americans, Hispanics and even native peoples living in the town. I guess it doesn't serve the white dominated elites to let it be known that three quarters of cowboys were black or Hispanic, or that the achievement of colonising the western states was not a wholly white affair.Andrew Riddles (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your high dudgeon is misplaced. Among the black actors on the show, Franklin Ajaye appeared in 11 episodes, Cleo King in 9, Richard Gant in 7, and Omar Gooding in 2. There's not one of them that isn't a rich, rounded character. And the show certainly didn't shy away from the word "nigger," and certainly didn't use "chink" to "make up" for the fact that the writers "cannot" use the other word. As to the racist nature of many of the characters, I think you're confusing writing ABOUT racism with racism itself. Have you actually read the letters from people of that time and place? If anything, the show seems perfectly in tune with the real times. If you want to decry the lack of racial diversity in television, you'd do better to pick another show. Of course, saying that Hostetler only appears for "about 4 seconds" suggests your interest in the truth is less a priority than your sermonizing. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There were actually 2 black characters there. And there was actually one episode where they focused on racism and black and white relations (the one where the horse kills Bullocks son). You are delusional to believe the creators and writers intended any kind of racism. There are lots of things about this show that could have made it more historically accurate, but its a damn good show for what it is.68.166.189.85 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Guide

Do you think we should try formatting the episode guide so its more like articles like The Sopranos and Carnivale?--CyberGhostface 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? It has its own article List of Deadwood episodes. Sfufan2005 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Crap. I didn't see that page. Sorry.--CyberGhostface 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Save Deadwood

IMHO, HBO should have just cancelled the final series of Sopranos (which has been declining in quality for several series now - the final series is unbelievably dull) and given the funding to the fourth series of Deadwood. Anyway, the future of HBO looks increasingly like "It's just like the other TV networks. It's HBO". Bwithh 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Even better, HBO should have put their money into retaining Deadwood instead of investing in Lucky Louie which looks unfunny and insipid, based on their own commercials for it. --thirty-seven 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Lets all be just be glad that the horrid 'Entourage' is still going full force. Deadwood's too intellegent and meaningful for the 'target demographic' anyways, better to have a badly acted show about privilaged white boys spending money and screwing teenagers. Duluoz
Well at least we know that with HBO, we'll get the best shows about rich white boys and screwing teenagers that we'll see on TV. Think about Entourage like it's The Simple Life, only with more screwing of teenagers and a little less worthlessness. So at least you know you've got a little bit of roses sprinkled on some of HBO's processed shit. I was thinking about canceling HBO until I remembered about Rome. It has a lot of the same themes, and it's pretty damn good. By the way, Deadwood was originally going to be a show based on the Urban Cohorts in Rome, but as production of Rome was already underway, he decided to set it in another lawless setting, which ended up being Deadwood. [1]. If I forget to put that in the article, please add it. (Steampowered 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
Hate to break it to you but Rome is also slated to be cancelled following its second season. I think this cancellation and this period in general will be remembered as the turning point in which HBO began the transformation into a whole different kind of channel than people knew them for.

Deadwood Season 2 Region 2 DVD Question

(Repost from the Humanities Reference Desk) I've recently purchased the complete season 2 of Deadwood on region 2 DVD. While I am able to watch the episodes without any problems, I cannot seem to be able to access the additional episode commentaries. I have bought a legitmate copy and the box packaging does advertise the audio commentaries as being available.

I've tried searching for help on the internet without any success. I did find a review (see the link below) which contains a picture of the title menu with Episodes, Langauge & Features as the options. My version only displays Episodes and Subtitles in it's menu. http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=21812

I've tried playing it on my PS2 and using InterWin DVD Player & DVD X Player on my laptop but without any joy. They only show one available audio channel, and don't display any other menu options.

Given the popularity of the show, I would hope that there are plenty of fellow wikipedians who have purchased the same box set, and are possibly suffering from the same problem.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Gallaghp 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are no commentaries on the Region 2 DVD - it is very much a case of false advertisement. I believe paramount control the overseas distribution of Deadwood DVDs, not HBO, thus they don't have any of the extras. But I might be wrong. In any case, the Region 2 DVDs for both the first and season season are bare bones. The picture of the menu in that review is taken from the Region 1 DVD. Qjuad 14:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, the boxes state "may be edited from their original network versions". What's that about? Do the DVDs have bits missing? Cardinal Wurzel 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite the disclaimer, as far as I am aware the Region 1 and 2 DVDs are uncut. I don't know about the rest. Qjuad 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

please ,for the Gods sake continue this show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.73.108 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Silas Adams

Removed reference to the real life Silas Adams as a basis for the character. A quick read of the real Adams biography makes it pretty obvious there is no connection to the "bagman from yankton"

Profanity

People did not curse so violently in that era. People view this show and aqcuire the idea that the social interaction part of the show is realistic.

Not only that, but the continuous use of such language merely informs the viewer that the show's writers were too lazy to actually write dialogue. This was proven by their use of modern profanity and obscenity.

This is ill-informed and ill-advised. Anyone who can refer to the dialog of Deadwood as being lazily written clearly knows nothing about writing. It is some of the most intricate, complex, and richly shaded dialog in the history of television. Secondly, as to people "not cursing so violently in that era": The Deadwood camp was founded in the spring of 1876. By the fall, the camp was averaging a murder every day. Yet the first law ever passed in Deadwood, the very first, was a law against profanity -- because THAT had gotten out of hand! (Source: Deadwood Historical Society, Deadwood SD). Third: I refer you to the transcript of the (year) 1878 Records Relating to the Dudley Court of Inquiry, Office of the Judge Advocate General, CQ 1284, Record Group 153, National Archives, a military tribunal involving a much larger settled frontier town than Deadwood at the same time period. In it you will find sworn testimony containing all of the most prevalent profanity heard in the Deadwood tv series. There's nothing "modern" about the profanity used in Deadwood. Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn that David Milch told The New Yorker last year that the profanity was based on research he conducted. Similarly, The History Channel did a show last year about Deadwood's realism, including its profanity, and had a historian comment on period documents that capture the profanity of the period. I'll see if I can track down these sources to confirm. Acarvin 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the profanity, that section is marked as a section without citations. After seeing this, I searched all over for that particular quote. The closest I found was the actress who plays Trixie saying “What surprises me is when people won’t watch because they want to hear western men speak like Yosemite Sam.”[2] Perhaps the quote at the end of the paragraph was included in a DVD commentary. --(Steampowered 09:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)).

The Yosemite Sam quote doesn't come from the commentary Milch does on the commentary for the pilot, nor on the filmed interview between Milch and Keith Carradine. Can anyone corroborate that it's on the second season DVDs? From what I've read, Milch doesn't portray the language as being totally anachronistic, and has deflected critics who say otherwise. On the DVD he commented that the language of Deadwood was meant to dispell the quaintess of western society perpetrated by deference to the Hays code in the classic Hollywood period. In the aforementioned New Yorker profile [3] Milch had written a memo to HBO in defense of his liberal use of profanity:
"If, as seems demonstrable, words like prick, cunt, shit, fuck and cocksucker would have been in common usage in the time and place in which 'Deadwood' is set, then, like any words, in form and frequency their expression will be governed by the personality of a given character, imagined by the author with whatever imperfection, as the character is shaped and tested in the crucible of experience. The goal is not to offend but to realize the character's full humanness."
Unless someone can provide a source for the "Yosemite Sam" remark (and who knows, I haven't heard the second DVD's set of commentaries), I think the subsection on profanity ought to be redone entirely. Mseyers 04:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So I've rewritten the profanity section, because so much of what was said was wrong and easily disproved by the definitive New Yorker profile on Milch, and each commentary track on the dvds that Milch has done, and basically everything that's been written about the show. I'm convinced the "Yosemite Sam" comment doesn't exist. Mseyers 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Yosemite Sam comment was made on Terry Gross' Fresh Air show. Unfortunately, unlike Tavis Smiley, transcripts for her shows are not available online free anywhere that I could find.RoyBatty42 04:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone feel like double checking that the series "Fuck" count is accurate? It could make an excellent drinking game. Comradeash (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section on swearing as it's a largely irrelevant diversion in addition to being poorly sourced. Milch has always defended the swearing on historical grounds (though he's likely not correct), so I'm pretty sure the premise that it's a "deliberate anachronism" is incorrect (and it's been unsourced for more than a decade). The rest of the section is sourced from a piece by Geoffrey Nunberg and confusingly represents his insights and understanding of historical language as part of Milch's intentions. The historical accuracy of the profanity might warrant a mention in an expanded section on the writing, but this whole section just needs to go. 68.56.170.42 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the section's been added back, and while it's now more accurate in content, I really don't see the need for a full section on it, particularly when all it really says is that it's been "the subject of controversy and discussion." I don't think it's a notable enough topic to merit a full section, particularly as the historical accuracy of the swearing has never been a major topic of discourse. There's one "Fresh Air" radio segment and a nymag article about it, and they're both light pieces about "fiction vs history" in the same way that a lot of historical fiction gets written up. The Milch dialog (and ubiquitous cussing) is certainly a trademark of the show, and could be expanded on in a larger section on the show's writing, but I don't think this section as written is relevant. The "Factual Errors Section" was removed as unencyclopedic and trivial in nature and I think this also applies here. 68.56.170.42 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Captain Turner

Shouldn't he be mentioned in the characters page?69.33.101.98 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. But he's not much of a character anymore. (Steampowered 08:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

TV Movie Follow-up?

The two follow up 2-hour TV movies are far from a done deal. Don't think it should be stated as fact as it is right now in the introduction. NSpector 05:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 


         im pretty sure milch stated in interviews, covered by ign.com, that he was working on the scripts and they could start shooting as early as this summer/fall. the sets are all still up, and if i am not mistaken, many of the actors have given verbal support for making the film. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's mostly correct (the sets are, at the moment, partially still up), but the actors are yet to sign contracts. A few of actors and crew members post regularly on HBO's Deadwood message boards keeping fans up to date. NSpector 00:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I suspect that the blurb about how HBO has made no final decision is just a smoke screen to bolster interest in the repeated airings and DVD sales of the series. If one knew for certain that a story would be unfinished he would be less likely to invest time in the telling of its begining. Not saving the sets means that to make the movies would be very expensive. Not retaining the actors means that they will more than likely be engaged in other projects and will never have a block of time to make the films where all the principle characters are available. This show was well received amongst hollywood insiders making the actors more valuable and therefore more difficult to bring together for a reunion movie. For me, the series died with the introduction of the little band of actors into the community. Why is it that Hollywood thinks their work is so noble that they can't leave it out of a single show? Z07 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hollywood" wasn't being introduced into the show. Hollywood was the home of Chumash Indians in 1877. What was being introduced to the community (and thus, the show) from the very beginning was civilization, for better or for worse. First comes law, then a certain amount of order, then the spreading reach of government, private enterprise, education, and the arts. Each of these got its due in "Deadwood." You didn't say why do teachers think their work is so noble they can't leave it out of a single show. (David Milch was a teacher before he was a screenwriter, and the coming of a school to Deadwood was no less prominent than the arrival of the theatre company.) And the theatre company thread was intended as groundwork for a major plot development in the fourth season, one more reason to decry the loss of that fourth season, as that loss cost the show the true meaning of the troupe's presence. And finally, if you can find a cultural quality more noble than the theatre, with its goal of enlightenment and revelation and the reduction of the burdens of the soul through a respite of enjoyment and pleasure, I'd like to know what it is. Monkeyzpop 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated Joanie Stubbs and Trixie and provided links to why these characters were not based on actual people or based on several people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.130.123.33 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I am gunna put em in alphabetical order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.8.136 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No, do not do that without providing a legitimate reason. Alphabetical order might give precedence to less notable characters. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

historical divergence???

Al Swearengen
... what does it matter, that he came from iowa and not from England?
Nowhere in the series (as I remember it) this matter is stated as a fact - only Al pretends sometimes to be original english ...
I cannot see any divergence since where is stated, that the historical AL never pretended to be an english man?
88.217.12.92 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deadwood Book by David Milch

Official book for the tv show. Please add it to the article. Deadwood: Stories of the Black Hills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.66.50 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual Errors Section

This section seems unencyclopedic and trivial in nature. Deadwood was not a historical documentary, nor did it pretend to be. Singling out nit-picky errors seems pointless, when major characters and plot points are invented, and historical figures adapted to the needs of the story. I'm inclined to remove the section, but would like to hear other people's thoughts first.--SeaphotoTalk 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with seeing it gone. You stated the problem very well. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section as unreferenced. Anything noteworthy, substantive, and referenced can be placed in the "historical divergence" section. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Aside from the unreferenced material, there's the fact that the Sarah Bernhardt entry is ludicrous--by 1876-1877 when Deadwood takes place, Bernhardt was the most famous actress in the world. A glance at Bernhardt's WP page alone should suffice, but there's lots of evidence elsewhere. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Right. The last thing that people want to find in an encyclopedia is information they can't find elsewhere.
Good work, guys.
I'm sure people will be totally satisfied knowing that Jim Beaver is in the cast. They certainly didn't know that already.
Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia little more than a restatement of widely available data.
Bravo, Varlaam (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Take the rest of the day off.
Your smart-ass attitude is tiresome and unproductive. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Trixie is a whore in the Dakota Territory. Perhaps you noticed. Yes, all the news goes to the frontier first.
I find your attitude counterproductive and disdainful. I actually like Wikipedia. Consider being a builder, not a destroyer.
If a section is "unreferenced", then you slap a cit. req. on it, and the contributor coughs up some more detail. Surely this is not coming as news, is it?
Continually improving a valuable resource, Varlaam (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (Others might make that their motto.)
Deadwood in 1876 was the site of a gold rush. There was NO ONE there in April, 1876, and 10,000 there in June. People flooded in from all over the country and from other countries as well. A newspaper existed from the earliest days of the camp, soon bringing in by telegraph information from all over the world. A sizable portion of the camp citizens were European. Sarah Bernhardt would absolutely have been a familiar name, much the same as the (less-famous) Lily Langtry was a familiar name in Pecos, Texas (a tenth the size of Deadwood) around the same period. This is all both common sense and fairly common knowledge. But I suspect this is more about someone "marking" what you consider to be "your" territory than a legitimate discussion point for you. I have spent some interesting time reading your Talk page and I see that rather than "continually improving a valuable resource," your history suggests something more along the lines of "continually being aggressively and improperly proprietary, continually being uncivil, continually being sarcastic, and continually being disruptive." Too bad they don't have a Barnstar for those things. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It is the difference between building an encyclopedia and a fan site for a particular subject. So many Wikipedia entertainment articles are bogged down by trivia or errata that is not relevant, and seems placed there more to showcase the knowledge of the poster than add to the value of the piece. Even the IMDB, which is exclusively entertainment oriented, does not integrate trivia or errors into the main body of an article, but has them as a separate section. The policy of Wikipedia is to discourage such sections - (see Wikipedia:Trivia), and instead integrate them into the body of the article as appropriate.
Yes, we are here to build, not tear down, but lets build something worthwhile.--SeaphotoTalk 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No way to contribute to this article

RepublicanJacobite, why are you being so territorial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.184.100 (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being territorial. YouTube is not a reliable source. Anyone can put anything up there. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right about anyone can put anything up there, but the specific video I linked features David Milch in person explaining what I added. In addition, how come what I added including the reference is inferior to the current version which doesn't even have a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.184.100 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are three past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard that indicate YouTube is not a reliable source and should not be used: 1, 2, 3. If you check the archive, you will find that there are many more such discussions. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I understand why YouTube as a whole is not a reliable source, but we're not just linking to a random YouTube video of someone who said something somewhere on video. We're talking about the main man, David Milch, clearly visible and identifiable, speaking in the noted time mark backing the text, which adds quite an important and insightful detail about the series. Please show some common sense and don't be dogmatic as in: everything YouTube -> unreliable. Furthermore, the old version is not backed by anything, which means it can and should be considered original research. This is no better than the version I submitted with or without the reference link. If you feel the phrasing is not appropriate, help with that rather than revert it completely. This article is a work in progress.Please show some leniency and assume good faith. 93.172.232.116 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
RJ, you are distinctly territorial, and I am not the only experienced user who thinks so.
As I seem to recall, this user's video was perfectly valid, so leave the man in peace.
You don't own this page, although you seem to think you do.
Varlaam (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "leave the man in peace" - I'm a woman. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of places in WP where Youtube is used as a source, and don't start quoting the WP can't be used as a reference rule at me, because I'll just quote the Ignore the rules rule back at you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varlaam (talk • contribs) (22:24, 22 October 2010)
Your opinion is all well and good, but, in the end, it is just an opinion. I gave a number of links above to noticeboard discussions which indicate YouTube is not a reliable source and should not be used. Just because it is used in some places is not relevant, because "other stuff exists" is proof of nothing. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the link in this instance. Intelligent users can determine whether something is valid, and it's three against one here. Keep it. RJ's claim that it's vandalism only shows that he has no real case here. Let's end the edit war. It's a stupid fight, and even if we disagree about where it's hosted, we can all acknowledge that the video is relevant to the article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It's three against one? Oh my, I'm outnumbered, let me run and hide under my bed. This is not a majority rule situation. The policy, as indicated by repeated discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (links provided above) indicate YouTube should not be used as a reference. If this is a legitimate video of David Milch, then the original source should be locatable. I see no indication that the anon. has attempted to find another source. But, the fact that you "don't see any problem" with it is utterly irrelevant. Oh, and the continued reinsertion of the link, while discussion was ongoing, and after clear indication was given that it is not allowed by policy, is vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. Let's all just wait for the guy with the irrational argument who gets into edit wars and refuses to acknowledge anyone else's perspective to come around. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this is going nowhere. How do we resolve this? 109.186.62.61 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Easy, stop adding inappropriate sources to the article. Find another source for Milch's interview. What you don't do is readd the inappropriate material, with a smartass edit summary, then come here and act like you are looking for a reasonable solution. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Since you're such a stickler for wiki policies, lets end this today since we've reached our limit and continue this another time. I've also added this to WP:AN3. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion for a while and thought I'd weigh in now that it's in cool down mode. After reading some of the discussions about using YouTube for a source, I feel that as a community, we must establish a firm rule for YouTube. The simple fact is that content on YouTube is user-generated, with no editorial oversight (with the exception of some legally contentious material). WP:RS is clear about self-published content with no editorial oversight. It does not pass muster. The video in question is allegedly from a good source (USC), but we here cannot verify that A) that video actually comes from that source, and B) that someone has not altered its content. If the video had been included in a DVD, or shown by a broadcaster, it would have been exposed to scrutiny. But YouTube is like Wikipedia without the references; I could, with enough technical savvy, create a video proving life on Venus. Please understand I am not inferring any shenanigans are afoot with this video. I do feel, however, that the large potential for shenanigans that YouTube represents makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I realize this issue is still being hashed out here and many other places, but I'd like to state my position (for what it's worth). The Interior(Talk) 03:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube does not confer credibility to videos published on it the same way the reputable NY Times does. However, it also does not taint the credibility of every video published on it. YouTube videos are so diverse and lack any kind of editorial oversight which means YouTube does not lend its brand name to any of its videos one way or the other. This means, quite rightly, that any random YouTube video cannot be considered a credible source outright - which is what the people here who are against the edit are saying. It also means that not every single YouTube video is absolutely not credible just because it's on YouTube. This is a good example of why it's important not to be dogmatic about rules. Some of them, like this one, are ill stated.
The video in question is not used as a reference by pointing to some random ten second quip said by some unknown talking head, edited wildly, and published in a dubious context. It's an hour long video taping of a university lecture. There is no voice over narration or additional footage. It's obviously unedited. The ref provided is a time mark in the 4th part of the lecture pointing directly to the relevant part (it continues to the 5th part), and it can be easily discernible it's not out of context. And it's a recording of David Milch, who is clearly visible, audible, and identifiable. Milch is the main man behind Deadwood. It has been established in numerous reputable articles about him, and maybe there is a point of adding those to his wiki article, if they are not there already. He is the creator, executive producer, head writer, and notoriously all around "auteur". So all in all, barring a terrible sinister attempt to troll people with philosophical rambling (and we are assuming good faith all around), this is a prima facie good source. The single counter argument is "but it's YouTube", which is not a valid argument because no one is asserting credibility of the recording based on the YouTube brand. The source is good because of all the above arguments for it. YouTube here is the medium, not the source or its credentials.
I normally don't care for an edit so much, but this addition about the theme of forming of communities around illusory symbols (e.g. gold, the Cross) is important because it's so insightful and cardinal to the show. Milch later went on to do John from Cincinnati, in which he drove this theme to the extreme. There, a community formed around completely nonsensical symbols. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it not possible to source this video directly from USC? That would cut YouTube out of the equation. We seem to be in agreement about the fundamentals of this argument: i.e. that sources need editorial oversight to qualify as reliable sources. You appear to seek an exemption from this, as your source is highly relevant to the topic at hand. A good analogy for this would be an excellent thesis that has not been peer-reviewed yet and posted to the internet. There is a certain amount of long-term patience required with WP. If Milch stands by his comments on the video, they will eventually be available in a peer-reviewed form, i.e. his own writing, academic writing, or established film criticism. As I have noticed with YouTube referencing in other articles, this is premature. Deadwood is a relatively new topic, and it will take time for criticism to coalesce.
Regarding your first point about cutting YouTube out - it's unnecessary. YouTube should be treated as a medium rather than a source. It is a de facto medium for internet video.
Regarding the thesis analogy - I think it's not analogous to the case in hand because our issue is a simple quote - the auteur testifies and WP says he said it. It is not laid out as an assertion regarding the work as your analogy suggests. There is no need for additional peer review to agree that Milch indeed said what he is evidently saying on video (we can see and hear it), and we can assume (in good faith) that Milch stands by his recorded words and he's not just jerking with us. 46.116.169.249 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
On a second note, the use of the term "dogmatic" in reference to applying WP policies (which are reached by consensus, i.e. Me and You and Everybody Else, not handed down from God) is a bit inflammatory. I believe in the project wholeheartedly, but I like to think that I still approach it rationally and with an open mind. Anyway, hopefully these discussions will lead to an evolution of the You Tube referencing policy. Cheers, The Interior(Talk) 18:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the status of this? The RS board has not received a response. In particular, there is a precedent for use of RS when published via YouTube. The academic institution should be RS but I understand there is some concern still. Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus on RSN about it's verifiability and reliability. At least two other editors have raised serious doubts about it's appropriateness as a source. I do not believe we can go forward until those doubts have been addressed. At this point, it is a stalemate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree there is no consensus. However, those in opposition of using in have not provided reasoning to some of the reasoning submitted to keep. It looks like it is in now since it was locked and attempting to remove it after the lock is up will be continuing the edit war. SO a "stalemate" is not a solution that will work in the long run. RfC maybe?Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I move for Rfc. CptNomo, am confused by "those in opposition of using in have not provided reasoning to some of the reasoning submitted to keep". It appears to me that all parties have submitted reasoning for their respective positions. The Interior(Talk) 02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I still don't see a response regarding the precedent to use the official channels of reliable sources on YouTube.(Assuming the academic institution is RS) Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that is a way forward on this: to say a RS is also an RS on Youtube. The problem I still have is that Youtube is a conduit used by reliable people, and by very unreliable people. If the "Official Channel" designation denotes editorial oversight, I would be happy if that became official policy. But does it? And in this particular case, we have no idea who at USC runs this channel. If it were a USC publication, we could check the masthead or such. Am I making sense here? I know you have put a lot of thought into this, and appreciate your efforts to debate it with a relative newcomer. The Interior(Talk) 08:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a guideline or policy. A conversation was started but it got sidetracked so I created an essay but it is no way binding. There have been previous conversations that have allowed YouTube if from the channel of an RS which is why I am interested to see how this plays out. I don't think we can disregard those past discussions but we also do not have a set rule on it.
And I see what you are saying on us not being 100% that is official but I would be shocked if anyone says they actually dispute it after looking through the page and videos uploaded. Of course the principle of it could apply which I also would understand.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Kind of unrelated follow-up. As mentioned above I have been following discussions about YouTube for the essay I wrote. It appears that there is a feeling that official YouTube channels have to be verifiably official (mention of the link on a main page, secondary sources confirming it is official, and so on). Is that correct?Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That's my feeling anyway. It seems to me that we should apply WP:RS as vigorously to video sources as we would to text sources. I've been reading this thread, concerning another editor's efforts to verify a YouTube source, you've probably seen it. It's a very interesting policy area, and I'd like to see how it develops. I'll watchlist your essay for further developments. The Interior(Talk) 23:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the more concise conversations about youtube that had a great result.
I am removing the source and tagged. I hate to do it since I assume that it is the official channel and that the line could be reworded to address some of the the other concerns. Is there RS that says something similar?Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll look around online, although RS criticism on TV shows is always a bit of an uphill climb. The Interior(Talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Character section

As there is a separate article for all of the characters, the relevant section here should be trimmed down considerably, leaving only the main characters, and very short bios. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 05:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Having received no objection in all these months, I am going to do as I suggested above. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deadwood (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) 04:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadwood_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1170132626"