Talk:Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt/Archive 1
Starring or not starring
[edit]I'm getting tired of watching this go back and forth with no discussion other than the comments on the edit. Let's actually discuss this. We currently list all 7 "starring" actors as starring, as opposed to 4. There is a difference (other than the placement of these names during the episodes, beginning or end) between the four "starring" roles and the other three "starring roles": Ellie Kemper and Tituss Burgess are in every episode of season one. Carol Kane and Jane Krakowski are in 9 episodes and 8 episodes, respectively. However, all four of these actors are credited in every episode, regardless of whether they're actually in the episode. Meanwhile, Sara Chase (8 eps), Lauren Adams (9 eps), and Sol Miranda (8 eps) are only credited in the episodes in which they actually acted. Their names are absent from the credits if they are not in the episode. I believe that this gives weight to the idea that only the four in the opening credits are actually "series regulars." Additionally, in watching the season on Netflix, I did tend to view the three mole women as more of a "sideshow." In some cases, their only presence in the ep. is a short flashback. Now, whether these actors are starring or not, whether they're meant to be series regulars or not, etc. we can argue all we want about those things, but I do think that we need to come to a decision and stop edit warring. I'm in favor of setting it as just the four in the opening credits as "starring" and "main cast" but acknowledging the other three separately from recurring guest stars, with an explanation surrounding the circumstances of their roles. Thoughts? - Rmaynardjr (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not edited based on personal interpretations. The FACTS are that the actors are credited as starring roles, and must be reflected on the article as such.
- The fact they are only credited on episodes they appear are the direct result of their specific contracts - actors that are credited every episode even if they do not appear are still paid, while ones that aren't are not. There are many, many shows that credit actors in this manner as a cost-saving measure to avoid spending money pointlessly.
- - Wattlebird (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I get that my interpretation is mine and doesn't really matter in terms of editing Wikipedia. However, I think this still warrants a small section explaining this discrepancy. Whether the article ends up the way I explained it or not, that doesn't really matter to me. What I care about is developing an article that reflects that while all of these actors are starring, there is a clear division between the four in the opening and the three in the credits. If we do that, that will hopefully stop the edit warring. That's all I really care about -Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rmaynardjr's reasoning is sound. What is this supposed "source" that the other three bunker women are starring roles? None of them have references about their casting except the "thefutoncritic" which is a source so old it calls the show Tooken and explicitly states that Kemper and Burgess are stars, and that Chase and Adams have been merely cast with no mention of Miranda. JesseRafe (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the end credits, the other bunker women are always listed as "starring", never as "guest-starring" or "co-starring". - Jasonbres (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so how about this then. In the Cast section, we list the four "main" actors. Then this: "Additionally, the three other women from the cult are featured in several episodes and are credited as starring only in those episodes." Then we list the three women, then we do the recurring cast. That puts them in the main cast section, but does keep them separate from the other four. As for the infobox, my instinct would be to only include the four currently listed, really just because the infobox is used as a means of quickly getting basic information about the show and links to related pages. Consider the average viewer: they've seen every episode on Netflix, so they've seen the opening credits. They've seen the four names, and while they might not remember those names, they probably remember that there were four of them. The viewer probably skipped the credits. If that viewer now goes to this wikipedia page and sees seven names as "starring," they'll think they missed something. It might be more confusing that way. So, only four in the infobox, and all seven listed in main cast, separated by the above statement. I'm more than happy to alter that statement if anyone has suggestions. How about that? - Rmaynardjr (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely think the infobox should have only those names. Even if a source were found that said all 7 starred, only these four would be considered "above the title" were it a film. In the main text, some sort of demarcation, but the fact of the matter is these were not significant roles. Especially as their "appearances" were often one-scene flashbacks. That may be too objective, but Chase, Adams, and Miranda were not stars of this show, and had very little to do with its storylines or plots. The actresses are insignificant and the roles were incidental in all but a handful of episodes. Putting them in the infobox or listing them with the main four is ridiculous. JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- @JesseRafe So, should we use the format I described above? Rmaynardjr (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- A less verbose way of saying it, maybe. I don't like them being in the "main cast" rather than recurring, though, maybe I'm the only one, even with that caveat. The caveat itself draws a lot of attention to it, and that's the whole rationale to why they shouldn't be so prominently listed, it's rather salient that they're (except the one and only for one episode at that) static characters. But I agree with your fundamental point, that it is the viewer/reader to be considered and listing with too much focus is distracting. Maybe where they are in the recurring section with an asterisk/footnote saying that they are "starring" in the episodes in which they appeared? (But that would need to be sourced, too.) JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- They are credited in the credits of applicable episodes as "starring," but our notation in the article is "Main cast." Tough question. How about putting them at the top of the recurring list and adding the sentence "She is credited as "starring" in the episodes in which she appears." It's short, gets the point across, acknowledges her "starring" appearance without putting her in the main cast. Is that agreeable to all? Also, the "source" here is simply the episodes themselves.
- I think of it like this: In Tina Fey's previous show, "30 Rock," actors such as Katrina Bowden, Keith Powell, Maulik Pancholy, and John Lutz, among others, were usually only credited as starring for episodes in which they appeared. They were counted as series regulars. Other credits, including the various producers, appear before the writer and the director. In that show's two live episodes, these regulars and all producers were credited at the episode's end. Nevertheless, they were considered as series regulars. In "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt," only the writer and director are credited after the title sequence, leaving the various producers' and other actors labeled as "starring" at the end, similar to the live episodes of "30 Rock." So, in the same standard, I believe that Chase, Adams, and Miranda are as much series regulars as those who are in the main titles. [Additional opinion: I also believe that, much like the writing staff of Liz Lemon in 30 Rock, Kimmy Schmidt's time in the bunker will always have some significance to her that will keep her, and viewers, coming back to that time, so no doubt, their presence will certainly be more or less felt in future seasons. fishPhileo (talk) 1:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- A less verbose way of saying it, maybe. I don't like them being in the "main cast" rather than recurring, though, maybe I'm the only one, even with that caveat. The caveat itself draws a lot of attention to it, and that's the whole rationale to why they shouldn't be so prominently listed, it's rather salient that they're (except the one and only for one episode at that) static characters. But I agree with your fundamental point, that it is the viewer/reader to be considered and listing with too much focus is distracting. Maybe where they are in the recurring section with an asterisk/footnote saying that they are "starring" in the episodes in which they appeared? (But that would need to be sourced, too.) JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- @JesseRafe So, should we use the format I described above? Rmaynardjr (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely think the infobox should have only those names. Even if a source were found that said all 7 starred, only these four would be considered "above the title" were it a film. In the main text, some sort of demarcation, but the fact of the matter is these were not significant roles. Especially as their "appearances" were often one-scene flashbacks. That may be too objective, but Chase, Adams, and Miranda were not stars of this show, and had very little to do with its storylines or plots. The actresses are insignificant and the roles were incidental in all but a handful of episodes. Putting them in the infobox or listing them with the main four is ridiculous. JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so how about this then. In the Cast section, we list the four "main" actors. Then this: "Additionally, the three other women from the cult are featured in several episodes and are credited as starring only in those episodes." Then we list the three women, then we do the recurring cast. That puts them in the main cast section, but does keep them separate from the other four. As for the infobox, my instinct would be to only include the four currently listed, really just because the infobox is used as a means of quickly getting basic information about the show and links to related pages. Consider the average viewer: they've seen every episode on Netflix, so they've seen the opening credits. They've seen the four names, and while they might not remember those names, they probably remember that there were four of them. The viewer probably skipped the credits. If that viewer now goes to this wikipedia page and sees seven names as "starring," they'll think they missed something. It might be more confusing that way. So, only four in the infobox, and all seven listed in main cast, separated by the above statement. I'm more than happy to alter that statement if anyone has suggestions. How about that? - Rmaynardjr (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the end credits, the other bunker women are always listed as "starring", never as "guest-starring" or "co-starring". - Jasonbres (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rmaynardjr's reasoning is sound. What is this supposed "source" that the other three bunker women are starring roles? None of them have references about their casting except the "thefutoncritic" which is a source so old it calls the show Tooken and explicitly states that Kemper and Burgess are stars, and that Chase and Adams have been merely cast with no mention of Miranda. JesseRafe (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I get that my interpretation is mine and doesn't really matter in terms of editing Wikipedia. However, I think this still warrants a small section explaining this discrepancy. Whether the article ends up the way I explained it or not, that doesn't really matter to me. What I care about is developing an article that reflects that while all of these actors are starring, there is a clear division between the four in the opening and the three in the credits. If we do that, that will hopefully stop the edit warring. That's all I really care about -Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Criticism about show's treatment of race
[edit]Shouldn't we address the criticism the show has received about its depiction of people of color in the article? It seems to be something that has been discussed pretty widely.--The lorax (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, 95% of the discussion around this show has been focused on praise and whether or not it's going to get awards attention. Race has definitely been a part of the discussion, but it's been regulated to a few isolated articles and then a couple of articles rebuking those criticisms. If it warrants inclusion at all, it could be summed up in a sentence that shows both sides of the debate. There were a few great articles from actual POC criticizing the initial criticisms that were voiced largely by white people speaking on behalf of POC. The wall of text you added earlier was definitely overemphasizing the extent of the discourse and pulled exclusively from articles focusing on criticizing the show. Anonymous5454 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to mischaracterize the reception the show has received, yet many notable sources like The Daily Beast and BuzzFeed have raised the issue. It would seem fair to mention this criticism along with the praise.--The lorax (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Again, the portion you just tried to add was nearly as long as the entire rest of the critical reception section. This is a clear example of WP:UNDUE. Additionally, if every article for every television show addressed every source of mild controversy or criticism, these pages would be useless, unreadable, and far too dense. Anonymous5454 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've read quite a few reviews about the show (not every single article) but what has been brought up about race? As far as I can tell the only controversy has been the "weird sex stuff" discussion. And Buzzfeed isn't necessarily the greatest source — I think its content primarily comes from interns who are not allowed to leave their cages unless they produce 500 articles. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. That's really all I've seen as well. And by "articles" do you mean completely pointless and random quizzes? Anonymous5454 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, I mean like legit articles, a lot of the criticism is about Dong, for instance, this review in the Wall Street Journal:
--The lorax (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"Unlike “Unbreakable’s” other ethnic characters, Dong seems like a flat and empty racial caricature. And for Asian American guys, his arrival sucks all the oxygen out of the room, because he’s not the first Asian immigrant with comically bad English named Dong we’ve encountered. Thirty-one years ago, the John Hughes coming-of-age comedy “Sixteen Candles” unleashed the creepy, horny buffoon with a bowl cut Long Duk Dong on the world, thereby subjecting a generation of young Asian American men to an adolescence full of repeated refrains of “Sexy American girlfriend!” and “Donger need food!”
- No, I mean like legit articles, a lot of the criticism is about Dong, for instance, this review in the Wall Street Journal:
- Yeah, I agree. That's really all I've seen as well. And by "articles" do you mean completely pointless and random quizzes? Anonymous5454 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've read quite a few reviews about the show (not every single article) but what has been brought up about race? As far as I can tell the only controversy has been the "weird sex stuff" discussion. And Buzzfeed isn't necessarily the greatest source — I think its content primarily comes from interns who are not allowed to leave their cages unless they produce 500 articles. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Again, the portion you just tried to add was nearly as long as the entire rest of the critical reception section. This is a clear example of WP:UNDUE. Additionally, if every article for every television show addressed every source of mild controversy or criticism, these pages would be useless, unreadable, and far too dense. Anonymous5454 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to mischaracterize the reception the show has received, yet many notable sources like The Daily Beast and BuzzFeed have raised the issue. It would seem fair to mention this criticism along with the praise.--The lorax (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I was talking to the user above, not you. I've seen a couple of articles rebuking the article that stated what you just quoted, stating that that journalist/commentator didn't understand that the show employed stereotypes to subvert them. An example written by an actual POC: [[1]] Nevertheless, I think what both I and the user above are saying is that this stuff is out there, but it's a minority opinion. Anonymous5454 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps a way to approach the issue is an expanded section about Dong, with various perspectives all around since his appearance in the show has garnered a lot of different opinions.--The lorax (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the discourse has been lengthy enough to warrant an entire section. Anonymous5454 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Keeping the controversies mentioned in the "reception" section
[edit]The user known as Anonymouse5454 would like to remove the controversies that were in the "reception" section since 05:02, 24 November 2016. I feel as though, since Tina Fey herself has responded to these controversies herself (and evidently based an episode around them), and since several news outlets have reported on the use of redface/yellowface in the show, that they deserve their place in the article. - Quirky-artist-charlie (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If there is some reason for NOT including this cited content, I'd like to hear it, as no justification for its removal has been given. Dlabtot (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- These significant additions (that now take up a vast majority of the critical reception section where previously they were entirely unmentioned) were added a week and a half ago without WP:CONSENSUS by Quirky-artist-charlie. If he would like to add such a significant addition, he needs to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot just add anything to any page. If this material is to be mentioned, the amount of space devoted to it needs to be drastically reduced as, based on the vast majority of reviews this series has received as per Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, etc., these are relatively minor controversies that make up an extreme minority of the show's critical response, yet would take up a vast majority of the critical reception section on this page if Quirky-artist-charlie were to have their way. As the issue currently stands, the material must be removed until WP:CONSENSUS is achieved. Anonymous5454 22:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Anonymouse5454, I did not add the redface/yellowface controversy into the article. That was Lobsel Vith, who added them on 24 November 2016. Please do not spread misinformation, and be more careful. - Quirky-artist-charlie (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, despite me not being the first to bring it up in this article, I feel it is evident that the controversy is not minor nor part of an "extreme minority" of the show's critical response. A majority of theAsian-American community have expressed dissatisfaction with the show's Asian-American representation, to the point that an entire episode of the show was devoted to mocking them. Asian-Americans in the entertainment industry like Constance Wu and Anna Akana have criticized the show as well. Additionally, I feel that the Huffington Post is a credible news outlet and not part of the "extreme minority" that you speak of, and once again: Tina Fey herself chose to respond to this criticism regarding having a white actress play a Native American character. If Anonymouse5454 has their way, then we would be bleaching a significant part of this show's reception to make it appear entirely positive, when opposition to redface/yellowface would say a little otherwise. At the very least, there should be a sentence or two regarding the show's very evident controversy. - Quirky-artist-charlie (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- A "majority" have not expressed dissatisfaction with the show (a couple of written articles and a link to a reddit thread do not represent the entire Asian American community's views on the matter) and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to reduce an entire community to one view. The Asian American community is not monolithic. I've read the articles that you've linked to and, apparently, the show did not mock Asian Americans. It apparently mocked a watch-dog group devoted to ensuring positive representations of Asian Americans in media as a response to minor criticisms the show received online. That's a pretty significant difference. Additionally, I'm not saying it should not be mentioned, nor am I trying to defend the show; I'm simply saying that a vast majority of the critical response to the show has been highly positive and that, as of now, a majority of the critical reception section is devoted to criticisms that do, in fact, make up a minority opinion within the larger critical response to this series. It's disproportionate. Singling out an article by The Huffington Post doesn't negate the fact that these criticisms are are dwarfed by the positive responses the show has received, as evidenced by it's Rotten Tomatoes score as well as its Metacritic score. This criticism is not a "significant" part of the show's reception. If we were to include a mention of this controversy, I propose we add this sentence (as per your request): "The series has received criticism for its portrayal of its Native American and Asian American characters."Anonymous5454 05:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- The simple and undeniable fact is that you are a minority of one in opposing the inclusion of this well-sourced, well-known, and clearly relevant material. No other editor agrees with you. That is the epitome of arguing against the established consensus - and why you are doing so, I don't know, as your alleged arguments are actually nothing more than assertions. I personally believe that this criticism of the show ( a show I love ), is a bunch of hooey and a tempest in a teapot, but the fact is that the criticism exists, it is prominent ( many, many more sources could be brought forward ) so it belongs in the article. Reducing it to one off-hand summary sentence instead of the full context would be a disservice to our readers. Dlabtot (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- As of now, there are three people involved in this discussion; Charlie, you, and I. A consensus hasn't been reached; a few comments back and forth don't constitute a consensus. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think the information isn't relevant; I absolutely do. I'm simply pointing out that this controversy, which represents a minority opinion within the larger critical response this show has enjoyed, is represented by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 on this page. I'm not arguing that the controversy be removed from the page entirely; it's clearly over-represented in the article's current state. I don't know what you mean by "your alleged arguments are nothing more than assertions." I'm not sure what an "alleged argument" is. I'm simply saying, per WP:UNDUE, there are problems with the representation of the critical consensus. The extent to which the controversy is represented clearly violates WP:UNDUE. This is a relatively short article; including material that is over twice as long as the information regarding the more prominent critical consensus regarding the show wouldn't make sense on any article, but given the fact that this article is so short, the disparity is even more obvious. A few sentences outlining the basic qualms that have been raised is sufficient. Laying out the entirety of the controversy in detail is unnecessary, inefficient, violates WP:UNDUE, and presents a skewed view of the critical response this show has received, granting undue weight to a minority opinion while burying the larger critical consensus. Anonymous5454 04:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- The simple and undeniable fact is that you are a minority of one in opposing the inclusion of this well-sourced, well-known, and clearly relevant material. No other editor agrees with you. That is the epitome of arguing against the established consensus - and why you are doing so, I don't know, as your alleged arguments are actually nothing more than assertions. I personally believe that this criticism of the show ( a show I love ), is a bunch of hooey and a tempest in a teapot, but the fact is that the criticism exists, it is prominent ( many, many more sources could be brought forward ) so it belongs in the article. Reducing it to one off-hand summary sentence instead of the full context would be a disservice to our readers. Dlabtot (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- A "majority" have not expressed dissatisfaction with the show (a couple of written articles and a link to a reddit thread do not represent the entire Asian American community's views on the matter) and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to reduce an entire community to one view. The Asian American community is not monolithic. I've read the articles that you've linked to and, apparently, the show did not mock Asian Americans. It apparently mocked a watch-dog group devoted to ensuring positive representations of Asian Americans in media as a response to minor criticisms the show received online. That's a pretty significant difference. Additionally, I'm not saying it should not be mentioned, nor am I trying to defend the show; I'm simply saying that a vast majority of the critical response to the show has been highly positive and that, as of now, a majority of the critical reception section is devoted to criticisms that do, in fact, make up a minority opinion within the larger critical response to this series. It's disproportionate. Singling out an article by The Huffington Post doesn't negate the fact that these criticisms are are dwarfed by the positive responses the show has received, as evidenced by it's Rotten Tomatoes score as well as its Metacritic score. This criticism is not a "significant" part of the show's reception. If we were to include a mention of this controversy, I propose we add this sentence (as per your request): "The series has received criticism for its portrayal of its Native American and Asian American characters."Anonymous5454 05:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, despite me not being the first to bring it up in this article, I feel it is evident that the controversy is not minor nor part of an "extreme minority" of the show's critical response. A majority of theAsian-American community have expressed dissatisfaction with the show's Asian-American representation, to the point that an entire episode of the show was devoted to mocking them. Asian-Americans in the entertainment industry like Constance Wu and Anna Akana have criticized the show as well. Additionally, I feel that the Huffington Post is a credible news outlet and not part of the "extreme minority" that you speak of, and once again: Tina Fey herself chose to respond to this criticism regarding having a white actress play a Native American character. If Anonymouse5454 has their way, then we would be bleaching a significant part of this show's reception to make it appear entirely positive, when opposition to redface/yellowface would say a little otherwise. At the very least, there should be a sentence or two regarding the show's very evident controversy. - Quirky-artist-charlie (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I propose the following changes, per Charlie's "one or two sentences" proposal:
The season one response section would include:
- "Some reviewers have criticized the show's portrayal of Native Americans, Vulture referring to a prominent Native American subplot as "offensive". Buzzfeed cited the lack of a plurality of portrayals of Native Americans as the main issue with the subplot, stating that "the way Native Americans are represented on this show matters. It's not one representation among a cornucopia of representations; it's the single mainstream representation in years."
- In the wake of the controversy, Tina Fey retorted: "I feel like we put so much effort into writing and crafting everything, they need to speak for themselves. There's a real culture of demanding apologies, and I'm opting out of that."
The season two response section would include:
- The season's third episode, "Kimmy Goes to a Play!," drew criticism due to it's portrayal of an Asian-American protest group, which was seen as a thinly-veiled dismissal of the criticisms the series had received during its first season. Anna Akana, in her 2016 Asians in Entertainment Key Note speech, stated that "the plot fe[lt] like a pointed, ironic response to anyone who has criticized Fey's past projects..."
Keep in mind, this portion of the response section would still likely violate WP:UNDUE as this minority opinion would account for roughly 50% of the material in the section, but it would hue more closely with what is required under WP:UNDUE. Anonymous5454 04:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is undeniably true that you are a minority of one. If you want more opinions, start an RfC or something. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Again, there are three people discussing this and there hasn't been a decision on how this page should be edited. Charlie has proposed that the material relating to the controversy be cut down to one or two sentences. I'm agreeing with him, and have proposed changes that would actually allow for more weight to be given to the material dealing with the controversy. Charlie and I have agreed on a resolution. Given that the two of us now have a consensus, I'm asking for your input before implementing the changes and resolving the WP:UNDUE issue. Anonymous5454 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)