Talk:Under the Dome (TV series)

Outlook for the series, long term?

I'm wondering what the long term plans are for this series (assuming people love it and it gets renewed). A mini-series or a 13-22 part series makes sense, but (to me) a series should be able to support 7, 10, or even 20 seasons. I thought the same for Prison Break and it was great the first season and being on the run as part of the escape would have been a wonderful second season. What are we to expect here, season 1 on Earth and then season 2 on the run to find those who created the dome, and so on? Still it has a very short life span, but if you only look at the profit then long term isn't as important as . . . Anyway, I'm just wondering.

If it is a mini-series, someone should update article stating it is a short term / mini-series.

--Bmoshier (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For the time being, this is an ongoing series. I haven't read the book yet, so I really have no opinion on what the life span of a possible series could be, but if CBS intended it to be a limited run mini-series it would have announced that in its press materials. A second season is entirely likely, depending on the ratings of course, so for the time being it should stay as is. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen multiple media reports indicating that this is a limited-run series of only 13 episodes, not an ongoing series. As such, I wonder if it should be noted that this is one of the first US productions in the form of a multi-episode limited series adapting a single book - since the 1980s when War & Remembrance was made and the mini- and maxi-series genre died out. 70.72.201.229 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not. Many sources have confirmed (CBS, the producers and King himself among them) that if the show does well in the ratings it will be renewed for a second season and beyond. Those seasons will likely keep the smaller 13-episode format, but as of now there aren't any set plans for how long the series will continue. If the pilot ratings are anything to go by, it'll be around for a while. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is doomed to be cancelled long before its conclusion. This is nature of the genre. I could list the shows that ended without conclusion but you know them off by heart! If they don't have the story paid for to the very end they should not start it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.31.82 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Science-fiction"?

Has this series really been classified in the science-fiction genre? Seems dubious to me. It's rather horror/fantasy.--Grondilu (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The novel is classified as SF so the series follows the book. Also, the idea of a domed community comes out of science fiction. I haven't read the book, but if King offers an explanation for it, or there is some science-related rationale behind the dome, then that too makes it SF, not fantasy or horror. Most of the Google hits I'm seeing refer to the series as either SF or SF-horror (probably on the strength of King's reputation more than anything else). 70.72.201.229 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to explain why it is science fiction without entirely spoiling the twist at the end of the novel (and maybe the TV adaption). But King's explanation in the book is entirely science fiction, though of the weird, reality-warping flavor of Philip K. Dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.243.36 (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a town isolated by an invisible shield of alien origin was used in the movie The Village of the Damned from John Wyndham's novel "The Midwich Cuckoos" which are considered science fiction. --Naaman Brown (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If there was any science intended, it was of the bad type, such as trying to counteract a fixed giant magnetic field with an AC generated field and calculations made on a piece of paper213.143.50.175 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What time?

The article says it is on at "10PM" Usually US shows which appear at 10 Eastern time are on at 9 Central time. They may delay it for 10 PM Pacific time, How about if we specify "10 PM EDT" or "10 PM Eastern" to avoid misinforming readers who are in time zones with other broadcast times? Edison (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast

I have edited it to follow MOS:TV#Cast_information - Unfortunately it seems that the first sub-section has periods at the end, whereas the second sub-section does not. I will leave it up to the regular editors to decide which should be adopted as the norm. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, bulleted lists don't need, and shouldn't get, periods. And in this case there aren't sentences. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Episodes

Does anybody know how to erase the 2nd blue line under the plot summary, for the fourth episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope is all one needs (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who have not seen the series yet. So what's the idea about adding how many episodes some of the characters appear in before they are written out of the show? 2A02:FE0:C900:1:ADC4:D2C2:F604:A44D (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER to know Wikipedia's stand on spoilers. Basically, as long as the episode has aired, it's fair game. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of countries outside America that is sending the episodes as well, and they are all delayed with one, two or three weeks compared to you. 84.210.44.152 (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the point in telling who dies and where in the description of the cast without a warning label? Like, is it even necessary?::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.167.130 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the list. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Set in the future?

I noticed that this show is labeled as being set in the future. From what I've seen of the show so far, it seems to be contemporary, not in the future. Perhaps I've missed something, but is this rightly attributed? Trekkie4christ (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A bit like saying the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is set in the future -- from the perspective of its publication date, 1949. So when the book was published, in 2009, it was set in 2017 -- the past now, but the future then.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis

The statement that there is "no Internet access, no mobile signals and limited radio communication, the people trapped inside must find their own ways to survive with diminishing resources and rising tensions" surely implies that life is dependent on electronic communications. Apart from landline telephones, survival depends on food, water and shelter, not being able to access Facebook 24/7!203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The "dome" is actually not even a dome, it is actually a sphere as evidenced when an attempt was made to escape underground. 184.91.71.152 (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Cast sorting

How is it that the character of "Norrie" is listed under "Recurring characters" instead of "Main characters". Surely her role as one of the four who can touch and interact with the mini-dome places her as a central character, no? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. Even though the character appeared in all 13 episodes of season one, Mackenzie Lintz was always explicitly credited as a "Guest star" and not listed in the bulk of the main cast (with the likes of Vogel, Ford, Koch, etc.) therefore she is still technically a recurring character. If this changes for the second season, she can be moved to the main cast list. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

However, I think that the cast and the characters are two different things. Norrie is an important character, so she must be listed under "Main characters". Besides, if you take a look at other Wikipedias (Spanish, French, German), they consider Norrie as main character.--Darwino (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a cast list, not a character list. Obviously the characters the actors play are mentioned, but its primary function is to concisely list the actors who appear in the show. Whether you consider the character to be important or not is irrelevant. We can't go against official production information because of personal opinion. That's original research. Lintz may have appeared in all thirteen episodes and may have played a crucial role in the story, but the opening credits of every episode specifically list her as "Guest starring" and not as part of the main cast, therefore she is technically a recurring cast member. As I mentioned above, if this is altered for the second season (it probably will be) then she can be moved into the main cast list. Until then she is where she should be. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

encyclopedic/notable? recap to air before season 2 premiere

Not sure if this is encyclopedic/notable information or not: According to http://tvlistings.com Under the Dome: Inside Chester's Mill will air on Mon, June 23, 2014 at 10pm. i'm wondering if/how to paraphrase that website's synopsis: Highlights from the first season; interviews with the cast and executive producers.

--70.17.200.183 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality decline

Is there any reason for the script quality to have become increasingly bad on this season second season ? I have never considered it a good show but I liked some of the ideas and characters (and casting) without having any previous knowledge of SK work it is based on. I was just looking for information on why the script writing has from the last episodes of the previous season to now the abysmal low of episode 7 is this something that the original material forced to be adapted in this way somehow or was there any changes in the show production or writers ? 79.168.9.101 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there going to be a third season?

It appears that way, but I've seen no announcements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B7CA:2300:E555:EF7F:B7BA:6BB5 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Rank per week for episode 2.13 explanation

I can't find any source that lists weekly primetime broadcasts past the top 25, and since Under the Dome episode 2.13 was not in the top 25 because of the start of the new season I had to check every "Final ratings" page for the week to figure out it was ranked #36. It's not original research, it's just math. All sources for verification are listed in the reference. 99.155.192.157 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"With DVR figures added..."

What does DVR stand for in this ("With DVR figures added, the series premiere was...") case and what does "figure" mean along with "DVR"? Chrope (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

DVR stands for Digital video recorder and figure refers to the amount of viewers who watched the show. Figures which are usually reported are overnight figures, or people who watched the show live. In contrast, DVR numbers are the amount of people who watched the show within a certain amount of days on their recording device. I recall reading an article the other month which stated one of the American cable networks (I think it was FX) was no longer going to report overnight numbers as it is more common for their viewers to watch a series at a later time. Hope that helps, Forbesy 777 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

More specifically per Zap2it, program ratings for US national sources are produced in three streams of data – Live, Live+Same Day (Live+SD) which are the most commonly reported numbers, and Live+7 Day (Live+7). Time-shifted figures account for incremental viewing that takes place with DVRs which are currently in approximately 47% of all US TV households. Live+SD include viewing during the same broadcast day as the original telecast, with a cut-off of 3am local time when meters transmit daily viewing to Nielsen for processing. Live+7 ratings include incremental viewing that takes place during the 7 days following a telecast.

To simplify this, if you have a Nielsen box and if you have Under the Dome on your DVR that was recorded at 10pm, as long as you watch it prior to 3am it will count in the Live+SD numbers. So same day isn't exactly the same day, but they always measure this the same, so it's consistent. If you don't watch until 4am it will not count in the Live+SD numbers but it will count in the Live+7 (live usage plus 7 days worth of DVR usage).

When you look at the Ratings table on the article page, the Viewers (in millions) and Ratings/Share (Adults 18–49) numbers come from the Live+SD numbers. The DVR figures in the paragraphs above the table refer to Live+7 numbers. ZeroMercury (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Chrope (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Cancellation

PR10000 has added claims of the series' cancellation, first as an unsourced hidden note,[1] then as a hidden claim, this time with a source attached that doesn't support the claim,[2] and finally with several sources,[3] none of which supported the claims. I have attempted to engage PR1000 about this on his talk page,[4][5] to no avail, as each time he simply reverts the edits and will not discuss.[6][7] Because I've reverted three times already today, I'm unable to revert again, however I have tagged the problem edits for the benefit of our readers.[8] Perhaps PR1000 is taking the news that the actual dome will be coming down as meaning the series will be ending but there is no way to know as he will not discuss. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No I am not taking the news that way! CBS gives affiliates 30 days notice so they can sell finale advertising at a higher rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PR10000 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 15 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Whether CBS gives affiliates 30 days notice so they can sell finale advertising at a higher rate is irrelevant. As I explained to you on your talk page, everything added to Wikipedia has to be verifiable and the claims that you've made are not supported by any of the sources that you've used, so it should not be in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

On August 9, 2015 CBS affiliate WRAL-TV reported that the sets used for the series have been torn down. PR10000 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I have also posted this info on the Under_the_Dome_(season_3) page below the related August, 10, 2015 info originally posted by another editor. PR10000 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

further source referencesPR10000 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the Dome is leaving Wilmington because of the loss of tax incentives in North Carolina. If the show returns for a fourth season it will be filmed somewhere else. See here. Box99Tube (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@PR10000: The first source that you provided says ""Under the Dome" is breaking down sets that will not be used in future seasons".[9] That's more of an indication that it isn't cancelled as it implies there will be future seasons]. The second source is speculative and the third had to be removed as it is a WP:LINKVIO. The source provided by Box99Tube says the CBS show will move to a new location, possibly Utah, for its fourth season. None of the sources explicitly confirm cancellation, which is what they need to do, and two of them suggest future seasons. --05:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You continue to use the word "cancellation," I said the series run on CBS was ending as they have informed affiliates that this will be the end for the show on the CBS network for financial reasons, and that Amazon was given the option to pick up the show which is highly unlikely since CBS could not float cost of the show . Regardless they are not going to confirm it yet for ad revenue reasons. But this page may ultimately convince you once it updates in about a week. PR10000 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was using cancellation because your edits to the article made that specific claim.[10][11] You even said it in edit summaries.[12] "Cancellation" is different to saying the "series run on CBS was ending". It that's what you actually meant, we could have cleared this up a long time ago, if only you had discussed then, instead of deleting everything that was posted to your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

On August 25, 2015, it was reported that the shows props would be sold on August 27-29, 2015.PR10000 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Series finale cancelation announcement.

CBS also confirmed the series finale in a promo produced for broadcast on September 3, 2015.

@PR10000: We get it - series cancelled. It's already been posted in the article, no need to keep going on about it. Alex|The|Whovian 06:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And when I asked you to use {{reflist talk}}, I meant once per post, not every time you add a reference, which you don't need to do on talk pages. Just use the bare url, like this,[13] otherwise it just clutters the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Ratings template

I reverted the Ratings template edit for the following reasons. First, the template is not required. Second, it doesn't look as good as the previous version; it isn't as polished. Third, the start/end date brackets mean the dates can't be broken and that makes the table break the page width on smaller screens. Ducky Submarine (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So, you reverted it because you think the alternate version looks pretty? Much of the previous table is a violation of a number of guidelines. And what do you mean, "the dates can't be broken"? As in, on new lines? Dates are meant to be listed on a singular line. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What guidelines were violated? As for broken dates, yes I meant on new lines. By requiring dates be on a singular line but allowing other information to be split, extra weight is given to dates. Why? Please point me to the guidelines. Ducky Submarine (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the history at Template:Television season ratings and the comments on the edits to the template - initially I agreed with you on the look, but then I realized a standardize version following guidelines was better. And only one cell of information uses a newline break, and that's due to different times. Not sure what you're talking about there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're using a wide screen you won't notice the breaks, but with smaller browser windows not allowing dates to break makes the table more than the page width so it has to be scrolled right. (And on my window the season 3 timeslot breaks to five lines.) I won't fight you on this but I disagree.

Since you're good with templates, can you make the Season links (1, 2, 3) bold in the template? They look anemic. Ducky Submarine (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No; per MOS:BOLD, there's no need to. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot summaries

I don't think that it needs a full-blown synopsis of every episode, but it could use a season-by-season breakdown of how it changed from a government-conspiracy-oriented explanation for the dome in the first season to a corporate-conspiracy in the second to a potential takeover of earth by hive-people in the third (at least in my opinion). 2600:1004:B101:C987:48C3:3F37:C4EA:5612 (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It is common for season pages to feature episode-by-episode synopses, but they are too detailed if you ask me. The season pages do have a Premise section that could be rewritten to better focus on the stories happening in each season, though, so if you had something to write in mind, you're welcome to try that. LocalNet (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no plot summary? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing nobody has written any. But I am considering writing season plot summaries myself now. LocalNet (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Redheads

A vastly disproportionate number of the Caucasian female members of the cast are red-headed, well beyond their representation in any North American population, at least. Is there some interview quoting one of the producers or creators explaining why this is the case? It is far too prevalent to be mere coincidence. 2600:1004:B101:C987:48C3:3F37:C4EA:5612 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I followed the series closely while it was on the air and can't recall a single interview focusing on that of all things. So I'm gonna say no. LocalNet (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

References: last names first

LocalNet, why did I change the authors' names from first/last to last/first? It is standard in all references for the last name to be listed first. See here and here. If you had left the references as last= and first= instead of changing to author= the names automatically would have ended up in the correct place. I was lazy and didn't change them back to last= and first=. I just moved the first names after the last names. That's where they belong. Your reversion should be corrected. I hope others agree. Ducky Submarine (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion history in my talk page. It says "usually" and "most commonly" in those guidelines. That does not make it required. I have encountered lots of pages on Wikipedia going by first name, so this isn't a strict rule. Furthermore, there are times when the author credits themselves with more than two names (which, by the way, actually happened in my edit with the name Matt Webb Mitovich), and there are times when there are no names at all in the source, in which case the first=, last=, or even author= fields can't be used (which should be reason enough to explain why the ref guideline isn't a strict rule and is open to editor influence). Most Wikipedia pages I've encountered have references with different kinds of fields and ref styles depending on the source and the editor. I firmly believe this decision lies in the editor's hand, and I was the one who made the edit. LocalNet (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ducky Submarine makes valid points. While these parameters are not necessarily required, it also does not make them not required. If it's standard practice, it should be followed. We based content on followed guidelines, not because other stuff exists. If there are multiples names, then you can use first1=, last1=, first2=, last2=, and so on. Obviously, author= cannot handle this sort of content, so the latter format is available and preferred. Stating that you "believe this decision lies in the editor's hand" is a very "I own this article" behaviour that can have dire consequences for you. So, unless you gain consensus from other editors, then this article will be rolled back to use the correct formatting. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, revert back. And no, I am absolutely not the owner of anything. I am, however, the editor who added new sources to the page, and that's important to remember. Just like most content on Wikipedia, content added by the user is written in the way the user sees the easiest. Some only use title= and url=, which is what is strictly required. I want to make it the easiest for me to edit, not the opposite. Author= solves issues that first1= and last1= cause, and author1= and author2= can be used for multiple names in source, contrary to what you said. Even first1= and first2= don't actually solve the issue I brought up about three-word names (which author= solves) and sources without names. Wikipedia states that not all fields are required, making it open to interpretation. All that said and done, revert back to last name first. LocalNet (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, got a night of sleep, cooled down. As you can tell, I might be "a little bit" protective of my edits, but I spend so many hours on here every day that I sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture. I apologize for that part. I'm human, this is my weakness, and my punishment is this discussion will be visible here forever. Anyway, in retrospect, I should not have reverted Ducky Submarine when you changed the order of names. I didn't do it, but you did. That's called collaborative effort, and I didn't notice it. Thank you for that. In the end of all this, which I'm surely going to regret spending so much time on, I just thought author= would solve issues with three-word names, and once I started using it, I liked the first name first thing, but in the end, it really doesn't have much of an impact on the content on the whole. I'll at least try to follow the guideline on Wikipedia, which I do value, and try my best for last name first.

I'm sorry that this discussion got out of hand. Spending so much time on a project can have both good and negative consequences. This was negative. At least I finally came to my senses, but it's going to be truly embarrasing to have to see this the few times I enter the talk page. Hopefully people see this comment and realize I'm not a total idiot, just an idiot last night. I will revert changes back to last name first. LocalNet (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)