Talk:Pilot (Smallville)

Template

We should make format this page how we want all the episodes formatted and use it as a template. - Peregrinefisher 19:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and two of the external links

It looks like both TVRage.Com and tv.com (CNET Networks, Inc.) allow any registered user to edit their information. This would make them unreliable for factual information, although you could cite the opinions expressed on them. (Of course, keeping them as external links, not references, is not a problem.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. Some proponent of tvrage (he talks about it on his userpage) added those links. I kinda wish he hadn't because wikipedia is not a link farm, but it's borderline so I haven't removed them. The only info I've taken from tv.com is the production numbers for season 2, I hope this is OK. I figured it's common knowledge and not owned by them. If not I can take it out. What do people think? - Peregrinefisher 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those references. I'm going to use it as a template when I get a chance. - Peregrinefisher 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

References for "Plot" section?

In response to your message on my talk page, I don't think this episode article is very well-referenced at this time. There don't appear to be any references for the longest section of the article - the "Plot" section, nor any non-inline references. The external links are not considered to be sources. If you used one or more of them as a source, put it/them in the References section. If you used the original episode as a source, cite that as a reference. (Note that certain uses of primary sources constitute original research.) It doesn't need to be perfect or FA quality, just start by saying where you got the information from. If it's an unreliable source or something, other editors can help point that out, and maybe help find a better source, but no evaluation of the source can be made if none is cited. If the citation templates are daunting, then just do it by hand and let other editors format it. (That said, the more bibliographical information you can provide, the better.) It's easier to reference things as you write them rather than afterwards, so I encourage you not to rush in creating individual episode articles. (Gradual expansion of season articles until they each reached 40-60 kb of well-referenced material would help, but this does not seem to be your plan, perhaps because of organisational issues.) Best of luck, Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew that external links didn't count as the same thing as references, but imdb.com and tv.com are where I got the writers and directors. What's a good way to acknowledge that? I haven't seen numbers/links on that kind of info in other tv pages. I guess you just say something at the bottom? The quotes are kind of strange too. I'm not sure if citing imdb.com is better than citing nothing. Thanks, Peregrinefisher 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of media pages are poorly referenced, which isn't unique to media pages. (Have you ever tried hitting Random article a bunch of times? There are a lot of completely unreferenced articles, which is why I do count external links as references in AfDs.) I don't see a problem with an inline reference to IMDB in the info box, but if it bothers you aesthetically, you could just include put IMDB after a bullet in the references section (non-inline). But the main question is, where did you get the plot info? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For Pilot (Smallville episode) i just copied from Smallville (season 1) (pre August 27th version). I wrote the summaries myself for episodes 2,3,4 and 5 of season 1 from memory, starting with one paragraph from the season page. See Metamorphosis (Smallville episode) (current and pre August 28 for before and after) for an example. It's weird because you can't site a user. There are websites with plot summaries (tv.com) but they are user written too. It's verifiable because you can watch the episode, but it would be nice to have something to click on to check it. - Peregrinefisher 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, having tv.com in the external links is a way to check on the plots accuracy. It's not definitive, but it helps. Maybe just the external link is enough, becuase I didn't copy their write up so it probably shouldn't be an inline. p.s. Do you know how to link to old version of pages? - Peregrinefisher 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why CNET instead of tv.com? - Peregrinefisher 19:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for episodes 2-5 I cited the episodes with {{cite visual}} for the plot section. (You watched them on TV, didn't you? If not, the medium field needs to be corrected.) I wouldn't reccomend using tv.com as a reference, since it fails WP:RS, but if you used it, then citing it is the honest thing to do until you find a better source. (You don't have to copy it to use it - a source is just where you got the information from. Copying it might constitute copyright violation.) I said CNET Networks, Inc. was the publisher because, if you look at the bottom of the page, that is the copyright owner. If you mean linking to old version of wikipedia pages, go to the history and click on the date of the version you want. Then copy the URL, and link to it as you would an external link. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotes?

The quote here by Martha doesn't really follow the consistency of the other episodes. Normally it says something that would appear as:
Martha: We didn't find him. He found us.
But it currently says "'We didn't find him. He found us.' - Martha Kent".

GA passed

Great job, one of the best episode pages I've seen. I've changed one thing, but it was only very minor. It flows well, and is complete. This has a chance of becomming the sixth episode FA (but by experience, I tend to have no idea what I'm talking about but there we go). And I still can;t do Article History, so could someone else do that please? Gran² 13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still have some more DVD commentary to add in, and I may have to reformat the "Production" section to be a bit more organized because of it. The "casting" may be trimmed or removed, since it's kind of repeating what's in the main article. We'll see how it goes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article! I've made a few minor tweaks to the mention of Victoria in the filming section. I don't know what is said in the commentary, but Victoria's location on an island isn't significant other than that you have to take a ferry to get there. (Vancouver Island - where, oddly, Victoria is and Vancouver *isn't* - is larger than Sicily, and slightly smaller than Taiwan.) I've also piped a few links for city names. Again, nice job. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It said "off Vancouver" and when I hear "off ..." I usually assume it means "off the coast", (i.e an island). So, that was why I put it as an island. Thanks for the correction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

• [1] - havne't had the time to write out the template. Bignole 14:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

*[2] another -  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

Unless the title of the pilot episode was actually "Pilot", the article name should probably be renamed.--Jeffro77 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually pilots are just called "pilot." They worry about naming the episodes once they know they can go on with the show. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The "pilot" is always listed as "Pilot". It isn't an official name like "Accelerate" or something else, but a description of what it is, a television pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets' rephrase clumsy style, please

A couple of instances of infelicitous style here, guys. (I personally know almost nothing about the show and still less about its filming, so am unable to correct.)

• "close-ups of Lana were shot in a potato factory." -- Potatos normally come from a field. What's a "potato factory"? Potato-processing factory?

• " the crew built Lana's front porch inside a sewage factory .... The local sewage factory is also the site for the LuthorCorp pesticide plant" -- Sewage also normally has another origin - it is not generally felt necessary to produce it in factories. Sewage processing facility?

-- Also --

• "for scenes where digital corn was not an option, six hundred stalks of fake corn were flown in from Arizona." -- "Fake corn"? Why Arizona? Do they manufacture fake corn there?

-- 201.19.77.39 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. They didn't elaborate on the potato and sewage factory, nor the where precisely the corn came from. I would think that say a "potato-processing factory" and "sewage treatment facility" would be fine. I would just elaborate on the corn and say, "they received it from a manufacturer in Arizona." Who knows why Arizona, I haven't been able to find out. If you could make the changes, that would be great...I have to run to class so I don't have time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't know jack about the show or its production and can't make changes. -- 201.19.77.39 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The producers might have wanted to visit Kansas, where *wheat* is the main crop. Visit Iowa if you want corn fields. --24.249.108.133 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was because of the time of year, and all "real" corn wasn't growing when they were filming. I don't know, and I don't begin to try to know their understanding of why they went to Arizona for fake corn. I've made the potato and sewage issues more specific, per your suggestions. I added "from a manufacturer in Arizona" to the corn issue. I don't know why Arizona, but specifying that it was from a manufacturer probably sounds better than it reading like the state of Arizona provided fake corn.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's likely that they went to Arizona get to real corn that had already grown, hence it was only fake in that it was not planted and grown on location. Arizona's growing season for corn is much early and it is one of the only places to get corn in the spring or early summer. --Bloodzombie 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't how it sounded on the DVD commentary. They didn't hint that it was real but just not "Kansas" corn, or for that matter Canadian corn (since they film in Canada). They sounded like it was made, not grown.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys putting stuff into the article that's actually verifiable and cite-able, or just whatever sounds good to you? Please, the former only, per WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. It's a lot more work to go through later and fix all the stuff that's not actually true. -- 201.19.77.39 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything is cited. The only thing that got changed was a clarification for potato factory, sewage plant, and the fake corn. It isn't original research to say "potato-processing factory" (what you suggested), if the director simply says "potato factory". As you pointed out, potatoes are grown in a field, not in a factory--well, they could be, but I would assume that the rarity of that happening would have been mentioned. The same goes for changing it to "sewage treatment plant". It's just more accurate terminology. As for the corn, I only clarified that they got it from some manufacturer, as it read like they got it from the state itself, and there was no indication that the corn was "real" corn only grown in a different state. If it was "real" corn, and you have a citation for that, then it can be changed. Unless you don't agree with the bit about manufacturer and I'll revert that part out again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Righto. -- 201.19.77.39 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards? Which ones?

It is stated in the second paragraph of the article that "[the pilot] was generally well received by critics, and was nominated for several awards, winning two." Which awards was it nominated for, and which ones did it win? I did not bother to read the entire article, but a featured article which makes mention of award-winning ought to have these things readily available, perhaps under its own section within the article.

• Edit: I looked under the "Reception" subection and found all of the awards and nomiations in the first paragraph. I still think a table or some small subsection would be in order for a Featured Article.

12.20.146.126 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the content regarding awards is too minimal for a separate section or table to exist. It already exists comfortably in the Reception section, but perhaps more detail can be provided in that sentence in the lead section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Any more detail regarding the awards would either be just a rehash of what is in the reception section, or become a favoritism thing where some get mentioned and some don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ethnic diversity"

Does this not make sense to anyone else?

"Allison Mack toyed with the idea of auditioning for the role of Lana Lang but chose instead to audition for the role of Chloe Sullivan.[13] The character was created just for the series and was intended to add ethnic diversity to the cast."

Are they saying that Allison Mack adds ethnic diversity to the cast, or that the intention the character of Chloe Sullivan was created so they could have more ethnic diversity (although they may or may not have succeeded with the casting). Shirley Ku 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Allison isn't a "character", she's a person, so I thought it was clear that "Chloe" was the one intended to have an ethnic background. The following sentence explains why Gough and Millar chose her for the role. At most, we could add that by choosing her they abandoned their intention of casting someone with an ethnic background.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that with the casting of Allison Mack (who I do like in the role) they did not actually succeed in adding ethnic diversity. And that probably should be clarified in the paragraph. Shirley Ku 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot section

Ok, this is listed as a FA so I will open a discussion before being bold and correcting it the way I think it should be.

When someone reads section titled Plot, one expects to read what actually happenes in the episode. What is written at the moment, is a weird mixture of what happens (plot) and how and why the events are significant later in the series and what the authors were trying to do. So it's a mess all over and needs to be splitted into a Plot section and Analysis section. To make it clear, sentences like This was a concept Gough and Millar devised to establish a reason for Clark's clumsiness. In other media, it is usually portrayed as an act he puts on to deceive people of his true identity. are not a plot and should be in a separate section. If no objections, I will correct in in a few days. --Tone 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read the peer review and the discussion about that took place there. It isn't a separate section because there isn't enough to warrant a separate section. Regardless, plots are not always going to be pure in-universe information, and if possible, it would be best to not have any "pure" in-universe section. Just because one is accustomed to read such things does not mean we have to always follow that way. Did you find out what happened in the episode when you read the plot?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the peer review. But I can't agree that it would be best not to have any "pure" in-universe section. When you want to read synopsis (or plot) of a work of fiction, for example Hamlet, you surely don't want to read the analysis at the same time and try to imagine what is the plot and what is a comment. Not because I am accustomed to read pure plots, it's because plot and analysis are separate entries. --Tone 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If I want to know about Hamlet, I'll read it first hand, like one should be doing. Wikipedia isn't a substitution for watching, reading, or listening to anything. People have become accustomed to having everything laid out for them so that they can come here and read up on what they missed in their favorite show. If you were reading any other encyclopedia, they wouldn't give you a detailed description of the plot of something, and then move on to analysis. When you read reviews from movie critics or television critics they will often analyze certain aspects of the plot as they are covering it. Those particular things are mere intentions and symbolisms that were noted, which cannot support a separate section on their own. They are relevant to the article as well. The FAC was merely a month ago, and no one really brought up too much concern over such things, so it isn't like this article has degraded. Every article is different, and just because common practice is to leave the plot "purely" in-universe doesn't mean that there cannot be applicable ways to include real world information in them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I agree that WP isn't a substitution for watching. But as far as I know, the encyclopedias actually give the plot first, though very briefly, and then move to other things (well, depends on the book). Since this is a wiki, the plot usually tends to be long and detailed (people add to it...). Anyway, I still suggest a separation. If there are only 3-4 sentences of analysis of the themes, so be it. There's nothing wrong with short sections, if they cover the topis well. If I had seen the FAC before, I would have said this then, it bothers me. The rest of the article is otherwise nice and should be used as a model for other episodes. --Tone 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They give true synopses, which usually consist of a few sentences, and not 3 or 4 paragraphs of information. Three sentences, when you are going to end up repeating the plot, is not enough to support a section. I would rather have an unconventional section, that is strong with real world context, than a small section that is weak because of lack of information. If you can find more themes, symbolisms, and other types of analysis then I'd be happy to move the information to its own section. But it's there because currently that is where it acts the strongest, being alongside things information it is refering to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I perfectly get your point. When I am in the mood, I'll try to reformulate it into two sections (on the talkpage) and we can have a look if it fits. Still, I would appreciate if some more people joined the debate as well. So much for now, I'm tired... Greetings. --Tone 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Few people monitor the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been monitoring it for vandalism since it was on the main space. Normally, I'd agree with Tone that IU and OOU info should be kept seperate, but I'd rather see one strong section than two weak ones. I'm happy with the article as is, but if Tone succeeds in creating two sections which exist strongly independantly, that would be an improvement. If not, maybe the plot section could be retitled slightly to encompass OOU info? Paul730 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia Ettinger

I once had a rip of the pilot's original (or close to original) airings, and Ettinger was in it. (as this [3] confirms). So did Ettinger complete the (aired) pilot, and did they then re-shot all her scenes with O'Toole for the dvd? I guess this is the case, but it could be clarified. Mdiamante 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said she wasn't in the original pilot? It clearly states that Ettinger filmed the role, but they realized that she wasn't the right actress so they recast and then reshot her scenes. I guess it could be clarified that O'Toole reshot the scenes, but I would have thought that was obvious when it says "during filming". I guess not though. I'll clarify. O'Toole talks about being the only one to have seen the entire pilot before anyone else, so I would assume that she saw Ettinger's before it was officially released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit clearer, but I think it could still be made explicit that Ettinger had yet to be replaced when the Pilot first aired, as opposed to the situation in Star Trek: Voyager, where they sacked the original Kathryn Janeway actress before that episode was completed. And-- this is getting pretty deep into trivia, I know-- but if the reworked pilot ever aired before it became widely available on dvd, perhaps the "original airdate" in the infobox could be amended to reflect this. Thanks. Mdiamante 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The pilot, with Ettinger, never aired. They actually refer to it as an "unaired pilot". So, they filmed everything, and O'Toole basically reshot Ettinger's scenes. I assume those images are from some network copy that got passed around. Words from Gough (which are in the text), "All of us, including [Ettinger], realized this during the process of shooting." That says to me that they never aired her scenes officially to anyone. So, other than stating that her scenes were reshot, I don't think there's anything else to report. I mean, I don't believe they did anything more than reshoot Ettinger's scenes and then air the pilot as it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's what the "Season One official companion" cited in the footnote says, fair enough. The wording "during filming everyone realized that she was not right for the role, including Ettinger", though, strikes me as improvable. I've changed it to "during filming it was generally agreed (Ettinger included) that she was not right for the role." Splitting hairs, maybe, but maybe the props master or something thought she was perfect. Mdiamante 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, fair enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention discussion

At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#TV pilot naming standards, there is a discussion about how articles about untitled pilots should be named. A change has been proposed which would affect this article. Regular editors of this page are invited to join the discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pilot (Smallville). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180648/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/oct01/oct22/1_mon/news3monday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/oct01/oct22/1_mon/news3monday.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928171824/http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/pastawards.html to http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/pastawards.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704144317/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason1.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/smallvilleseason1.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pilot (Smallville). 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cw.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/thecw/original/castcrew?id=227&dpid=55
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320215617/http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/reviews/Smallville-Volume-Release/1195 to http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/reviews/Smallville-Volume-Release/1195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520201503/http://www.ytv.com/programming/shows/smallville/ to http://www.ytv.com/programming/shows/smallville/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

As part of the continuing sweeps of old featured articles to ensure continued compliance with the featured article criteria, I looked over this FA to see if it still meets current standards. I had some comments:

• There's some weird organizational issues that I think suggest another path. The plot section, for example, is a bit hard to follow because it's also cramming in details about the writing and world building, something that is better placed in the production section. The production section then starts with casting, not the conception and writing of the series and pilot (the details of which are oddly put into the "Filming" section.)
• The prose is a bit rough in places; it doesn't always flow well, and you end up with awkward run-on phrasing such as For one of his auditions, he read the graveyard scene, from the pilot, with Kristin Kreuk; the network thought they had "great chemistry". or short, staccato sentences (such as the weirdly long description of the issues growing corn, which takes seven sentences to say what could probably be three or four, and with a lot less "digital corn" getting repeated.)
• The reception section probably could be fleshed out, and it definitely could be better than a laundry list of quotes from reviewers, one after another.
• A quick search of Google News shows there's still a fair amount of potential sources out there; lots are probably churnalism, but some are more substantial, e.g. [4] and given the show's been out for several anniversaries there's probably more to include. Likewise to buttress the discussion of intentions with the episode from the writers, there's critical analysis like [5] that could probably be used for a themes or analysis section or similar.

Pinging Bignole, RobertG, and DonQuixote as top still-active editors. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Since 2007, I'm sure a lot has changed in MOS:TV. The article should be updated to reflect that. Gonnym (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

A link pass should be done as some of them are dead. A FA should not have dead links. Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to look it over when I have time. You make good points. This page has had some traffic over time and probably not kept up with just general prose cleanup when people add stuff. As for the plot, it was originally separated. That was a specifically requested thing during the FAC process (or one of the reviews right before it). Not trying to defend it because I like it (as I wasn't for it originally), but the MOS does not state that you cannot mix plot information with other relevant, real world information. While not normally done, it also isn't restricted from doing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)