Talk:Last Resort (TV series)

Hulu

The article says the first episode will air on 27 September 2012, however, I just finished watching Episode 1 on Hulu. Anyone know if Hulu got an exclusive first peak, or something? If so, the article should mention this. --Thorwald (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also viewable for free on Yahoo TV, with the annoying "autostart playback leads to unexpected loud noise" feature. I linked to it as a reference for the plot summary, so careful readers can infer that it's viewable before the television air date. rhyre (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Logo

The image File:Last Resort ABC.jpg was replaced by File:Last Resort logo.jpg with the argument that the latter was in the Commons so should be preferred. However, it is not a replacement, it has only the logo, not the image. Also I see the statement at File:Last Resort logo.jpg it says "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain.", which I think is pretty dubious. It is not just "simple geometric shapes and/or text" (see the splotches inside the letters) and it is also surely trademarked, so it's certainly not in the public domain despite what the uploader claimed. I think the copyright status of both images is identical in reality so that is not a criterion to be used to prefer one over the other. Neither is "public domain". Either could be used here as "fair use". Barsoomian (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Very cute replacing the uploaded image with a duplicate of the text. When someone is willing to screw things up so thoroughly to have their way, I despair. Barsoomian (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Image from commons same. --Alrofficial (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That is very disingenuous. It Is NOW after you've replaced the original image with the one from the Commons. If you wanted to change the image, you should have discussed it here first. There is no reason to replace an image with a duplcate of another image except you want to expunge the first, but you again did not bother to discuss this. Barsoomian (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title)--Alrofficial (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did screw with the original image file? Why not use a different name so it was all clear? Why didn't you bother to discuss this first? Why did you say "image from commons same" when you knew it wasn't? Barsoomian (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

An intertitle is not simply the title of the program. If that were the case we could scrawl "Last Resort" in crayon and use that. The intertitle consists of the whole frame, as per the example at intertitle. It consists of all of the elements in the frame. We use it so the program is easily identifiable. @Barsoomian, those "splotches" that you mentioned are actually a US flag behind the text, as can be seen here. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I called the shapes "splotches" because they are irregular. It's shown in the title sequence what they are, a flag rippling underwater, so it's not a "simple geometric shape", unless you use a very loose definition of "simple". Barsoomian (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very definitely NOT simple geometric shapes, as I've pointed out at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Last Resort logo.jpg. -- AussieLegend (✉) 02:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Island Location

I changed the island location to what has been revealed, though it seems contradictory. It is a fictional island. The submarine Colorado's location is revealed to be in the Indian Ocean near the equator at the beginning of the show ("1012 clicks" (i.e. 607 miles) southwest of Sri Lanka, and primary actor Andre Braugher in a video on abc's website confirms the island's location to be in the Indian Ocean. The show's producer Shawn Ryan says in a video on abc's website that the island is in French Polynesia - though it would place it outside the area traditionally known as Polynesia. There are other French administered islands located in the Indian Ocean. I let the contradiction remain as it is a fictional island. I think that's the best anyone can do on this. Nodekeeper (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this at the same time as your comment above:

Sainte Marina is a fictional island. We know that it's in the Indian Ocean, because we see the location of the sub on a map when the missiles are launched to Pakistan. And it's very near the equator. And we can guess it's a former French colony from the accents. Though the latter two points are strictly WP:OR so we shouldn't put them in. Someone wants the article to say it's in French Polynesia, which is in the middle of the Pacific, literally the other side of the world, 8800 miles away. (See this map.) If it's not actually stated in the program as aired, don't say that. Unless this is set on Bizarro World. Barsoomian (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I reiterate, unless they actually say "French Polynesia" on the show, leave it out. I know that it's fiction. But stating that as a fact on Wikipedia gives it a whole lot more respectability. Let's just hope that it was a misstatement by whoever it was that said that and hope they never mention it on the show. Hopefully the script editor graduated primary school school and would not let that get in the actual program. Barsoomian (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see Canon (fiction) for the principle I think applies, defining for example "Star Trek canon" as "the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies". Barsoomian (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First, in the show's universe evidently French Polynesia exists in the Indian Ocean. I think we could both agree that this is a "French" island, so I would be willing to let that sit as "French island located the Indian Ocean" for now until there is further clarification. Nodekeeper (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"French" is fine, (it seems obvious though I don't think it was actually stated, so it may be WP:OR, but I won't quibble). But Polynesia needs to be be actually stated in the show itself before we do such violence to common sense and geography. There is no "evidently ..." unless we see it. The show defines the "show's universe", not an interview with someone, no matter if he is the creator, they have been known to say things contradictory to what actually ends up on screen. Barsoomian (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what was more exciting with the recent second episode - seeing the Russians invade the island or waiting for someone to say "French Polynesia"! :D We saw one of the NATO station members talk to an overhead Taiwanese jet using English then French. Then later on the bartender referred to the island as "volcanic," presumably drawing us ever closer to that ring of fire which will rip a hole in anyone's geographical sensibilities! :D Nodekeeper (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This fictional Island might be loosely based on the real Island Diego-Garcia. Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that, but it doesn't make sense as there is a huge air force base there, something the island that they currently are on apparently does not have (i.e. they have a "NATO listening post"). I suspect that would be where the bombers came from that were about to bomb the submarine before turning back at the last moment. Nodekeeper (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely fictional. Obviously it's supposed to be a (former?) French possession. Its geography is volcanic (as it's shot in Hawaii). Diego Garcia is a coral atoll and basically dead flat. If there was a real radar installation of that size in a volatile part of the world it would have serious military protection and the sub would have no chance to take it over. But they made it a "NATO" base, manned by wimpy peacenik Europeans that the Americans can push around. Barsoomian (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity about the location, just say "French" and leave out both the "Polynesia" part and the "Indian Ocean" part, or else discuss the question of location in the article.

Incidentally, there is an island called Ile Ste Marie off the coast of Madagascar that has a long history of being a pirate haven (not modern pirates, but the famous 18th and 19th century pirates) that might fill the bill as a model.68.9.167.248 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All the facts shown on the show so far put it geographically in the Indian Ocean, and that seems well founded. The proximity to Pakistan at the beginning, the map screens shown. It has been stated to have been a French colony, and they had them all over. Paradoxically, culturally it looks Polynesian. Apparently now independent, since no one seems to care that it was being run by a gangster and was invaded by a rogue submarine. If it was still French, there would be French officials and probably military. But aside from the "NATO" troops seen in the pilot, who seem to have disappeared, there is no sign of that. But this is getting into WP:OR so not suitable for inclusion in the article though. Barsoomian (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Episode 1

the B-1 Bombers

Somebody should remove the mention of the B-1 Bombers from the plot description, and insert down the page into the episode 1 summary. Also: a comment question, if someone can answer it here on the talk page: The B-1 bombers retreated, and then I lost my digital signal, and I missed the final minutes of the show. Did the USS Colorado Captain let his missiles hit their targets? Or did he enter the self-destruct codes? Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the text yourself. If someone disagrees they'll revert it... Too late to destruct, but the missiles detonated offshore from Washington. Not sure if that was the original target. Barsoomian (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The B-1s retreat but Chaplin doesnt selfdestruct the ICBM because Curry was 90 seconds late to show him that he will make true his treats.. its then revealed after the XO´s protests that the ICBM real target was 200miles east of Washington in the ocean, where no one would be killed but everyone on washington would see the explosion quite clearly. I guess Chaplin had talked that with the (unseen) weapons officer as the WEPS says "coordinates set" when Chaplin orders ICBM1 ready.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.24.149.246 (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The girl in the bed

Somebody might work into the article somewhere, some details of the developing sub-plots of the show. There was the short scene of the girl in her bra and panties on top of the guy, and as they're having their sexual interlude, she mumbles something about his father the senator voting for some sort of weapons purchase. Looks like this is going to be a classic storyline of some corrupt senators or corrupt Admirals starting a war, so they can profit from defense contracts. But at week 1, its too early and too complicated a story to adequately put pieces together. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Episode summaries are only a few lines long. Can't cover every detail and shouldn't try to. Barsoomian (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

not in the episode summary, but maybe it can be worked into the general plot description. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Technical fallacies

I added a couple of paragraphs by starting a new header "technical falacies", but this was subsequently removed as "trivia". I'm not going to put it back myself, but I would appreciate somebody else taking a look and considering whether or not something like that belongs in the article. In general, I hate seeing millions of American taxpayers getting all sorts of incorrect ideas about how the nuclear arsenal they paid for actually works, and think there should at least be a place they can go to see what the facts are. (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2012

I read the paragraphs you inserted. In the second episode one of the characters referred specifically to the Trident missile working as you described (i.e. no recall/destruct capability). I think that the points you make are valid, but they would need to be written in the context of them being continuity errors as they relate to the show (rather than just relating how the missile operates). Also, for the sake of editorial concerns, the weight of the article should not be devoted too heavily on this one aspect to the show. Though if there is continual continuity errors in this area then it may become more appropriate at that time. What you might do then is write one sentence here about how the missile operates in the fictional universe and then link to a more detailed explanation in another article somewhere else, for example in the Trident missile article If you wanted to condense what you wrote into a single sentence or at most two and find a way to put it in the article, I might would support that decision. Nodekeeper (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYN and/or WP:OR, so not appropriate. We can only report criticisms made by notable critics, not random bloggers, much less random Wikipedia editors. Besides, this is a TV drama. No one in their right mind takes any of it seriously. Barsoomian (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

UNFORTUNATELY, a lot of the public do form their perceptions of how things are from fictional TV sources. I remember a poll a while back that indicated a majority of 18-24 year olds get their NEWS from the Daily Show. I think it would be appropriate to provide a place for people to provide correct information to curious people who see something retarded on the show and come here to see if it’s true. As to the notion of “notable critics”; that’s laughable. Everyone’s a critic, and they show be judged but the content of their postings, not their notoriety based on some clique of “notable critics”. TodKarlson (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Noble your intent may be, but that would violate multiple Wikipedia policies. WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:OR, WP:SYN for a start. So it would be immediately deleted. Does House need a medical "debunking" section? And if we started on CSI, you'd never finish. Anyone in a position to launch a Trident missile probably knows their range. Find an authoritative source for your critiques and it can be cited. Barsoomian (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

False Flag

Would it be appropriate to mention that with the US Government falsely accusing Pakistan of firing the first shot, this is a false flag operation or is this POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, that term was used either in the show or in a description of that plot element in a published episode summary. If you can find a source and can work it into the text in an appropriate way, then, yes, it would be appropriate. I can't see how that would be POV. Holy (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ratings table

Why do we need a "U.S. Ratings" table? There is already a column listing the number of viewers in the episode table. Who would care about that level of detail except an advertiser, and they aren't going to come here to read it. Barsoomian (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That section is exactly the same as the episode table, just with the addition of the 18-49 ratings share, which is a bit excessive and isn't all that important or meaningful to a regular reader. The overall viewership is really only what's needed and is easily understood, while "2.2/7" is meaningless unless you know what exactly it's referring to. If someone wants more information about the ratings, they can always look at the reference used. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the 18-49 ratings share is needed, the table is redundant, as the 18-49 ratings share is easily incorporated into the episode table using the Aux4 parameter. -- AussieLegend (✉) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Perhaps when it gets aired in other countries a table can be incorporated into the it can include their ratings too. MisterShiney (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Despot

So I just noticed that AdamDeanHall just undid my edit saying that he was undoing damage that I did? Im not sure what he meant, could anyone be a bit more specific please? I was just providing a link on Despotism and what it meant. As I for one didnt know what it first meant and was trying to be more helpful to other readers by providing a background link. Thank you. MisterShiney (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The only damage I can see resulted from this edit, in which the reference name was deleted. but that wasn't your edit. -- AussieLegend (✉) 23:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall seems to go out of his way to be abrasive, makes me look obsequious. Anyway, I guess the motive was that "despot" is a common word that doesn't need a link. I thought it wasn't necessary myself, but not offensively so. OTOH, I used "parole" in a sense some may not be aware of so I linked that. Barsoomian (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Episodes vs scripts

Just noting that this article at the Futon Critic says Mindy Project and Raising Hope are getting two more episodes while Last Resort and 666 Park Avenue are getting two more scripts. The article notes "the order for additional scripts will keep their respective scribes hard at work while a final call is made about their back-nine (or less) orders". Futon Critic's page for Last Resort says there are 13 episodes with two additional scripts ordered. Clearly, scripts do not guarantee episodes, despite what some editors keep attempting to add to the article. -- AussieLegend (✉) 01:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. All the major TV/entertainment websites differentiate between episodes and scripts (Hollywood Reporter, TVLine, Zap2it, Deadline), because the fact is scripts were ordered, not episodes. The anon IP editor is replacing it with a link to Examiner.com which I remember was blacklisted to be used a source and is not considered reliable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is further reinforced by the numerous reports that 13 episodes will be aired and the network has passed on producing the additional scripts. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential for additional season(s) is worth mentioning

AdamDeanHall removed information about the potential for additional seasons with the following edit summary: "Just so we're clear, there will be no second season of "Last Resort". Ever!!" In fact, as the article stated, ABC has not cancelled the series but has only cut this season short, and if ratings improve, there could be another season. This is worth mentioning, is it not? For now, I'm reverting Adam's edit. If you have an opinion, let's discuss it here. ----Mattmatt1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DEFINITELY! I edited the cancellation notice when it was first announced so that it reflected the correct wording that ABC had not cancelled the show, THEY just were not going to pick it up for a full season. In their words there is no mention of it being cancelled. The cancelled bit is the Media's wording and not ABC. MisterShiney ✉ 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's cancelled. "Not picking it up" is just a polite way to say the same thing. The media is pefectly correct to interpret it as such. Shawn Ryan says it's cancelled: "'Last Resort' Cancellation: Shawn Ryan Reflects On The End Of The Show": "Last Resort co-creator Shawn Ryan is speaking out on the cancellation of his ABC series. Ryan announced the show was not receiving a full-season order on Friday, November 16 and went on "Kevin Pollak's Chat Show" on Sunday, saying that he wasn't surprised "Last Resort" was canceled." And we report that "they were reworking the final episode to function as a series finale'". It's Dead, Jim It's not pining for the fjords. Barsoomian (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are shows that get renewed even after the network declines to pick up the back nine. I think if the show's creator is floating this potential, it's worth mentioning. ----Mattmatt1987 (talk)

No, that would be just speculation.. it is very unlikely that the show would get picked up. Spanneraol (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It all seems like speculation, which isn't notable. If a reliable source that covers entertainment picks it up, it probably would be. A hopeful tweet from a show creator isn't notable. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Silent Service

The Silent Service is an anime with a very similiar storyline. 174.22.13.142 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not supported by the plot description at The Silent Service. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan??

Was the point of the show to attack Pakistani people or government, or instead made by Americans to attack their own nation? Please, I do not understand, what did the producers want to point out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QaradKhan (talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly the later, but more likely it's just a good story. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved on the first, not moved on the second. Jenks24 (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Last Resort (U.S. TV series) → Last Resort (TV series)
• The Last Resort (Australian TV series) → The Last Resort (TV series)

– Am looking to gauge if there is support among the community to reduce the disambiguation for these two articles, as the "U.S." and the "Australian" disambiguation appear to be unnecessary to me. I believe that the "The" is enough to disambiguate the 1988 Australian TV series from the 2013 American TV series, especially if we employ hatnotes. I recommend the move to the lesser disambiguation, which should be sufficient here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, per nom and WP:SMALLDETAILS, the "The" is enough to distinguish the two titles, and hatnote links will clarify the situation at least as well as a dab page does, and will be needed only about half as often at most. --В²C ☎ 00:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the second as The Last Resort (1979 TV series) also exists. The Last Resort (TV series) should redirect to the disambiguation page at Last Resort. Tassedethe (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tassedethe: does that include opposing moving Last Resort (U.S. TV series) to Last Resort (TV series) as proposed? Also, would you support moving The Last Resort (Australian TV series) to The Last Resort (1988 TV series) to better disambiguate it from The Last Resort (1979 TV series)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Unsure about this proposal. The Aussie TV series page is currently small (if not stubbish); I'd lean toward opposing the removal of "Australian". The 1979 US TV series is lesser known and short-lived, and its article has not been expanded. The 2012 TV series is also short-lived and not well known nowadays, but the article is better written. This all comes down to notability of both the Aussie and the 1979 shows. --George Ho (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support the first request but oppose the second because of the 1979 American show. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:813A:D7EB:4C67:115D (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Last Resort (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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kitv.com/r/30391682/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923131819/http://www.globaltv.com/lastresort/ to http://www.globaltv.com/lastresort
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002231011/http://www.axn-asia.com/programs/last-resort to http://www.axn-asia.com/programs/last-resort

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: 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) 20:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)