This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Event. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Event at the Reference desk.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

If you were adding a comment to a discussion, it may be easier to resolve the conflict by redoing the edit from the start:

Apparently someone deleted this page.

Assburger jokes are offensive.

I looked at the deleted edits and they were both from WildBot, one revealing a link that required disambiguation and the second stating that this had been resolved. No edits by human beings were apparently affected. - Dravecky (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No episode list yet?[edit]

do we know anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostMK (talk • contribs) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just created List of The Event episodes, only one known episode though. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not to be impatient but[edit]

is there any hint in the press of what the global conspiracy is? aliens? other dimensions? terrorism? cold fusion? 128.151.71.18 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many current (and past) TV shows, they want you to ask that so you'll keep watching. Unless someone from the cast, crew, or someone who has access to the scripts uploads the details somewhere, the best that can be done is read into everything in the show and guess. Until they reveal the "big secret." My guess, first season finale will shed some light on it. I doubt we'll get much info before then, especially since this show is being touted as "Lost meets 24". Look at how long we went with "maybe the next episode will have all the answers" with Lost. Even after, what. 6 years there's still questions regarding the show's plot. And apparently there was a 5 season long plot drawn up. So expect a lot of waiting and drawn out episodes. 64.150.130.52 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, of course, the show can last that long (Not meant to be snarky, I liked the pilot and will be back next week for the next episode). While I look forward to something to keep us watching for that long, I also have to remember that late in its first (and now only) season FlashForward suggested it had a similar six-year story arc. But ABC had other ideas, apparently, given the weak ratings.

"Lost meets 24" is exactly how I'd describe this, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, once the secret has been broadcast, we have a source and can report it here. Consider the TV series a "current event" where "information may change rapidly as the event progresses". Right now, the information you ask for simply isn't publicly available. CapnZapp (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative technique[edit]

Do we know if the narrative technique of the pilot (telling the story mostly in flashbacks to different time frames) will be standard throughout the series, or was it just for the pilot? (Clever enough, as it happened). One rumor has it you better have paid close attention during the pilot, because it will start getting more complicated soon. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, scratch that. Here Nick Wauters explains that future uses of the flashbacks will be more about fleshing out the characters, a point he reiterates in his post-show tweets. Will put this in. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states the flashbacks were in "two timeframes" yet it looked to me that there were a large number of time frames. So what is meant by "two timeframes"? They were also out of sequence and that is probably notable to mention. As a general example of why out of sequence is notable, I took no notice of the fathers name in the flashbacks so had no idea of how (or why) Walker knew the co-pilot until I read the plot here (I assumed the father was killed as well). I blame the flashbacks being out of sequence because you dont have enough time to understand who people are.Wayne (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have said two different plots. The one set a year or so before the beginning of the episode constitutes one plot (since President Martinez eventually goes to the camp and meets Sophia); the flashbacks to a week or so earlier with Sean and Leila are another, and the ones to within 20 minutes earlier are really the main plot. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashback whiplash. Back and forth, back and forth. Present, a short time a go, a long time ago, a much longer time ago, with short flips to the present interspersed. Heroes did flashbacks exceptionally well, rarely and coherently, and they had plenty of reasons to do them, including time travel and providing good and informative pieces of plot. Slumdog Millionaire was a festival of flashbacks, or it could be considered mostly straightforward progression of the plot with narrative flash forwards, with the two threads coming together at the end. That's a common storytelling style. The Event has so far been a schizoid jumping all over the place sort of thing. Perhaps the writers should watch the split screen movie Wicked, Wicked, where almost the entire film is showing simultaneous events in two different locations, while sometimes having two different POV's of the same location. The style adopted by The Event is difficult to follow for some people. Some people just hate flashbacks no matter how they're used. this show is definitely targeted at an audience that not only has no problems following convoluted plots with many characters, but actively likes such stories and feels that 'mainstream' entertainment is too dumbed down and simplistic. Bizzybody (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable that in spite of what Wauters said in the above article, the use of flashbacks seems to have been entirely cut from the series as of the ninth episode, as noted by this article.Theorycreation: Create Truth to Destroy the Lies (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ǝ in EVƎNT[edit]

...from the picture it appears like a graphically inverted regular latin 'E'.

Does this character exist in the font used by Wikipedia (and shown by browsers) or does the text use some cyrillic letter? If so, I am unsure it is appropriate. In other words, I propose we use a true latin E only inverted, or we do not follow the games played by designers and change it to a textual description (I favor the latter). CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shows up just fine. Ǝ is a Latin unicode character (U+018E), so there shouldn't be any problems when using standard fonts. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development detail[edit]

The paragraph detailing when various people signed on to the project is overly detailed. Now that the broadcasts have started, most of that has lost notability. Ronstew (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Event (TV series) → The Event — Move this there, then place a hatnote at the top of this article to the film article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Last month the article about the TV series was viewed close to a million times[1], while the film's article and the dab page together were viewed 145,000 times[2][3]. Station1 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the viewing of the film article is normally lower. The TV series article attracted people to the film article because if you look for August 2010 and beforehand, the article had only 250-300 average viewings per month. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Conditional Support. Make The Event a redirect to The Event (TV series) instead. Also, hold this conversation at Talk:The Event instead of here. --Oski Jr (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - My disagreement over redirects vs. page moves should have no bearing on whether The Event takes you to an article about the TV series or a disambiguation page, and I wouldn't want it to hold up that change. My disagreement is over how that change should be implemented, not over whether it should be made in the first place. --Oski Jr (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects of that kind are pointless, either have an article on the main page or have a disambiguation page. (Also Talk:The Event redirects to Talk:The Event (film).) _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed Talk:The Event so it's no longer a redirect. The editor who created the dab page apparently forgot about its talk page. Station1 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly the kind of reason The Event should be a redirect to a "canonical" name (e.g. The Event (TV series)) so that nothing actually needs to be moved. People make mistakes when moving pages, and people also don't like it when links change. What happens in five years when there's some hot new Broadway musical called "The Event" and nobody remembers the TV show anymore? We move all the pages around again, possibly making mistakes in the process, and break all the links that go directly to The Event expecting it to be the TV show? Why not just have The Event (disambiguation), The Event (film), and The Event (TV series) and make The Event redirect to whichever one happens to be most appropriate at the time? Then nothing needs to ever move, and people still get to the page they were most likely looking for by using the short name — yet anyone who wants to have a "permalink" can have that too, in as obvious and non-confusing way as possible? --Oski Jr (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the wrong mindset, extrapolating that you find that every article should be disambiguated because something else might come along and claim the same name. That's not how it's done, and completely the opposite of "the simplest article name available" policy. The basic article name should never be a redirect, it's either a disambiguation page or it's the most prominent subject. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a different mindset, not the "wrong" one. It's also how most reference sources work. You may find an entry for an ambiguous topic at a simpler name, but it will usually be a "see (other name)" redirect to a unique disambiguated name. The advantage of an online encyclopedia is that we can take readers directly to the disambiguated name without any additional effort on their part; there is no need to actually give an article a shorter (and ambiguous) name. There is also no need to give longer (disambiguated) names in situations where there is no ambiguity. If some other topic gains notability at a later time and introduces ambiguity with the shorter name, then yes there would be a need to move the original article — but that would only ever happen once, not multiple times. I still argue this way would be simpler, more consistent with how other reference sources handle similar situations, and a better service to the community. --Oski Jr (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's wrong as in WP:DAB disagrees with that mindset. Also wikipedia does not "prepare" for might happen events. If something changes we change it, we don't jump through hoops because something else might come along. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well who's to say WP:DAB isn't wrong, then? It certainly seems that way to me, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Go grab any dictionary, print encyclopedia, almanac, etc. and you'll find that entries are typically given a unique, non-ambiguous name as their primary entry, and ambiguous names are always a redirect (e.g. "see (other name)") to the canonical version. (In point of fact I don't really think either way is "right" or "wrong" but rather just matters of convention — however, the convention is to do it the way I'm describing, everywhere that is except here, it seems.) I completely agree about the adaptive approach, by the way. I just think that at the first sign of ambiguity the change should be to move the ambiguously titled article to a non-ambiguous name, and to create a redirect at the old name rather than assign that name to whichever of the related titles is most popular. Once that initial move had taken place, no other moves would ever be needed and all other changes would happen to the redirect itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oski Jr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that very last part would be the problem. Redirects are less stable than article titles. I could see edit wars starting over which way a redirect points. Plus you would have incoming links attaching to redirects that would all be pointing the wrong way as soon as the target was changed, unless the editor cleaned them all up. Station1 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of those situations are made worse by actually moving the articles, though. It's easier to clean up the damage of a revert war that happens on a redirect page, than it is to clean up one that involves moving articles around. It's also easier to identify links that come in via a redirect (they're even marked as such on the "what links here" page) than it is to find ones that are linked to the "wrong" page entirely. --Oski Jr (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        WP:DAB is the convention. It's not wrong because it is based on discussion and consensus, the community says it's not wrong because the community made it. So you would move every television show to "X (TV series)" because something else might come along and claim the same name? Or perhaps you would move this article to The Event (2010 TV series), because maybe another TV series called The Event will be made some day? The convention, consensus, guidelines and policies are quite clear on this, either there is a primary topic which then takes the basic article title, or there isn't one and the basic article title is used as a dab page. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "The community" includes me as much as anybody else, and I say something different. That's fine, and it's fine that you have a different opinion. Please let's discuss it rather than make appeals to policy or to some abstract "community" that doesn't actually exist outside the people (i.e. you and me and whoever else wants to discuss it) who make it up. I'm not saying we should move articles where this is no ambiguity. There's only one TV series, so naming the article "The Event (TV series)" is unambiguous. If another series comes along then yes the current article should be moved to a new (unique) name — but we shouldn't keep moving articles around based on which one happens to be more popular at the time. That's what I'm arguing against. "The Event" is ambiguous. People looking for "The Event" are (at this moment) most likely looking for information about the TV series, and would be best served by being taken directly to an article on that topic. On this much we agree. Where we disagree is in whether they should be taken (automatically) via a redirect, or whether the article about the TV series should actually be moved to "The Event" and the article currently using that name (and associated talk pages for each) moved elsewhere. --Oski Jr (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with TV series being the primary topic. Readers can jump from the TV series article to the film article via hatnote. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the TV-show is far more popular, with only two articles that want The Event there is also no need to create The Event (disambiguation) a hat-note linking to The Event (film) is sufficiently. I'm also going trough the articles linking to the currently disambiguation page The Event and fix these. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time of Contact[edit]

The article says that the aliens "have been detained by the United States Government for sixty-six years" (so since 1944 if we assume that the show is based in 2010), and that "near the end of World War II an aircraft of undetermined origin crashed in the Brooks Range...". In Your World To Take (at about 7:00), Thomas states that mankind hadn't "even achieved nuclear fusion", and in nuclear fusion it says that 1932 was the year of first nuclear fusion. So either the show writers made a mistake, or there was contact that hasn't been brought up, correct? 67.180.86.254 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sustained fusion as a power source still has not been developed. I reckon this is the context in which the statement should be taken. Ronstew (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Frewer[edit]

Why did I think that Matt Frewer was in this show? Am I thinking of something or someone else? I've only seen the first few episodes so far, but I thought he was one of the guys who was against the president coming out. It's not on IMDb or anything. Any help, guys? Freddicus (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Matt Frewer is not in The Event. You may be thinking of Zeljko Ivanek? Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, yes, thank you. That was bothering me so much. They look similar-ish so I don't feel so bad. I hope I wasn't the only one! Freddicus (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of The Event (same as Crew of The Shield)[edit]

Directors: Jeffrey Reiner (6 episodes, 2010-2011) Norberto Barba (3 episodes, 2010-2011) Milan Cheylov (3 episodes, 2010-2011) Jonas Pate (2 episodes, 2010) Michael Waxman (2 episodes, 2011)

Writers: Nick Wauters (Head Writer) (21 episodes, 2010-2011) Jay Beattie (5 episodes, 2010-2011) Dan Dworkin (5 episodes, 2010-2011) David H. Goodman (5 episodes, 2010-2011) David Schulner (5 episodes, 2010-2011) James Wong (4 episodes, 2010-2011) Leyani Diaz (3 episodes, 2010-2011) Evan Katz (3 episodes, 2010-2011) Vanessa Rojas (3 episodes, 2010-2011) Lisa Zwerling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.21.217 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-Terrestrial vs. Non-Terrestrial[edit]

I just did some fixes regarding grammar and tense on the article. A notable change (which I mentioned in my edit summary) was "alien" to "extra-terrestrial," which I must digress to explain that that edit was because, for some reason, "extra-terrestrial" had less of a negative connotation than "alien" did in my head. Anyway, I stumbled upon the use of "non-terrestrial," which makes me wonder, is "extra-terrestrial" undesirable? I don't recall there being a distinction to the terms on the show, but I haven't seen it in months. Would it be better if "extra-terrestrial" was changed to "non-terrestrial?" Would it be best to just change it back to "alien?" Or just leave it as it is? Greengreengreen red 06:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the series via lovefilm, non-terrestrial is used to describe them for the majority of the show, sometimes alien, but the latter isn't used much, I think to avoid the ambiguity of the word in American culture (which comes up in the series, so that's why I mention it). Towards the end of the series, they are mostly referred to as the Sleepers. 87.83.53.209 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Insulam Simia. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of The Event episodes without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Insulam Simia (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am about to make a special page named LIST OF THE EVENT EPISODES here! BohdanBocharov16 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Event with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not any kind of vandalism. I just created a special section for LIST OF THE EVENT EPISODES as new page and therefore I deleted that section from THE EVENT page. Here is the link: "List of The Event episodes".