| Revision as of 01:48, 17 July 2013 editTaeyebar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,589 edits →X files userbox← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:04, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,221 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (122 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=07:08, 8 July 2006 |
|
|action1date=07:08, 8 July 2006 |
|
|action1link=Talk:The X-Files/Archive 2#The push to GA.21.28Now Accomplished.29 |
|
|action1link=Talk:The X-Files/Archive 2#The push to GA.21.28Now Accomplished.29 |
| Line 52: |
Line 51: |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject The X-Files|class=GA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television|importance=high|the-x-files=yes|the-x-files-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television|class=GA|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low |USTV=yes |USTV-importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=GA|importance=low|USTV=yes|USTV-importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|class=GA|type=Article|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes |importance=low |vancouver=yes |vancouver-importance=Low |tvshow=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|class=GA|importance=low|vancouver=yes |vancouver-importance=Low|tvshow=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject 20th Century Studios|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jan 24 2016 (11th)}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 105K |
|
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:The X-Files/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:X-Files, The}} |
|
|
{{VP Showcase2|meda=article}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Paranormal}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is Millenium really a spin-off of The X-Files? == |
|
|
I made an edit to this article which had said that Millenium was a spin-off of The X-Files to saying that The X-Files had a crossover with it. I explained in the Millenium article why Millenium is not really an X-Files spin-off. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Millenium article (which I corrected) mistakenly said that Millenium had been developed as an X-Files spin-off. Chris Carter came up with Millenium when FOX asked him for another show and I don't think FOX actually said that it had to be a spin-off of The X-Files. |
|
|
|
|
|
From what I read Millenium was developed on its own and Millenium is not an X-Files spin-off because none of its characters nor storyline originated on The X-Files. --] (]) 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am writing ] as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the ] would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - ] @ 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chris Carter's Actual Role as "Creator" == |
|
|
|
|
|
There has been some debate about the actual role of Chris Carter in "creating" the "X-Files." Some say that the Fox Network actually came to him with the idea. There have also been claims that Chris Carter's wife actually came up with it. She certainly at the least was responsible for convincing the Fox Network to hire him. These claims should perhaps at least be discussed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, the show's effect on the history of the Fox Network ought to be discussed. There was another tv show on early in the network's history which was expected to be a "big hit" - However, it bombed. At that point, the network "had the Simpson's and they had nuthin'" - This was before any major sports contracts. So essentially, the show saved The Fox Network. And thereby saved all "branches" of the network such as Fox News... |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, the sale of the show to the Sci Fi Channel and TNT should be discussed. It was truly significant - I seem to recall that both networks paid a total of one billion dollars for the rights to broadcast the show. That's a truly significan investment by any standard and it would maybe make it a more interesting article if this aspect of the show's history were discussed. e.g., are the two networks happy with the return on their investments? Have ratings continued to be good? Why do they seem to be "cutting back" on X-Files lately, for example in favor of "Battlestar Galactica?" etc. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:As to your first point, exactly WHY should it be discussed? Sure, it's an important issue, how much input a given person has into a show widely considered to be "theirs", but it's not something that you can just discuss aimlessly in a Misplaced Pages article short of any evidence, and it would be more relevant to the Chris Carter article than this one, anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If indeed Carter's wife came up with the idea (did you hide in their pillows or something?), I'm sure she must have consented to have him get the credit for it, since I never heard of a legal battle within their marriage over that, so it sounds like a private issue between them. As for the "creator" designation, I've never heard any argument that Chris Carter wasn't the "creator" of The X-Files. It would require closing your eyes 200 times as you watch each episode, since it says "Created by Chris Carter" right there on the screen. Now, as to what a "creator" in television really means, and whether one person in TV is ever a true auteur that can fairly get the credit for the work of so many people (my personal answer is: "NO" because I think TV is too insanely compromised by commerce to reflect one person's vision, even if you're talking about HBO shows), particularly in the case of one like Carter who freely admitted how much help he needed from others, there's another very arguable and very interesting issue, which may or may not reflect well on Carter, BUT AGAIN, not an issue that fits at all into the topic of this article, short of any hard evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually, there is some small evidence for your points. In case you didn't notice, this X-Files article goes to much much greater lengths than usual to point out the varying contributions of the huge number of writers, actors, directors, photographers, makeup and fx and technical artists, crew members, and other producers, even some casting agents and Fox executives, whose work made The X-Files what it was. Probably most people before reading this article had never heard of anyone behind the scenes of The X-Files besides Chris Carter, and now they will have to confront all these new names. Don't you think all this information, as well as being much less biased than the sort of anti-Carter article you're always suggesting, also goes further toward making your own point- that it's unfair for Carter to get the credit as the sole creator of the show, even if all TV shows must have an official "creator"? I have no way of knowing how talented Carter actually is, and I think you don't either. My guess is he is quite talented and not very original, but then I wouldn't say complete originality is the main talent of anyone involved with making The X-files so great, even my favorite writers like Darin Morgan. Pure originality is also overrated and TV has rarely been about that. It's not necessary to say Chris Carter had no talent in order to point out the truth that he didn't "create" X-Files alone- nor does it contradict his role as "creator" to point out that he had help in creating it. "Creator" means that whatever his artistic talents, he had the power to make the idea happen and to get his name first on the credits, no one disputes that. Getting things done is a talent in itself, even if sometimes it means running over other people. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As to your second point, it's a very important issue and I agree that it really should be more discussed in our article. The fact The X-Files was the first major hit on FOX apart from The Simpsons or sports, is extremely important, yet I've tried (months ago) and it's difficult to find sources for this, but if you find them please add them to the article. Perhaps there's some book about the history of the Fox network.. well, I won't be the one to read it! |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Why do they seem to be "cutting back" on X-Files lately" - that might indicate their returns from the reruns on cable haven't been good? I dunno. It seems that issue is very superficial to this article. Why don't you call some people or go out and do some journalism investigating these topics and when you've written good sourced articles on them, if they're relevant, Misplaced Pages can incorporate the no-longer-original research. |
|
|
|
|
|
== X files userbox == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since nobody has yet made an X-files userbox, at least that I can find, I made one myself. If anyone wants it copy and paste this. {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#000 |id-s=14 |id-fc=#fff |info-c=#000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=X |info=This user believes that the truth is right in front of you. It's all in the ]}}<br /><br /><br />] (]) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Nice work. There is one though: |
|
|
{{tlu|User:EVula/Userboxes/X-Files}} -- |
|
|
{{User:EVula/Userboxes/X-Files}} |
|
|
{{-}} |
|
|
: <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::Both are good. I'd just change the text color on the first one so its easier to read.--] (]) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. That was actually my first userbox.] (]) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Update: My userbox is now in the gallery under science fiction ] (]) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks :D. I'm gonna make some of my own with these if it's OK/-] (]) 08:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC) {{User X-Files fan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== FYI: rename discussion ] --> ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please join a discussion over on ] about whether to rename that article to ], "Fight the Future" is the first movie's subtitle/working title/nickname. The word "film" in the disambiguation section of the first movie's title seems increasingly incomplete as the release date for the second film ] approaches. ] (]) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== the series and franchise should have separate articles == |
|
|
There should be two articles, ] and ], because alot of this article is about the franchise. And there are alot of X-Files articles, so a franchise article is appropriate. ] (]) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What exactly do you mean by "franchise," though? Only a small amount of this article is about the X-Files movies and links with other series, or even about the fans. That info could be removed somewhere else if you find a better place, but it wouldn't make the article much shorter. Most of the info is about the production process, plot and public reception of the original X-Files TV show. The way to split that info off would be to make season articles, not a "franchise" article. ] (]) 21:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As far as I know there are also X-files novels, books etc. A franchise article covering the series, movies and all other media as well as the general reception issues in fair length might be a good idea; but it would require not a simple separation, but the creation of a new article and the necessary editing of this one. ] (]) 12:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unofficial mytharc episodes == |
|
|
|
|
|
For the recent rash of unofficial mythology listings, you should know that we used to have such a listing in this article, but it was decided, after several problems and much extensive discussion, that it be removed. See ] for the last discussion that resulted in the final removal. At the very least, such a list constitutes ]. And at the most, it provides a section that changes rather frequently when people fight over which episodes should and shouldn't be considered part of the mytharc. Every fan has their own opinion on this, so the section doesn't lend itself to article stability. Again, it's original research anyway, and therefore doesn't belong. Thanks for your understanding. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
|
|
:Right. Who decides what makes a mythology episode if not the creators themselves? What makes us experts on the matter?--] (]) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hmm, for me the issue was not quite that simple, it was more that the particular set of DVDs issued long after the show ended didn't seem to be the last word on the matter, even from the creators, since it is never certain who decides what goes on those DVDs, and what was included on it sometimes contradicted their past interviews about whether x episode was "mythology" or not. Yes, it's true rabid fans may have memories and feelings for certain episodes, but if it was just fans vs creators, that's obviously an easy issue, and we side with creators in defining the categories they invented for their own work. However in this case even the creators may not be sure what is "canon" or "mythology" at any given moment- this was always subject to change over the years due to the nature of the series and it's easy to forget that unlike Lost, etc., which it inspired, The X-Files was a bit less self-conscious in defining its own mythology at first. This wasn't a show with deluxe DVD packages that came out less than a year from when it first came on TV, remember- this mythology DVD appeared 12 years after its debut, and a full three years after it had gone off the air. In a way you can say that gives it more validity, but in another sense TV is known as a very instant medium, so the way a show is perceived at the time it's first on is equally important to later DVD collections, and I think that could explain the reason some wanted to put in "unofficial mythology episodes." |
|
|
|
|
|
::Remember that in the heat of the show's (or any show's) popularity plenty of episodes were advertised as being somehow special and fundamental to the future plot of the show, and perhaps were not actually that important, whether good or not. Other episodes may have been clearly planned by the creators to be of huge later importance, but didn't go over well with audiences and left nothing solid to build on, so the creators had to rewrite X-Files history a bit in the years since and pretend this "mythology" didn't happen (Christmas Carol/Emily are the easy example of this- there is tons of evidence that those were considered "mythology" by everyone from creators to viewers at the time they first aired). And then there are the simple space issues of what will fit on a few DVDs as opposed to every episode that actually did have "mythology" relevance even in the creators' eyes. So it's a bit more complicated. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think the problem is completely solved though, so long as the article doesn't even attempt to address what is ACTUALLY "mythology" or not, which is a stupid and unavoidably subjective sort of debate even among fans (again due to the intentionally ambiguous nature of this show) and of course has no place in Misplaced Pages. All we need to do for a basic overview of mythology is to explain the type of episodes that are generally covered by that (done) and mention what is contained in the DVDs and designated there as mythology (done), without particularly having to say that it IS the last word on the "mythology," whatever such a last word on such a topic would even mean. I think some fans really take what did or didn't happen much too seriously. For me the idea that there could be some hierarchy with some episodes just plain true and others not is against whatever philosophy is to be found in The X-Files in the first place- at the same time, it ALL happened and NONE of it happened, so I'll let others define what's mythology or not, if they really think that's what X-Files is about. ] (]) 21:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well, the DVDs aren't the first to my knowledge to decide what's mythology. The official X-Files magazines (man do I miss those), for example, had a number of "mythology guides". If anything, the DVDs added more: The episode guide on the magazine (when the first movie came out) only had Pilot, Deep Throat and Erlenmeyer Flask as Mythology for the first season, for example. So it is a subjective matter, I agree. |
|
|
:::In the end, I think all that an episode needs to be considered mythology is an official confirmation by the creators. But listing episodes that "some fans<nowiki>{{''citation needed''}}</nowiki> consider to be mythology", which was what I initially had issue with with, should be avoided.--] (]) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this should be included, but each episode should have a note including the REASON it's listed. It could be a good reference source for people who want to see what's missing on the mytharc collection, but don't want to sit through pointless episodes. For example, a certain episode could have "(introduces such and such a character)" beside it. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I added a section on non-mytharc episodes that introduced important mythology characters. I figured that should be a good compromise here.] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Making this a featured article in time for the new movie == |
|
|
|
|
|
See ] for this article's peer review. Thanks. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The X Files'' vs. ''The X-Files'' == |
|
|
|
|
|
Incredibly, if you look at the images used in the articles for the TV series and both movies (, , ), a hyphen has never been a part of the title of the franchise. Despite this, the use of the hyphen by nearly all media and discussion of the franchise might give it a ] arguement, despite the fact that it is actually inaccurate. Or does it? What do we do when the truth butts heads with the common name convention? -- ] (]) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* I agree with you, I have long wondered where this hyphen came from. It's possible that "The X-Files" was used on press releases and other material sent out by the creators, and that they have made a stylistic choice not to include it in the logos used on the series, films and other spinoffs like the novels, comic book and The Secrets of The X Files. I personally prefer to not use the hyphen but this is an opinion that's very much in the minority. ] (]) 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
** The hyphen doesn't make sense. The 'X' isn't a prefix of 'Files'. These files are filed under 'X'. If the show was called ''The Enigma Files'', or something, there'd be no hyphen confusion. The title of the article should be changed. ] (]) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
in the end credits of the first x files movie, it is in fact hyphenated <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
* This comment is correct - . See also from a little earlier in the film. I'm of the opinion that while I personally am not a fan of the hyphen in the title, it's almost universally recognised as being part of it even by those who made it. Like it or not, the hyphen on the article title should remain. ] (]) 08:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"the hyphen on the article title should remain"? No, it should not. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== History Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be split into Story Synopsis and Production history. I'm quite interested in finding out about the development of the mythology, but the history section mixes this with information about awards, ratings and other tidbits, which I'm sure many people would find in interesting but makes for difficult reading. ] (]) 19:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== new ideas available to interpret and document the series and real events... == |
|
|
|
|
|
'''right topic?! another starting point''' |
|
|
|
|
|
The descriptive nature of the article is wonderful. For all, who are more interested in the theme of the x-file and are in the mood of inspector investigate, i recommend content around the title of this . the soundtrack is german. maybe there is more american language translation for unexplainable events in the us and around the world. trust no one is out, youtube is in- browse before "killer tomatoes" are flaged at youtube.com...--] (]) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Splitting the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone against creating separate articles for each season, with only a single paragraph for each on this article? Like they did with ].--]<font color="#203"></font><sup>(])</sup> 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
sounds good to me, yamanbaiia. providing that it would be less biased against the last years of the show than the article currently is. it's really dismissive and lazy that the article has an individual section for season 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 but one section for "seasons 7-9"... it's bias <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of episodes: 201 VS 202 == |
|
|
|
|
|
i've changed the number of episodes from 202 to the correct 201. the BBC reference may say 202 but this is incorrect. the number 202 is based on the incorrect notion that "The Truth" constitutes two episodes. it is a two part episode. it was aired with no gap between the parts, the DVD lists it as a single episode, the wiki article for the list of episodes lists it as episode 201. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Chris Carter has stated that there were 202 episodes of The X-Files. Let me see if I can find the video online. --(])--(])--(])-- 05:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
be sure that you do. although the fact is i could give you a list of the 201 episodes and you could not name an episode im missing. just go to the list of episodes page please, it lists the episode numbers of course. keep scrolling down and it will end with episode 201: The Truth <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
well whatya know, since i last checked the list of eps page has changed The Truth to the clunky looking "episodes 19 & 20" of season 9. how convenient <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:You know, it's really stupid when you believe that I changed that because I think I'm right or something. I haven't edited that page in God knows how long. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop being so damn rude - it's making me think you're really immature. --(])--(])--(])-- 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The problem with the number of episodes is that it seems not even Fox knows how many there are. The original ninth season box set says "19 episodes". says "20 episodes" while the says "201 episodes, including the double-length series finale". I say go with the latest release, which is the ultimate collection, because that's also how it was aired. ] (]) 15:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
amen Davhorn, amen ] (]) 10:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misc. errors == |
|
|
|
|
|
the article says "(duchovny) returning for several dramatic episodes, and ] were seen in the ninth." well no he wasn't in any flashbacks in the ninth season. only thing i can think of is his split second appearance as a hallucination in spenders eye in "William". which i wouldnt call a flashback. and even if you do, that's the only one. 'flashbacks' is plural. i cant figure out how to rewrite this part. though i did rewrite the part about his involvement in season 8 because it seemed to give the impression that he only made a few small guest appearances, when in fact he stars in the majority of season eight's episodes. ] (]) 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Crime drama? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Help me out here, I could have sworn reading in an X Files book that at one point One format of the X files is "crime drama". |
|
|
|
|
|
You've got these formats listed (which are all good by the way): Science fiction, Drama, Thriller, Horror, Mystery |
|
|
|
|
|
However I added in "crime"....but someone edited it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone think that should be added in again? |
|
|
|
|
|
i dont. they're not investigating crimes most of the time. and when they do, thats not primarily why they're investigating the case. its a show about paranormal activity not criminal activity ] (]) 05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah i see. I just could've sworn that one time I read that the x files was a bit of crime drama too. lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
oh well, that's sorted then XD <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*Well some of the episodes do focus more on criminal activity and one or two of the episodes could have been on CSI without a problem. Hell Money did not even have anything supernatural to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Laura Palmer's photo? == |
|
|
I was wondering about the sentence in influences where it says: |
|
|
In the pilot, Mulder is seen sitting at his desk, and among the clutter, a framed copy of the Laura Palmer "prom-queen" photo is seen. |
|
|
^THAT^ |
|
|
|
|
|
I've cued back and forth and freeze framed, etc |
|
|
I can't see it. |
|
|
Then as I was about to come on here to say this I see that: |
|
|
|
|
|
Has been added to the sentence. |
|
|
So IS IT REALLY THERE? |
|
|
I think if that's the case then being that it's so hard to find whoever added that should upload a screenshot with it circled or something. |
|
|
Or if anyone can tell me where it is there at all that would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your question intrigued me as I'd never heard of this before. After some Google searching I've come to suspect that this info was added by someone who saw it at , which claims the same thing in similar words. I haven't gone frame-by-frame through the episode, but the link above seems to be, literally, the ''only'' site on the internet to make this claim, (aside from Misplaced Pages), so I have a feeling it is erroneous information. |
|
|
|
|
|
:However I did come across something similar in my search, which may have led to the confusion. The TV.com page for Squeeze, another first-season episode, has the following trivia posted: ''"If you look closely you can see a picture of the corpse of Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks in the scene where Mulder shows Scully the elongated fingerprints from the previous murder scenes. You can see it hanging behind Scully's head when she backs away in her chair and stands up. David Duchovny played a small part in this series as DEA Agent Dennis Bryson"''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Haven't looked for this yet in the episode itself, but if you do, let us know if it's there. :) <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''20:59, 15 Nov 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
|
|
::I just watched the on Google, and I cannot see any picture of Laura Palmer. Granted, the video is rather small, and I might be able to make out greater detail on a large-screen tv, but there are a lot of pictures on the bulletin board in this scene, and none of them look at all like Laura Palmer. ---<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I tried a downloaded version. I can see the photo that's being referred to. It's got a greenish hue and shows a woman's body, but we don't get a good enough look to see much more than that. It ''could'' be Laura Palmer, but it could just as easily be someone random. And just for kicks I took a look through the more famous photos of Laura Palmer's body on Google, and none of them match. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''14:25, 16 Nov 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
|
|
::::All of this seems to add up to not much. But, I would argue that the claim should be removed from the article until some rock-solid evidence is found. ---<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The X-Files and R. W. Goodwin == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering why R. W. Goodwin gets little to no mention in X-Files related wiki pages? Could have sworn I read something saying that he directed the first and last episodes of each season while he was a part of the show, yet he doesn't even have an article. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Um, R.W. Goodwin is mentioned by name at least three times in the text of THIS article, including a quote to his name about the challenges of producing XF episodes, and specific mentions of several well known episodes he directed. I'm not sure that his public contributions to television, or other art forms in general are numerous enough to justify having his own article. Usually if someone is known primarily for doing one thing only and there is little to say about them independent of covering that subject, in this case The X-Files, there is no need for a separate article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, just to clarify, though I used to think Goodwin had directed the opening and closing episodes of each year (minus the Pilot and plus One Breath midway in season 2) for the first five seasons, it turns out Goodwin didnt do the first episode in season two, Little Green Men, which was directed by David Nutter. Goodwin's actual credits according to IMDb are: Erlenmeyer Flask (season 1); One Breath and Anasazi (season 2); The Blessing Way and Talitha Cumi (season 3); Herrenvolk and Gethsemane (season 4); and Redux and The End (season 5). In addition, Goodwin wrote, but did not direct, season 4's Demons ep. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters== |
|
|
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion |
|
|
or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please |
|
|
visit the discussion at |
|
|
]. ] (]) 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== How Can X-Files and Millennium Be in the Same Universe? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I know there was a crossover episode between The X-Files and Millennium that served as a kind of resolution to Millennium's story but wasn't there another episode of Millennium that showed The X-Files as a TV show? It was called 'Somehow Satan Got Behind Me'. It showed them filming The X-Files in a studio, although they didn't have the actual actors from The X-Files. ] (]) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Was it actually called The X-Files or was it just some spoof? I mean, I know it was a reference to show obviously, but in the continuity of the episode itself?--] (]) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::They did not call it The X-Files. I haven't actually seen the episode but from what I read in a transcript, it involved two people who looked a lot like Mulder and Scully in an alien autopsy scene getting attacked by aliens with machine guns. The theme music resembled X-Files theme music but wasn't quite the same. ] (]) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:If I remember correctly, there was also an episode of The X-Files where a case they've worked one was being made into a movie. Maybe what you saw in Millennium was a part of that? :) ] (]) 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have watched every episode of both shows. Turns out that in an episode of The X-Files, Millennium's main character, Frank Black, has a major part in it. So yes, they are in the same universe. --] (]) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Homicide: Life on the Streets == |
|
|
|
|
|
Millennium is considered to be part of the same universe as The X-Files because there was an X-Files episode that featured Frank Black and there was a Millennium episode that featured Jose Chung. However, there was also an X-Files episode that featured John Munch, who is the main character in the shows Homicide: Life on the Street and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. This was not a brief cameo. He appeared in more than one scene and had many lines. Does that mean those shows are also part of the same universe as The X-Files? If so, should we list them as related shows? Does a single crossover mean that two shows are part of the same universe? ] (]) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't the article contain some information about criticism of The X-Files? For example, Dawkins' views: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quote|The X-Files is a television series in which, every week, two FBI agents face a mystery. One of the two, Scully, favours a rational, scientific explanation; the other agent, Mulder, goes for an explanation which either is supernatural or, at very least, glorifies the inexplicable. The problem with The X-Files is that routinely, relentlessly, the supernatural explanation, or at least the Mulder end of the spectrum, usually turns out to be the answer. But The X-Files systematically purveys an anti-rational view of the world which, by virtue of its recurrent persistence, is insidious.|]|Unweaving the Rainbow}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] | ] 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Ah, good old Richard "cameo role in one of the most scientifically nonsensical episodes of Doctor Who ever filmed" Dawkins, having a pop at The X Files. ] (]) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And why do you consider the sentence you quoted a judgmental view? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Major changes to the article (and why they were reverted) == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've restored the version of the article prior to the major changes posted a few minutes ago. I don't like to do this, because of the effort involved, but (despite some improvements in certain areas) overall the changes need a fair deal of discussion as there are some serious issues that need addressing and resolving first. There are issues with the writing style, organization (especially the lead), and other aspects that warrant the revert. The previous version is stronger at this point and as such should stand for now. I'll do a more detailed review tomorrow (given the hour here) and again kudos for the effort, but it needs proofreading and discussion. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That may be right, but my version is better then this in many other ways. Most important its referenced --] (]) 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What did you guys decide? - ] (]) (]) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Yearly teview of the X-Files == |
|
|
|
|
|
This may well not be the the correct place for this as I am a Misplaced Pages user only and not a writer. I am just finishing my fourth time through the X-Files and I have been using this reference a great deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
I was extremely disappointed when I looked last night to find that the year by year commentary had been removed during this rewrite. It gave a lot of focus to the run years of the series. I would encourage the new contributers to either include this once again as was or to rewrite it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:See ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Abbreviations + picture size == |
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly I don't think mentioning "x-files" as an alternative name is really necessary, as every TV or movie title with "the" is often referred to without it. And is there some good ref that refers to The X-Files as "TXF"? |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the picture, the image is 230 pixels. Is there really a need to enlarge it and compromise quality? ] (]) 05:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Copy-editing == |
|
|
|
|
|
I tagged the article for needing general copy-editing; any help would be appreciated. ] 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== References to the eighth season == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any reason why the eighth season seems to be mentioned the most in the article? Just wondering, because perhaps we could even out the coverage? ] 10:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::All the production information are about the first seven seasons, reception and syndication info are easier to find for the newer episodes. If you want to add more information about them... get the information --] (]) 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sorry, should have been more specific. I was referring to the second paragraph of the "themes and allusion" section and the bit about eighth season ratings under "international syndication". Perhaps that should be moved to the season eight page? It's just a suggestion; I do plan to go look out for more info about the other seasons but I thought I'd bring it up to get some info on the history behind the decision to be more specific for that particular season. Thanks for your response. ] 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mythology of The X-Files == |
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't we once have a separate article on the ]? Now it seems to be a redirect to this article (yet this article contains links to it). A little confused. Nevertheless, there should probably be a separate mythology article to explain this very vast story. ] (]) 16:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I created that redirect. We are going to create the Mythology one time, but its a big project. So it might take a while before any one actually does it. --] (]) 17:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Until then the links should be removed from this article, being redirects right back here, agreed? ] (]) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Okay with me. --] (]) 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think I changed my mind :) I might be starting that article today so I'm gonna leave the links in for now. ] (]) 17:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mythology article == |
|
|
|
|
|
] and I have begun work on the article ]. This is an effort to describe the complex X-Files story arc and tie together all the various articles that describe it. My personal goal is to present the story in a way that's easy to understand even for non-fans of the show, as it's pretty complicated. If you feel you can contribute please check out the article. We could use the help. Thanks. ] (]) 20:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why Is This Show NOT Considered Film Noir? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried twice now to add "Film Noir" to the list of Formats or "Sub genres" that make up The X-Files, but each time, it has been removed. I think it is quite obvious to anyone who has watched the show that there is a clear Film Noir influence on the show as well as the fact that the concept, the storyline of numerous episodes, and even the show's cinematography all have Film Noir aspects.... |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Film_noir#Approaches_to_defining_noir <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:It totally does - have Film Noir aspects that is. It's a ''dark show''. I think anyone who's seen it can get on board, in that respect. But it isn't Film Noir per se. I mean, it's not a black-and-white, big-city detective show narrarted by ]. But in a more serious sense, "]" is not a clearly defined phrase, but one that generally refers to crime dramas from the 1940s and '50s, characterized by ] detective fiction and usually presented in the form of ]. What exactly "Film Noir" means is a subject of no small scholarly debate, but you've got to admit that as a series, The X-Files meets none of those criteria. Don't give up though, if it means something to you - there's a strong argument to be made for the assertion that the one was influenced by the other. ] (]) 04:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Starting in season eight, with the addition of Agent ], the series seems to have definitely taken on more of the characteristics I personally associate with "Film Noir" than it did much earlier in the series.. Mulder did the sci-fi aspect perfectly, but his character is in no way compatible with how I'd think a detective in "Film Noir" acts - Doggett on the other hand, is a classic "Film Noir" detective personality. But overall, I would still say that the X-Files falls outside of the genre of Film Noir, even in season 8. ] (]) 05:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Burning show? == |
|
|
|
|
|
A better word is needed under International syndication in the sentence "...viewers felt the show was burning." I believe it is a reference to program quality having dropped in the eyes of viewers, but I don't know what the proper replacement word would be. 'burning' isn't the right word there.-] (]) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I changed it to the longer description of viewers' feelings, for lack of a better single word.-] (]) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Also starring == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I've just recently started watching the fourth season, and it billed William B. Davis as "also starring". Now, I know that the infobox right now only has the actors in the opening credits listed, but most other shows (like the US Office, Freaks and Geeks, and House) have the actors who are billed as "also starring" in the infobox as well. Therefore, I submit that William B. Davis and anyone else who is billed as also starring to be in the inforbox as well. (please don't spoil anything for me!!!) ] (]) 04:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Since no one responded, I'm just gonna put William B. Davis in the infobox. I don't know who else should be there given I have only recently begun season 4. ] (]) 08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Infoboxes only list actors with main roles, which (as far as I recall) Davis never had. "Also starring" can refer to recurring roles. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, thats true, but I felt a discussion should be made, because it is a different and special billing, one that may or may not be important enough to be in the infobox. Part of my problem is that I don't have much of an argument because I haven't seen enough of the series. One option is making an "also starring" catagory, if thats even necessary. ] (]) 02:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Country == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually with Jimchan9 on this, though they should've discussed the issue rather than edit warred over it. Also would've been nice if Ckatz would've done the same, or at least provided some rationale in the edit summary beyond "long-standing convention". I'm not quite sure what that means -- that the article has been this way a while? Anyway, as far as I know, much of the filming having taken place in Canada isn't reason to call a show or film Canadian. It was made by an American network for an American market, as Jimchan9 points out, and I haven't seen any better argument put forth otherwise. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Simply put, it would be nice if Jim would actually discuss this rather than reverting his preference in. If the decision here leads to such a change, so be it - but as the current version has stood for quite some time it is appropriate to complete the discussion first. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 01:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I disagree completely with that. If you have no argument for why it should be the way it's been for a while, then it should change. It having been this way up until now isn't any argument in itself, and if there's no counter-argument, then no discussion need take place. The change can happen until someone does come along with something to say. I'm making the edit again. If anyone comes up with any actual rationale it can always be changed back. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The argument is simple. It's a series developed by American media company, for the US market. The stories involved with are almost completely within US border. The only thing that has anything to do with Canada is for cost control in the early part of the series. Eventually the network caved in to the demands of Duchovny and Anderson, moved the production to LA. I have presented a brief explanation before. If this series is to call "Canadian series" then we need to start calling The Lord Of The Rings trilogy "New Zealand series" because they were mostly shot in New Zealand. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::no it's not that simple. the outer limits was produced in Canada by mostly Canadian companies and it is called an American tv series. the rights to CSI were half or majority owned by a Canadian company and it is not called anything Canadian. All those shows should do the same thing stargate atlantis and sg1 did call it a Canadian American tv show. the series failed partly due to moving out of Canada, the country should be mentioned in the introduction as being important to its success.] (]) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)grmike |
|
|
:::Gee, someone is bitter. I don't understand, were we talking about the outer limit? Now that you mentioned it, so we should use those as precedence, correct? Excuse me, if you are a true fan then you SHOULD know the series was cancelled due to the fact that Duchovny decided to move on, not because it moved out of Canada. In fact season six is the best season ever, right after production was moved back to the United States. "Early in the sixth season, the producers took advantage of the new location, setting the show in parts of the country they had not been able to write episodes in previously". You didn't read that one, did you? Stop having these inferiority complex and move on already. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Harsh Realm == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why do people oppose the inclusion of Harsh Realm in the mention of shows that X-Files helped launch for Carter? If you mention Millennium, then why not mention Harsh Realm? Harsh Realm was a worse show than Millennium in terms of ratings, so there is a stronger case that X-Files helped launch Harsh Realm than Millennium. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:1) ] and 2) so what? that has nothing to do with the topic of this article, X-Files. ] ] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> ] 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
That's fine, I am OK with removing Millennium. My point was only that IF Millennium were to be included, then Harsh Realm should be included as well. ] (]) 23:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== X-Files Expo == |
|
|
|
|
|
Where should we mention the X-Files Expos? As you can see from this reference <http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-01-31/entertainment/17712674_1_x-files-expo-fox-spokesman-tv>, it was an official X-Files convention for fans held at 10 major U.S. cities in 1998. I think it fits in perfectly in the opening section, where it states: "The show's popularity peaked in the mid-to-late 1990s, leading to the 1998 film, The X-Files." Obviously the popularity also led to the X-Files Expos. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I would place it ]. We dont try to "]" that our sources make. ] ] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> ] 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::And the claim of "popularity peaking in the mid to late 90's" is actually not from a source at all and so has been removed. ] ] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> ] 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Millennium as spin-off == |
|
|
|
|
|
''Millennium'' was misidentified in the lede as a spin-off of ''The X-Files'', which is inaccurate. The two shows were in the same fictional universe, and had cross-overs, but none of the characters or storylines on ''Millennium'' originated in ''The X-Files''. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Broadcast vs. Cable == |
|
|
|
|
|
I recently edited the x files page removing references to StargateSG1. I did this thinking this was a no-brainer, sorry. I removed these references in the opening paragraph and the "Nielsen ratings" section. |
|
|
The reason I feel these should be removed is because neither Stargate SG1 nor Dr. Who (which is the subject of the citation article for the "Nielson ratings" segment)are US Broadcast television shows. The article itself does not claim this, saying simply that SG1 was the "longest running Science fiction show." SG1 was only aired on the Showtime and the SciFi Channel, neither of which are broadcast channels. Maybe this objection nitpicky, but as it is, this reference just seems lazy. I won't make any further changes until I get some consensus on this, however. ] (]) 19:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Influenced by 1967-68 ABC-TV series "The Invaders" ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Editing Desperately Necessary == |
|
Although not listed as an influence or inspiration by its creator Chris Carter, it seems obvious to me that X-Files was derivative from the earlier series. Besides the common main themes of alien invasion and conspiracy, note that Roy Thinnes guest-starred 3 times in the X-Files and, (much like Fox Mulder after him )David Vincent "travels from place to place, trying to foil the aliens' plots and warn..." skeptics...etc. ] (]) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is filled with grammatical problems and poor sentence constructions. For example, this sentence... |
|
== UFO Photo in Opening title sequence == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Tired of the comedies he had been working on for Walt Disney Pictures, a report that 3.7 million Americans may have been abducted by aliens, the Watergate scandal and the 1970s horror series Kolchak: The Night Stalker, triggered the idea for The X-Files. He wrote the pilot episode in 1992." |
|
I've been trying to find some background in regards to the UFO photo seen at the very beginning of the ]. I browsed through ] and didn't really come up with anything, even though I didn't check into every link and I didn't click on every source. I'm wondering if the UFO photo at the beginning is an actual UFO sighting or if it was just made strictly for the show's sequence. If anyone could shed some light on this, that'd be great. Thanks! ] (]) 01:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...has a bizarrely misplaced modifier, causing the sentence to grammatical say that the alien report, the Watergate scandal and Kolchak were all tired of Disney comedies, not Chris Carter. As a result, that sentence makes NO sense whatsoever. It would be good if a competent, coherent writer with a strong grasp of grammar were to give his whole page a thorough editing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
{{Talk:The X-Files/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:See a problem Fix a problem. Sí? ] (]) 08:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Copyedit == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I've addressed the problem, though by no means comprehensively. ] (]) 00:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
{{GOCE}} |
|
|
Per request, edited this. Feedback encouraged! Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
* The "story arc" is referred to repeatedly, but never summarized. It's not what the show is "about" (aliens and conspiracy") but how the show evolves. Likewise, the "mythology" is never covered. Separate sections? |
|
|
|
] / ] should redirect here -- ] (]) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Those are not likely search terms. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>]</sub></i> 21:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Nomination of ] for deletion == |
|
* Patched instead of fixed the "npr" ref that gave an error when properly cited. Not too noticeable. |
|
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The page will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|
* Switched to sfn from the <nowiki>]</nowiki> It's less hacky and looks great. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 06:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
Cheers: ] (]) 21:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Event Series Query. == |
|
{{Talk:The X-Files/GA2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any conflicting opinions on Series 10 being more accurately referred to as "The Event Series" in an edit as described in physical media release, as Series 10 was released as a comic-book series and was canon at the time; although both The Event Series and Series 11 ret-con or contradict some aspects of the comics, (such as the status of The Lone Gunmen). ] (]) 08:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Fantasy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Tommy Westphall == |
|
I wanted to start a discussion before simply deleting it, but I'm against the addition of the fantasy genre to this article. ''The X-Files'', by and large, has always been classified as science fiction, I've never seen it labeled as fantasy. The existence of one article on the Internet (Google "The X-Files fantasy", there's no other sources), that barely even argues or says outright that "''The X-Files'' is fantasy" within the article, doesn't automatically get to define this show as "fantasy". Thoughts? ] (]) 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I kind of with you on this. I was also frustrated that the editor who added it just used a bare url. I think the article is arguing that it's more of a science fiction series than a science series, though, so I don't really think it's that notable.--<font face="Arial Black">] ]</font> 13:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. This is classic sci-fi territory here. Where's the fantasy? And as you have both indicated, the source is not great. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I boldly removed it.--<font face="Arial Black">] ]</font> 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Going to admit that probably some episodes deal with more fantastic things (not an expert on this show) but when you are summarizing the entire series, it's generally dealing with science fiction themes. ] (]) 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree. When you mention it, most people will think of "aliens", and not "angels" (which the show did touch upon).--<font face="Arial Black">] ]</font> 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:The show is generally pretty episodic and deals with different genres on an episode by episode basis, but the supernatural plays a heavy part in most episodes making it about a 40/60 split with sci-fi being the majority but the show still deals with fantastic elements such as ghosts, demons, and various paranormal phenomena making it fit more in the speculative fiction genre (the parent of both sci-fi and fantasy) as it contains both, but is more known for only one of these genres. The source was pretty weak though I understand but it can be both a fantasy and science fiction show as these are not mutually exclusive concepts, many shows are multi-genred and X-Files would not be the first. - ] (]) 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::The problem with this is that the show also had comedic episodes; in fact, some of its best-known episodes were really, really funny, but I would never categorize the series as a "comedy".--<font face="Arial Black">] ]</font> 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thats fair, yet it still doesn't outweigh the point that the show is about the paranormal and specifically science fiction and fantasy concepts, you're not wrong, you can't label it as everything under the sun, but it still stands to reason that most of the show is either sci-fi or fantasy with some stories being a little of both. - ] (]) 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
Taking a look at ]'s recent contributions, he has added a lot of movies and tv shows to various fantasy sub-cats, some of which were definitely not appropriate or accurate. A closer look might need to be taken at all of his recent edits, and a message left telling him not to add categories that are unsupported by article content. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the episode ] the story is told through the eyes of each agent and their stories dont agree proving that what we are seeing is not necessarily the truth. Perhaps all of the episodes are being told through the eyes of Mulder or Scully and are not necessarily the truth. See ]. ] (]) 00:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
I was going to bring up a discussion on this but seeing there's already one, I propose ] be used in place of science fiction or fantasy. I can understand somebody wanting to call it fantasy since about half the episodes go into realms that have nothing to do with sci-fi such as ghosts, black magic, etc, but I don't think fantasy would best describe it. That would put all the other episodes containing aliens, advanced experimentation and other sci-fi into the wrong category. That's why I propose paranormal. Besides that's what the X-Files means, records of FBI files of investigation into paranormal cases not yet solved or scientifically explained. |
|
|
If you wanna discuss them like that then let's do it here. Only thing is I'm extremely busy with university till August so excuse me for not replying until then..-] (]) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd be fine calling it paranormal. I think that covers both the alien arcs, as well as the ghost/magic/religious stuff pretty well.--<font face="Arial Black">] ]</font> 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
This page is filled with grammatical problems and poor sentence constructions. For example, this sentence...
"Tired of the comedies he had been working on for Walt Disney Pictures, a report that 3.7 million Americans may have been abducted by aliens, the Watergate scandal and the 1970s horror series Kolchak: The Night Stalker, triggered the idea for The X-Files. He wrote the pilot episode in 1992."
...has a bizarrely misplaced modifier, causing the sentence to grammatical say that the alien report, the Watergate scandal and Kolchak were all tired of Disney comedies, not Chris Carter. As a result, that sentence makes NO sense whatsoever. It would be good if a competent, coherent writer with a strong grasp of grammar were to give his whole page a thorough editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.74.7 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 06:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have any conflicting opinions on Series 10 being more accurately referred to as "The Event Series" in an edit as described in physical media release, as Series 10 was released as a comic-book series and was canon at the time; although both The Event Series and Series 11 ret-con or contradict some aspects of the comics, (such as the status of The Lone Gunmen). MrScottBull (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
