Jump to content

Talk:Legend of the Seeker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The series versus the books.

[edit]

Is there anyone who has read the books that has seen the 10 minute preview on the website? I've been a huge fan of Terry Goodkind for some years now. My mother got me started on the series over 6 years ago. I am currently reading Confessor, and I am a bit ashamed to admit that it's taken me this long since it was published to find the time to be able to sit down and read the concluding novel. Of all the novels that I've read, my favourite book of all time has to be Wizards First Rule. I've lost track of how many times Terry Goodkind has pulled me into the world of Richard and Kahlan through the first book. When I first saw the preview I have to admit I was a bit shocked at how far they've strayed from the actual novel. I wonder, is there anyone who shares my opinion?

Despite the differences, I am greatly anticipating seeing the full episode of the Legend of the Seeker.

Kuromi ^^Kuromi12 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares what you're anticipating; this isn't a fan site, it's a page discussing improvements to an encyclopedia article. -- 24.62.60.194 (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I've added another difference. The dragon that flys overhead at the beginning of Wizard's First Rule isn't portrayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.247.14 (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted 2 of the differences between the book and the series: Richard not getting bitten by the snake vine and the dragon not flying overhead. I've re-added them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.49.118 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 minute preview cut out several things that are in the full episode. You can watch the first 30 minutes for free on iTunes now. I don't recall if the Snake Vine comes from the Boundary or not (been a while since I've read Wizard's First Rule) but in the actual episode Richard *does* get bit by a snake-like vine, which then poisons him. Perhaps it'd be best to wait until the full episode airs before making further alterations to the "differences" section? NeuralClone (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences

[edit]

I have put together a list of the top ten differences between the book and the TV series. To avoid violating the "List Principle" of Wikipedia editing, I have re-written these differences as statements of fact. My source material is the actual books by Terry Goodkind and the TV series based on these books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmetro (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Jmetro! However, you spelled Kahlan and Zedd incorrectly. You had it them as "Kahleen" and "Zed." So I fixed all occurrences of their names. NeuralClone (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, make a list. A table, actually, would be best, but consider making a separate article for such things. The currently stated differences ... well, are largely not notable, although the differences are notable, for sure. Antireconciler (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring the list back (as another article?). It's hard to read from the history and is very good and important source of information. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.20.247 (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--alot of differences from great pieces of work to rushed shows will always happen. storylines have to change. if you ever watched a movie where the main character's thinking and feelings where always heard its pretty much a terrible film. the truly main difference from book to show is the characters didn't grow as much. lets face it the ending of the season 1 (and i am trying for no spoilers) kinda reminded me of star trek. alot of potential is here. i liked most parts of the show and i do hope that they make a season 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragondung (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need a section of the differences between the novels and the TV series. If this was deleted, please restore. 99.149.192.129 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major differences are so numerous that a complete list would be too long and tend to recap the TV show. In the books for instance the Mord Sith "Breathe of Life" is basically CPR and does not repair wounds. Its power is used immediately after heart attacks or drowning during torture. It is apparently is based on Mord Sith having gathered physician level knowledge of how human bodies work via taking them apart. In the books when you truly die, you stay dead and are forever in the Keeper's power. The books do have a couple of spirit journeys where someone risks capture by the keeper to commune with the dead for info, distract etc. In the series it is true resurrection practiced at will and used so frequently that the death of the main characters is common place. In the books temporary true death (vs coma/spirit journey) has so far been a necessary part of all the most common high magic. 99.184.73.30 (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on..."

[edit]

This series has something to do with Terry Goodkind - Sword of Truth? I doubt it, only the end titles say that. There is a prophacy about a Super-Seeker but only Zedd knows the name of the Super-Seeker, Darken Rahl has overtaken the Midlands for over 23 years(?) or how did you overrun the city Richard was born. And is Richard really a seeker? In the first 4 episodes I would say NO! He is stupid and does NOT search the truth, you have to bring it to him... The sword of truth is a plain sword which only sometimes clows if the seeker uses it. And Richard is to stupid to hold a sword, most times... he hits the people with his fist and turns the sword that noone is killed. Kahlan can tell if you tell the truth without touching you... the 4th episode is SO stupid And how they turn it that Richard is the grandson and son of whom he is, I don't know, even if episode 4 ends with Zedd telling that Richard shouldn't know that he is his grandfather. And how the boundry between Westland and Midland was destroyed and then they killed a army with lots of special effects... stupid They even changed the "Quads" to 3 to 8 men... And what does Richard being Zedds grandson to do with that other boy (ep4) not being Zedds son? --84.56.212.163 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate that you may have strong feelings regarding the show, please obverse the notice at the top of the talk page. This page exists for furthering and bettering the article here on wikipedia, and discussion about the contents of the show itself, or personal opinions about it, should be kept to a minimum. LinaMishima (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, because the first statement of the article is wrong, that says it's based on Sword of Truth ;)
And if you want a list of "diffs" here is a start --84.56.251.208 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many differences can be named; it says based on, not exactly the same or an exact screen adaptation of, so it is an accurate statement. Here are two sources to back up that statement as well: [1][2] Kman543210 (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first 22 episodes, are loosely tied to the first book of The Sword of Truth series Wizard's First Rule <--- that is not 100% true. Ep 15 had confessors made from normal humans (weapons out of humans) that play in the books 8-11
ep 16 has richards sister jennson in it, who is starting to be a part at book 7, sister of the light are introduced at book 2
the story is kinda all the books, but has not really anything to do with the books. --84.56.225.63 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. I can't believe this. I know this is way out of place, but this show is horrible and insults the original series by using the terms and names from it.
"Goodkind had resisted selling the rights of his books on multiple occasions before he met Raimi because he was not confident that other producers would maintain the integrity of his stories and characters"
Integrity of the stories and characters? I never seen something any less related to the original plot, characters, places, and creatures. It's like they took Hercules and replaced his name with Richard. I think this page needs to be completely altered, stating this this show is a shame and has very little to do with the Sword/Seeker Of Truth, and this is an objective truth, in all standards. So many conflicts and mistelling of one story. My god. --20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.147.124 (talk)

Actually, not just do opinions of others disagree with you on that, but you would be adding your own WP:POV and not following WP:NPOV. Which is the exact reason the page should not state anything of the sort.

Though the stories may not follow the books in the same fashion, I still find them a great watch and find enough in common with the books to enjoy them as a derivative work. Just as I did with LotR.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love Legend of the Seeker (LOTS), but, anyone who reads the book will recognise that the LOTS series is only very loosely based on Goodkind's Sword of Truth books. Indeed, I prefer to say that LOTS is merely inspired by Goodkind's books. Watching the LOTS, I see good characters who are evil, dead characters who are alive and all manner of invented character/village/city/country. But, at least the principle actors are excellent representations of the main characters, (especially Zedd, Cara and Kahlan). And now I can boast that I went to school with Darken Rahl (he was a year above me at my High School). Further more, I prefer LOTS to the books in some ways: Goodkind can be a bit long-winded, and if I never see the word "rape" again it will be too soon. BlueRobe (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree that past the pilot, the stories are less and less drawn from the books and more patterned after trademark Rami buddy adventurism like Xena. There are still some good stories on occasion distantly related as they may be. I would also have to say that the characters are substantially changed for TV as well both in character and power. Heck RAmi-Tappart changed the spelling of some names (though that is a very minor issue). Frankly the majority of changes are typical Rami-Tappart efforts at being politically correct. It would not do for Richard to be a far better fighter or smarter hero than Kahlan...even though Kahlan in the book is equal via other powers,wisdom about people, and knowledge of the midlands and rulers. Like Xena versus Hercules, TV Kahlan is at least slight better than Richard at everything except maybe brute strength (just tally bodies in a typical battle) -- plus she has powers and special moves he cannot dream of.

In the books Richard is a deep thinker, a breaker of common wisdom and tradition, and the bringer of new and uncomfortable or painful truths - in the TV series Richard is not too bright and is primarily standing for a return to forgotten common wisdoms (variations of the Golden rule). In the books The Sword of Truth transforms Richard from experienced but ordinary swordsman into superman with a sword -- in later books Richard has absorbed enough battle powers to kill scores and even hundreds of veteran swordsmen single-handedly. In the books Richard is unable to escape his wizard abilities despite a desire to do so. Richard almost dies a couple times due to his lack of wizard training and lack of use of magic.

In the books Zed hardly casts magic because magic is easy for enemies to track. Zed's primary uses of magic in the books is versus entire armies after some major objective is under dire threat. In the books Zed can use a sword well enough to defend himself against most common single opponents and mainly is pointing out directions or interpreting magic or reciting known prophecies and discussing alternative meanings. In the TV show Zed will occasionally refrain from magic for detection purposes. But mainly in TV show, the Rami motto seems to be "if you got a character playing wizard what good is he if he is not casting fire at even small groups?" Plus in the books Zed typically puts on curmudgeon front rather than good natured jokster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.73.30 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Director?

[edit]

Who is director. why is he not mentipned in the article? 71.99.127.141 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The directors are mentioned in this article, since each episode has a different director: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Legend_of_the_Seeker_episodes NeuralClone (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and ratings?

[edit]

Are there any figures available for viewers yet? How about reviews and the such? I'd love to hear what the critics thought - and it would be (personally, of course, no OR here) a good indicator for future syndication and series length. LinaMishima (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section is a good start, but it looks to me that many of the references included within may need pruning. Some of the websites linked to look at first glance to not be professional or noteworthy-enough to be considered proper reliable sources that can be used for WP:V. LinaMishima (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

This probably doesn't need its own section. Any pertinent information could easily be included under a reception and ratings section and a very brief section describing how the show connects with the SOT series of books. I think it's important to mention some of how the show and book differ (probably not appropriate for the same kids who watch the show). As it stands, this section is far too emotional and poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.39.198 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. The section did not have a neutral point of view and contained too much original research, using forums as its sources. None of the sources I've used for the "Response" section contained any comparisons to the books so nothing was written about how the show differed from the books. The differences are only apparent to a person who has read the books so comparisons with the book would be worth adding only if it has been published by a reliable and verifiable source. (Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability) Regards, Ladida (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something to bare in mind for the 'response' section is that it seems that some places (like IGN) are reviewing individual episodes, whilst others reviewed the entire show on the pilot alone. That's going to make maintaining that section interesting... LinaMishima (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, major publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter like to do that since they rarely review individual television episodes beyond the pilot episode; they normally review films. In some of these reviews, they do mention that the series may improve as it progresses. Regards, Ladida (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Some anon editors seem keen on reinstating the controversy section. I hope that they will enter discussions here about it, rather than continue to re-add it and removing the ratings section in the process. LinaMishima (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research my ass......the opinions of fans are valid resources to cite when talking about the critical reception of a cinematic work. Comparing the swill that is the television show to the masterpiece books is absolutely necessary to let the wikipedia reader know exactly what they're learning about. The fact that there is so much anti-television-version sentiment is a historical fact that is only compounded with each week's episodes. To silence the opinions of viewers when talking about "critical reception" is disgusting and partisan. In doing so, you try to coerce the wikipedia reader into believing that everyone loves this should-have-been-aborted retarded bastard creation of the Xena/Hercules director. Additionally, I included both pro/con reviews as well as a youtube video of Terry Goodkind and Sam Raimi advertising the tv series. Out of anyone here, I am hardly non-neutral.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.9.70 (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you are clearly not the "non-neutral" one - you seem much more "etremely-non-neutral" to me, since you have made it clear that you have a very strongly established opinion of the show that you are demanding be presented as the only correct view. Forums have long been considered an inappropriate source for use on wikipedia (except for specific cases - which this is not), and as such the complaining of fans of the books shall have to wait until it has been published by a more reliable source. And it seems you are in luck anyhow - several of the professional reviewers did not like the show, even without having the books to compare it to! *spares the rant about certain opinions* LinaMishima (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers

[edit]

Some of the actors on this show were on Power Rangers Jungle Fury. Was this intentional? 71.111.211.21 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just been looking through the actors' articles, counted at least three so far. And in RJ's case, the actor has a major role in this. I think, though, it's probably just that both shows are made by Disney. Digifiend (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a bigger connection is they are both shot in New Zealand. I would take a random guess the shared actors are either Kiwis or Aussies and may be low level stuff. Hiring locals and common invaders of the local market ;-) for that sort of thing is fairly common if they are somewhat up to the task. And who knows the production companies (meaning the lower level ones who do the work) involved may be the same. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism because of differences

[edit]

There needs to be a section about "criticism because of the differences from the book". The differences are a huge issue, as you can see from people constantly writing about it. You simply can not simply ignore that, and refuse to include it in the article. Yes it needs to be encyclopedic, and not just opinions, but it needs to be there. Having something, even if not perfect is better than not having anything. Because if there is something, people will improve it, if you keep removing it until it's perfect you'll never get anywhere. Ariel. (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree there should be no "criticism because of the differences from the book" as that title is inherently non neutral in its point of view. I would support a section named "differences compared to the book". If that section then includes that the most prominent opinion is that these differences are negative (with a reference), that is fine with me. Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Ariel. (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fans' reception

[edit]

Here are the reasons why I removed it:

  • I'm not opposed to having a section for fans' reception but this section must have reliable and verifiable references.
  • The section must have a neutral point of view.

Regards, Ladida (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennsen and other supporting characters...

[edit]

I recently added a small blurb about Jennsen under the heading Recurring Characters. Do you think this belongs here? I think Jennsen's going to be in several more episodes... Matter of fact, should we include anything about Denna? She kept coming back and back...mysteriously. She could come back again. Do you think we should add anything about her? Thanks!

Hpsparrow (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Listing

[edit]

Anyone care to explain how you can list 44 episodes when only 24 have aired. Is Wikipedia getting into the prediction racket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.142.192 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some, mostly anonymous, users like to put up the number of episodes total, all that are known to come out. There were 22 in season 1 and there are 22 scheduled for season 2. I've changed it to 24 and added a note. Xeworlebi (t•c) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the cast section

[edit]

Why is the section on cast giving a summary of the episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.84.115 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a more up to date summary of the characters and their actions which have made them who they are Flameheart121 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it verges on overlong, if not unnecessary, exposition. --99.186.108.193 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

[edit]

Thanks for all the spoilers, and the lack of a warning about them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.17.21 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2010

I, too, hate spoilers. That said, how on Earth could you not realise that the Legend of the Seeker page would have spoilers? BlueRobe (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should, at a minimum, be a warning making clear that this page contains spoilers for those that have not read Wizard's First Rule. I should expect to be able to read about the series without accidentally discovering the key secret from the novel. When reading about a movie I know what I can and cannot read to prevent spoiling the movie, this page should provide the same courtesy. Cwm123 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, this is an encyclopedia not a fansite, see WP:SPOILER. Xeworlebi (t•c) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I would propose then that, though technically the character's name played by Craig Horner is Richard Rahl, that the last name of Rahl is a significant spoiler and is too easy to see for someone glancing through the page. Changing this to have the character name as Richard Cypher (as it is used everywhere else on the page) with the description that he is actually Richard Rahl less noticeably captured in the associated text would be a simple yet significant resolution (IMHO). Cwm123 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, you're basically saying you don't want people to be spoiled, Xeworlebis Spoiler policy tag thing would apply again in this case. He is refered to quite a few times as Richard Rahl during the TV series, it's important information MattyMatt121 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the TV rating of this show, is it rated M? Seems like the last few episodes have gotten much darker and violent

[edit]

At first the violence scenes when I used to watch the original episodes weren't very gorey or bloody and were done tastfully. But lately ive noticed alot of blood and gore, and alot of dark and evil scenes. Im thinking specically about a scene with a throat stab as far as gore goes. As far as dark evil scences im thinking in particular about the scene where the little boy has his parents killed;and that scene was gorey too. I personally would hope they focus more on magic and less on blood and gore. At least when there are death scences with magic they aren't gorey or gross. I think this show ought to be rated M if its not, and I think it needs to be toned down so that children can enjoy it with their parents. I feel the article should discuss this topic of violence and gore and warn readers. Maybe the article will appeal to producers to cut down the gore and if they want to add violence to use fantasy violence like thunderbolts from wizards hands instead of slicing people up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.81.2 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darker? Seriously? Compared to the books, even the darkest episode of Legend of the Seeker is rated D (for Disney). If you thin Legend of the Seeker deserves anything worse than a G rating then you need to stay well away from the books. They are truly horrific. BlueRobe (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Season 2 Episode 8 is TV PG (V) - I am presuming the rest may be similarly rated. This info I have gleaned from YouTube (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LOVNv__PNk) in the opening sequence on that link which will probably become inactive when Season 3 comes out and they purge all Season 2 stuff online for the DVD release. Best Buy claims (on their item page) that Season one is TV14.
Best,
Robert
RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 07:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The ratings vary by episode from PG to PG14. The ratings include at least one, usually, of the content ratings D,L,S or V. The DVD's most likely carry the highest rating to umbrella all episodes contained on the DVD. There is a way to contact the oversight board if you feel the show's ratings are not inline with what they actually show. Apoctyliptic (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

season 2 based on two books

[edit]

I'm sorry but is there a reference that goes with this statement? Cos I've read the plot synopsis for episodes towards the end of the series, and they're nowhere near the events of 'blood of the fold' yet. Unless they're going to quickly go through them in the season finale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.254.32 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of book 2 is "Stone of Tears". Season 2 is based on finding that stone. Sure he gets every ep distracted and runs hundreds of leages in the wrong direction… No Wizard for Richard to use… But that is all on "Based on" discussion above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.136.110 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Season 2 has a variety of inspirations from the Goodkind books. The basic underlying search for the Stone of Tears in season 2 is inspired by book 2, "Stone of Tears". But, episode 14 of season 2 "Bound" is clearly inspired by book 6, "Faith of the Fallen" (which is in turn inspired by the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand). Evidently, the plots and characters in Legend of the Seeker are only loosely inspired by the Goodkind books, and make little/no attempt to remain faithful to the story/characters/plots/names/setting/etc of the books. Frankly, if the TV series was true to the books it would have to be rated R 18 (if it got past the censor at all).BlueRobe (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, my previous post (above) was given as one of the reasons for blocking my Wikipaedia account for one week. This place is MENTAL. BlueRobe (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the statement makes it out to be that season 2 is loosely based on the next two books, when it seems the main plot of 'blood of the fold' clearly isn't featured. The more I get towards the last episode, the more it seems that whoever wrote this clearly lied and it therefore should be ommitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.89.107 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. Morgan Sheppard

[edit]

Is there a reason he's omitted from the recurring cast list? I was going to add him in but considered that he might not be listed on account of the fact that he only does voiceover work for the keeper character. --99.186.108.193 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full casting list

[edit]

Is there no page for a full casting list, actor (character), summary of character.., ect? Govvy (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Legend of the Seeker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legend of the Seeker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legend of the Seeker. 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:

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) 03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Parker's Billing Status

[edit]

My recollection is that Craig Parker was promoted to main cast billing with the second season of Legend of the Seeker. Bluerules is correct that the series is available from the ABC app (and iTunes) – I haven't had a chance to check the credits yet (and may not for another week or two due to work), but I suggest that a representative sample of season #2 episodes be checked for this. And remember, "Special Guest Star" crediting can still be a "main cast" member – e.g. Heather Locklear on Melrose Place. So the important issue is whether Parker is in the "front credits" along with Horner and Regan or not (at least for the episodes in which he appears), not "how" he is credited.

Anyway, hopefully someone can check on this soon to resolve this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The important issue is how he was credited and in every season 2 episode, Parker is billed in the "guest starring" segment of the credits. In some episodes, such as the season 2 finale, he is the top billed guest star and the credits specifically say "Guest Starring Craig Parker". In other episodes, he was not even top billed among the guest stars. For example, Charisma Carpenter was billed above Parker in the season 2 premiere and Carpenter, who appeared in only one episode, is clearly a guest star. There was no special attribute given to Parker and again, he wasn't even billed above other guest stars in certain episodes. Parker is a guest star in season 1 and 2. The only members of the main cast are Horner, Regan, Spence, and (in season 2) Bethell. Bluerules (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll query WP:TV to weigh in on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for anyone else to weigh in. All that needs to be done is to see the episode credits for yourself (which are all available for free) to confirm that Parker is a guest star in both season 1 and 2. Bluerules (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to resolve – just check the episodes on the ABC app. I intend to do that eventually, but I'm far too busy to get to that right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I made the edit because I checked the episodes. Bluerules (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reliable source somewhere that is contradicting the show's direct credits?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any sources against the show's direct credits. I believe this was just a case of misremembrance. Bluerules (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here because I was pinged at WT:TV. If an editor has confirmed the crediting in the actual episode, then that's all we need. Is there any reason to not believe them? I don't see any. Remember that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, [d]o not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. -- /Alex/21 00:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated above, I can confirm that Parker was billed as a guest star in season 1 and season 2. Bluerules (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Craig Parker is not credited as special guest star. He is only credited as guest starring. I just checked a sample of season 2 episodes. — YoungForever(talk) 03:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legend_of_the_Seeker&oldid=1208135254"