Talk:Arrested Development/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Found a link...

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/60385.htm It seems that Showtime has picked it up. Still too much of a rumor to include in the artilce, but worth following up on when confirmed. youngamerican (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I found that too and dropped it in right at the end of the "Future" section. My sentence portrayed it too factually; it has since been edited to a better version stressing that it was, in fact, just the post and was, in fact, just gossip. but still, i feel it warrants a mention. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Movie

Hey, check out the page for the in production, future movie supposedly coming out in 2006, called Arrested Development. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475934 It says that it stars Matthew McConaughey. The plot outline is: When an over the hill high school narcotics agent is forced into retirement, he goes rogue to prove that he's still a viable commodity. Why is this film important? Because, it also lists Rob Riggle as Rep. Jon Van Huessen, and Hector Atreyu Ruiz as a prison guard. Riggle played the same role in Fakin' It and Family Ties. Ruiz played a prison guard in the Prison Break-In episode. Does anybody know what any of this means?

Sounds to me like some coincidences. As much as I'd love to see an Arrested Development movie, I don't think that it's going to happen. However, an amazon search reveals that there's a book in the works. WikiTruth 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How Many Cameras?

In the main box at the top of the page it lists the production style as a single camera setup. Later in the article it says "The show is shot with several free moving camera operators which follow the actors around in a documentary style." Which is it? Nambio 08:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• IIRC from the DVD commentary, it's a few free-moving cameras. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 08:50
  • Then maybe could someone fix that?82.83.3.97 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken it's referring to what's called "single camera setup", not saying that there is literally only one camera. Rubber cat 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Comparison

I just saw it was removed in this edit, and I just want to point out that I have read about this some where else, too (another connection was that gob did nothing for seven minutes after discovering the documents proving george senior dealt with saddam (half english, half squibbly); likewise bush did nothing for seven minutes after hearing about the first plane/north tower on september 11. i'll look around for whereever i read about that, and see if i can get a source for it. 82.83.3.97 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• You compared GOB to JEB, then say he is like GWB. Which is it? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-24 16:09
  • It is an interesting idea (though I'm somewhat skeptical, I mean, would Michael really fit with this theory? I could see it working for GOB and George Sr., though) and might be worth including provided that a source is cited. - Jersyko·talk 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 1.) I am not the user who originally wrote that material, i just thought i would go ahead and mention that i had read it elsewhere, with the possibility of citing it.
    • 2.) Very rarely are connections like theses a 1:1 connection (i.e. saying "you compared gob to jeb, then GWB, which is it doesn't make sense; they don't necessarily have to represent one character exclusively...it's just a collection of parallels, really.)
    • 3.) I searched online, and the only Sources i could find were postings on blogs and the like. Did, though, come across a few more parallels i thought were fairly funny, all from the immaculate election: Michael loses and election and then wants his son to win (michael = bush 41, GM = bush 43), michael loses an election but it's implied that with gob's help, he could've been able to play dirty and win (michael = GWB, gob=jeb, play dirty = recounts). There were some more, but i can't remember them.
    • 4.) Yea, its all unsourced. So i dont support putting it back in unless a source is found. I just wanted to start a conversation in hopes that someone else knows where a source may be found. 82.83.53.5 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (same guy as above, dynamic ip address)

Hi. I'm the person that first included the Bush comments on this page. I've been wanting to do this for a while, but only recently did so, seeing that no one else was making this comparison. The comparisons I made were of my opinion, as well as some agreements of several friends and other internet sites, as mentioned previously by another user. I have included these as I have noticed that others who enjoy this show have also noticed these subtle similarities and political inferences. I felt that it is very important to mention that there are obvious parallels between the Bluths and the Bushes. Perhaps these parallels were not as obvious to some, but for me, as a political junkie, one of the appeals of this show were these subtle connections. As for the person, who said that this source needs to be sited, that is both very difficult and unreasonable. If I was stating this comparison as a fact (e.g., The Bluths are a parody of the Bushes), then I need some kind of a statement from the creators and/or writers of the show directly stating such. That is why I have phrased it in the form I did. (something like, "Some have compared the Bluths to the Bushes."). As another user suggested, the only sources of such comparisons are from blogs, forums, etc. And, while I could have gone down and compiled a dossier of "facts" as evidence for such implication, I decided that this would not be the smartest idea. I will wait to hear some other opinions regarding this issue before reverting to the version I submitted. I'm not a very active user of Wikipedia, and I have no interest being involved in any type of "reversion war," that I have sometimes read about in these discussion pages. I hope there forms some general consensus regarding the inclusion of these parallels. If any other user wants to include more facts or even expand the comparisons into a full section, by all means, go ahead. But, please do not just delete my small, but I think important, contribution without any explanation. P.S., I'm comparing GOB to JEB. It's very unusual for a person to be referred to by a literal pronunciation of his/her initials, and more unlikely for that person to adopt it as his new first name, as in the case of Gob Bluth and Jeb Bush. Also, I don't think there has to be a distinct 1-to-1 connection of an AD character to the Bushes to justify the similarities.

--Kjrocker 05:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you have reliable sources for your additions, please cite them, and make sure your additions are relevant to the article and are well written and explained. Your previous addition was neither sourced nor well written. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-29 05:31

• • What would you consider a "reliable source"? I know the wikipedia people say an opinion needs to be "verified," but even this definition is poor at best. For example, if it's a biography and I say "some have attributed his recent decline in popularity to his personal lifestyle", then you would cite a news article stating such. For this, the parallelism or symbolism are personal opinions, and it is hard to have a verifiable source, since it's most likely that neither you nor I would consider some post on some forum a good source. If I can make an example with a literary work, in George Orwell's Animal Farm, the pigs are considered parallels of Lenin and Trotsky, and this is a widely accepted fact. But, never has Orwell himself declared that this was his intent; and thus, if one were to argue to death that the pigs do not mirror the aforementioned individuals, then it's hard to continue any discussion. This is the essence of symbolism. The writers of this show are not going to, at least not for the next couple of years, admit to any type of parallelism. As I see it, the only way is to reference the program itself, but I'm not sure if you consider that sufficient. Let us consider the four sentences I had written (since I actually found it now):
    • • Some have noted that some details of the Bluths are based on the Bush family. The most prominent is the character of GOB, whose legal name is George Oscar Bluth, Jr. The name GOB comes from the initials of his name, similar to Jeb Bush, whose legal name is John Ellis Bush. Other similarities include the frequency of the name "George" among family members and that Bluth is very similar to Bush.
  • Granted, that last sentence is pretty poor. But as for the GOB to JEB comparison, what more would you think is needed for it to be "reliable." Should I also say that phonetically, GOB and JEB are nearly identical? And even, Bluth to Bush comparison. It is almost impossible to come up with an Anglo last name that is so close in both the spelling and the pronunciation to Bush (both monosyllabic with an -ooo- sound as the vowel). As for the "George" frequency, I didn't want to expend too much time when I first added these sentences, and in retrospect should have been more careful. I think I wanted to highlight George Michael Bluth, the apparent eventual successor, to George P. Bush, the son of Jeb Bush, who is the second son of George H. W. Bush. Like George P., George Michael has a father w/ name other than George but is considered the successor, as the eldest in a quasi-primogeniture of the Bush/Bluth families. And, yes, I know that in this instance I'm comparing GOB to GWB, but I repeat myself once again, there need not be 1-to-1 connection for parallelism to exist. I mean if you think all these are pure coincidences, I don't think I can convince you, but it seems to me, and some others, that these parallelisms are not meant to be coincidences.
  • Anyway, please clarify what is "acceptable" to you, since you seem to be some type of super-user for this page.

--kjrocker 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • That's why I linked Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Read that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-29 12:27

I'm the anonymous contributor whos been taking part here, and i'd just like to throw two more things in here.

• 1.)as stated in the NOR policy,:

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

Some of these observations - if they're made JUST as observations, as they are here, and dont go into speculation that hurwitz or the writers are mocking / taking a political stance (or even doing it intentionally - would fall under this caveat, with the primary source being the show. GOB/JEB is a noticeable parallel. 7 minutes wait for GOB and GWB is a noticeable parallel. Saying michael woudlve won the election had he used his brother's help and the common complaint that bush only won from jebs help in florida in 2000 is a noticeable parallel. I think that if they're stated as they are above - simply that some connections are drawn at various points - it can be included under that caveat in WP:NOR and still be a sourced claim.

• 2.)Brian, with all due respect, please dont bite. I know sometimes it gets tiring dealing with people who aren't as familiar on with the project (especially on an article you've put a lot of work into), but the editor's made it clear he's not a regular contributor but is simply trying to help, he's still being civil, and your curtness could come across as aloof dismissal. This is not meant as an attack, and i'm sure you won't take it that way, but just keep it in mind. 82.82.188.159 16:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Finale Yacht Name

Just to have a spot that this is written down for sure: the yacht in the last episode is clearly labeled "C-Word". I know the yacht G.O.B. bought (along with Starla) in Season 2 was called the "Seaward", but the season 3 one isn't. The endless anonymous edits to the yacht name are getting tiring... ka1iban 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's supposed to be a pun that only faithful fans would notice. GOB is supposed to be a gross perv, and "C-Word" seems to refer to a certain dirty word that I'm too much of a gentleman to say. Actually come to think of it, it refers to two dirty words.J.J. Bustamante 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha... I just finished watching a bunch of Arrested Development and was all set to change the name of the yacht and saw the note in the article. Just wanted to say thanks for doing that. PeteJayhawk 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Camera Setup

Yes. They use multiple cameras. But that does not make it a multi-camera setup. Read the descriptions of Multicamera setup and Single camera setup and you'll see it's absolutely single camera (hell, it's even included in a list on the single cam page of "half hour shows shot using single-camera setup."). The number of cameras used isn't being debated - every show or film being shot this day in age uses mutiple cameras - it's the setup. 82.82.179.97 12:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think Ron Howard and Mitch Hurwitz have discussed this in interviews before. Also, it has won single camera-related awards. I will change the description back. - Jersyko·talk 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Should the single-camera setup page be revised to mention that multiple cameras can be used? Because they definitely do often use two cameras for AD. [1] — Miles←☎ 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Balboa Bay Window

My laptops being repaired, so I can't check this out myself...if the music played in the background during Balboa Bay Window cutaways The Girl from Ipanema? (P.S. I re-instated the Bush/Bluth connection. It's not terrifically written, but that can be fixed. As for the sourcing, check the rationale in the above section.)

It's not, as far as I can tell. Most likely original David Schwartz music. — Miles←☎ 08:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My laptop was fixed recently, and i finally checked it out myself last night. You're right. It's not. 82.82.162.255 12:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Official External Links Disabled

It seems that Fox disabled most of their official links. The only one that I could get was I'mNoOscar.com, but the rest were all dead. I don't think we should remove them since their existence is important, but perhaps a comment should be added that they don't work anymore (assuming other people have the same problem). Kjm 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I agree that the fact Fox actually set up sites there shouldn't be ignored, so I'll just put a comment above them.

Looks like I'mNoOscar.com doesn't work anymore.

"other lauded television comedies "

Who, exactly, has lauded MadTV? I mean Mo Collins is funny, but I have never really heard a critic (or anyone else really) heap that much praise on the show. There's got to be a better way to say that. youngamerican (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this TV show article really the best default for "Arrested Development"?

I would have thought that there should be a page for the psychological condition of arrested development... I guess we need to wait for someone who's knowledgable about the subject to write an article?

--63.106.93.177 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, considering the default for the term "Arrested development" is different than for the television show Arrested Development. BabuBhatt 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who changed the default? This is ridiculous; either have a link at the top of this page to the band or have one page with both on it, not both!70.131.157.139 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a link at the top of the article for the band, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. --TM 06:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My complaint is that the default for Arrested Development is a page linking to both this and the band. Then when you choose either of those two options, they both have a link pointing to the other one at the very top of the page. I say, either keep the default page with the two links and remove the links on the separate pages, or make one of the articles the default one and keep the links on the separate pages.Tflynn17 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush comparison

I've moved this here:

"Several bloggers have noted similarities between the Bluth family and the Bush family. Notably, the name "G.O.B." is considered a reference to John Ellis "Jeb" Bush."Clever, subversive, and hilarious". Retrieved 2006-06-07."Like Gob Bluth". Retrieved 2006-06-07."

First, 2 bloggers does not equal "several bloggers". Second, if it is merely two bloggers, it is not noteworthy to this article. You can find two people who have written online about anything. Third, blogs are generally not reliable sources of information. If you can find a reliable source which mentions "several people" as noting this similarity, then I would listen. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-07 21:40

For the record: the earliest online mention that I could find is in the TWOP forums, 2004-03-23: [2]. Down the page from that entry someone says that the theory had also been posted on the "official boards". On another discussion board ([3]) somebody claims that Mitch Hurwitz confirmed the reference to Jeb Bush's name. Other blogs and discussion boards: [4] [5] [6]. That makes seven including the references above in thecarpetbaggerreport.com and dailykos.com. Two other Wikipedia articles note the Jeb-GOB connection: RAS syndrome#Examples and Characters from Arrested Development#George Oscar "G.O.B." Bluth II. --Mathew5000 12:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again, discussion boards are not reliable sources (read that page), and almost all blogs aren't either. I've removed this unsourced connection from the Characters page. The RAS page is alright, though, since it simply lists the two, without trying to claim that one inspired the other. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 15:13

• • By that standard, much of the article under the heading "Themes and other characteristics" should be removed. For example, there's no reliable source cited for AD being considered a faster-paced variant of Soap, or for the "jumping the shark" bit being an allusion to Happy Days. --Mathew5000 15:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We're talking about the Bush comparison right now. We can get to other problems later. I can't help the fact that random people like to insert random crap into articles and degrade their quality over time. That is the primary reason why featured articles have to be defeatured, and that is why sections like the one you mention are turning into garbage. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 15:51

• as stated in the NOR policy,:

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

Some of these observations - if they're made JUST as observations, as they are here, and dont go into speculation that hurwitz or the writers are mocking / taking a political stance (or even doing it intentionally - would fall under this caveat, with the primary source being the show. GOB/JEB is a noticeable parallel. 7 minutes wait for GOB and GWB is a noticeable parallel. Saying michael woudlve won the election had he used his brother's help and the common complaint that bush only won from jebs help in florida in 2000 is a noticeable parallel. I think that if they're stated as they are above - simply that some connections are drawn at various points - it can be included under that caveat in WP:NOR and still be a sourced claim. 82.82.163.188 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That NOR exception very rarely occurs in real practice, and it is not the case here: the specific statement is that "Several bloggers have noted", which is not based on reliable sources. And, if we simply say "GOB is like JEB", what's the point of including it in the article? In most cases, article X and article Y are comparable in some minute way, but we don't usually make that comparison unless it's a purposeful or popular comparison as evidenced by reliable sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-11 19:23

Except that a large chunk of this article uses "Arrested Development. Created by Mitchell Hurwitz. 2003–present. Broadcast and DVD." as a reference - including the section in which this paragraph would be featured, "Themes and other characteristics#Topicality". So yea, no, I'm not really sure that argument holds up. The question is whether or not it's worth a mention, not whether or not it's sourced; a real quick re-phrase of the paragraph (see above, Talk:Arrested Development#Bush Comparison) would easily be backed up by the show itself. I'm personally also not all that sure it warrants a mention, but i think it can be left up to consensus rather than unilateral action. 82.82.184.157 11:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I already said, we'll get to the other problems with the article after we're done with this problem. One problem at a time. The other problems don't excuse this problem. As for your rewording claim, the show makes hundreds of comedic references, and leaves room for us to imagine thousands more. Unless you can find this comparison to be cited among reliable sources, I'm not comfortable making a connection that the show either didn't intend to make, or that the public doesn't seem to notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-12 16:41

I don't consider using a caveat in accepted policy as a "problem," so the use of the show as a reference doesn't fall into that camp at all. In fact, it's really the only source we can use to point out a whole lot of important parts of the show (topicality, in-jokes, call-backs and -fowards, etc). And I'm not 100% for it's inclusion either; I suggested leaving it to consensus. And it doesn't seem like a whole lot of people seem to have a problem with it, so I'm fine with it being left in there. But remember - though you may be the "maintainer," or what have you - it is, like all of the other million and change articles, not your article. So "I'm not comfortable making a connection" is not a valid reason. Now, I figure it's cool to close this issue now - I'm pretty much the only one who voiced an opinion on the materials removal, and it was more of an opinion on the reason for it's removal, so shall we move on to the other problems you see with the article? 82.82.183.41 21:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between referencing the obvious (someone repeating the same phrase in multiple episodes) and making a tangential connection that there is no evidence was ever intended or is considered a connection among reliable sources. Without sources, it should not be added. As for your "consensus", consensus comes out of discussion, not lack of discussion; saying that "nobody else is replying" implies "nobody thinks its a problem" is not evidence, or discussion, and definitely not consensus. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-13 21:59

I'm not quite sure why Brian0918 objects so strenuously to the notion that the Bush/Bluth comparison is one interpretation. First, the nature of joking allusions is such that there can be no "reliable source" to be cited: the joke becomes unfunny if Mitch Hurwitz or someone says in an interview, oh yes, we intended this joke, that joke, that joke, and this other joke - here's exactly what you're supposed to be laughing at. As a comparison, imagine a hypothetical TV show with a character who (1) sported a single glove, (2) had a pet chimp, (3) spoke in a high-pitched voice, (4) seemed to have an unhealthy attraction to children, and (5) dangled his child over a balcony. What sort of "source" would be required to accept the obvious conclusion that this hypothetical character is being compared to ____ (fill in the blank: is there anyone here who doesn't get the comparison?). With the Bush/Bluth thing: numerous contributors have cited many plausible parallels between the Bluth family and the Bush family (before reading this article and discussion, I'd thought of many of them myself - too bad I'm not a journalist so you all can cite me). At this point, the fact that many commenters on this very page have cited or agreed with the comparison might be considered verification (though not "external," I suppose). 2fs 04:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking out "Trivia"

Can we remove the "Trivia" section? This sort of thing does not look very good in a Featured Article. Any really significant facts in this section can be incorporated elsewhere. The section has gotten way too large and there are dozens more in-jokes and observations that could still be added (and probably will, by someone, if we don't do something about it). Andrew Levine 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really mind it, most of the stuff there doesn't fit too well into any category, it would end up seeming... well, trivial. That's why the section is there. DrIdiot 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article passed FAC with the Trivia section, so I don't see what the problem is. Just trim out the stuff that wasn't there when it passed FAC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 15:30

I don't really even think that's necessary - when an article is featured, that doesn't mean it's perfect and shouldn't change. DrIdiot 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright I looked over the Trivia section and some of it (the stuff that refers to individual episodes) should be taken out and moved into the individual episode pages. I'm doing that now. DrIdiot 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be here, adn I have removed it.--Peta 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote. Provide rationale and wait for discussion to occur. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 04:31Z
  • As said before, the article became a featured article when it had the trivia section, so to say that featured articles don't have trivia sections isn't really correct. --TM 08:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Doesn't an article on a show like AD really lend itself to having a "trivia" section, though, given the intertextual nature of the show, with layer upon layer of sometimes rather complex humor? Also, and perhaps more importantly, is there a policy or guideline that specificially discourages or prohibits use of trivia sections in featured articles? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I don't think so. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 15:35Z
• It makes more sense to trim the trivia section of the less important content than to delete it altogether. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 15:36Z

• I removed most of the trivia which related to specific episodes (all those items are already in the episode articles, in greater detail), keeping only the reference to Skating with Celebrities in the series finale since I think it's more important/interesting than the others in the context of the article. Other than that I didn't remove anything based solely on a perceived lack of importance on my part. I also replaced the picture to suit a piece of trivia that remains (GOB and his wife). Thoughts? --TM 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD

Has anyone heard plans of a boxed set of all three seasons? I know amazon, for example, had a deal on the first two seasons.Cms479 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just feel like noting that I just bought all 3 seasons for the crazy good deal of $33.79 on Amazon. That's free shipping too. It's a gold box special, so I don't know how long that'll last though.--SeizureDog 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is / Was

Ok since the last edits about if AD is or AD was a show should be fixed up. Example is Friends "Friends was one of the longest-running and most popular sitcoms in American television history" There they use WAS due to the show being cancelled but as we all know Friends is still syndicated around the world. So it still excists but its not developed anymore. Another large wiki page with the same theme is Sex and the City "Sex and the City was a popular American cable television program based on the book of the same name by Candace Bushnell."

So are we going to be correct or not? Avalean 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's your evidence I present Seinfeld and M*A*S*H (TV series). The fact of the matter is they are television shows, it's not like they were shows but then became something else. --TM 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By Seinfeld they are correct if you use the whole sentance, "Seinfeld is an American television situation comedy set in New York City that ran from 5 July 1989, to 14 May 1998." Which is correct in wording. M*A*S*H (TV series) is not correct in its wording "M*A*S*H is an American medical drama/black comedy produced by 20th Century Fox for CBS" since 20th Centuty Fox no longer produces those episodes.Avalean 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since "produced" is still past tense, however, if it was "being produced" it would be incorrect. Regardless, they still are shows even though they aren't ones currently in production, and I see no reason to change the phrasing to "was" in this article. --TM 00:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

common sense and common diction prefer was. 67.172.61.222 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Frozen Bananas

Do these actually exist and are sold? I live in Australia and had never heard of them. They sound kind of yummy but... Anyway, is this based off something real or what? Thanks. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 10:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on the real Balboa Island too. 82.46.154.93 03:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

| Google Search of "Frozen Bananas"

Ron Howard originally temporary?

I heard that Ron Howard was not originally planning to be the narrator of the show, but filled in for the job on the pilot episode with no intention of being the permanent narratator. This, of course, is exactly what ended up happening. If this is true, it's a good bit of trivia to add to the article. 75.36.80.103 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true, he was origionally planned to only narrate the pilot, and the rest of the episodes wouldn't use any narration.

Hip Hop Rap Group

I've added a very important sentence to this article, one which I think fans of the show might have purposely avoided? The hip hop group whom used the Arrested Development name, made it famous in the early 1990s via massive top ten hit singles such as People Everyday, Mr Wendal and Tennesee. Fox were sued over the use of the name as the group and its lawyers held that it diluted the name. Fox lawyers settled out of court. This fact is alluded to in the article to Arrested Development (Hip Hop group) but was curiously ommitted here - so Ive added it. Encise 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Encise

Userbox

Just thought I'd showcase the Arrested Development userbox (not mine) Feel free to add it to your userpage

her?This user is a fan of Arrested Development.

Dodge 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Great article

A beautifully-written article, folks. Good job! I just started watching this (amazing) show on DVD this week and had to see what the 'pedia had to say. --nathanbeach 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Overlinked

The first few paragraphes are hard to read with all the links. If someone wants to improve the article, try reading over Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and reduce the number of links. Some wiki-links that could be unlinked are: omniscience, narrator, american, comedy, all the countries in the second paragraph, series finale, cult. Cuñado - Talk 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It was way overlinked. I've fixed it now. If you find this kind of thing happen again, be bold and go ahead and fix it! --`/aksha 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Shouldn't searching for "Arrested Development" take you to something regarding developmental psychology (with a link to the show at the top of the page), seeing as that's what the term originally pertains to (and the subject I was looking for)? Or pehaps a disambiguation page. The prevalance of popular culture articles at the expense of more encyclopedic ones is one of the flaws cited by detractors of Wikipedia. - 85.210.43.171 06:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arrested development (with lower case "d") takes you to a definition of "arrested development" and disambiguates between the hip hop group and television show that have adopted that name. "Arrested Development" (with capital D) connotes a proper noun, hence why it leads to the show. --TM 10:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. - 85.210.43.171 12:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. All arguments favored moving and placing disambiguation page at main title. I used the target suggested by Anþony. Personally, I've never seen the show, and think of the hip-hop group first. I still remember the words to "Tennessee".

NB: There are now a lot of links that need fixing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Arrested Development → Arrested Development (television) — Target page is a redirect to source page. Arrested development is a disambig page; Arrested Development (hip hop group) is about the hip hop group. Skiasaurus 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

*Weak OpposeSupport (apparently I didn't read the text of the survey closely enough, nor did the person below me) - I'm fairly aware of the hip-hop group, and even now, I think of the group before I think of the tv show. IMHO, they're notable enough to deserve a disambig page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Many years from now, when both the TV show and hip-hop group are ancient history, they will have more of an equal of a significance in pop culture. The idea that the TV show is more significant than the music group is more of a product of the show being fresher in our memory. Milchama 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you, like I, didn't read the survey closely enough Milchama. User wants to create a disambig. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

If there is going to be a move, it should probably be to Arrested Development (TV series) to conform with established WP naming conventions. --TM 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "opposes" above, my issue is that the only difference in title between the disambig page Arrested development and the tv show page Arrested Development is a capitalization. I think that the disambig page should be kept, and that the title of the tv show page should be made more specific. Skiasaurus 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The disambig page should be the fully capitalized Arrested Development, as that's the correct spelling of both the TV show and music group. Milchama 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Arrested development also refers to, according to the disambig page, "a state where development has stopped prematurely," and not just to pop culture. Skiasaurus 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't matter. The only topics that exist are both spelled with a capital D, so that's what the dab page should use.

I'm a bit confused on how to vote. People are voting oppose while providing reasoning that seemingly supports the move. In any event, it should be Arrested Development (TV series) as TM pointed out. I support the following two moves, since the hip hop group is sufficiently prominent:

Arrested Development → Arrested Development (TV series)

arrested development → Arrested Development

–  Anþony  talk  05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I support the moves outlined by User:Anþony and agree that the current "oppose" votes actually seem to support a move based on their explanations. I am also confused. --TM 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support Anþony's first suggestion (Arrested Development → Arrested Development (TV series)). Does it need to be formally proposed, or can the current proposal just be changed? Skiasaurus 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I say just change it; no one voted based on the wording. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Music section

Does there really need to be a full section on the music of the show? It's really not important to the show itself, and there's not much to talk about. The fact that a handfull of songs are used occasionally doesn't seem to warrant an entire section.--SeizureDog 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• A good deal of comedic and dramatic effect is tied to the show's music. A lot of time, effort and planing go into the music, and many of the same songs show up in multiple episodes. The "Mr. F" hook, the "Big Yellow Joint" song, the sad guitar melody whenever something serious happens, "All You Need is Smiles," etc., are an important part of the storytelling and as such deserve a spot to be explained. Contrary to "... a handfull of songs are used occasionally doesn't seem to warrant an entire section," most of music becomes a joke or punchline of itself, a very rarely used technique in comedy. Classicalgit 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bluth family's religion

Does anyone happen to know what religion the Bluths are supposed to be (aside from George Sr's Jewish and Christian whims)? I thought maybe the whole family is Jewish, since Maeby didn't know what a Cross was and a member of the family is named Tobias. But then they also did celebrate Christmas, not just in the Christmas party at the Bluth company but also that they had Christmas decorations in Lucille's apartment. I know, this is sort of a stupid question, but I kept wondering it when I watched this show.

I had a discussion about this with a Jewish friend of mine who lives in the area who argued that the family is arguably obviously Jewish. There are certainly several good points: many of the actors are convincingly Jewish-looking or actually Jewish, and Lindsay fits the JAP stereotype to a tee. The best article I could find on it when I looked a while ago is this: http://www.nextbook.org/cultural/print.html?id=58, which you can take what you will from. Skibum8713 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AD reruns on CBC

Hey, I turned the TV on just now and the pilot's on CBC Vancouver right now! Sure enough, the show's got a page on the CBC website now; should this be added to the article somehow? Max22 01:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Buster Breastfeeding

Posting this here because there doesn't seem to be any discussion at the episode pages. On the episode page for Altar Egos there's a goof that says "Lucille proclaims she could not breastfeed any of her children because of George Sr.'s tweaking, but later in Spring Breakout, the narrator states "it was Buster's first taste of alcohol since he was nursing." One of these statements must be false, unless the narrator is implying that Lucille used alcoholic formula." However, I'm sure that there's an episode that mentioned that buster was breastfed by somebody else (Lucille's housekeeper?). His taste of alcohol could have been a small amount of alcohol to help him sleep, as some people do with their infants. I agree that the narrator's joke itself may imply that he tasted alcohol in the breastmilk, but I disagree that it's truly a goof, because as far as I can tell what he said is entirely possible without contradicting known facts about characters.129.128.214.87 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

fourth wall?

Arrested Development always had references to the actual actors real lives occasionally and so on, but did the show ever break the fourth wall on an eye level? Did an actor ever look straight at the camera, seeming as if in an obvious, "I'm an actor" way. Book M 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of an actual "to the camera" way, but the narrator was always the first one to break the fourth wall - especially after Michael Bluth happened to say "arrested development" as part of normal conversation and the narrator followed with "Hey! That's the name of this show!"ClassicBri 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In Beef Consomme, the judge says that no cameras are allowed in the courtroom and part of the rest of the scene is seen from behind the door of the courtroom. I think that would count as breaking the fourth wall visually. Theshibboleth 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, in Mr. F, when they say someone could be listening in on them, a microphone like one that would be used on the set enters at the top of the frame. Theshibboleth 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Broadcasters" section.

How many people reading the English article for Arrested Development really need to know that what it aired on in Thailand or any of those other countries? It seems like it violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, so I've removed it.--SeizureDog 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is intended to indicate what articles are not - not about sections of articles. The international broadcasters represent facts which support the notability and verifiability of a programme. Also remember Wikipedia's audience is global - Wikipedia is not American, either (otherwise we have a fundamental NPOV problem here). There are undoubtedly people in Thailand who read the English WP and would find the international reach of a programme relevant. The section has a compact 2-column format that was not particularly intrusive in the first place. Nor would WP:IDONTLIKEIT be grounds for deleting information. The broadcasters section was therefore restored. Dl2000 14:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, WP:NOT can be applied for articles or sections. The "no list of quotations" example in 1 for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY could clearly be applied to a "Quotes" section in any article. If you want to demonstrate the program's global reach, you can put it in a sentence "Arrested Development has been brocasted on x channels in y countries", you don't have to list every single one. This also violates the Wikipedia:Embedded list guideline as well. And WP:ILIKEIT isn't grounds for keeping information either; not that I ever even said that I didn't like it, I just think it's bad practice. Once you hit a certain point of this article it's just lists all the way down. "Celebrity guests" also should probably be taken care of; it is somewhat important but taking up a full page of text isn't good. Wiki articles aren't IMDB after all, and we generally don't have exhaustive cast lists. I'm not going to revert you here, but this is a Featured Article and we do need to be strict to making sure it sets a good example. Both of those sections were less than half of what it's crawled up to now since it's been promoted. What was moderately ok then is now looking very cluttered in my eyes.--SeizureDog 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical response

Right now the part about the show's critical reception needs a lot of work. It has several quotes from critics but doesn't have any summation or analysis. I'll add a one sentence summation, but it would help if someone more familiar witht hte topic expanded on this. Theshibboleth 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adlogo.png

Image:Adlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

 DoneDanski14^(talk) 17:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet success / Where to view

Should we include some text describing how it's popularity has lived on in the "Post-cancellation" section? Maybe also a link to http://www.hulu.com/arrested-development  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.242.96 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article fails FA criterion #3

The article fails FA criterion #3, because Image:ArrestedDevelopment S1.jpg, Image:ArrestedDevelopment S2.jpg and Image:ArrestedDevelopmentS3.jpg have no fair use rationales for this article. – Ilse@ 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I commented out these images. – Ilse@ 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have fair-use rationale added now, and have been uncommented. -- Bovineone 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to archive some of these entries

This talk page is rather long. I think some of the discussions need to be archived. I read through WP:ARCHIVE; however, I didn't see any standard criteria for determining what to archive. Discussions that haven't been active for a year or more, maybe? Please give thoughts. --Iknowyourider (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Older than a week is long enough. Darrenhusted 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your work! I did a little more re-org -- the archives box is now autogenerated, and we should have an index of archived / current talk page topics generated the next time User:HBC Archive Indexerbot runs.--Iknowyourider (t c) 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was just starting it off, I don't think that much talk is generated anyway. Darrenhusted 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Table in "Characters" section

I'm removing the table in the characters section because it seems redundant. The first time I saw it, it had three columns: Role | Full name | Portrayed By. But "Role" and "Full name" were identical (each simply had the name of the characters), so I merged the two as simply "Character". But now that I see that the character names and respective actors are listed underneath the table, I see no reason why it should be there at all. If there are any problems with this, please discuss it here. Pele Merengue 11:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I was wondering about the usefulness of that table myself. Agree with removal. Iknowyourider (t c) 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Kitty (George Sr. and later Michael's secretary) listed? -Thomas

Featured article review

This article no longer appears to be of top quality. Anyone want to defend against me? --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. One blatant reason is that there are unsourced statements. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you're right. Upon rereading the article, I wanted to pepper several sections with {{fact}} tags. Iknowyourider (t c) 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just performed a cleanup on several sections of the article, adding a couple of references relating to the series' development (which were also present when the article was first given featured status, but was mysteriously not present in the article's prior condition), and removing unsourced statements and unencyclopedic sections at will. Can't we further improve the article and clean up the offending sections, instead of just sending the article over to featured review? I personally think we could easily clean up this article to featured status; it'd be a much better step forward. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fixing it is much better than sending it over to review, but I'm wondering if anyone is up to it. It's a well-written factually accurate article; it is incredibly under-referenced. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I think we could improve the article and reference it further, perhaps. Are there any specific areas that need working on right now? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Some characters are listed as more than one appearance when they only appeared once, Wrench and Nellie being two examples. Darrenhusted 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the example you noted; let's be bold and correct any other such contradictions in the article, if there are any left. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Should recurring roles be in order of most episodes, Barry at the bottom of the list seems odd. And are guests beign listed alphabetically or episode order, at the moment is seems to be a mix of both. Darrenhusted 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently they were being listed alphabetically in terms of their surnames, apart from a few instances, so I've just fixed those right now. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 14:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Hey there,

I put in the change to 'Futures' on Arrested Development, linking to the fan-petition for an Arrested Christmas Special in 2009. Sorry for doing so without properly getting to grips with editing.

I was wondering if you could help me legitimately get my site referenced on the Wiki page.

I feel the site, www.aresteddevelopment2009.com , is worth inclusion in the article as many visitors to the Wiki page are coming to find out if the show is still broadcasting or if there's a chance the show could come back - I know from my statscounter that a vast number of visitors come from WIki each day (about 250), all helping to give te show's fans a shot at a reprieve.

But in terms of justifying inclusin for Wikipedia (rather than just my own selfish gains), I think a case can be made. There have been 10+ news articles about the 'uprising', as one calls it, I've attached the two biggest ones, one is TV Squad, the second by an Associated Press reporter

http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/07/27/how-about-an-arrested-development-christmas-special/ http://www.centredaily.com/entertainment/story/163061.html

I feel it's currently the most relavent information about the show's future, and I think it's important that Wiki helps give out the information. I'm just hoping you might be able to give me some informed advice as to how to get the site mentioned without crossing Wikipedia's guidelines for entry - even if it's just a mention on the external links panel.

Thanks for your time, Ed

eddiewrenn at fastmail.co.uk (I'll also check on your talk page in a few days)

The fact that there are reliable sources mentioning the petition might mean it's notable enough to warrant a sentence in the article, maybe under the "Future" section. Thoughts? Iknowyourider (t c) 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We could add a sentence about the general attempts fans have made to form petitions, only if we could find suitable references to back it up, however I'm not sure whether this particular petition (or any, for that matter) needs to be mentioned in the article. Has there been any official response to this petition, and has it been particularly successful, if at all, to gauge such a response? If not, then that's just what it is, I'm afraid: a fan petition, which has had no effect on the series' actual future. Even if there are a couple of articles and blogs mentioning the petition, that alone does not make it particularly notable or important enough to add it to the article, since there hasn't been much of a reaction. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I won't try persuade you further, other than to add that every day 100 to 200 visitors to this article found it a handy link, and I would call this the most active petition around. If there are any moderators here who love the show, I would appreciate any advice as to what steps to take to make the petition worth s reference. Losing 100 signatures a day is a big shame for me.

Sorry, Ed. I love the show as much as you do, but this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. I've removed the link for the reasons I outlined below. Please see WP:SOAP for the relevant posting guidelines. -Juansmith 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

G.O.B.

I think that in order to refer to the character correctly, G.O.B. should be called Gob - without the capitals and punctuation. In episode credits he is referred to as Gob, and in the first episode of season 3, a letter addressed to him calls him Gob. Obviously, a reference should be made regarding the fact that his name stems from the initials of his full name, but for accuracy's sake, I think we should be using Gob. Out of courtesy, I mention it here, but if there are no problems, we should change this soon.fg 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The captions say "Gob" and the DVD box says "Gob". I will change it unless someones objects. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I also concur. 144.139.119.135 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, both on this page and on all the episode summaries - "G.O.B." feels awkward and is not consistent with what the show seems to officially use to refer to him. His character page mentions that his name is usually written as "Gob" but then proceeds to write it as G.O.B. for the rest of the article. I think this should be changed as well. --Itsdvw (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A little more for the "Gob" side: the shooting script for the episode "My Mother, the Car" uses the spelling "Gob" when he is referred to in dialogue. (When his character speaks, the text is preceded by his name in all caps (with no periods), just like MICHAEL and any other name.) Alan smithee (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Music question

Whenever Oscar and Lucile are together a song plays in the background, I think the lyrics are "oh my oh my". Anyone have an idea what song that is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.109.155 (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for the name of the dreamy love song played in the first season when Michael thinks about Marta. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.90.87 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alot of these songs are muzak written and recorded in house by this multi-instrumentalist guy. If you watch the extras on season 1 i think you'll get his name.92.16.123.49 (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)ANon

Christmas special petition

At the end of the "Future" section, there is a line indicating that a fan petition has started for an Arrested Development Christmas special in 2009. This fact is cited, so I left it in. However, immediately following this, there is the following line: "Sign it at http://www.arresteddevelopment2009.com!" I removed that line, per the posting guidelines. See WP:SOAP for details. -Juansmith 08:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It also now has over 9000 signatures. 58.108.121.193 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also endorsed and linked at the-op.com,the most authoritative AD reference site, and the originators of Save Our Bluths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.42.244 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Movie

do you think there can be a section about a possible movie? http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/12/06/jason-bateman-refuels-hope-for-arrested-development-movie/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.244.132 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. Wait for more definitive sources than just cast speculation. For example, a statement from Mitch saying a tentative script has been written, or that it's currently being submitted to several studios, things of that nature. Basically, make a section when it gets past the "speculation" stage. --76.189.243.21 (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the notability guidelines for films says that the article should not be created until filming is confirmed to have started. -- Bovineone (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A section is not an article; notability guidelines only apply to article subjects, not content. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

FOR YOUR INFO: Not firmed up yet, but..

So we just got done with an interview with Jeffrey Tambor. I asked him about the possibility of the movie after hearing bits on the Early Show about that. Here is how he said it went down: He (Jeffrey) was watching Keith Oberman and Keith stated there was going to be a movie. Jeffrey said that was the first he had heard of it and caught him by surprise. He made a few phone calls (I am under the impression one was to Mitch Hurwitz) and did confirm the project. It has not started shooting yet and he has not even seen a script, but Jeffery was glad to see this happening. He said he felt as though there was still more to be told on AD.

Thats all the info I have

Just so that people are aware that news may break on this. Good news!! ---

Re: Bateman breaking the news to E! on Feb 2, it first broke on the XM radio show, with the audio link here: http://boomp3.com/m/5b8402ad7fbe If you see what date it was uploaded. I think it broadcast Fri, Jan 31. It was after hearing that, people were waiting for someone to follow it up, which E! did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.42.244 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a page for Arrested Development (film), it's my first page so I may have jumped the gun a bit and it's barely two sentences. I saw a link on Michael Cera's page for it, but it just went to the the TV show page, it's also announced on IMDB. Sorry if I created it before it should have been made! Broooooooce (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. This is quite an embarrassing oversight on my part but I was just reading the movie section on here and it provides many more details than the page I have set up for the film. Given that this project may not come to fruition, I don't want to migrate information over to that article without a consensus and guidance from the people who watch this page. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to plug in a line under the subheading that links to the film page, something like Main Article: Arrested Development (film). Would this be appropriate? (see my user page for details on where my head is at!) Broooooooce (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's been a few days; I'm adding the link. Broooooooce (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Or not, someone else beat me to it! Broooooooce (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the feature film section. It looks like just a bunch of dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aots191 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hip hop group

Confusion inevitably occurs with the title "Arrested Development" as many are referring to the hip hop band. While there is a disambig page for this article, somehow, over-zealous fans of the TV series keep removing reference to the band suing the producers of the show. This is a notable event that occurred. It specifically relates to the program. I challenge any misguided TV series editor to remove it again. If this occurs, I will take it to a vote. 203.57.241.67 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Encise

Please refrain from "challenging" and disparaging other editors, and usually matters are solved through discussion rather than voting. Personally, I agree that the lawsuit is notable, and have never removed that bit of information. However, I find it is out of place in the lead, since it really isn't that relevant when introducing readers to this show, and I'm not sure where else to put it. I think this may have been why it was removed in the past, if that is actually where it was removed from. Would you be against moving it to the end of the development section? Giving it its own section seems unmerited now since there is only one sourced sentence and nothing seems to have come of the lawsuit. --TM 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the mention of the lawsuit should be moved after "Critical Reception" because that really seems to make sense as far as importance of sections go. Racheltwu (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that placement, I was just trying to find an existing section where it would make logical sense to place it, and chronologically it would fit with the development section in my opinion. Although it now has its own subsection, once I, or someone else, removes the unsourced sentence (if it doesn't get sourced) it might look odd to have a whole section for two small sentences; this is the only minor concern I have now. --TM 08:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is still before "Critical Reception". Should someone move it? Also, it doesn't mention the specific outcome of the lawsuit and I'm interested to know what happened. Does anyone know and could they add it?144.139.119.135 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Music section

I think this part should be removed probably:

"In episode "The Sword of Destiny", Tony Wonder (Ben Stiller), a magician, mentions "some band has got the rights to Use Your Illusion" referring to him not being able to use the name "Use Your Illusion" for a future video release of illusions performed by him, instead calling them "Use Your Allusion II". Guns N’ Roses released a pair of albums: Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion II."

It doesn't really fit in with the music section as it isn't really talking about music from the show. It could possibly go under a trivia section or something like that somewhere (probably under the specific episode the joke occurs in). Also, even if the sentence should stay, it is long and should be shortened I think. I had to reread it a few times because it uses the word illusion and allusion a lot. Racheltwu (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the songs during the credits of the last season that parody real songs? I think the first episode with it was with the Banana Stand being ruined and the fake Yellow Submarine song parody. The second to last episode parodies Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing" with a "Watch us, watch us, watch us" instead of "Wake up, wake up, wake up." I know there are others, too, maybe even before the final season. There's also a song about Just Smiling at the end of Whistler's Mother in Season 1 129.133.141.156 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Show Can Be Watched Online at Hulu.com

I want to point out the fact that although the show has been canceled, Fox has agreed to show the Arrested Development episodes on its joint venture website with NBC called Hulu. Currently, all of the Season 1 episodes are available to watch with short 15 - 30 second commercial clips embedded. The first 5 episodes of Season 2 and 3 are also available on Hulu.com. Should the fact that Arrested Development is still available to watch through a new online medium be worthy of acknowledgment in the article? Please let me know. Gabbers511 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ALSO now available on itunes. - Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.47.20 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Incest

(this is unverified research, so I'm putting it in discussion instead of the article.)

There are also some incest themes between Michael and his older brother Gob.

Gob (giving Michael a big bearhug): If you feel something moving down there, it's just the dove in my pants. (dove walks past on the counter) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.10 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not disagreeing, but haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.248.5 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I found an article which talks of the incest in Arrested Development, so it is no longer unverified --Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual Articles

I wasn't sure where else to post but I'll do it here: If anybody has seen the articles on separate AD episodes, they'd notice that they are well... terrible. I've been attempting to clean them up, as they are unsourced, contain goofs, trivia, original research, POV and pointless Fair use images. I've deleted most of the bad content (so far only on season one) but user:Danski14 is readding the trivial content, so I wanted a few opinions with policy based reasoning, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just took a very brief look at a couple of the edits you've made so I'll chime in with my limited opinion. Fair use images are on the way out of WP so there's no point debating that (although "pointless" is pretty inaccurate, completely subjective, etc.). As always if there are uncited claims they can be removed or putting up a cn tag for a bit before removing are both fine according to policy/custom. POV needs to be modified to NPOV, trivia (if "important") should be integrated elsewhere if possible rather than removed as you probably know. My main issue of contention is that with the running jokes sections you eliminated the one aspect that gave them organization by removing the tagline/idea associated with them, transforming the section from a coherent list that mirrors the other episode articles to what appears to simply be another trivia section of disparate pieces of cruft. Can I ask what your motivation was there? --TM 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you're removing those sections entirely, so scratch that last question. --TM 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Originally I removed the tagline/idea because I found it to be very strange and uncreative formatting and was merely trying to reword it, it still had the content, just in a full sentence instead of an inconsistent title and point form explenation that provided little content for anyone not familiar with the show. Eventually I decided that it was just too much trivia and removed the majority of the things integrating a few of them, but most of the things just explained jokes and it made the articles seem like a fan page. The Dominator (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Episode based Running Jokes is pretty pointless. I think that on this or it's own page it would work better... but still quite trivial.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the only useful thing in the episode articles was the foreshadowing, unfortunately alot of it was obscure therefore qualified as OR. The episode notes had some useful out-of-universe info and so did the character cameos, but the rest belongs on fan sites. Is there any place online that I can access ratings of past episodes? A reception section would do the articles some good. The Dominator (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BELOW IS THE TALK PAGE FROM THE MERGED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (FILM) ARTICLE AND THE DISCUSSION BELOW RELATES TO THAT ARTICLE RATHER THAN THIS ONE

Film Article (now merged here)

WP:NF

Before creating this page, I neglected to read WP:NF which states that a film that has not been confirmed as shooting by reliable sources should not have it's own page. WP:NF goes on further to say that failure to meet the guidelines specified is also not a criterion for speedy deletion. So I guess this page may well be in limbo until the film comes to fruition or other parties intervene! In the meanwhile, I will continue to update the article; I just felt I should start with an apology for jumping the gun on this one! Broooooooce (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally it shouldn't be here, but I'm such a big AD fan that I don't have the heart to take it to AfD. So let's keep it! The Dominator (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please add

http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/archives/2008/04/an_arrested_dev.html Alia Shawkat confirms cast involvement + script writing

- Done! Thank you for this source. Broooooooce (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source. And here's another one! Again it's with Alia Shawkat

Teenflare.com: Well there’s a stir on the internet about a potential movie. Do you know anything about that?

AS: With the publicity of Juno, Jason Bateman started spewing rumours that there was going to be a movie. When we wrapped, [Jason] said, ‘watch I’m going to make sure a movie happens’. He’s just like the best advocate for Arrested – as everyone is. But he really just created a rumour, which now may be starting the actual production of it. Mitch [Hurwitz, the creator] spoke to everyone to make sure they were all on board and everyone is, so I think they’re going forward with it. Ron Howard is down to [direct] it, so I think Mitch just has to write the script… Teenflare.com: And you’re on board? AS: I’m definitely on board, yes. [8]

- Done! Thank you for this source as well. BTW: You should try and sign your post by adding 4 tildes at the end of what you've written! (~~~~). Broooooooce (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Brooooooooce, when I have some free time I'll go through the Wikipedia training pages and get start doing this properly. But until then(!), thanks for your help - hooray a movie!! Edd 86.137.129.54 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the AD film article was the very first page I created. It was merged into this article until actual filming begins, in accordance with WP:NFF. Editing is not all that difficult once you get the hang of just a few basics; the biggest obstacles I had early on was just finding the proper way to format things--references and the such (WP:CITET, fyi). My first advice to you would be to register your own account, it takes about 30 seconds. If you have any questions, or need help with anything at all, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'd be glad to help in any way possible. Broooooooce (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again! More stuff! More 'for your info' rather than new information. Just sharing the wealth! http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/arrested-movie-developing-maeby.php Ed 82.35.47.20 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

- Done! This is rather significant because it confirms that Hurwitz had agreed to start writing the script. Broooooooce (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/05/arrested-develo.html seems to use our article here as a source. They don't say anything new, but we are even mentioned explicitly. Broooooooce (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"...You want me to be explicit??" Anyway, congrats! Good work Brooooooooooooooooce. From, your webstalker :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.47.20 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie confirmation reverted

I noticed that you (82.35.47.20) added that the movie had confirmed and you referenced a source. I had to revert it because the source you listed was 404 and I could not find it when I searched on google, even by the authors name, the article name, and the site that is referenced seems like a business site rather than an entertainment news kinda place. Can you link to the article here please? Thanks. Broooooooce (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Broooooce, sorry, someone phished me on my own site, trying to get me to post their fake page, and I forgot I sent you a link here. But, on a better note....... http://www.defamer.com.au/2008/06/what_a_fun_sexy_time_for_us_jason_bateman_confirms_arrested_development_movie_to_shoot_next_year-2.html

Hooray!

Ed

See, I read the link and it says that shooting is confirmed later this year, but the quote they use doesn't do anything but contrast the differences between tv and films. Is this information sourced anywhere else? Broooooooce (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Google News: "Arrested Development"! http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=arrested+development&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ln AND ALSO http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1590059/story.jhtml 86.132.217.74 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New news!

Henry in Boise, Idaho: Bring back my Bluths! Any update on the Arrested Development movie? Haven't heard a peep since Jason Bateman said they were working on it. According to his onscreen mama, Jessica Walter, it is moving forward. "I was told it's going to film next year. That's what I hear," she said and then added with a laugh, "and they better include me, or I'll put a bullet in my head!" Of course the biggest hurdle is the scheduling: "That’s been the problem in the past, to try and get everybody together at the same time. But we are aiming for next year, and I hope it can all be worked out—I miss those people, I miss the writing." Don't we all, Lucille. Don't we all.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b25790_spoiler_chat_office_heroes_arrested.html

Ed

Remove reference to Prom Wars?

I don't want to start a game of undoing each others edits- but i strongly disagree with undoing my edit, which itself removed irrelevent references to other projects Alia Shawkat is working on. When actors take part in these press junkets and other work promoting a project they often try to make comments like this, which may or may not be true, just so there is a mention of the project they are promoting. Wikipedia is not a space for people to promote things, nor is it a space to comment on breaking news items. A reference to a not-very-notable film project, and a link to its wikipedia article, is absolutely not relevent in the context of a possibly forthcoming arrested development film. I could not see any improvement in the prose when the reference was reinserted.

Continuing on this subject, I think the entire ADfilm section should be edited to be more concise. Do we really need a running commentary discussing every new reference to the new film project? As it stands, it reads more like an article on the ongoing history of the rumours surrounding a possible Arrested Development Feature Film. I realise this article on the film has probably generated enough publicity to help the film start inching into development stages which, as a fan, I think is fantastic, but we also have a responsibility to ensure the article remains as objective as possible and to ensure it does not become skewed by these current news items. Draemelius swift (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That single sentence is placed there to frame the next three quotes from Alia Shawkat. It provides a perspective on just why she would have so much press coverage to begin with; it also makes for better prose by preventing the article from reading like just a list of quotes. I strongly disagreed with you removing (or in essence, undoing) my edit to begin with. As for press junkets and what not, I had no such intentions when I added the text. I simply wanted something that read a little more pleasantly.

As for "the ongoing history of the rumours surrounding a possible arrested development feature film": People want this information. Once the film starts shooting or gets shot down, the shape of the text will change. I wouldn't be concerned with it right now--lets just let it play out rather than get all up tight about something that won't matter very long anyway. I believe the article is fine just how it is. Broooooooce (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading the articles, and in particular watching the video clip, it seems clear the interviewers ask/press her about a film (in particular Alia: "I don't want to be the one to talk about it" Interviewer: "Will Arnett and Jason Bateman have openly talked about it", and in the video. I think it should stand for the minute as those quotes are the most recent in two months, and are the closest to verifying the movie is on it's way. The moment a press release is issued, we can delete all of them, but until now they appear valid and without motive, imo. 82.35.47.20 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor ReWrite

I edited the entire page this morning for content and consistent formatting and punctuation. I removed unnecessary duplicate hyperlinks and first names and ensured that naming conventions and punctuation were consistent throughout. I also removed quite a bit of unnecessary text. Please try and be consistent and mindful of the style when editing this article. Lastly, I also copy/pasted the page to my userpage in case it is deleted due to WP:NF so that it can be recreated later and the text can be reinserted into the TV series article meanwhile (it had been removed under the incorrect assumption that it was copy pasted from the film article; the opposite is true). Broooooooce (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be deleted just like that, there would be an AfD debate, just don't add the runtime, that just serves as provocation to deletionists who want to eradicate all future film articles. What are you basing that on anyway? It could just as easily be 70min as 200min. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On IMDB, the film has an estimated run-time of 100 minutes. I know that it's mostly BS because the script apparently hasn't been written yet, but it could be an indication of what they are aiming for and it is sourced and is noted to be an "estimate". If you think it's a better idea to leave it off, then I have no problem with that. Thanks for keeping such a close eye on the AD film article :) Broooooooce (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't trust IMDb with that stuff, who knows why it says that, to take my best guess; IMDb's program needs to include runtime and if one isn't entered it default goes to 100min? Anyways, as I said, it serves to feed those who'd (somewhat rightfully so) wish to delete the article, just like it would feed them if the article kept repeating the phrases "has been rumored" and "might be" or "seems to be". Though, I think we could expand it into a decent article. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and agree. Good lookin' out. Broooooooce (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be series's? As there is one series rather than that being plural? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, I'll look into it. Broooooooce (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/possnouns.html: "If a singular common noun ends in s, add 's—unless the next word begins with s. If the next word begins with s, add an apostrophe only. (This includes words with s and sh sounds.)

• The boss's temper was legendary among his employees.
• The boss' sister was even meaner.
• The witness's version of the story has several inconsistencies.
• The witness' story did not match the events recorded on tape."

Looks like you were right. Broooooooce (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A detailed discussion on the Wikipedia policy can be found at Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.22s.22_or_.22z.22_sound. Alan smithee (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so I guess both are acceptable, I always add an extra 's' to singular nouns, but I have no prejudice against the other way and in this case series's or series' doesn't really matter, in fact the latter might sound slightly better. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Where are the refs for all the quotes? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first, next to last, and last paragraphs, they are noted -- these are paragraphs that I collected, wrote, and sourced. The other quotes in the article came from the AD TV article which someone else moved over here and their sources are mostly mentioned within the paragraphs that contain them. For example: In the Olberman/MSNBC paragraph, the quotes came from the show (apparently). The 2nd and 5th paragraphs aren't properly sourced and I will try and find the means by which they were obtained. Broooooooce (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec} Well, all quotes should have a ref after them, even if it means using the same ref in one paragraph; "It's up to Mitch.", "It's something we're very interested in doing, but only after the writer's strike, and only if the powers that be approve.", "Yeah, we're currently in talks . . ., "a round of sniffing [had] started." and "[believes] Hurwitz wants to [do the film]," all need to be sourced. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All but "It's up to Mitch" and "put the wheels in motion toward a major motion picture." are sourced. If the inline mentions of where the quote came from (TV Guide, Late Night With Conan O'Brien, etc) aren't good enough, then I suggest hunting down a link to transcripts from the shows or publications and linking them. As for the first two that definitely need citations, I will try and track them down. Broooooooce (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the sources don't exist, just that it needs to be cited directly after the quote per WP:CITE. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to enlist the help of the original authors on the TV article for help tracking down the two sources that we don't have already. I will read up on WP:CITE and try and make the article conform to stylistic guidelines. Broooooooce (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! I was looking through old revisions of the TV series article and found some sources that had somehow gotten lost! Still gotta find "it's up to Mitch" though. Broooooooce (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job! The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See: http://youtube.com/watch?v=e56-kBlYs6w for video of the actual Olberman MSNBC report. I didn't quite know how to source this so I just used the news template available at Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It doesn't link to anything, but I don't see how it can because I couldn't find a text transcript anywhere. Broooooooce (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that one, it is possible to use "cite episode" to cite the actual report, not sure if that's what you did, just don't link to Youtube, it's a copyright violation, I guess you know that, I've left a bunch of sources below, see if any of them are usable. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as you were editing this page, I found that on the template page and was in the process of using it for the Conan quote, I also found a site with video of the quote http://tv.popcrunch.com/will-arnett-on-february-25-conan-obrien-video/. I'm not sure if I should start an external link section at the bottom and add this link as I'm unsure of whether it would infringe on copyright. I knew better than to add the youtube video ;) Broooooooce (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're allowed to add a link to any site that infringes copyright, the one you linked seems to do so, though I could of course be wrong. It's better not to link to it at all, and you don't need to link to it to use it as a source, it's the same thing as with citing a book, the book just needs to verify what is said in the article and editor's are not obliged to make every source accessible to the reader. But by all means make an external link section. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

AH, you've edit conflicted me again =0

Here are a bunch: [9][10] [11][12] [13] [14] I know that some of them might already be in the article, but hey, it's a start, personally I like to use the WP:CITET templates, as they format the stuff for you, and I think that </references> should be substituted with {{reflist}}. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it! Everything is cited properly (at least so far as I can see). Couldn't have gotten the last of it without one of your sources, and another couple provided me with new content for the article. Thanks. Broooooooce (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, accessdate just means when the ref was added to the article, so all accessdates today should be 2008-04-13. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just pasted the references from the old revision of the AD TV article, I didn't even look at that ;) Broooooooce (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see, I thought that you found the dates in the actual sources, very well, oh and when you don't have all the fields filled out, just remove them from the citation templates, not a major thing, but it saves some room and bytes. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Right on, and don't hesitate to give me advice as I am new to all of this and have learned a great deal already just from this article! BTW: I like the two column reflist. Broooooooce (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ABOVE IS THE TALK PAGE FROM THE MERGED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (FILM) ARTICLE AND THE DISCUSSION ABOVE RELATES TO THAT ARTICLE RATHER THAN THIS ONE