Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Should the short character bios still be there?

I understand the reasons for adding the character bios back into the main page, but I'm still not convinced if they're really that helpful for the page. They still take a good deal of page space, esp. with the added pictures too! I'm still voting to take them out and just provide links to the characters on their seperate page. I prefer neat pages then extra long pages that try to cover everything. --LifeStar 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point. But I really dont know how top address this. -- Psi edit 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how the other major editors want to deal with this. I took out the bios a while ago and created a seperate bio page for this reason. It had been suggested in previous discussions so I just went and did it one day. I forgot who wanted to add them back, but I didn't fight it just so I can see how it'll turn out. If no one objects, I'm thinking of removing the bios again and let people see how does the page look after that. The page looks great already with Drat's edits and info on the production of the series. I personally feel this can make up for the bios and validate that info being on its own seperate page. --LifeStar 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the short character bios' are a tad redundant at the moment. They give little information, and so I think a box with links to the major individual bio pages would make for a more coherent structure - Welshy 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the bios, but explicitly noting elsewhere, particularly in a non-spoiler section of the article, that the show's humor derives in large part from the various eccentricities of the main characters (in addition to the elements of parody of pre-existing material). -- TKD

All right, I took out the bios and put down links to the characters page. I do agree with Dr. B that the season summaries could be shorten, but those I can justify for being longer as long as they describe the main plots well for each season. There are some contributors who have been adding in misc. info to these pages (another reason why I wanted to take out the bios) thinking that they're helping make the page look better. Problem is these people aren't looking to the other links to this main page. This was a major reason why I went and created that seperate character page. There were endless edits to this main page b/c people were debating about armor color on it! Come on people! --LifeStar 15:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, whoah, wait a minute - Why are we compleatly eliminating the character summeries? If we have one or two short sentances, I don't see how it hurts the article. Redundancy? No. It gives a basic outline of the charachter so those who want to quickly find out who they are can just look without going elsewhere. The minor, one or two episode charachters we could probably do without summeries for, but we should not just get rid of the summeries all together.Dr. B 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea is to keep the main page uncluttered. The problem with even short bios is that, with 21 characters at one or two sentences each, the text quickly adds up. Perhaps, as a middle ground, we could only describe the truly core characters of the series. Who these are exactly is debatable to some extent, but a minimal assessment, in my opinion, would be the Red and Blue team members who have been integral since Season 1 (as presented in the Season 1 DVD intro): Sarge, Simmons, Grif, Donut, Church, Tucker, Caboose, and Tex; you could make a strong argument for Lopez and Doc being major characters, too. If we then leave out the bios (at least on the main page) for the others, that would save space significantly. -- TKD 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly be in favor of putting the short bios back in, in one form or another. I think that they were very helpful for non-fans who just wanted a quick overview of the characters without reading through the full character description. Joylock 12:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC).

OK, I restored the eight character bios I listed above and added a short introductory paragraph, just to see how it looks. Feel free to add Doc/Lopez/O'Malley in as major characters (reword the introduction if you do). The point that Joylock made is valid. It might even be better if the main eight (or so) are briefly introduced in prose (not list) format in the main article, and the lesser characters left completely to the characters page. It's not as if the casual reader needs to know about Wyoming or Vic as much as, say, Church or Simmons. -- TKD 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I added O'Mally (and only O'Mally) as he is the true villan of the series, and starting with season 2, takes a very large role in what happens. (Sorry, forgot to sign)Dr. B 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little iffy about adding back O'Mally, but I'm okay with it for now. Thing is that O'Mally hasn't been mentioned or seen for the whole 4th season so far (same goes for Lopez). I'm starting to wonder whether Season 4 will have a twist at the end where those two characters will pop up again. --LifeStar 14:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the RT crew has said that Lopez will be coming back some time in Season 4. -- TKD 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also OK with O'Malley being in there for now, although if the section is rewritten in prose (I think it should eventually be), I think I would prefer to stick to the main eight. -- TKD 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Production Section

Does anyone think that the "production" section of the article is enough to warrent its' own page? It seems a tad lengthy for a seemingly introduction to RvB? I don't know, just something I thought I'd bring up to try and stream-line the page - Welshy 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Granted, it's my opinion, but I do not like having to visit five, six, seven different articles on the one main subject, when it is reasonable to have it in one place. That's why I combined all the individual articles on enemies from Doom into Doom enemies. Of course, when a section gets REALLY long, it's a good idea to split it. The RvB character page and episode guides are good examples. But let's not go overboard with splitting things up. By the way, the reason I added the bit about the special RvB content included with Halo 2 is to illustrate the popularity of the show.--Drat (Talk) 01:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that something should be there for the charachters. What we need to shorten is the Season summeries. We need to find some places where they can be cut down. Dr. B 06:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well how about replacing the rather lengthy paragraphs we have now, with the teaser paragraph from the back of the DVDs? I have the S3 DVD, but I'm sure we could dig up the others. What do you think? - Welshy 13:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The writing style of that text isn't encyclopedic, and probably wouldn't make as much sense with the rest of the article. The current plot summary could just probably be condensed a bit further, especially since we have full-blown episode summaries for the curious. -- TKD 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, (belatedly) throwing in my two cents on the production section as a separate article issue: No, for right now, I don't think that it warrants a separate article as it stands right now. However, I do see two major sections missing from this article that would be of interest to the casual reader, and that would probably be necessary to elevate the article to feature quality: Something about RvB's inception and early history (some of that information already is in the Rooster Teeth Productions and Michael Burns articles, but it could probably be fleshed out more—e.g., the series was originally only supposed to be 6-8 episodes), and the series' critical reception (could possibly be combined with the Impact section). I'd be up for writing these when I have time, but no guarantees as to when that'll be. If someone wants to do it before I can, here are some links to articles on and reviews of RvB: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (One of those links does provide a basis for inclusion of the "common" criticism that RvB runs out of steam, which would be something that we would probably want to mention for NPOV correctness.) After we have most of the content up, we can get a better feel of what, if anything, needs to be expanded, condensed, or moved to a separate article in the interests of ideal length. -- TKD 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This Page

Considering the age of some parts of this talk page, should a new one be created to clear it up?Dr. B 06:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Done (to some extent) - Welshy 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

I removed some parts of the plot synopsis, and also reduced the size of the S1 paragraph. Hope you agree with the changes - Welshy 14:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Double check the grammar, but besides that, I think it's a good condensation - LifeStar

Ok, made some slight changes to wording (thank you Thesaurus.com) along with some grammatical alterations - Welshy 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to me trying to shorten the season summeries?Dr. B 22:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would be in favor of condensing the plot summaries. In fact, taking a long-term view, I would move away from the emphasis on a season-by-season delineation and more towards a single, flowing, more concise plot summary. This doesn't have to be done right away in one big rewrite; any condensation without losing sight of the big picture would be helpful. -- TKD 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and do this (it may be a lousy attempt), and I also moved the image near the top slightly downwards, as it was compressing part of the article into on and two word lines.Dr. B 16:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was viewing at 1280x1024 resolution, so I probably missed that. Why did you eliminate the links to the episode guides, though? -- TKD 09:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, dumb move.

I thought about it some, and I'm wondering if we should cut season summeries down to just the bare minimums. Not only will this save space, but it will also prevent future seasons from taking up much room. I shortened season 1 up even more, trying to find more places where I could remove stuff. I'll try to do the same with the other seasons later.Dr. B 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think we need to cut down the season summaries much more than they already have been.--Drat (Talk) 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets compare the two right here:

• Longer Version

The delicate balance of indifference in Blood Gulch is disrupted by the introduction of new players to the "conflict". Donut enters the fray on the Red Team and manages to capture the Blue flag on his first day. Meanwhile, a rookie named Caboose arrives alongside a battle tank named Sheila, and they manage to accidentally kill Church. Upon request of the still living Blues, Blue Command hires a mercenary named Tex to help. Church briefly returns as a ghost to warn his teammates about Tex, who soon arrives and goes on the attack against the Reds. After severly injuring Donut, Tex succeeds in returning the Blue flag, but is captured. Church again appears to explain that Tex is actually his former girlfriend, whose mind is partially under the control of a psychotic artificial intelligence (AI). Church organizes a rescue mission that succeeds after some difficulties. In an attempt to keep Tex stationed in Blood Gulch so that he can attempt to remove the AI from her head, Church possesses the robot Lopez to warn the Reds of Tex's pending attack. He fails and, much to his horror, she is killed in action by Donut with a plasma grenade

• Shorter Version

The indifference at Blood Gultch is broken when each side receives a new member. Donut arrives on the Red Team, and Caboose on the blue team. Donut steals the Blue Flag, and in the ensuing chaos, Church is Team Killed by Caboose with the Blue's new Tank. In response, Tex the mercinary is hired by Blue Command to help. Though Church, as a ghost warns his teammates about her, she fights anyways, returning the flag but getting caputred. Church reveals that she is his former girlfriend, who's mind is controled by a psychotic artificial intelligence (AI). A rescue attempt then succeeds, after a fashion. Church possesses the Red's Robot Lopez, in order to stop Tex from killing the Reds so he can remove her AI. The plan fails, and Tex is killed in action by well-thrown grenade.

What is the shorter version missing that is so important it needs to stay in? Both have all the crucial plot points, but the shorter version says it in less words, taking up less space and saving room, which is something I think we can all agree to be a good thing.Dr. B 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The longer version seems, in my opinion, to flow better. Could use some minor tweaking. I used to be in favor of cshortening the plot summaries to a single section, but, having tried similar condensing with the Characters section, I'm now more inclined to say that maintaining/improving the flow of the writing should be thwe main focus. This means trimming sections if they're redundant, verbose, or awkward, but not always. -- TKD 02:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my biggest worry is as far as future seasons go. If the show goes on for a long time (which we all hope it does), then something is going to have to happen there. But if you all think it should stay the way it is for now, so be it.Dr. B 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's best to cross that bridge when we get to it. As the series grows, the level detail at which we will have to treat individual plot points in the overall story will decrease, particulary as the current story arcs become clearer. -- TKD 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Main article structure

Although we've made a lot of improvements to the RvB articles over the past few weeks to bring them closer to feature quality, it only just now occurred to me that they read like a big reference compendium. This is great for those of us already familiar with the series, but it'd be somewhat offputting to the general reader. The five detail pages that we have are great for the big knowledge dump. But, as I hinted above, I think the main page should be more oriented towards answering questions that a general reader would have. Brainstorming, in rough order of importance:

• What exactly is Red vs Blue? I think this is answered well already.
• What makes it important/notable? This is covered briefly, but I think that it should be answered more directly in the header section. The first-time reader isn't going to care so much that RvB uses Marathon 2, or that it uses the Coagulation map, or that The Codex is a rival of sorts. Now, the fact that it's been featured in Xbox demos and in numerous film festivals and gaming magazines is much more interesting. The fact that it has been credited with helping to move machinima towards the mainstream should be mentioned here too. Later on in the article, more details can be mentioned, of course, but this needs to be succinctly answered up front.
• What is it about? Plot and characters here, but in not too much detail.
• How did it get started?
• How is it made/distributed? We're probably pretty good here in terms of content.
• What do others think about it?

I'm thinking the final article should look something like this, in outline form:

1. (Intro)
2. Plot (see episode guides for more detail)
3. Characters (see characters article for more detail)
4. Background
5. Production and distribution
6. Impact and critical reception
7. See also
8. References
9. External links

Thoughts? -- TKD 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As far as the 'How did it get started'?, I wrote up a version of the history that is listed on the RT website, and provided a link.Dr. B 06:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points! Our detailed pages provide more than enough info for the hardcore fan, plus the typical vandal probably wouldn't have the patience to go to these detailed pages and constantly modify them as they would for the main page. Sorry, CVU part of me speaking again!

Either case, I like your ideas, question is how are we gonna do this? I only know the basic info. on how the series got started, but not the indepth knowledge that Drat seems to know. Should we nominate someone to do the actual write-up and then let the rest of us do fine-tuning if needed? --LifeStar 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I provided a bunch of links above (in my response to the Production section). I'll also listen again to some of the DVD audio commentary this weekend. Unless someone else wants to do it, I'll try to flesh out at least the Background section this weekend, possibly more. Keep in mind that it's not as if everything has to be done in one fell swoop, or by one editor; that's the beauty of Wikipedia. When we add stuff, though, we need to cite it, especially for the "Impact and critical reception" section.

As for the vandalism bit, I've had to revert nonsense on the Characters article as well as in the episode guides in the past, so I don't think that being a auuxiliary or main article matters too much. I actually don't think the problem with the set of RvB pages is as much bad-faith vandalism as it is people adding in irrelevant, poorly worded, or redundant details. It's a bit annoying, but, given RvB's popularity, it might be a fact of life. TKD 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what TKD is talking about is rearranging the information that is already up, Lifestar.Dr. B 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "rearranging". To clarify, I didn't mean that we needed more auxiliary articles. We should be fine with the Characters article and the ones for each season. My main motivation in planning out the above was to try to conceive a more logical structure for this main article. It will involve some condensation of existing text, and a little moving around of text within this article, but not too much. The big task will be to add the missing material. -- TKD 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so people know, most of the "indepth" knowledge I have comes partially from the links I referenced in my big edit a few weeks back, and the fact I've been watching machinima for about six years now. I started around about late 1999/early 2000, during the decline of Quake movies, which were, in a sense, the "classic" period of machinima. I don't have any of the RvB DVDs to draw info from. By the way, can anyone think of improvements for the machinima infobox?--Drat (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a very minor typo in the template usage, but, other than that, not off the top of my head. -- TKD 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My first round of edits is done. I added in a Background section (which, in retrospect, could probably exanded to include how the others got involved in the project) and rearranged the article so that "why RvB is notable" is in the intro. I also felt the need to explain RvB's nature a bit more, hence the absurdist parody bit. I also deleted the Trivia section, which, if anyone wants to resurrect, could probably be better incorporated into the Characters page. -- TKD 12:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the bit about RvB getting more mainstream popularity for machinima? But incredible work! I'd say give it another week at most before requesting peer review for featured status. I'm going to break out the old microphone (read: old monitor with internal microphone) tomorrow, and try my hand at a spoken version.--Drat (Talk) 12:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch regarding that mainstream popularity bit. Must've gotten cut and never pasted in the adition of new material. I've added it back into the opening paragraph. -- TKD 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of editing the entire article, but nothing drastic. Just the little things like trying to avoid using the word "series" in two consecutive sentences, keeping the whole article consistent with what characters have been linked, making sure that season summary events make sense, etc. Viewdrix January 8th, 2006

I took care of one instance in the intro. -- TKD 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits look generally good. Just out of curiosity, do you have a source for "50 more episodes" after 50? I don't disbelieve you, and I imagine it was somewhere on the official site, but knowing where it was said would be good. -- TKD 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I could've sworn Burnie said something along the lines of "Here's to 50 more" at the end of the news post for the release of 50. Aparently not. [11] I'll remove it. Viewdix January 8th, 2006

Might have been thinking of the thread [12]in the Sponsor forum, where another member responded with "Here's to another 50 more episodes!"? -- TKD 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha! That'd be it. Readd it if you think it's a credible source in it's context or anything...not that the same thing in a news post would be any different. I'm, just having second thoughts. Viewdrix January 9th, 2006

I definitely don't think it's credible, as it was just another member saying that, and not Burnie. In any case, I think the central point of that paragraph, that RvB has grown much past initial expectations, has been made sufficiently. -- TKD 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to rewrite the characters section in prose, and it sounded incredibly and pointlessly choppy (jumping from 1-2 sentences on one character to 1-2 sentences on another character sounded unsalvageably awkward), so I left it in list format, but trimmed it down to the main eight affiliated characters. O'Malley is notable, for sure, but I don't think on the level of the Red and Blue teams. -- TKD 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I added Lopez, Sheila, Doc, and O'Malley back in, with only one short sentance each (except for O'Malley. but his "section" is still really short) under the title of "Supporting Charachters". All of them appeared on a regular basis (as in nearly every episode once their charachter was really developed). At the very least, Sheila should be back in, since although she dissapeared for a while, she's now back in the show.Dr. B 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

All right; I'm fine with the separate section for brief one-line descriptions of notable lesser characters. I just wanted to keep the focus on the main eight in the main article, and the addition in that way doesn't undermine that significantly. -- TKD 09:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added the Reception section. Structurally, we should be pretty good now. I was thinking about adding how RT originally tried using BitTorrent to the Distribution section, but that's probably not strictly necessary. If someone wants to streamline the plot summary a bit more, go ahead. The article is 33 KB right now, but some of that comes from the long URLs in the citations, so I think length is probably within a good range. It's 7:30 AM local time here, and I need to get to work in a couple of hours, so I wouldn't be surprised if what I added could use a little rewording here and there. -- TKD 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kudos on the edits TKD! The article really looks a whole lot better than before. Though I am sad about the lost of the Trivia section (I wrote that), but I agree it wasn't totally relevant to the main article. Besides that, any more suggestions on what else needs to be done to make this more featured article material? --LifeStar 15:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. To your credit, the Trivia section was interesting. It possibly could be re-incorporated into the Characters page somehow.

As for what's left, I'd say just a general read-over or three for conciseness. Some of the detail pages could use some rewording as well, but we're probably mostly there as far as the main page in concerned. -- TKD 09:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought of something. Instead of the image that I removed from the plot summary, it might be better to show a capture of an actual episode, with the black bars (and reticle, if it's from 'the Halo 1 era. DivX gives me fits with screen captures, but I might try later unless someone beats me to the punch. -- TKD 12:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if you do a screenshot, I would propose a more recent episode as the reticle has been removed in the latter episodes. I'd suggest ep. 70 when all the red and blue soldiers turn to look at Tex. It's just a whole bunch of red and blue soldiers and would literally fit with the title of the show. --LifeStar 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This look any good? [13] If it does, I have no idea how to get an image onto the site, someone else can do it. -- Viewdrix 10 January 2006

That's perfect; thanks. I've uploaded it and included it in the article. -- TKD 08:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

rvbfan userbox

I just adapted this userbox from the Doctor Who fan userbox. Template:User rvbfan. Needs work on the colours. I just picked the background at random, so change that. Can someone try making the "R" red and the "B" blue?--Drat (Talk) 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I thought that red, white, and blue on black looked best, so I went ahead with that. -- TKD 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was getting way too late, and I didn't have time to fiddle with it.--Drat (Talk) 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

couple things...

I'm not sure about the choice of image. While it shows a bunch of Reds and Blues, they aren't the Reds and Blues. I'm trying to think of other good moments for a shot, but unfortunately, my computer is very slow, making smooth playback difficult to achieve and therefore spot opportunities for shots. Also, did they use Marathon 2 for all the past stuff? I played a little of Marathon on that Aleph One port, the scenes from episodes 49/50/52 look a lot like they are right near the start of the game.--Drat (Talk) 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid point about the screenshot. I wonder if something from episode 38 (just before they leave the gulch) or episode 43 (just before the bomb goes off) might be a good group shot. As for Marathon versus Marathon 2, [14] says Marathon 2, I remember that someone changed "Marathon and Marathon 2" to just Marathon 2 somewhere in the text a while back, and I had found that information as well, so I went ahead and changed it. Could be a case of everyone citing the same incorrect source, though. Let me check the season 3 commentary around those episodes to see whether Rooster Teeth mentions which Marathon game it is. -- TKD 09:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Commentary reveals that the first shot at the end of episode 43 is from Marathon 2, and, although there wasn't 100% certainty, Gus (the old-school Bungie expert) seems to agree with you that the later shots with Gary are from Marathon 1. -- TKD 09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This [15] was the best group shot (in terms of numbers: 7) that I could find. It's from the Halo 1 era, episode 43, just before the bomb goes off. Yes, it has the reticle and all, but I don't think that's a major problem; that's how half of the series was made. The Reds split to head back to Blood Gulch shortly after Church arrives in the future, so a good group shot in the future might not be feasible with what we have now. Anyone have better ideas? -- TKD 10:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that in the second season finale, there must be one shot of all 8. Let me check. I'll bring back anything I find. -- Viewdrix 11 January 2006

Alright, this is the best shot by far of the episode, though it's missing Tucker, who's injured. [16] It does have Sheila, though. There was a shot with all these characters and Lopez, but it wasn't a good screenshot for multiple reasons. I'm holding off on submitting the good shot onto Wikipedia, though, since I was hoping for a HiRes shot, but the Rooster Teeth site is down and I can't download the video. -- Viewdrix 11 January 2006

Would it be possible to request a group pic from Rooster Teeth? I mean, they by far should be able to come up with the most kicking group pic like EVER! Sorry, I wanted to sound like Donut for a moment. Anyhows, just a thought. Either that or one of us could request a multiplayer game of halo 2 and have everyone come in dressed in the right colors. Heck, even get two people to bring in the keep and the tank and viola, instance screenshot...before the bloodbath begins... muhahahahaha --LifeStar 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I would prefer a genuine in-series screenshot. The one that Viewdrix found is fine by me. I think it's also important to show the actual letterboxing effect that the series has, since we spend a good deal of space describing the video production of the series. My, opinion, though. -- TKD 02:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded Viewdrix's latest screenshot (low-res is fine, since the size at which we shot it is smaller anyway). Note that, technically, that's not Tex in that shot; she hadn't yet returned to possess Francis Montague Zanzibar. -- TKD 09:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted additions to the Characters section and edits to season 3

I reverted the additions to the Characters section because the blurb about each character is really meant for describing each dominant personality traits/quirks. Simmons' defection to the Blues is a ilttle too new right now: It's not clear what the ramifications of it are, and it feels kind of out of place to mention a currently developing scenario in the midst of all of the other characters' "permanent" traits.

As for Church, the fact that he is a ghost and that he has possessed several other characters and robots is more of a plot element rather than a personality trait. He's pretty much the same self-centered, cynical, sarcastic Church regardless of his physical state.

Also, as for the season 3 edit, Church and Grif never leave Sidewinder until the bomb explodes. -- TKD 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Episode 71 adds a lot new info

So there are few things in ep 71 that might force some new revisions.

1. Wyoming is alive and he is running amuck in the future.

2. Was the Alien lying to the quest team the whole time?

3. Is there such thing as Red and Blue anymore in the future?

4. Do we still call this new Vic in the future, Vic, or make a seperate character entry for this Vic?

5. ...and are we ready for the onslaught of newbie edits as they try to muck up the page b/c they think it's cool to talk about Vic in the main page?

Anyhows, thoughts guys? :P --LifeStar 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Episode 71 really did open the flood gates. And, in typical RT fashion, "what" lways gets shown before "how" and "why".

1. I'm not too surprised by Wyoming's presence; everyone else on Sidewinder at the time of the explosion got blasted forward in time.
2. Good question. The entire GREAT DESTROYER storyline is mysterious right now.
3. The trailer mentions that the Red an Blue civil war was "brief".
4. He clearly states that he's a descendant of Vic. Let's keep him undr Vic until more information is revealed. What I find more confusing is that Vic made a big deal about not having had any kids because of a vasectomy (see episode 34). He could have possibly been pulling Doc's leg, but...
5. Yes. :-)

The point of the matter is that there's much more than meets the eye here. Hopefully episode 72 will shed some light. -- TKD 08:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, here's some takes I got from the episode.

1. It's been a long time coming.

2. My bet is that the alien wasn't lying, it was the ship that would save his people. But now that it's destroyed, he's gonna be pissed.

3. Probably not, Church's talk with Vic from episode 51 probably set a merging into motion which is now complete. The real question is, how exactly does the end of the war come into the plot, will Church feel the need to tell the Reds, will Simmons race back to tell Sarge since he's overheard Vic Jr. and Church (he heard Vic Jr.'s voice and complimented the impression), and, most of all, how will this allow the series to continue if both sides know the war's over? My guess? Perhaps a new army has started a war with the merged Reds and Blues? Vic Jr.'s yellow color may come into play...Also, while the trailer said that the war was brief, plenty has changed since Rooster Teeth's original plans. It was probably referring to how they planned 6 to 8 episodes. So I wouldn't use that as solid evidence. ;)

4. Just add on a line about Vic Jr. to Vic's summary and further explain on his main page.

5. Oh, God.

Wait, quick idea...what if the ship was in fact the GREAT WEAPON? Didn't Andy always refer to it as the Sword when talking specifically of it? Even if he does refer to it as the GREAT WEAPON, it may turn out he misinterpreted. -- Viewdrix 14 January 2006

The sword was the GREAT WEAPON as then Church was talking with the others through Gary that the sword would cause the building to lock down b/c it was the GREAT WEAPON. Either case, this is gonna be interesting if it is indeed a new war now and both teams are finally merged. We'll see. --LifeStar 19:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Church tells them not to take the "big glowing weapon thingy they have stored there". My guess is that Gary told him about a glowing weapon as well as the on-screen talk of the GREAT WEAPON, and Church thought they were one and the same. What this means about the GREAT WEAPON destroying the alien's race I have no idea, although, if the ship was the WEAPON, we're back at where we were before this episode when we thought for sure the sword was the GREAT WEAPON, since the sword was being used for the alien's purposes and not to destroy his culture. Anyway, this if forum talk, so I'll cut it out. -- Viewdrix 14 January 2006

I think submittal for peer review should wait until a day or so after episode 72 is available for the general public, so all can integrate new info. If nothing much cleared up or revealed by 72, submit anyway.--Drat (Talk) 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Viewdrix, i don't think that church said Glowing weapon thing, He said it was a glowing ARTIFACT <-- according to the computer. --Gladiator89 (Talk) 10:44, 20 January 2006 (GMT Central (I think))

No, he said "glowing weapon thingy" in the message he left for them in episode 49. Besides, does it matter? My point is that the sword hasn't been referred directly as the GREAT WEAPON by anyone who would know (Gary, the Alien through Andy), and I think the Banshee is the actual GREAT WEAPON. The sword just turned out to be a key. Anyway, we'll see. -- Viewdrix

Yes, we'll see. Episode 72 hopefully answer some of these questions. It may very well turn out all the stuff we assumed about the sword, the quest itself, even the alien were all totally wrong and that Rooster Teeth is just playing with our minds. At the same time, I had wondered where else can they really take the show? You can only play the Red vs Blue card so many times, and now that they've jumped 800 years in the future, and that their commands have changed drastically, I bet that the Alien's race might become the new enemy. Who knows, all speculation at this point. --LifeStar 19:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Episode 72 didn't change all that much, except that the Alien is dead. Might as well submit this for peer review within the next couple days. Its in a very good state.--Drat (Talk) 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kinda sad that the Alien is dead now. That character had grown on me, even if we didn't know what the heck he was saying, but it was still awesome to see him beat Tucker to a pulp. Poor Alien... we knew you so long, yet so little... --LifeStar 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Submitted for peer review.Dr. B 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's possidle for the alien to come back, after all, church, tex and others who have died came back. Maybe Rooster teeth don't want certain characters dead?

Pece Kocovski 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

New Episodes

Does anyone know any sites to go for the old episodes? Roosterteeth only has a limited number of old videos.

rooster teeth had a reason for making the old episodes limited, you can still get them on a weekly basis(every week they put the other old episodes). this is what they had to say:

Posted 11 months ago (2/18/05 9:48AM PST)  by matt  | Comments (87)

Rooster Teeth Productions, Red Vs Blue February 15th, 2005 Our video archives explained Over the last few days I have noticed a large number of people asking about how to see all of our archived videos, so I figured it would be a good idea to explain it for the benefit of our newer viewers. We are currently on Season 3. That entire season is up for download. Seasons One and Two are in what we call a "rolling archive". If you go to our videos section, and click on previous seasons you will see 6 different episodes from Seasons One and Two. They are up for a week, and then on each Tuesday, replaced by the next 6 episodes.

We do this to help alleviate the immense bandwidth incurred from people trying to download all 49 episodes at once, and to make sure that everyone can get the newest episodes as quickly as possible.

So there you go.

look around the messages on the redvsblue website, there's a message that clearly explins the reason, hope that helped.

Pece Kocovski 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You can get them from sites like Machinima.com and fileplanet.--Drat (Talk) 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)