Talk:Helix (TV series)

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

Cast[edit]

There are eight announced stars for the first season. Jeri Ryan as Constance Sutton is a multi-episode arc, i.e.: a guest gig. Jordan Hayes doesn't have a page; linking her to a movie in which she was cast through a redirect isn't the answer.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad they killed off 7-11. I didn't like her in Voyager, and she did terrible here. I wonder who she slept with to get this part?(if you know her track record, you know what I mean...)Presidentbalut (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast/Guest cast[edit]

Why are Jordan Hayes, Neil Napier, Meegwun Fairbrother and Catherine Lemieux listed as Guest Cast? I would like to see a source, please!Broilerroom (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user moved at least 4 actors who were announced as main cast to guest/recurring cast for some unknown reason. Encmetalhead (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the episodes available show the four above as guest stars at the beginning of the episodes; I'm not sure of the protocol for crediting episode content. I won't guess at why the producers/networks work this magic.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aired[edit]

How do we define the date aired? Episode 3 airs this Friday; it was also made available last Saturday on line. I think the answer is to show the air date as 17 Jan with a footnote about the on-line availabilithy.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say follow what Low Winter Sun has for episode 8. Encmetalhead (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aired generally refers to when the episode is broadcast live on television and not online availability. MisterShiney ✉ 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Cast[edit]

This section is getting out of hand and is unsourced. I suggest we drop recurring cast for which we have no references or that are not credited as guest stars.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy[edit]

Thing is... How do you built an enormous scientific base, with undergrounds level... on an ocean!!!! The international arctic zone is water. Frozen water, but still... water. So good luck if you want to build anything on that.

Antarctic would have been a (slightly) better idea, nope? How do you want to be credible with such ridiculously stupid error in the first 10 minutes of a show??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.208.187 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When in the story did the say they built the base on water? The Arctic is NOT water. What about Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, or all the other nations in the Arctic? What about the USA? Which is mentioned in the show(juneau)? Presidentbalut (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is valid, but include it you need to find a reliable source that has written about it. Otherwise, you would be doing original research.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "where is this base" is one of the numerous examples of the bad science in the show. A partial listing is at http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2014/01/16/syfys-helix-tired-plot-bad-science-fun/ which was written by a blogger with a PHD in Genetics.50.135.213.73 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The base is eight days away from juneau, Alaska, USA, by snowmobile. Though that could still put a considerable distance to the base and a vague location. As snowmobiles go up to 200mph, You can easily travel 9,000-20,000 miles in eight days. Perhaps they are being intentionally vague, and not simply obtuse?Presidentbalut (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also valid, but blogs are definitely not reliable sources. You need established media outlets to air your concerns. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to say that a journalist with no training in science can write an article in the NYTimes that is complete BS scientifically, and it holds more weight than a blogger with a PHD in genetics? That can't be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.213.73 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the Blog in question: "PLOS (Public Library of Science) is a nonprofit publisher and advocacy organization founded to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication." And the blogger: "Ricki Lewis is a science writer with a PhD in genetics. The author of several textbooks and thousands of articles in scientific, medical, and consumer publications, Ricki's first narrative nonfiction book, "The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It," was published by St. Martin's Press in March 2012. In addition to writing, Ricki provides genetic counseling for parents-to-be at CareNet Medical Group in Schenectady, NY and teaches "Genethics" an online course for master's degree students at the Alden March Bioethics Institute of Albany Medical Center. " Gaarmyvet, I'm sure you have good intentions, but you don't have the credibility she has on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.213.73 (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine, but next time add your citation and no one will have to add {{CN}}. The track record on the page clerarly shows that you added your citation after the requirement was stated.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody HAD to add that tag, someone CHOSE to in the time it took me to figure out how to properly cite a reference as I hadn't done it before. Glad the page's resident control freak accepts that the reference is acceptable and the tag is no longer needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.213.73 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, deal with it. They screwed up on the facts. Pointing that out is not an opinion. If they wanted to make it creepy and scary because it's plausible that it's real, they have an obligation to at least get simple verifiable facts correct. If they wanted to tell a story without worrying about that, they need to make it unmistakeable that this is in some alternate reality, which they did not bother with. 50.135.213.73 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked into the recommended format for a TV show and they do specifically warn against an errata section, and that's not itself a problem. I moved my concerns to the plot section, as these definitely seem to be plot holes and factual errors that detract from the overall story's credibility. Credibility is necessary in fiction, sci-fi is not pure fantasy, if we are to accept the "new and strange innovation" and suspend disbelief, the writers need to take some care with the verifiable and currently known facts. There are currently three clear factual errors listed, each of which has at least one and preferably two references providing correct information on the topic they got wrong. Jim in GA, if you want to avoid an edit war on this, try discussing and looking for options here rather than unilaterally scrapping other people's contributions. This page is not your private domain. 50.135.213.73 (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war are you talking about? I have never removed any of your text. Others have, but I have not. I placed the {{CN}} tag on the section, but I left your text as you wrote it. If you're in an edit war, it's with others not me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrg. Someone moved the issues into a new section titled "plot discrepancies." Jim, I accept it's not you, and I accept that the MOS discourages "Errata" sections like that. I've re-read, The MOS suggestion was to move it into the "Production" section. I'll give it a little while for folks to chime in before moving the problems out of their own section, so as to avoit someone scrapping them altogether per the MOS.50.135.213.73 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facts can be elusive things. Who says Arctic BioSystems is north of the 83rd parallel? Actually, no one. At the meeting at CDC headquarters (the episode's available at IMDb), "Major Balleseros" says north of the Arctic Circle and points at a map. There's an image here. I actually have more of an issue with the map than anything else; it's supposedly of the arctic and shows longitude and latitude as parallel lines. (God save us from prop departments.) Sarah then says, more or less, "If the lab is located north of the 83rd parallel, there's no jurisdiction." Big IF. No one else either confirms or contradicts her statement. Balleseros's next words are that Arctic BioSystems has granted them access (he doesn't say jurisdiction). The producers have warned us that the characters are unreliable narrators. Hatake later says something there being no nations or laws at the lab, but that could be posturing. You could once have said that about the American West.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HMM. There's facts, and there's deliberate misdirection/lying to the audience. Which I gather the producers are considering as options, especially during hallucination sequences (which the intro was not). But that's a lot easier to do if they first establish a little trust. The finger there seems to me to be pointing to the northern edge of Greenland, (maybe somewhere in Peary Land or near Station Nord?) which actually makes sense in some ways especially after they introduce the "local law enforcement" lady, and the thread about missing local children. The straight lines make me cringe too. I'd be willing to ratchet that back to placing the base on the northern edge of Greenland somewhere. The closest to the pole actually is just a bit shy of that 83rd parallel (it's on wikipedia, I could find that again.) and so long as the article points out that those statements are at best half-truths we could call it a day. Any ideas at all about rationalizing the magical night to day transformations? Or seeing impossible microscope images? At a certain point the whole "unreliable narrator" thing is overused, you stop believing anything anyone says.50.135.213.73 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why everyone would be speaking English then, and not Danish? Or why they thought the doctor escaped with the virus to juneau, Alaska, USA?Presidentbalut (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the day/night alternation discrepancy because it isn't. Arctic summer has a very long day and winter has a long night but nearer the spring/fall the day/night alternation is normal, reaching 12 hours each around the equinoxes. The show hasn't indicated what time of year it is happening, so this will only be a discrepancy if they later specify that it is winter or summer rather than spring or fall (at which time we'll know if the show is depicting too much day or too much night)Hanfuzzy (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanfuzzy, the day/night cycle at the polar equinoxes is best described as "twilight." You get 12 hours where the sun is either just barely above and skirting along the horizon, followed by 12 hours where it never fully sets and skirts just barely below the horizon. If 24 hours of continuous lighting conditions like the 5 minutes before and after sundown or sunrise are "normal" to you, where exactly do you live? Sorry, it remains a discrepancy. If shills in the employ of the syfy channel are going to keep taking it down, I can admit I'm getting sick of arguing about it. I miss the days when science fiction writers thought getting the science right mattered. 50.135.213.73 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If CSI doesn't have an accuracy section why does this. I'm finishing my PhD Genetics this year. This criticism is stupid. 96.127.205.168 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is CSI Sci-FI now? Last time I saw the show it had more tech than Star Trek....Presidentbalut (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are hilarious. Do you really think that producers of such shows give a shit about accuracy or plausibility? It's cargo cult science, not real science. Just show a microscope and use some technical buzz words. They throw together some elements from formerly successful ventures like Outbreak (film) or Resident Evil and hope to create something that is interesting enough. Hell ya, they choose an actress of Italian ancestry to play an Inuit girl because the stupid average American couch potato cannot tell the difference. Is all has to be unrealistic so no real world corporation may be offended and cut its advertising budget. -- 84.159.87.33 (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large change[edit]

This edit made a number of changes that don't match the ground truth:

  • Combining episode 1 and 2 into a single broadcast. Yes, thery were broadcast back-to-back, but were separated by the Day fade-in screen and are listed at syfy.com as separate episodes.
  • Re-designating guest cast as recurring cast and vice-versa.
  • Using information from IMDb (Dr. Haven was never credited with a first name of Joel).

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Episodes are supposed to be listed how they originally air, no?
  • Recurring cast on the page are credited as Co-starring in the episodes, I changed the cast list due to the Guest cast have recurring roles on the show and the Co-starring cast have a guest role appearing a limited amount of episodes TBSfan1223 (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, look again. Performers credited at the beginning are listed as "Starring" and "Guest Starring." Co-Stars are credited at the end of each episode.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why are Recurring cast listed on the page? You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Cast are credited differently on the show as opposed to the definitions of Recurring cast and Guest Starring TBSfan1223 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I cleaned up the page, moving Jeri Ryan into Guest cast as she was credited, moving Amber Goldfarb out, as she was not, and deleting the Recurring cast as these lists often become long and cumbersome.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark Ghanimé" is incorrect[edit]

There is no "é" in English. This is English Wikipedia. Therefor his name should be rendered "Mark Ghanime".Presidentbalut (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have you spell it correctly. Why don't you spell the actor 真田 広之 's name "correctly"? Because neither 真 nor 田 nor 広 nor 之 are English letters. Likewise, there is no ""é" " in English. My name also has an "Ü" in it, but it is not allowed to spell it this way in English, since "Ü" is not an English letter. It must be rendered as "E" or "EU" or "OO".

Likewise, "Mark Ghanimé" should be rendered as "Mark Ghanime" or "Mark Ghanimey" or "Mark Ghanimay".

Need I remind you that this is English wikipedia? "Heinrich" is rendered as "Henry". Wilhelm as "William". "真田 広之" as "Hiroyuki Sanada". And "Mark Ghanimé" as "Mark Ghanimey". Presidentbalut (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The series credits him as Ghanime, correct? It should be listed here, as such. If he had an article created, his name would most likely have the diacritic, as that's how they do it here. I've also seen the diacritic creation, with a tube for the series-credited name. — Wyliepedia 06:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very bizarre insistence on your part that the name must not have a diacritic, for the odd reasoning that this is the English wiki. It's a name, not a word of the English language, and beyond that I don't think there is any wiki policy stating that names cannot have diacritics on the English wiki. 184.175.41.10 (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Spelling_and_romanization not only are diacritics not opposed in names, they can be acceptable in words as well. 184.175.41.10 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Season 1 and 2[edit]

Hi Alex I did not realize you had reverted me, I thought I had accidentally deleted my 'Season 1' myself while creating a brief intro to the plot of Season 2. It probably looked very silly without a season 2 follow up. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hayes and Mark Ghanime[edit]

Someone keeps reverting the cast edits to display Jordan Hayes as a series regular and Mark Ghanime as recurring. Jordan Hayes has never been listed as starring for any episode in the series; and Mark Ghanime has been listed as starring for every episode, even for season 2, even though he has only appeared in one of the five episodes that have aired. This issue needs to be addressed. I will continue to change it until it is no longer reverted to reflect false cast information. Rcul4u998 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If they continue to revert, they will be reported for breaking the 3RR rule. It is not up to us to decide who is listed as main or recurring, this is done by the on-screen credits in the episodes. If they do not list Jordan as a series regular and they do list Mark Ghanime as recurring, they that is not how they are listed. This is all ins support of policy MOS:TVCAST. Thank you for your contributions. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused plot?[edit]

I have not seen this series, however I am confused by the statement that "The "outbreak" is revealed to have been a cover story to recruit Julia Walker as an unwitting test subject by deceiving the CDC personnel into creating an anti-viral "cure", to benefit the Ilaria Corporation's objectives". Is this correct? There was an outbreak, how could this merely be a cover story? How could "recruiting" one CDC person as a "test subject" lead to the CDC developing an "cure"? Surely a cure was already developed - and used - and a CDC response team does not have the time equipment or ability to create a "cure" in the field - that is what the Ilaria Corp does. None of the description as quoted makes any logical sense. Please tell me that this isn't an accurate summary of the plot.101.98.163.177 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a public forum to discuss your views of the series on. Please find a forum which fits your needs elsewhere. Wikipedia is a place for facts and discussion of said facts. Thanking you. Alex|The|Whovian 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's complaint is that the description doesn't make any sense. That's not a view on the series, it's a valid critique of the article. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Helix (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helix_(TV_series)&oldid=1207613722"