Talk:Smash (TV series)

Recurring characters

i suggest we make the recurring characters section recurring and guest, so we can add back in bernedette peters, grace gummer, and nick jonas(who is recurring because hell be in the finale.)Caringtype1 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to necessarily do that, we can indicate the guest artist on the particular episode page. Some show pages seem to have a guest list and others don't. But if it's decided to do it, I think a paragraph indicating more known guest artists would probably be enough. Ducold (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cameos

I'm deleting Annaleigh Ashford from the section titled "Cameos" as her appearance does not meet Wikipedia's definition for a cameo:

"A cameo role or cameo appearance (often shortened to just cameo; English pronunciation: /ˈkæmioʊ/) is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television, often appearing as themselves."

While Ms. Ashford may be a fine actress, she is not well-known. Smash is noted for featuring cameos by well-known Broadway figures playing themselves. We should keep this section to include only examples of those.

Dr Hugo Z Hackenbush (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I know who AA is, but i don't know a single other cameo, so..Caringtype1 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

cable roadblock

February 2012; Robert Greenblatt, Chairman of NBC Entertainment: NBCUniversal cable networks are joining forces to create a formidable “cable roadblock” to promote NBC’s musical drama “Smash (TV series)” from 12 a.m.-1 a.m. (ET/PT) The participating networks include USA (network), Bravo (network), Style (network), Oxygen (network), G4 and mun2, which will re-broadcast the series premiere of “Smash” from 12 a.m.-1 a.m. (ET/PT). E! will air the first episode from 12:30 a.m.-1:30 a.m. (ET/PT), while Universal HD and Cloo will carry the drama at 12 a.m. ET/9 p.m. PT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.148.253 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Buzzfeed "Smash biggest train wreck" article

I removed the recent additions by Daniel Case that quoted from the Buzzfeed article http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/how-smash-became-tvs-biggest-train-wreck%7Cnewspaper ("How Smash Became TV's Biggest Trainwreck") on problems behind the scenes of the show. The issue I took with it is that it was full of anonymous sources that talked smack about Rebeck and some others (but mostly Rebeck) and seemed to border or actually cross the line on slandering real people that Wikipedia frowns on. Now I'm wondering, was that the right thing to do or am I mistaken on what Wikipedia's policy is and how the other editors feel about such things? Plus I removed the Buzzfeed reference to Greenblatt producing the 9 to 5 musical in the 80s because it wasn't particularly relevant and the wrong time line was given (it was 2008). Ducold (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I will restore it, and advise you not to revert. BuzzFeed is, as far as I know, considered a reliable source. The fact that a lot of people they talked to chose not to use their names is really, as far as I'm concerned, moot—since BuzzFeed ran the story, they're the ones putting their editorial credibility on the line, not us. We have many times used articles from reliable sources that relied heavily on anonymous sources. The point of having a reliable sources policy is that we can assume good faith about those sources and rely by extension on their fact-checking and verification procedures as long as they have not been found to be seriously lacking and/or stop being generally accepted as such. They do the original research; we just aggregate it.

It does not matter that the BuzzFeed article has a lot of sources with a point of view. That's life. Real people have points of view. We have to include their points of view, with proper attribution of course, if we want to fulfill our mission of producing an encyclopedia.

The real world is not Wikipedia. We cannot, and do not, impose our own editorial policies on our sources. We are a tertiary source that relies primarily on secondary sources. The editorial filtration is more stringent the further you go down the chain from primary to tertiary; the system would not work otherwise.

(Stentorian mode off). More specifically, I added that bit about Greenblatt having produced 9 to 5 because it's very encyclopedic and relevant that a network executive who initiated a TV series about putting on a Broadway musical had himself produced a Broadway musical. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should stay off. because its not needed, it adds no new, revenant information. Its just irrelevant, most likely untrue, garbage. i'd advise not to re-add, it will be removed.Caringtype1 (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire. It's always encyclopedic to know about backstage production difficulties on a TV show or movie, especially when they have an impact on the final production; we have stuff about this in our articles about Apocalypse Now and Blade Runner.

Aurthur's article was linked from sources whose reliability we do not doubt (Huffington Post and The Daily Beast. Here, HuffPost's news editor admits that while the BuzzFeed story relies heavily on anonymous sources, "it seems to be accurate." I can't find any instance of anyone casting serious doubt on it, and it has become widely discussed.

It's not within our ambit to decide whether or not a story reliably reported is "likely untrue" or not and thus exclude it from an article. We have kept covering the allegations that a sitting U.S. Senator had sex with foreign prostitutes even as the story around them has changed from "possibly credible" to "apparently manufactured." Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I have added Rebeck's perspective on this as well, from another interview. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a better understanding now thanks; I appreciate the input. I have changed the title of the Production section that talks about this to "Production controversy", but I'm not sure that's really the right phrase. I do think that section title should be something more than a bland "Production" since it talks about some major issues the show had with Rebeck. Any thoughts? Update: I changed the title back to "Production" for now until there can be some feedback about it. Ducold (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. How about "Production difficulties" or "first season production difficulties"? Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is noting more than un-encyclopedic gossip that adds nothing of value to readers.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been accepted as credible and largely accurate by other reliable sources. No one has seriously come forth to challenge it. Calling it "unencyclopedic gossip" doesn't make it so. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But what does it add that the reader needs to know about this series. Nothing, absolutely nothing.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why some plotlines and characters took on unusual prominence early in the series. Why it suffered such a serious drop in quality from the pilot to the regular episodes. Why it became popular as "hatewatching" material—more popular, it would seem, than the retooled series has been. These connections are made in the article and reiterated here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical Success

I have an issue with the article saying the show had enjoyed critical success. It hasn't. The original showrunner left, the second season has had bad ratings, and now, the show is on saturdays, probably being canceled. Why are we pretending this is a good show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.202.141 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse ratings success (or lack thereof) with critical success. Also, you can quibble about "success" as quite a few critics slammed it for its first season as the season went along. However, the first 4 episodes, especially the pilot got a lot of praise and it won some awards and got several nominations, including an Emmy for Choreography, so I would think that would qualify for at least some critical success. To completely dismiss all that seems weird. I would say come to a consensus on how "much" success you want to call it and then call it a day. Ducold (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything Ducold said, "success" can be defined differently, and in some ways the series has succeeded, and not in others. But in that same paragraph, we go on to mention several awards the series has been nominated for, so the critical success is backed up right there.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Unsigned. Per the "Critical Success" section of the Smash article: "The pilot of Smash received overwhelming positive reviews from television critics, but the critical response was less positive as the season progressed." The section doesn't mention that the Metacritic score dropped lower for season 2. Saying Smash has "enjoyed critical success" rather than "some critical success" is editorializing, especially in light of all the hate-watching by critics. Let the awards speak for themselves. Lzhhu (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we list the songs in this musical series?

I'm imagining listing songs by episode with characters/performers. I think Glee did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120302135719/http://www.tv3.se:80/program/smash-1 to http://www.tv3.se/program/smash-1

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The story of season two was horrible...

I don't know how to put this into the article because most of what I've found on the subject is opinion pieces, but the story of season two was absolute crap. Eric Cable  !  Talk  20:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)