Tail Credits[]
Since the original tail credits are replaced by a… duplicate of "Kill Oscar"'s, can anyone vouch that these are the actual supporting cast as originally credited? The Bionic Book isn't clear, and the imdb entry is cluttered. Of course broadcast reference is ideal, but does anyone have anything on this at all? What was in the original tail credits?--Major Sloan 05:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to hear... err... read from you again Joe. Well, I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure these are not the correct credits. One of the episodes in the trilogy, off-hand... I think it's Part II, credits the character of Rawlins, who actually doesn't appear in the episode. -Karen (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Karen. Three credits: broadcast, syndication, and the truth. Syndication is just a cut-and-paste of Kill Oscar's end credits. I'm curious about the truth, of course, and IMDb plus the Bionic Book are a good beginning there. The broadcast credits is what I'm most curious about, since it was removed, and since that's usually what we base our credits on, is the original broadcast. Cue creepy music: my memory tells me… that the exact same tail credits as for The Most Dangerous Enemy were used for broadcast. Those tail credits don't have any cast information, so if you knew the credits were going to be ditched, and you didn't want to do the work, those would allow you to use credits that were "not wrong" per se, even if incomplete. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to back that up, just my creepy bionic Spidey-sense.--Major Sloan 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Belated update- the article credits now reflect the original broadcast version, available on DVD since 2010. These are not the same as those at the end of "The Most Dangerous Enemy:." This issue is now resolved.-Major Sloan (talk) 00:47, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Karen. Three credits: broadcast, syndication, and the truth. Syndication is just a cut-and-paste of Kill Oscar's end credits. I'm curious about the truth, of course, and IMDb plus the Bionic Book are a good beginning there. The broadcast credits is what I'm most curious about, since it was removed, and since that's usually what we base our credits on, is the original broadcast. Cue creepy music: my memory tells me… that the exact same tail credits as for The Most Dangerous Enemy were used for broadcast. Those tail credits don't have any cast information, so if you knew the credits were going to be ditched, and you didn't want to do the work, those would allow you to use credits that were "not wrong" per se, even if incomplete. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to back that up, just my creepy bionic Spidey-sense.--Major Sloan 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nitpicks[]
I noticed that someone on the nitpick setion stated "When Callahan is seen besides her fembot duplicate (Fembot #3) when Dr. Franklin is about to destroy his lab, we can clearly see that they're not of the same size (the Callahan Fembot is oubviously taller)". I never got the impression that was suppose to be her fembot double considering the fact that she/it was seen moments earlier wearing a blue dress and went bezerk. Also, if you look at the sleeve, it looks like 006 instead of fembot Callahan's original designation of #3. Also sorry for the large image, I just wanted to give a clear picture. Feel free to either delete it or use it elsewhere when we're done.--Agent X The Sequel 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I never though of this being the Callahan Fembot. Even if it is, it looks like the terrain is rocky, so she (it) may just be higher in elevation. Karen (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree I was wrong when I thought the Fembot holding Callahan's arm was her fembot duplicate (this Fembot is seen besides Oscar at the same time when the Callahan Fembot is luring Steve into a trap). But then, just how many Fembots there are in the Kill Oscar episodes? There's Number 1 (Katy), Number 2 (Lynda), Number 3 (Callahan), Number 4 (Oscar), Number 5 (the Fembot with short black hair), Number 6 (according to part 2, the short fembot with curly blond hair) and... another Number 6 (a tall Fembot with straight brown shoulder-length hair, seen in parts 2 and 3). So, that makes 7 Fembots... I always thought there were six of them... - User:205.151.112.72, 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I too counted 7 fembots, my guess is perhaps when the Oscar and the Lynda fembot were captured in OSI custody, maybe fembots # 5,6 and 7 moved up in numbers replacing the captured Oscar and Lynda duplicates. --Agent X The Sequel 01:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then, what could have happened to the short Fembot # 6? In part 3, she (it) seems to have completely disappear, since the only short Fembot seen in that episode is the Fembot # 3 (the Callahan duplicate, without the mask). - User:205.151.112.72, 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I always assumed the tall brunette was a reduplicated Lynda fembot. After the capture of Lynda(#2), Lynda v2.0 was enumerated as #6, and as posted above, the other numbers were moved up. There's a backup Oscar robot in stasis visible in the dummy lab in Kill Oscar part 2, so it's a plausible scenario. I guess Franklin was too cheap to retire his players' jerseys ;) - Spazmo77 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Trivia/Gaffes[]
I just noticed while watching after Steve determines Oscar is a robot, we show Franklin watching through the Oscar cam (presumably through the robot's eyes), however the camera's POV is wrong and it is somewhere on the side of Oscar's office. Also, when Steve fights the two fembots at the base, his underwear is visible as he jumps over them. TakeMeBack 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure spotting Steve's briefs rises to our admittedly loose standards (the standards, not the briefs; or they'd be falling). Either way, the two Gaffes have a section where they could go - are you testing to see if they pass muster first?-Major Sloan 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought I'd test them here first as I'm new and would rather talk about them than add them on my own and have them removed.TakeMeBack 02:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think Steve's brief appearance qualifies as a gaffe since it's a fairly natural occurrence. The camera POV has more weight as an Illusion Breaker gaffe. Also, even veteran users can have their contributions edited or deleted. It's better to simply add content to the wiki rather than establish buffers all over the place. If your stuff gets edited or deleted, it's not the end of the world, just part of the way a wiki works. And remember, if you ever feel strongly over an issue, we can always talk about it. Your admins are nothing if not reasonable. — Paul (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- If anything is worth mentioning, has anyone ever noticed that most of Jaime's bare butt can be seen for a few frames after she jumps down from a catwalk wearing her Vegas Showgirl costume during "Fembots in Las Vegas" ? How did that get past the strict television censorship of that era? Lyndsay Wagner herself commented/joked about it (or something to that effect) during the Bionic Blowout on the Sci Fi Channel... and speaking of "Bionic Blowout", do you think that deserves an article considering that it was a television event that reunites Lee and Lyndsay contributing commentaries? --Agent X The Sequel 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lindsay's dress in Brain Wash. 'Nuff said.--Major Sloan 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- If anything is worth mentioning, has anyone ever noticed that most of Jaime's bare butt can be seen for a few frames after she jumps down from a catwalk wearing her Vegas Showgirl costume during "Fembots in Las Vegas" ? How did that get past the strict television censorship of that era? Lyndsay Wagner herself commented/joked about it (or something to that effect) during the Bionic Blowout on the Sci Fi Channel... and speaking of "Bionic Blowout", do you think that deserves an article considering that it was a television event that reunites Lee and Lyndsay contributing commentaries? --Agent X The Sequel 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think Steve's brief appearance qualifies as a gaffe since it's a fairly natural occurrence. The camera POV has more weight as an Illusion Breaker gaffe. Also, even veteran users can have their contributions edited or deleted. It's better to simply add content to the wiki rather than establish buffers all over the place. If your stuff gets edited or deleted, it's not the end of the world, just part of the way a wiki works. And remember, if you ever feel strongly over an issue, we can always talk about it. Your admins are nothing if not reasonable. — Paul (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought I'd test them here first as I'm new and would rather talk about them than add them on my own and have them removed.TakeMeBack 02:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Kill Oscar (Part I)[]
Why hasn't anybody created an article for Kill Oscar (Part I)? --209.244.30.237 08:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- The format here at the Bionic Wiki adheres to onscreen credits. The episode you mention was broadcast as "Kill Oscar" without any modifying number. Fans had to get to the 50 minute mark to get suspicious: hey, there's no way they can finish this in ten minutes!
- Then, as "To Be Continued.." appears: "AAAAaaaah!" Making the title include: "Part I" Would've spoiled all that.-Major Sloan 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving out the (Part I) on the Wiki does leave room for confusion though. So I've gone ahead and created a REDIRECT for Kill Oscar (Part I). This way it will take the user directly to the Kill Oscar article. I'll also try to do it for the other multi-part episodes.
- You know Joe, the "To Be Continued" was simultaneously aggravating, because you had to wait a whole week to see the conclusion, and thrilling, because you knew there'd be more to the story. Ah, the good ol' days. Karen (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? You people only had to wait four days for part two an then 3 more days for part 3.--Agent X The Sequel 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't remember if I watched either series in their original broadcasts. So I suffered the week long wait of the syndication run. Regardless, waiting one day or one week for the conclusion still brought about the same feelings. Karen (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I too didn't discover the shows until syndication durig the mid 80s. The good thing about that is that I only had to wait three years for the first reunion movie--Agent X The Sequel 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- As an "original broadcast" guy, I can tell you that we had little benefit from the turnaround- the crossovers were very confusing as to the schedule- wait a minute are they going to show it in this slot or the other one? At least those issues were taken out of play in syndication, at the cost of some bad editing and a net loss of 1 ep for SMDM. I'd argue that TBW got the better deal in the Return of Bigfoot/ Kill Oscar trade, KO2 was one of Season 4's better eps. Had to be that way, with the 2/3 split, but HV should get it both ways ;-)
- I too didn't discover the shows until syndication durig the mid 80s. The good thing about that is that I only had to wait three years for the first reunion movie--Agent X The Sequel 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't remember if I watched either series in their original broadcasts. So I suffered the week long wait of the syndication run. Regardless, waiting one day or one week for the conclusion still brought about the same feelings. Karen (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? You people only had to wait four days for part two an then 3 more days for part 3.--Agent X The Sequel 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Watching the original broadcasts in 1976 also meant that I was 8- have you ever told an 8 year old that they can watch their show tomorrow? Might as well be a year -Major Sloan 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Summary[]
There seems to be a plot sumary from another episode attached to this one and I seem to be having trouble removing it.--Agent X 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was me. I am trying to fix the Spoiler page on A Thing of the Past, but am having great trouble. Paul doesn't know it yet, but I've got questions for him. Do you happen to know the purpose or how to use the Spoiler Template? Karen (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's okay Karen. No need to apologies ;) I suggest a purpose for the "Spoiler Template" is to give the reader an option whether to read the full detailed plot summery for an episode. Another suggestion would be use it on the character description of Carl Franklin in regards of him being a fembot er I mean robot. However I do not know how to use the Spoiler Template. --Agent X 06:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)