Talk:Freaks and Geeks

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

The introduction[edit]

I think there needs to be a re-write of the introduction. It's more of a summary of the series rather then a summary of the contents of the article.--Fredrickson.Leah (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what was planned?[edit]

The eighteenth episode ends with summer vacation after junior year. It seems like too-pat an ending for the series unless it was known in advance that this would be the end. Was there enough notice of the cancellation that they rewrote the end? Also, has it ever been disclosed what was planned for the characters next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.181.180 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the entire undeclared and on section[edit]

If people want to know what the actors or the producer did after the show, they can consult each person's specific profile. No need to clutter up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.142.220 (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree we should keep it. It helps people look more into what the actors are doing now which is great. 69.118.112.57 (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.215.201 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree too - we should keep it. It's useful information relevent to the Freaks and Geeks world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.10.228 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

freaks[edit]

Can someone give more information about the movie the article talks about? Is there even a movie planned? I haven't seen anything else about this anywhere.

Nothinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Freaks_and_Geeks What links here in this article explains what the show is about. Well rather, what the show's title means. I've heard the expression. I don't know it means. That's why I searched it. Any input is appreciated.

(Even though you won't read this:) That'll be worked on. But then, what's the doubt? There's a group of geeks. Nerds. There's a group of freaks. Burn-outs. The show centers on them. Not too strange. Anywho, I'll be working on making the actual content of the show clearer sometime soon.Zeppocity 20:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters[edit]

I'm removing the character list for now. It makes the article rather clumsy and just looks plain ugly, besides being itself somewhat long-winded. I'll either work the cast credits into the article or reintroduce the section in a better form later, but for now, it's out. Any comments on this?, go ahead. For reference:

Characters[edit]

Regular Cast[edit]

The Weir Family[edit]

Lindsay Weir : Linda Cardellini

Sam Weir : John Francis Daley

Jean Weir : Becky Ann Baker

Harold Weir : Joe Flaherty

The Freaks[edit]

Daniel Desario : James Franco

Kim Kelly : Busy Phillips

Nick Andopolis : Jason Segel

Ken Miller : Seth Rogen

The Geeks[edit]

Neal Schweiber : Samm Levine

Bill Haverchuck : Martin Starr

Recurring Characters[edit]

McKinley High Faculty[edit]

Jeff Rosso : Dave "Gruber" Allen

Frank Kowcheski : Steve Bannos

Coach Ben Fredricks : Thomas F. Wilson

Hector Lacovara : Trace Beaulieu

McKinley Students[edit]

Gordon Crisp : Jerry Messing

Cindy Sanders : Natasha Melnick

Harris Trinsky : Stephen Lea Sheppard

Millie Kentner : Sarah Hagan

Alan White : Chauncey Leopardi

Vicki Appleby : Joanna Garcia

Family Members[edit]

Cookie Kelly : Ann Dowd

Dr. Vic Schweiber : Sam McMurray

Gloria Haverchuck : Claudia Christian

Other Notables[edit]

Eli : Ben Foster

Sean : Shaun Weiss

Howie Gelfand : Jason Schwartzman

Agent Meara : Ben Stiller

His Zepponess

Just want to add that Samaire Armstrong is in two episodes, not one. O0drogue0o (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Song list to separate page[edit]

The "complete list" of songs should probably go in a separate article (whose title begins with "List of"), sort of like List of guests on The Majority Report was split off from The Majority Report (for example). - dcljr (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this; as of now, the list of songs is 3/4 of the article about the show. I don't personally think you need it at all but, if you do, it should be its own page, with a short sentence on the main page about how important the music was to the show (as evident by the creators' insistence of preserving the soundtrack on the DVD), and perhaps citing the Who episode and/or the Billy Joel one (which is to say, every song in those episodes is those artists).
ThatGuamGuy 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)[reply]
I am the user who has created that section and I'm planning on making it a lot more extensive (adding the album each song was originally found on, updating the format so it's a little easier on the eyes, etc.) and it is indeed a little ridiculous to have it take up so much space, so I'm going to move it to its own page in a few moments. Pele Merengue 05:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameos[edit]

Are all of the guest stars listed in the "Guest Stars and Cameo Appearances" actually uncredited? I'm pretty sure Schwartzman, Hodgson, and David Koechner are all credited at the top of the show. Mseyers 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to say everybody listed in that section is credited with their appearance, but I'm not 100% sure on Feig (but why list him and not the other writers in the same scene?).

A link for "affluent"[edit]

Are you serious?

Age of actors[edit]

I just deleted an intro sentence under the "characters" heading that said something like, "Unlike other shows depicting high schoolers, most of the actors in Freaks and Geeks were about the same age as the characters they portrayed. For instance, John Francis Daley was the same age as the high school freshman he played."

I deleted it because I know that the show's other star, Linda Cardellini, was at least 7 years older than the high schooler she portrayed. If someone wants to assert that F&G used more young actors than most other shows, I think a hell of a lot more research needs to be done to back the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark dittmer (talk • contribs) 06:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if people would discuss their edits[edit]

Making assertions in edit summaries is not a substitute for discussion. I would highly recommend pursuing the discuss phase of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text has been removed because it is speculative trivia. It is also unreferenced, and it is not in line with the standard expected of television articles. We're not here to speculate as to the location; that is more appropriate for a fan site. --Ckatzchatspy 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? Many of the items you describe as 'speculative trivia' come directly from the show or the DVD commentaries. To give one example (don't worry, we will go through them all, one by one), you removed this: In Episode 18, Lindsay Weir is asked to participate in the "Academic Summit" at the University of Michigan. In what way is that speculative? Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ways to edit Wikipedia: engage in a consensus building process, or edit-war. So far it looks like you are following the latter course. If you are truly interested in working on this article, that will mean working with other editors by actually engaging in discussion, not simply asserting that you are correct. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, please don't make aggressive accusations that have no bearing in fact, and that do not help to foster a positive atmosphere for discussion. Simply put, Wikipedia articles are not a repository for trivial details about shows. The text at present already makes the point about connections to Detroit, although it is lacking references for all of the claims. The removed text does nothing to advance that, other than to list still more examples of local references and to add speculation as to intent. Even if the DVD commentary mentions each and every one of these details (which would have to be cited, of course) they do nothing to advance an encyclopedic treatment of the series beyond what the text already states. Look, I'm not knocking the show orthe location. I could easily add dozens of local references to the Stargate articles, given that those series were shot in my part of the world. However, again, it would just be trivia. Even as it is now, we really need some indication as to if Feig intentional directed the mentions to be included, or if it was the writing staff, or the crew, or whatever. That would help to make it more relevant. --Ckatzchatspy 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after another look, I do like what you've left, although it probably could use some stuff about why the setting was so important to the shows creators and some of the difficulties involved in trying to make the show look like it took place in Michigan. For example they talk about lighting and filming to try to make it look gray Michigan instead of sunny California, etc.... I'll have to find some time to listen to the commentaries again to refresh my memory and see what I can find that might be worth adding. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they speak to that issue, it would be a good addition as it would help bolster the "out-of-universe" treatment we need. Does Feig make comments like "I go out of my way to slip in places that were special to me" (or anything along those lines)? Anything about why he chooses certain places? --Ckatzchatspy 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes he goes into great detail about some of that stuff.... but there are 29 hours of commentaries! It might take me awhile find the relevant bits, since he talks about it a lot, it's spread out all over. Dlabtot (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

--Lexein (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Acclaim" section, put here for discussion[edit]

This section was added to the article 01:13, 11 April 2013‎ by 184.148.25.42:

==Acclaim==
Tara Bennett: For someone who loves and respects TV as much as I do, this is the Sophiest of Choices to make. Even with all of the series I've watched, there are some classics I missed or I'm behind on (The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men) or some I just don't get and thus am subjectively out of the loop. Also, do you qualify this as the show that impacted TV the most, or the show that never faltered in quality from beginning to end? I'm going to go with the latter as my arbiter and from there still dither with anxiety because I have a few perfect shows that I've watched from top to bottom. Sigh, with that I'll commit to Freaks & Geeks. It's one of the most honest, well written, nuanced series ever about growing up. It used a cast that was age appropriate and all uniquely talented and real. I was heartbroken when it was over. Close second, Pushing Daisies. It had a brief, colorful life but it never fell short in its entire run.

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official website[edit]

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://nbc.com/freaksandgeeks/ seemed to be the official website but I can't find any good archives of the page yet WhisperToMe (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fannish edit[edit]

Sorry, User:Dlabtot — I thought you were the original editor. Here is the edit:

Many people refer to this show as a "cult classic" and were devastated by it's abrupt cancellation.[1] In 2014, Seth Rogen famously confronted the man behind the cancellation of "Freaks and Geeks" and asked him why he chose to let the show go. This all happened backstage of "Saturday Night Live" where Rogen stated that the executive was just a "rich kid" and that he didn't understand the basis of the hit show. [2]

First off, the cited source for "Many people refer to this show as a 'cult classic' and were devastated by it's abrupt cancellation." is completely false and dishonest — nothing of the sort appears at that page of TVSeriesFinale.com.

Aside from the poor grammar of the misspelled "its," terms like "devastated" are hyperbolic and non-encyclopedic WP:TONE. No one was "devastated," and it's non-notable to say fans who liked a show were disappointed by its being canceled.

Saying Rogen "famously" did something is WP:PEACOCK. "This all happened backstage of [sic] Saturday Night Live" is inappropriately conversational tone. Aside from the fact that the passage simply consists of Rogen insulting someone whom he believes canceled the show, it's also falsely cited: Rogen never used the term "rich kid," Time does not use the term "hit show" — I loved it, too, but it wasn't a hit — and since the Time article names the executive, we need to do that as well rather than having a passage that reads like some tabloid.

The entire thing could be trimmed to: "After the show's cancelation, Rogen confronted NBC executive Garth Ancier backstage at Saturday Night Live to express his disagreement with the decision."

I'm wondering if you can see my point after this analysis.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Freaks and Geeks - canceled TV shows - TV Series Finale". 2007-11-11. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  2. ^ Dockterman, Eliana. "Seth Rogen Confronted the Guy Who Canceled Freaks and Geeks". TIME.com. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freaks_and_Geeks&oldid=1207294059"