Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 5

Sales figures

Can anyone find concrete details of sales figures of the DVDs? And should mention be made of the merchandise they sell?--Drat (Talk) 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As part of the supposed deal with Microsoft, Rooster Teeth are not allowed to divulge what profit they make. And I don't think merchandise is necessary to mention, unless we throw it in briefly as part of the Impact section where it mentions they can profit of the series legally. -- Viewdrix 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the numbers of DVDs sold then? Can they publish that?--Drat (Talk) 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no, or at least, they never have. -- Viewdrix 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The WSJ (Delaney) article mentions that, at the time, RT was profitable despite US$150,000 in operating costs. It probably should be incorporated somewhere, but the rewording to make it flow wasn't immediately obvious to me at this early hour, and I have other things to work on at the moment. — TKD (Talk) 10:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Marathon 1 or Marathon ∞?

We know that there were two Marathon games used in filming, but throughout the forums, the concensus seems to be they were Marathon 2 and Marathon ∞ (pronounced Marathon Infinity, aka Marathon 3), not Marathon 1 and 2 as written in this article. I can't remember what the Season 3 DVD commentary says, but it was clear that they were very unsure when they were doing the commentary, and were guessing. In any case, the forums seem to be confident that they've settled the matter since the commentary was released, and that it was 2 and ∞. Can anyone look into this so we can be 100% sure, or should I just sub in ∞ for 1 anyway? -- Viewdrix 21:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certian that the maps are from Marathon 2 and Marathon Infinity. If anything else, they're both from one game or the other (considering that Marathon Infinity has time-travel as part of it's plot and re-visits some of the levels from Marathon 2)Dr. B 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you guys think it's ∞, go ahead and change it. I was going off of Gus' guess in the season 3 DVD commentary that it was the original Marathon, but he wasn't 100% sure. — TKD (Talk) 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the name of the game to 'Marathon Infinity' in the article... hope it doesn't bother. the rationale is on the game's talk page: Talk:Marathon Infinity. basically, the only place where the game is called with the '∞' symbol is in the application name. Anywhere else (ie: the manual, www.bungie.org, and most of the fan sites) it's called 'Marathon Infinity'. Yaco 16:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they redid their article to change it to Infinity after I changed it here. Thanks for checking and fixing that. -- Viewdrix 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Per the words of The Filmaker, I have gone ahead and nominated this article for featured article status. (Comments up to this point could proabably be archived) Dr. B 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I missed The Filmaker's comment, for some reason. It's probably time for FAC. In response, I just cleaned up a few loose ends by sourcing a few more things. I think archiving past discussions can probably hold off for a little longer. — TKD (Talk) 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to put something in the background section to answer Hahnchen's comment about not knowing what insperation was. Could something about them, say, playing halo and wondering why, in real life, it was called a warthog be added? I can see his point, we need to add why they choose halo. Dr. B 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I've added a bit in response to Hahnchen's concerns. — TKD (Talk) 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The page was close to 40KB, so I went ahead and did the archive. — TKD (Talk) 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this is a good question. I'm having the same problem with my Daniel Day-Lewis article in the Featured candidacy (which you guys should feel free Support or Object for me..... pwease.) you have someone who is a "Weak Oppose", you have fixed the problem stated, but the original opposer has not scratched out the comment, nor has he posted any more comments or replies. So is his "Oppose" supposed to be ignored? You fixed the problem, so there should be no reason for him to oppose it anymore. The Filmaker 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I he's yet to respond, but we've fixed the problem, I'm doubting that they'll pay attention to it when it's finally reviewed.

I had a thought about something else. I'm wondering if we should ask that, if 'Red vs Blue' does make it to featured article status (which I'm almost certian it will, seeing as we've only one weak oppose and a comment against us, and strong support/standing ovation among other things in support), should we request that 'Red vs Blue' be the featured article for April 1st? I know that's April Fool's day, but it's also the date on which RvB premeired, and if we did get it to be a featured article this April 1st, it would kind of be like a present for RvB's 3rd Birthday.

Just wondering what you think about this idea...Dr. B 03:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen changed his vote to support. There are no outstanding unaddressed objections. As for getting this featured on the Main Page, I'm not sure that April 1 is the wisest of dates for a couple of reasons: (1) April Fools jokes get played to such a large extent everywhere on Wikipedia, so it's likely to get lost in the shuffle, and (2) I think that it might be better to have this on the Main Page some time between seasons 4 and 5, as the article will be most stable then. — TKD (Talk) 15:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Edited for film festivals/Sundance, too?

Now that it's a Featured Article Canadidate, I wanted to be careful with any changes. Burnie said on one of the commentaries that they also have edited down versions for film festival showings, and used the example of how the season one edit is missing episode 15 almost entirely. I wanted to add this in, but two things stopped me: First, it should have a reference, but I don't know if it's the season oen or two commentary, and hoped I wouldn't have to listen through for it. Second, was he talking of Sundance in particular? A mention of Sundance could really give even more of an impression that RvB is somewhat important. However, I only know for certain they attended Sundance in season 3 and this year. Not sure about seasons 1 and 2, so I don't know if they've actually said that the edited down versions appear at Sundance, which would be the ideal, all-in-one comment needed. If not, an example of what film festival(s) Burnie mentions with the example of the cut down season one would work just fine. Anyone know? -- Viewdrix 21:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it's not in the season 1 commentary. But I do distinctly remember that comment somewhere, but I thought it applied to Lincoln Center showings. I could be wrong. I'll gradually listen to commentaries and see wheter I can find it, but if you find it first, go ahead and add it. — TKD (Talk) 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this might be what you're looking for: [1]. — TKD (Talk) 12:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Care to write it in yourself? It could be used as a reference, but I am too unsure of how to do that. Just put "and various film festivals" along with where it says that a third, shorter version of each season is made for the Lincoln Center, and as a second example, note how in the article Burnie notes he removes nearly an entire episode. -- Viewdrix 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally done. Just had to find time. — TKD (Talk) 12:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Soldier praise

I remember reading that some US soldiers in Iraq have praised the show, but I cannot remember where I read it. I made cursory checks of the reference material and found nothing, and google didn't turn up anything useful. If someone can find something, it should probably go in too.--Drat (Talk) 12:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Check Konow (the TwitchGuru article), page 3 or 4. It's also in the season 1 DVD commentary (where Ramsey noted that military personnel have told RT that the military humor was dead on). I've gotta jet, or I'd add it in myself. — TKD (Talk) 12:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Try this. I was specifically looking for the article including the military vehicle honourarily renamed the Chupathingy, but this'll do until then. -- Viewdrix 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I'll work on integrating that info. I also noticed in the Cult interview that they mention not knowing about machinima. That'll let me eliminate one reference link, as it will be redundant. Just means a change of quote.--Drat (Talk) 13:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll keep the gamespy interview and quote, as the one from the Cult article doesn't seem as good.--Drat (Talk) 14:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreement with Microsoft sub-section?

I wanted to get an opinion on creating a sub-section under Reception or Distribution regarding the Microsoft/Bungie agreement with Rooster Teeth. The problem is that I wish to work in information about Rooster Teeth, with exception to DVD's, only being able to sell merchandise without Halo trademarks and images on it, as well as how Microsoft has free access to all Red vs Blue footage for promotional rights, and the ability to commission Rooster Teeth in exchange for the continuation of the series. In part, this is to answer the question on the Featured Article Candidate page regarding Microsoft and Bungie profiting off the series. However, neither party has gone on record about such details (Burnie said in a Sponsor Q&A he couldn't speak about whether an agreement in detail existed), all this information in the correct wording to explain the unofficiality of it can't be worked into the Reception where the deal is mentioned now. Also, sources could either not be found, as much of this is educated guesses, or be a nightmare to find, such as digging through journals and Q&A threads (which would be a sponsor section, no doubt) for exactly where Burnie said that they couldn't put Halo images on merch. My idea is that, if introduced properly and given the right context, I could make it work without seeming speculatory. Should I do up version on my Talk page and see how it turns out? -- Viewdrix 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. It's probably better, though, if you do it on a subpage of your userpage, rather than your talk page.--Drat (Talk) 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Drat; a subpage of your User: page is the norm. However, I guess that I'm a bit skeptical that it'll work, but go ahead and try. In the end, though, I think that it'd be tough to make it properly fit the verifiability criteria; the last thing that we need at this point is {{fact}} slapped on. — TKD (Talk) 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I slept on it, and yeah, the verifiability is what's making me think that we should leave it as is, at least while being a Featured Candidate. I'll still do some work in the meantime on a rough version. -- Viewdrix 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Season summaries

I think that Andy should first be mentioned in Season 3, not 4. Problem is, I can't think how to work it in.--Drat (Talk) 06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Never responded to this, but I worked it in. I ended up having to include Gary in the summaries/supporting characters to try and explain how Andy was defused in 52, though. -- Viewdrix 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

G4 Interview

I recently dug up a video on a computer I occasionally use. It's a video of an interview G4 had with Michael Burns and Kathleen Zuelch. I must have had a copy of it sitting around for probably over a year now. I tried to find it directly on the G4 site, but had no luck. A google search for the filename turned up this link. There are insights on the use of the Halo games. There is probably more stuff that can be added. Unfortunately, it is in flash format. God I hate flash for video.--Drat (Talk) 09:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So has anyone watched the video? The performance of my ancient home PC makes it difficult to check the material. I had to record it via my headphone mike to an audio file, so I could actually jump through the recording. All I know is that the video was released around early 2005 (they mention soon using Marathon). Some interesting insights:

Disadvantages of console game

• Limited world.
• Can't introduce new content like you can with a PC game.

Advantages

• End up writing around limited world. "It's kinda fun too. Sometimes we sit around and we think 'what can we possibly do with what's in the game?'" - Burns.

Anecdotes

• People thought they saw Tex cloaked in early episodes (before episode 10), due to the use of cloaking device in the trailer. They were really seeing compression artifacts in the videos.
• RT crew got to play around with Halo 2 two weeks before launch. However, to Bungie's exasperation, they procceeded to mess around, seeing how to use it for filming, instead of actually playing it.--Drat (Talk) 08:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I watched the video, just haven't had time to do anything with it. That's a good summary. The video also explains how Zuelch got involved in the project. — TKD (Talk) 15:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I found the page for the episode. It is here. I'll try integrating the info to the articles(s). --Drat (Talk) 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just found this. It's more in-depth on Rooster Teeth.--Drat (Talk) 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Grunts

Just thought that I'd drop a note that I found out that Rooster Teeth does, in fact, refer to the Battle Creek soldiers collectively as "Grunts" (it's in the season 3 DVD, roughly around the point at which they respawn for the first time in episode 39). I've worked this into the relevant places. Feel free to reword if the changes introduced awkwardness in the prose. — TKD (Talk) 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured!

All I can say is YEAH!--Drat (Talk) 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool. So, will it ever be on the main page? I'm a bit unfamiliar with this aspect of Wikipedia. --OGoncho 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WOOHOO! Celebrate! *Passes around drinks* I'm going to go make a thing we can use for when it gets put on the main page! Good work everyone! Dr. B 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a possible box we can put on the featured article request page. Take a look and tell me what you think.Dr. B 07:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. You should probably make the canonical name link to the article name though, instead of going through a redirect. You can add new requests here. I've fired off an email about the Featured status to the RvB guys. By the way, anyone else having trouble downloading from their site? I haven't been able to download any videos for about a week now. Not via IE, nor via a download manager.--Drat (Talk) 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I had no problems downloading either episode 74 or the new PSA. Do you use a proxy at all? — TKD:Talk 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Recently, I switched from connecting to my ADSL modem via USB to connecting via a network cable. I just switched back to test, and now I'm getting an access error to the Rooster Teeth sites. The direct URL of a video still times out. I was able to download 74 when it went public, but I remember that I got the same site access error about a day (or less) before I switched to the network cable.--Drat (Talk) 12:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just switched back, and still can't access the site. It must actually be down. Of all the times.--Drat (Talk) 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, looks like a database server issue. — TKD:Talk 13:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot download from the site. I found another site with the files though. I have sent three emails in all regarding my problem to Rooster Teeth, over the course of several days, and have received no replies whatsoever.--Drat (Talk) 15:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(indent shifted back, replying to Drat) Can you ping files.redvsblue.com at all? (start up the command prompt, "ping files.redvsblue.com"). I'm not sure whether your version of Windows has "tracert" (trace route), but that might also provide some information. For what it's worth, files.redvsblue.com is not on the same physical server as the rest of *.roosterteeth.com. A reverse DNS lookup shows it to be hosted by Microsoft. — TKD::Talk 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Neither method can reach that one. It seems tracert is not working right on my system anyway, as it times out after the first hop, the private IP of my ADSL modem, no matter what URL I try. I'll have to ask my ISP tomorrow if they've been doing anything strange recently.--Drat (Talk) 15:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I talked with my ISP last week, and the tech I talked to found the situation odd too. He said they would talk to their carrier. I just tried downloading episode 75 today and it finally works! I guess they've resolved the problem.--Drat (Talk) 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(replying to Dr. B) I fixed it for you, but make sure to keep the wikilinking. Also, the Main Page blurbs seem to have no paragraph breaks (at the least the recent ones don't have any). — TKD:Talk 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as being on the Main Page goes, I personally think that it'd be optimal to wait until the end of season 4 (episode 77, for those of you who don't read Burnie's journals), as the article would be most stable then. However, since episodes releases generally involve only adding a sentence or two to the season summary and nothing else for the main article, I'm fine with having it featured any time before the start of season 5. If we don't have it on the Main Page by the start of season 5, we should wait until that season's been underway for a bit, because it would look pretty ugly to have only two or three sentences for the season 5 plot summary. — TKD:Talk 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I put it up on the page, so if we decide upon a specific date, we can post it underneith the box.Dr. B 22:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm seriously proud of you guys (not to be pretentious), proud of the article, even proud of myself (just a little bit). Hey, I worked on it a bit! :D The Filmaker 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly did. I think that having several of us working on the article throughout served as a constant "peer review". By the way, if you people are into userboxes, you may wish to use {{User Featured Article|Red vs Blue}}:

This user helped promote the article Red vs Blue to featured status.

— TKD::Talk 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. Already got mine :) In fact, I've got something else planned already for when this article gets on the main page. Hehehehehehehe...Dr. B 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about some other possible days we could request for this article to be on the main page.

1. May 14th, Mother's Day: Why, I don't really know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I recently watched the Mother's Day PSA.
2. May 28th and 30th, the days before and after Memorial Day: It has to do with the war theme, I would put May 29th out there if it weren't for the fact that I think a more militaristic article would probably do better.
3. The day Season 5 Premiers: If we can find out when this is going to be ahead of time (you think the RT guys would be willing to share that information for us when it gets closer for this kind of thing?), I think it could be a terrific way to kick off the 5th season. If we can't find out, well, then this date doesn't really work.

Dr. B 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the moment season 5 hits we'll get hit with loads of "OMG speculation!!!!11!" Not to mention the fact that those of us who are non-sponsors may have to avoid the page to avoid potential spoilers.--Drat (Talk) 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I would also prefer not to have it featured on the main page at the start of season 5, due to the instability of the article. I think a few days after the end of season 4 shoulkd give us enough time to wrap up the season 4 summary. — TKD::Talk 06:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that Red vs Blue was brought up (by someone else) on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page as a candidate for the April 1 Main Page featured article. It appears that this year the April Fool's jokes will be more tightly controlled, somewhat assuaging the first concern that I had abocve. Secondly, if Rooster Teeth releases episode 77, the season 4 finale, next weekend, that would probably be enough time for the main article to re-stabilize after the information is corporated. If that happens, then I'm fine with April 1, although others on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article find it too predictable/inappropriate for a sci-fi-related article to be featured on April 1. Anyone else have any thoughts? — TKD::Talk 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with using April 1st if we didn't have to worry about it being vandilized. That was one of my earlier suggestions, and it'll be RvB's 3rd Birthday. Dr. B 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and request April 1st? Dr. B 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just saw that Spoo is slated for April 1. Oh well. There would have been objections due to "promotionalism" anyway. — TKD::Talk 01:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Armor color

Just so that everyone has the benefit of a full explanation that's too long for an edit summary, I am reverting the addition of armor colors to the main characters in this article, for a few reasons:

• It seems to be consensus that armor color is a detail best left to the auxiliary character articles. See the Talk archives; the amount of detail (or whether the character blurbs should be there at all) has been discussed a couple of times previously.
• There are a few images that already establish armor colors.
• Armor color is not necessary to understand character personalities, which are the most salient points (since they drive the storyline).

— TKD::Talk 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Halo: Combat Evolved

Just as a heads-up, the article on Halo: Combat Evolved is up for peer review (I am not actively involved in the maintenance of the article), if any of you are interested in helping out. — TKD::Talk 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A note about character descriptions

In the past, several edits to the character descriptions have been reverted. Please keep in mind that the summaries here are meant to be very short (no more than 2-3 sentences per main character, and little more than a sentence per supporting characters) descriptions of a character's most important traits, usually personality traits. Specific plot details are better left to the List of characters in Red vs Blue. Other things that have been rejected are:

• Other names for the Alien. Those are non-canonical. Just because Caboose calls a character a name doesn't mean that name is sanctioned (otherwise, Donut might as well be called Lieutenant McMuffin).
• Armor colors. These are considered to be too much detail, and can be gleaned from the screenshots anyway.
• Bit characters (characters who do not appear in more than one episode).

— TKD::Talk 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael to Burnie

Hey, guys. Head over to the talk page of the Michael Burns article and vote on whether or not to move it to "Burnie Burns". :) The Filmaker 03:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot could go below other information

As I was reading, I found that the Plot section should go right at the bottom on the article, with Background, Production etc occuring above. --Commander Keane 08:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot is near the top on similar articles like Film, Book, etc atricles. --Viridis 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was able to acheive FA status with the plot near the top, I see little reason to change it now. Dr. B 08:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's always good to evaluate other options, but I've seen the "plot" section in various places on other FAs in the Media category, but, as Viridis noted, mostly at or near the top. Cf. Casablanca (film), Blade Runner, Triumph of the Will, Our Friends in the North, and Quatermass and the Pit. As ar as this particular article is concerned, the plot is indeed secondary. I guess that one possible idea would be to break off the detail of season summaries from where it currently is, move that after "Production" (but before "Reception"), leave the lead of the Plot summary and retitle the section "Overview" or similar. I think that the information there should, in any event, be left up-front, regardless of the placement of the actual season summaries. Thoughts? — TKD::Talk 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave it. No one else has seemed to have a problem before. -- Viewdrix 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough,. — TKD::Talk 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the new "Burnie Burns"

Is there a paticular reason why we constantly put down: Michael "Burnie" Burns ? Goes the same for Geoff "gfunk" Ramsey. Why not just Burnie Burns. It's the same reason I requested the article move. Nobody refers to him as Michael Burns. The Filmaker 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed on Red vs Blue. Will get to other pages eventually. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 summary (with 77) revision.

If you look at my user page, I've posted a revised version of the season 4 summary to try and cut down on some space, and erase some detail and plot points not essential in the big picture (like mention of Sarge's contest for a new assistant). It's not much, but it's something, because as was seen by the (reverted) addition of 77 info from an anonymous user, the season 4 summary's already pretty damn long. I've also posted a possible addition for once 77 is released to the public tonight, only because I'm both bored and hoping we can try to summarize the new plot points well, right away. Please do not go to my page if you havn't seen the episode and don't want spoilers, and please do not make any changes involving my revision or your own of 77 until it's publicly released. If you want to see my revision and edit it for improvement, go ahead. -- Viewdrix 01:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at some tweaks. Feel free to re-revise. We should probably find a good place to break this season's summary into two paragraphs (maybe at episode 77 point, maybe somewhere else, but it's quite long for a single paragraph). — TKD::Talk 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Once we post it, we can give the go ahead for RvB to be on the main page any day they have room, right? Dr. B 07:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it another 24 hours or so to see whether anyone has any more tweaks, and to let it stabilize. After that, any time in the next month or so should be fine. — TKD::Talk 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Main page feature requested for some time in the next month, roughly. No specific date. — TKD::Talk 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Longer lead?

One more thing before the main page feature: The article is 38 KB, and, per WP:LEAD, we probably should have a 3-paragraph lead, at least. Anyone object to this expansion?

Red vs Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles, sometimes abbreviated as RvB, is a science fiction comedy series created by Rooster Teeth Productions. The series is produced primarily by using the machinima technique of synchronizing video footage from computer and video games to pre-recorded dialogue and other audio. Footage is mostly from the multiplayer modes of Bungie Studios' first-person shooter (FPS) video games Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 on the Microsoft Xbox video game console. Chronicling the story of two opposing teams of soldiers fighting a civil war in the middle of a desolate box canyon, the series is an absurdist parody of FPS games, military life, and other science fiction films.

Red vs Blue emerged from Burnie Burns' voiceover-enhaced gamplay videos of Halo: Combat Evoved. Initially intended to be a short series of six to eight episodes, the project quickly achieved significant popularity following its 1 April 2003 online premiere, and, as a result, Rooster Teeth decided to extend the series, which completed its fourth season on 1 April 2006.

Both within the machinima movement and among film critics, Red vs Blue has been generally well-received. Praised for its originality, the series has won four awards from the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences, and has been credited with bringing new popularity to machinima, helping it to gain more mainstream exposure, and attracting more people to the art form. Graham Leggat, a former director of communications for Lincoln Center's film society, has called Red vs Blue "truly as sophisticated as Samuel Beckett". Although episodes continue to be released online, the first three seasons are also available on DVD, making Red vs Blue one of the first commercially released and successful machinima products.

---

The real changes here are to add in a little more background information, to clarify distribution methods, and to rearrange the last paragraph to account for the new preceding paragraph. Oh, and apparently, the AMAS does use an ampersand rather than spelling out "and", so I fixed that. — TKD::Talk 10:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I say go with it.--Drat (Talk) 11:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. — TKD::Talk 11:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of the characters lead in prose

"I have an idea.... I HAVE AN IDEA!" "Yeah, TKD, we heard you the first time. We were just ignoring you."

Seriously, as I was rereading the characters section this morning, I noticed that the characters section might be the weakest area of the article. It's somewhat laden with generalizations (some of which I toned down); granted, most reasonable people would agree with them, but I was thinking that rewriting the main characters section as prose might be a good idea. I know that I've thought about it before and given up, but I decided to try to revisit the idea. Done properly, it could shift the focus more toward the interactions that occur on each team, which is, after all, what situaion comedy is all about. In addition, prose is preferable to lists (as long as said prose isn't artificially choppy), and it would possibly detract well-meaning editors from adding too much detail on a single character (which seems to be a good part of the reversions that occur). Here's what I had in mind:

---

Main article: List of main characters in Red vs Blue

Sarge is the staff sergeant and leader of the Blood Gulch Red Team. A military man with a Southern American accent, he is the only Blood Gulch soldier on either team consistently serious about the Red versus Blue civil war. His psychopathic battle plans often entail unnecessary casualties in his own men. In particular, a common planned outcome is the death of Grif, whose habitual laziness, irresponsibility, and uninsightfulness earns him the disrespect and ridicule of both Sarge and Simmons, Sarge's sycophantic, insecure right-hand man. Despite this, Simmons and Grif are often seen together, either chatting or bickering. Donut, the eager rookie who joins the team in episode 3, tends to annoy his teammates with his naïvete, garrulousness, and cheerfulness and becomes more effeminate and childish as the series progresses.

On the other side of the canyon, Church is the cynical de facto leader of the Blood Gulch Blue Team. Often shouldering the responsibility of actually solving the various crises that the Blood Gulch teams encounter, he often ends up taking their brunt, leaving him increasingly disillusioned and antisocial. His serious, reasoned approach conflicts with the personalities of Tucker and Caboose. The former is snide, averse to work and battle, and obsessed with women; the latter, although physically strong, is unable to grasp simple concepts and exhibits varying degrees of stupidity and insanity throughout the series. Rounding out the Blue Team is Tex, Church's former girlfriend who is hired by Blue Command to join the team as a mercenary in episode 10. Able to eliminate entire teams of soldiers by herself, she has been described as "the most lethal soldier in Blood Gulch".*

---

(* citation to the season 3 DVD profiles)

We could leave the supporting characters as a list for now. Thoughts? Feel free to change whatever you want in the above synopses. My feeling is that the above version makes it clearer how each character fits into the "big picture", is less of an original research problem (I think there were some problems with some of the litanies of adjectives that we were using), and a couple of paragraphs looks better than a longer list. We might havew to move the images around a little bit for aesthetics. Thoughts? Am I completely off-base here? — TKD::Talk 07:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Put it in so we can see how it looks in the article.--Drat (Talk) 08:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Also, I read over the "significant supporting characters" section. Now that we've shifted the focus of the characters section to team interactions, is there that much in the signficant supporting characters section that isn't covered in the season summaries (or that couldn't easily be added in with a phrase or two)? — TKD::Talk 03:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've axed the "Significant supporting characters" and added some of it into the season summaries. Revert and discuss if you object. — TKD::Talk 09:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Must've missed this after updates to the Talk page, but I prefer the old list. It was perfectly simple and brief, and identifying minor characters as well as their personality traits during the middle of the season summaries is a little distracting. I do wish that there was a way that new readers wouldn't be learning the names of new characters as they're reading the plot summaries, but I think the old version works better. I'm not going to revert it myself though. Let's see if we can come to a majority vote. -- Viewdrix 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it struck me that the few words that I was adding back into the plot summary to compensate were less bloated than the list itself, which, for some minor characters (e.g., the Alien), didn't do more than was already stated in the plot summary. (I prefer straight prose whenever feasible.) I wouldn't be too worried about revealing too much for "new" readers; it's the plot summary, after all. :) But, yes, let's see what the other major editors think. Drat, LifeStar, Dr. B, The Filmaker?

I'm also preferential to the old list style charachter listing. Much easier to go through and find charachters in. Dr. B 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) OK; you guys do have a point that the old style made it easier to find a link to individual characters. However, I still think that the descriptions were largely redundant and didn't really add much. So, what do you guys think about adding a simple table with just links at the bottom of the characters, section, something like:

Significant Red vs Blue characters
Red Team main characters	Sarge, Simmons, Grif, Donut
Blue Team main characters	Church, Tucker, Caboose, Tex
Others	Lopez, Sheila, Vic, Doc, O'Malley, Andy, Alien

Do we get the best of both worlds this way? — TKD::Talk 03:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I just stuck it in the article to see how it looks. I'm undecided thus far.--Drat (Talk) 07:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'll be able to survive with it being done that way, I'm still much more preferential to the way we had it before. Dr. B 20:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there's at best a lukewarm reaction here. I've reverted back to the list of minor characters. However, I've added wikilinks to the characters as listed in the image captions (thereby providing a handy link for all of them, which got lost in the main character section conversion to prose). Just to make sure that I understand, the objection was to the format of the minor characters, right? Did anyone have a real objection to the conversion of the main characters section to prose? — TKD::Talk 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)