Test 4 of the policy is "At least one of the previous show's main cast members is starring in the continuation".
Season 4 of Airwolf fails this test. Does this mean a new show entry should be created?
This policy is for shows that were on an hiatus, changed network and stuff. Airwolf aired 4 seasons in 4 years. We would also not enter a new show for True Detective, which had a complete new cast for the second season.
This wasn't exactly what we had in mind with the continuation policy, but I guess it's grey area. Looks like it's widely considered to be season 4, even though there are barely any ties to season 4 and the original show?
If I understand it correctly, Jan-Michael Vincent briefly appeared in season 4 though which means it could be fine as is.
Yes, virtually everyone regards it as a valid season 4 except for IMDB, which gives it a completely separate entry as AIRWOLF (1987).
I'm thinking we probably shouldn't give too much emphasis to continuity of the major characters, since in addition to AIRWOLF there are some other shows like SILK STALKINGS and DUKES OF HAZZARD, where the stars were replaced. Although in the latter case, they eventually came back.
JuanArango wrote:
This policy is for shows that were on an hiatus, changed network and stuff.
Then why do you have FARSCAPE: THE PEACEKEEPER WARS as a separate series? FARSCAPE ended in 2003, THE PEACEKEEPER WARS aired in 2004 with the same cast on the same network.
GeorgeFergus wrote:
Yes, virtually everyone regards it as a valid season 4 except for IMDB, which gives it a completely separate entry as AIRWOLF (1987).I'm thinking we probably shouldn't give too much emphasis to continuity of the major characters, since in addition to AIRWOLF there are some other shows like SILK STALKINGS and DUKES OF HAZZARD, where the stars were replaced. Although in the latter case, they eventually came back.
The reason for the cast requirement is to protect shows against a network announcing a continuation while their new show barely has any affiliation with the original one. If we dropped it, the only protection left would be the cooperation of one of the original show's executive producers. Do we feel that's sufficient?
david wrote:
The reason for the cast requirement is to protect shows against a network announcing a continuation while their new show barely has any affiliation with the original one. If we dropped it, the only protection left would be the cooperation of one of the original show's executive producers. Do we feel that's sufficient?
I doubt that any network would risk getting into legal difficulties by falsely claiming that their show is a continuation of another. And, as has already been pointed out, there are already an increasing number of legitimate cases (True Detective, Fargo) with little or no cast continuity from one season to the next.
GeorgeFergus wrote:
I doubt that any network would risk getting into legal difficulties by falsely claiming that their show is a continuation of another. And, as has already been pointed out, there are already an increasing number of legitimate cases (True Detective, Fargo) with little or no cast continuity from one season to the next.
Even if the cast changes the people making the show are still the same, as in your Fargo example. Should we make a new entry for Doctor Who every time the Doctor is recast?