Talk:The Prisoner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Prisoner article.
This article is part of the ITC Entertainment Distributions WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed and structured guide to ITC Distributions on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
TV This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
TV This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Contents

Please consider joining the project! HowardBerry 19:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Rover wasn't just for foiling escape-by-sea, though it did arise from the water. It's sometimes seen bouncing through the streets of the Village. (Hence the change I made). Also, I felt that the article as it stood implied that we never saw the same Number 2 twice.

Thanks for the corrections. What an amazing series it was! David 15:30 Aug 11, 2002 (PDT)

Of course the Village had "inmates" from both sides of The Cold War

You can just add this info to the subject article. David 19:42 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

Can it really be said that The Prisoner had an influence on "intellectual life"? On popular culture perhaps, but it's not THAT important... JM2¢W... GRAHAMUK 01:05 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As to the Prisoner being John Drake - there's disagreement:

Q: Was Number Six actually John Drake from "Danger Man?

A: We're bordering on speculation here, but according to Patrick McGoohan "No". According to George Markstein (who arguably co-created The Prisoner) "Yes". Also, when I interviewed Frank Maher some time ago, he said that in the early discussions he had with McGoohan, he asked if The Prisoner was going to be a continuation of the Danger Man character and was told, "Yes, but we're not going to say so." ?
Patrick McGoohan says: " George Markstein always thought, despite any amount of dissuasion, that it's got to be an extension (of Dangerman) because he'd worked on the tailend of one and into the other, and it's the same guy who's doing it. But I said: 'OK, it's an extension of reality, and Danger man was supposed to be related to reality. There's this weirdo balloon that moves around and has a mind of it's own and can swallow you up - what's that got to do with reality?' But he wouldn't be convinced." ... "

The episode: DO NOT FORSAKE ME, OH MY DARLING makes reference to John Drake as well which is suspiciously NOT mentioned in the FAQ. One may also form an opinion from the three novels related to the show. Thomas M. Disch, David McDaniel, and Hank Stine. The Graphic Novel is also a relevant resource.

- Sparky 07:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Markstein says its Drake but not named as such because they didn't own the character name. - Sparky 09:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McGoohan himself has numerous times that John Drake is not Number 6, but there are practical economic reasons for this, because if Number 6 was referred to as John Drake, royalties would have to be paid out to Ralph Smart, the creator and producer of Danger Man. - Sparky 04:57, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"You are Number Six"

Didn't McGoohan say that he had no idea who Number One would be when he created the show? Lefty 13:20, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

Trying to reorganize so that less spolier-type stuff ends up in information people would want to read. Also trying to put the theories separate from the descriptions, and the trivia where it belongs.

PS- Danger Man ends with McGoohan arguing with his boss and resigning, in a very similar office...

To clarify -- it doesn't. Neither series of Danger Man ends with an episode of this description. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On BE Spelling

Why do we favor B.E. spelling? The Prisoner belongs to the world.

So are you saying that A.E. spelling is now the de-facto global standard for English?

[edit] Final episode and escape

I've just seen the final episode of The Prisoner on BBC FOUR. When Number 6 escapes along with Leo McKern's Number 2, Number 48, and The Butler, they go out onto a road that is signed as the A20 (running between Dover and London, now mostly M20), not the M5. Would this not place The Village somewhere near Hastings or Dover?

Yup. Just read this after making that change (and another one) as I too re-watched it last night. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 18:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For goodness sake, The Village isn't *anywhere*! Like the whole series, it is an allegory, and a very broad one at that.

This debate is rather like that which some fans of The Simpsons have when trying to work out where Springfield is. Again, like its characters, it is allegorical, and shouldn't be taken too literally. Martyn Smith 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The description of The Prisoner as being a daring 1960s series has been removed, apparently because it is POV. I would say this is not POV. It is merely using an appropriate adjective. If someone said it was good, bad, indifferent or rubbish then that would be POV. Daring it certainly was, and still is. Readers of this article might want to know something of the nature of the series. The adjective daring tells them something about it. Any objections to me re-instating daring or a similar word? Arcturus 18:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arcturus, I believe something resembling "daring" would be approrpriate, but daring is perhaps too POV a term. Perhaps "unusual" or "unique"? Fuzheado | Talk 03:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Unusual" does not mean daring, which is not a POV term. It was certainly daring compared with the other stuff that was being churned out at the time. Shantavira 06:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I feel it is appropriate to use the word daring on two accounts:
* This series broke the mold and was the first series to have a pilot, a loose story arc with independent episodes and a (two episode) ending. I have no reference for this claim; I read it perhaps 10 years ago and a media historian would be the one to know.
* Secondly it refused to give nice, simple and tidy answer at the end, and PMcG reportedly had to go underground for a while until the audience cooled down. This too was a daring move.
So it was new, yes, and innovative, yes again, but also daring since it knowingly upset people while maintaining the artistic integrity.
Maybe I'm going out on a limb, but I think Arcturus may be a tad unfamiliar with the series....Yeago 04:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Village sports and recreation

Does anyone know the details of the curious sport Number 6 is seen playing on a number of occasions? It's the one for two players, with the trampolines, the tank of water and the thick rubber gloves. It's probably worth a mention. --- Ettlz, 21 Aug 2004 16.22 BST

It's called Kosho. I don't recall much more than that, though. --Rossumcapek 10:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that I read (in the fan books?) that this sport was invented by McGoohan for this series.
Atlant 11:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
It was RobKohr

[edit] Sugar?

I'm wondering whether the assertion that's on the page about Number Six being under medical orders to avoid sugar came from? I've seen all 17 episodes and I don't remember any such thing. I remember that in CoBB, McKern's Number Two looks it up in the file, because he can't remember and Six won't tell him, and reads from the file "Does not take sugar". But not only is that not the same thing as "under medical orders to avoid sugar", Number Six then puts three lumps of sugar into his tea! Unless someone can bring up something that supports it, I think we have to write this off as a misunderstanding of that "Does not take sugar" (after all, if you were a Number Two, dealing with an important prisoner like a Number Six, you'd be likelier to forget his preferences than his medical restrictions.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reference in COBB that I remember is that there is mention of No. 6 avoiding sugar on medical advice, because No. 2 makes a comment afterward to the regard that No. 6 is concerned about his health. 23skidoo 18:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The exchange you're referring to is as follows:
<Two> Afraid of putting on weight?
<Six> No. Nor of being "reduced".
Nothing about medical advice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I'm certain there is reference to it somewhere in the series, possibly in another episode because there was discussion about this on a Yahoo Group dedicated to the show. It's possible the reference comes from one of the novels or reference works, which would make it fanon rather than canon. Well at least I now have another excuse (as if I needed one) to watch my DVDs again! 23skidoo 19:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yes, one definitely needs to watch out for information coming from the novels. Unless I've been misled about their content, they actually explain who does run the Village: android-creating extraterrestrials! ^^; -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar, I am not convinced. Please supply better proof. 216.153.214.94 03:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Free For All, 19 minutes in:
<26> How many lumps?
<6> No lumps.
<26> You don't take sugar? Good. That shows discipline for start. Of course I knew :it anyway.
<6> What's that?
<26> From your records. We have everything. Opens a book and reads from it: "Gave up sugar four years and three months ago on medical advice". Closes the book
194.47.144.5 02:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, looks like I was wrong. Maybe I'd have remembered it better if it hadn't been in my least-favorite non-filler episode... I'll have to re-watch it again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whew! I was worried that I was imagining things myself! Good catch, er, 194.47.144.5 (sounds like a great name for a Villager, don't ya think?) 23skidoo 05:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Six Of One Society

We've been going back and forth on the removal of that link on "The truth you need to know about the 6 of 1 Society". I agree with Khaosworks' assessment that the link is "not relevant to the show, but only to the society." But here's the problem. The Six Of One Society is the official fanclub for The Prisoner. It is also a society whose management decisions are, to put it mildly, troubling. I won't belabor the details here, since you can all read them at the link, but even the most conservative reading of the evidence indicates that this is not your standard fan club; most notable is where the management apparently had possession of the rare "Alternate Arrival" episode for years and did not disclose their possession even to the copyright holders. [1]

So let's see the situation we have here:

  • The show is the subject of the article.
  • The show has a fanclub, and the fanclub is relevant enough to the show for the link to be included.
  • There is strong suggestion that the fanclub is defrauding its members of money, but this is information about the fanclub, not about the show.

If there were to be a article on the society itself, then there would be no way it could be covered in NPOV without mentioning the large numbers of complaints and the accumulated evidences of misdeeds. But since there's no encyclopedic notability to the society outside of the show, and it will thus never get its own article -- is it NPOV to include only the link to the society, with no discussion of the controversy, thereby implicitly endorsing the society's POV "Nope, nope, there's nothing wrong here, nothing at all, now if you call yourself a true fan give us your money"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My difficulty with that link comes not just from its relevance to the article (which is peripheral at the moment), but also with the allegations in the article itself, most of which is phrased in an inflammatory manner and, to be frank, some are pretty weak. Please note that I am not trying to defend Six of One, merely pointing out some of the flaws I have found in the anti-Six page (which I admit I have not read all of).
For example, the one you point to, involving the alternative version of Arrival, suggests that Six of One was in violation of contractual restrictions, by showing clips from it. The defense mentioned is that Arrival had been broadcast once, but the page dismisses it as "not what Carlton intended" without any discussion as to whether it had been broadcast or not. That contractual terms should be interpreted strictly before going towards the intent behind them is a principle of contract law, so the implication here that "intent" trumps everything that thus Six of One's conduct was bogus is shaky. The second bit, involving Jaz Wiseman, suggests that refusing Wiseman's request for the episode to be released was also misconduct on Six of One's part. This seems to be based on a few assumptions that are not discussed:
  1. That Bruce Clark's private possession of the tape meant that it was in possession "within the Society" which is not the same thing.
  2. That Jaz Wiseman's status as a Carlton employee (what post?) entitled him to demand the return of the episode to Carlton, which he may not have had the authority to.
  3. That the episode was only released after Carlton "put pressure". In what manner? After several letters? Legal action? Or was it released only after the appropriate authority at Carlton made the request?
That's just the one page. I also had problems with the Six of One members must agree to Society "terms and conditions" page [2] in which the writers of the page take the Society to task for putting in legal conditions to cover the society's liability in case of copyright infringement by its members because it violates the philosophy behind the series. There are other pages where the site claims illegal acts by the society such as tape-recording a person's "honest opinions" - what law this violates is not explained; a phone call threatening "consequences" which is vague at best as to what kind of threat this is. I am not saying that all these complaints have no basis - I'm just pointing out that as it stands, this site is a hatchet job, and if there really are legal bases for this kind of conduct, why haven't the proper authorities, aggrieved Six of One members or Carlton itself taken legal action? Is there some material out there showing us that they have? Or is it just - not to put too fine a point on it - bitching and spin?
The official Six of One Page, on the other hand, is simply informational. It talks about the club and the club's activities and makes no allusions to internal politics or policies. I grant you that perhaps this is an incomplete picture and paints the situation as rosy when it may not be.
Sorry to have gone on for this long, but some of the writing in the page made me wince. Possible solutions?
  1. Put in a link to the DMOZ page for The Prisoner [3], which includes a link to the Six of One Info site (clearly labelled). That way, people can go see the links of various sites and go to that one if they want to. I like this one, myself, because there are plenty of pages on the DMOZ site that should be brought to a reader's attention for informational purposes.
  2. Replace the link to the Six of One Info site, but add the note that it is a "site alleging misconduct and mismanagement within the Six of One Society"
  3. Both.
-khaosworks 17:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Both" sounds like the way to go, to me. The DMOZ page is just a good idea anyways, and if the fanclub link is balanced out with a link that notes this being a really controversial fanclub, it satisfies my worries about balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Done. -khaosworks 18:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have an account, nor do I plan on getting one. (my apologies if I step on any toes) I know this is flogging a dead horse (nearly two years after the fact). I just wanted to point out that in the first paragraph of this section, it is stated that Six of One is the official prisoner appreciation society. It's not. It has permission from Carlton to use images and promote the series, as do several other organiztions. There is nothing exclusive about their appreciation society, though they seem interested in steering us to think so. Notice on their main page the placement of the word 'official' - it's not the official Prisoner appreciation society, but rather the Prisoner official appreciation society. See the difference? There's a reason for that. Official denotes authorization regarding copyrights. You still have to apply to Carlton for anything Prisoner related (so does Six of One); Six of One have no authority to do anything with getting it okay'd by the rights owners, which merely demonstrates that Six of One is not 'official' at all. And you're right, the Six of one info 'complaint' page is indeed a hatchet job, though it does bring to light the dubious way Six of One is conducting their business. Cheers.


Just to, after the fact, add a few points as the owner of the website in question. There is no bitch/spin. The site was created as a right to reply for those people who had felt let down or treated poorly by Six of One, as they did not have any other permanent outlet to do so. The site has been checked from a legal perspective and contains no untruths whatsoever (indeed, has not had a single issue/line within it corrected at any point since its creation in 2003). Whilst the above poster may see Six of One's own website as "informational", the fact that it is a site designed to attract people to send money to that organisation, without being able to deliver what is promised via that web-page or to make any attempt to explain how that money will be spent, makes it far more sinister than just informational. As I said, the "anti 601" page is also informational, yet contains facts only. In answer to the point made regarding why no action has been taken against Six of One, you are assuming that it hasn't. It also raises the opposite - if the "anti-601" site has "weak" arguments, would it not itself had been subject to "action" to get it shut down?
As the last contributer points out, Six of One are not an official body, and have no rights to claim so (there is a page regarding this on the 601-info website). With reference to the secret taping incident, it is illegal because in UK law it is not prohibited to tape record anyone without their permission with a view to playing the recording to other persons (and then publishing details from the recording), again without the permission of the person taped.
Saying that, I agree that either removal of both sites or inclusion of both (rather than one or the other) is the easiest and best solution. -theunmutual 24 Sep 2006

[edit] John Drake/No. 6 controversy

A recent edit to the article states that "In reality" Everyman Films intended for No. 6 to be John Drake. I've never actually seen this in any of the books I have on the subject, and in fact I have seen references to the contrary that the last thing McGoohan's company wanted to do was tie The Prisoner into Ralph Smart's creation, Danger Man, which would have meant sharing profits and other rights with Smart, whose series McGoohan killed in order to do The Prisoner in the first place. Everyman Films was McGoohan, so to say it wanted No. 6 to be Drake while McGoohan himself didn't, is something of a contradication. Is there any documentation to back up the statement re: Everyman Films? If nothing firm is available, it might be worthwhile changing the phrase "in reality" to "it has been suggested". I have left it be in the meantime. 23skidoo 04:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George Markstein has always insisted that Number Six "really was" John Drake, but Markstein is also the same one who thought The Prisoner was just going to be another spy drama, with just a minor twist to its premise, and we can see how accurate that was. Those who want to believe that Six is Drake point to the fact that they couldn't have made the connection canonical without owing money to Ralph Smart and say "See, that's the only reason McGoohan denies that they're the same!" but that's, frankly, conspiracy-theory thinking: asserting that someone would not be free to say X if X was the truth, and therefore the fact that they are denying X is proof of X. Until there's an actual smoking gun that indicates that Everyman (and not just Markstein) regarded Six as Drake, I cannot support describing it as "in reality" -- and having seen all but the "NATO agent" season of Danger Man and all of The Prisoner, I feel pretty confident in saying that McGoohan played them as two different characters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It could almost be said he played THREE different characters, because in the NATO season of Danger Man, Drake is an American, yet he becomes British for the later episodes. I could almost support the notion of No. 6 being John Drake in an alternate universe just as seasons 2-4 of Danger Man clearly show an alternate universe version of the season 1 John Drake character. 23skidoo 18:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have yet to see the NATO season, unfortunately, though hopefully Netflix will come through soon. My point, though, is that Patrick McGoohan can not change his voice to make it clear that two different characters are in fact different. He cannot change his face to definitively establish that two different characters are different. What he can do is play them differently, and I think that is exactly what he does; he gives John Drake a steady detachment, a disconnect between what he feels and what he lets show, and gives Number Six a constant angry intensity. You could attribute the difference to their different situations, but I think the real explanation is simply that they are two different characters who share the same profession and happen to share the same actor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good points. When you see the NATO season (which is absolutely excellent by the way) you'll note PMG actually plays Drake with an American accent which takes a little getting used to. 23skidoo 23:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In "Many Happy Returns", No.6 gives his name as Peter Smith

[edit] Cancellation

According to the Fairclough book on The Prisoner, the series was cancelled by Lew Grade the day production ended on "Girl Who Was Death". McGoohan, the book says, was given only a few days notice to write "Fall Out". There's no indication that a "compromise" of any sort was reached. 23skidoo 18:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 81.77.146.240 21:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 17/21/26?

I reverted the change that said the series was "cancelled" after 17 episodes; everything I have ever read about the series, including quotes from PMG, indicates that Lew Grade wanted a series of 26 episodes (26 being the "magic number" for syndication); that they sat down and tried and tried to stretch the basic concept out to 26 episodes, but they finally realized they just couldn't make it stretch that far, and went back to Lew Grade, who said to go ahead with the 17 that were good enough to be used. This is not to say that this is The Truth (I've been wrong before, like about the sugar thing) but this is the first I've ever heard about the series being cancelled. Where does that come from? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greh. Something wrong with my watchlist -- if it had told me there was changes to the talk page as well as to the article, I would have checked the talk page first to see if there was an explanation for the change. Anyways -- what is the Fairclough book? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Beg pardon - I'm used to referring to the book in shorthand. I'm referring to "The Prisoner: the Official Companion to the TV Series" by Robert Fairclough which was published by Carlton a few years ago. You can find more information about the book here. It's a cool reference that includes synopses of a couple of never-produced episodes. It was from this book I learned Girl who was Death was written for Danger Man, and the chapter about that episode is the source for the information that the series was cut short/cancelled at 17 episodes. 23skidoo 04:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, since you've got the reference and I can't even find the quotes from PMcG that I thought were in the book on my shelf, I can't dispute the characterization that it was "cancelled". The only thing is that "cancelled" implies that PMcG went to Grade saying "Whew! Well, it's going to be a tough stretch, and we'll have to use some crappy scripts left over from Danger Man, but we can keep going to 26!" and Grade said, "Er, no, I've seen the scripts you've been using, and believe me, it's better if we cut it short at 17." Whereas everything I've read so far suggests that PMcG went to Grade and said, "Have you seen the scripts we've been using? Believe me, it's better if we cut it short at 17," and Grade said, "Well, okay then." Which, admittedly, since that account comes from PMcG, has a bias -- except that PMcG is the one who made the decision to end Danger Man after just two episodes of the color season, so it seems odd that he should have made such a decision to cancel Danger Man and then been caught by surprise by a decision to cancel The Prisoner after they were reduced to recycling Danger Man scripts, which I think we can be fairly sure is not what PMcG wanted to do with The Prisoner. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again according to the Fairclough book, there was apparently an idea floated around that The Prisoner would change its format with No. 6 being sent on unwitting missions by The Village. Do Not Forsake Me was apparently a trial balloon for this idea, as might the notion of using unused Season 4 Danger Man scripts. I can't see PMG being happy about that. It's very possible that PMG agreed to cancel The Prisoner - after all, he had unilaterally cancelled Danger Man - but the book makes it clear that the decision whomever made it was very much an 11th hour one. That's why two cast members from Girl (Alexis Kanner and Kenneth Griffith) were kept on to appear in Fall Out, with Griffith famously being asked to write his own dialogue. 23skidoo 18:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that the actual decision to "cancel" the series was largely influenced by TV exec Michael Dann in the USA. After what was supposed to be series 1 (13 episodes) were shot, Dann informed Grade that he could not take the series as anything but a summer filler, thus did not want 26 episodes. It was then that Grade ordered that filming resume ahead of schedule (most of the crew had signed up for other work in the break between series hence the change of crew for the last 4 episodes to be filmed) with the last 4 episodes shot in quick succession. As stated above, the final call to make the final episode was given during production of "Girl". theunmutual

[edit] Possible breakout?

The article's giving size warnings; it might be best to look beforehand at how we might split off a new article. Several possibilities come to mind, but I think the best might be List of The Prisoner episodes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to spin off the references to The Prisoner in popular culture section, since people seem to be adding to it fairly regularly. I don't really see creating an article for the episode list doing much, and I was actually about to change it to a table format, similar to what I've done for a number of other TV shows (i.e. The Avengers (TV series). 23skidoo 20:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think a well-done episode list would still be worth doing, even if it doesn't directly remove much material from the main article. I'll start a trial version to get feedback. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Certainly, I agree if it's more than just a list. If you want to include plot details, etc. I think that's a terrific idea. I'd even go so far as to support individual articles for each episode (after all, episodes of Star Trek and Doctor Who rate their own). But if it's more than just a list of titles, I say go for it. 23skidoo 04:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding episode lists, Space:1999, another favourite show of mine has seperate entries for each episode. It's feasible on shows that have shorter runs, up to two seasons maybe, so there's no reason why it couldn't be branched off like that.
Last I looked, several Prisoner episodes already had their own articles. 23skidoo 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number 1 was never seen

What's this?

"Number 1 was never seen (except perhaps in the final episode, though even this is debatable and subject to interpretation)"

I have viewed reruns of the final episode enough times to have seen that number 1, the man behind the two masks is none other than no. 6 also. After taking off the two masks number 6 confronts himself! In addition McGoohan was asked in an interview why he arranged for so brief a view of the real face of number 1 and he said he did not want to make things too obvious. So how can you say that the fact that number 1 was seen or not is debatable? Is it because there is another version of the final episode out there were the brief glimpse of number 1 was cut out? --AlainV 08:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I think the comment means that it is open for debate whether the individual under the masks who appears to be identical to No. 6 is actually No. 1 and not actually someone else. Remember The Prisoner is an allegory, so therefore the symbolism of what No. 6 sees is all important, so therefore "debatable." For example, had The Butler climbed the stairs and removed the masks, would he have seen someone who looks like No. 6 or someone who looks like The Butler. Otherwise the statement is correct - except for that fleeting moment when we may or may not have seen No. 1 - the entity known as No. 1 was never seen in any other episode, to our knowledge (being faceless he could be anywhere, of course). 23skidoo 08:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me then that this should be mentioned in the article, well below the spoiler warning, in a factual a way as possible, without going into debates (which I have read before in printed reviews and heard in PBS shows on the series) that stem from this allegory, such as the possibility that our secret agent was resigning from his position of number 1 or resigning after learning that his boss in London was proposing the number 1 job to him. --AlainV 21:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the last episode is so surreal and symbolic that it is debatable whether any part of it takes place in "reality". Yes, we are definitely seeing that the face being presented as that of Number 1 is that of Number 6. Does this mean that there is a literal person who plays the literal role of Number 1 for a literal The Village, and that person is the same person as the literal Number 6? Or is it a symbolic way of saying that when the entire Earth is The Village (as Leo McKern spoke of in Chimes) then we may angrily ask "Who is Number 1? Who's the one causing our imprisonment?" and not realize that it's us keeping ourselves in chains. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My goodness someone who at last has grasped the allegorical nature of the programme! Yes the revelation of No 6 as being No 1 was to make the point that we create society, we are not merely a part of it, or just 'subject' to its whims. Who's responsible for the fact that we live in a society where freedom and other human rights are ritually abused and curtailed? Why, we are! We let it go on without the strength or the balls to try and change it, until we're the ones who are its victims. By that time it's often too late. Martyn Smith 14:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the last episode was rather special, but you have to consider also that nearly all of the episodes were playing with allegories/symbols/surrealism in addition to science fiction. You never quite knew when you were crossing over from some straight science fiction to something pretty fantastic, in the sense of belonging to the realm of fantastic lit. When do you cross over from realism to Fantasy or vice versa in "The Tempest" or "A midsummer night dream"? That number 1 is number 6 under a monkey mask seems to me important enough to be put in the article, in some way.--AlainV 01:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number 1 never acknowledged

This article claims that no Village official acknowledges the existence of Number 1. The The Chimes of Big Ben (The Prisoner) article quotes Number 2 mentioning Number 1. One could argue that he is simply mentioning Number 1 as a hypothetical, for the sake of argument. In other words, Number 2 might be saying it's not worth worrying about who Number 1 is, without necessarily accepting or acknowledging the actual existence of Number 1. But since a plain reading of the quote seems to confirm the existence of Number 1, I think it is overreaching to say that no Village official ever discusses Number 1. -- Seitz 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well considering that not only does the Leo McKern No. 2 reference No. 1 directly in "Fall Out", he even uses the personal pronoun "him" when doing so, I agree that it's incorrect to say no No. 2 ever mentions No. 1 directly. That said, it does appear (unless my memory is faulty) that only the McKern No. 2 actually does so (since he is also the one quoted in COBB). 23skidoo 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


You are correct. But he is discussing the matter with Number 6; his wording is very carefully chosen so as to be interpreted as neither confirmation nor denial. Number Six is talking to him about Number One, not the other way around.
Number Two: I am definitely an optimist. That's why it doesn't matter who Number One is. It doesn't matter which "side" runs the Village.
Number Six: It's run by one side or the other.
Number Two: Oh certainly, but both sides are becoming identical. What in fact has been created is an international community — perfect blueprint for world order. When the sides facing each other suddenly realize that they're looking into a mirror, they will see that this is the pattern for the future.
Remember the nature of the series. When Number Two remarks, "it doesn't matter who Number One is," he is clearly playing a mind game with him. The remark as phrased is not an official acknowledgement of the existence of Number One. He is talking to a prisoner, not an operative. Lying and misrepresentations are part of the game here. Remember, Number Six is talking to him. It is this conversation that was the inspiration for the eventual opening intro exchange that would begin all but 3 of the episodes. Check again, at no time ever do any of the operatives of the Village in any official capacity speak of Number One. They only speak of someone they refer to as "Sir."
As for the episode Fall Out, it is one of the most controversial of episodes. Number Six is supposedly on the threshold of being released. Number Two supposedly died and was brought back to life (how believable is that supposed to be?). Number Six has stated he wants to meet with Number One. And the administrators of the Village say they will grant that demand. But the episode plays out in an conceptual and dream-like way. One suggestion (provided in the DC graphic novel sequel) was that everything that was happening was part of "Degree Absolute." The concept of Number Six actually being Number One is -- when examined -- not doable. Number Six confronted and actual person in "Fall Out" who was shown to he himself insane. As we all know, Multiple personality disorder is an actual condition, but it is not humanly possible for any person to physically exist twice. The look-alikes from "Arrival" have been mentioned, but if he was cloned, then who was responsible? The whole point of Degree Absolute was to break him -- his supposed confrontation with himself was the moment he broke.
The dialogue in CoBB is not clear enough or direct enough to qualify as an official acknowledgement of the existence of Number One. And there is no realistic evidence that the events in Fall Out were anything other than another set up; think about its dreamlike progression.
I have always dismissed the exchange between Number Six and Number Two in CoBB as nothing more than the same exchange in the intro. Number Six evidently has the conversation with every New Number 2 that comes along. But..
  • In no episode does the Supervisor speak of Number One.
  • In no episode does anyone in the Control Room speak of Number One.
  • In no episode where the hotline phone rings does Number Two or a staff member call the person on the other end of the line Number One.
In the DC graphic novel, the New Number Six asks the Prisoner the question "Who is Number One?" The Prisoner's answer is not the same as Number Two's, but rather: "Does the existence of Number Two necessitate the existence of Number One?"
Sorry guys. Yes, we have no bananas. -- Jason Palpatine 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed analysis. I can agree that
  • the only time a Village official mentions Number 1 is in response to queries from Number 6
  • no Village official actually confirms the existence of Number 1
However, the statement in the article goes beyond that: "...but at no time does Number 2 or his/her subordonates ever mention such a person by that title...". That seems like an overstatement. It seems more accutate to say "...ever confirm the existance of such a person..." or "...ever mention such a person, except in response to Number 6's questions...". -- Seitz 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
My wording is the problem here as opposed to what is being said. Would you please do me the favor of rewording the entry to more in line with what you are viting? It would be appreciated. A lot of my enties today alone seem to have gotten under a lot of people's skin. I do not like doing that. Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the references to a new article

We're getting the 32Kb warning. What about making the "References in Popular Culture" section its own article? 23skidoo 02:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - I'm disagreeing because the References section itself is too small. If the other article included the part of the article from References onward, then I think I'd agree with that. Maybe with a title like (but better than) After The Prisoner. Val42 03:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Musical themes

I've discovered that some of the musical themes of The Prisoner are based on classical songs. I'm fairly certain that I recognized the melody from The Kalendar Prince in the symphonic suite, Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov in one of the songs on the television show, but I don't know the name. I did find this snippet on a website: Most of the incidental music is by Albert Elms, and some of the pieces are rearrangements of classical or traditional music. The name of the tune is listed on the link following this comment, so if anyone can pick it out, that would be great. [4] --Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pennyfarthing logo a reference?

The most recent edit claims that the pennyfarthing bicycle is a reference to a saying in the intelligence community. Even if such a saying exists, I think it may be putting it overstrongly to say that this is what the logo refers to -- where so many explanations have been given and this one has not been among them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "You are, Number 6" vs "You are Number 6"

I listened to this throughout the series and I cannot confirm this. If anyone has an episode, please feel free to reintroduce the following into the article:

"The different actors playing Number 2 give different readings of the line, some placing a pause in the statement, creating the affirmative "You are, Number Six" while others don't. However, the dialogue in the series is rife with phrases with two meanings. So, Number 2 may be saying "You are Number Six", but it is possible that it was the intention of the writer to allude to the other possible meaning of the phrase. " Yeago 01:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Pretty much all the episodes using the uncredited actor as No. 2 during the opening have this pause, as does the Leo McKern episodes. The first part of the deleted paragraph has been mentioned in numerous sources, including IIRC the official companion book by Fairclough. The second half of the paragraph was added by someone other than me and appears to be POV. I feel the first sentence should be reinstated, but not the POV interpretation. 23skidoo 13:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Heya Skidoo. Thanks for helping out on the massive overhaul.
Anywho, I just watched the series and listened for the pause, however, I didn't hear it. Could you please tell me which it is? It certainly isn't 'most' of them, unless I am pause-def. =)Yeago 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A pause doesn't necessarily imply a comma, in the sense of saying that Number Six is Number One. Remember that this would, theoretically be the first time Number Six heard that he was Number Six. ." (Assuming that Number Six didn't really have this identical conversation over a dozen times). A pause before the announcement of a name is a common reading. For example, when people read the verse "His name shall be called Emanuel," readers often pause before saying "Emanuel." MRN 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested that McGoohan might have been playing on that. The first time I heard the "comma vs. pause" argument was when we studied an episode of The Prisoner in high school back in the 1980s. I've since seen it in print in a few articles here and there. It's yet another ambiguous puzzle in the series. 23skidoo 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "information" vs "in formation"

I think the following is quite a stretch of the imagination, not to mention incorrect grammar, an abomination to most British =). Removing it.

Similarly, Number 2's reply of "Information" to Number Six's question "What do you want?" could be interpreted as 'information' or 'in formation', the latter being a command to follow orders and conform.Yeago 01:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please sign your comments. This interpretation has once again been referenced in some of the books on the series, including, I believe, The Official Prisoner Companion by Jaffer Ali. 23skidoo 13:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camera tricks?

Regarding "using clever camera tricks to make the resort look larger than it is", while it is true that having village taxis implies that The Village is more extensive than Portmeirion, and perhaps The Village map suggests it is larger (does it?), I have never discerned any "clever camera tricks". Shantavira 07:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed that bit anywho =). I thought it was extraneous and probably incorrect, considering that a helicopter flyover of the entire village pretty much happens in every episode. Yeago 08:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
perhaps The Village map suggests it is larger (does it?)
The times I've looked at the Village Map, it's never struck me as being much bigger than Portmeirion, although I don't recall it being an accurate representation either. I guess I'll pay more attention next time. (The action on the show has always struck me as just-about accurately reflecting the size of Portmeirion; when you include all the area of the buildings, the forest trails, and the strand exposed at low tide, it's a pretty-good-sized place.)
Atlant 11:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are several occasions in which "Camera tricks" of sorts are used to suggest the village is larger than Portmerion. For example, there are scenes in Schizoid Man that are actually shot on the backlot at MGM's studios not Portmerion. And we also know that the Village is large enough to incorporate an entire western ghost town. Plus there are several episodes in which you can see land in the distance across the water ... one must assume this land is part of the Village. And then there are those mountains we see in Arrival. I've been to Portmerion. There are no mountains nearby. 23skidoo 12:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Snowdon doesn't qualify? :-) I'm pretty sure the Welsh call that a mountain. Or at least the big hills/mountains in Blaenau Ffestiniog, a short railway ride from Minffordd? Are you sure you've been there? :-)
Atlant 11:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that isn't Snowdon we see in "Arrival" when No. 6 tries to walk out and find the place surrounded by mountains. I can tell you with certainty that Portmeirion is not surrounded by mountains as seen in "Arrival", so some camera tricks were necessary. And can anyone confirm that the mountain view shown in "Arrival" is actually Welsh and not stock footage of other mountains? 23skidoo 13:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you guys are going to include something about this in the article, would you consider placing it in the Trivia section? I think more about its location is worth documenting, however, one of the biggest problems I had with the major overhaul of the article I did a couple of days ago was too much nitty-gritty facts about the show, overweighing straightforward, descriptive, summary of the show itself. For instance, John Drake was mentioned nearly every time Number 6 was! I guess I think that fan rumors and trivia should be secondary to a straightforward, enlightening illustration of what the show was about.

By the way, I must also say that a great article isn't complete without ALL the facts and some good research, and so I thank you guys for duking these out. I'm certainly too lazy to do it! =)Yeago 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The War

Could we make the speculation about "which war?" more brief. Suffice to say that this series, as well as many television shows at the time, has many plot inconsistencies. I think its pretty clear that he was supposedly in WWII, despite the fact that he was 17. Do you not recall the third-to-last episode when Number 2 is interrogating him in German? Not too many German Koreans. =).

I think this article is great but it tends to go on too long about questions which, while explanative, do little to keep the interest of most readers. Great job though! I'd really like to see this article on the main page this year! Its perfect.

Yeago 18:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new edit on this point is OK, though maybe it should say "presumably World War II, despite the age discrepancy" and place this after the DOB. Otherwise someone else may do the math and take issue with the reference to WWII. I read somewhere a speculation that while No. 2 may have gone into German/WWII mode (since he no doubt fought in the war) No. 6 might still have been flashing back to another conflict, or possibly even a mission. But this is too speculative to include in the article unless it can be cited. 23skidoo 21:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cool, I'm glad you agree. I think that in so many places in this article, rather than attempting to explore every different possibility, we should just leave it open and explain the basics. I definitely think that the individual episodes will, one day, require articles of their own. That's where we can get into the nose-picking details =). Until then, let's just try to give the reader the best idea of the general gist. In the meantime, when article edits settle down I think we ought to remove the cleanup notice. I think we could try to knock another 1k or two off, first. =)Yeago 00:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added my suggestion re: individual episode articles before I read your comment here. Great minds think alike! If time permits I'd see about starting some barebones articles. I'd like to see them handled the same way Doctor Who stories are handled, with a synopsis and lots of trivia and notes for each. 23skidoo 19:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea and I'm glad we're on the same page (har har har. no pun intended). Now its just up to prove to the delete crew that The Prisoner is no less complex or important than Who.Yeago 21:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separtate article: References in Pop Culture

I think that we ought to move the References in Pop Culture, for the sake of this article's readability. I think that this television show certainly merits--based on its complex, contemporary themes--spinoff articles. However, simply moving it to its own article is not going to fly with the boys upstairs (the delete crew). I also think that making this article will make The Prisoner more readable. Its still at 31k!

So, in order to cover our bases I think we ought to include a summary of what themes popular culture draws from The Prisoner. Rover is certainly one of them. If anyone has a thing or two to say, I'd like to hear it.Yeago 18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick comment about the length. I ran into this with the James Bond article, wherein it was cut to be less than 33K but got criticized for being too short. My understanding is the length of the article is immaterial provided the content works. So just so the motivation is clear I don't believe we should be shortening the article to get below a certain number of K because clearly that's not a criteria or so I've been informed in previous featured article debates. THAT SAID, I do agree that the References section can probably stand on its own as a separate article, though it will need a strong introduction added otherwise someone is gonna slap a VFD on it accusing "Prisonercruft".23skidoo 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yeah I suppose I agree. I guess I just feel like the laymen may come to the article and feel rather overwhelmed by the massive amounts of Pop References, Trivia, and the like. Next time I'm in wikimode, I will attack the References summary intro thingy.Yeago 21:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The song "I Helped Patrick McGoohan Escape" from the "Children of Nuggets" Box Set by Rhino Entertainment makes numerous references from the show as well as Man in a Suitcase.


[edit] Episode articles?

I think the 17 episodes deserve individual articles, just as individual episodes of Star Trek, Doctor Who and others do. Thoughts? 23skidoo 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good start would be to start an Episodes section and briefly summarize whatever articles you feel comfortable with. They're sure to grow, and the article may even be a bit bloated for a while. But we'll move them off when they get to that size.Yeago 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's also possible to just start the articles off and call them stubs -- or maybe a Prisoner Stub template can be created (especially if we branch out to character articles; there's an article on Kosho as well ... maybe it's time to create a Prisoner category). Anyway, I have already created red links on a few disambiguation pages such as Arrival. I suggest we use the title format "Episode name (Prisoner episode)" for these articles. Sound good? 23skidoo 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Is that the format most television shows follow, or do they use 'Episode (Series)'? I expect we will meet some resistance if we simply begin creating empty stub pages, but keep in mind the more you add initially, the more I and others will have to work with when expanding. We're probably months away from Character articles and a Prisoner Stub template, so let's just focus on the more immediate task of creating the stubs, in the article if necessary.Yeago 23:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend creating a blank by any means. At the very least a paragraph outlining the plot, the airdate, etc. And perhaps noting in the edit summary that more will be added helps too. I'll see if I can come up with something for Arrival and I'll post a note here when it has been created. In terms of title formats, I've seen both Title (series) and Title (series episode) used. I recommend saying "episode" just because saying "The General (Prisoner)" etc might look a little odd. 23skidoo 01:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have written Arrival (Prisoner episode) though I'm having trouble posting it because the database is being locked for maintenance. If it's a blue link, I was successful. 23skidoo 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that a while ago I started a scratch version of an article about all 17 episodes, which can be found here. It's a bit short of content right now -- shortly after creating it, I got more employment, which cut into my WP time. If enough people are comfortable with going from "all episodes described within the main article" to "each episode described in its own article", then we can do that, but especially for those that are worried about "the delete crew", it may make more sense to put all the episodes in one article, and then be able to demonstrate that one article is not enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since there's been no VFD for the Arrival article so far so I think we're safe in doing separate articles provided they have substantial content from the start. I think there is precedent with the Trek and Who and Twilight Zone articles, and also each episode of The Prisoner is notable separately, so I think the delete crew should be kept at bay! ;-) Your list with the one-line descriptors might be worth putting into the main article in lieu of the episode list box that's there now. 23skidoo 01:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see some energy behind this article, finally! I am eager to see your list of descriptions, however, I was hoping we could avoid making an entirely new list (we already have lists of trivia, episodes, and references). Perhaps we can expand the Episodes table and add the blurbs to that? Can wahtever you have, Antaeus, be worked into that kind of framework?Yeago 03:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm worried that the Prisoner article for Arrival is going to be a candidate for deletion if it remains the only individual prisoner episode article. Who was the one had some things compiled? Link them back here if you get around to starting any other articles.Yeago 20:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "unrevealed" policy

What about in The Schizoid Man, where Number Two tells Number Twelve he doesn't use physical methods because Number Six is too valuable to harm (paraphrasing)? I'm new to the series, so I thought I'd ask first. Dysprosia 11:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transmission dates

Should the UK transmisson dates specify which region the premieres occurred in? As I understand it, ITV didn't network it, at least certainly not every episode, and several of them at least had variable transmission dates across the regions. Angmering 11:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that might make things too complicated. Similar episode lists for shows like UFO, Danger Man, and other ITV programs just list the date of earliest broadcast. If we try to index every region it'll just clutter things up terribly, and probably be subject to a greater degree of error than if we just use one date. If there is some oddball situation such as one region not showing "Fall Out" until 1972 or something, that can be mentioned as a footnote. 23skidoo 13:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting listing the transmissions in every region, just perhaps a note to the effect that these aren't national networking dates, and mentioning which region's dates they are.Angmering 14:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but I wonder if this information is easily obtainable? 23skidoo 14:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style guidelines?

I think it might be time to come together and decide on a set of style guidelines to use on Prisoner-related pages, for Prisoner-related issues such as:

  • Do we refer to the characters as "Number Two", "Number 2", "Two", "2", or what?
  • How do we describe that a particular actor played "Number Two", to clarify that he/she played an otherwise-unnamed individual holding that office?

I'd propose the following rule, at least:

  1. The first time a numbered character is mentioned, they are referred to as "Number" plus the written-out version of the number, hence "Number Six", "Number Two", "Number One". In subsequent references, the "Number" is dropped. The digit is not used unless an actual use of the digit in the episode is being described.
    Example: "Number Six received a pennyfarthing badge marked "6". Six rarely wears this badge."

Any additions/questions/protests? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer not using textual numbers, as it gets a bit wearying on the eyes when you have Seventeen or Twenty-Eight, but the bare number also looks odd. I suppose #6 is another alternative, which also makes the "names" visually distinct from ordinary numbers. Concerning Number 2 disambiguation, perhaps initial references (and any occurences that demand specificity) can take the form "Number 2 (McKern)" et al.? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I recommend against using that hatch symbol # in this instance as apparently it is not a universal symbol meaning "number". I ran into that a few times in a minor edit conflict over the (necessary) use of the s symbol when I created the section on the computer game. My suggestion is to follow the format used by the credits of the TV series. My preference is Number Digit due to the fact that it becomes cluttery and hard to read once you get past Number Ten -- Number Forty-Eight for example is harder on the eyes in the multiple references we'll see in "Fall Out" than Number 48. I'm not against the use No. 48 either, but it might be seen by some as too informal. In terms of identifying Number 2, I don't think it's necessary to link the actor unless it's necessary to define we're talking about a different Number 2. I'd say treat it on a case by case basis. But in an article on "Once Upon a Time", for instance, there's only one Number 2 so no need to disambiguate. 23skidoo 13:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Sheckley

A recent edit states that a planned Prisoner novel by Sheckley was "never written" due to his recent death. Has it been confirmed that the book wasn't completed? 23skidoo 06:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who runs the Village?

In the election episode "Free For All" Number 6 photogaph on the election signs is the same as his offical Spy photograph in the begining of the show. Therefore "The Village" must be run by a secret branch of Number 6 Spy orgization. 134.53.29.74

There are multiple persons from the spy organization that he resigned from that are actively cooperating with those who run the Village, like the head of the organization in "Chimes of Big Ben". We can't say for sure that this same organization is running the Village. But considering who #1 is, #6 has more serious problems. Val42 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good Point

[edit] Slacks

"Number 6 typically wears a very deep brown (often mistaken for black and usually in the episodes appearing as black) jacket with white trim, a blue or black T-shirt, tan slacks," What, exactly, are slacks?16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

slacks = Pants for casual wear.
Atlant 17:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game release date

Can someone provide confirmation for the release of The Prisoner game for the Apple? The color Prisoner II game came out in 1981 but my recollection is the black and white first version came out in 1978-79. 23skidoo 00:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This page claims it's from 1980. I used to own it, but I can't remember when that was. And plus recently found a disk image which works with an Apple ][ emulator! --71.247.23.225 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: TNG reference

Is there any reason the episode "Chain of Command" should count as a reference in popular culture? Surely the aspects which are reminiscent are directly from 1984 rather than via the Prisoner. Maybe a note about it somewhere would be apt, but it should at least include that information I think. --Number36 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it definitely referenced Room 101 from 1984, it was also very reminsicent of Once Upon a Time, particularly with the "Four lights!" segment which is tonally almost identical to Number 6's breakdown over refusing to acknowledge the Number 6. I haven't read 1984 for a few years, but I do not recall Winston ever having an emotional explosion the way Picard/No. 6 do, so that's why I support Chain of Command as exhibiting at least some influence from The Prisoner (and the writers/producers of TNG were fans as evidenced by The Schizoid Man). 23skidoo 18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Picard's outburst during "Chain of Command" is, arguably, there for dramatic effect rather than as a homage to The Prisoner. To my mind, the sequence featuring the four lights is a direct lift from Nineteen Eighty-Four of O'Brien's holding up four fingers during Winston's interrogation in Room 101. DumbLad 20:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's an official confirmation somewhere by, say, writers Frank Abatemarco or Ronald D. Moore, I would suggest the reference be deleted. I'll give someone chance to defend its inclusion before I remove it. DumbLad 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Number Six'

I'm wondering if perhaps we should be using the term 'the Prisoner' instead of 'Number Six' to describe McGoohan's character. As The Prisoner companion by Alain Carrazé & Hélène Oswald asserts, the designation 'Number Six' is one he never accepts. In what way was the character referred in shooting scripts? DumbLad 20:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that - whether or not he accepted it - it is correct to address him as "Number Six", as almost all the characters in the Village are prisoners. McGoohan's character is just the Prisoner of the title, but his main identifier - it's how he's addressed by almost all the other characters - is "Number Six". Howie ☎ 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough, though it hardly seems in keeping with the spirit of the show. How does the program's end credits refer to him? DumbLad 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The character is nearly always referred to as "Number Six" in the credits. The only exception is "Fall Out" in which McGoohan technically receives no acting credit as all we see is the word "Prisoner" superimposed over Number Six as he drives away. And Fall Out, I believe, is also the only episode in which the character is explicitly referred to as "The Prisoner". The rest of the time, he's just "Number Six". 23skidoo 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dance of the Dead

I was just watching a segment of the episode "Dance of the Dead". Are the three people judging the Prisoner dressed as (from left to right) Elizabeth I of England, Nero (Nero Claudius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus) and Napoleon Bonaparte? I couldn't find anything about insanity in Elizabeth, but she is not portrayed well in series 2 of Black Adder. Nero was known to be insane. Napoleon was sane, but "believing oneself to be Napoléon has become semi-synonymous with delusions and more particularly delusions of grandeur." Is this a real connection, in light of the final episodes (the insane judging the Prisoner), or am I just seeing something that isn't really there? Val42 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The" Village?

It's so ungrammatical, but could someone explain why "the", when referring to the Village is always capitalised, regardless of whether or not it opens a sentence? In this article, "The Village" is not the title of a film, book or play, etc. and therefore should be simply written "the Village". I know of no other TV show or film, either in the fantasy genre or another, whose artefacts are preceded with a capitalised definite article, e.g., the Force, the Tardis, the Enterprise. Sorry if it offends anyone, but I'm going to change the name to its grammatical form, unless someone can come up with a convincing explanation. Chris 42 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The name of the place is The Village, article and all (although the map is titled, IIRC, Your Village).
Atlant 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, but I've done it now. Any reversions should take into account that there were other minor edits, including instances where "Village" was not capitalised.

Someone can always go through it later, but I agree with Atlant that it is correct to use The Village in all references where the article is needed unless the place is being referred to in a generic sense, of course. There's a similar issue regarding "The Doctor" from Doctor Who. The consensus is to keep "the" lowercase which I disagree with as there are several indications that The is considered part of the character's common name. (Not like a first name or anything, but almost like a title). 23skidoo 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just checked the Six of One website, I notice that they stick to conventional grammar, and refer to "the Village" throughout their introduction to the series. Chris 42 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

...And so does The Anorak's Guide fansite (90% of the time)! Chris 42 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In view of the fact that most other Prisoner-related websites I have come across stick to grammatical convention, and for consistency's sake (since it contained both examples), I have now similarly updated List of The Prisoner episodes. Chris 42 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eccleston as No. 6?

A previous edit stated that Christopher Eccleston had been cast as Number 6 in Sky/Granada's remake. However according to the latest report by the BBC he is only in the running. Has there been an official, reputable report that Eccleston has been cast? No tabloids, Internet rumor sites, please. 23skidoo 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"...discussions with Eccleston are at an advanced stage, according to production sources." according to The Times (among others). I think it'd be a good bet to say he'd get the role, but it isn't verifiable, so it can't really go in the article. --Scott Wilson 08:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think it's safe to say that he's in discussions or being considered since that is verifiable from reputable sources. Only problem is whether the Times link is permanent or will disappear behind a subscription wall after a few days. The BBC links stay around so I was comfortable using that one for this. 23skidoo 11:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New series article?

What's the general consensus on this? Should we start a new article on the new series, now that it's been officially announced, has received press coverage, and Chris Eccleston is all but officially confirmed to play Number 6? Or would you rather see it as a subsection of this article, at least until the show is closer to airtime? My personal view is it should be a subsection of this article (a little more prominent than it is now), and after more detailed information is revealed, it can be spun off into The Prisoner (2007 series). (The link turns up blue because I've taken the liberty of creating a redirect back here.) Thoughts? 23skidoo 23:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to leave it as a major section in this article until the first episode airs. Val42 01:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to wait till the first episode airs. It's common practice to have articles on series and films before they enter production providing they have been confirmed. For example, see Torchwood. 23skidoo 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in all agreement that there should be an article concerning the new series.. Other examples include the proposed Star Wars television series that's still rather rumoured on. DrWho42 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McGoohan's pseudonyms

It says that McGoohan wrote several episodes under pseudonyms. What pseudonyms did he use ? -- Beardo 06:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Paddy Fitz and Joseph Serf. 23skidoo 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Also Archibald Schwartz (Once Upon A Time).theunmutual
In what context? He is credited on screen as writer and director under his own name. I've never heard of this pseudonym for PMG. What's your source? 23skidoo 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You're correct in that it isn't on screen, but it is a very well known fact that the episode was written under the name Archibald Schwartz. Three main sources: In the 1984 TV documentary "Six into One: The Prisoner file", McGoohan relates his reasoning whereby he wrote the episode under that pseudonym to avoid derision from the cast and crew because of the odd dialogue. Propsman Mickey O Toole, who McGoohan specifically mentions in his anecdote, confirmed this in an interview several years ago which is online at the following link (towards the bottom of the page) http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/interviewsotoole.htm. This is also confirmed on page 101 of Rob Fairclough's Official Prisoner Companion book, User:theunmutual|theunmutual]]

[edit] Cultural references section needs to be shortened

Ouch! I never realized how long that cultural references section has gotten -- it's almost as long as the main article! And we're definitely waaaaay past the 32K threshold. I think it needs to be either spunoff into it's own article or cut down considerably to only include the most notable examples. I actually considered deleting the entire section in toto but that might have been too extreme. Time to seek a consensus -- what do we do with this section-on-steroids? 23skidoo 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Split it off as its own article seeing as there are other articles devoted to references and homages made on some particular thing... DrWho42 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's see if we get any more votes for or against the idea first. 23skidoo 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin offs and continuations

I have no idea why this section was deleted. It was taken out a few days ago but I didn't notice (serves me right for ignoring my watchlist). I think it's more interesting and on-topic than the cultural references section. If someone feels otherwise, I invite them to state their case. Incidentally has anyone noticed this article no longer has any images of Patrick McGoohan? I am adding a book cover scan (fair use as long as the spinoffs section is kept) to rectify this. PS. My copy of the Disch novel is showing every one of its 37 years ... if someone has a better copy (preferably this same original edition), please by all means replace my original scan. 23skidoo 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very different...

It seems that the page has changed very much since I last saw it... To be frank, I don't like it. Whatever happened to the categories and extensive external links? It also seems the References are still there, but shortened a bit... DrWho42 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This was the version as I remembered it.. DrWho42 20:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've rectified some things a bit.. DrWho42 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Image

...It's pretty redundant to the Village logo listed on the same-named section. I prefer it to be changed. DrWho42 21:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References spinoff article up for deletion

Unfortunately one risk of spinning something like the references off into its own article is some people won't see the point. References to The Prisoner in popular culture has been nominated for AFD here. People wanting this list to stay better head over to vote as at the moment the tally is 2 to delete and 1 keep (my vote) 23skidoo 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial or not?

An editor has removed the word "controversial" from the introduction to this article. I considered putting it back, however I thought it would be better to get consensus. I contend that the series was controversial, based upon the reaction to the final episode and the banning of Living in Harmony from CBS. What do others think? Is it accurate to call the show "controversial" (as it has been called in other print sources and documentaries?), or is it better not to refer to it as such? 23skidoo 03:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider it rather controversial... It is still widely debated on as to its meaning and so forth to this very day. DrWho42 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Controversial -- Atlant 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Controversial in the sixties, maybe. It's not an offence program for Christ's sake. Troubleshooter 22:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for #6

I've got the DVDs. I seem to remember somewhere on them that "6" was picked because it is the only number that is another number when it is upside-down. But I forget where on the DVDs this is stated. Val42 17:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It was on the documentary "The Prisoner" companion. GusF 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This has never been confirmed by anyone who worked on the series, however. It is also not the only number thus so (9, 66, 666, 999 etc etc)theunmutual

[edit] Why Portmeirion?

Two episodes of Danger Man were shot at Portmeirion. The rest is history. Be seeing you. --SchizoidMan 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

6 episodes in total of Danger Man featured loaction work in Portmeirion.--theunmutual

[edit] New series

The new series is apparently going to be made and will be called "Number Six". Since it will be made by Britains, let's hope that it isn't ruined like the motion picture versions that Hollywood makes of television series. I don't have cable so I've only seen a few episodes of the remake of "Battlestar Galactica" and it seems decent but I think that they should have renamed it. When a "Bonanza" prequel was done as s television series, they at least renamed it to "Ponderosa". It was different, but I liked it. My parents thought that it was so different that they should have just done another western series not have based it on "Bonanza".

But back to "Number Six", I'm making a proposal: While this new series has not been shown to the public, its information should be in this article. As soon as it has been broadcast, it should have its own article. I'd even be willing to wait for (a somewhat arbitrary) six episodes having been broadcast before it becomes its own article. Since it will be broadcast soon, I'm proposing that we resolve this before it becomes an issue. If you agree, put on how many episodes you think should automatically trigger a new article. If you think that it is too soon to worry about or otherwise disagree, please include why you disagree. I'll be the first to vote:

  • Agree — Split after first episode. Val42 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Maiden

I've never seen the series, but shouldn't there be a reference to the Iron Maiden song somewhere in the trivia perhaps? --Mighty Jay 13:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're referring to. Feel free to add information about this (I don't know enough about it to do so myself). 23skidoo 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, forget it. I just saw that there is a seperate article for this: References to The Prisoner in popular culture. There is a mention to it in there. Sorry, my bad. --Mighty Jay 21:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer game article

I've moved the computer game information to a separate article, The Prisoner (computer game). I've created a redlink for Prisoner 2 as someone might want to do a separate article on it, although it's really the same game as the first Prisoner, just with extra bells and whistles. 23skidoo 16:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in "Novels" subsection

This text appears in the subsection, "Novels":

In 1969, Ace Books in the United States published three novels based upon the series. These books, which take place after the events of "Fall Out," are notable for stating explicitly that Number 6 is John Drake from Danger Man. The three books are not considered canonical.

I am currently reading this novel, and it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, "take place after the events of 'Fall Out'". In fact, it's a retelling of the events of the entire series shortened to a single adventure, with substantial deviations from the version of events as depicted in the TV series. For instance, the man who would be known as Number Six is abducted from a train after his resignation, instead of from his home, and his residence in The Village, rather than being a copy of his London home, is a copy of a house he recently purchased in Wales (which was his destination on the train from which he was abducted). By contrast, as in the TV series, his name is never given; he is referred to in the narrative as "he" or "the man" and later as "Number Six". It is never indicated that he is "John Drake from 'Danger Man'". -- 12.22.250.4 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if there are errors, go ahead and fix them. However I'd check the "no reference to Drake" assertion. Which edition are you reading? It's possible that was changed later. The David McDaniel book "Number 2" has "Drake" as the first word of the first chapter, so that's definitely confirmed. 23skidoo 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm speaking specifically about the Disch novel, the only bullet point that I included, that's the only one I've read. The photo in the article of the original paperback cover including phrases like, "Number 6 escaped from the Village, didn't he?," are obviously a cheap marketing tool. The character's "real" name is never mentioned in the Disch book, and no reference is made to the events of the TV series. It's a retelling, which, like the proposed SkyOne remake, takes liberties with the source material. 12.22.250.4 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made some corrections to the books section, which had Disch's novel not being listed as part of the Ace series and actually published in 1967. I just checked my facts and it was indeed first published in 1969 along with the others, and it was released as No. 1 of the series (although this doesn't appear on the cover of the original Ace edition, No. 1 does appear on later reprints). Also examining the ISBN numbers for the original Ace editions show them to be sequential; there is no indication a company other than Ace published the book earlier. The reason for the 1967 confusion is that the 2002 reprint carries this as a copyright date because that is the copyright date of the series and since iBooks (the 2002 publisher) was an imprint of Carlton, rights holders to the TV series, they used the TV series copyright date instead of the actual original publication year of the novel. Also, if you think about it, The Prisoner would have still been in production in 1967 when Disch wrote his book, so it wouldn't have made since for him to write a novel based upon the complete series if the series wasn't yet actually complete. 23skidoo 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number 6 and the Salute

Would it be a stretch to point out that creating a circle with the thumb and forefinger with the remaining fingers outstretched resembles a 6? It may also be a stretch but a Penny Farthing resembles a 6 on its side. Perhaps these points warrent mention in the article?--RedKnight 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Never noticed that. Interesting point. However, to include it in the article, you would need a published source to back it up. David L Rattigan 09:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say the the salute does resemble a 6 regardless of extraneous documentation and a six on its side resembles a Penny Farthing. I am one who believes that the finale which reveals 6 to be 1 (hmmm... "six of one" is mentioned at least a couple of time during the series as well) was never an afterthought and all such observations have merrit regardless of who discovers them. Someone has to be first to make these statements and observations so why could I not be the first? Not my document, though -- Your call. (Personally I find 'The sign of the fish' more of a stretch, regardless of the origin of the statement. I feel the salute looks nothing like it.) --RedKnight 22:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The science fiction book The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson describes a very similar-looking salute and says it resembles the number 23 (two fingers down, 3 up); it's off-topic to explain why 23 is significant, but according to the book - as well as authors such as William S. Burroughs - there is an enigma involving the number. Whether or not McGoohan was aware of this is unknown, although 2 x 3 = 6. Having said all this, just like the 6 comparison above, there would need to be a source directly linking it to The Prisoner for it to really qualify. As far as the Prisoner reference works I have are concerned (along with the Prisoner Video Companion documentary), the salute was chosen because it represented an ancient Christian symbol, the sign of the fish. 23skidoo 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interpretation and rumour

I've moved this whole section here as it violates WP:OR. If anyone has some sources for this analysis, please cite and replace. deleted section follows----

[edit] Interpretations and rumours

The theme of The Prisoner is, essentially, a libertarian one where the freedom of the individual is consistently undermined by the societal collective backed by overwhelming totalitarian force. In response, Number 6 makes this unambiguous statement: "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." While the Village tries to assimilate Number 6, he himself strives for independence — usually asserting this through his attempts to escape. Sometimes Number 6 succeeds, sometimes he fails, and occasionally he is defeated by his defiance, in that by resisting 'on their terms' he has succumbed to the greater trap — that is, playing the game the Village has put before him.

Why did the Prisoner resign? This core question of the series was answered my McGoohan in an interview for the book "The Prisioner Companion." McGoohan said that the Prisioner resigned "because he could". The answer lies not in why he left the world of spying behind, it lies with the fact that as a human being, he was the one with the right to make decisions about his life. This human right was a slap in the face to the power structure that the Village represents, so to whomever ran the Village, this simple human choice must hide some hidden secret reason.

In "Fall Out", Number 2 presses this very question. "Why did you resign?" The Prisoner responds, "Because I knew too much...about you." This must apply not to this one mysterious Number Two, but rather to the entire mindset that the Village represents: The forces of conformity, the power of Society that pushes, nudges, and remakes each free individual into being just another mindless cog in the machine.

During the opening dialogue in most episodes, Number 2 says "You are Number 6". Some view this as a direct response to the previous question "Who is Number 1?" by inserting a comma into the statement ("You are, Number 6."), implying that Number 6 is in control. Similarly, Number 2's reply of "Information" to Number 6's question "What do you want?" could be interpreted as 'information' or 'in formation', the latter being a command to follow orders and conform.

The identity of Number 6 is debated: many believe he is John Drake, the spy character McGoohan played for many years on Danger Man a.k.a. Secret Agent. At least one later episode of The Prisoner ("The Girl Who Was Death") was adapted from an unused Danger Man script, and a character named Potter who appeared in the earlier series appeared on The Prisoner, played by the same actor. Another theory is that he is David Jones, portrayed by McGoohan in the film version of Ice Station Zebra that was filmed at the same time as the series. Otherwise, McGoohan has stated for decades that No. 6 was not John Drake, while Markstein said he was. Still others find scant evidence for this view. McGoohan did not own the rights to John Drake, so it is unlikely he would have been allowed to use the character.

McGoohan always emphasised the show's power was strongest when it was viewed allegorically. Towards the end of the series, particularly in the symbolism-laden final installment, "Fall Out", the show seems a refutation to some degree of the counterculture.----- ---End, deleted section. Cheers. L0b0t 17:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia gone?

Where has most of the Trivia-section gone? There used to be interesting information not found anywhere else. Now there are only two lines there.

Please see the following guidelines as to why the trivia is removed and if must be rewritten to conform to wikipedia standards if anyone wants to replace it. WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:EPISODE, WP:AVTRIV, and WP:WAF. We may only add things to an article that have already been publised by reliable 3rd party sources in a work about the subject of the article. Cheers. L0b0t 21:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Prisoner_16b4.html"