Talk:Edge of Darkness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edge of Darkness article.
Article policies
Good article Edge of Darkness has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Broadcast

Various sources, including the British Film Institute, [1] state that the series was repeated on BBC1 in three parts, rather than two 150-minute parts as stated in the article. The only good source of airdates [2] further suggests that the show was originally show with six episodes, repeated with three, and released on video with two. What's the gen? -Ashley Pomeroy 18:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I originally wrote that under the impression that the version released on video was the same as the BBC One omnibus - I could well have been mistaken, however, as I can't seem to find a source for that now. (This is, as you can probably well, an article I wrote when I was newer to Wikipedia and wasn't much of a one for such things as 'proof' and 'references'...). Therefore I'd say that the three episodes for the BBC One showing is probably correct. Angmering 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, the original BBC Video release was on two tapes - subtitled Into the Shadows and Northmoor - with a single 150-minute "episode" per tape, but I also have a vague memory of the three-episode edit being used for the repeats. Common practice up until a few years ago was for drama series to be edited into single programmes for video release - it's only recently that this practice has been replaced with keeping episodes separate. --Mpk 18:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I remember – I used to have the dreadful Revelation Films DVD release of Edge of Darkness, which was in two parts, but across three discs. Awful. Thank goodness the Beeb re-released it in a proper edition! Angmering 18:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Small point of correction (have not edited page since I am not sure of my ground); I'm pretty sure that Emma was picked up from some generic University environmentalist meeting, not a GAIA one, as GAIA is a secret organisation which comes to light for Craven only after her death. Michael Meacher would not have been speaking to GAIA!

You're quite right – I've fixed that part of the synopsis accordingly. Angmering 11:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it more likely that Meacher would have been talking to what would then have still been a fairly standard university Labour meeting, or a similiar socialist group? Brothers, Sisters.. due to the latest crisis in Western capitalism, the Corporation is running a reduced bus service.. seems to suggest this. --Mpk 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Northmoor break-in

I'm trying to compile an 'Edge of Darkness' timeline, and have noticed that in 'Breakthrough' the MI5 computer is itself contradictory. It first lists the breakthrough as being on 5 May, then later the date 05/08/85 is mentioned. I suspect this is just a typo and that the break-in was on the fifth, but has anyone else come up with any other dates?

I also noticed that given the setting of the series in late 1985, the taxi which drops Bennett at the Commons is lucky not to have got a ticket for the 11/84 expiry of its road tax! --Mpk 17:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Another item for the list of minor glitches: and the sort of point on which a Lieutenant Columbo plot or similar would turn (g). Jackiespeel 22:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Gun

"Controversially, the scene in which Emma is shot dead was filmed using a real gun and bullet for added realism; the actress wore protective clothing to avoid injury. " This seems so unlikely that it needs a source.--Mongreilf 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the weapon used was a sawn-off shotgun: might have made things a little too realistic methinks. Also, shotguns don't fire bullets, if they do fire a single projectile then it's called a slug... all in all, I think it's worth taking out and have done so. Driller thriller 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly sounds like bunk to me. Shooting Joanne Whalley with a shotgun would probably have had at least related insurance problems, "protective clothing" notwithstanding. If I remember from one of the DVD features, it was a fairly conventional blood-bags-and-microdetonators rig, attached to a metal plate which she wore under her clothes - can't remember if it was Whalley herself or a stunt player. She was then pulled back on a line to simulate the impact of the shot. --Mike 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The "making of" feature on the 2003 dvd covers this, mention is made of the scene being controversial but that's probably because it's such a graphic scene. The bit where she's pulled back is a stunt double, but the blood&bags bit is the actress -- who had to go through the thing twice. -- james

[edit] Music

Where does the Tom Waits track "13 Shells From A 30.06" appear? Halmyre 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article – Pass

I was a keen viewer of this series when it was first broadcast in the mid 1980s and have watched repeats of it more recently. It was an excellent series. Viewed in the late 2000s it is very evocative of life in the mid 1980s during the Thatcher government and towards the end of the Cold War.

I believe that the series has been released for broadcast and on video/DVD in a number of slightly different versions. The Plot section appears to adhere to the original TV version.

1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and Good pass – the prose and English are excellent (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Reasonable pass – sections of dense text might be improved

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to sources used; Good pass – the article is well referenced (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and Good pass – detailed accuracy has been challenged on the article Discussion page and the challenges have been addressed (c) contains no original research Reasonable pass – the article includes some personal observations and commentary

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and Good pass (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style). Narrow pass – tends to drift into sections of dense text discussing the significance of the series, some which is just a little off topic

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Reasonable pass – the article is obviously written by fans of the series; it might be improved by a slightly more critical approach to the theme and content of the series

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Good pass – there is no evidence in either the History or Discussion of edit wars, disputes or vandalism

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. Narrow pass – the article has only one proper image and could be improved by the addition of several others

Overall – a clear Good Article. I have no hesitation in awarding it a Pass. Bob BScar23625 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of YouTube links

I've removed the three links to YouTube added by User:BScar23625. From WP:COPYRIGHT: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." - Joe King 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe. The operative words are "knowingly and intentionally". Do you know that YouTube is in violation of copyright?. Have you checked with the BBC on that?. YouTube has carried the jerkyvision extracts since 1 June, so presumably they know what they are doing. Bob BScar23625 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob, yes I believe this is a copyvio because the links in question are not in the BBC sanctioned section of YouTube and were not added by BBC affiliated users (BBC or BBC Worldwide). It would be unwise to assume that YouTube "know what they are doing" since they are currently having the arse sued off them for copyvio. With YouTube it's safer to assume that *all* content is a copyvio unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Joe King 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe. Fair enough. Sorry for doubting you. Bob BScar23625 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Edge of Darkness science fiction?

The anonymous user at IP address 87.189.108.84 has removed the reference in the lead to EoD being science fiction with the edit summary “What SF? There is not the slightest bit of SF, please provide sources to tell us otherwise”. In response, I would point out that:

  1. Edge of Darkness merits an entry in Roger Fulton's Encyclopaedia of Television Science Fiction
  2. Is listed 43rd in science fiction magazine SFX's list of The Top 50 SF TV Shows of All Time by a panel that included Stephen Baxter, Terry Pratchett and Michael Moorcock (Issue 50).
  3. Is again listed by SFX magazine – this time in a vote by readers – as the 12th best UK SF programme (SFX Special Edition #22, Best of British)
  4. Is acknowledged as encompassing science fiction by Lez Cooke in the BFI's British Television Drama: A History (page 148).

I am therefore reverting the edit. - Joe King 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the obvious classification of EoD is "science fiction", long term observers of the nuclear industry and the military-industrial complex might argue with perfectly justifiable NPoV that EoD contains very little fiction and in particular very little fictional science, and that it requires very little suspension of disbelief. So it's not "science fiction" in the oft-used sense of the phrase. How to reflect this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.139 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)