Talk:Quatermass II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Quatermass II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 5, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects 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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

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.

[edit] Explain this to me...

Template:Spoiler In the final episode, why do the aliens do an about-face and welcome the arrival of the atomic rocket? I can only think that they hoped to hijack it and ride it back to earth, but why would they need it when they had their own meteorite-ships in abundance? Uucp 14:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• My guess: the death-rate of the creatures in the meteorites. The rocket would allow mass invasion with far less loss of "life". Proteus71 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Neutral, well-written, well-cited, images, the works. Thanks for the lovely article.--Rmky87 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deranged Falconer quote

My one objection to this otherwise fine page is the straightfaced and unrebutted presentation of the following:

Writing in The Times in 2006, Morgan Falconer found racist undertones in the serial. "Quatermass, for instance, often seemed to have an unhealthy preoccupation with blackness, a barely veiled commentary on racial change in Britain. In one scene in Quatermass II, the Professor stands outside a pub and watches the sky fill with dark asteroids. 'They’re coming in their thousands,' he says, 'this is it.'"[24]

This vile interpretation is demonstrably false. None of the references to blackness or darkness in the series relate to skin color; they are either simple physical descriptions of objects or the usual metaphors arising from the color of night: the unseen as the unknown, the fear of threats in the dark--all inescapable in a a tale about unknown hostile beings from the blackness of outer space. Far from being "barely veiled," commentary on racial change in Britain is completely absent. In Quatermass and the Pit, only a few years later, there is plenty of commentary on then-recent racial and anti-immigrant riots, and Kneale has Quatermass finish with a mince-no-words speech against intolerance and race hate, a passage we know was close to Kneale's heart since he insisted on its inclusion over the objections of BBC officials who considered it too explicitly preachy. It is absurd for Falconer to contend that the Kneale who wrote Quatermass and the Pit was promoting race hate and attacking immigration only a few years before.

Nor does he supply any genuine evidence for his thesis. The "asteroids" (actually artificial meteorites) are not particularly "dark" as seen in the series, more light grey. The line as delivered in the series, (I can't vouch for the movie or book version) is not "coming in their thousands," personalizing the meteorites, but the simple literal description "coming in thousands," and the most obvious reason why Kneale might think this image would be thriller-scary for a British audience is because that audience had experienced real threats of invasion, real aerial bombardment, and even real missile attacks only a decade or so before. (Whereas the big race riots that inspired Quatermass and the Pit were still years away when Quatermass II was made.) Falconer is projecting his own racial preoccupation on material that has no shred of reference to it. But a reader of our page who is unfamiliar with Quatermass and the Pit and has not yet seen Quatermass II will have no way of knowing how false and calumnious Falconer's commentary is.

The Falconer quote is, in short, grossly prejudicial and factually untrue. (The misquoted line isn't even delivered outside the pub; even the unimportant details are wrong.) Although it is a fact that Falconer wrote it, and not a lie to print that fact, there are doubtless many other stupid and untrue things that have been printed about the series; we are under no obligation to include them here. But if we are to retain this quote, there should be some context indicating that it misrepresents the scene it describes and that Kneale's often expressed views and aims directly contradict its thesis.

The fine 48-page booklet of Viewing Notes for the 2005 restoration DVD is my factual source for the above historical background, by the way, but it wouldn't be too difficult to make the same points with online sources as well.

Bottom line: this should be changed. I am temperately waiting for the suggestions and comments of others before taking action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you that Falconer is pretty obviously talking bollocks, but my reason for including his thoughts was that the reception section was otherwise rather thin on less positive reaction to the serial, and I was worried that it might make the piece seem like too much of a glowing fanboy tribute. I can see how it might make such views seem far more prevelant than they actually are though (as far as I know only Falconer has ever suggested this allegory). It should have had more context added though, I agree — I have now added a rider pointing out that this interpretation is not widely held, and contrasting it with Quatermass and the Pit. Better? Angmering 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Much better, Angmering--and I commend you for the quickness as well as the aptness of your response. I'm perfectly happy with a context solution as opposed to excision. As long as newcomers to Quatermass are not misled, Falconer's remarks are so typical of a whole school of shoddy contemporary criticism that it does rather round out the discussion to see Quatermass through that prism. I am still considering a slightly more specific refutation (with due regard for both brevity and authority rather than opinion), but I would certainly post it here in Discussion before tampering with a very solid page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Later: And on sober reflection, your solution has the elegance of simplicity, and is hard to improve upon. I would like to ding Falconer for his misrepresentations, but when you get down to the fine points it all seems too petty. I would like to strike a blow for common sense about when "blackness" and "darkness" are racially charged and when they are clearly not, but the more stupid side of this issue ("everything is about race") is a trend, and a true believer could produce as many "authorities" to cite as I possibly could; better to leave that issue to the common sense and experience of science fiction fans, who know quite well the innocent uses to which these words can be put. Angmering, you have fastened on the strongest and most inarguable point. All I would ask in revision is that you make that point more forcefully. Instead of "contrasts with," it should be something more like "is difficult to reconcile with" or even "would seem to be directly contradicted by." What do you think?

I changed it to "in direct contrast with"; I think that about sums it up? Angmering 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough--although (if you'll pardon my saying so) just barely. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not trying to give the impression I'm the overload of this article or something. :-) Do feel free to suggest something better! Angmering 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"I would like to strike a blow for common sense ..." - bear in mind that Wikipedia articles do not have a viewpoint or an opinion, even in cases where the editor feels that one party is absolutely and inarguably wrong. A Wikipedia article can include opposing quotes, but it cannot take an editorial stance. Language such as "this view is not widely held" is dangerously close to "many people are of the opinion that etc" or "it has been argued that etc". Morgan Falconer's quote is particularly tricky; it is such an individual interpretation that no major critic has bothered to rebut it, which means that there is no easy way for Wikipedia to frame an opposing viewpoint. -Ashley Pomeroy 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)