Talk:The Prisoner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Prisoner article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

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

He directed as Joseph Serf, first (as far as I know, anyway) reported by Tom Soter in a "Prisoner" article in Starlog magazine's October 1988 issue. Where he got it, I don't know, but most since then have reported it as flatly as he did. These two are the only McGoohan pseudonyms specifically identified, despite early reports using the word "several." Ted Watson 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just took my first look at this article in quite a long time and was surprised to find the following sentence in the section "Origins":
He also wrote and directed several episodes, often under various pseudonyms, such as Archibald Schwartz.
Knowing that I had taken such a statement down—back in July 2007, to be specific—I started to prepare a Talk page statement to defend reverting it again, including the diff page of my prior revert, and the apologetic response of the person who had put it up. In looking for the latter, I found this, and strangely enough I have no memory of the unmutual's portion of it (I should have said then what I am about to say now). So I'll post the defense here, and link it from my edit summary. The only way it is accurate to say that someone literally wrote—that is, did the actual writing as opposed to receiving the publicized credit—under a pseudonym is if the person/company to receive the work does not know the writer's real identity, which is obviously not the case here. The most that is true in this instance is that McGoohan considered taking the writing credit for Once Upon a Time under the name Archibald Schwartz but ultimately his own name went on it. Similarly, I took a direct quote attributed to writer Ron Fortier concerning the NOW Comics series that he co-developed and initially wrote, The Green Hornet, off that article. He allegedly said that their making the modern version of the character Kato female led to the comic being cancelled. It did not matter if it could be positively proved that Fortier had actually said that, because the comics themselves conclusively prove that it was simply not the fact of the matter, and therefore should not be in the encyclopedia. Here, even if you show me the video of McGoohan making this statement, it remains somewhat inaccurate, and the way it is presented in the article is highly misleading. Hence, I'm taking it out. Ted Watson (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good defence to me, just to say that it wasn't I who added the statement into the article. theunmutual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.194.249 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Unmutual. I did not track down the edit putting the name back into the article, and certainly did not mean to imply that I had any idea who did it. I still do not know why, when I posted a comment here last April 29, I did not say most of the things I said this April. My bad. Ted Watson (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (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)

I am very pleased to see that my observation was added to the page, although I do wonder why is was so readily dismissed without having a reference source to back it up. Again, as observations go, I believe that it is a sound one as did whomever added to the text. Thank you for the recognition of what I strongly feel a to be a worthy point.--RedKnight (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2008 (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)
Not relevant to the article, except perhaps as part of the "In popular culture" section, but the Be Seeing You salute is also used by Mister Bester of the Psi Corps is Babylon 5.
Bagheera 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pop culture influence?

This show is strikingly similar to the Adult Swim series 12 oz. Mouse. Yakwhacker 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the other way around? 12 Oz. Mouse is similar to The Prisoner? Not that it actually matters of course - but it is semantically correct this way.
Cheers
Bagheera 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The Prisoner is an allegorical 60s spy show. 12 Oz. Mouse is a nonsensical cartoon with proudly low-quality animation and character design. However, both shows are experimental, and cultishly adored, and feature "figuring out things" scenes. But tonally, plot-wise, and thematically, they couldn't be further apart.

If you want to compare apples to apples, I'd venture that The Prisoner is like James Bond on assignment in the Twilight Zone. 12 Oz. Mouse is a stoner epic, a mildly entertaining "Adult Swim" dadaist TV prank run amok, and won't be remembered very widely in a few years Ted 3000 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My imagination immediately lumps together The Prisoner and the feature file The Truman Show. Is there grounds for listing the latter in the "Spinoffs and continuations" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grygiu (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no obvious connection. Lacking it being obvious, it is original research. — Val42 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's quite often claimed that The Truman Show recalls The Prisoner - in fact several critics have said so in reviews of the film: see for example http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:161628, http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/3102/secret.htm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/trumanshowosullivan.htm . Various people have also claimed precise Prisoner references in The Truman Show: see for example the comment at the bottom of http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/comparestruman.htm . If nothing else, reporting such claims with citations would seem not to be original research. (I should add the qualifications that not everyone who sees a resemblance between Truman and The Prisoner has gone on to claim that there was an influence from one to the other, and that The Truman Show has been compared to several other things as well, notably The Secret Cinema.) But even if one accepts that The Truman Show was influenced by The Prisoner, and has explicit Prisoner references (and speaking personally I think that both are reasonably obvious) that wouldn't be enough to make it a Prisoner spinoff or continuation - that's the sort of connection for a "works influenced by" or "in pop culture" section instead. --RW Dutton (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My reply to Douglsdnico comments

Your comments are valid, however when attempting to gain some smiting of insight in to the series, one must remember that it was made in a era that had a totally different social structure than to day.

I think one of the major attractions of “The Prisoner” is the speculative and vague nature of the program that allows individuals to fill in the gaps with there imagination.

It true there is no mention of his nationality or for that matter that Peter Smith was his definite name, however one can make a educated guess based on what is known and it is implied that The Prisoner was English.

I accept your comments, but where was it ever implied that he was definitely English? I do have the DVD box set but have only watched it through once. You have to take into account Wiki's rules of 'no original research', speculation doesn't work in articles, though it's VERY difficult in a show such as The Prisoner as there were very few hard facts. The time period even is difficult, though one of the few times we see a current piece of military hardware that can pin it down is a Meteor two seater aircraft. Look at the debates as to the location of The Village, ranging from the Mediterranean to the UK mainland. Considering one view that the whole Prisoner program could be just an elaborate mindgame, there are very few hard facts, unfortunately Wiki doesn't look too well on this, as I have done this myself in some Space:1999 articles. Douglasnicol 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
All we know about his upbringing is that he played cricket as a boy (picture shown in Arrival) and that he has an accent that is definitely not American. --Kneague 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the name "Peter Smith" used in "Many Happy Returns": After giving that name to Mrs. Butterworth, he asks to see the registration log for his/her car and the lease for his/her flat. He is surprised to find that both are new documents with her name first, i.e., no previous owners/tenants identified. If he hadn't used "Peter Smith" for those two purposes, what possible reason could he have for asking to see the records? Logically, he must have used Smith for those legal documents, and its difficult to see how he would use an alias on them, even allowing for the fact that he was an intelligence agent, as they both seem to be part of his own personal life (he told Mrs. B. of the car, "I built it with my own hands", so unless that was a lie, it at least was not provided by his government). On the other hand, he does say "Peter Smith" as if it were the most obvious alias in the (English-speaking) world, but that would be "John Smith," wouldn't it? Did he say "Peter" because the other would have been part of the truth (John Drake)? Ted Watson 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
A possible answer may be found in "Do Not Forsake Me" where we learn that Number 6 uses a number of aliases. Presumably "Peter Smith" is one of them. In fact if you watch "Many Happy Returns" again you'll see Number 6 hesitate before giving the name, almost as if he was trying to remember it. Perhaps he was trying to remember which alias he used for the car and the apartment (it makes sense for him to use the same for both). As to the nationality question, that's actually consistent with John Drake who is said to be American in the first season of Danger Man, becomes British thereafter (stated in dialogue), and identifies himself as Irish in one episode. Similar ambiguity exists for Number 6 (one of his aliases in Do Not Forsake Me is Duval or something like that). And we do know he has strong ties with France per "A, B and C". All we know for certain is that he is based in London. 23skidoo 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "number of aliases" revealed in Do Not Forsake... is two, and each is restricted to one country: "...in France, Duval, in Germany, Schmidt...." (if that's not verbatim, it's close enough). I also deny your interpretation of The Prisoner's delivery of "Peter Smith," and refer you to my earlier description. Also, perhaps you'll take notice of the evidence I cited indicating the apartment and especially the car were part of his personal, private life, and not his government work, which admittedly seems to contradict the idea that he's used an alias for both. Finally, I deny that, despite many commonalities, the half-hour Danger Man and the one-hour series of the same name, aka Secret Agent, share the same leading character. Same character name and same actor, absolutely, but two different characters, the first American and the other British. Ted Watson 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be interested to see if you can provide any source to back up your contention that there were two different John Drakes. I've been involved in Prisoner/Danger Man fandom for more than 20 years now and that's the first time I've ever heard this particular claim made. 23skidoo (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] thenewno2

Resolved.

There has been an ongoing dispute regarding inclusion of the following information in the trivia section: "The Prisoner also inspired the naming of the band thenewno2, featuring George Harrison's son, Dhani Harrison." To bring everyone up to speed I will start with the edit history first: An anonymous editor inputs this fact here then it was reverted here then it was put back in as in here but it was reverted again diff and again diff and again diff and again diff and again diff and finally here. I will not repeat the edit summaries as they are visible in the diffs provided. I also include the talk page messages to date copying and pasting them here:

[edit] The Prisoner

"The Prisoner also inspired the naming of the band thenewno2, featuring George Harrison's son, Dhani Harrison." I followed the links. Nowhere did I see authority for this proposition, therefore, as an uncited allegation, it remains deleted until it can be supported by evidence, and as an editor wishing to include it, the onus remains on you to provide authority. I've no doubt that it may be true; but policy requires that it be substantiated. Over to you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply:

[edit] The Prisoner

Thank you for your message. Now we have two editors that don't support your opinion and despite that you keep deleting a fact despite your own admission it might be true. So the natural question to ask is why don't you just tag it using a myriad of tags such as a fact tag instead of removing the fact like you did? Dr.K. (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

The questions arising from all this are very simple:

  1. Why don't we just tag the information with a {{fact}} tag? After all Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Another editor sees the citation needed tag then finds the citation and everyone is happy. If we remove the sentence altogether how would this collaboration work if the editors don't see it so that they can help the project by providing the needed citation?
  2. Quote from the first message: I've no doubt that it may be true; but policy requires that it be substantiated. So here we have a fact added that one of the disputing editors acknowledges that it may be true. Yet he wants to delete it without giving other editors the chance to collaborate by finding a suitable citation for it. Does that make sense?
  3. The trivia section of the article is full of uncited facts. Why do we have to discriminate against this particular fact? Why don't we just remove every uncited fact from the article?
  4. Why stop here? Why don't we just erase every uncited fact from Wikipedia as a whole?
  5. Why even bother having any citation needed tags?
  6. Where in policy is it stated that erasing a fact is preferable to tagging it with a {{fact}} tag? Dr.K. (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Resolved After further communication the matter has been resolved. --Dr.K. (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moral: Don't edit at the end of spending twelve hours fighting off vandals! Apologies. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Very gracious of you. I can understand the frustration involved fighting vandals and it does take its toll. It is completely understandable, no apology necessary. The kind gesture is nonetheless appreciated. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powys novels again

Okay, now an anonymous user has updated this section again, deleting Lance Parkins book and giving a release date for Miss Freedom (they also added this info to Andrew Cartmels page). Actually the edit states that 'it was' released on Feb 15th, despite this being the Feb 1st. However the problem is, unless I'm blind, there's nothing to collaborate this on the actual Powys site, which hasn't been updated for a long time as far as I can tell, and still claims Miss Freedom is the third book, after Lance Parkins, and will be released 'Fall 2006' (which it wasn't). So is this a case of someone just making detailed random stuff up, or perhaps someone attached to Powys, with a very odd way of releasing information about their up-coming releases? Either way, as I understand it, unless there's some external source it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. The only thing I found by googling, that indicates a possibility that there might be more information, is that The Six of One site has it listed as being released in 2008 on a list of Prisoner related books and when they came out, and has what appears to be a tiny thumb of the cover, which isn't displayed anywhere on the official site or anywhere else that I've seen, however that site doesn't give any sort of source for that release date, and it could just as well be that they got it from here, or simply up-dated to reflect that the book didn't come out in 2006 or 2007, for all I know. Everything else I found on google was from ages ago and referenced the earlier release dates.Number36 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tricky one this, not least because again, it's late here. Sourcing of some stuff, particularly non-canon, is always going to be a problem with this article. General policy is that information should be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. However, per discussion in the thread above this one, unsourced information can be added but may be tagged with a {{citation needed}} tag, and after a suitable time can be deleted if it remains unsubstantiated. However, that relies on vigilant editors who are prepared to monitor the article and take the time to source dubious claims. My inclination is to revert the anon edit and insist on a citation in the absence of alternative information, on the basis that it is all too easy to insert rumour and rubbish into Wikipedia and the onus should lie upon the inserting/changing/deleting editor to provide good reason for the edit. But then, perhaps that's just my lawyer's mind at work. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case, given the rationales provided by both editors above, and in the absence of reliable sources after a detailed search by one of the editors, I agree that the best thing to do is to remove it. Dr.K. (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it didn't seem right. I added citation needed tags as suggested, in the hope that if it is genuine information, the person who contributed it might come back and back it up with an external reference. How long do you think is appropriate to leave it before I revert it to the earlier info (which comes from the official site)?. I also just noticed that the ISBN that has been given for Miss Freedom is listed on the Powys site as the ISBN for Lance Parkins book, The Other.Number36 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would give it a month. I've seen tags in articles since July 2007 or older but they are obviously neglected. Taking this route is more involved since you must follow up but it gives plausible facts a better chance of being verified in a collaborative way, under the supervision of a willing editor. You will not be alone. I'll check it up in a month's time as well. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Prisoner pages at the Powys site have now been updated and confirm the above novels release as described (I've also talked to people on the Doctor Who Forum (Formally known as Outpost Gallifrey) who attended the convention where it was released, which would be OR I know but the Powys update makes that moot), also I have added The Other back to the list as the update has it now listed as the third novel (whereas before it was the second and Miss Freedom was the third), however as far as I can see there isn't anything about those later books listed there (I seem to recall there was at one stage though), so I've added fact tags to those novels. I didn't put a year for The Others release as it hasn't been updated on the Powys site and still reflects the earlier scheduled release date. From what I've heard over at DWF the Powys site may be having a more complete update sometime soon.Number36 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Great work. Thanks for the update. Dr.K. (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Impact

The article states: "its surreal setting had a far-reaching effect upon science fiction-fantasy-genre television and also popular culture in general". Now I should lay my cards on the table and confess that The Prisoner is one of my top five television drama series, however I don't think the Prisoner is as influential as this sentence makes it out to be. I think people thought 'this is brilliant', but in terms of its influence on television production it was an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It is not featured in the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes list prepared by the BFI in 2000. The place I see its influence most often is in spoofs and homages of the type seen in The Tube (TV series). Any comments? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you mention it.... Although I am a fan too, I'd have to agree. If anyone can find a reference to a subsequent program which supports this influence reliably, that would be fine; the quote, though is for "its surreal setting", which is vague anyway, but the argument remains, in general terms. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number Six (Battlestar Galactica version)

Why the 'citation needed' note? Simply clicking on the 'Number Six' link in the same sentence takes you to the #6(BSG) Wiki page which has the reference right there in the second paragraph. --Frunobulax (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Because other Wikipedia articles can't be used as references. — Val42 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
True. Ref added.Number36 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference is in the article; its not the article itself. Frunobulax (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Verifying this is just a click away. Anyway the latest revert about number 6 of Battlestar Galactica concerns an edit that was redundant and uncited. The proper edit is still in the article and uses the same citation as the number six article, just to be on the safe side I guess. Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serial dramas category

I removed the Serial Dramas category because, strictly speaking, this series was not a serial (perhaps someone mistook it for Cell Block H?). Serials primarily feature episodes leading from one to the next, but except for the two-part finale that wasn't the case in The Prisoner and as we all know there's debate even over what order the episodes should take. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)