Talk:Captain Scarlet

Oh, thank you all, thank you!

I must have seen reruns of this at some point in my childhood travels, but no one in New York, when I spent my early teens, knew what I was talking about. Finally, I met one person who knew of 'Thunderbirds' (she was English) but even she went blank when I mentioned 'Captain Scarlett'.

Vindication at last! It's been bothering me for almost twenty years! Quill 06:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Length of the fall

Capt. Scarlet falls '250 m'? Metres? Is that what was said in the original? Quill 00:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have the boxed set; I can re-watch and check if it is. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Thanks--when you get around to it. The only reason I am asking is because I would have thought that the series predated the use of the metric system. I could be way off base, here, though. Quill 23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're correct; the actual figure mentioned in the episode is 800 feet. That's pretty close to 250 meters (more like 243.2) but, well, there really doesn't seem to be a good reason to artificially convert it to a different system, does there? I fixed it in the article. Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone 'fixed' the figure of 800 feet to 1800 feet. If they had checked this talk page beforehand, they would have realized that the figure of 800 feet came from going to the episode itself and re-watching it. In the episode "The Mysterons" as contained in the Captain Scarlet boxed set, at 26 minutes and 19 seconds into the episode, Commander White states the figure as 800 feet -- I went back and rewatched it a second, and then a third time, to be sure I was hearing correctly. If the person who changed it in the article to 1800 has some reason for citing that figure instead, they are asked to please cite it. Antaeus Feldspar 23:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Renegade Mysteron theory

The speculation that Captain Scarlet is actually a renegade Mysteron is one I have never heard or read before anywhere. Is there any support for this besides what's in the article; i.e., does it represent public knowledge about the series or a private theory? -- Antaeus Feldspar

Good point; I can't answer it. Quill 23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Technically, he is a renegade because after being taken over by the Mysterons he does do their bidding for a time until he falls off the car park. But I have no recollection of him ever being referred to as a renegade in the series itself. 23skidoo 23:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems obvious that he's a renegade; I'd assumed the objection was to the suggestion that he's a Mysteron. --Paul A 04:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He's definitely a Mysteron because the original Capt. Scarlet's body is disposed of by the duplicate who then goes on to become the hero of the piece. 23skidoo 12:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, Timrollpickering was the one who added the theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Captain_Scarlet&diff=4505314&oldid=3491275) of Scarlet being a Mysteron deserter. We had some discussion about it, but I'll sum it up as follows:

If we are careful to distinguish between "Mysteron" (one of the actual Martians) and "Mysteron duplicate" (a duplicate of some destroyed/killed object or person, created by the Mysterons), then the series establishes clearly that Scarlet's new body is that of a Mysteron duplicate. That part isn't a possibility, it's stated outright.

As for the personality that occupies that body by the end of the first episode and for all episodes thereafter, there are three possibilities: A) it's the returned personality of Paul Metcalfe (Captain Scarlet), B) it's the personality of the Mysteron duplicate, pretending to be Paul Metcalfe, C) it's the personality of one of the Mysterons themselves, pretending to be Paul Metcalfe. B and C are interesting theories but there's no support at all for them in the series; Scarlet never acts in a way that would indicate he has any divided loyalties or any knowledge of the Mysterons save what he and SPECTRUM have observed. (The phrase "Mysteron deserter" or "Mysteron renegade" tends to imply B or C; after all, if a soldier for Lessfillingland was brainwashed to act as an agent of Tastesgreatlevania, and then managed to throw off the brainwashing, you wouldn't say they were a Tastesgreatlevanian deserter or renegade.)

The section in question was therefore written to clarify that Scarlet's new body is that of a Mysteron duplicate but that his personality (according to all indications in the series) is that of Paul Metcalfe a.k.a. Captain Scarlet. Whether that makes him really Captain Scarlet, I would suggest is a philosophical question way out of our league! =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kill or destroy

The recent "corrections" to the statement that the Mysterons must kill or destroy something to copy it left the statement less correct than it had been. There is not anything that the Mysterons are ever shown copying without first killing or destroying it. In "Treble Cross", the episode that MikeVx cites as proof that the Mysterons don't need to destroy a thing to copy it -- the test pilot whom they copy has been killed. The fact that he is later resuscitated is not an exception to the rule: they must kill or destroy anything that they wish to copy, even if the opening narration does oversimplify it to "first, they must destroy". The speculation that destruction is only a matter of Mysteron policy is just that, speculation. I feel we should restore the original description, since it was not in error and did not need to be "updated". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've regarded the issue as an inconsistency since Treble Cross, and reached a conclusion that you obviously don't agree with. If it is really too far out there, I'm sure that someone will change things back. At least you offered a civil (albeit in my opinion, incorrect) counterpoint. I expected to get some nasty reactions to challenging the commonly-held view. I don't see a resucitatible case as being really dead. ("There's a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride)) It is true that the issue of Mysteron policy is speculation, but it is the only real explanation possible given my position that destruction is not a necessary part of the process. Now as far as I've seen in the new series, they have only duplicated people in clothing on-screen. I have seen two cases of death followed by on-the-spot fabrication of the copy, so there is no inconsistency so far. I'm not going to get into an edit war, if the entry is changed I'll just leave it be. I will, however, continue to regard it as an error. -- MikeVx 01:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Treble Cross is certainly a challenging episode to try and fit into the canon, but it stretches definitions, rather than violating the rules that have been explicitly established. You might not see a reversible death as fulfilling the clause that "they must kill/destroy before they can copy", but since our only choices are: 1) Gerry and company did see a death followed by a resuscitation as one that fulfilled the clause, or 2) Gerry and company stated flat out in the opening narration of the series a "rule" that they never intended to be a rule and only adhered to in every single other instance of Mysteron copying in the series just ... because... well, I think we need to be realistic and say that our belief that the Mysterons should need to kill someone "all dead" before being able to copy them, if they have any such need at all, is not one that the creators of the canon shared.

As far as the new series, I think it would be a mistake to try and apply knowledge from the new series to the old one, since they are distinctly different on some very basic points. There is no way to merge the old series and the new series to make one unified canon so why try to determine principles of the old canon by referring to the new one? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to toss in my 2 cents, the word "destroy" is often used in the same context as "kill". (i.e. "We will destroy the terrorists", etc.). So if it's a matter of semantics I think the term destroy could mean both "kill" and "physically destroy" in the context of this series, especially since there are several examples of inanimate objects being wrecked and recreated (I recall a plane and a car). It's very possible that Treble Cross is simply a case of continuity violation. Anderson's shows are hardly air-tight in that regard (see UFO, Space: 1999, etc.). In some respects the very existence of Capt. Scarlet himself violates the rules set out in the show as, to my knowledge, no one else was shown retaining memories and the like -- unless there was an episode I missed. 23skidoo 03:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)