Talk:The Prisoner

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 (http://www.the-prisoner-6.freeserve.co.uk/faq_01.htm#Q11) - 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.

ISBN 1842225316 "The Prisoner" Omnibus: 1: The Prisoner * 2: Who Is Number 2? * 3: A Day in the Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1842225316/qid=1076655204/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-8931055-5532701?v=glance&s=books)
ISBN 0930289536 The Prisoner: Shattered Visage Graphic Novel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0930289536/qid=1076656200/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8931055-5532701?v=glance&s=books)

- 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)

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)

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?

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|Vamp Willow]] 18:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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" (http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk/). 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] (http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk/altarrival.htm)

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:

That Bruce Clark's private possession of the tape meant that it was in possession "within the Society" which is not the same thing.
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.
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] (http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk/mission.htm) 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?

Put in a link to the DMOZ page for The Prisoner [3] (http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Programs/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/P/Prisoner,_The/), 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.
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"
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)

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)

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)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. 81.77.146.240 21:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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 (http://www.zone-sf.com/prisoner-bks.html). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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] (http://www.thelogbook.com/disc/o-t/prisoner.html) --Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:The_Prisoner"