Talk:Perry Rhodan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


"reinventing"[edit]

I am a bit uneasy about the term "picking up (or reinventing) virtually every theme that has ever appeared in science fiction" - the series started in 1961 long before most other sf series.

Example: The Posbis and the Borg are very similar - there space-ship design is virtually identical - Only the Posbis have been invented 1963 and the Borg 1988. It could be a coincidence - but if not then the original idea come from PR.

--Krischik T 08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice any specific instances described that implied PR was borrowing from latter-day SF. It may be hard for many folks to believe these days, but science fiction was already well-established in 1961, having been around for decades, even if mostly in serial and pulp formats. That was what PR was borrowing or "reinventing". It's only to PR's credit that current SF blockbusters have done their own reinventing of its themes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Along these lines, I just watched a TV special titled "2001: A Space Odyssey", comparing the famous film to the real world of 2001. In it, octogenarian Arthur C. Clarke talked about reading Astounding Stories as a kid! Of course, these mags were made possible by the popularity of 19th-century pioneers like Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. Sometimes I suspect that many folks believe SF started with Star Trek or Star Wars. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

English editions[edit]

I remember seeing hundreds of volumes of slim paperbacks in the eighties at SF conventions. I may even have bought one. I'm not sure if these are the editions mentioned tn the article, but I don't think so.Rich Farmbrough, 14:21 30 November 2006 (GMT).

The original English-language editions, translated/edited by the Ackermans, were published in the USA by Ace Books. The UK reprint editions were published under the 'Orbit' imprint, then owned by Futura Publications. (Orbit Books persisted through several parent publishers due to takeovers, etc) As I recall (being a professional bookseller in the late '70s/early '80s) the Perry Rhodan series wasn't particularly successful in the UK, perhaps because the quasi-magazine adjuncts added by Forry were pitched at too junior a level for the contemporary UK SF readership, and most of my Ace and Orbit copies were bought as imported and native remainders. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the original German, but the English translated versions didn't break any new ground for those who were already science-fiction readers, and it seems that most people over the age 15 who read more than four or five of the books kind of ended up regretting it... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I removed the unsubstantiated and unreferenced criticism of the English translations which consisted of quotes of the English translation with no contextual information or comparison with the German original thus rendering it impossible to determine whether the criticism was valid Alex Paige (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Teutonic" statement[edit]

I removed the following paragraph as it sounds to me more like machine translation and the claim of teutonism isn't IMO really legitimate. I'd like to see a reference or better examples for this.

The series as a whole comes across as quite Teutonic. In particular, Perry Rhodan's repeated obsessions at having "made a mistake" by not foreseeing a very implausible turn of events clearly betrays German sensibilities.

--Bhaak (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for Advertising[edit]

Wow, I went to change the second sentence for that reason and I notice the whole thing reads like a full page AD on a science fiction book's last pages. This page is disgusting for wikipedia's standards. --193.92.83.58 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Read and see Star Trek or Star Wars article and then tell me what is an AD and what not.... No further comment need on such disgusting remarks from some "special Users". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.30.134 (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of another film: Some filmbooks have claimed that two Perry Rhodan films were made with the same cast, back to back, in Italy: Countdown To Death, and Mission: Stardust. IMDB listed "Countdown To Death" as an alternate title for "Mission: Stardust" for years, but have been unresponsive to my queries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.233.202 (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Only one movie was made, it has multiple titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.147.32 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of the article[edit]

I've moved the Criticism section up in the article so that it now directly follows the plot subsection. I think they are closely connected, as the current Criticism section retells refers and retells part of the plot. I haven't changed content yet, just order.

Next, I think the subsection Structure from section Story should be split up: the essentials that the issues follow an arc structure should go into the header section, while the actual structure should go into a Publication section, which would include the current Translation section.

Afterwards, the subsection Plot should become a section Plot, and the then empty section Story dissolved. Then, the sections Plot and Criticism should be carefully rewritten. Ambi Valent (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In-universe information[edit]

I write this as an exercise in futility, but i want to point out that the section on the universe of perry rhodan is unreferenced, and reads like the body of work follows a unified cosmology. I can state categorically that no action based soap opera this old can possibly have such a unified cosmology. I also doubt that anyone outside the world of perry rhodan fandom has ever expressed any thoughts on the cosmology of the series. IF this information is accurate, ie if it is based on a published continuity guideline from the publishers of the series, it is likely non-notable. however, i have noticed an unfortunate tendency for Wikipedia articles about fictional creations with fanbases to be full of nonnotable material. "beam me up scotty" is notable dialog from a fan supported creation. where is the equivalent, or anything even close to the equivalent, for a perry rhodan cultural motif or commentary (the science of perry rhodan, anyone?). I should tag the section, but i may not. its more fun to gripe than do the hard work that someone else has conveniently neglected to do. to paraphrase rodney King, can't we all just add material as we source it?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If only "Beam me up, Scotty" actually was dialog. It never was said in the Original Series. Lars T. (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference the above and the statement "I can state categorically that no action based soap opera this old can possibly have such a unified cosmology"; of course one cannot state this categorically based on a mere assumption, one requires knowledge of the subject. In point of fact Perry Rhodan does indeed have a unified cosmology, thanks to the fact that the series was carefully guided over its history by head writers and editors who built the cosmology with careful regard for internal consistency.27.33.129.120 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Alex Paige27.33.129.120 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? It won't mitigate the issue raised about notability, but if you can source a statement that the series was in fact guided editorially throughout its lifetime and that its cosmology was not periodically retconned (as I think Murcurywoodrose was implying, albeit dogmatically) as tends to happen with any long-running fictional production (pulp novel series such as The Shadow and The Saint, long-running American daytime dramas, and comic books are notable examples of productions that see periodic retcons to keep the content in line with changing user expectations, incorporate more recent social or scientific developments, explain why original characters are still active and vital, or to whitewash past mistakes or the replacement of actors or locations), it would support the cosmology section and only require that it be rewritten in a more objective style. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
How about reading the works? There is not much literature about the series...--Oneiros (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Much sourcing & citation work needed[edit]

This article is badly in need of citations from reliable sources. I've done some work, but I've run out of time for now. Besides the complete lack of cited sources for in-universe information, there are quite a few broken links, some of them bare, making it hard to determine what they're supposed to be. It doesn't help that quite a few are in German, limiting the editors who can research them for alternatives. Any assistance would be appreciated. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)