Jump to content

Talk:In the Flesh (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor revision to include "rotters" and improve episode descriptions

[edit]

My minor revision keeps on being reverted. Trust me, I watched all three episodes over and over again, and they always call the PDS sufferers "rotters", however before I added this, it was not mentioned. It is a very important part of the plot as it shows their opinion of the PDS sufferers. I also added depth to some character descriptors and the episode descriptions. Please do not "undo" this, as this is very important. If you feel I deleted something important- ADD IT! Do not undo this as it is an important revision. Thank you. Dellkitty (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore it to its original form now, and say you should not revert it -- not because I disagree with it, but because this is now basically an edit war. Discuss the change here, as should all who have reverted you. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will, and have, reveted it. And here are my reasons: 1. The word "rotters", consistently used to describe the PDS sufferers was completely omitted from the original version. I have added it at points to reflect this. 2. The term "zombie outbreak" is completely absurd, and the word "zombie" is particularly avoided, so we should avoid it too. 3. On certain characters I have added extra detail of the story, as the stories are very sparsely covered. I watched each of the episodes thoroughly, and thus feel it needed better coverage. 4. I added the fact that the risen dead are only those who died in 2009, which is important for some facets of all three episodes.

If you are going to revert this, please explain on this talk page as to why, and DO NOT REVERT IT! Add what you think needs adding, but reverting it is just juvenile. Dellkitty (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit since the previous one was the "original" -- the default, if you will, to which we should discuss the change. Truth be told, I don't really hold much opinion for either version right now. But edit wars are never good. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the original one, But obviously it's what everyone here prefers not just me.
and as per Bellum Stellarum edit warring isn't a bright idea either! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on an edit war, but I think that it's pointless just hitting revert. If I'd vandalised the page, put in untrue, random tidbits then I could understand. However, I am offering a genuine improvementto the article, and isn't that the point of Wikipedia? I don't want to "edit war" with anyone- I just want my genuine, good changes to stand. If I deleted something you think is crucial to the understanding of the story, add it back in. Just reverting a well considered, good addition is, as I said, juvenile. If you can explain why you prefer the original version than we can negotiate a version that everyone is pleased with, but just deleting one person's improvement because you preferred the feel of the original is nuts. Plus, how many of you watched the series? Watched each episode more than once? If not, then how can you read and edit a page about a show you haven't, what I consider, fully watched? Dellkitty (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, apologies for starting this at the top of the page, I hadn't read that new topics are meant to be at the bottom. Dellkitty (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the first episode once and not the rest (didn't like it much), so I don't have an opinion on the content of most of the edits in dispute, but I do have an opinion on two of them. I like how the term "rotters" was added to the article. The language of how zombies are described by characters (not only in this show, but in other zombie fiction) is both of broader interest and significance. So that should stay in the article. On the other hand, changing all references to the outbreak of zombies to "The Rising" is not as helpful, since what the term means is not clear to anyone who has not seen the show. I would suggest that just as the term "rotter" is introduced first with an explanation of what the term means the same would help here. So, for example, rather than saying "It is set after The Rising and..." in the opening section it could say, "It is set after a zombie outbreak (called "The Rising" in the show) and...."
I also should note that while the violation of WP:3RR by Dellkitty is bad form, I do agree that it is puzzling to see repeated reversions in the edit history without anyone saying why they disagree with the changes. The initial reversion by Davey2010 was made without comment, which makes the reversion look more like vandalism than a substantive disagreement. This certainly violates the spirit of WP:BRD, which suggests that a person reverting a change should indicate why the reversion was made. And even now, Davey2010 has offered no argument for the way the text was before other than WP:ILIKEIT. Unless he has a better argument, I see no substantive objection being made by anyone to any of the other changes. 99.192.84.68 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I should've provided a reason, but apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't really see a problem with it, The 2nd revert was an attempt to stop the warring ..... Thanks for singling me out tho! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems I have with the new version: "set after The Rising" doesn't really add much to your average reader who may not have seen the show. I'd probably write something like "The show takes place after 'the Rising', a take on zombie apocalypses." Also, the cast section is getting pretty bloated. I'd prefer to have the cast section shortened and its contents spread out; right now it's servicing as a "list of characters, cast, and general plot" section. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your comments, and am about to change the introduction to explain the term "The Rising", although I stand by its continued use in the article after this description is added. Thank you for constructive feedback. Dellkitty (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) PS I'm going to add a section for discussion of the character section/ general plot section issue.[reply]

Articles for use in expanding the article

[edit]

Expand list as you like belowZythe (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more reviews:
I'll try to work on a "Reception" section later. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
Digital Spy again. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It might be worth using these sources carefully to carve out separate "Themes" and "Reception" sections. The LGBT themes have been commented upon a fair bit, particularly in relation to episode two, as have themes relating to mental health (Mitchell's original intention was to make it a non-supernatural mental health/suicide drama) and extreme religion.Zythe (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we can manage it, it's a good idea. We should also try and get some more info. on casting and whatnot for a "Production" section. Do you know where you heard the "non-supernatural" original idea? I didn't catch it in any of the sources (although it wouldn't be the first time I've somehow missed a chunk of an article), but it's probably worth noting somewhere. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oo:
In The Flesh began life as a more grounded drama about a young man who suffers a psychotic episode and, once rehabilitated, must return to his small rural community to face the consequences of his actions, but the project only started to come to life - so to speak - once Mitchell devised the show's undead twist.
Some good stuff there. "I thought… maybe my young lad didn't have a psychotic episode, maybe he's a zombie!" Of course. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section is well under way. With the series over, I'm hoping more "series as a whole" episodes will pop up. Then work shall begin on "Themes" and "Production"; the BBC website looks promising with its "interview the cast" stuff. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Bellum!Zythe (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kieren and Ricks "relationship"

[edit]

With regards to [1] and it's subsequent revert in [2]; neither boyfriend or best friend are right. They (seemingly) weren't dating, so can't have been "boyfriend", but their relationship in the program shows that they certainly weren't best friends either. Friend only fits loosely.. Reedy (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that, Rick calls him his best mate.. Reedy (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, best mates who were in love with each other, used to fool around and keep it a secret due to one of them being closeted.Zythe (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The show doesn't say that they were fooling around/dating. They are just referred through the series as friends. It's not our place to interpret that. MisterShiney ✉ 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was some comment of messing around or fooling around by Kieren. Reedy (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again though that could mean anything and everything. MisterShiney ✉ 22:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is on record saying it was a romantic relationship? It is portrayed as one, fairly explicitly, with every seen encoded with the homophobic father, mix tapes, messing around one last time, Ren & Rick 4Eva, suicide, the look upon their reunion and the negotiation down from an embrace to a handshake. There isn't even much interpretive room for a heterosexual interpretation, and a heterosexual interpretation would in fact contradict the wealth of sources we have which identify the relationship as homosexual. In any case, there are gay art films where the word gay isn't ever stated, you know. I'm sure people would be less fussed about it if Rick and been Rikki, the girl from the down the road who he had some sort of obvious sexual/romantic history with.Zythe (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We drank a bottle of White Lightning, smoked some fags, messed around and...

Yay for the exact quote. Reedy (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The script for episode 2 is even more explicitly gay than the episode itself, as well, down to stating outright what I said above, that Rick and Ren wanted to go in for a "passionate embrace" at first sight but quietly negotiated it down to a handshake because they were in public.Zythe (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A passionate embrace doesn't make them love interests! I passionately embrace any friend I haven't seen in a while...and I sure as heck would if I thought they were dead! I still don't know why users insist on saying they were romantic interests - especially when the source provided doesn't say that at all. Just that it was an "almost romantic one". Which was why I had it as neutral as possible and deliberately ambiguous - just like in the series. MisterShiney ✉ 16:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trying too hard to read it as non-romantic. It is clearly the case, from the script, that they have a "passionate" relationship which they don't show in public. There was no doorstep "I'm gay and dead, dad!" scene, you're right, but I think short of that it shouldn't be controversial that they were plainly involved prior to Rick's enlistment. The interviewer said "almost romantic"; the respondent, the creator, said yes, intentionally romantic, and that the characters were "not straight." They wrote each other letters, fooled around in secret, sent each other mixtapes, with Ren attracting the ire of the homophobic townsfolk, creating murals and portraits of Rick, and eventually killing himself in their love den with the words "Rick & Ren Forever" graffitid above them. It's not "oh, it's almost like their gay, what an interesting ambiguity they've chosen to employ," it's "oh, they're gay, and isn't it interesting how that's just sort of matter-of-fact and beneath the surface of everything." I'd hasten to say it was "gay-encoded," except it wasn't encoded, it was transmitted on the textual surface of the programme. I'm afraid to say I'm of the belief that were this a heterosexual pairing, there would not be this interpretive stumbling block for viewers. In any case, the "Themes" section will be robustly and rigorously sourced with commentary on the gay themes and their portrayal/metaphoric potential, and editors can make their own mind up from that. We can at least agree it is a major thematic component of the show, whether or not you think two fictional people were "really" gay or not.Zythe (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Series done, program not?

[edit]

I know it's been said elsewhere there could be a second season, but beyond that it's currently speculation.

But as for whether the series is actually done, as it's suggest that there is only three episodes - "That’s addressed over the three episodes" [3]. Is it likely they'd make more and call it the same series? Reedy (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have hear a rumour that it wasnt going to go any further, but there was nothing from the BBC confirming either way. Which was why I took down the end date in the Info box. MisterShiney ✉ 22:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[4] "We'll get to it... we'll get to it. I swear." - Reedy (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated cast section/ new plot section?

[edit]

The Idea

[edit]

As discussed in a previous section of this talk page, the character descriptions are becoming a bit bloated as they also incorporate each of the characters' stories. I think it would be prudent to include a detailed plot for each of the episodes. I would propose that, for each episode, these points are covered. Add your own, with signature, if I missed anything, or if you can add a citation, as I just have my recollection of the show. The order may not be perfect. Dellkitty (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1

[edit]

01- Kieren receives treatment at the secure facility. He is coming to terms with what he did as a "rabid rotter"

02- The Walkers try to sell the house so they can move out of Roarton. The sale doesn't go through.

03- In the church, a government "suit" tries to explain the system of integrating PDS sufferers. The villagers shout him down.

04- The Walkers bring Kieren home, and have to hide him as they pass the church-goers return, and Shirley talks to the Walkers.

05- Kieren arrives home and is smuggled in. He goes back to his room, surveying letters from Rick and portraits on the wall.

06- The Walkers have dinner. Kieren pretends to eat to try and make the family happy. Jen refuses to acknowledge her brother.

07- Bill Macy and his wife celebrate their dead son Rick's birthday.

08- Kieren has a nightmare about how he killed Amy Lancaster and ate her brains (how to deal with this without being gory?)

09- Jen confronts Kieren, claiming he isn't her brother. He convinces her otherwise.

10- Kieren gets his medicine from Shirley, PDS nurse. He experiences a terrible flashback.

11- Bill meets with the HVF in the pub, including Jen. They are going to kill a "rotter". Jen thinks its Kieren.

12- She runs home and the family hide Kieren. However, they are here for Ken's wife.

13- They force Ken's wife to remove her contacts then shoot her in the back of the head.

14- Bill returns home to the news that Rick has been found "Partially alive".

Episode 2

[edit]

(I'll continue soon Dellkitty (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

01- Rick returns homes and is accepted by the community. They ignore the fact that he is a "rotter".

02- People come to view the Walkers' home. Kieren is stuffed in a closet. He has a flashback of waking up in his coffin.

03- Kieren leaves his house, feeling stifled, and goes to his grave.

04- He meets Amy Dyer, and accidentally spears her with a sharp pole. She lightly jokes that she's "alreday dead"

05- They go on a day trip to the fair. Kieren is noticed and runs back home. AMy is introduced to his family.

06- Rick goes to the pub with his dad. He eats and drinks normally, and then throws up black vomit.

07- Amy and Kieren go to the pub, and Phil puts them in the "PDS area"- a closet with two chairs.

08- Rick asks for Kieren and Amy to be allowed in the main area of the pub. So they are.

09- Amy confronts Rick about his drinking, as she can see he has PDS.

10- Bill goes to get some "Rotters" that have been found rabid in the woods. Rick goes along, convincing Bill to have Rick come too.

11- The "rotters" are a family, eating a sheep. Originally Bill wants them killed. Kieren convinces them to hand the "rotters" in for a ransom.

12- Whilst they take the "rotters" in, one of the HVF gets bitten. He confesses his love for another's fiancé, thinking he will die.

13- Rick and Bill leave in the car, and Bill refuses to take the "weak" Kieren home.

Episode 3

[edit]

01- Amy wakes up next to Phil, as they have spent the night together. Phil leaves.

02- Amy answers the door, and a man comes in, forcing make-up on her face.

03- Shirley holds a coffee morning for families of PDS sufferers. Rick's mum talks about her feelings.

04- Kieren and Jen visit the shop where Kieren killed the Lancasters' daughter and Jen spared his life. They begin to mend fences.

05- Kieren and Jen visit the Lancasters. They believe their daughter will come back to life. Kieren, against his inclinations, lets them have this hope.

06- The man who was bitten is locked in "The Cage", a fenced playground used to keep the untreated PDS sufferers. This is punishment for saying he loves another's fiancé.

07- The man locked in "The Cage" asks various people to get him a sandwich, as he is diabetic. A woman spits in his face. Ken take pity and gets a sandwich for him.

08- Bill has been to church. Vicar Oddie tells Bill there will be a second rising, where only the good are risen.

09- At home, Bill is teaching Rick how to kill "rotters" with a knife in the back of the head. Rick goes in the bathroom, cleans off the make-up, and confronts his father with who he really is.

10- Rick's body is found leaned against Kieren's garage, the knife still in the back of his head. Kieren goes to confront Bill.

11- Kieren leaves Bill's house, but as Bill is in the open, Ken shoots him at point-blank range with a shotgun.

12- Kieren has gone to the cave he shared with Rick, also where he committed suicide. His mum meets him there.

13- He says he doesn't know how to change it from how it was before. She tells him of a past lover, a suicide attempt, and meeting his dad.

14- Kieren gets home and makes his dad confront the feelings surrounding Kieren's suicide. They hug.

Anything missed/ needs changing? Please note what you have added/ changed for ease of discussion.

Does anyone fundamentally disagree with the premise? If not, then maybe someone should just take the plunge and make the change? Dellkitty (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vicar Oddie and Rick

[edit]

In the Kenneth Cranham as Vicar Oddie blurb, it states that he accepts Rick is back and not a "rotter." I believe it's pretty explicit that he knows Rick is a rotter, and, in fact, the speech he was persuaded to give to "fire up" Rick was aimed instead at Bill to convince him to kill Rick. This is made even more direct with the "second rising" speech given directly to Bill. I have not yet made the edit to that particular section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.23.130 (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recent changes.

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to explain that the reason I removed the reference to them being "Lovers" was because there is no source backing up the claim - certainly not the one that is there. In fact the SciFi source that is there, says that not even the creator knows the relationship that they had and that it was deliberately ambiguous. Therefore saying that they were "Lovers" was not only in correct according to the source, but is also original research.

As for the "Another season expected" and the line in the lead about the number of episodes, the template notes, and the general practice on TV series pages is that until the season/episode has started airing, then these figures do not change because they are subject to the whims of the broadcasters who may cancel the show at a moments notice. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_the_Flesh_(TV_series)&oldid=1206102132"