Talk:The Prisoner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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?

According to Wikipedia guidelines it is correct to use British English for this topic. --bodnotbod 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

For goodness sake, The Village isn't *anywhere*! Like the whole series, it is an allegory, and a very broad one at that.

This debate is rather like that which some fans of The Simpsons have when trying to work out where Springfield is. Again, like its characters, it is allegorical, and shouldn't be taken too literally. Martyn Smith 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he ever escapes. The door to his home in the end shows that he's not back in normal society yet. I kinda think sometimes that even though we aren't seeing it through his actions, #6's perceptions are slowly breaking down. The way things become more abstract and he appears to act with just as much sharpness and determination as the beginning episodes may reflect that he's lost his grip, yet has no idea that he has. That would unfortunately mean that he won't get any of the answers he wanted and the viewers will never know what actually happened to #6 througout the series, but it would also allow every element in the series to help reveal more about #6's past, state of mind and views/beliefs through symbolism. It may never have been about getting information from #6, but breaking him down to the point where all the secret information he did have would never fall into the wrong hands. I mean the reason why he resigned is so trivial compared to the massive amount of sensitive information this guy would have about lots of things from being a top rated secret agent for so long.--RedFeather1975 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In the episode Many Happy Returns his door is shown automatically opening in the manner of the door in the Village. He doesn't seem to question it or notice it at all. I thought this clearly suggested that the door to his home was always like that. - ShatPank 03:03 27 February 2007

"He doesn't seem to notice...." If you are referring to The Prisoner (The Butler's actions DO fit your description), he has pulled away in the Lotus before the door opens. Listen carefully and you can hear the sound of the motor fading into the distance as the camera remains on The Butler, and THEN the door opens. There is no way our hero can possibly be aware of this situation. Ted Watson 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I clearly said that i was referring to the episode "Many Happy Returns". - Shat

Yes, and you're wrong. At no point in MHR did the door to 1 Buckingham Place open automatically. (theunmutual.co.uk)

Just want to apologize for not noticing you said Many Happy Returns instead of Fall Out, although "theunmutual" is correct. That and the fact that so many people have said that about F-O is why I didn't notice. How is it that neither of you two have your last postings link-signed/dated/logged in any way? I neglected to put down the four tildes on another Wiki-Talk page posting once, and when I went back to fix it, my IP number was there. Granted, it was my first on that thread.

Yes, but the door to his house IS clearly shown opening automatically in "Many Happy Returns". Double check. ShatPank 01:04 15 July 2007

No it is not. It is opened by Mrs Butterworth's maid. It only opens automatically in Fall Out Ghughesarch 10:59, 23 July 2007 (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". 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]

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:

1. That Bruce Clark's private possession of the tape meant that it was in possession "within the Society" which is not the same thing.
2. 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.
3. 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] 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?

1. Put in a link to the DMOZ page for The Prisoner [3], 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.
2. 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"
3. 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)

Sorry, I don't have an account, nor do I plan on getting one. (my apologies if I step on any toes) I know this is flogging a dead horse (nearly two years after the fact). I just wanted to point out that in the first paragraph of this section, it is stated that Six of One is the official prisoner appreciation society. It's not. It has permission from Carlton to use images and promote the series, as do several other organiztions. There is nothing exclusive about their appreciation society, though they seem interested in steering us to think so. Notice on their main page the placement of the word 'official' - it's not the official Prisoner appreciation society, but rather the Prisoner official appreciation society. See the difference? There's a reason for that. Official denotes authorization regarding copyrights. You still have to apply to Carlton for anything Prisoner related (so does Six of One); Six of One have no authority to do anything with getting it okay'd by the rights owners, which merely demonstrates that Six of One is not 'official' at all. And you're right, the Six of one info 'complaint' page is indeed a hatchet job, though it does bring to light the dubious way Six of One is conducting their business. Cheers.

Just to, after the fact, add a few points as the owner of the website in question. There is no bitch/spin. The site was created as a right to reply for those people who had felt let down or treated poorly by Six of One, as they did not have any other permanent outlet to do so. The site has been checked from a legal perspective and contains no untruths whatsoever (indeed, has not had a single issue/line within it corrected at any point since its creation in 2003). Whilst the above poster may see Six of One's own website as "informational", the fact that it is a site designed to attract people to send money to that organisation, without being able to deliver what is promised via that web-page or to make any attempt to explain how that money will be spent, makes it far more sinister than just informational. As I said, the "anti 601" page is also informational, yet contains facts only. In answer to the point made regarding why no action has been taken against Six of One, you are assuming that it hasn't. It also raises the opposite - if the "anti-601" site has "weak" arguments, would it not itself had been subject to "action" to get it shut down?

As the last contributer points out, Six of One are not an official body, and have no rights to claim so (there is a page regarding this on the 601-info website). With reference to the secret taping incident, it is illegal because in UK law it is not prohibited to tape record anyone without their permission with a view to playing the recording to other persons (and then publishing details from the recording), again without the permission of the person taped.

Saying that, I agree that either removal of both sites or inclusion of both (rather than one or the other) is the easiest and best solution. -theunmutual 24 Sep 2006

Is this row still going on? I left Six of One a few years ago (not for any particular reason, I just felt that there was only so much you could say about 17 episodes of a TV series.)At that time this whole thing was starting to erupt, and to me it just seemed like one bunch of people who didn't run the club moaning about another bunch of people who did. Get a grip, people, this is TV fan club, not a small country!

Also, while we are at it... OK, Six of One may not be an "Official" fan club, but Patrick McGoohan is it's honorary president and acknowledges the fact, which is about as close to being "official" as you can get without actually being run by the distributor.

I have no idea what this "tape recording" episode is about, but I was under the impression that you only had to have permission from one of the parties involved.... Paul-b4 13:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is as far as I know illegal to print the contents of a tape recording made in a person's own home without their permission. At the very least it is immoral and against what The Prisoner was trying to tell us. -theunmutual 10 Mar 2007

Here is my view. This article is about The Prisoner. I think that ALL appreciation societies should be mentioned in the "External Links" section at the end, but I would draw the line at sites set up to criticise one particular society - that link would be referencing the specific society, not the series.

There's nothing stopping anyone creating a separate entry for Six of One and hilighting any controversies involved (provided that they did it in an NPOV and non-libellous way) and referencing whatever site they chose to back up their arguement, although in my opinion this could whiff a bit of creating your own evidence.

As to what The Prisoner "tells us", the series is a masterpiece in ambivilence and can be interpreted in whatever way the viewer chooses - this is why we are still arguing about it 40 years on! Paul-b4 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that this issue has unfortunately reared it's ugly head again recently, with arguments ensuing on various talk pages. Although it seemed to be agreed by users that either both links or neither (rather than just one) should be used, it seems that an administrator called irishguy has decided upon himself that only the Society link should remain. Regardless of whether people feel this needs to be balanced out or not, can I suggest that it's not a very good link anyway and adds nothing to the article? It has very little Prisoner information on the website (it is little more than a promo/advertising page), and any info which IS there is already found in the article or on the other links at the bottom of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickd2007 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why has this administrator taken it upon himself to reopen this arguement again? Having either both links or neither was agreed as being the best way forward last time. As we are back to the start of this debate again because of this action I will add the other link back again to reintroduce the lost balance. Peter J Dunn (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what happened in the past. The link about "Six of One" is to an attack site and has no place in an encyclopedia. The purpose of external links is to provide additional material for the reader about the subject of the article, not to take sides in a dispute taking place elsewhere. The reintroduction of this link, whatever has happened before, appears to me to be a violation of WP:POINT and will be reverted by me, with extreme prejudice if necessary. Ask yourself why we don't link to neo-Nazi sites from Adolf Hitler. Same principle, and nothing to do with a false "balance". Take it to WP:RFC if you disagree. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems a rather rude, OTT, and intemperate response with the use of words like "extreme prejudice" and comparing my edit to adding a "neo-Nazi" site. I will take this further later, when it has not just gone past midnight, in the hope that a spirit of common sense and civil debate that I thought was central to wikipedia might replace this sort of rude knee jerk response. Peter J Dunn (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To reply to rodhullandemu's comments, here is a portion of wikipedia rules which he is breaking by continually re-adding the link to Six of One when it's removed (it was not in the article for several years before he started adding it again): Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations.Rickd2007 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2007 (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)

In "Many Happy Returns", No.6 gives his name as Peter Smith

Yes, he does, but he says it as if he's just given the most obvious fake name in the (English-speaking) world, which would be, John Smith, wouldn't it? Did he say "Peter" because "John" was part of the truth? Actually, the name "Peter Smith" must be on the flat's lease and the car's registration, otherwise what could he possibly have in mind when he asks Mrs. Butterworth for those two documents after having told her that this is his name? Ted Watson 19:28, 29 April 2007 (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. 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)

Worth pointing out that the actual decision to "cancel" the series was largely influenced by TV exec Michael Dann in the USA. After what was supposed to be series 1 (13 episodes) were shot, Dann informed Grade that he could not take the series as anything but a summer filler, thus did not want 26 episodes. It was then that Grade ordered that filming resume ahead of schedule (most of the crew had signed up for other work in the break between series hence the change of crew for the last 4 episodes to be filmed) with the last 4 episodes shot in quick succession. As stated above, the final call to make the final episode was given during production of "Girl". theunmutual

Sorry, but the USA network (specifically CBS) did use DM as more than a summer (1965) filler, putting it back on their schedule that December and running it for the rest of that season. However, the New York Times published an article in January 1967 reporting CBS' announcement of their new schedule for the upcoming fall and DM wasn't on it. That cancellation was what influenced Grade's decision, but in the end it was Grade 's. Ted Watson 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 1 never acknowledged

This article claims that no Village official acknowledges the existence of Number 1. The The Chimes of Big Ben (The Prisoner) article quotes Number 2 mentioning Number 1. One could argue that he is simply mentioning Number 1 as a hypothetical, for the sake of argument. In other words, Number 2 might be saying it's not worth worrying about who Number 1 is, without necessarily accepting or acknowledging the actual existence of Number 1. But since a plain reading of the quote seems to confirm the existence of Number 1, I think it is overreaching to say that no Village official ever discusses Number 1. -- Seitz 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well considering that not only does the Leo McKern No. 2 reference No. 1 directly in "Fall Out", he even uses the personal pronoun "him" when doing so, I agree that it's incorrect to say no No. 2 ever mentions No. 1 directly. That said, it does appear (unless my memory is faulty) that only the McKern No. 2 actually does so (since he is also the one quoted in COBB). 23skidoo 04:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But he is discussing the matter with Number 6; his wording is very carefully chosen so as to be interpreted as neither confirmation nor denial. Number Six is talking to him about Number One, not the other way around.

Number Two: I am definitely an optimist. That's why it doesn't matter who Number One is. It doesn't matter which "side" runs the Village.

Number Six: It's run by one side or the other.

Number Two: Oh certainly, but both sides are becoming identical. What in fact has been created is an international community — perfect blueprint for world order. When the sides facing each other suddenly realize that they're looking into a mirror, they will see that this is the pattern for the future.

Remember the nature of the series. When Number Two remarks, "it doesn't matter who Number One is," he is clearly playing a mind game with him. The remark as phrased is not an official acknowledgement of the existence of Number One. He is talking to a prisoner, not an operative. Lying and misrepresentations are part of the game here. Remember, Number Six is talking to him. It is this conversation that was the inspiration for the eventual opening intro exchange that would begin all but 3 of the episodes. Check again, at no time ever do any of the operatives of the Village in any official capacity speak of Number One. They only speak of someone they refer to as "Sir."

As for the episode Fall Out, it is one of the most controversial of episodes. Number Six is supposedly on the threshold of being released. Number Two supposedly died and was brought back to life (how believable is that supposed to be?). Number Six has stated he wants to meet with Number One. And the administrators of the Village say they will grant that demand. But the episode plays out in an conceptual and dream-like way. One suggestion (provided in the DC graphic novel sequel) was that everything that was happening was part of "Degree Absolute." The concept of Number Six actually being Number One is -- when examined -- not doable. Number Six confronted and actual person in "Fall Out" who was shown to he himself insane. As we all know, Multiple personality disorder is an actual condition, but it is not humanly possible for any person to physically exist twice. The look-alikes from "Arrival" have been mentioned, but if he was cloned, then who was responsible? The whole point of Degree Absolute was to break him -- his supposed confrontation with himself was the moment he broke.

The dialogue in CoBB is not clear enough or direct enough to qualify as an official acknowledgement of the existence of Number One. And there is no realistic evidence that the events in Fall Out were anything other than another set up; think about its dreamlike progression.

I have always dismissed the exchange between Number Six and Number Two in CoBB as nothing more than the same exchange in the intro. Number Six evidently has the conversation with every New Number 2 that comes along. But..

• In no episode does the Supervisor speak of Number One.
• In no episode does anyone in the Control Room speak of Number One.
• In no episode where the hotline phone rings does Number Two or a staff member call the person on the other end of the line Number One.

In the DC graphic novel, the New Number Six asks the Prisoner the question "Who is Number One?" The Prisoner's answer is not the same as Number Two's, but rather: "Does the existence of Number Two necessitate the existence of Number One?"

Sorry guys. Yes, we have no bananas. -- Jason Palpatine 05:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed analysis. I can agree that

• the only time a Village official mentions Number 1 is in response to queries from Number 6
• no Village official actually confirms the existence of Number 1

However, the statement in the article goes beyond that: "...but at no time does Number 2 or his/her subordonates ever mention such a person by that title...". That seems like an overstatement. It seems more accutate to say "...ever confirm the existance of such a person..." or "...ever mention such a person, except in response to Number 6's questions...". -- Seitz 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My wording is the problem here as opposed to what is being said. Would you please do me the favor of rewording the entry to more in line with what you are viting? It would be appreciated. A lot of my enties today alone seem to have gotten under a lot of people's skin. I do not like doing that. Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It surprises me that neither the article nor the discussion mention that there are two episodes in which the front door of the Prisoner's flat in the "outside world" are visible (the Prisoner knocks on the door of his flat in "Many Happy Returns" and Angelo Muscat walks into the Prisoner's flat near the end of "Fall Out"). The number on the door? "1." Do what you will with it, but it's worth remembering that doors of Village residences are marked with the inhabitant's number; I doubt it was the least bit coincidental. -Revnk66.156.218.64 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the door opens automatically in MHR? I'm sure it doesn't!-theunmutual 11 Mar 2007

Unless this has been altered since theunmutual posted that last (and History indicates it hasn't), there is no suggestion by Revnk that the door to The Prisoner's real world flat opened electromechanically in MHR, only that it, with the numeral one on it, can be seen there. It can, but this can be seen just as clearly in the standard "resignation/kidnapping" sequence that opens 15 of the 17 episodes. More to the point of this thread, it should be pointed out that in Free For All that #2 tells our hero that should he win the election, "Number One will no longer be a mystery to you, if you know what I mean." Given how the mystery of The General turned out, that final phrase may be very significant. Ted Watson 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Free For All mentioned anywhere in this section. Number 6 asks, "And Number One?" Number 2 answer with something like, "If you win, I'll introduce you to him myself." I don't see that it adds any information that hasn't been hashed and rehashed above, but maybe someone else can find something in it. — Val42 04:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Val42: The actual exchange you're thinking about begins with The Prisoner asking what happens if he should win the election.

#2: You're the boss.

Prisoner: #1's the boss.

#2: Join me. If you win, #1 will no longer be a mystery to you, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I'll introduce you properly and you'll see how you feel after assessing the madding crowd.

There has never been any doubt in my mind that, after a nice bit of misdirection, the introduction is to the crowd of campaigners just outside Residence #6 at this point, not to #1, and since the solution to the mystery of The General turned out to be that he wasn't a person, that "if you know what I mean" leaves the true nature of #1 wide open as of here. Ted Watson 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the transcript of the exchange that I was thinking of. It was an effective misdirection because I hadn't analyzed it enough to notice the misdirection because, I figured (assuming that there really is a Number 1), Number 6 would never have been introduced to him anyway. The "election" was just another means to attempt to extract information from Number 6. It doesn't matter if Number 1 exists or not if they never intend on keeping their promises. As is discussed above, there is doubt as to the existance of a real Number 1. I think that the existance of Number 1 may have been something to keep the more-difficult subjects interested. The identity of Number 1 certainly kept Number 6 interested, some of the time.

But "Fall Out" being real (rather than an hallucination) makes a much better metaphor. — Val42 03:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ever since The Prisoner re-entered my life to stay with public TV syndication in 1976 (I was there in the summers of 1968 & '69), I have thought that our hero's obsession with "Who is #1?" (Or is it really? Just because we heard him ask this in the standard opening most episodes....?) was absurd; the extent of the operation pretty much demanded that a government or super-organization like Spectre of the James Bond movies had to be behind The Village. Seemed to me that each "chairman" was numbered "2" out of concern that the huge amount of power wielded there and the requisite isolation from the outside world might cause him or her to lose touch with the fact that he or she had to answer to higher authority in general. And you're welcome for the transcript. Glad to help. I do get very argumentative sometimes, but helping Wiki is always the bottom line intent. Ted Watson 18:58, 10 July 2007 (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)

That's Many Happy Returns you're thinking of - not Arrival (but yes, it's stock footage, not nearbly Welsh mountains). However, the taxi ride sequence in Arrival is clear evidence that The Village is not laid out the same as Portmeirion, as the sequence of shots makes no sense in relation to the real place. There are other examples of foot journeys through The Village in other episodes which tend to confirm this.Ghughesarch 14:32, 5 April 2007 (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)

Transmission dates

Should the UK transmisson dates specify which region the premieres occurred in? As I understand it, ITV didn't network it, at least certainly not every episode, and several of them at least had variable transmission dates across the regions. Angmering 11:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that might make things too complicated. Similar episode lists for shows like UFO, Danger Man, and other ITV programs just list the date of earliest broadcast. If we try to index every region it'll just clutter things up terribly, and probably be subject to a greater degree of error than if we just use one date. If there is some oddball situation such as one region not showing "Fall Out" until 1972 or something, that can be mentioned as a footnote. 23skidoo 13:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting listing the transmissions in every region, just perhaps a note to the effect that these aren't national networking dates, and mentioning which region's dates they are.Angmering 14:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I wonder if this information is easily obtainable? 23skidoo 14:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps something needs to be done as transmission dates are often referred to as belonging to the "original transmission" and it could easily be argued that this is incorrect terminology. Most dates seem to be from the London region where, for much of the run, the transmission followed two days after the transmission in the midlands region. So while these might be "original London area transmission" dates, they do not really represent the "original transmission". 82.47.13.18 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Slacks

"Number 6 typically wears a very deep brown (often mistaken for black and usually in the episodes appearing as black) jacket with white trim, a blue or black T-shirt, tan slacks," What, exactly, are slacks?16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

slacks = Pants for casual wear.

Atlant 17:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way: I've changed the above-quoted paragraph to describe the jacket as being black. In scenes shot in full daylight (such as in "Living in Harmony"), the jacket is clearly not "very deep brown." Unless someone can cite a source describing the jacket as "very deep brown" (such as a props memo), the evidence of one's eyes should be trusted over an unsupported assertion. 2fs 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I myself have wondered about that description of the jacket's color since I first saw it, but didn't feel qualified to flatly change it--my videos are off-air VHS, in EP/SLP mode, and nearly 20 years old yet. In other words, visual details are not very clear--I need to get a DVD set. Given the UK base of this article's subject, is "slacks" a term used in Britain? Or would "trousers" be more appropriate? Ted Watson 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something else to consider: When filming in that era, there were staff whose job it was to figure out what color to use on set so that it would appear to be the deired color on film. So, even if the prop were brown, we would need a citation of what the intended color of the jacket would be on film. — Val42 20:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

'Number Six'

I'm wondering if perhaps we should be using the term 'the Prisoner' instead of 'Number Six' to describe McGoohan's character. As The Prisoner companion by Alain Carrazé & Hélène Oswald asserts, the designation 'Number Six' is one he never accepts. In what way was the character referred in shooting scripts? DumbLad 20:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that - whether or not he accepted it - it is correct to address him as "Number Six", as almost all the characters in the Village are prisoners. McGoohan's character is just the Prisoner of the title, but his main identifier - it's how he's addressed by almost all the other characters - is "Number Six". Howie ☎ 21:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough, though it hardly seems in keeping with the spirit of the show. How does the program's end credits refer to him? DumbLad 21:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The character is nearly always referred to as "Number Six" in the credits. The only exception is "Fall Out" in which McGoohan technically receives no acting credit as all we see is the word "Prisoner" superimposed over Number Six as he drives away. And Fall Out, I believe, is also the only episode in which the character is explicitly referred to as "The Prisoner". The rest of the time, he's just "Number Six". 23skidoo 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

we are never quite sure who is or is not a prisoner..in one episode he intimidates some but not others and figures that the ones he cannot intimidate are guards... which backfires on him as all the others figure that he must be a guard and rat him out.Jiohdi 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

. This could explain why the main character insists he is not a number, and even though he tells the woman living in his former home, that his name is Peter Smith, in "many happy returns", we are never sure that he is giving his true name as later, even his friend calls him only number 6 in jest. I just watched this on BBC america(^_^)Jiohdi 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why no one has corrected him, but 23skidoo is dead wrong. McGoohan's acting credit reads, "Patrick McGoohan as The Prisoner." Period. I believe it is even in "Fall Out" (it's his opening credit that's missing there) as what the poster describes is prior to the official end credits. McKern, Kanner and Muscat are definitely named at both places. I missed this thread yesterday and started a new one to the same point, and will reiterate here what I posted there. Our hero continuously and consistently refused to accept being identified as a number (he did use it a few times, sucvh as "A B & C" and "Hammer Into Anvil," but was playing his own game there; the sole genuine exception is "The Schizoid Man," where his resolve on that idea was seriously compromised by "their" plan) and, especially given that credit line, to primarily and flatly refer to him as "Number Six" is missing that very important point. I have had no trouble in avoiding using that label in my personal writings, email exchanges (specifically with USA's Six of One head Bruce Clark), additions/revisions to the IMDb's postings on this programme, and edits here. As there is no response down there, I've deleted my new thread in favor of this one. Ted Watson 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm...since the title of the show is The Prisoner, obviously referring to McGoohan's character, I think that's the logical thing to call McGoohan's character in the article.TheScotch 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"The" Village?

It's so ungrammatical, but could someone explain why "the", when referring to the Village is always capitalised, regardless of whether or not it opens a sentence? In this article, "The Village" is not the title of a film, book or play, etc. and therefore should be simply written "the Village". I know of no other TV show or film, either in the fantasy genre or another, whose artefacts are preceded with a capitalised definite article, e.g., the Force, the Tardis, the Enterprise. Sorry if it offends anyone, but I'm going to change the name to its grammatical form, unless someone can come up with a convincing explanation. Chris 42 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The name of the place is The Village, article and all (although the map is titled, IIRC, Your Village).

Atlant 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, but I've done it now. Any reversions should take into account that there were other minor edits, including instances where "Village" was not capitalised.

Someone can always go through it later, but I agree with Atlant that it is correct to use The Village in all references where the article is needed unless the place is being referred to in a generic sense, of course. There's a similar issue regarding "The Doctor" from Doctor Who. The consensus is to keep "the" lowercase which I disagree with as there are several indications that The is considered part of the character's common name. (Not like a first name or anything, but almost like a title). 23skidoo 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just checked the Six of One website, I notice that they stick to conventional grammar, and refer to "the Village" throughout their introduction to the series. Chris 42 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

...And so does The Anorak's Guide fansite (90% of the time)! Chris 42 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In view of the fact that most other Prisoner-related websites I have come across stick to grammatical convention, and for consistency's sake (since it contained both examples), I have now similarly updated List of The Prisoner episodes. Chris 42 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to this talk page just now to open a discussion on "The Village" vs. "the...", and find that not only does one already exist, but that it has been inactive for over a year. Furthermore, a consensus seems to have been reached. Nevertheless, I will add my belief that, since the phonetic capitalization of the "T" is as audibly obvious as that of the "V," it should be rendered that way in print. That so many more-or-less professional discussions do otherwise is on the same level as basically calling the hero "Number Six" [or "Number 6" or "#6"] instead of The Prisoner (with the same capitalization situation, as it happens, but more arguable here): it is wrong. See my new thread here to that point. Ted Watson 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's resolve this issue

There seems to be a problem with consistency on this subject. Since there is a current dispute in this article between another editor and myself, we should resolve this. I watched the first two episodes on DVD and was about to revert back to "the Village" as a result, but I consulted The Village (The Prisoner) first. That article is inconsistent on usage. Rather than have the discussion on this article's talk page, I think that the problem should be resolved for both pages. I have posted a note there that an existing discussion is here.

What I found from The Village (The Prisoner) article is that for instances of "The/the Village" that do not start a sentence, only seven of thirty-eight use "The" instead of "the". If we were to go strictly by this, then the consensus would be for "the Village".

However, in watching the first two episodes of The Prisoner with the closed-captioning on, it was not clearly resolved there either. All of the text was in upper-case (i.e.: "THE VILLAGE") except when someone was speaking remotely (telephone, loudspeaker, etc.). The first episode, The Arrival, did not have any instances of using the word "village" in anything spoken. Nevertheless, there were four instances of using "your village" in the Village font, but they were all in lower-case. The second episode, Free For All, used the word "village" three times in spoken text: In the introduction ("WHERE AM I?" "IN THE VILLAGE"), when the "reporters" were interviewing Number Six (13:59 in "WILL TIGHTEN UP ON VILLAGE SECURITY.") and twice in the 40th minute (39:??) in ("YOU DON'T APPROVE?" "OF THE VILLAGE? TO HELL WITH THE VILLAGE."). Because the closed-captioning is as I stated above, we cannot tell from it. In order to tell definitively, we will need a reliable third-party source. This source should, preferably, be a quotation from one or more of the production crew. Patrick McGoohan or George Markstein would be ideal because they were the creators of the series.

However, in the meantime, we should decide which standard to use then change all references to be consistent. If you didn't gather such from my statements above, I am for using "the Village". I think that this is supported by the usage in the closed-captioning (even though it is all upper-case) and by the maps (even though it is all lower-case) because "Village" is used as a place-name in both cases without always an accompanying "The".

What do others think? --Val42 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the book The Prisoner: The Official Companion by Robert Fairclough sticks to grammatical convention throughout, using "the", except where it starts a sentence. Chris 42 09:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I go into my own opinions on the point, let me say one thing about the closed-captioning: When it is on something that was originally produced and released many years before the technique existed, it proves nothing of this sort as almost by definition, nobody involved in creating the captions was really any more an insider than any of us here are (my VHS of MPI's 1990 Prisoner documentary is not CC'ed, nor is my somewhat older one of The Alternate Chimes..., so I doubt very strongly that the regular episodes themselves were by that year). As one of the people in the dispute in question, I stand by my earlier statement that one can hear the capitalization when any "broken" resident (or one of "them" who's been planted) gives the name, starting with the cafe waitress in the early minutes of Arrival (BTW, if Val42 believes, as his text irrefutably indicates, that the actual title of that opening ep. is "THE Arrival" (emphasis mine, of course), he isn't familiar enough with the programme itself--as opposed to second hand material--to be in this discussion). Ted Watson 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, and I quote, "Because the closed-captioning is as I stated above, we cannot tell from it." (I could make a snide remark back at you for missing this, but I won't.) When watching "Arrival", I missed the instance of the waitress (at 4:03) answering his question, "The Village?" (Or in the closed-captioning, "THE VILLAGE?") I also checked where I got "The Arrival": Back of box for the set has "Arrival", front and back covers of DVD case has "Arrival", DVD has "The Arrival" [sic] and episode has "Arrival". Personally, I think that I was just too concerned over the use of "The" that an extra one slipped in. But let me know if I missed another instance of "Village" in the first two episodes that I rewatched. In case you have a particular episode that you would like me to watch, I have THE COMPLETE PRISONER DVD MEGA-SET™ from A&E. (Yes, their fascination with capital letters extends to the name of the box set.)

Here are some more statistics: On the back of the box, there are six instances of "The Village" (not starting sentences), three of "Villagers" ("the", "all" and "innocent" immediately preceding), one of "empty Village" and one of "the Village". On DVDs back covers: Two "The Village" (not starting sentences), seven "the Village", four "Interactive Map of The Village", four "Interactive Map of the Village", fourteen "Village" (with other words preceding), one "the Villagers" and two "Villagers". The usage of "The" occurred more frequently towards the beginning than the end, but we can only speculate as to the reason.

In case you missed another of my points, "In order to tell definitively, we will need a reliable third-party source. This source should, preferably, be a quotation from one or more of the production crew. Patrick McGoohan or George Markstein would be ideal because they were the creators of the series," as shown on the end-credits. I would prefer a definitive source, but until we can come up with one, should we strive for consistency?. What do you think of The Prisoner: The Official Companion that Chris 42 brought up? — Val42 06:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: As a minor technical issue, I should have used the word(s) "subtitle(s)" in my posts because I was using the subtitle feature of my DVD player. Since Ted Watson is using the VHS tapes of the series, he was correctly using the term "closed captioning" (American usage). (Speculation: Because it was the term that I had used incorrectly.) For purposes of this discussion, unless someone objects, I think that we should use them interchangeably since they are very likely to be the same. — Val42 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not miss that, but was referring to your, "I think that this is supported by the usage in the closed-captioning...." and my point was that when, as in this case, the cc's (and the DVDs' subtitles, which in the--non Prisoner--instances where I have seen both look quite different) were done decades after production, and therefore by people who are almost certainly not "insiders," they are no authoritative source to proper usage at all. Come to that, the same principle applies to their packaging, too. Ted Watson 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you could purposely misinterpret that comment, but since I stated repeatedly that the closed captioning was in upper-case for all cases where the word "village" was used, I assumed that you would gather by that statement that I meant the words not the case. Let me restate what I meant clearly enough that even you could not purposely misinterpret my words: By watching the episode with the subtitles turned on (and the one that you brought up), not all instances of the word "village" is used with the word "the" in front of it. This is confirmed by the usage on the maps of the Village (as "your village"). From these cases, I conclude that "the" is not part of the place-name.

But since that you've eliminated everything except for your 'I stand by my earlier statement that one can hear the capitalization when any "broken" resident (or one of "them" who's been planted) gives the name,' original research, what else would you consider a reliable source? I would prefer a definitive source, but until we can come up with one, should we strive for consistency?. What do you think of The Prisoner: The Official Companion that Chris 42 brought up? — Val42 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your flatly and repeatedly stating that I "purposely misinterpreted" you is a direct violation of the Wiki rule "Assume good faith," and I am astounded that your Talk page shows no warning has been issued to you for it. This is particularly puzzling given an indefensible "Civility" warning I once received (my defense against it must have been accepted as there was no further action). I do admit to having missed your claim about "Village" not being precede by "The" on some occasions. Sure it is, as the P.A. announcer would often say "your Village" and other times the word would be used as an adjective, "He's a Village guardian," as a hypothetical example (as access to this computer is limited, I can't take the time to go check my vids for a real one right now). I note that you have yet to so much as acknowledge the existence of my argument that the captions/subtitles being created by God-knows-who so many years after all the original work was over and done with invalidates them as an authoritative source on such a point. The only possibilities for a "definitive source" would be either David Tomblin (is he still around and in good health?) and McGoohan himself, who of course refuses to discuss such things. Last point: I don't see that listening to the pronunciation of the actors is any more--or less--"original research" than checking the captions/subtitles. Both or neither. Ted Watson 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat my point for a third time, but more succintly this time: Both the subtitles and your 'I stand by my earlier statement that one can hear the capitalization when any "broken" resident (or one of "them" who's been planted) gives the name,' are unreliable original research.

Let me also ask these same questions of you, for the third time: I would prefer a definitive source, but until we can come up with one, should we strive for consistency?. What do you think of The Prisoner: The Official Companion that Chris 42 brought up? — Val42 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another two questions, for the first time for these: Does your statment, 'The only possibilities for a "definitive source" would be either David Tomblin (is he still around and in good health?) and McGoohan himself, who of course refuses to discuss such things,' mean that you think that there never can be a reliable source? What should we do in the meantime? — Val42 05:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not telling you what I think of the White & Ali book when you first asked. I used to swear by it, but in recent years so much of it has been called into question--especially their "refutation" of the origin of Rover (although even before their book came out I found the story implausible and can't but wonder how there was absolutely no corroborating evidence of any kind for so many years, and conversely according to W&A photos of the company arriving at Portmeirion with weather balloons, photos they did not reproduce)--that I have to take the proverbial grain of salt with their work. Unless Tomblin is alive, well, and ready & willing to talk, or McGoohan changes his position on talking about it, there can never be a "definitive" (not the same as "reliable") source. If you did intend earlier to concede that your citing the captions/subtitles was original research, you utterly failed to get that across. Besides, I certainly must deny your characterizing original research as unreliable. After all, all of these sources we cite are somebody 's original research. It's just an arbitrary rule, though I concede they had to draw the line somewhere. Ted Watson 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no definitive source will be forthcoming, what do you propose that we do in the meantime? — Val42 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A good question, and the only answer I can see is to concede to the fact that how the actors pronounced it was a decision by the creative staff, and that taking said pronunciation off the audio track is no more or less "original research" than taking the credits off the screen, rather than from some published episode guide. Ted Watson 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I understand about the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. People may comment on my comments below. The letters do not indicate importance but are given for use as references below. (Numbers were not used because of the nature of numbers in the subject of this article.)

• A) Spoken dialog
  • May be used because it is something that anyone with a tape or DVD may consult and get the same information. (There are things like clarity that may impair its usage.)
  • May not be used to gain capitalization on "The". (I know Ted Watson disagrees with this, but this is my interpretation of the standards.)
• B) On-screen visuals (such as the words on the maps):
  • May be used because anyone may consult it. (This is assuming that one doesn't have to use extraordinary methods to be able to read or see the subject in question.)
  • May not be used if unreasonable synthesis of information is involved. (We may talk about the Green Dome because it is named. If it had not been named, we could call it the green dome because it is obviously green on the screen and dome-shaped. We may not call it a copper dome because copper turns that color after some time, unless we can get a reliable, third-party, published source that says that this is the case in The Prisoner.)
• C) Subtitles or closed-captioning:
  • May be used because anyone may consult it. (Unless there is some dispute about a difference between it and the spoken dialog/sound effects.)
  • May not be used to determinte capitalization because of the reasons given by Ted Watson and myself above.
• D) Tape or DVD covers:
  • May be consulted as to what the tape or DVD covers say.
  • May not be used to resolve this particular issue for reasons given above. May not be used as episode summaries because of copyright issues.
• E) The Prisoner: The Official Companion that Chris 42 brought up:
  • May be used because anyone may consult it.
  • May not be reliable because of reasons given by Ted Watson above. (We will need citations to put this in the article though.)
• F) Patrick McGoohan or George Markstein:
  • May be used if quoted by a third-party, reliable, published source that anyone may consult.
  • May not be used if they were to decide to reveal their information on Wikipedia (and only Wikipedia). I understand the reasons for this, but if we could positively identify them as who they claim to be, they still wouldn't be allowed.
• G) The rumored reimagining of The Prisoner:
  • May be used to establish the usage in that version.
  • May not be used to establish the usage in this version.
• H) Your or my opinions or interpretations of these above sources:
  • May not be used under any circumstances. Even though we can make good arguments (yours are pretty good, even though I disagree), but they can't be used in Wikipedia articles.

Did I miss anything? A, B & C will probably be the most-used by anyone that interested in editing this article. D & E will be next-most consulted. F, G & H will apparently never be useable. Since A - D, G & H can't be used to resolve this problem, and F isn't forthcoming, that leaves only E. Since you have serious reservations about its reliability, I think that we should make a section on this controversy. However, we will need reliable, third-party, published sources to establish such unreliability. Now or after we resolve this issue (but soon), I think that we should write the Wikipedia-acceptable portions of this discussion as a section in The Village (The Prisoner) article. — Val42 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the published versions of the scripts (edited by Rob Fairclough, 2005 and 2006) use "the Village" throughout, presumably following the orthography of the typescript originals. This extends to the background notes prepared by Geogre Markstein as a guide to writers, and included in the first volume. Ghughesarch 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been over a week since anyone else has contributed to this discussion. There are two sources that give the capitalization as "the Village". Unless there are any objections within the next day, I will change this in The Prisoner and The Village (The Prisoner). I will include references to the two sources given above. — Val42 01:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just made the change to this article. I will make the change to The Village (The Prisoner) and include the references above. — Val42 17:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spin offs and continuations

I have no idea why this section was deleted. It was taken out a few days ago but I didn't notice (serves me right for ignoring my watchlist). I think it's more interesting and on-topic than the cultural references section. If someone feels otherwise, I invite them to state their case. Incidentally has anyone noticed this article no longer has any images of Patrick McGoohan? I am adding a book cover scan (fair use as long as the spinoffs section is kept) to rectify this. PS. My copy of the Disch novel is showing every one of its 37 years ... if someone has a better copy (preferably this same original edition), please by all means replace my original scan. 23skidoo 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So, would the the television show "Lost" be considered a spin-off or continuation? I'm waiting to see an episode with a very old Patrick McGoohan wearing a number one badge on being found under a hatch. 198.6.46.11 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Portmeirion?

Two episodes of Danger Man were shot at Portmeirion. The rest is history. Be seeing you. --SchizoidMan 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

6 episodes in total of Danger Man featured loaction work in Portmeirion.--theunmutual

Three episodes of the original, half-hour version contain end-credit lines that location work was done there, and only three. Did the hour-long revival go back? I've never encountered the slightest implication that it did. Ted Watson 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, 6 episodes feature Portmeirion. All half hours. Under The Lake, Journey Ends Halfway, View from the Villa, Find and Return, The Honeymooners. - Rick (theunmutual.co.uk)

Three and only three half-hours bear a credit acknowledgement to the Portmeirion (on prints shown on KDFI-TV, ch. 27, Dallas, TX, USA, 1995-1997; the credits were never cut short, nor compressed into illegibility as is commonplace today). Your third title is one of them (where the place subs as Italy). I strongly suspect "Under the Lake" is the episode where it is used as a lakeside resort in the Alps (Nazi loot is at the bottom of the lake), and that "Journey Ends Halfway" is the other. This one involves the sudden lack of people coming out of a pipeline from inside Red China, with Drake sneaking into the country at an isolated stretch of beach. This is the only genuine outdoor shot in that episode, which left me quite surprised when I saw the line in the end credits. Location filming in your other two--five is all you list--could not possibly be any more minimal, so they would surely carry the credit as well had filming been done there. Ted Watson 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "The Journey Ends Halfway", the pagoda-like tower on the sea front is Portmeirion, so the deserted beach is not the only location footage in that episode. Notwithstanding the non-crediting of Portmeirion in the case of "Find and Return", there are a number of shots of Portmeirion used in the episode - particularly the armed guards at the Beth Ja Brin villa. Use of Portmeiroin in "The Honeymooners" is similarly limited.

Ghughesarch 10:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The shot of the pagoda must have been cut from the print of "Halfway" that KDFI aired. Otherwise, O.K., as I wasn't looking for locations in general, just saw the credit line and then looked for places when those episodes came up again (and there was only the beach in that one; I repeat my concession to a cut there). Do you have any idea if "unmutual" is correct in his claim of a sixth ep. with Portmeirion shooting? That is, did he accidentally (1) leave a title out of his posting, (2) miscount how many titles he had, or (3) hit the "5" key instead of the "6"? Ted Watson 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bury The Dead" is the sixth - I'll have to dig that episode out and watch, but I think it's footage either from, or shot for but not used in, "View from the Villa". I know who "Unmutual" is, and I'm satisfied that he's right about this. Ghughesarch 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the episodes with Portmeirion footage. In "Bury the Dead" it's almost the first shot after the opening credits - the view of the campanile taken from "View from the Villa", as seen by Drake when he drives into the village. In "The Honeymooners" there's even less - a very brief shot of a Chinese guard outside the prison, taken from "The Journey Ends Halfway". In "Halfway", Drake does not arrive on an isolated beach, he arrives on the quayside in Portmeirion with several shots of the camera obscura tower in the background, manned by Chinese guards. In "Find and Return" there are a couple of shots of the Bristol colonnade with guards standing round, as the villa in Beth Ja Brin. The other two episodes have about as much Portmeirion footage in them as "Halfway".Ghughesarch 12:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE note that I listed "accidentally leave a title out" first among the three possible explanations of unmutual saying six but listing only five episodes. Assuming that you checked on the DVD set, was there a credit line on any or all of these other three for the Portmeirion location (I having said not)? Since, as you say, "Bury" and "Honeymooners" appear to use leftover footage from other episodes, that could explain the lack of one on them. Given your description of "Halfway," it would seem that the episode I was talking about was another one entirely, or it was significantly altered for USA syndication, as Drake certainly arrived at an isolated stretch of beach in what *I* saw. Ted Watson 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I did leave out an episode title. I'm unsure why on-screen credits are important, do any TV shows put a list of locations used in the credits? (theunmutual.co.uk)

It is unusual, and probably indicates something about Mr. Williams-Ellis and what he requires to grant permission to film crews (anybody know if there's such a line in the credits of the Doctor Who serial "The Masque of Mandragora," which also shot exteriors at the Portmeirion?). It also leads one to assume a lack of such credit here means a lack of filming there, as I did. Still would like to have the absence or presence of a location credit on the other three confirmed, please. Ted Watson 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I prefer to have my ID, rather than just my IP, come up in the "History" listings, hence I continue to include the tildes)

Screenshot?

Can anyone get me a screenshot (usable under Fair use) containing one of the little white cars with the stripey canopies that you see in The Prisoner? These are Mini Mokes - and much of the success of that car can be attributed to it's appearance in the show. I need a screen shot to illustrate this fact in the Mini Moke article. Thanks. SteveBaker 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've extracted an image from "The Arrival"; do you still want it--RedKnight 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out "outro"

I have removed the following from the "Outro" section: "At the end of "Fall Out", there is a slight difference, with the clanging bars slamming shut four times instead of once — an allusion to the possibility that the Prisoner is still not free. This ties in with the noise his home door makes when he returns there: a humming, automated sound exactly like the door to his house in the Village." I have watched "Fall Out" many times over the years, and there is no "closing bars" sequence at the end of this episode. The last scene is a closeup of McGoohan's face in a reprise of the first close-up that appears in the opening credits. There's a thunderclap, cut to black, and the closing credits begin. Is it possible the bars ending described here might be from a non-British version of the episode, or perhaps an early edit? I've taken it out for now because checking my DVD there's nothing to support it. 23skidoo 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The "multiple sets of bars" ending was shown at the end of "Fall Out" during Channel Four's rescreening the UK in 1984. It is not clear where Channel Four obtained this print of the episode which does not match any version known to have been broadcast before or since.Ghughesarch 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

nowhere man

There was a short lived american series, Nowhere man,that was similar to the prisoner in the head game aspect and it tipped its virtual hat to the prisoner calling the main character #6 in one episode.Jiohdi 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: revision--Portmeirion IS the hotel

On 6 April 2007 in "The Village" section, John Stumbly revised my giving Portmeirion as the name of the hotel, saying it isn't, and gave a name for the town other than what I've always heard. Here is the large location caption from the early episode titles in Fall Out:

In the grounds of

The Hotel Portmeirion

Penrhyndeudraeth,

North Wales

by courtesy of

Mr. Clough Williams-Ellis

I'd say that is as close to first hand evidence as we are likely to get, and am reverting it. Ted Watson 19:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Colony Three" as multinational?

Despite what is being said about the Danger Man/Secret Agent episode "Colony Three" in the "Documentaries" section of this article (of all places) my memory of that episode--which I saw twice on local television in the summer of 1996--is that the place was strictly a Soviet intelligence training facility, rather than one being used by virtually all major countries. This has also been said to have been the case in some TV reference books (though there's never been one on the market without some credibility-challenging error). Can somebody with (access to) the DVD set of that programme check and, if necessary as I strongly suspect, make the proper revision? Thank you. Ted Watson 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"You are, number six" vs. "You...are number six"

The standard opening dialogue which some have interpreted as giving a hint to the identify of number one was written at a time when the Producers and especially Patrick McGoohan had not decided on the dénoument of the series, so it could not possibly have been a genuine hint. It is true that lots of people think it's a clue, but it simply isn't. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't find your argument compelling. Just because they hadn't decided doesn't mean they couldn't have deliberately introduced semantic ambiguity. TheScotch 05:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This particular bit of "semantic ambiguity" requires the specific concept of Prisoner=One to exist. By "had not decided" Sam Blacketer clearly (and correctly, according to all accounts I've encountered) means that the idea hadn't been conceived at that point rather than merely on the table but not yet committed to, and given that, they could not have planted a clue to it. Ted Watson 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The "specific concept of Prisoner=One" (an awkward way to put it) strikes me as pretty damn obvious. If it hadn't occurred to the makers even vaguely and dimly, they must not have been very imaginative. In any case, Sam Blacketer certainly did not make what you contend "clear". You're reading into his remarks what you want to find there.TheScotch 08:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Denied. You are refusing to see what you do not want to see. I also deny your contention that "if it hadn't occurred to the makers even vaguely and dimly, they must have not have been very imaginative." Relative to this point, "the makers" would have been McGoohan and nobody else. And he has been widely reported to have gone into Sir Lew Grade's office late in the proverbial day and admitted he had no idea how it should end (admittedly, the confirmation that Once Upon a Time had "What do you require?"/"Number One"/"I'll take you" on the script before filming does indicate some degree of the finale had been conceived, but it doesn't mandate much). I never thought of The Prisoner being #1 prior to the scene showing it--and I was there in the summer of 1968, with no idea of what was coming up during my and the rest of the USA's first screening. Ted Watson 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be snarky, but how could you not suspect that? Did it never once occur to you that the village is orchestrated all around 6? The central theme to the show is that YOU are your own warder, and that the world is a village. I saw it on its initial run as well, and that's no excuse for your argument. WikiTracker 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Admitedly, for a series that is as strange as this one is, the makers should know how it is going to end before it starts. In Lost and Babylon 5 they did. But if this above quote is true (we'll need a reference), the McGoohan didn't know. He could have very well made Number 1 the dwarf butler, then there would be a lot of other happy little coincidences that lead to this result. The nature of Degree Absolute casts doubt on to whether or not the ending is real (inside the universe of The Prisoner). — Val42 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the final thesis point is that we are ALL Number One. WikiTracker 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence the expression looking out for number one.TheScotch 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "the village is orchestrated all around 6" and thinking that The Prisoner is literally #1. I noticed that early in "Once Upon a Time" when, just after McKern/#2 has gotten permission to use Degree Absolute against #6, he tells the Bald Supervisor this, but doesn't specify which prisoner! Besides, back in those days, nobody in TV really thought ahead like Val42 suggests. When interviewed circa 1990 by Ed Robertson for his book, The Fugitive Recaptured, about that classic David Janssen-starring series that he'd created, Roy Huggins was surprised when he pulled out his original treatment and found he'd specified that there should be a final episode in which the lead character, Richard Kimble, would be exonerated of the murder of his wife, but even then there was not the slightest indication of how it should happen. As for the reference to McGoohan's statement to Grade, I believe it's in the White/Ali book, which I'm very sorry to say I no longer possess a copy of, although its credibility has been dropping in recent years anyway. Ted Watson 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My Editing of the Wikipedia topic on The Prisoner

By Dr Phil Panter

I edit a small portion the Wikipedia on the Prisoner, I replaced the word “British man” to “Englishman”. I’m well aware that its no-longer fashionable to use the term “English” due to political correctness.

But one must take in to consideration that when “The Prisoner” was being made it was in a era where the term “British” referred to individuals from the far flung corners of the old English Empire.

McGoohan has firmly denied The Prisoner and John Drake are the same character, so he was not playing the role of the Irish American John Drake.

Until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the character he was playing was John Drake then it must be assumed that the was a English spy by the name of Peter Smith.

I'm sorry, but that is an absurd statement. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on you to prove that he wasn't using an alias (I mean, "Peter Smith"?! C'mon.) in that episode. And it's quite possible that McGoohan denied the connection between the Prisoner and John Drake for legal reasons. The parallel of his resignation and his characters resignation is too blatant to deny. WikiTracker 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Dr Phil's Edit

No firm mention of Number 6's nationality is ever mentioned. He might very well be English, Scots, Welsh or Irish, but we don't know for sure. Also, even assuming his name is Peter Smith is kind of speculative as it was only used once, and even then we don't know if it was his true name. Douglasnicol 00:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I could not find a spoiler warning on this page. The "Number One" section states that number one's mask is removed and number six's face is revealed. I believe that is enough of a surprise to constitute a spoiler warning.

If indeed there is such a warning, and I just missed it, I apologize, and please disregard this message.

128.239.194.144 14:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are to be expected in articles about a subject. — Val42 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's become open season for spoilers in Wikipedia. Reader beware, now. 23skidoo 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Even The Three Little Pigs no longer has one. Horrors! The wolf dies! Guy (Help!) 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And I was going to buy "Titanic" for my wife's Christmas present. Sheesh. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Powys Media spin-off novels

I just restored the information to match that on the Powys Media site, since I can't find anything that collaborates the edit which up-dated the release dates and dropped Lance Parkins book from the series release schedule entirely; changed by an unregistered user without references or edit summary unfortunately. If there is any information that would confirm those up-dates I would be very interested, but as it stands I can't see how we can go by anything other than the official site.Number36 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the ISBN number for the single published novel. 23skidoo 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Shattered Visage section

A lot of the text on the main Prisoner page about "Shattered Visage" is repeated on the "Shattered Visage" sub-page, so I've removed it from the main page. 147.252.228.188 12:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)