Talk:Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

"Trillion possible paths"
I question this claim. The linked articles provide no information to support this claim which is highly dubious since human have probably not existed long enough to film, let alone plot, a trillion different variations of a TV movie (even if the variations are only seconds in length). At the least, this claim should not be presented as if it is established fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.162.109 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a trillion permutations of around 250 segments. Roughly, one only needs twenty scenes to reach a trillion permutations (20! Is about 10^18). And that is what Netflix and Brooker state, it is not our place to question that. The Variety article has the details. --M asem (t) 05:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim is not that a trillion different things have been filmed, but can be watched. I agree with Masem's explanation but I'll give a few more details on the maths, just for fun. For an intuitive reason, imagine that I write four different sentences A, B, C, D and by making choices, the user can read them in any order. Well there's 24 possible orders (I'll give you the first couple: ABCD, ABDC, ACBD, ACDB, ADBC, ...) but this is a lot more than the number of sentences I had to write. The article says that 250 segments have been filmed, so the upper bound of possible orders, 250! is an unimaginably large number. The true trillion paths is because of a very strict set of rules about the order in which these segments can be displayed (e.g. never bury the day before killing him). We obtain this by noting that the user can make roughly 40 choices per playthrough, and each time they have two options, producing 2^40 (roughly a trillion) paths. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It should also be mentioned that, that film has many "dead end" that just tell you to change some of your past decision. So every viewer can have unique path of branching and loops how to get to "the end" with which he would be satisfied. Li-sung (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some false reasoning occurring here. Besides the fact that paths have to follow a rough order, each choice reduces the number of paths that can follow. Although some paths can be backtracked, there are still limited paths that can be followed afterwards. If we ignore that, and choose to focus too much on the backtracking, then there are not a trillion possible paths, but an infinite number of paths, which would also render the trillion paths statement inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.162.109 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the case, as you cannot backtrack indefinitely—a forced credits sequence occurs eventually. The number of paths is in the trillions. This is a calculation that has been done by people with actual access to the various paths and mechanics of the system itself, and they have told us that it's over a trillion. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I watched 32 paths before I had to switch it off (going out a pint), so that is 32!, which is 2.6 power 35. It is most definitely in the trillions, not trillion.  scope_creep Talk  20:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is faulty logic—as I say above, you can't simply view the segments in any order. For instance, you can't kill Stefan's father at the third choice because you haven't progressed far enough yet. The only information we have is that it's over a trillion. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What is Bandersnatch?
So Bandersnatch is a bit like a video game, a bit like a film and a bit like a television episode. More precisely, it involves the viewer/user controlling what they see onscreen and borrows heavily from CYOA books and text adventure games, hence it's a bit like a video game. It's a standalone work listed separately to Black Mirror on Netflix's website and designed to be watched for about 90 minutes, hence it's a bit like a film. And it was worked out and produced during the production process for series 4 and 5, with some of the same people involved, hence it's a bit like a television episode. But we need to clarify a few contexts in which we need to categorise it as one or the other.


 * Name: is it Bandersnatch (as I've been using so far) or "Bandersnatch". We use italics for films and video games, and quotes for episodes.
 * Episode tally: have there been 20 episodes of Black Mirror now, or 19 episodes plus a film?
 * Infobox: for this one, episode makes most sense. It had a script writer and a separate director, was shot roughly in the way all other Black Mirror episodes have been etc.
 * Categories: Which of Category:2018 films, Category:2018 television episodes and Category:2018 video games apply? (Or rather, which of these three are the categories for which subcategories are appropriate.)

I'm conflicted on a couple of these points and I know reliable sources will be all over the place with this one, so input is very much appreciated. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we include Template:Infobox film instead of Template:Infobox television episode once this is a standalone film, not an usual episode of the series? The current version of this page just doesn't make sense to me. - Chairhandlers (Talk to Me!) 13:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (I've merged the sections since this is exactly what I talk about above.) It made sense to me to match what we use on other Black Mirror content, and the film infobox has parameters like budget and gross which don't really reflect how a Netflix special works. But indeed I understand there are arguments for using that infobox and it's something we need to decide by consensus. I don't care much either way—I just picked one to use for the time being. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the film infobox applies since that is oriented towards box office and distribution details. It is effective still a made for tv film, which is normally done via the episode infobox. That said I do feel that the film project would be relevant here. --M asem (t) 15:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this discussion to my attention, given my recent edit. The release was marketed as a film, and multiple reliable sources back this up. There is no need for the use of the budget and box office parameters if they are not required, which in this case, they are not. Not every parameter has to be used. Yes, it is part of a television series, but a number of television series have films attached to them; for example, see Downton Abbey (film) and Serenity (2005 film). -- / Alex /21  03:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

why do you feel Bandersnatch is not under the remit of WPFilm (per this edit)? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is part of a television series, I don't consider it a film. Just my opinion. BOVINEBOY 2008 15:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Clear consensus, and nominator has withdrawn request. (non-admin closure)  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch → Bandersnatch (Black Mirror) – I don't see any reason for the series title to be fronted in this way. The episode is separate from the main series on Netflix's interface, presumably for technological reasons, and therefore labelled as "Black Mirror: Bandersnatch", but "Black Mirror" is not part of the episode's title. The poster (as seen in the article infobox) and other promotional material make that very clear. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: when beginning the article, I chose "Black Mirror: Bandersnatch" over "Bandersnatch (Black Mirror)" per WP:NATURALDAB. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, we should use the title that reliable sources call it. The Verge, USA Today, Polygon, Vulture, Digital Spy, IMDb, Forbes all use Black Mirror: Bandersnatch. Second, not that we necessarily have to use an official title, but it's, not "Bandersnatch", or "Bandersnatch, a Black Mirror event" or something. You're guessing with "presumably for technological reasons", but if it was solely because of technological reasons for its own interface, why is the trailer called Black Mirror: Bandersnatch on Netflix's own YouTube account as well?  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As well as being way TOOSOON to make a rational, long-term call even if the current name is incorrect, I have to say that most sources currently are using the current title, as well as Netflix themselves. Highly unlikely we have it wrong. -- Netoholic @ 11:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've not watched this yet so no can't comment on this, but the lead says Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is a 2018 interactive film, if this is a film and not an episode, then the title would never be Bandersnatch (Black Mirror) under WP:NCFILM. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed we're treating it as a film at the moment. There's discussion about this in the section above, which perhaps you could contribute to once you've watched it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Soetermans's sources, which combined with my comment about WP:NATURALDAB above makes "Black Mirror: Bandersnatch" the correct title even if "Bandersnatch" happened to be more common. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, but also if the words "Black Mirror" will appear in the article's title no matter what, then might as well use the film's full title. --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose As it is clearly being treated as a standalone work from the episodes of Black Mirror (and we have a case of "White Christmas" of how a special episode of the series is treated), the current name seems to be what most sources introduce the subject as. I'm not wholly against the alternate title but I feel there's more weight to support the current naming. --M asem (t) 18:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: no reason to deviate from established name as given by primary source, and as used in listed secondaries. - DVdm (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdraw move request Thanks to the above responses, I see this was hasty and recognise the consensus to remain at the current title. Thanks all. U-Mos (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Experimental film?
Could Bandersnatch be considered an experimental film? I am inclined to add this film to that category due to its use of interactivity but I’m not quite sure if that alone qualifies it for that category. 50.37.48.71 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I think you can describe it as an "experimental film" but if all interactive films are experimental then maybe the category should be added to Category:Interactive films itself rather than to just this article (see Subcategory). I see you've added the category Category:2010s avant-garde and experimental films to this article, which is appropriate unless Category:2010s interactive films is created. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This IP should give some reason and sources why it's experimental so that it can be on the page. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. If continued, you will be reported to an admin. Sebastian James (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not contributor. It is me that reverted you, not the IP user, and I don't appreciate the threat. I am agreed with the IP user that the category is appropriate; the film is of a non-standard format, and had bespoke technology created specifically for it. Bandersnatch is of an experimental nature, and there have been many news headlines such as "Netflix's 'Black Mirror: Bandersnatch' Succeeds as an Experiment, Fails as a Good Story" which categorise the film as an experiment, in some sense. You are the one who needs to present reasoning why the category would not be appropriate. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

depression therapy, antidepressant medices
"Throughout this period, Butler visits Dr. R. Haynes' (Alice Lowe) clinic for depression therapy." "Dr. Haynes prescribes Butler antidepressant medicines, which the viewer can choose to either have Butler take or flush down the toilet."

Do any sources directly support the allegation it's depression treated with antidepressants? This screenshot says it's Olanzapine. I don't want to do original research so I'm sharing this with you guys. Angelica K (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I definitely think at the very least it should be neutralized into "therapy" and "medicines". Angelica K (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out—it's an assumption made by whoever wrote that line, as it's never mentioned in dialogue. The canonicity of that screenshot is debatable. Not to belabour the point, but in some interpretations of the film, some choices you make affect what the previous scene was (e.g. if you open the safe with PAC you were awake, but if you fail to open it with PAX you were dreaming) so it's not clear that the medicine being Olanzapine in the PAC storyline would mean that it's Olanzapine in other storylines. Anyway, the important thing for Wikipedia is that the nature of the drug is not a substantial part of the plot and so it's a detail we should omit. (And hence I've made this edit.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"90 minutes for default path"
The article mentions that the default path lasts 90 minutes, with a citation. However I've played the "default path" (made no choices myself and let the film decide). When I did it, the film came to a conclusion (offering me exit to credits or the chance to make different choices) after exactly 45 minutes. The ending was the TV studio reveal as Stefan is about to attempt to jump out of the window. 84.51.161.96 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've also played the default path. Once you get to that ending, if you don't touch anything it will select "Go back" rather than "Exit to credits". And then it continues (I think reaching a couple of different endings and going back) until you've played from about 90 minutes, and then exits. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Mohan THACKER?"
I noticed that on the introductory part of this article, the name of Tuckersoft's boss is listed as "Mohan Thacker." However, on the official Netflix-created Tuckersoft.net website, his name is listed as "Mohan Tucker." https://tuckersoft.net/jobs/

Should we change the name? -Wikipedia user "eatmorepies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatmorepies (talk • contribs) 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * On a post the actor made on Reddit, he clarified that the character's name is "Thakur", and the anglification to "Tucker" was supposed to be part of the plot. Tuckersoft remains an in-universe website, and it could be easily seen as having been created by the character himself. This might be something worth mentioning in the body of the article, but as far as MOS:TVCAST goes, the character's name is "Thakur". Radiphus (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From memory I believe both the credits and subtitles read "Thakur" so that's the spelling that takes precedence. (Also: you can sign posts by adding  to the end of them. Thanks!) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"interactive"?
so many sections discuss this, but what does it MEAN? i watched it in both VLC and WMP; it went from start to finish like any other movie. what sort of app does one need to jump around as described?

needs to be made explicit in article. "alternative path" is meaningless to the average viewer who doesn't even have an input for such things. 2601:19C:527F:A660:3C94:876A:93E8:E14F (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are watching it in VLC or offline players, you are not watching a legit version of the work. Only official playback of the work through Netflix is the version we talk about. M asem (t) 03:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The typical viewer is watching it legally through Netflix, where the interactivity is a core component. I have no idea how the article could be any clearer about the interactivity feature. — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * even if i watch it on the netflix site (PAID), how am i inputting anything? the article should mention this very basic aspect -- do u type in a number somewhere, like "select 1 or 2"?
 * article goes out of its way to detail the graphics OFFERING the choices, but mentions nothing about how the user would respond to them after that!
 * not talking pirate copies here -- paid videos from HBO, netflix, paramount+ etc still have to go thru SOME player. which one is it that offers this interactivity?
 * or are u saying it only works on oldfashioned tvs utilizing "remotes"? well then, lead with that!  95% of the population watches this stuff on phones now. 2601:19C:527F:A660:E023:67FB:35B5:2DED (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't tech support, and the input type varies platform to platform. I don't know that it's really our job to say "on this device, you touch the screen; on this device, you press this remote control button; on this device, you click with the mouse; ..." But if you've found reliable sources that mention details for lots of different devices then no-one is stopping you from adding that yourself, which is how Wikipedia works. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * it is silly to have a section describing how the choices are presented to the user w/o at least some token mention of what s/he's supposed to DO with said choices! if that's too "tech" for the article, then we shouldn't waste space mentioning the former.
 * don't need great details for every system, but a general line like "...which the user selects on a 'remote control' device" would be logical. obviously, i'm not gonna write it myself since i watch netflix on my phone and haven't seen an actual remote control in like 18 years.  (do they even make hardware TVs anymore?)
 * i'm still confused, tho. why would netflix put so much effort into this if 95% of the population can't experience it?  did i misunderstand your earlier comments about it not working on modern devices (phones/laptops)?  suddenly you're talking about "platforms" and "touching screens" here...as if to say it DOES work on them after all?


 * previous comments implied you needed a vintage tv to watch it properly. 98.216.184.137 (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Bandersnatch is an interactive film. A brief tutorial, specific to the device being streamed on, explains to the viewer how to make choices." we don't need to explain more...the only way to watch it through a Netflix client. M asem  (t) 11:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * define "device" -- phones, laptops indeed, or JUST "tv"s?
 * and what is a netflix "client"? is that the hardware BOX atop a tv?   to the lay-reader client means "subscriber", i.e., viewer himself.  which makes no sense in your context.  (to some of us, client can also mean "app", but again, how does that relate to TV SETS??)
 * moreover, if you're serious about "we don't need to explain more", then pls. remove the section about the graphics of PRESENTING THE OPTIONS. direct conflict to what you're advocating. 2601:19C:527F:A660:85CA:B4AD:4B18:ACD4 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Nohzdyve download link has disappeared
Article needs to be updated to reflect this 2A00:23C7:46B0:9401:7C6D:A5A5:E7C0:5C44 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed this part to use past tense, as it perhaps always should have, but without a reliable source it is not Wikipedia's place to engage in original reporting that the download link was removed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)