Talk:Opening and closing sequences of The Prisoner

Untitled
"top speed down an empty highway" -- or abandoned air strip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 16:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"information" or "in formation"?

"you are number six" or "you are, number six" A statement telling him that he is called number six, or a statement implying that he is number one? Feldercarb (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"...information..." emphasis
User Ckatz has removed the boldface from the middle instance of the thrice uttered word "information" in the quote of the opening's standard Prisoner/Number Two dialogue, citing the "style guide" in his edit summary. As is often said, "There is an exception to every rule," and this must be the one to the guide's point on boldface. Number Two increases his emphasis over the three times he says this word, and as the entire thing is italicized, there is simply no other way to indicate the middle level of emphasis here (the last instance is also in all caps). If Ckatz can proivide an alternative way to accomplish the requiste emphasis, fine. I can't see one, and therefore restore the boldface, albeit in a way to reduce the usage to only one "information" instead of the previous two. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Boldface removed, please do not restore it. Extensive discussions from the last time you brought this up concluded that boldface was not to be used. --Ckatz chat spy  00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No such thing as "last time I brought this up" as this situation is fundamentally different, as described above. The emphasis must be indicated here, but as the whole quote is already in italics (which you don't challenge), italicization per guidelines and alleged consensus can't accomplish it. The only way left that I can see is boldface. Come up with an alternative or leave it as is, but you are not to simply revert it again! --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the same as the last time you brought this up, because the basis of your argument there was the same. Furthermore, as detailed in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting), your position is contrary to the existing Manual of Style and other style guides. Please stop as this is becoming disruptive. I have no desire to edit war with you, as this whole matter is extremely unpleasant. However, you cannot continue to defy the style guide and to ignore the opinions of several other uninvolved editors, which have resoundingly stated that boldface is not appropriate for this purpose. --Ckatz chat spy  03:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This bears no resemblance to the earlier incident. In the other dispute (which BTW was never resolved; I simply got distracted from keeping my promise to pursue it further) I was challenging a general principle. Here on the other hand, I have explained in no uncertain terms that this is a unique and isolated situation, an exception to the rule (a rule I have implicitly conceded to here and have been abiding by in articles since the earlier dispute), pointing out factors you have refused to acknowledge. In fact, you continue to argue on general principles, irrelevant to my expressed position. All of them are in my first post to this thread a very short distance above (partially reiterated and expanded upon in my second), so I see no purpose in repeating myself here. It is your behavior which is making this situation unpleasant, as it has several others. I will, however, not revert as yet and instead wait for a response from you here, but if there is none in about 48 hours, I will go to your talk page and post there. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what else to say to you, Tbrittreid, given that this point has been explained to you to the point of exhaustion by myself and by others: We don't use boldface in this manner. If you insist on restoring the text without a clear and distinct consensus that the Style Guide permits it, that will be considered disruptive behaviour and addressed accordingly. Please, let's not bring it to that point. --Ckatz chat spy  23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what else to say to you. You continue to rant about general rules when I have clearly explained that the specific circumstances here require an exception. If you refuse in your next post to so much as acknowledge the fact that I am saying this (which is called discussing the specific dispute at hand), I will have no choice but to ask administration for disciplinary action against you, even though you are an administrator yourself. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's what you want to do, by all means go right ahead. I suspect, however, that the outcome will be somewhat different than what you are expecting. To quote one of the editors who responded to you the last time you tried to push this through,"'You ignore the force of outside style guides, you ignore this one, you ignore arguments against the use of bold for emphasis. It is clear that the only argument you would ever recognise as valid is one you've made. You are wrong; authority says you're wrong, aesthetics say you're wrong, but you won't hear any of it.'"I think that sums up the problem in its entirety. --Ckatz chat spy  04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant and inappropriate. I have said and said that this is an isolated and unique incident that must be considered an exception to the rule, and merely citing the general rule is no argument to the contrary. Let me also state that my argument there was never dealt with at all, so I consequently had no reason whatsoever to do anything other than continue to think of it as valid. His statement that I cared about nothing but my own argument was completely out of line. The same thing is exactly what's happening here. You have continually and consistently ignored every thing I've said about the specific situation here and repeatedly cited the style guide, meaning you don't care about anything but your argument. You and he are guilty of what you two accuse me of, not me. All you or he have (in his case had) to do is deal with what I've said and refute it itself, not cite something the relevance or validity of which I have argued against as part of my position to begin with. That is lacking in good faith. On the other hand, the reason I'm replying here instead of carrying out my promise for your lack of acknowledging my claim that this is a unique situation is that I've come up with an alternative. While off line I've thought about your underlining part of one of your posts here. Would you consider that an acceptable way of indicating the increasing emphasis that is part of the quote here? If we don't do this somehow, we have presented the quotation inaccurately, and I believe that violates Wiki rules. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One more time: The actor voicing Number Two increases emphasis over the three times he says "information" here, and if we don't represent it, the quotation is inaccurate. How do you (or any other editor interested in this article) feel about accomplishing it with:
 * "We want information... information ... INFORMATION !" ? --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Underlining fails the Style Guide as well... perhaps you might wish to describe it instead: ""We want information.." (louder) "information..." "information!" --Ckatz chat spy  11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'd have to say "even louder" for the third time. BTW, you imply (and no more) that all caps also fails the style guide. Did you mean to do so? And thank you for explaining what you meant by "describe," as I didn't get it at first (via Nav popups on my watchlist page). --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Helpful break

 * Here is exactly what the Wikipedia MOS says about italics and emphasis:


 * "Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (whereas boldface is normally not used for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less its effectiveness [italics in original]."
 * First of all, it does not deny the use of boldface for emphasis invariably, just "normally". The situation at hand, requiring two increasing levels of emphasis, is irrefutably one of the not-normal instances alluded to and allowed. Note the latter sentence; this agrees with my position in the earlier dispute, if I failed to make it clear there: In pop culture articles with many italicized titles, all that italicization means that additional italics for emphasis there are rendered less than acceptably effective. I was right all along! --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Use of boldface reverted, yet again. Tbrittreid, please stop as this is disruptive behaviour. Several editors in various forums have tried to explain this to you; refusing to listen will not change the fact that your interpretation is incorrect. --Ckatz chat spy  22:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. It is to you that your statements here apply. I have quoted and linked in the place where the MOS fails to categorically prohibit boldface for emphasis, but in fact allows that there are exceptions, even though it does not specify what they might be. If that had not been the intent, the inclusion of the qualifying term "normally" would be indefensible and incompetent (especially in a manual of writing style!). As I have told you and told you and told you and told you, if we do not indicate two levels of emphasis here, we have presented the quotation incorrectly, and there is nothing in the MOS that specifically acknowledges that such a situation can happen; the MOS gives absolutely no guidance on depicting two levels of emphasis, but that is precisely what we are required to do here. The guide, in the quote therefrom given above merely states "boldface is normally not used for this purpose." This situation is absolutely not normal. This is not an "interpretation". I have proved my position and it is you who are "refusing to listen." It is you who are being disruptive by caring about nothing but your position, as someone you quoted much earlier incorrectly accused me of doing. It is quite clear that authority does allow the existence of exceptions, and that this is irrefutably one. Note also that no support of your suggestion of a parenthetical "(louder)" can be found in the MOS at all, and surely such is disruptive to the smooth flow of reading far more than boldface, as the one and only other editor in the one and only other dispute about bolds for emphasis ("several" is yet another lie on your part) claimed as an argument against me there that bolds do exactly that. But you continue to lie and and claim this is about nothing more than the general rule (with the sole exception of the post with the aforementioned unsupported suggestion, one you created out of whole cloth to deal with the not normal situation, which you are now ignoring again, perhaps because you realized your suggestion is indeed wholly unsupported by the manual). I will restore, and if you revert without acknowledging the non-normal status of the individual edit at hand, I will report your detrimental-to-the-encyclopedia closed-mindedness to the proper authorities. If you are too arrogant to admit that the position to which you committed yourself is wrong when it has been proven to be, then don't; just shut up and go away instead of indefensibly insisting that you are right by misrepresenting the specifics of the disputed edit. One last time: the MOS does not in any way, shape, or form claim that boldface is never to be used for emphasis, and this must be one of those admitted to, but not specifically identified, exceptions that fall outside of "normally.". --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You've repeatedly been told that your interpretations of the guidelines with respect to boldface are incorrect, not just by me, but by other editors on both article talk pages and in related discussions on the relevant Style Guide talk pages. If you truly feel that this is an exception to the rule, the onus is on you to prove that by getting support for your opinion; simply having that opinion is not sufficient. More importantly, unless you can produce said consensus that you are correct, your continued addition of non-conforming material borders on vandalism. Feel free to report this wherever you like, as your complete disregard for the opinions expressed by other editors will certainly speak for itself. --Ckatz chat spy  05:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what people have said elsewhere as I have demonstrated conclusively that this is an unusual situation not relevant to the other talk page discussions to which you allude. They were about the rule in general while this is about one very specific instance, so the things that I've been told there are absolutely irrelevant to this dispute. PERIOD. What is being quoted here possesses two levels of emphasis in successive words—a fact—and that therefore the use of something other than just italics is needed to create it. Saying that this is a situation not covered by the MOS is not an opinion, and noting the inarguable meaning of the inclusion of the word "normally" in what the MOS does says about boldface and emphasis is not an interpretation. You lie on these points. To say I am required to hunt up other people to agree with me is irrational. Lining up editors to agree or disagree with one or the other of us is not evidence that the guide does or does not specifically cover the situation at hand. It is a fact that it fails to do so, proven by my quoting every word it does have to say on the general subject of emphasis by italics vs. boldface. If no one else wants to say anything here, we are in that regard stuck with each other. You are an arrogant asshole who will do or say anything to satisfy your delusions of superiority and perfection, which is deterimental to the encyclopedia, and you should be kicked off the project. I hope to get on the internet earlier tomorrow and accordingly have the time to file the appropriate complaint against you. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me summarize this concisely for those who respond to my complaint.


 * 1) The presence of the word "normally" in the quoted section of the MOS absolutely carries the meaning that there are situations wherein boldface may be used for emphasis; not often, not generally, but this is nothing less than a concession that it can be done sometimes. It is not an interpretation or an opinion but a fact of the English language. As this is a guide for writing style, to have intended an invariable prohibition and phrased it this way would be an incredibly incompetent act by the guide's writer(s), an interpretation that cannot be justified.
 * 2) It is a fact that the edit at hand requires two levels of emphasis in the same sentence, one which Ckatz conceded earlier on this thread. In fact, it requires this on two successive words ("We want information...information...information!"). It is a fact that this cannot be accomplished using italics and only italics, so something else must also be utilized here.
 * 3) The guide makes no mention of having two different levels of emphasis in the same passage, no guideline as to what we should do here. Again, a fact.
 * 4) The guide allows no means of creating emphasis beyond the general rule being italics and the concession via "normally" that on rare occasions it can be done with boldface.
 * None of the above is interpretation or opinion, as Ckatz has repeatedly asserted as if that is a fact not open to discussion, but facts. The only ways the guide allow for creating emphasis are italics and boldface, and it is mandatory to establish two levels of emphasis here—I repeat that Ckatz conceded this above. The guide leaves us with no method to accomplish that distinction but boldface. The only aspect of this edit that is open to debate is whether the third "information" should be in both italics & boldface, or just in bolds.
 * Ckatz's allusions to previous discussions and other editors are badly off the reality there. There was only one other discussion, which began on an article's talk page and moved, appropriately, to a MOS talk page, involving Ckatz himself and only one other editor (who admitted then that he was not there "to be fair or impartial"!). It was about my suggesting that the general rule be changed, not that isolated exceptions to it exist as it already reads, making it 100% not a precedent to this dispute either way. Hence, I do not make a link to it to waste anybody's time going there. Ckatz's repeated misrepresentations of that discussion and this dispute (note how long it took him to concede to the presence of two levels of emphasis in the quote, and that he hasn't acknowledged it since), and his indefensible (if indirectly made by ignoring my pointing out the fact) claim that "normally" does not qualify that sentence, that it is a flat prohibition by the MOS against ever using boldface for emphasis (which, of course, it is not), are unconscionable. They can be reasonably interpreted only as him being more interested in keeping his own edits in place (and his delusion of perfection intact) than the good of the encyclopedia. In other words, a sizable lack of good faith. Note via this article's edit history that all he did in the beginning was to remove the bolds, but made no effort to create emphasis some other way; this is because all he cared about was enforcing his belief in a flat prohibition against bolds for emphasis (possibly couldn't come up with an alternative he felt to be allowed by the MOS, if he even understood the quote at that time) and didn't give a damn about the needs of the article. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Postmodernism
"Like the series as a whole, the opening sequence can be seen as a prefiguration of postmodernism;[5] it establishes an Orwellian dramatic premise which is deconstructed by its own absurdity. The opening sequence is absent from the final episode, which is expected to decode and confirm all the narrative of the series which has come before by revealing the identity of Number One, but which instead abandons the narrative structure for "chaotic meaninglessness".[5]"

Is this relevant? What does it even mean? Even though it is prefacd with "can be seen as...", it still seems more opinion than accepted fact about the opening sequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.223.215 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with that comment. I don't normally come to the Talk page, but this one paragraph really stood out and I wanted to see if anyone was discussing it. It sounds like a college student pasted in a paragraph from their paper "Postmodernism and The Prisoner: an Absurdist Prefiguration Decoded."

209.204.147.112 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In a cocaine-fuelled flurry of editing I took this out and then put it back - it would have helped if the writer had pointed the reference at page 1, instead of page 212. The frustrating thing is that The Prisoner is a superb example of early postmodernism on the telly, and the source does discuss the show's opening sequence. I'm surprised that The Prisoner hasn't appeared in more university theses on postmodernism. The sample on Google Books doesn't conclude that the premise is "deconstructed by its own absurdity", but that wording might be in pages five and six, which aren't included in Google Books. The paragraph really belongs in a fresh article on Postmodern Readings of The Prisoner or something similar. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In layman's terms, The Prisoner predated concentrated academic thought on postmoderism by a decade. The opening sequence sets up the show as a serious spy drama, but it feels unreal and becomes odder as it goes along. The show itself repeatedly suggests that The Prisoner's goal of escaping is meaningless, because the entire world is a prison, and although the final episode sets up a grand reveal the plot just degenerates into arbitrary nonsense. The show suggests (a) that society is just a lot of fundamentally meaningless rituals (b) that conventional narrative storytelling is no longer fit for purpose (c) that notions of progress and freedom are simply not compatible with the show's fundamentally postmodern philosophy and that (d) The Prisoner itself is a big tease. It has postmodernism oozing out of every pore. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ron Granier's music.
The lede of this article needs to be about the theme, composed by Ron Granier. The two themes were so crucial, series auteur Patrick McGoohan went through two themes before choosing Granier's, which he made Granier rescore to a faster tempo and place emphasis on the timpani drums.User:JCHeverly 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Living in Harmony
I have read somewhere (possibly in Jaffer/Ali's book?) that the lack of a standard opening credit sequence was a contributing factor in CBS not airing the episode during the original run (other factors being the subject matter and violence). Anyone have any additional info on this? It would be relevant to mention as it indicates the impact of the opening sequence on the episode - in that the lack thereof prevented its broadcast - but I can't add it without source. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)