Talk:Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Project

Please consider joining the project! HowardBerry 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thank you all, thank you!

I must have seen reruns of this at some point in my childhood travels, but no one in New York, when I spent my early teens, knew what I was talking about. Finally, I met one person who knew of 'Thunderbirds' (she was English) but even she went blank when I mentioned 'Captain Scarlett'.

Vindication at last! It's been bothering me for almost twenty years! Quill 06:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Length of the fall

Capt. Scarlet falls '250 m'? Metres? Is that what was said in the original? Quill 00:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have the boxed set; I can re-watch and check if it is. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Thanks--when you get around to it. The only reason I am asking is because I would have thought that the series predated the use of the metric system. I could be way off base, here, though. Quill 23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're correct; the actual figure mentioned in the episode is 800 feet. That's pretty close to 250 meters (more like 243.2) but, well, there really doesn't seem to be a good reason to artificially convert it to a different system, does there? I fixed it in the article. Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone 'fixed' the figure of 800 feet to 1800 feet. If they had checked this talk page beforehand, they would have realized that the figure of 800 feet came from going to the episode itself and re-watching it. In the episode "The Mysterons" as contained in the Captain Scarlet boxed set, at 26 minutes and 19 seconds into the episode, Commander White states the figure as 800 feet -- I went back and rewatched it a second, and then a third time, to be sure I was hearing correctly. If the person who changed it in the article to 1800 has some reason for citing that figure instead, they are asked to please cite it. Antaeus Feldspar 23:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm referring to memory here, because unfortunately I can't watch the episode myself right now, and I no longer have the other resources to hand. I think the episode itself might fail to be self-consistent, because I'm pretty sure that there is an indication somewhere that the Car-Vu is a mile high. There is also at least one Century 21 comic strip which references the Car-Vu, but it's along time since I saw it. The dialogue does definitely say he fell 800 feet, though. Cain Mosni 20:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The complete book of Captain Scarlett, Carlton Books, foreword by Gerry Anderson ISBN 1 84222 405 0 confirms on page 59 that he falls 800 feet to the ground. You might hope that their own books of the series might get it right... I hope this helps. (L Fry - 21.29 02 Aug 2006 (UK) avid supporter of Wikipedia & glad I could actually contribute something for a change)

Renegade Mysteron theory

The speculation that Captain Scarlet is actually a renegade Mysteron is one I have never heard or read before anywhere. Is there any support for this besides what's in the article; i.e., does it represent public knowledge about the series or a private theory? -- Antaeus Feldspar

Good point; I can't answer it. Quill 23:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Technically, he is a renegade because after being taken over by the Mysterons he does do their bidding for a time until he falls off the car park. But I have no recollection of him ever being referred to as a renegade in the series itself. 23skidoo 23:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems obvious that he's a renegade; I'd assumed the objection was to the suggestion that he's a Mysteron. --Paul A 04:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He's definitely a Mysteron because the original Capt. Scarlet's body is disposed of by the duplicate who then goes on to become the hero of the piece. 23skidoo 12:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, Timrollpickering was the one who added the theory of Scarlet being a Mysteron deserter. We had some discussion about it, but I'll sum it up as follows:

If we are careful to distinguish between "Mysteron" (one of the actual Martians) and "Mysteron duplicate" (a duplicate of some destroyed/killed object or person, created by the Mysterons), then the series establishes clearly that Scarlet's new body is that of a Mysteron duplicate. That part isn't a possibility, it's stated outright.

As for the personality that occupies that body by the end of the first episode and for all episodes thereafter, there are three possibilities: A) it's the returned personality of Paul Metcalfe (Captain Scarlet), B) it's the personality of the Mysteron duplicate, pretending to be Paul Metcalfe, C) it's the personality of one of the Mysterons themselves, pretending to be Paul Metcalfe. B and C are interesting theories but there's no support at all for them in the series; Scarlet never acts in a way that would indicate he has any divided loyalties or any knowledge of the Mysterons save what he and SPECTRUM have observed. (The phrase "Mysteron deserter" or "Mysteron renegade" tends to imply B or C; after all, if a soldier for Lessfillingland was brainwashed to act as an agent of Tastesgreatlevania, and then managed to throw off the brainwashing, you wouldn't say they were a Tastesgreatlevanian deserter or renegade.)

The section in question was therefore written to clarify that Scarlet's new body is that of a Mysteron duplicate but that his personality (according to all indications in the series) is that of Paul Metcalfe a.k.a. Captain Scarlet. Whether that makes him really Captain Scarlet, I would suggest is a philosophical question way out of our league! =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that being a 'renegade' implies that someone is of a persuasion (such as, BEING a Mysteron) who has thereafter chosen to turn his/her back on the Mysterons. The duplicates seemed merely to be controlled tools of the Mysterons, not free-willed agents. In fact, the original Captain Scarlet's body was NOT disposed of as previously noted hereinbefore. Watch the scene - his body was dragged into some bushes. Period. The replicant Captain Scarlet walks away. Later, at CloudBase, it was noted that Captain Brown's body was found at the scene of the car accident, but there was no mention of having found the original Scarlet's body. It may be conceivable that Divine Intervention was at work on his behalf. The memories could indeed be that of the original Scarlet. {User: Twalker Nov.2005}

Perhaps 'renegade' would be better termed 'rogue' (as in a rogue missile, which once fired fails to complete it's planned trajectory) for this he unquestionably is - a Mysteron construct not following their agenda. Bear in mind that Scarlet is the only Mysteron replicant ever to survive the resolution of his Mysteron agenda. All future Mysteron replicants are (strongly indicated to be) killed in executing their agenda or the process of foiling their efforts, so we never find out what their "normal" behaviour is afterward. Remember also that as part of their camouflage the replicants are gifted with all the knowledge and personality traits of their original, as evidenced by numerous scenes of replicants infiltrating the original's normal locus of operation by mimicing them.

It seems reasonable to conclude that once his programmed agenda failed, the replicant Scarlet reverted simply to being "himself" with no further implanted Mysteron instruction to influence him. Furthermore, it's equally reasonable to conclude that the personality doesn't know it's a different material entity any more than anyone else does, because in Dr Fawn's stated analysis he's normal except for his capacity for regeneration. All his knowledge tells him he is Paul Metcalfe, since it is stated that (very conveniently) he has no memory of the events leading up to the kidnapping of the World President, leading him and everyone else to conclude that he is the same person having undergone some physiological change. That's certainly the way I have always interpreted the situation, and Occam's Razor supports the interpretation. The rest of the series is written as if he were the original person, and the official press promo actually refers to Captain Scarlet "becoming" indestructible, IIRC. Cain Mosni 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, noting the attitude of Captain Scarlet's fellow agents, it seems indicated that, because of not having found the original Scarlet, they assumed this man was the original, having been 'taken over', as Captain Black had been. {User:T.Walker 13:14, Feb 2006}

Well, please realize that Wikipedia has policies about original research. Since there's no indication in the series that divine intervention played a role, speculation that it might have runs the risk of taking us down a path not productive to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I will refrain from conjecture without documentation. However, there's no telling what Gerry Anderson had in mind for Captain Scarlet. {twalker; 10 Mar 2006; USA}

Kill or destroy

The recent "corrections" to the statement that the Mysterons must kill or destroy something to copy it left the statement less correct than it had been. There is not anything that the Mysterons are ever shown copying without first killing or destroying it. In "Treble Cross", the episode that MikeVx cites as proof that the Mysterons don't need to destroy a thing to copy it -- the test pilot whom they copy has been killed. The fact that he is later resuscitated is not an exception to the rule: they must kill or destroy anything that they wish to copy, even if the opening narration does oversimplify it to "first, they must destroy". The speculation that destruction is only a matter of Mysteron policy is just that, speculation. I feel we should restore the original description, since it was not in error and did not need to be "updated". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've regarded the issue as an inconsistency since Treble Cross, and reached a conclusion that you obviously don't agree with. If it is really too far out there, I'm sure that someone will change things back. At least you offered a civil (albeit in my opinion, incorrect) counterpoint. I expected to get some nasty reactions to challenging the commonly-held view. I don't see a resucitatible case as being really dead. ("There's a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead.") It is true that the issue of Mysteron policy is speculation, but it is the only real explanation possible given my position that destruction is not a necessary part of the process. Now as far as I've seen in the new series, they have only duplicated people in clothing on-screen. I have seen two cases of death followed by on-the-spot fabrication of the copy, so there is no inconsistency so far. I'm not going to get into an edit war, if the entry is changed I'll just leave it be. I will, however, continue to regard it as an error. -- MikeVx 01:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Treble Cross is certainly a challenging episode to try and fit into the canon, but it stretches definitions, rather than violating the rules that have been explicitly established. You might not see a reversible death as fulfilling the clause that "they must kill/destroy before they can copy", but since our only choices are: 1) Gerry and company did see a death followed by a resuscitation as one that fulfilled the clause, or 2) Gerry and company stated flat out in the opening narration of the series a "rule" that they never intended to be a rule and only adhered to in every single other instance of Mysteron copying in the series just ... because... well, I think we need to be realistic and say that our belief that the Mysterons should need to kill someone "all dead" before being able to copy them, if they have any such need at all, is not one that the creators of the canon shared.

As far as the new series, I think it would be a mistake to try and apply knowledge from the new series to the old one, since they are distinctly different on some very basic points. There is no way to merge the old series and the new series to make one unified canon so why try to determine principles of the old canon by referring to the new one? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to toss in my 2 cents, the word "destroy" is often used in the same context as "kill". (i.e. "We will destroy the terrorists", etc.). So if it's a matter of semantics I think the term destroy could mean both "kill" and "physically destroy" in the context of this series, especially since there are several examples of inanimate objects being wrecked and recreated (I recall a plane and a car). It's very possible that Treble Cross is simply a case of continuity violation. Anderson's shows are hardly air-tight in that regard (see UFO, Space: 1999, etc.). In some respects the very existence of Capt. Scarlet himself violates the rules set out in the show as, to my knowledge, no one else was shown retaining memories and the like -- unless there was an episode I missed. 23skidoo 03:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons of original and new

Which is a more appropriate place to compare and contrast the original series with the new CGI series: in this article or in the article for the new series? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the new series article should contain the majority of the comparisons, with maybe a few of the more major ones referenced here. 23skidoo 05:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've only seen internet releases, but I think the "seven-note drumbeat transition" is the same in the original and the new series. --84.28.33.167 16:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The music is different. And (in my opinion) not as good as Barry Gray's original music. HowardBerry 19:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the original version was used in TFI Friday, so they may have been worried younger viewers would associate it primarily with that. Daibhid C 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Compilation movies comments

The following was posted to the main article by an anonymous editor on Dec. 3/05. Since this is written in first person, it doesn't belong in the article as it stands now. If someone wants to revise this and either make corrections to the main article or add this new information, please feel free. 23skidoo 00:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The above is slightly incorrect. There isn't one compilation movie as implied here (the implication being that "Captain Scarlet vs. the Mysterons" was retitled as "Revenge of the Mysterons from Mars" at a later date), but two seperate compilation movies. The compilation movie known as "Captain Scarlet vs. the Mysterons" uses the pilot episode "The Mysterons", the follow-up second episode "Winged Assassin", "Seek And Destroy" and finally "Attack on Cloudbase". The compilation movie known as "Revenge of the Mysterons From Mars" is comprised of "Shadow of Fear", "Lunarville 7", "Crater 101" and "Dangerous Rendezvous".

Both compilation movies were issued on home video in the UK. The first videos issued under the Channel 5 Video label in the late 1980s and in 1992 (in concurrence with the BBC2 reruns at the time) re-issued and repackaged under the Polygram Video label.

Sources for my corrections: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059973/alternateversions , http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/videos.html and the tapes I have in my collection.

D'oh. It shouldn't have been in first person, but the anon is completely right, there's two compilation movies, and I never spotted that the article claimed only one. I'll try to fix it up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I never really caught that either. I thought the information was good, just improperly formatted. Cheers! 23skidoo 16:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Indestructable Man

This is a Past Doctor Adventures novel which features very thinly disguised versions of Gerry Anderson characters, most notably the casts of Captain Scarlet and UFO. Would it be appropriate to mention it here, possibly under a heading like "References in other media"? Daibhid C 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see no reason why not, if the reference is pretty obvious and not conjectured. Another Doctor Who-related production, "Myth Runner" (a made for video comedy feature featuring bloopers from the Myth Makers series of interview videos) also made references to the show. 23skidoo 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I started up a page (The Indestructible Man) concerning that very book.. Still a stub but you may contribute thereto. DrWho42 00:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The new image

I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of the new image (under the heading puppets). Unless I'm very mistaken it has been scanned and edited from a series of Gerry Anderson related postcards published in the 90s. Would scanning such an item come under "fair use" guidelines (genuine question), and is it a correct inference, or is it - as the copyright notice for the image states - a genuine first-hand screen shot? Cain Mosni 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First Broadcast

Does anyone have a citation for the first date of broadcast? I ask because my reference source here (the Boxtree book on Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons) states Friday September 29th - 4 weeks later. Cain Mosni 00:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS2 game

Perhaps a section on the new PS2 game by Blast should be added.

fr portal/project Transports en Île-de-France

fr:Portail:Transports en Île-de-France and fr:Projet:Transports en Île-de-France are starting, you're welcome!

Gonioul 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CaptainScarletDVD.jpg

Image:CaptainScarletDVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

I've assessed this article for WP:TV as requested here.

I've rated the article at B class. Its pretty informative but there are some structural issues and some missing information. First of all who stars in the series (who voices the puppets)? This is covered partially in the puppets section but actors are only given for some of the puppets. What was response like to the series? Are there any reviews or retrospectives you can cite to establish critical reaction? What was the viewership? Did it win any awards?

Structurally I found it odd to have a summary of the premise and then a description of the continuing storyline so far removed from one another. Could these sections be merged? Also the episode could be linked to as part of the plot synopsis rather than having its own section with no content. See WP:TV FA The Wire (TV series) for an example of what I mean here.

Could the character list be converted into prose so the reader unfamiliar with the show gets a little info on the significance of each character rather than a list?

The opening and closing credits section contains several one paragraph sections - these should either be expanded or should not receive a header of their own.

The cite episode template could be used to reference the plot summary which is currently unsourced.

The production and plot are both fairly well covered. Do you know where the series was made?

I've rated the article as mid importance as its a fairly well known show.

These categories are arbritrary and are subject to review by any editor who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.--Opark 77 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It was I who requested this assessment and (two years later, it has to be told — how quickly time passes) have added quite a lot to the article in the past couple of weeks or so. It now has more detailed production information than before and an all-new section on broadcasting, includes extensive referencing to publications and is structurally looking a lot more sound. Furthermore, thank you Bob Castle for the screenshot. I'm inviting a second assessment at WikiProject Television; I don't know whether a peer review would be a good idea at this time, any thoughts would be appreciated. I'd love to see the page reach GA-status or higher eventually, and if it managed B-class last time round I'd say it stands a fair chance. I'm aware that much of the text depends on The Complete Book of Captain Scarlet as a source, but there are others in there, and I'll try investing in more publications.

All issues raised at the first assessment which have now been dealt with, in my opinion, have been struck through.

At the very least, I'd say the article's far more authoritative now than it was 23 months ago SuperMarioMan (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Further development has gone to some length in establishing critical reaction, and the titles section has been expanded with information from a production perspective. SuperMarioMan (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I have restored the 3 items I know to be factual. Unfortunately I do not have access to the TV companies' correspondence files to give exact deatil sof the complaints that led to the "alternative" voice-overs, and sold my TV-21s many years ago. However, in issues immediately before Captain Scarlet was featured, a story-line involving a journalist covered the landing of the 2nd Zero-X mission, and the absence of any crew.
Clearly these 3 items now need redacting back into the main body of the article: may I seek the judicious skills of an expert editor to achieve this. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That item isn't verifiable, is it? At least not to Wikipedia standards (sorry, you're not a reliable source in the meaning of the term we use here).

If you want the trivia moved to the main article, and it hasn't happened in eight months since the section was tagged, perhaps the items can be moved here pending the copy editing. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stations section

I've just noticed a section on the article called "Stations". Firstly, is this really necessary? The information doesn't add anything of note about the series - the primary broadcaster ATV/ITV is surely the most important and is already mentioned. Secondly, the amount of information given is incomplete with regard to geographical coverage, but is detailed as to which channel and region (again, unnecessary as this info can be found on the TV station's own page) and is only about stations in the US anyway. And thirdly: if we accept this information to be valid (there are no references at present) do we then have to put this info on every page for ITC/Gerry Anderson shows broadcast outside of the original broadcast country?

Yes, the show was internationally broadcast, but do we need an incomplete listing of all the TV stations who broadcast it? I propose that we don't need this section at all. Thoughts? Howie ☎ 06:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article based on the arguments expressed above. Good faith, but it doesn't really add anything of use to the page. SuperMarioMan (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)