Jump to content

Talk:Quatermass II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleQuatermass II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 22, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 5, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
October 9, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Featured article

Explain this to me...

[edit]

{{spoiler}} In the final episode, why do the aliens do an about-face and welcome the arrival of the atomic rocket? I can only think that they hoped to hijack it and ride it back to earth, but why would they need it when they had their own meteorite-ships in abundance? Uucp 14:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA

[edit]

Neutral, well-written, well-cited, images, the works. Thanks for the lovely article.--Rmky87 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deranged Falconer quote

[edit]

My one objection to this otherwise fine page is the straightfaced and unrebutted presentation of the following:

Writing in The Times in 2006, Morgan Falconer found racist undertones in the serial. "Quatermass, for instance, often seemed to have an unhealthy preoccupation with blackness, a barely veiled commentary on racial change in Britain. In one scene in Quatermass II, the Professor stands outside a pub and watches the sky fill with dark asteroids. 'They’re coming in their thousands,' he says, 'this is it.'"[24]

This vile interpretation is demonstrably false. None of the references to blackness or darkness in the series relate to skin color; they are either simple physical descriptions of objects or the usual metaphors arising from the color of night: the unseen as the unknown, the fear of threats in the dark--all inescapable in a a tale about unknown hostile beings from the blackness of outer space. Far from being "barely veiled," commentary on racial change in Britain is completely absent. In Quatermass and the Pit, only a few years later, there is plenty of commentary on then-recent racial and anti-immigrant riots, and Kneale has Quatermass finish with a mince-no-words speech against intolerance and race hate, a passage we know was close to Kneale's heart since he insisted on its inclusion over the objections of BBC officials who considered it too explicitly preachy. It is absurd for Falconer to contend that the Kneale who wrote Quatermass and the Pit was promoting race hate and attacking immigration only a few years before.

Nor does he supply any genuine evidence for his thesis. The "asteroids" (actually artificial meteorites) are not particularly "dark" as seen in the series, more light grey. The line as delivered in the series, (I can't vouch for the movie or book version) is not "coming in their thousands," personalizing the meteorites, but the simple literal description "coming in thousands," and the most obvious reason why Kneale might think this image would be thriller-scary for a British audience is because that audience had experienced real threats of invasion, real aerial bombardment, and even real missile attacks only a decade or so before. (Whereas the big race riots that inspired Quatermass and the Pit were still years away when Quatermass II was made.) Falconer is projecting his own racial preoccupation on material that has no shred of reference to it. But a reader of our page who is unfamiliar with Quatermass and the Pit and has not yet seen Quatermass II will have no way of knowing how false and calumnious Falconer's commentary is.

The Falconer quote is, in short, grossly prejudicial and factually untrue. (The misquoted line isn't even delivered outside the pub; even the unimportant details are wrong.) Although it is a fact that Falconer wrote it, and not a lie to print that fact, there are doubtless many other stupid and untrue things that have been printed about the series; we are under no obligation to include them here. But if we are to retain this quote, there should be some context indicating that it misrepresents the scene it describes and that Kneale's often expressed views and aims directly contradict its thesis.

The fine 48-page booklet of Viewing Notes for the 2005 restoration DVD is my factual source for the above historical background, by the way, but it wouldn't be too difficult to make the same points with online sources as well.

Bottom line: this should be changed. I am temperately waiting for the suggestions and comments of others before taking action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with you that Falconer is pretty obviously talking bollocks, but my reason for including his thoughts was that the reception section was otherwise rather thin on less positive reaction to the serial, and I was worried that it might make the piece seem like too much of a glowing fanboy tribute. I can see how it might make such views seem far more prevelant than they actually are though (as far as I know only Falconer has ever suggested this allegory). It should have had more context added though, I agree — I have now added a rider pointing out that this interpretation is not widely held, and contrasting it with Quatermass and the Pit. Better? Angmering 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, Angmering--and I commend you for the quickness as well as the aptness of your response. I'm perfectly happy with a context solution as opposed to excision. As long as newcomers to Quatermass are not misled, Falconer's remarks are so typical of a whole school of shoddy contemporary criticism that it does rather round out the discussion to see Quatermass through that prism. I am still considering a slightly more specific refutation (with due regard for both brevity and authority rather than opinion), but I would certainly post it here in Discussion before tampering with a very solid page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Later: And on sober reflection, your solution has the elegance of simplicity, and is hard to improve upon. I would like to ding Falconer for his misrepresentations, but when you get down to the fine points it all seems too petty. I would like to strike a blow for common sense about when "blackness" and "darkness" are racially charged and when they are clearly not, but the more stupid side of this issue ("everything is about race") is a trend, and a true believer could produce as many "authorities" to cite as I possibly could; better to leave that issue to the common sense and experience of science fiction fans, who know quite well the innocent uses to which these words can be put. Angmering, you have fastened on the strongest and most inarguable point. All I would ask in revision is that you make that point more forcefully. Instead of "contrasts with," it should be something more like "is difficult to reconcile with" or even "would seem to be directly contradicted by." What do you think?
I changed it to "in direct contrast with"; I think that about sums it up? Angmering 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough--although (if you'll pardon my saying so) just barely. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.241.73.241 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not trying to give the impression I'm the overload of this article or something. :-) Do feel free to suggest something better! Angmering 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like to strike a blow for common sense ..." - bear in mind that Wikipedia articles do not have a viewpoint or an opinion, even in cases where the editor feels that one party is absolutely and inarguably wrong. A Wikipedia article can include opposing quotes, but it cannot take an editorial stance. Language such as "this view is not widely held" is dangerously close to "many people are of the opinion that etc" or "it has been argued that etc". Morgan Falconer's quote is particularly tricky; it is such an individual interpretation that no major critic has bothered to rebut it, which means that there is no easy way for Wikipedia to frame an opposing viewpoint. -Ashley Pomeroy 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quatermass II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quatermass II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quatermass II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quatermass II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain FA status...

[edit]

If anyone's still following this talk page, I think the article is at risk of losing its FA status because multiple sources used in the article are from IMDB (which is unreliable) and some parts of the Casting and Crew section are unrelated. If anyone wants to fix it, go ahead. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quatermass_II&oldid=1204812463"