Talk:Doppelgänger (1969 film)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleDoppelgänger (1969 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 11, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Page Move

I moved this page from Doppelgänger (film) so as to be in accordance of movie naming guidelines. yes, Doppelganger (1993 film) doesnt use the umlaut, so its not exactly the same name, but...come on. close enough. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I belive the film now is only known by it's alternate title. -- Jason Palpatine 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]
IMDB indicates that as the US title - though I recall seeing it on British TV under that title. -- Beardo 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original British Doppelgänger film poster uses the umlauts above the 'A'. It also credits Ian Hendry before Roy Thinnes, presumably because Hendry was better known in the UK at the time, as he was then appearing in The Avengers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.242 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antichthon

The addition of Antichthon as a link for the word "planet" is very clever, but since the word was never (to my knowledge) used in the film and given the fact that the Wikipedia article for that word is badly sourced, I'm wondering if it's appropriate. If the word was in fact used in the film, I suggest it be noted separately, not as a synonym for "planet" since few will click that link. - Nhprman List 04:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actual word itself is never used in the film. But if you read the article, it is clearly the name historically apllied to the planet as described in the film -- counter-earth. It was for that reason I did the link. Remember, the planet was supposed to be a exact mirrored copy of our world situated at the L3 point of Earth's orbit. I belive the name is applicable as naming the concept prescribed to the film's plot. -- Jason Palpatine 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]
Fair enough. - Nhprman List 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Any idea what is meant by "with many Anderson fans viewing the film as a ticket to true Anderson fandom." -- Beardo 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's a bit POV isn't it? It should probably go. Bob talk 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to include something about reception - at the time and since. -- Beardo 11:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three moons?

Isn't the "three moons" bit from the 1973 movie "The Stranger" with Glenn Corbett and Cameron Mitchell? I don't recall there being any scene of the characters noticing three moons. Also, odds are that during approach, at least one of the moons should be visible. One oddity is when they survey the planet and don't see any signs of life; doesn't Earth show at least some scant signs of life from space - e.g., city lights in the dark? GBC (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

Great work on the article - I was just having a read through and was just wondering whether "Two 35 mm prints of Doppelgänger, no copies of which are known to exist, are in the separate possession of the British Film Institute and Fanderson" might be a little confusing - does it mean that no prints of the film under the original title "Doppelganger" exist (but two exist with the Journey... title?). Bob talk 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Bob, I've clarified the text. The format referred to in the Fanderson source is the British original, not the non-UK Journey to the Far Side of the Sun format. SuperMarioMan 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. It's weird, but it's almost always referred to by the American name now, isn't it, even though it's really rather clunky. Some time ago, I remember reading a review of the film that pointed out all the plot holes, and it came to the conclusion that quite a large proportion must have been cut out before release. I think it was this blog (which might be useful for getting a screen-shot or two off, actually). Bob talk 08:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link! On the subject of the kinds of fair-use images that could be uploaded, this other page has a screenshot of the teleconference scene. A shot of the rocket lift-off would also be useful, since that effects sequence receives a good deal of critical comment. Other than a few extracts, I have not seen the film and therefore could not judge the editing, but as the article states, there are a fair few deleted scenes. Cuts are mentioned in the BBFC log (see the details under the original "A" certificate), and are said to have been "required" to receive an "A" rating, and after all the film did aim for the "X" certificate ... I had no idea that the producers set out to make Doppelgänger so, erm, "mature" in places. A big step up from Thunderbird 6, it has to be said. Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is the title used on the BBFC page — no mention of Doppelgänger whatsoever. SuperMarioMan 14:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I think this was Gerry trying to get away from the whole puppet/children's programme thing (a bit like he did with Crossroads to Crime, which I've never seen...actually, I don't think anyone else has either). I did see JFFOTS a few years ago on ITV at about 1 in the morning. It had one advert break, which was only advertising ITV programmes! It didn't have the "flop over" mess-up thing, though, I suppose that had been corrected by then. As everyone says, Derek Meddings' bits are amazing, but the rest is a bit...meh. The soundtrack's pretty good as well - there's a nice version of the main theme and "Sleeping Astronauts" section in Barry Gray's Pinewood in Space (without the ondes martinot), before going into some more familiar Thunderbirds territory. If nothing existing calls it "Doppelganger", one almost wonders if that was more of a working title. I guess that's how it must have been released in the UK. Bob talk 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's pretty much finished. I'll see about nominating it for Good Article status in the near future, once Thunderbird 6 has been assessed. Having now watched the DVD of Doppelgänger, I see where a lot of the critics noted in the reception section are coming from — the suggestion that the film "comes up with a fascinating premise three-quarters of the way along and does nothing with it" seems (regrettably) quite valid. And the editing really is odd in places, particularly in a sequence when the Kane character is going through G-force training — loads of sudden cuts and weird zoom-in shots. However, it's certainly not hard to see how the film almost won the Best Special Effects Academy Award, and the music is indeed wonderful in places, as you point out. It's just a shame that such a significant amount appears to have been edited out (the DVD runs for 97 minutes while the original length was apparently 104 minutes), because it renders some scenes, such as the one about the Rosses' marital problems, rather "whatever" and inconsequential to the general plot. The Andersons set the bar too high, I feel, and found it difficult to reconcile the need for their production to be sufficiently child-friendly with their intention to appeal to a more adult audience at the same time.
The rationale of "only-British-audiences-will-understand-what-it-means" for renaming the film seems rather flimsy given that "doppelganger" is a perfectly naturalised word in the English language. I suppose that the title Doppelgänger sounds adventurous and enigmatic, and ties into the main theme of duplication or "doubleness". There's a quote from Anderson about this in the writing section. And on the subject of quotes, there appears to be quite a substantial divergence of recollection between the Andersons on a number of production aspects, which sometimes leads me to question the sources that I have used to expand this article. The dispute concerning John Read is an example: Gerry's 2002 biography mentions nothing about a risqué shower scene (presumably cut from the final print — we've definitely moved on from the thrills of the Thunderbirds films, we have indeed ...), only that he objected to Read filming some effects shots with a hand-held camera. With Sylvia's 2007 autobiography, meanwhile, the situation is reversed, and no mention of effects shots is made. The La Rivière book (a recent release) seems to opt for Sylvia's account. I've aimed to make the article a compendium of what all reliable sources say, but here I wonder one version of events is incorrect (only one charge seems to have been raised against Read). I doubt that one of these book sources in particular is that much more reliable the other two, and their treatments of the two Thunderbirds films present no discrepancies of this sort. Furthermore, regarding the recasting of the Sharon Ross character, the 2002 biography is in conflict with other sources: the Fanderson site mentions a different original actress (Tisha Sterling). Since the biography is a print publication, I've gone along exclusively with what it states on this matter. It is also odd that the name of Tony Williamson, apparently a co-writer on the draft script, is mentioned only in La Rivière and nowhere else. Perhaps this is an error on the part of the author? Regardless, Williamson is uncredited, unlike Donald James. Quite a few mysteries here, but at least there is consensus among the sources that Crossroads to Crime is rather bad. As you say, it's been completely forgotten and history has been revised, rather like how James Cameron's directorial debut, Piranha II: The Spawning, seems to have been erased from existence and we now of course know that his "first" directed film is The Terminator. SuperMarioMan 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I hadn't heard of that - wonderful plot "Holidaymakers at the beach are attacked by mutant flying piranha fish." Anyway, this is all looking great - there is a bit of a backlog at GA at the moment. Perhaps it would be worth sending it for a peer review in the meantime? (Unfortunately, there's a backlog there, as well). One often finds these discrepancies in TV/film making references (I've been doing some more on the Blackadder articles recently, and quite a few of the cast/crew seem to contradict one another in interviews.) The thing that strikes me about Sylvia Anderson in particular is that unlike the other crew, there never seems to be any self criticism when something obviously isn't that great. Bob talk 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Andersons' separate accounts and interpretations of events certainly make for interesting reading. In the case of this article, it seems to be more of a case of faded memories that their accounts of Read's departure from Century 21 differ significantly. Gerry claims that the decision was unanimous but that neither Hill nor Sylvia supported him when it came to the final dismissal, while Sylvia claims that she had no free choice in the matter and that her opinion was coerced. Discussing the second season of Space: 1999, Sylvia states: "It seemed I was joining the ranks of other past members of our team who had fallen afoul of Gerry when they didn't 'toe the party line' ... Loyal and talented people like David Elliott, Derek Meddings and John Read ... And now it was my turn!" Elliott's name doesn't appear in the credits of the Anderson productions that followed Thunderbirds because of a somewhat acrimonious split from AP Films - he has contributed to the La Rivière book as a consultant and point of reference (some editions have his autograph). Apparently, due to Meddings' branching out from the Supermarionation productions to contribute to big-budget films, the relationship between him and Anderson became strained. Meanwhile, Read and Anderson, according to Sylvia, never spoke again after the production of the film, and Read died in 2006/7 (his Wikipedia biography needs an update).
Regarding WP:GAN, I believe that there is soon to be another backlog elimination drive like the one held in March/April (I got Joe 90 and Thunderbirds Are Go listed in that time), at least according to the talk page. The number of FAs is due to hit the 3,000 mark soon, while there are presently about 9,500 GAs - I read that, given the number of articles passed as GA in the last drive, and to tie in with the increasing number of FAs, people are hoping that the 10,000 mark for GAs could be reached within a month. But of course, Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit. SuperMarioMan 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case it might be worth listing it up there anyway. (Have you considered putting Joe 90/Thunderbirds Are Go up for FA?)Bob talk 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it some thought — Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons seemed an obvious candidate because of all the tie-in and other side topics related to the series (e.g. the comic strips), which gave a strong impression of the "comprehensiveness" required as one of the criteria. But length alone is no object, and the Joe 90 article follows a similar structure, although in light of the Captain Scarlet FAC the images might need checking. As a lesser known Anderson series, sources for Joe 90 are rather sparse — I really can't think of further content that could be added there. Doppelgänger might also stand a good chance at FAC — the reception section is much more comprehensive than that for Thunderbirds Are Go in that it has some critical opinion from outside the United Kingdom (I've found none for the Thunderbirds films). I'll see about reaching Good Article status first, though. What are your thoughts on the Joe 90 and Thunderbirds Are Go articles? SuperMarioMan 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed with this article! I agree with Bob -- great work. I hope you will nominate it as a Good Article or even as a Featured Article. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a good article, and I have no doubt this will, when it is ready, reach FA. Myself having worked (and still working) on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, I know the hard work it takes to really polish up an article and I do hope it will one day payoff. Congratulations on your work in this article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the feedback. Now nominated for GA status. SuperMarioMan 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doppelgänger (1969 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: • Ling.Nut 11:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is one huge WP:LEAD for a minor film from decades ago. Will take a closer look tomorrow. • Ling.Nut 11:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no point in the gray boxes sprinkled throughout the article. They are not pull quotes. They add nothing. personally, I'd simply delete them all, though perhaps they could be tweaked to conform to WP:MOS.
  • The bright orange bar atop one table in the text is jarring.
  • many non-free images. That may be OK for GA, but may not be so OK if you try to take it to FAC.
  • The WP:LEDE, as I said earlier, is huge. It needs to be drastically trimmed.
  • the text is a bit rambling and scattered. perhaps I can look at it more closely soon.
  • More later • Ling.Nut 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps the lead section is thorough to the extent that it becomes rather long. I'll see about removing some of the minor details in a few hours. SuperMarioMan 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now shortened. SuperMarioMan 15:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the quotations (eight quote boxes), where specifically do they fail to conform to the Manual of Style? Does the reduced lead section deal with your concerns? Do you have any further elaborations or new points to make? SuperMarioMan 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote." WP:QUOTE. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use" WP:MOSQUOTE... • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is much, much better. Thank you! • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need a box for the supporting cast? Overkill, don't you think? • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thank you for the pass,and also for the handful of edits that you made earlier on. I've cut out the quoteboxes from all but the "Reception" section. By the way, on the subject of the table, I wouldn't agree that article is overdoing it - it's not an excessively long table, in my opinion. Thanks once again for this review! Regards and best wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards?

Not that I'm going to restore the material removed earlier without thinking about it first, but it's strange that Anderson, the co-writer and co-producer, seems confident in his recollection that the film received the Academy Award nomination while official records indicate nothing of the sort. He appears quite certain about the subject in this interview:

Question: You must have been very pleased to have been nominated for an Academy Award for the effects on the film...?
Answer: Oh yes, we were.

Hazy memories? Perhaps here the term "nomination" means "being shortlisted" rather than officially "Nominated" with a capital "n". The two book sources also seem rather unambiguous in their mentions of "nomination". On a side note, having read up on it, the talk of a Blue Ribbon Award win is strange given that these are Japanese awards, and that the programme did not run in 1969.

All quite odd. SuperMarioMan 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've seen that. Wikipedia's article on the 1969 Academy Awards makes no mention of this film, nor does IMDb hint that it received a nomination. My point is that there appears to have been at least some advancement towards one, given that at least two book sources mention it and that a senior production figure apparently has positive memories of just such a thing happening. I doubt that all three sources could be so wrong. If the film did receive some Academy attention, that would be worth noting in the article. Unfortunately, none of the sources elaborates much on its statements. Here is the wording from the Gerry Anderson biography: "In 1969 the film won a Blue Ribbon Award in Hollywood for its screenplay, and was nominated for an Academy Award for special effects. The Oscar was ultimately won by a much bigger production - Marooned ..." The phrase "nominated for an Academy Award" may not necessarily mean that the film made the final list of nominees, in which case its absence on databases would not be surprising. There is more to this, I feel. SuperMarioMan 06:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it was "submitted for consideration but never nominated", as User:Mikec32001 said. You could ping him and ask where he verified that specific info. • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at any rate, the information being removed doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the article - nothing to stress about. SuperMarioMan 02:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

I de-linked common words in the film article's lead sentence. Per WP:OVERLINK, the links do not aid understanding of the article. The words themselves help define the topic. It's not necessary to link to the history of all films in a given year, in a given country, or in a given genre for this topic. As a side note, in regard to genre, the main genres are quickly understood as a definition, where some sub-genres warrant linking if they are not as commonly known. A better linking approach would be to create a "See also" section since such links can then provide navigation to tangential interests. (Or embedding links in the article body, such as calling it "one of the best films of 1969".) Let me know if this is alright. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a judgment call. WP:OVERLINK was really intended to stop people from linking to things like chair or hand or whatever, and the links you removed are actually relevant and at least potentially interesting... They were Mostly Harmless where they were. In fact, I would not have rmv'd them... However, some folks, as a matter of taste, may wish to rmv them... well, that also is a Mostly Harmless option. However, for links like these that are actually relevant to the text (but debatably of secondary importance), if you remove them from the text, you should relocate them to the See Also section. • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ambivalent with regard to the edit. Perhaps a surge of blue-linked terms in the first line is off-putting, but perhaps the links would nevertheless be useful? They are, however, rather general terms, so the rationale of WP:OVERLINK appears sound in this case. SuperMarioMan 02:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to 1963 episode of the The Twilight Zone =

Similar plot as The Twilight Zone fourth season episode The Parallel from 1963. An astronauts ship goes missing during 15th orbit around the earth and six hours later it appears on the ground without a scratch. Eventually sent home to his wife and daughter the astronaut realizes things are not as they should be. 104.218.69.39 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Doppelgänger (1969 film). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doppelgänger (1969 film). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia

It is clear from the film that Jason Webb, although enfeebled, is clearly NOT demented. That would sort of ruin the whole point of the movie.

Many years later, a wheelchair-bound Jason Webb has been admitted to a nursing home. In his dementia, he sees his reflection in a mirror placed in front of a window. Rolling towards his reflected image, Webb crashes through the mirror and dies.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.1.34 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. While re-writing the plot section I've taken that out. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

As the article indicates, this film is most commonly known (and almost exclusively released and reviewed) under its US title. It should be moved to reflect that fact. 98.13.8.89 (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Doppelgänger_(1969_film)"