Talk:And When the Sky Was Opened

Television: Episode coverage / The Twilight Zone Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Twilight Zone task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

216.244.12.76 I need to talk to you

Hi, I am an administrator, Xinyu, and I got a report from ProfesorPaul, about how you've been, "vandalizing" EVERY SINGLE EPISODE OF The Twilight Zone. Discuss your intentions, what you have editted, fixed up, and under what pretext you have for doing so. I need you to tell me all the information you can get, and I promise both you and ProfessorPaul, this problem would be negotiable, once the facts has been laid bare, and then I'll see that NPOV, justice, and peace would be restored on this article. Thank you, please reply on my user TALK page. Thank you. --Lord X 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

Reflection

I'm puzzled by the references in this article to Forbes looking in the mirror and "seeing no reflection" before running out of the room, and the later trivia item, under "Errors", that "When Forbes looks in the mirror and doesn't see his reflection, his elbow and hand can actually be seen in the mirror." Having just watched this episode on DVD, it's quite clear that there was no intention that he have no reflection: No attempt is made to conceal his reflection, merely a camera angle which permits the viewer to see both people, both Forbes (directly, and his arm in the mirror) and Gart (in the mirror). As such, I've removed those items from the article, and added an additional note about the tarpaulin. Jacob (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am curious about this. In fact, I loaded this webpage specifically to look for mention of this issue. I was surprised it was not mentioned, so came to the talk page. Here is what I experienced: When the second-to-last man begins to disappear, he looks into a mirror and does not see his reflection. This causes him to panic (as the realization comes to him that he is about to cease to exist), and he runs out of the room. The last man exits the room to chase after him, but the man no longer exists. It is clear to me that the intention here was that the man could not see his reflection in the mirror. However, on the very left hand side, you can see his hand and elbow. It seems to me that this is an error of aspect ratio in later DVD release of these early episodes -- that is, the very left hand side was NOT meant to be aired and likely was not visible in the original series. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise, it is clearly a blunder. I imagine no one has remarked upon it because the original series had cropped out that crucial area. It would be nice if this page mentioned this goof, but I understand the reluctance if there is no citation for it. But please, watch the DVD release of this episode and pay close attention, you will see what is undoubtedly an error. Cheers, 69.181.231.98 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the other person's argument is that it was not actually intended that the reflection was absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.184.74 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Research" template tag?

@AnomieBOT and Anomie: I see that in edit 744057289, Plot summary you added the Original Research template. Is there a reason you added that template to a summary of a fictional video? It seems to me that it should probably be removed, as I don't find any reason why "original research" goes hand-in-hand with a fictional video's summary, however I wanted to check before pulling that template off the page. PolymathGirl (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]