Jump to content

Talk:Black Mirror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBlack Mirror 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.
Good topic starBlack Mirror is the main article in the Black Mirror series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2021Good article nomineeListed
August 27, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2019 and 22 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brialewis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konnie versus Kanak Huq

[edit]

The primary source http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/black-mirror/ credits the co-author as "Kanak Huq", so evidently that is her chosen name as a writer. It might be appropriate to include her more well known name in parentheses? --Ukslim (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can revisit this when episode 2 is broadcast; the version of her name to use is the one that appears in the on-screen credits. --Ukslim (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brooker's article calls her Konnie, I note. -- Beardo (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She appeared on the credits as Kanak Huq. Its just like Charlie Brooker appearing as Charlton Brooker, but he chose to go by Charlie.--EchetusXe 14:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the discussion now seems to need to go Kanaq (as it appears on the Channel 4 citation) vs Kanak (as it appears at least on the second episode's credit roll) - FrankieCola (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have asked NPrice to comment on his reasons for suspecting a copyright violation. If I don't see anything within a week or so (from him or someone else), I'll remove the banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukslim (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in both places - at the time that I added that tag last year, every episode description had been directly copied and pasted from another website. This appears to no longer be the case. Yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have deleted the banner in that case. --Ukslim (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception in China?

[edit]

In the Reception section, why is it entirely focused on China? Why isn't there a single mention of UK reviews or response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.118.183 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to make the same comment. The fact that the series is popular in China is indeed surprising and notable, but surely the first country that should be mentioned in this section should be the UK, for a UK TV series.--Mattmm (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I also agree, was rather perplexed at this. I will add some UK reviews when I have the time. Feudonym (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for White Bear (S02E02)

[edit]

http://forgetoday.com/fuse/screen/black-mirror-season-2-episode-2-white-bear/ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/436559/20130218/black-mirror-season-2-episode-review-white.htm http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/02/18/black-mirror-2-02-white-bear-review/ http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/02/18/review-of-black-mirror-white-bear/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/9878463/Black-Mirror-White-Bear-Channel-4-review.html

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a black mirror?

[edit]

Black mirrors are mystical devices used in Scrying distant locations or the future. This is no doubt the origin or the series title, since we explore potential futures in the show, whatever Charlie Brooker may or not have said. I posted a comment to that effect which was removed. Please re-add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordforge (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've now started discussion, the last step of WP:BRD. Statements such as "There is no doubt..." are almost always precursors of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. For it to be included, you'd have to provide a reliable source that specifically correlates the title and the use of the phrase as you are suggesting. However, there is already a reliable source cited in the article, and it explains, in the words of the creator, the inspiration for the title. Also take into account that not all episodes are set in the future; The National Anthem was set in the present day. The future is generally used as a media construct, designed to provide more artistic license for Brooker when constructing a dystopian view of technology. This allows him to portray what he wants to show in a much more enhanced, exaggerated way, that we can still connect with. It's all media theory; the series isn't meant to depict possible futures, it's meant to depict and exaggeration of the now. As such, I personally oppose inclusion. If you want to build a case for inclusion, you could present some potential sources here, that specifically link the two, so other editors can see evidence of your opinion. drewmunn talk 07:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section

[edit]

Why is the reception only about China? This is irrelevant, and in fact should be deleted. reception in the UK (the origin of the series), in the US (major/leading/main market) or international is acceptable. focusing on china isn't appropriate. I know this is already noted, but it didn't seems to get any attention. Itaylv (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest finding some sources about reception in the UK or US. The fact that it's very popular in China is a notable fact, it shouldn't be deleted just because nobody thought of adding the UK reception as well. - FakirNL (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the last discussion was that Feudonym was going to find some UK reviews/sources. I also don't think this section should need deletion, just a complete rewriting. drewmunn talk 09:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reception section about China. I think the article was poor because such a hitting show doesn't have a reception section, although I can find many reviews by British newspaper. My English is limited so I only translated Chinese Wikipedia reception section which I wrote some time before. --維基小霸王 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded it a little bit :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPKU (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be right back -- country house

[edit]

Isn't the house the couple move into at the beginning the house where Ash grew up, which has been left vacant by the death of his mother? It's not empty when they move in. And when Martha goes up to the loft after Ash dies, isn't it in order to look at the photos that Ash describes his mother having put there after his brother and father died?

Didn't put this straight in the article in case it's wrong, but if it's right I think it should be in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.91.228 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, yes, it is Ash's childhood home; hence the photo of him on the mantelpiece. However, it's not particularly important to plot, so it's not listed there at the moment. drewmunn talk 20:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

[edit]

The episodes need to be taken out of the equation as they take up too much space.

How about:

  • Put the plots into a drop down:
# Title Cast Writer Director Broadcast Date Viewers (millions)[1]
1 The National Anthem Rory Kinnear and Lindsay Duncan, with Donald Sumpter, Tom Goodman-Hill, Anna Wilson-Jones & Lydia Wilson Charlie Brooker Otto Bathurst 4 December 2011 2.07
Plot

The opening programme to the series is a 44 minute long political thriller in which fictional Prime Minister Michael Callow (Rory Kinnear) faces a huge and shocking dilemma when (fictional) Princess Susannah, Duchess of Beaumont (Lydia Wilson), a much-loved member of the Royal Family, is kidnapped. For her safe return, the Prime Minister must have sexual intercourse with a pig on national television.[2] Callow adamantly opposes the demand and does all possible to catch the kidnapper before the deadline. Callow also demands that the news not reach the public, but the ransom video was posted on YouTube and, despite having only been up for nine minutes, has already been viewed and downloaded by many members of the British public. Although the UK's media initially agrees not to report the story it soon reaches foreign news networks, which immediately begin reporting. After this, the UK media follow suit.

When the video was first received by the British government, one of the PM's aides, Alex Cairns (Lindsay Duncan) began faking footage to broadcast. The kidnapper discovers the ploy and sends Princess Susannah's finger to a UK news station as a response. The story is outed and public opinion turns sharply against Callow. This drives Callow to order an immediate rescue operation on the building where they believe Susannah is being held, forgoing the recommended observation period. The building is revealed to be a decoy and a reporter is injured during the operation. Callow loses even more support.

After being informed that neither he nor his family will have protection from repercussions if he refuses, Callow is forced to perform the indecent act in front of a live global audience who are quickly disgusted by the sight but still don't turn off their screens. The princess is discovered unharmed in the streets, the finger having belonged to the kidnapper. It is revealed that she was released before the deadline, but went unnoticed as everyone was distracted by the broadcast. It emerges that the events were planned by Turner Prize winner Carlton Bloom, who intended to make an artistic point by showing that events of significance had slipped under the noses of the public and the government as they were "elsewhere, watching screens" and not paying attention to the real world. Bloom commits suicide as the broadcast airs, and it is decided that the early release will not be revealed to anyone including Callow.

A year after the broadcast, Callow's political image has remained intact and he has gained greater public approval due to his willingness to sacrifice his dignity. Princess Susannah has recovered from the kidnapping and is expecting a child, while the public at large knows of Bloom's organising of the affair. While Callow's reputation has been raised in the eyes of the public, it is implied that his marriage and relationship with his wife (Anna Wilson-Jones) has not survived the ordeal.

  1. ^ http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?
  2. ^ A reference named guardian_a is missing
  • Move the episodes to a "series/season" page, one article per series/season
  • Move them to one article page, both series on that page

Or any other options? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer the last option. On article pages, reviews on each story can be added. --The Master (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And me. As an example, see Sherlock (TV series) and List of Sherlock episodes. That structure works well, and leaves a small amount of summary space on the main page. The main Sherlock article is deemed good, so it must be considered a suitable setup. The individual Sherlock episodes do have pages, but I don't think that's necessary at the moment for Black Mirror; maybe in the future if more referencing appears and more development of the series occurs. For now, I think a List of Black Mirror episodes is the best plan. drewmunn talk 07:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With each series being only three episodes each, it would be profligate to devote a single page to each series, let alone to each episode. A single page covering all the episodes should suffice. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that it's possible that there could be enough material for some episodes to have their own pages eventually; should S1E3 get moving with Team Downey, then there's no reason it shouldn't have a page to itself. As with the Sherlock episodes (Have I mentioned how similar Sherlock is to Black Mirror; they have the same number of episodes and series etc), some may have more information to go with them, and it List of Black Mirror Episodes gets too long, then some per-episode data may be able to be moved out. drewmunn talk 10:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the obvious difference is that Sherlock episodes run to 90 minutes, while Black Mirror and mostly if not all under 60. The Entire History of You is something of an outlier, and I would argue that even if the film goes ahead, it shouldn't diminish similar coverage here as given to the other episodes. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I would never completely eliminate the option of episode articles in the future. TEHoY might be the only one worthy of a separate article, or the extra content may be better suited to a section on the potential film's article. drewmunn talk 11:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As prep, I've ported the contents of the Episodes section to List of Black Mirror episodes, and added a main tag to that section of this article. However, the List of article and the episode section here are basically the same, so it'd be great if someone could set about cutting down the section on this article, and I'll look at fleshing of the List of one. drewmunn talk 11:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one else is/has dealing/dealt with it, I'll take a look l8r - off out so not time now as late already! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S01E02 not available in Australia?

[edit]

Episode 2 of season 1, "Fifteen Million Merits", is simply omitted entirely in DVD and electronic sales of the series in Australia. Is there some contriversy or legal trouble that should be reported in relation to this? Mark Whybird (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 October 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have clear consensus that the TV series is the primary topic. Per comments below, Black mirror will redirect to Black Mirror, and the dab page will move to Black Mirror (disambiguation) considering that most ambiguous topics are capitalized. Cúchullain t/c 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– The TV series is undoubtedly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, receiving 920,000+ views in the past 120 days. Compared with the video game with 7,400, the song receiving 1,500, and the novel with 575. The TV series is clearly the primary topic with respect to usage and long-term significance of the title. Wikipedical (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stephen King - accolade?

[edit]

I don't understand why the sentence about him is in accolades. Not saying delete it but Stephen King is not an award. He may not technically be a "critic" but he is respected enough that Critical reception is where he belongs. I am going to be BOLD move it. Feel free to revert but please discuss.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades Section

[edit]
Resolved

Just wondering if there is any specific reason the accolades are formatted like that. It's just not a way I've ever seen them put together. --QueerFilmNerd (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer applicable. See List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror. Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Series v season

[edit]

As this is a British Programme, 'series' should be used. It would be nice if Americans could respect other cultures. Not everything needs to be Americanised.

There's clearly an anti-British thing going on here. I can't see why British English shouldn't be used for a British programme. American English isn't correct by default. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:44CB:8F00:D4BE:D385:BC78:D6DF (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopian or not

[edit]

or, said in different manner, could it be added to the Category:Dystopian television series page?

I don't see why not. I just added that. -- Radiphus 10:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode plot lengths

[edit]

I am having a discussion here with Radiphus about the length of Black Mirror episodes' plot summaries in episode articles such as The National Anthem (Black Mirror). I believe that since Black Mirror is an anthology series so far from what most serialised television is like, the guideline WP:FILMPLOT applies – Black Mirror episodes are like short standalone films (no shared characters between episodes; nominated for some awards in television movie categories), so their plot sections should be subject to the 400–700 word guideline for films. In contrast, Radiphus has opined that the episodes should follow WP:TVPLOT (noting that most episodes are shorter than feature films), and be subject to a 400 word upper limit, and therefore tagged most episode pages with {{Long plot}}. Which, if either, guideline is appropriate? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror

[edit]

Should we fork the "Accolades" section out to List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror? I've redirect to page to here for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're nowhere close to a WP:SIZE issue for a separate article. --Masem (t) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this before expanding List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror into a full article, but in the time since this was written, the number of awards Black Mirror has received has nearly doubled anyway. I hope this is okay; there are other lists for programmes with fewer awards. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend adding the nomination of USS Callister for several to the blurb on this page; its gotten as much attention as San Junpino in terms of allocades. Also may want to check the sorting of the Emmys between the main primetime ones and the creative arts sections on the awards page. --Masem (t) 21:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Accolades section here needs a fair bit of work. I've done a brief edit here (AVClub list is out of place; too much detail for International Emmys), but if anyone wants to go about expanding this section a bit, I think that would be helpful.
I don't understand your point about the Emmys. I was listing them in order of (my understanding of) prestige; what order do you think is appropriate? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you have "Outstanding Television Movie" as a "Primetime Emmy" for SJ; but then a "Primetime Creative Arts Emmy" for USSC. That award is a straight up Primtime Emmy (revealed with flair during the normal ceremonies) compared to, say, costuming or makeup awards, the Creative Arts ones. I don't recall a format change between Emmies in these two years. --Masem (t) 22:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(See the lists here Primetime Emmy Award for the difference) --Masem (t) 22:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's now a Creative Arts award. I did check this when I was creating the list, but I was a bit confused. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like you're right. Our Emmy pages are off, though I'm not sure if that means a think like "Outstanding Television Movie" is permanenty a Creative Arts Emmy or not, or if its just shuffled into the non Primetime (big broadcast) show. --Masem (t) 23:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did check on WT:TV, and generally, there really isn't a distinction on what a Primetime vs Creative Arts Emmy is - the titles only help to separate which days the awards are given. It's suggested just to combine the various Emmies into a single Emmy table. --Masem (t) 02:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. How does this look? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect to me, just reduces the confusion. --Masem (t) 02:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future series.

[edit]

Is there information on planning the next series? Тибериум (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article nomination for San Junipero

[edit]

Editors familiar with the featured article process may be interested in the nomination of Black Mirror episode "San Junipero", which can be found here. Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question on inclusion of a S5 actor

[edit]

[1] At said event she clearly seemed to be under confidentiality, but THR seems to want to take it as fact. Should we hold off until more firm confirmation? --Masem (t) 20:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should hold off. I'm sure Cyrus will appear but no-one involved with the production of Black Mirror has actually said she will (herself included) so it's not well-sourced enough for the time being. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bilorv. - Radiphus (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes are standalone; RT scores

[edit]

§ Critical response mentions Rotten Tomatoes scores for the seasons. Given that episodes are standalone, perhaps the table below would be a welcome addition at the end of that section? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S01E01 S01E02 S01E03 S02E01 S02E02 S02E03 S02E04 Xmas S03E01 S03E02 S03E03 S03E04 S03E05 S03E06 S04E01 S04E02 S04E03 S04E04 S04E05 S04E06 Bander S05E01 S05E02 S05E03
RT score 100% (9/10) 100% (9.5/10) 88% (7/10) 92% (8.25/10) 86% (8.2/10) 50% (6/10) N/A 93% (8.88/10) 95% (7.33/10) 90% (6.8/10) 64% (8.53/10) 91% (8.04/10) 55% (7.4/10) 78% (8.04/10) 94% (9.28/10) 75% (7.43/10) 53% (6.39/10) 90% (8.89/10) 67% (6.87/10) 73% (6.54/10) 72% (7.44/10) 80% (7.37/10) 61% (7.07/10) 40% (4.87/10)
# Reviews 17 12 16 12 14 16 N/A 15 20 21 22 22 20 18 35 20 17 21 24 22 68 20 18 20
Ref. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

References

  1. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s01/e01
  2. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s01/e02
  3. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s01/e03
  4. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s02/e01
  5. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s02/e02
  6. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s02/e03
  7. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s02/e04
  8. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/17660
  9. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s03/e01
  10. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s03/e02
  11. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s03/e03
  12. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s03/e04
  13. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s03/e05
  14. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s03/e06
  15. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s04/e01
  16. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s04/e02
  17. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s04/e03
  18. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s04/e04
  19. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s04/e05
  20. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s04/e06
  21. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/52530
  22. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s05/e01
  23. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s05/e02
  24. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s05/e03

S5 reviews

[edit]

The article currently makes it sound like S5 was trashed by the critics:

Reviews of the fifth season have been less favorable than those of previous seasons. "Season five is a mess, and nothing about it suggests that Black Mirror retains its original, unnerving insight into the ever-blurring borders between the digital and the human", wrote Kathryn VanArendonk at Vulture.

This is pretty unbalanced. The reviews are down from previous seasons, but we're talking about positive (84 on RT) to mostly positive (64 on RT); picking the worst review available to call it "a mess" is hardly reasonable. The RT consensus might be better, something like this:

Reviews of the fifth season have been less favorable than those of previous seasons, although still generally positive. Rotten Tomatoes' critical consensus is: "Though Black Mirror's abbreviated fifth season never quite reaches the heights (or surprises) of previous installments, it remains one of TVs strangest philosophical offerings -- for better or worse."

But does S5 even need its own paragraph in Critical Response? S3 and S4 aren't even mentioned again after giving their scores in the first paragraph. And S5 is listed in that first paragraph; is there a reason that isn't sufficient? I don't think there's any good reason S5 is more significant than S3 or S4; it just feels that way because it just came out. It may be worth rewriting the whole section to not focus so much on S1, S2, and the special episodes. But, failing that, I think the simplest thing is to treat S5 the same as S3 and S4 and not try to synthesize an opinion at all. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, with just that one quote picked by User:Sdkb, the paragraph appears more unbalanced than your suggested alternative. Did season 5 receive a polarized response from critics? If so, VanArendonk's quote could still be used, if supplemented with, for example, Feay's 5/5 star review and quote "Series five, newly out on Netflix, consists of only three episodes but each is richly suggestive, cunningly plotted and captivatingly played." --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the critical reception section should trace how the show's reception has changed over time beyond just giving the RT/Metacritic scores, as that alone would not communicate things like why S5 is perceived by some to be worse than previous seasons. Right now, there seems to be too much emphasis on seasons 1 and 2; I perceived the section as just not having been updated enough when S3 and S4 came out. Regarding VanArendonk's quote, I used it since it has been picked up in a bunch of different places as exemplative. I'm not especially wedded to it, but I do think it'd be good to include at least one negative review alongside perhaps a lukewarm review, as those seem to be the two main camps (there seem to be few reviewers saying S5 was as good as or better than previous seasons, and including a glowing review like Feay's would strike me as false balance).- Sdkb (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of adding the Rotten Tomatoes' critical consensus quote and neutral on the Vulture quote at the moment. I think Sdkb is exactly right in saying that the focus on S1/S2 is just based on previous editor interest and I have as a long term goal to expand and rework this section considerably, which would include giving S3/S4 their own paragraphs and discussing how show reception changed over time. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think expanding the focus to all five seasons, and tracing how it's changed over time, is the ideal solution—at least adding in the RT summaries. But I don't know if it's worth going too much farther.
First, I strongly disagree with Sdkb's characterization of the overall reviews. If that were the reality, the RT score would probably be well under 50 rather than 63, and the average would certainly be under 5.0 instead of 6.7. In fact, you can see exactly that if you look at the score for the third episode of the season: one glowing review, a bunch of lukewarm reviews, a bunch of negative reviews, and what that adds up to is 39. For the season as a whole, there are quite a few reviews as positive of Faey's, and few if any as negative as VanArendonk's (look at the first batch—Rengifo, Wilner, and Griffin vs. maybe Abuin). And notice that two of them call it one of the best seasons.
Also, if it's worth covering more than the RT summary: both positive and negative reviews call S5 more personal or less grand, more hopeful or less dark, more today-relevant or less science-fictional, etc. than previous years. Also, many of the positive S5 reviews compare it favorably to S1 of the new Twilight Zone, and a few reviewers even comment on the fact that S5 is the first one to be up against current TZ instead of against the plethora of past general TZ-style shows. And so on. Surely all of that is more encyclopedic than justifying the numbers that we're already providing (and RT is already justifying a link away)—but also far harder to source.

Webisodes!

[edit]

where'd the DETAILS for the webisodes go?! used to have a CHART here with names, plot summaries, and release dates! (at least for the POLISH ones...)

this was later (i think) replaced by a link to the "list of..." page, which i guess briefly housed said chart. i say "briefly", b/c when i checked, the link was 404. bottom line, NEITHER article had the chart anymore.

and now the link is gone anyways! what's the deal?! we're going BACKWARDS -- we've gone from having 4 of the 7 to now having ZERO of the seven!!

can someone pls put the polish ones BACK...and then add the SPANISH?? one or the other of these articles (i vote for the "list of..." one) NEEDS to have the details for these 7 videos! 173.9.95.217 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks to the editor who filled in all that info, and gave youtube LINKS even!! you've given way more than the original CHARTS had, but.... can we still get those CHARTS back as well? there were preferable for info-at-a-glance. also, chart or prose, whichever, i still think this is all better placed in the "list of...episodes" article. no? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who expanded the Webisode section. Happy to discuss this and hear what others think, but from the way these webisodes were released on individual YouTubers' pages, and taking this article into account, it seems that these really aren't close enough to official Netflix Black Mirror episodes to list them in the "List of Black Mirror episodes" page. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i dunno. even if pirate or renegade, they're still "episodes" of sorts. THIS page is also more-or-less for the "official Netflix Black Mirror", so i'm not quite sure why they'd be any less invasive here than on the episodes page. unless there's a rule to ban mention of them ANYWHERE, i think the "episodes" page is still the place to do it. add on "unauthorized" or w/e. speaking of which, is THAT what happened to the latin ones? did Netflix AL object to them somehow? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Bilorv has included the webisodes here as part of a spin-off series of sorts (see MOS:TV#Media information), and not as recognised episodes of the anthology for which the "list of episodes" page is reserved. Radiphus (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Netflix decided to do later, they were originally made as a collaboration with Netflix and intended to be related products to Black Mirror, so it's relevant to the subject and warrants mention somewhere in Wikipedia's coverage of Black Mirror. In the same vein, we include things like the Nosedive board game on Nosedive (Black Mirror). However, the "List of episodes" page is just for official instalments in the Black Mirror franchise published by Netflix, and these webisodes were published on YouTube without consistent Black Mirror branding and without much announcement by Netflix; as Radiphus says, they're sort of a spin-off series of sorts, not official episodes. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: a couple of messages by the IP editor have been removed, as explained on their talk page (click here). Leaving this note here just in case they come back to this page but don't see the notification for their talk page.) — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is asanine. 5 of 7 links are ok, and you suppress a comment about fixing the OTHER TWO?!
you can't have it both ways. if the validity of a youtube link is not proper fodder for the TALK page, then the links themselves certainly don't belong in the article. i will remove them accordingly.
ditto re: SRTs. the article would be "improved" if someone didn't post links to foreign-lang videos UNLESS THEN ALSO INCLUDE THE SUBS. stands to reason! 173.9.95.217 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The seven links all work correctly for streaming, including English subtitles. Discussion of downloading videos is off-topic for Wikipedia and particularly inappropriate due to its violation of Youtube Terms of Service and potential illegality. And finally, the angrier you get, the less seriously anyone will take you. — Bilorv (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
um...streaming IS "downloading". how do u think it gets to the PC in the first place?
whether u save a copy locally on your PC is another matter.
anyway, what browser u using? maybe it's just firefox they fail in.
cheers. 173.9.95.217 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of images for deletion

[edit]

The nomination of many fair use images on Black Mirror episodes for deletion at today's Files for discussion will likely be of interest to anyone following this page. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to comment on those, but there is very valid point that they fail standard NFCC allowance tests. The only immediate one I see that is fine is San Jupinero, but I'll check the others as I go. --Masem (t) 13:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this is surely best to discuss at a central location rather than across ten separate FFDs. I can't keep up with that many separate discussions. I would rather the FFDs are withdrawn for the time being—this is a complex issue because the image may not be appropriate under grounds of (for instance, but not exhaustively): missing fair use rationale; misused in the article; article needs development of secondary sources; image is fundamentally inappropriate but an appropriate replacement exists; no image is appropriate. And I expect a different reason applies in several of the cases. That's too much work to do over a week's period between ten different threads of conversation (unless someone helps me). Well, anyway, I'll start by writing explanations on the FFD pages for my reasoning behind the GA and FA images which you believe should be deleted. — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to post here. I think that FFD is a centralized discussion space and since I made all of the nominations on the same day, it seems very straightforward to discuss them on the page linked above. If anything, discussion here will make for less centralized discussion. Happy to provide my feedback, etc. but I think that two threads is a recipe for disaster. As pointed out in my FFD nominations and noted by Masem above, the problem is basically the same every time: someone took a more-or-less random screen cap that doesn't actually display any visual information that cannot be conveyed in text (e.g. a person standing in a street), and wrote that the rationale for this image is "key moment in episode". That doesn't fly. Episodes that have unique aesthetics or visual effects or some kind of element that needs a photo to adequately explain it I didn't nominate and would pass NFCC. Additionally, if there are some images that are somehow special and really need consideration or discussion, the FFD can be extended or someone could ask for deletion review. I've nominated several hundred images at FFD (probably over a thousand) and close to 99% have been deleted, usually for the exact same rationale. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to agree that except for the one of San Jupinero, most of these are weak, and I don't see how a improvement in rationale can be used to keep them; they need more sourcing in the article or are simply just not the type of NFCC we use. S.J. is clearly one I think meets NFCC because both both a strong rationale and backed by sources in the article. And the other one being the Waldo Moment only because that episode has gained political poignancy of late that a screenshot could be argued for (just don't know about that one). --Masem (t) 20:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions § Black Mirror

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions § Black Mirror. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Mirror/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 23:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • "with a central science fiction technology..." do you mean "centred on science fiction technology" or similar? Because obviously most episodes featured different themes and different technologies...
    • Ah, well I meant any episode has some tech that's central to that episode only, but I think I can drop the word "central" as actively working against that meaning. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consider the morals of each episode" the award-winning ones or all of them?
  • Can we clear off the "n.a." in the File:BlackMirrorTitleCard.jpg fair use image?
  • Slightly technical question, the colour-coding for each series is all very similar, may fall foul of WP:ACCESS requirements.
    • This is transcluded from List of Black Mirror episodes so I'll talk more about that page. The colours are chosen to match the DVD releases, which is the WikiProject Television standard (for better or worse). I took another look at WP:ACCESS and I don't actually see it raising the issue of contrast between different background colours: what does matter is that the colour is never the only method of communicating information, and there's enough background colour to foreground text contrast. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No biggie: I seem to recall these multi-series articles which have been released on DVD etc usually have a table with release dates and information on extras etc.
    • I think it's a bit obtuse for the main article (not many people can be consuming the show via DVD, to be quite honest) but this is at List of Black Mirror episodes#Home media release. As far as I know, there's no bonus content or any differences between the DVDs and the episodes as you find them on streaming platforms. (In general I think the lack of official Black Mirror merch is really surprising.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it may seem obvious, but could you be explicit that the Netflix series saw all episodes simultaneously released (in the prose)?
  • "with a novel technology " perhaps "novel technologies"?
  • "The settings are patriarchal and..." all of them?
  • "masculine-coded" I'm not convinced I fully understand this.
    • "coded" is an academic term. It's like "explore topics and themes associated with masculinity (more than femininity)"—if you get someone to close their eyes and picture some terms relating to each episode then most of the time most people will be picturing a man doing it ("bank robbery", "alcoholic") and it's rarer that they'd picture a woman ("flight attendant", "social media user"). And also to do with the number of male/female protagonists/characters. I think Code (semiotics) is about this, but very technical and ill-explained. How about "most episodes explore topics associated more with masculinity than femininity"? — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unreliablity" typo.
  • "found in news tickers and social media feeds" + "shown in various episodes"...
  • "to each prior" I guess each is right, but "every" would seem to convey it more clearly??

Work calls, up to "Production". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Very nice work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for going through it all. This is probably the most work I've ever done on a single article and the largest-scope article I'm primary writer of. — Bilorv (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv it's an excellent article. I've added a couple of responses above, but nothing which contravenes WP:WIAGA so I'm happy to promote this. Well done on completing the set and let me know when you nominate the topic! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor and loose use of the company name Endemol

[edit]

Distributor listed as Endemol Shine UK, but as far as I can tell it is a production company.

EDIT Distributor was probably Endemol B.V., (merged into Endemol Shine Group in 2015)?

Also, the article talks about a company called 'Endemol', but there are several companies spread over various regions to which Endemol could refer. More specificity would be good. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source are you looking for, Jonpatterns? Is this information that could be found in the production cards at the end of (Channel 4) episodes? I'm not too sure I understand the nuances well enough to make improvements myself. — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, looking at the credit may provide the info. If I get chance I will check. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonpatterns: the credits of "The National Anthem" (the first episode) says "Worldwide Sales and Distribution - Endemol Worldwide Distribution" and has the Endemol logo. The closing logo is Endemol with the text "zeppotron / an endemol company / Production for Channel 4".
The closing logo of "Striking Vipers" (first episode of the most recent series) says "House of Tomorrow / part of EndemolShineGroup". — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6

[edit]

The short wording and inclusion of only one reception creates the premise of a generally well received season. This is factually not the case. The season has a score of 44 % audience ratings at rotten tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/black_mirror/s06/reviews?type=user&intcmp=rt-scorecard_audience-score-reviews

There are also numerous articles, which proof the diverse Fan reactions:

https://junkee.com/black-mirror-season-6-review-channel-4-netflix/352297

https://news.yahoo.com/fans-slamming-season-black-mirror-084150034.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmRlLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALM0l00QbxybxKA5ITLKR64hISGKEkcwUrSel62QYS8MPMBVpcNqNDapJPP9jSOmtL_ZQ71F38mLkLN8cnB8ibd4s-mFfBz1BGT20VzmSt-gaL9dt2pVeDGNHSU5N6Nc0fWEm6WrYIoj1--9mILIEgRGiHstKyMOUWgRzv-7OejR Juicy Steak (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Juicy Steak, feel free to add some prose using said sources. This is probably just limited by being a relatively new section thus far, and more specific reviews may have been focused on episode pages. Contributions are welcome when sourced. -2pou (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Junkee and Yahoo are not good sources (though the original Insider might be usable), but there will be tons out there (see WP:RSP for some ideas). If there is a problem with a Wikipedia article then fix it. The paragraph is short because it hasn't been fully written yet. The release of the sixth series has created at least a hundred hours of volunteer labour work (not that I'm complaining!) and while I can underwrite doing what is needed eventually, I can't do that in a fortnight. — Bilorv (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that audience ratings are not relevant user WP:USERGEN; any addition of user ratings will be removed. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten tomatoes is a horrible website... if the critics love somthing i'd wait for a while to see what the audience scores are... and yet the critic scores are promoted
(Yeah i too would argue season 6 is horrible -reltivly speaking
It's just not black mirror lost its spirit and theme... doesn't mean it's bad as a standalone
If tou were to show season 6 to somone who hasn't seen any other bm episodes then yeah it's fine
But when put in context it's pretty bad
-which could explain some of the mixed reviews ratings disparities
Between not only audiences and critics but also how people rate the episodes vs season)
maybe it is best to break down the critical response some more...
Give more information about episode dsting and so on 2A10:8001:1C43:0:CC32:6957:3132:68CA (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: lead

[edit]
some critics have found the morality of the series obvious or cite declining quality

That doesn't make much sense to me. Not sure what "morality of the series" even means or where there is any declining quality. Sounds a lot like cherrypicked minority positions. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Mirror&oldid=1249208738"