Talk:Cracker (British TV series)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: British / Episode coverage Low‑importance 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 British television task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. Greater Manchester Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The name of the feature-length episode seems to be the subject of several edits. I've only ever seen the "Lucky White Ghost" version referred to online: on the individual DVD box, on the complete series box set, in the interactive menu [1], and in the credits of the episode [2], it's simply "White Ghost". Patabongo 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Region 1 boxed set, and it is printed "Lucky White Ghost" on the DVD itself. I'd have to check the credits again, though, to confirm the televised title. --

khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I just checked - the title on the episode as in the DVD I have, following the credit "Cracker written by Paul Abbott" is "Lucky White Ghost"[3]. The menu also calls it that.[4] --

khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The title given on first broadcast in England was White Ghost, so afaics that is definitive. DavidFarmbrough 12:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. I have to say I prefer White Ghost as a title anyway. Patabongo 13:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called it 'Lucky White Ghost' on my website about the series, but it definitely was originally titled 'White Ghost' (going from it's original ITV screening and the original Radio Times of 1996 which called it by that title). Yet I swear I have a version of it on VHS where it's titled 'Lucky White Ghost' so it's chopped and changed over the years for some reason and various articles I own refer to it as the latter title. I will have to get round to changing the title on my site to it's originally broadcast name at some point --SarahJK 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more transAtlantic confusion: the entry refers to "seasons" in the overview and "series" everywhere else. I'm going to change them all to the American usage, since it seems to me to be clearer. Patabongo 13:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps clearer, but "series" for everything seems to be understood worldwide, even if not in majority usage in each locale, and this is a British TV show. We should not be afraid to use British English, as per WP guidelines. Another user has already reverted to British English "series". --Estarriol 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not "afraid", no -- but I do think it's handy to have one word for each run of episodes and another word to refer to the show as a whole. It seems a shame to abandon a perfectly useful term out of parochialism, but I'm not bothered enough about it to re-edit the entry. Patabongo 23:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed an entry in the overview from 'seasons' to 'series'. This read incorrectly to me; giving an explanation about the usage of the word 'seasons' in an article about a British television programme rather than the other way around.--82.39.14.169 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Influences': "[...] Fitz's involvement often only exacerbates the situation, for example leading police to arrest the wrong man ("One Day A Lemming Will Fly") [...]" Didn't you get it, man?

There is a staement that most of the programmes are 50 minutes long. Surely wrong? The one I have in front of me, Mad Woman In The Attic, is 104 minutes, and I recall they are all "feature length".

Each episode was 50 minutes long. The Mad Woman In The Attic story was two episodes long. Patabongo 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of episode length, I've re-instituted my revision from yesterday regarding episode length: "The original broadcast of episode one of the "Brotherly Love" story was an hour long (so 70 minutes with commercials) and required a late change of broadcast slot - from week day to weekend - on first appearance to avoid running into the 10pm news. Repeats of this episode, and the subsequent DVD release, were edited down to the conventional 50 minute size." This was, as you can imagine, quite a big deal at the time, and a repeat of "Men Should Weep" episode three was, late in the day, placed in the slot intended for the first episode of series three.

Now, I'm aware a source isn't cited. But there's also no source given for the fact that "All episodes are 50 minutes long", which is presumably based only on seeing DVDs, overseas broadcasts and repeats - not on sourced data about the first broadcast. I recorded Brotherly Love on VHS from the original ITV broadcast and can assure you that the first episode lasted, once adverts were omitted, for a full hour, and that several scenes were take out for repeats and DVD.

See this discussion for more: http://sarahspacey.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=33

You'll also notice that the broadcast dates for Brotherly Love are unusual - three episodes shown in, apparently, two weeks. This 'fact' goes unexplained on the current page.

The reason for this is born of the change in schedule, and is then reported here with an error. (The broadcast dates are also unsourced.) The first episode went out Sunday October 22nd, the second the next day on Monday the 23rd, the third on Monday the 30th. Subsequent episodes of the same series - as already listed here - continued to go out on Monday nights. Since the listing here doesn't explain the change in schedule day mid-run, a decidedly uncommon thing at that time, nor how three episodes went out on only 'two dates', there is clearly some clarification to be provided.

I'm sorry I don't have a link, nor the newspaper/magazine coverage from the time, and appreciate the onus is generally on the person posting information to back it up. But the current entry is inaccurate in both its dates and the claim that episode were all 50 minutes in length - the onus is also on the poster of that original data. Better, I would suggest, to merge the data we have than to stick to the old without addressing discrepancies.

I notice that there is also no mention that Nine Eleven was edited (for time) for UK broadcast but often shown uncut overseas, and released uncut on DVD. Sadly, I have no recording of the original so cannot detail content that was removed. However the special was made as 108 minutes long (uncut) at a time when ITV's commercial break content had risen from 10 minutes in a peak hour (approx.), as per the original series going out, to around 16 minutes per peak hour. To fit that different broadcast slot, Nine Eleven was edited down quite noticeably.

Again, I appreciate how hard it is to trust anonymous contribution. But I have added a line of explanation. I'd hope these could be flagged with a 'source?' query, awaiting corroboration, rather than be removed entirely and the older inaccurate information remain. Sadly Cracker has too little history researched online, but I'd ask for the benefit of the doubt in these instances based on very specific personal witness. 82.71.8.73 (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until a

WP:RS other than a memory or a blog can be provided the info cannot go into the article. MarnetteD | Talk 16:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand, though it's hard for people to seek for this information if they do not know there were changes made. If the policing on this is so strict, not even allowing for a 'source?' footnote request, can you explain why the broadcast date has been permitted to stay corrected? What is the source for that date? Indeed, what is the source for the other dates and the episode durations?82.71.8.73 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right to refer to Robert Carlyle as a 'guest star', considering he was virtually unknown at the time of appearing in the show?Popcorn II (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He had a number of film and TV roles by then. Regardless, the issue (if there were one) would be with the title of the section; it's

OR arguably, since the TV show's own credits didn't use the phrase "guest stars" or "guest starring". Here, it's a list of notable actors who have appeared in the show as character actors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Was it really conceived to be a plot for Prime Suspect or was the quoted person joking? It's clearly not conceived as a plot for Prime Suspect, why would someone wait and hope to be asked? Why would he even want to write for Prime Suspect when he clearly doesn't like the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.35.22 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This claim: "no explanation is given as to why Jimmy does not appear; with the given timeframe, he would only be ten years of age, and no explanation is given as to why he does not appear." about Jimmy Fitzgerald's non-appearance in Nine Eleven is very wrong. He appears several times, right from the wedding to near the end when Judith is rowing with Fitz on the phone about missing the flight to Australia.

"In "The Big Crunch", Mark claims that he is older than Penhaligon, although whether or not this is true is not known"

Penhaligon is without question older than Mark. In 'The Big Crunch' when Mark says he is older than her, Fitz replies "Hardly". Mark is approximately around 18 years of age at the start of the series and Penhaligon is already an established Detective Sergeant in the police force. She is probably aged around 27/28 in Series 1 to Fitz's 44 (Penhaligon refers to his age as being this in 'To Say I Love You'). There is clearly a considerable age gap between Fitz and Penhaligon, as per Mark's comment to Judith in 'Brotherly Love' that she is still young enough to be his daughter (so presumably around a 16 year age gap between them), but she is definitely not as young as Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.41.145 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]