Talk:The Post-Modern Prometheus

Untitled

speech-recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.105.72 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How come this article doesn't mention the film Mask? I'm pretty sure the whole point of this episode was that the "monster" loved Cher as she was portrayed in that film as the loving mother of a similarly deformed kid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.53.49 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Post-Modern Prometheus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is fine. Minor problems with regard to the Manual of Style are resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations are at hand if necessary, and are of high quality. No original research is apparent.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is detailed in its treatment of production, interpretation and reception aspects, without wandering from its subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A neutral tone is maintained throughout, with citations to quotations and avoidance of original research.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Certainly stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One non-free image, with a suitable fair-use rationale, which greatly aids the reader with identification of the article's subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This initial edit is just to open the review. I will submit comments in due course, probably later today, after a thorough reading of the subject article. SuperMarioMan 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, I will pass the article straight off. I have made a number of edits to the page to amend text for MoS compliance (small inconsistencies between BE and AE spelling, "Dr"/"Dr." and other abbreviations, etc.) and to clarify some points in the lead (for example, to contextualise the subject), but these issues were quite trivial to begin with. The article is stable and avoids POV, while the non-free image presents no problems. It certainly appears to match the standards of other GA-class X-Files articles, such as "Sleepless". Congratulations for all your hard and worthwhile work! SuperMarioMan 19:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Allusions to "The Elephant Man"

Why is there no mention of the obvious similarities to David Lynch's 1980 film The Elephant Man? I found them obvious on my first viewing, and I think there was once a section here which mentioned them. At least two lines of dialogue in the episode are lifted directly from the film, and the episode's score is remarkably similar to the music used in the film's opening and closing credits sequence. In addition, several shots in the episode mirror shots in the film, and The Great Mutato shares some obvious physical similarities with The Elephant Man's titular character. Agentspooky (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What a load of bull…!

Nobody in his right mind could consider this episode anything by the worst of crap that ever tainted recording material of any kind. Incredibly cheesy, deliberately bad, campy and fake. With tears wrenched and really nasty false social values pushed hard. (“A ugly mutant must be given special treatment and is worth most! Fuck everyone healthy!" Seriously?? How distorted must one’s view be, to think such evil thoughts?*) Garnished with horrible pointless music to top it off. (A surefire sign of a stinker.)
So that “consistently highest ratings” is either a very obvious lie, or you asked in an area primarily inhabited by people who think they are just as ugly monsters/failures**. (And probably really are.)
You should be ashamed of yourselves!
— 188.100.201.215 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * & ** INB4 those types launching blind thought-free rage mode to defend their own irrational belief in those sick, perverse and anti-social “social values”.

Cool story, bro. GRAPPLE X 12:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dang, this IP address is onto us. It's obviously a HUGE conspiracy to make sure reviewers all say this article is awesome. Darn it.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler alert WTF

Not cool gang, massive plot spoilers in the themes section, I get the relevance, but it's def out of place here... 77.7.62.121 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're still concerned about ~20 year old TV shows being spoiled on the internet, I'd advise not reading in-depth articles about them until you're finished watching. GRAPPLE ^X 10:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)