# Talk:Hang the DJ

This neeeds explaining in the analysis section  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A61F:1900:2162:88D1:999:68D4 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) 

What song are you referring to? Please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). -- Radiphus 19:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I assume Panic (The Smiths song), for which the episode is named (also the music played at the end). This article gives an explanation a go:
Legend has it that Morrissey and Johnny Marr wrote the lyric "Hang the DJ," as a protest against a specific DJ named Steve Wright, whom they despised because of his insipid taste and adherence to a kind of corporate approach to music. So, the idea of singing "hang the DJ," was about rejecting the music being played for you, to think for yourself, to rebel.
No doubt there already is or soon will be an interview where Charlie Brooker (or Jones etc.) explain their reasoning, though I can't look for one right now. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, i didn't know about the song. The song's relation with the episode should certainly be mentioned in the article. If not in production, then in the analysis section if there is enough coverage. I am too sleepy to focus on that at the moment. -- Radiphus 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know the location of the cabins in this episode? 95.172.233.137 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been looking for and yet to find an RS that states where this episode was shot. --Masem (t) 03:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Where's a reception section? 37.21.96.235 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not been written yet, but one should be. You're welcome to begin one—it would be a great help to us. Look to other Black Mirror episode articles for examples. — Bilorv (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(Voila.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hang the DJ/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

"Amy and Frank are one of 1000 simulations " isn't it more like "Amy and Frank's story is one of 1000 simulations"?  I know what you're saying but it's more their interactions than them that are the simulations.
"dating app" - this redirects to "online dating application", perhaps we should, as an encyclopedia, be more "application" than "app".
"They are matched for 12 hours" -> "They are matched together for 12 hours".
I think it's worth noting somehow that the "matchees" are told how long they are to spend together, it's important because it's (at least initially) non-negotiable...
Does "... use a circular tablet called "Coach" that matches them with partners for fixed periods of time" not communicate this properly? — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
"pointlessness of it." which "it", the matching, the sex, life in general?
"over the matches' pointlessness" — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(interesting: the recalibration happens because of dishonesty [I guess] but there was no recalibration when Frank deliberately pissed off his Welsh date by eating the garlic dip... "everything happens for a reason".)
Ugh, I think this "recalibrating" thing is really forced and just there to make the plot work. I think they could have done better with more time on the script. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea that in this simulation Amy says "what if ... we're stuck in a simulation?" Worth mentioning?
Oh, you do...!
"Amy notices that whenever she skips ..." this happens after the recalibration.
"by The Smiths "-> "by the Smiths"
"The 12 episode order " I've missed this before, I think it should be "12-episode order" as 12-episode is being used adjectively here.
"caused a structural issue " any more on this?
The quote is Nick Pitt [producer]: At one point during script development, that moment gave us a structural problem and we discussed getting rid of it. But we sensed its power and Charlie found the dramatic shoehorn that eased whatever the structural problem was. I would take a wild guess that the issue was something like, "how can the relationship time rapidly decrease, causing the relationship to end with Amy angry, when we also need them to be deeply affectionate to run away together?" And then they introduced the few month break and "farewell" idea. But it could well be many other things. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
"didn't" did not.
"The pair did a " dislike "did" perhaps "performed"?
"Collins described" He described.
(Apparently MOS hates Collins' instead mandating Collins's, but I'll overlook it if you somehow forget to do that)
I thought both were grammatically fine but I have actually been trying to use "s's" consistently so I'll change it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
" to their partners" who?
Not sure if this was correct or not but I've found "Jones and Brooker found that their partners did not understand initial cuts of the ending", which I think is more succinct anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
"to The Good Place (2016–20)" if you want the year range in there, make it 2016–2020 per MOS.
"Sophie Gilbert of The Atlantic saw" link The Atlantic here rather than the next sentence.
"During the episode..." I would reiterate "During "Hang the DJ"" at this point as you've discussed other works in the meantime.
Ref 37 title should be Episode 4, right?
Whoops, yes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
" excluding Bandersnatch by " link that episode.
Pedant: "three British Academy Television Awards (BAFTAs) " well two are listed as "BAFTA Awards" and one is listed as a "BAFTA Craft Award", so should they be distinguished in the prose as well as the table?
From the conversations I've had about BAFTAs in the past, I think the difference between "BAFTA [Main Ceremony]" and "BAFTA Craft" can blur a little (categories switching etc.) so I think "three BAFTAs" is better than "two BAFTAs and a BAFTA Craft". It would be fine to give them the same table label as well but the different names allow for different links to the specific year/ceremony article. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Ref 21 and 45 piped to different "Vultures".
That's all.  I wrote the initial notes while watching the episode so apologies that some become superseded as I read the rest of the article!  Thanks for the chance to review, on hold while we chat these over.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff, replied to them all. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: just checking this didn't get buried deep down at the bottom of a watchlist. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I did see you'd replied and then somehow forgot to do anything about it.  Tsk.  All is literally good here, so I've promoted.  Looking forward to the next one.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Good stuff, no worries. Only three left and they might be some of the more, um, controversial episodes but hopefully there'll be something of value to revisit in each of them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)