Talk:Porterhouse Blue

message: I'm fairly certain this is nonsense. I cannot dispute that the IMDB says it is the case, but as someone intimately familiar with Sidney (from as many angles as I need to be) I cannot find a single scene which is likely to have been shot there. It is possible some of the scenes inside the masters lodge might have been, or some of the miscellaneous college rooms (though I don't believe so, in either case) but the external shots, the SCR, the hall, the porter's lodge and the grounds are manifestly NOT Sidney's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.243.176 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to dispute that the IMDB says that, seeing that it's just not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). -82.81.228.66 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming locations for the series 

message: This doesn't mean "There's Money in Everything"
That would be "In Omnia Pecunia"
It actually means more like "Wealth in All Things"
Any other Latin speakers want to comment before I change it?
: chrisboote 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it to mean 'Rich in everything'. Snugglepuss (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dives in Omnia 

message: This section is almost entirely OR - it either needs deleting or a rewrite - Tiswas(t/c) 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can something be done about this section and its claim of non-statutory male rape, which is the editor's POV and is not apparent to me from reading the book or waching the DVD. The point is that Zipser fantasised about having sex with Mrs Biggs, and she knew it, hence her coming to his room. My reading of the situation is that it wasn't rape; that when it came to it Zipser realised the awfulness of both the situation and Mrs Biggs. She didn't force him to have sex- which would be rape- but that Zipser was paralysed with fear and couldn't object. Jack1956 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of pointing out the big ironic twist of how who we thought would be the predator ended up being the victim and vice versa, I'll just point to you your own words. "Zipser was paralysed with fear and couldn't object" - escuse me, but if you replaced the word "Zipser" in your own quote with, say, "Pamela", wouldn't it describe a rape? Also, you said in your own words that "Zipser fantasised about having sex with Mrs Biggs", but then you casually said "and she knew it". Just because she felt it doesn't mean he invited it, does it? If you did a little role reversal in your head, you'd probably be quick to admit you've basically described a rape (out of nowhere a bedder mounting a female student in the middle of the night because the bedder felt the student secretly wanted him). -88.154.133.164 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The UK law on rape has changed, but at the time this film was made, the concept of an adult female raping an adult male did not exist in law.  The two POV passages regarding the 'rape' are in error, and in any case we wouldn't need the same description twice. Gomez2002 09:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a film from the 19th century had a "standard" rape, this logic would have disallowed that term as well. -82.81.228.66 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: But Zipser wasn't paralysed with fear at the thought of being raped but by the thought of being caught in bed with Mrs Biggs by the College authorities. Plus, there is no evidence in the book that sex actually took place before the explosion. Mrs Bigg's 'Not too quickly now' is followed immediately by the explosion, suggesting to me that it interrupted them. I maintain that the entire section in the article is POV and needs to be amended. Jack1956 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That line is not from the book, which describes him as eventually being "engulfed", a word that is open for interpretions. But that's exactly the point - your interpretion is just as original research as any other. The description will indeed have to remain in pure visual terms then. -82.81.228.66 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I have removed the entire comparison section. There are no sources to back it up. I have also removed the contentious references to the "rape" as that also has no grounding in a reading of the book or the TV series, and there are no credible sources. I have brought in and tidied up the Porterhouse College section as per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable topics. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to the book

message: I have added a Characters section, and hope this part might be developed. There are three characters treated outside this article - consideration might be given to how much material to bring into this article, or if the characters articles might even be merged in their entirety. My feeling is that the character articles are too large to be merged, so I haven't tagged them, but others may think differently. Scullion is possibly notable enough for a standalone, though Sir Godber Evans is more questionable. Lord Jeremy Pimpole should almost certainly be merged into Grantchester Grind. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: the section on porterhouse college seems out of place, especially when it contains a massive spoiler - the fact that skullion becomes master - before any of the rest of the plot if even discussed.  (188.222.154.54 (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porterhouse College 

message: The shenanigans described in PB were actually echoed a decade later when Hugh Trevor-Roper attempted to modernise Peterhouse, Cambridge (the model for Porterhouse). I don't know how to incorporate this in a suitably encyclopaedic msnner though. Ef80 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugh Trevor-Roper