Talk:Up (film series)

message: The following sentence from the article sounds very confusing:
"Some therapists show their clients the series to explain that a given person's reaction to the various interviews may have as much to say about the subject, in their interpretation of what they think that the participants are saying, as it does about the people taking part in the film."
The following description surely can't be correct:
"Boyhood, a film that will follow a boy from the age of six through to eighteen in real time over twelve years."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.106 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: I note that On the Media just did an interviewon Apted.  Maybe they will have the transcript ready in about a month. -- PinkCake 06:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Media interview 

message: I am not a regular contributer so forgive me if I'm not going about this quite the right way.  There are a number of factual errors in your article.  The three 'upper class twits' did not mention what careers they wanted to pursue at 7 and certainly did not mention specific firms or banks.  The three working class girls did not mention drugery nor did they even imply it at 7 or 14 (at 21 they seemed somewhat defensive admittedly).  Neil's life did not at all seem layed out for him at seven (He wanted to be an astronaut or a coach driver and did not think he needed to go to university because he didn't want to be a teacher).  It is also false that none of the 'upperclass twits' appeared in the program after 28 up.  in 35 up 2 out of the 3 appeared.  Also the tone of the article is rather unprofessional.  Calling 3 of the kids upperclass twits might be ok but then saying it was unsuprising they did not appear is both unfair and incorrect.  All three seem to me to be very reasonable and unstuck up adults from what we see in the movies.
*You could not be more correct I have done a major edit on this page and I hope you come back across it some day and that you will either approve of it, OR make other edits to make this page even better.MarnetteD | Talk 30 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
Just in case my last edit summary causes confusion...I meant 'this year', not 'last year'. Slip of the hand. BillyH 11:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors/criticisms

message: As I understand her, Suzy does leave open the possibility that she may feel differently in seven years and thus her future participation should not be regarded as absolutely out of the question.
(Having seen the film again since writing this, I fear that I misunderstood her.  I hope she will reconsider.)
:Happily, she did indeed reconsider.  Kostaki mou (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the only film in which that spelling is used.  Presumably, Suzy herself used that spelling at the time and reverted to "Suzy" afterwards.  (Similarly, Simon used "Symon" for one film and reverted to "Simon" afterwards.)  Kostaki mou 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suzy

message: He has evidently reverted to that spelling of his name.  His mother died of cancer some years ago (certainly before 42 Up).
38.117.238.82 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is "Symon" in 7 Plus Seven, 42 Up and 56 Up; otherwise, "Simon." Kostaki mou (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon

message: The links for  Peter Davies, Susan Davis and Charles Furneaux lead to different people of those names.  I don't know how to fix them as they are apparently made the same way as the red nonfunctioning "links" that were no doubt intended for these also.
Kostaki mou 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous Links

message: :Image:The Up series DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Up series DVD.jpg

message: I have deleted the "Flaws" section -- I originally retitled it "Criticism" and added a POV tag, but upon reading it again, I realize that it is solely original research and opinion. The article should have a "Criticism" section, but the original section contained no quotes, citations, or references to outside material. I will try to find information about criticism of the series in the future -- if anyone would like to help, please do! Graymornings 06:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Graymornings. If you didn't already please check the edit history of the anon IP that is trying to enter this info. It is a single purpose account trying to enter one persons dislike of these films and/or Apted and they have been blocked once for violating the 3RR. It looks like they are trying to avoid that but, if they persist, they can be reported at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Thanks for you vigilence in keeping an eye on this page. MarnetteD | Talk 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flaws" 

message: "with the explicit assumption that each child's social class predetermines their future"
This also comes up in the "Message" section.  I thought the whole "class predetermining" thing was the central hypothesis being tested, rather than one of the assumptions.  Any chance a citation for that can be found?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.155 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 

message: This article seems to be a consistent target of vandalism. Could we talk about edit-protecting it? Graymornings 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protection 

message: The article says on Suzy "In one of the most memorable scenes in 7 plus seven, her Labrador catches and kills a rabbit in the background". Is it a fact that this is "one of the most memorable scenes" or is it a writer's opinion? Regardless, I think this bit of trivia contributes little to the article, suggest to remove it. Odedee (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for keeping it.  It's of interest.  I think you're being a trifle rigid, frankly.  Kostaki mou (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rigid? This is clearly an opinionated statement, and a bit peculiar at that. There are numerous memorable scenes in these moving films, but to point out the one which involves a dog, rather than humans, is ludicrous, at best. Odedee (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text, eliminating the rabbit but keeping the fact Suzy's parents own an estate, which is more pertinent to the article. Odedee (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorable? 

message: Michael Apted did not create the Up Series or direct the first one (Seven Up). Paul Almond created and directed Seven Up, Michael Apted was simply a researcher for Seven Up I have three references here , here  and here . This article imply's that Apted created the series and directed every film in the Up Series. Can somebody please contact me here or on my talk page where we will discuss fixing this mess up.--Theoneintraining (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read the "Creation" section of the article where it states that Paul Almond began the series just as you say. I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than that. MarnetteD | Talk 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be clearer in the opening paragraph I believe. What do you think?--Theoneintraining (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: What in the world are the dates, following each title in the list of films, supposed to represent? My best guess is these are the dates each film premiered on British television, but I can't be sure; anyone think it just might be a bit helpful to tell the user what he's reading? Propaniac (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in list of films 

message: Why are there only first names mentioned? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because that's how they're referred to in the films -- there's no reason to include last names, that I can see. Propaniac (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames 

message: Anyone notice the "Films directed by Michael Apted" template at the bottom of this article (and all Apted film articles) doesn't list any of the Up films? Just sayin'. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into it; User:TheMovieBuff has repeatedly removed the Up series from the template, God only knows why, and the last time he did it at the end of August, it hadn't been reverted. I added it back, added the template to my watchlist, and advised the user to cut the crap. Propaniac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Apted template

message: Proposed rewording:
Charles
Charles Furneaux did not make it into Oxford as an undergraduate. At 21 he said he was glad to have avoided the "prep school-Marlborough-Oxbridge conveyor belt" by going to Durham University instead, later attending Oxford as a post-graduate student. Charles has worked in journalism in varying capacities over the years, including as a producer for the BBC, and in the making of documentary films, including Touching the Void. He chose not to appear in the series after 21 Up, other than the contribution of an occasional photograph. 
During an on-stage interview at London's National Film Theatre in December 2005, Apted alleged that Charles had attempted to sue him when he refused to remove Charles's likeness from the archive sequences in 49 Up. Apted also commented on the irony that as a documentary maker himself, Charles was the only one who refused to continue. 
Reference to Radio Times and Daily Telegraph articles.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-05-14/56-up-michael-apted-on-the-documentary-series-thats-spanned-five-decades 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9269805/Seven-Up-A-tale-of-two-Englands-that-shamefully-still-exist.html 
By the time of 56 Up, all references to Charles had been removed, other than in fleeting glimpses of joint shots with Andrew and John.  
Tomintoul (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be fair and supported by the reliable sources you've provided. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles 

message: Is that why?  What authority do you have for that statement?  It seems to me that their "shared rural upbringing[s]" were quite different.  Kostaki mou (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Suzy and Nick . . . friends due to their shared rural upbringing." 

message: I would consider rephrasing this: "At 56 Up she continues to believe her career as a librarian is of great value and it has helped define her life."It strikes me as if the article is saying that being a librarian isn't of great value. Also, by 56 Up, Lynn had lost her job.
Also, it appears she passed away.  
http://www.stsavioursschool.org.uk/library-opened-in-memory-of-lynn-johnson/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyscomments (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lynn

message: Paul Almond created this series; he died earlier this month (April 9th, 2015).  Given that the death of any of the 14 subjects of the documentary would of course be an important item to note within this article (as has been done with Lynn Johnson), the death of a major figure (such as Almond or Apted) involved with the project is equally deserving of notation.
People who are fans of this series have a degree of investment in it, and want to know when those involved with it have passed away; this article, being THE collective summary on the "UP Series" on the whole, is the best point of reference for such information here at Wikipedia.  The notion that a reader should have to "go (to) the article for the person" for each of the fourteen participants, or Almond or Apted, to learn that they have died instead of being able to glean that information via a short reference to such here is utterly absurd.  The truth is that many, and likely most, people visiting this page will remain unknowing of the death of one involved with the series if such information isn't posted upon it.  The absence of such pertinent information from this page defeats the "source of information" purpose of Wikipedia.
The death of Paul Almond IS 'relevant' to this article just as much as the death of any of the fourteen participants is; again, the man was the creator of the series.  I feel this way, and at least one other person has indicated that they do, as well.  I have re-inserted the short notation to Almond's death within the article, and would appreciate it remaining there until this issue has had ample time for discussion amongst multiple people who visit this page.  If there is an overall concensus that the death of the creator of the series for some strange reason shouldn't be noted here, remove the notation then, but until then the insertion of such into the article should be respected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtypicalMale (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First he didn't create the series - Granada Television did. He did direct the first - 30 minute long - segment. He had no involvement after 1964 so no his death is not relevant to this article. As to what "fans" want and the other things you mention remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia - see WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTDIARY and WP:RAWDATA among others for what WikiP is not. You can certainly post items like this on your facebook page. MarnetteD|Talk 14:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said all that the brief and concise birth and death dates in parenthesis is acceptable. MarnetteD|Talk 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The death of the creator of the series IS 'relevant' to this article. 

message: Is it not a bit . . . unusual that no mention has been made of Neil's mental illness, which he freely discusses in the post-21 installments?  Perhaps that is the intended meaning of the statement that he was "in an agitated state" during one interview, but that evasion does a great disservice to this resilient fellow and to those who suffer his condition in general.  It would be a good idea for the article's original creator to update Neil's section thus -- I do not feel competent, despite having three persons in my life stricken down by a similar condition.
67.165.91.134 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil's Illness 

message: There was quite an interesting interview with Bruce, Sue and Tony in the Radio Times to mark 63 Up. They seem quite happy with the way the show has turned out, despite the obvious intrusion involved. https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-06-06/63-up-seven-up-cast-members-where-are-they-now/
"You’ve recently seen the first film of the new three-part series – what did you think of it?
BRUCE It’s so heart-warming. It’s nice to see a life from the beginning, a progress through life.
TONY I was quite happy. I was looking with trepidation, a bit of nerves. I think everyone does. All you’re asking for is credibility. Seeing my grandchildren grow up in the same film really touched a nerve with me.
SUE It’s knowing your children have always got this. That record of your life and your children’s lives is always there and I’m really proud to be part of it. It was sad in places watching this new one, but in a nice way. We’re all feeling older and we have aches and pains and life has chucked things at us, but we all came across in a positive way…
And you’re all still glad you took part?
SUE We’re all terrified we’re going to make a fool of ourselves and say something really stupid we can’t take back. Because we don’t get to edit it or see it before it’s finished, so you have to think about what you’re saying.
TONY There’s trust there. The whole production team have always been there. I trust them with my life.
BRUCE You feel they will be positive. They won’t try to catch you out or trip you up. It’s not a political interview. It’s bringing you out, telling the story of your life so people can see their own lives reflected in that. We’ve all lost somebody, we’ve all been through grief."
And they confirm that they might not mind doing it again in seven years, but only if Michael Apted, already 77 (who they've known all their lives), is in charge.
"Would you do it without Michael at the helm?
BRUCE If they did it again without Michael or some of the others, it would be very, very different. So probably not.
TONY No, I wouldn’t, he’s been like a brother to me. I love him dearly. The Up series is Michael Apted.
SUE I doubt it very much. It would have to be a totally different kind of programme. The way it’s formatted now, that’s the trust with Michael and the crew." 
It's a remarkable outcome for something that started as a one-off World in Action episode in 1964 -- especially as the next two episodes, Seven After Seven and 21, got resounding critical raspberries in the press, quite wrongly. (If one could find those misguided reviews in the British Library newspaper archive, they would now look quite funny, but I can't be bothered.) It was only with 28 Up in 1985, when the audience and the press reacted so warmly to Neil's story, that the thing really took off. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  63 Up 

message: Question: In 1964 the participants in 7 up were 7 years of age. So, logically they are 62 in 2019. Then why naming the program 63 up. They are 62.
Adelphos (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't get my head around this either. Maybe they were 7 when they filmed it in 1963? --TrottieTrue (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

text: 7 Up! was released on 5 May 1964, but it was shot in 1963, when its subjects were seven years old. It looks like subsequent editions of the film were shot and released in the same year to avoid continuing this confusion.Bill Coffin (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of participants

message: Specifically, this article appears to have generated its content in defiance of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and WP:VERIFY. If the article were to be held to this pair of clear encyclopedic standards, most of its content would have to be removed. Please, WP editors, follow the guidelines and policies. This article will not improve until someone decides that quality and principles are worth fighting for. 2601:246:C700:9B0:6882:E037:AF97:A81C (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: here you go, knock yourself out —75.72.49.12 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not a shortage of citations—this 2019 piece on 63 Up is one in a long line of pieces in the major British, U.S., and entertainment periodicals—it is the freedom that past editors had felt in presenting their own viewing experiences and perceptions (violating WP:OR), and doing so completely absent of published support (violating WP:VERIFY). That said, the NYT article is a fine addition (and it already appears at other articles related to the series), and it appears here, now, in the "Further reading" section. 2601:246:C700:9B0:49D5:B293:F76B:4632 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we really need a citation for the names of the subjects in the films? The liberal sprinkling of the citation needed tag seems beyond excessive. The first film tells you who they are, we don't need an academic paper or a newspaper article to verify who's in the films. It's like asking for a citation to verify that Dorothy is the main character in the Wizard of Oz. Ian m (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: This article repeatedly violates Wikipedia guidelines and policies