Talk:Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series)

old comments

The cartoon was based on the 1960s TV show, Get Smart. Don Adams, the voice of Inspector Gadget in the cartoon, also played Maxwell Smart, the lead character in Get Smart.

Uh, why does "I'll Be Your Everything", the theme song used in the first live action movie, redirect here? If it has to be redirected anywhere, shouldn't it be directed to either the movie itself or Youngstown? eagle_eyes 08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? the cartoon was made in France. -- Tarquin

Don Adams was the voice of Inspector Gadget, and he did play Maxwell Smart as well

[1] [2]

Going by the link in the article, there's this too -- Jimregan

I'm not saying the guy didn't do the voice. I'm questioning whether the French cartoon series was based on this US show I've never heard of -- Tarquin

That statement is fixed now (in the non-vandalised version). There are some similarities, but not enough to say Inspector Gadget is based on Get Smart. -- Jimregan

It still reads wrong. It's a french series. Get Smart has nothing to do with it; it's just a coincidence picked up by US viewers. I've fiddled it a bit -- Tarquin 09:29 24 May 2003 (UTC)

You've never heard of Get Smart? I'll have to jog my memory and write an article :) Plus, your version looks better. (But I'm not a US viewer and I saw a similarity :) -- Jimregan

Don Adams was (is?) an American actor. I'm pretty sure he didn't do the voice for the original French cartoon, just the American dubs. I Looked quickly on Google, but didn't find any info about the French version. -- Merphant

All I've found so far about "Inspecteur Gadget" is that Pennie was Sophie. No actor names as yet, but my French is pretty rusty... I tried this search, but can't remember how to say "played". -- Jimregan

If "Inspector Gadget" is a French cartoon, the producers sure got their money's worth with Don Adams! He managed to lip-synch his lines to match the on-screen animation of his character speaking French words EXACTLY. How'd he do that? I'm joking, of course. The series was obviously animated to an English-speaking soundtrack with Don Adams, Welker, etc., doing the voices. The cartoon was produced for an international market and the episodes were dubbed for other languages. It's pretty obvious just watching it that, while they avoid blatant references to America, the characters live in the US. In the Ireland episode, Gadget was confused by having to drive on the other side of the street. Unless I'm completely off-base here and they animated different mouth movements for every character for separate English and French versions for all 86 episodes. Seems unlikely. -- Clownbird

What has this got to do with proving anything? - "In the Ireland episode, Gadget was confused by having to drive on the other side of the road". French people drive on the right, same as Americans. Beanhead McGinty 08:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right - the reference to which side of the road the characters drive on does nothing to prove my point. But everything else I wrote does. =) Clownbird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.55.106 (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a French, I remember all the names in the French version:

Inspector Gadget: Inspecteur Gadget ( obviously :P )

Penny  : Sophie (you already had this one)

Brain  : Finot

Doctor Claw  : Docteur Gang

Chief Quimby  : Chef Gontier

Corporal Capeman: don't know this one :-( Looks like he appears on the second season that I never saw whatever the language.

I still have a few VHS videotapes too (if they are still ok, I haven't viewed them in a while), so if needed I should be able to find informations on actors and whatever may be useful, just ask ;)

Oh, and by the way, "played" in French is said "joué" ;)

Fafner 09:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Get Smart in French: Max la Menace. I don't think it was based on it, but Inspector Gadget includes many reference to several movies. Both, Get Smart and Inspector Gadget was parodies of agent secret series.

It was a cooperation between a US team and a French team. The director, Bruno Bianchi is from the French team, and some writers are French (e.g Chalopin), some are American. The serie was made in English, I guess it was easier to communicate with an international team, and then in French. They didn't translate "Capeman", Coporal Capeman = Caporal Capeman in French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D39:A170:9054:127C (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Animated by which studio in Japan

It's been a while since I've seen Inspector Gadget, but the moment I first saw Lupin the Third I was reminded of it. Were any of the Lupin the Third animators involved in the production of Inspector Gadget? --69.234.183.71 07:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Inspector Gadget had his gadgets installed through an operation after an accident he had where he slid on a banana peel chasing a villain"

...Er, no. This was the set-up for the 1999 movie which was very, very loosely based on the cartoon. Inspector Gadget's "origins" are never explained in the cartoon itself. --Squirminator2k 15:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't remember that either, but I do remember the doctor who did the operation was in a few episodes. Dr. Claw even forced him to make an army of robots once. However, these memories are very fuzzy.--The_stuart 16:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • To get on subject, I added the company that animated. It was TMS Entertainment, who animated the Lupin franchies. (Atleast the begining anyways)

--I think the first season's episodes were animated by a handful of different studios. There's some where the animation is flat and dull ("Movie Set," "Amusement Park," "Art Heist," "M.A.D. Trap," for example), while episodes such as "Did You Myth Me," "The Cuckoo Clock Caper," and "The Bermuda Triangle" where the characters have a much more rounded look to them and the animation just seems much..richer and fuller, and then there's episodes like "Gadget Goes West" and "Follow That Jet" where the characters have a very squared-off look to their features. I think the ones that look most reminiscent of "Lupin" are "In Seine" and "A Bad Altitude," and probably a few others that I don't remember - the character design in that one, especially of the guest villains, etc., are very lithe and thin and linear. I know different looks are often the work of different directors, but these different styles are so wildly disparate that I am betting that different studios worked on different episodes - especially given the fact that Inspector Gadget's first season debuted with an unheard of number of episodes - sixty-five! Also, the episodes such "Movie Set," "Amusement Park," "Art Heist," and "M.A.D. Trap" are noteworthy in that in addition to their uninteresting animation, for some reason they seem to cycle through just a few of the same musical cues over and over again - usually the vaguely jazzy version of the theme. Avoid these lame episodes at all costs! --Clownbird

I'm betting the different styles of some of the episodes were most likely due to different directors for each episode. It's like how Bugs Bunny looks different compared to when he is in a Chuck Jones short or a Robert McKimson short. That most likely explains the "squared-off" animation in "Follow that Jet" and the fuller animation in "The Curse of the Pharaoh," "The Coo-Coo Clock Caper" and "Did You Myth Me?" Interestingly, a few of the dull-animation episodes like "Down on the Farm" had more Gadget music cues, while "The Coo-Coo Clock Caper," even though it had better animation, had music similar to episodes like "MAD Trap" or "Art Heist" and had someone else voicing Dr. Claw! --Wile e2005 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!"

Don Adams did not appear on the "The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!" According to IMDB, it was Maurice LaMarche.

Moral fiber

I personally do not see why people had to get upset over Dr. Claw's minions avoiding arrest in the second season's episodes. If they're recurring characters, doesn't that allow for better continuity?

"late" actors

Does Don Adams really need to be described as "the late"? In an encyclopedia, noting that a figure has passed away at every mention of their name is unnecessary, so single uses like this one are either inconsistent or set a bad precedent, considering the volume of articles that discuss dead historical figures. A link to their biography should be sufficient. There must be a guideline on this, but I can't find it. Anyone know of anything official, or at least a consensus somewhere? In any case, I'm removing it for now. -- Fru1tbat 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Music

I think under the music category it should be included that Dr.Steel(a notable musician) made a version of the Inspector Gadget theme song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.202.93 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

- The opening theme music is based (stolen) from the Fats Waller composition, "Zonky."

Mad Cat

Should I mention that Dr. Evil's cat has no relation with the 75 tone Clan Crusader Battlemech of the same name from Battletech (pic; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battletech_cover_legendofthejadephoenix.jpg) ? :D Lovok 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin story

I just deleted this long and implausible origin story from the article: it is totally unsourced and is even described as "non-provably canon". If someone can find a convincing reference for this story, go ahead and move it back in. AJD 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The folklore behind the creation of Inspector Gadget, stems initially from a similar platform as Star Wars. The alleged (non-provably canon) background to the story was that Ronald Gadget was a low-level worker at a meat processing plant, as a shift supervisor. One night whilst working late, he fell off a poorly designed walkway (did not have any rails) into the open maw of the hot dog rendering vat. Gadget was killed instantly by the swiftly-moving blades. Due to air pockets in his head, which was instsantly hewn from his torso, retained positive buoyancy, relative to the hotdog slurry. It floated to the surface and was recovered by the meat company's PR Representative, Dr Mortimer Claw. Realising that it could never be released to the public because it would destroy the company, Mortimer elected to send the head to the meat company's experimental cybertronics research facility; in Los Alamos, Nevada. Mortimer worked tirelessly, augmenting the head with more fantastical gadgets than were previously thought humanly possible. However, in an accident involving gamma rays, Mortimers hands were hideously burnt, whilst at the same time re-animating the head of Gadget. Gadget, in deference to his creator, replaced his master's mangled wrists with cybernetic claws. After sparing his master, Gadget was filled with a ferverous rage, realising his status as an abomination unto God and destroyed the laboratory in a fit of pious rage, warning Mortimer that he would destroy him should their paths entwine again, before vanishing into the shimmering haze of the desert beyond. Mortimer, a destroyed man, vowed to destroy his creation and the meat company which created him. Gadget, meanwhile in a paperwork mixup with the reknowned french inspector Renard Gadgét, was appointed to the jurisdiction free branch of the Metro City Police Department. Whilst at the same time a disturbingly similar paperwork mixup caused Mortimer Claw to hideously butcher Renard Gadgét while he slumbered in the customs line of Metro City International Airport. While Mortimer is at the customs lounge at the airport, he is set upon by an enraged customs dog which he wrests to the ground and augments in standard fashion, equipping it with a cybernetic brain and a radio collar. However the dog's pure understanding of natural justice causes it to reject Mortimer's evil, flawed, teachings and join Gadget in his quest to purify the world in a cleansing wave of gadgetry and blood.

That was a totally hilarious and well-written blatantly obvious troll. Whoever would think it was serious? groovygower (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Explanation?

How about this for an explanation of Dr Claw and Chief Quinby? Chief Quinby IS DR CLAW--his evil personalty is DR Claw and his good personalty is Chief Quinby. Only he has NO MEMORY OF BEING EITHER. THIS COULD explain WHY CHIEF Quinby always gets Dr Claw Evil plans: This could explain WHY DR CLAW IS NEVER CAUGHT by Inspector Gadgett. HOW did this happen-a combination of things-after having to put up with Inspector Gadgett's natural stupidy for years-the Chiefs mind snapped-like Inspector DREYFUS Mind did with CLOUSEAU. So while his good side is always chasing "EVIL"-his bad side is always to get Gaddget.

I had thought about something like that when I was young, but had to drop the idea after seeing an episode (don't remember the title) where Dr. Claw had captured chief Quimby. Dr. Claw had allowed chief Quimby to phone to Gadget, while parasiting the communication to lead Gadget into a trap. I don't think it is possible that they both share the same body in any way.

Fafner 09:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• True-but remember Dr Claw/CHIEF QUINBY is a Evil Genius-HE MADE A robot with a duplicate Dummy claw and by voice manipluation made it seem as if he "Captured" Quinby HIS "GOOD" SIDE. The "Duumy" was made DURING A BRIEF PERIOD WHEN HE WAS AWARE OF HIS SPLIT PERSONALTY. THAT EXPLAINS ONE SIDE OF HIS RAGE-that deep down Dr Claw is aware that part of his personality is "GOOD" WHO IS ALWAYS Ruining his plans of Evil-the other side of his rage is Gadget who by his monumental stupidy also ruins Dr Claws plans. Of course the exposure of Chief Quinby/Dr Claw can never happen in the series-for that would be the finale. Besides that explains one part of the orginal cartoon series-the end of the cartoon teaser when Gadgett comes upon Dr Claw arm and puts the handcuffs on him-only to find its a "Dummy" arm with a bomb!!

• One view I read was that Dr. Claw is actually Inspector Gadget. Cracked.com claims that this explains how both of them appear to be robots: "The main character is actually a robot duplicate of the man Claw once was, who was driven insane by an accident and now wants to destroy the machine that replaced him... This would also explain why nothing ever happens to Penny, even though Claw's cronies seem to catch her every episode: She always finds a way to ruin Claw's plans because she's the only thing he still cares for... remember the part at the end of the opening theme where Gadget turns Claw's chair around and there's a bomb in it? ...Perhaps there's no Claw, just Gadget." 2600:1002:B010:9679:549A:60F4:12B0:3729 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• There's a hint at the end of every episode (in the original series). I already noticed this as a kid in the 80's: during the final titles you'll see Chief Quimby walking into the frame while we hear "I'll get you next time Gadget, next time" with his lips moving accordingly. It has always been clear who Dr. Claw really is and why the Chief always shows up when Claw has escaped already. Eddy-B 12:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Coupla Voice Errors

Maurice LaMarche was credited as Gadget's voice "in later episodes." Not true, so I pulled it. LaMarche may well have voiced Gadget in other productions, but since this page is about the original 1983-85 series where Don Adams was the characters voice, La Marche's later role as Gadget is irrelevent. Also, some child voice actor who would have been ten years old when Gadget first aired was credited as a voice of Chief Quimby. Unless that kid suffered from a serious case of precocious puberty, it's unlikely he voiced the character. I removed the reference.  :Clownbird

Andy Heyward

The article mentions that Andy Heyward invented the show in 1982. However, Andy Heyward claims he was born in 1985. My guess is that the Andy Heyward article is very incorrect, unless he was a very precocious little spermatozoan... and somehow managed to survive three years without being otherwise "lost" in that time... *cough* --Jtgibson 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a piece of vandalism that went uncorrected for a solid month. Good catch. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. If we needed to disambiguate a page about the cartoon (which per Shannernanner, we don't), it should be called Inspector Gadget (cartoon), anyway, with a lower-case 'c'. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Inspector Gadget (Cartoon) → Inspector Gadget — SlipKnotMask (talk · contribs) moved this page out of WP conventions. There is no need to do so as it is a stable name. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose. There were two motion pictures by that name released by Disney. I suspect articles on those films will be created eventually. Robotman1974 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; I'm not sure why this was needed, I was attempting to revert the move myself when I noticed this. It's not the proper disambig, as well as not needing a disambig. It's the most prevalent use of the title, any subsequent use is a spinoff or remake of the original and should itself use a disambig. If anyone ever makes an article on the character, it should also use a disambig. Shannernanner 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. What Shannernanner said. --Paul A 08:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gadget's Anatomy

I moved this from the article. It's borderline original research, but mostly drawing conclusions from speculative data. While intresting, I don't think it has a place in this article. At the very least it needs to be reformated so it isn't simply a list. --The_stuart 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bringing all the above evidence together, we can piece together a fairly good picture of Inspector Gadget's anatomy...

Human elements

• Inspector Gadget is very much a human being.
• Most of his gadgets are actually contained in his clothing, although he does have internal implants, thus making him a cyborg.
• Externally, he appears completely normal (even without his clothes).
• He has a normal human face and eyes.
• His body is covered with normal skin, with a normal nervous system and sense of touch and pain.
• Internally, he has all his human organs, including lungs and a complete digestive system.
• He has a normal human brain, and a completely human mind (if a little on the dim side).

Internal gadgets

• His only significant internal gadgets reside in his neck, wrists and ankles. These allow his head, hands and feet to extend telescopically.
• Where the telescopic body parts separate from the rest of the body, there are joins. These joins must be well-disguised, as you cannot see them from a distance.
• The telescopic body parts can't have biological pathways running through them; therefore, all the blood, air and electronic impulses must be diverted through artificial conduits, allowing the limbs to extend and rotate freely.
• He also has gadgets installed in his fingers, alongside real skin and tissue (his hands are not prosthetic).

Gadgets in his clothing

• The vast majority of Inspector Gadget's gadgets reside in his specialized clothing (hat, coat, shoes and tie).
• Everything that comes out of his hat is — incredibly — contained within the hat, and does not come from his head. Similarly, the gadget skates and skis are contained within his shoes.
• It is not clear whether the gadget cuffs reside in the coat or inside his arm.
• All the gadget clothing can be taken off, but he prefers to keep as much of it on whenever possible because he loves having the gadgets at his disposal (just like people who wear their wristwatch in bed, or take their cellular phone everywhere they go).
• There has to be some kind of interface to connect Gadget's internal circuitry with the circuitry in his clothing; this interface is most probably wireless (thus he has no external connections on his body). However, the fact that his hat never seems to fall off suggests that there is a physical connection between his hat and his head.

Computers

• There is never any suggestion in the series that Inspector Gadget has anything other than a normal human brain. He doesn't store things in his 'data banks', he doesn't have advanced intelligence or memory, and he doesn't have the persona of an android. His brain is therefore not computer-based or computer-enhanced.
• It is most likely however that he would have an internal CPU somewhere in his body, needed to manage the complicated network of machinery and to operate any automated gadget functions.
• Since he seems to be able to activate the gadgets with thought, it can be assumed that trigger signals for all the gadgets are hooked into his neural network, allowing the gadgets to be controlled like a part of his own body. This principle is reflected in the newly emerging real-life science of mind-controlled prosthetic limbs. (Perhaps there will even be a time when everyone can have gadgets installed like Inspector Gadget?)

more unencyclopedic borderline original research moved from the main article --The_stuart 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Status as a superhero

Inspector Gadget has many qualities associated with superheroes, which raises the question: is Inspector Gadget a superhero?

In favor:

• Extraordinary and unique super-human powers (including, notably, the ability to fly).
• A strong moral code and sense of duty (including a willingness to put his life at risk for the service of good and an unwillingness to hurt or kill anyone).
• A distinctive costume which is worn as a uniform when fighting crime.
• A strong motif/theme running through his name, his tools and the names for his tools (ie gadgets).
• An archenemy (ie Dr. Claw).
• A sidekick (ie Corporal Capeman).

Against:

• No secret Identity to protect his loved-ones from becoming targets (interestingly, in Gadget's case, the loved ones are the ones operating covertly/in disguise)
• Costume is not flamboyant (although his sidekick, Corporal Capeman, wears one of the most quintessential and flamboyant superhero costumes imaginable)

In conclusion, Inspector Gadget has almost all the common traits associated with superheroes, and therefore can indeed be considered a superhero, if a slightly unconventional one. Unlike many superheroes, Gadget does not use a secret identity, but neither did the members of the Fantastic Four, all of whom fall strongly into the category of superheroes. Also, despite being highly distinctive, Gadget's costume is very formal, and not at all flamboyant (however, his sidekick's costume does a lot to compensate for this).

More...--The_stuart 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Inspector Gadget: man or machine?

One of the biggest mysteries about Inspector Gadget is his anatomy: how much of him is human and how much is cyborg? (Or, how much is 'Inspector' and how much is 'gadget'?) He is, apparently, a 'normal man' with a few gadgets inside him, but it is not obvious how much is really left of the normal man. Technically, he could just be a robot with a human brain. Since it is a cartoon, we don't even know if his face is supposed to be real or synthetic.

Cyborg evidence

• Some part of his vision must be technological, since his eyes move (and sound) like a typewriter when he reads.
• His head, hands, and feet cannot be connected to the rest of his body via organic pathways. (If there were any, they would break when he extended his neck, arms, or legs, or after he span his head round a few times.)
• His hands must be mostly mechanical, since almost all of his fingers seem to contain hidden gadgets (keys, laser etc) so there would be no room for normal organic components (bones etc.).

Human evidence

• Inspector Gadget was born human and had his gadgets installed at some point in the past by Professor von Slickstein (as revealed in The Amazon).
• Inspector Gadget is seen eating or drinking on many occasions.
• He has a respiratory system and needs air to breathe. (This is made very clear in Launch Time where he is locked in a room with no air and begins suffocating.)
• He feels pain, and has nerves in his hands. (In the safety tip at the end of one episode, Gadget cuts his thumb with lobster crackers and feels pain.)
• His feet and lower legs all appear normal from the outside (In Luck of the Irish, we see him running around in his bedrobe, barefoot.)
• His eyes are biological. (In the safety tip at the end of one episode, Gadget gets something in his eye and pulls his eyelash out in order to let the tears wash it out.)
• Although we never see him remove his hat, suggesting it is a part of him (he even sleeps with it on!), there is an episode where we see his drawer full of identical hats. We can assume therefore that the hat does come off.
• Objects pass through the top of his head that are so large, it seems as though his head would have to be almost hollow to accommodate them. However, in Do Unto Udders, he doffs his hat to a lady by producing a gadget hand holding another hat; this hat, in turn, produces its own gadget hand holding a hat. If the produced hat (with no wearer) can itself produce another gadget hand (and another hat), then clearly it is being implied that gadgets do somehow come out of the hat and not the Inspector's head, presumably using some incredible kind of compression technology. Thus, Inspector Gadget does have a brain.

Merge proposal

I think this page and Inspector_Gadget:_The_Original_Series should be merged. All that page contains is the TV show's DVD release info and nothing else. The name of that page seems better though? Peter Tangney 03:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clouseau threat: MCA or MGM?

Hi guys,

I thought Inspector Clouseau was owned by MGM (through United Artists), not MCA. Maybe someone should check on who threatened to sue DIC...--TServo2049 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. MGM threatened them, if anyone. -- Sslaxx, 14-Jan-2007 19:05GMT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.34.212 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Unexplained Facts

This is a pointless list

why does gagdet have rotor blades in his head? why does the chief never die when he gets blown up? IT'S A CHILDREN'S CARTOON FFS!!!

86.133.161.69 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The section seems more fitting for a fan site than an Encyclopdia, so I removed it. -MentosC 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained facts are a big part of Inspector Gadget, this section is not pointless. --The_stuart 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How old is Penny/Sophie?

How old is Penny/Sophie? Any idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.53.77.12 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I think I read somewhere she was 9 years old. Fafner 06:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, her age was never given in the series. I think during first season she looked pretty young and I'd say 8 maybe - and by second season she looked a little older maybe 10. When newer Gadgetini series she looks taller and older - probably about 14. But then again, cartoon characters never age. Cyberia23 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD

According to B. Ward of Shout! that FOX was going to continue releasing IG on DVD from were Shout Factory left off.

Fair use rationale for Image:Gadgetmobile.jpg

Image:Gadgetmobile.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 Wikipedia articles 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 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gadget2.jpg

Image:Gadget2.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 Wikipedia articles 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 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Latinamerican Name

The show was named "Inspector Truquini" in Mexico and several Latinamerican countries - at least some of the episodes were titled like that. I remember this quite well, but I'm unable to find a definite source so it can be verified. Can I include a Youtube video link if I happen to find a version of the intro with the name dubbed in? -- Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit - forgot to add, the Inspector Gadget article in Spanish Wikipedia briefly mentions this alternate name, but I'm unsure if I should add it as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsune Sniper (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Animé or Not?

So, is this series a Japanesse Animé or just a Cartoon?  Doktor  Wilhelm  —Preceding comment was added at 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is only a cartoon. It did not originate in Japan, nor were the characters designed in the manga style. SpinyMcSpleen (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it WAS animated overseas in Japan, yet the show was still made for America, since their mouth movements perfectly match up with their dialogue, etc. --Wile e2005 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It goes to France, too (for storyboarding) -- so, does that make it a French cartoon? No, it doesn't. 98.16.173.197 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"nor were the characters designed in the manga style.", actually the style of the characters fit very much into styles used for Animé at the time!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've answered your own question, then, haven't you? 75.88.84.234 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I do not believe that this article is strictly NPOV. It overuses insulting terms when referring to Gadget, himself, most notably, "bumbling" and "incompetent". Should this article be tagged as such? SpinyMcSpleen (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, i think the character might be considered bumbling and incompetent by the creators and writers. He is a fictional character, i don't think this constitutes libel. Sanitycult (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hadley Kay was not Quimby

On the IMDb, it states quite clearly that Hadley Kay was "Additional Voices". Granted, that may have included Chief Quimby at one point, but for the first season, it was Chris Wiggins who voiced Quimby. You can go there and check for yourself -- I'd put in a reference, but I don't know how to make them myself. IMDb cast and crew listing for Inspector Gadget. SpinyMcSpleen (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anime.

Inspector Gadget was originally Japanese. There's not much if any info on it's Japanese origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Both the character and the show were created by Andy Heyward (who is not Japanese) in Canada (which is not in Japan). Ergo, Inspector Gadget is no more Japanese than The Red Green Show. 75.88.86.187 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

The "In Popular Culture" section seems entirely pointless. The only text is a reference is to the fact that the theme music was sampled in a record, which to my mind isn't a "popular culture" reference. Any objections to removing the section? 217.155.138.250 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Get Smart.

I can see why they picked Don Adams to do Gadget; Gadget is alot like Don's 70s alter ego Maxwell Smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note, Wikipedia discussion pages are not forums to generally discuss the topic -- they are intended to be areas where contributors may discuss ways to improve the article. 98.16.176.135 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Bruno Bianchi link

Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Claw's Voice

Is Claw's voice based on John Entwistle's delivery in the Who song 'Boris The Spider'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.163.157 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely. Probably, Welker just wanted the voice to sound evil. In any case, it's all speculation, as there's no explanation anywhere for the reasoning behind Claw's voice. 98.23.128.209 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Robot Chicken - Cyberdyne

Shouldnt thier be information about RC's parody of Terminator and Gadget? I dont think the listed parody is the one, and if it is, the plot should be explained. 65.30.143.155 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New series (2009)

What about the new series of Inspector Gadget?? It was said that in 2009 will be aired (go at inspector-gadget.net) so maybe you can insert some note about this, eh??

83.23.36.227 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has been proven fake. You can see from the "promotional" art, DiC logo is choppy, and the fact that it's 2010 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.159.22 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Inspector Gadget on Nickelodeon, Family Channel and CBS in the 1990s

I think the article should mention that this series also was aired on Nickelodeon, Family Channel and CBS because I do remember watching this on Saturday mornings on CBS as reruns the same with Nickelodeon, and Family Channel. I tried to add that it did air on CBS but it was removed as if it were vandalism. Red Polar Bear Ranger (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it was removed for being unsourced - your personal memory is uncitable, and even possibly unreliable - what you remember as airing on CBS could have actually been your local CBS station airing the show in syndication. Besides, if we were to start adding in every station or network that ever ran the show all over the world, the article would quickly become unmanageable - as it is, the "Broadcast History" section is overly larhe and (for the most part) completely unsourced as well. Information about its status during its original production period is sufficient. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this series first aired in my hometown on WGBS-TV which is now WPSG in the 1980s but I do remember promos stating that that it was aired on CBS in the 1990s on Saturday mornings as part of its Saturday morning line up and this was also aired on Family Channel and Nickelodeon too other wise I'm ain't lying about my info either I usually provide accurate info.

Red Polar Bear Ranger (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No it was not on CBS, I don't know if it was on Family Channel, and yes it was on Nickelodeon, you can look at old TV guides and see. There's no need to have that info in the opening section when it's in the "Broadcast History" section. Powergate92Talk 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Hudecki_(2nd_nomination)

FYI. "He was storyboard supervisor for the first season of Inspector Gadget." Ikip 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Going to delete 2 sections

I propose to delete the following 2 sections: "Gadget's Ancestors" and "Other villains and M.A.D. agents".

Both of these sections list non-recurring characters who only appear in single episodes and are not important to the show in general. The "Other villains" section in particular just reads like an episode guide and is not about the show in general.

While there some intereting trivia in these sections, and I appreciate the trouble it took someone to write them, I strongly feel that any trivia that is of particular importance/significance should be moved to another section, where it has some relevance to the show as a whole, in a more general way. In any case, the article should not be listing the events of individual episodes. If nothing else, it clogs up the start of the article.

I think both of these sections should be deleted, and I am going to delete them both in a few weeks' time unless there are any objections?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UK airing on Channel 4

I remember watching this show in the early 90s in the UK, and I'm fairly certain it was on Channel 4 (it may have been ITV but I doubt it) so does anyone have air dates for this (isn't in the article)? I didn't have Sky or anything so it was definitelly one of the terrestrial channels. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Relation to the movie Go Go Gadget

Is there a relation to the movie Go Go Gadget? If yes, please add it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.89.237 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

= dr. claw inspiration

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Dr. No was the inspiration for Dr. Claw. He never showed his face until the end, and even the cartoon version of Dr. No had metal hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.193.23 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Request For an add. Detail

in voice section i learned that the first inspector's voice was with a British tone but i was unable to determine whether the french version has been done based on the us version ..or if perhaps the studio in Canada was doing the french version simultaneously if anyone finds this info pls share it i'd be grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.12.186 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: In-line opinions without citations

Within the first paragraph under the heading Premise of the section Background, is stated: "...with help from his faithful niece Penny, who is a genius..."

This line is an opinion. Stating Penny is a genius in such a manner without verifying this claim is unencyclopedic. Having grown up on this series, I have known the character of Penny to be competent [by comparison to her uncle, Gadget], but not a "genius." On one occasion in the later series in which Penny, Brain, and Gadget reside in the technologically advanced Gadget house, Dr. Claw sends agents to eliminate Gadget. Brain reports the trouble to Penny, buy this only results in Penny nearly getting in trouble [with Mrs./Ms. Blockentackle (spellcheck name)] for not paying attention in class: "Penny, you're not paying attention." This brief scene suggests that Penny is an "average" student in an "average" school classroom; evidence that however intelligent she may be, Penny is not a genius.

The genius claim within the article is only a personal opinion, and dubious at that. I suggest that if a reliable source can not be found to back the claim that Penny is a genius, that the line in question be corrected as appropriate.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

John Lithgow's voice

Judging by the sound of Inspector Gadget's vocal appearance in the cartoon series I always thought he was voiced by John Lithgow who even looks really A LOT like Inspector Gadget (both physically and by character) when you think about it! John Lithgow should have played Inspector Gadget in some movie (but surely not in the one staring Matthew Broderick cause the script was terrible (they even mishit the genre - they put way too much emphasis on (pseudo)science and action (did someone say Robocop) on what should be simply a comedy) and entire crew apparently had not much clue about what they were doing ...or did they... But anyhow figure that casting... and they didn't even bother with Gadget's hairstyle - yeah why would they - right - why would that "detail" matter to them :) . They were onto something when they casted French Stewart in the sequel (being that he was previously co-staring with Lithgow himself in the 3rd Rock From The Sun show - so that was a move toward the right direction) - but not quite.

Specifically for the US?

Within the first paragraphs of the article:

This is the first syndicated cartoon show from DIC Entertainment (as well as the first from the company to be created specifically for US viewers, along with The Littles).

There's no citation to support this statement. It's not present in the French version of the article.

The series played simultaneously in France, US and Canada. Moreover, the French intro music is not just an overdub but a fairly different performance: Intro in French and English.
--Hrimhariw (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Inspector Gadget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905093719/http://www.kickassclassical.com:80/classical-music-popular-famous-best-composers-a-z.html to http://www.kickassclassical.com/classical-music-popular-famous-best-composers-a-z.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304030213/http://saban.com:80/html/music.html to http://www.saban.com/html/music.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate

Once Dallas and ThunderCats got revivals, their original pages were renamed accordingly, so the same should be done here. Also, this page is covering too much, especially since we have an entire franchise page covering beyond this series. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anythingspossibleforapossible, can you please be more specific about what you think should be changed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, on second thought, it isn't that bad (I thought the legacy and spin-off was the same as the franchise page, but it's not). It should still be renamed, though. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingspossibleforapossible To what? If you want to see something change, you really should consider being more specific. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, now I don't have to be specific on every minute detail. You should really be able to work these things out for yourself. It should be renamed to "Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series)" (I did use Dallas and ThunderCats as an example). -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah good, finally a proposal someone can sink their teeth into. You're right, you don't have to be specific or provide detail, but if you want people to actually consider your thoughts, it might be a good idea going forward, but if you don't care, neither do I. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it should go ahead. I want everyone to know that this should happen. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Series premiere in other English-speaking countries

Does anyone know the series premiere for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland?

Genre

Does the genre really need sourcing? That's like saying we need a source to confirm that Star Trek is science-fiction and adventure. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you read Template:Infobox television? The answer is yes. Genre is subjective and thus, needs sourcing, especially when someone unilaterally decides that Inspector Gadget is a science fiction series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Japanese co-production?

In this edit BlueMario1016 added Japan to the list of production nations. I'd like to see references that describe this series as a Japanese co-production, which would be the purpose of the nation field. The article describes the animation as having been outsourced to a Japanese company, but that doesn't necessarily warrant a change to the nation of origin. The Simpsons used/uses South Korean animators for years but is not considered an America–Korean production. Numerous Nickelodeon shows were animated by companies in India, New Zealand, etc, but are still consider American series. By contrast, a S1E7 credit indicate it was a DIC production, with FR3 and Nelvana as co-producers. No Japanese company is indicated as a co-producer. So, short story, references needed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pilot

Add the pilot Sausagea1000 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502050958/http://www.dhxmedia.com/shows/animation/inspectorgadget.html to http://dhxmedia.com/shows/animation/inspectorgadget.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inspector Gadget (1983 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927085118/http://www.cjar.com/cj_shows_gadget.php to http://www.cjar.com/cj_shows_gadget.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720132536/http://blogs.detroitnews.com/geekwatch/2011/08/16/go-go-gadget-comic-book/ to http://blogs.detroitnews.com/geekwatch/2011/08/16/go-go-gadget-comic-book/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Science fiction and other genres

The infobox establishes the series as an action adventure comedy science fiction suspense series. That is quite the mouthful for a children's cartoon. Though I get that each of those labels is sourced, we typically care what the majority of sources consider the series, not what individuals consider the series, even if sourced, and genre salads like this just tend to look ridiculous. Genre should describe the overall shape of the series, not try to spotlight every narrative technique employed in the series. SpongeBob uses dramatic elements in its storytelling, but it is not a drama series. I would argue that the smart thing is to look at a dozen sources and find out where they all agree. My guess is that it'll be somewhere in the "action adventure" or "adventure comedy" area. Note also that while the Template:Infobox television instructions limit genre labels to 4, when this was discussed, some people felt that 2 genres were enough.

Similarly, in the lead we identify the series as a science fiction cartoon series, and we've added article categories to match. If the multitude of sources are describing the series as sci-fi, then I understand why this was added, but if it's just one guy's opinion, we should changes this. John Scott's opinions about sci-fi themes in the series might be valid for inclusion in a section on analysis or critical response, but if science fiction is not the prevailing classification for this series, it should be replaced with what the majority says. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

the animation section needs to be updated a little

so, here is what i purpose:

After the pilot, the first 64 22½-minute episodes were written, designed, storyboarded, and voice-recorded in Canada at Nelvana Animation Studio (which co-produced the series under DiC's supervision), with creative supervision by Jean Chalopin. Bruno Bianchi was the Supervising Director. Most of those episodes were animated in Tokyo, Japan by Tokyo Movie Shinsha, while a few episodes were animated in Taiwan by Cuckoo's Nest Studio, before being finished in post production by DiC and Nelvana. The pilot episode, "Winter Olympics" (a.k.a. "Gadget in Wonderland"), was animated by TMS's subsidiary, Telecom Animation Film and had a slightly higher budget than the rest of the episodes. legendary animatior Hayao Miyazaki (who was working at TMS at the time), provided key animation for the pilot. Toei Animation, Sunrise, and Anime International Company contributed some of the animation for this series.

Nelvana was not involved with the show's 21-episode second season, in which pre-production was now moved to DiC's own Los Angeles-based headquarters. The animation and post-production was generally done at K.K. DiC Asia (later Creativity & Development Asia), a Japanese animation house Jean Chalopin co-founded that DiC had some ownership in at the time.

and before you say anything, here is what i found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMS_Entertainment#Foray_into_animation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toei_Animation#Commission_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_(company)#Non-Japanese_productions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime_International_Company#History — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetcold0 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dead link on reference

In specific the reference:

7: "Watch Out, Evildoers and Bad Guys, Here Comes Inspector Gadget". PostIMG.org. Lexington Broadcast Services Company, Inc. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2016.

The link specified is dead. I just don't know how to indicate that. PaulStSmith (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit should have fixed it EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)