Talk:Journey's End (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The montage of those who died[edit]

The montage of people who have died because they new the Doctor include Ursula Blake (from Love & Monsters) and Jenny (from The Doctor's Daughter). Ursula didn't die, but was trapped in a flagstone. Likewise, Jenny regenerated. - Keith D. Tyler 08:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The doctor doesn't know that jenny is still alive so thats why we see her in the montage as thats what the doctor is pretty much thinking. As for ursula well unless if im corrected she died in a way as she is trapped she won't have normal life no more. Pro66 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that quite a few people that died were'nt even mentioned. --Cameron* 17:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. Dalek Sec. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tardis is sent to incinerator?[edit]

if you listen to the dialog you'll hear that the crucible has a heart of <insert approiate technobabble energy here>, no mention is made of the tardis being incinerated81.157.181.72 (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparently the Crucible has Zed Nutreno energy Andy5421 (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie and Mickey as companions: arbitrary break[edit]

A prior discussion of this largely unresolved topic can be found here
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a my piece - I do not believe that just because someone was a companions before they automatically become a companion whenever they appear. Nor does the BBC website "source" for Mickey being a companion say that. I know Rose is a silly example - but look at her cameos in Partners in Crime, Poison Sky and Midnight. She is clearly not a companion there - and if the BBC website was a key "for once a companion always a companion" (as people seem to be using it) - then it would mean that Rose was a companion in those ones, when it would be completely silly to have Rose as a companion for those. To add another part into the equation, is he a companion in the series 1 episodes he appeared in before an official companion? I don't see anyone arguing that people become companions in guest star appearances before they joined as a companion (to use another example, no-one counts Nyssa as a companion in Keeper of Traken) - so why do people become companions if they show up in a few guest star appearances after they stop being a companion. If this is what is being used, why is Mickey a companion here, and not in Doomsday? And what about Sarah Jane in School Reunion? Now onto Jackie. She was never a companion. The only reason she travelled in the Tardis in Army of Ghosts was to get her to the place where she would be written out, rather than for her to become a companion. She didn't want to go with the Doctor (she says that she was kidnapped) and he didn't want to go with her (look at his face when he relises she's there) So her returning - and again only travelling in the Tardis to get her to a place where she can be written out - does not make her a companion in this story either. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People should get over the notion that such-and-such person is/isn't a companion in such-and-such episode. That borders on original research. The only things that we can state are 1) when a character becomes a companion (this is often accompanied by media attention) and 2) episodes that companion characters appear in. The BBC states that Mickey is a companion character who appears in this episode. End of story. Let's move on to something else. DonQuixote (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A point you never addressed is that, if we followed said system, Mickey would be a companion in Army of Ghosts / Doomsday and Sarah Jane would be in School Reunion. U-Mos (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If we followed said system, then Mickey would be a companion character who appears in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday and Sarah Jane would be a companion character who appears in School Reunion. Again, I think we should make policy less ambiguous. We should probably move away from "behaving as companion" in such-and-such episode to "companion character who appears" in such-and-such episode. DonQuixote (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. To clarify, by "a companion in" I mean "under companion in the infobox". Beacuse that's the important thing. So what gets me, is this episode seems to have exemption from the ordinary practices. I agree with policy being made less ambiguous on this also in theory, but there would always be people who technically make the grade on a clear-cut definition, but are almost universally not thought of as a companion. That's where the issue comes. U-Mos (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh...I really didn't want to get this involved in this discussion (I stayed out of most of it). Yes, I know that this is about the infobox. You seem to think that only "behaves as a companion in" belongs there and aren't even considering "companion (current and/or previous) who appears in". Mickey "behaving" as a companion in the episode is a matter of opinion. Mickey, who has been a companion, "appearing" in the episode is a fact. DonQuixote (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Don. The problem is that determining who "acts as a companion" in a given story is, by its nature, subjective. Does K-9 "act as a companion" in "Journey's End"? What about in "The Five Doctors"? People can argue this sort of thing back and forth forever. But it's much more difficult to argue whether such-and-such a character is a companion who appears in the story under discussion. If we agree to treat the "companion" field in the infobox as referring to "companions who appear in this story" rather than "characters who act as companions in this story", there's a lot less room for argument. Incidentally, that rule would allow Nyssa to be listed as a companion in her first story, which I think makes intuitive sense even if technically she doesn't join the Doctor as a companion until Logopolis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am not considering "companion (current and/or previous) who appears in", is because that is not considered in any other episode article. Again, Sarah Jane in School Reunion. Mickey in the series 2 finale. I don't really have anything against that precedent, but it shouldn't apply here and nowhere else. U-Mos (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and that's why we constantly discuss and edit the articles. As I've said, we should probably solidify this as part of project policy. I'm all for it, and a couple of other people are too. DonQuixote (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm pretty neutral in what considerations are used as long as it is consistent. More detailed guidelines on companionship would be welcome, and that's something worth raising on the project talk page if you ask me. U-Mos (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't tell you what I'm thinking right now"[edit]

What does Captain Jack mean by it? --217.227.70.113 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind the esteemed user of WP:FORUM, but, for clarities sake, it is likely he was referring to some sort of three/foursome, but this is thouroughly OR, and would require a reliable source before it can be added to the article - weebiloobil (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does he or doesn't he die?[edit]

It says once he finishes regeneration he transfers the energy, but I didn't think that he regenerated. Doe he? Toa Zach (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We simply don't know. Tennant says in the confidential for this episode that the decision whether the Doctor "used up a regeneration" doing so or not is something for future debate and that he won't address the issue. So all we know is that it is deliberately left unclear whether there is a regeneration and everything would be speculation. Regards SoWhy 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to watch this sequence again to understand it, but I think it's certain the Doctor does not regenerate. He definitely states that the regeneration procedure was stopped before a new persona could emerge, so it is the tenth Doctor, and not an eleventh, who emerges from this event. It seems that the energy required to complete a regeneration is re-directed into the preserved hand conveniently placed nearby. Since this seems to be a rather important point of continuity, I have added some wording to the plot synopsis to clarify it. As for whether or not this 'uses up' one of a limited number of regeneration efforts: I suppose it must do, since it appears that the full amount of energy required for a regeneration was used up in healing the tenth Doctor and later creating the Doctor-Donna. It remains to be seen whether or not the new series observes the continuity point of allowing only twelve regenerations in a natural cycle. Alfrew (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caan said one would still die[edit]

Dalek Caan's final prophesy was something to the effect that one of the children of time would still die. In the Canadian hacked broadcast, this was not explained. Donna as a Time Lord? The new human time lord? Was it made clear in the BBC broadcast? Ronstew (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get to see the last scene where Donna's returned to her family? The circumstances surrounding that is a sort of death. DonQuixote (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was shown. Could be. The death that Donna expected in Turn Left was pretty much the same, wasn't it? I am inclined to think that the new Doctor being mortal fulfills the prophecy. Anyway, it is not spelled out explicitly, so I don't think adding it to the article will be helpful since it will be full of OR. Ronstew (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While that's probably the 'intent' of the writing, a more literal interpretation would be that Jack was killed by a Dalek while aboard the ship, thus fulfilling the prophecy, despite the fact that he comes back to life every time he dies. If you watch Torchwood, it's made rather clear that he dies and then comes back (rather than simply not dying in the first place.) Caan said that one would still die, probably not realising that one had already died and thus fulfilled the prophecy. Shivafang (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of CBC broadcast[edit]

Given Wikipedia's 20th century thinking with regards to blogs, I'm hesitant to use them as sources with regards to the fact the CBC got their a**es handed to them by fans and the blogisphere over their handling of the episode. DWIN, being the main Canadian fan group and one actually linked to by the CBC on its website, can be cited safely, but I wonder if anyone has seen any printed media criticizing the editing of the episode? 23skidoo (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As pointed out, this episode was edited rather roughly in the CBC version. There are also reruns airing on BBCA which have been edited to make way for the commercials of a 60 minute time slot. I've now had the chance to watch it two nights in a row (don't ask.) But I've noticed that key bits of dialog and scenes are missing. It seems random. Like one episode cuts out part of the scene on the beach, specifically the bit with Rose asking the Doctor(s) what he was going to tell her and the subsequent kiss. But the next rerun contains this scene. I'm not quite sure where to look for sources about this or why BBCA did this. I will not add this point to the article as I have no sources and doubt I will find any time (or the desire) to search for them. But I though this observation should be noted in the talk page for future reference if someone needs it (or thinks they are hallucinating.)Dogsgomoo (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the IDW comic relevant?[edit]

Can the IDW comic series be considered relevant to the article, with regards to similar inclusions from the novels, audio dramas, and the Marvel strips?

I'm hoping this will deal with the edit war going on here, at least keeping the discussion out of the edit history. My personal opinion would be that there is no real canon, as RTD has said, and trying to define canon is impossible for this case. That being said, I'm in favor of just wiping the whole continuity section, as truth be told, it seems to be little more than cruft.TheGreenFaerae (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary against anything which doesn't get first release or near-immediate second release (a la Five Doctors) in the UK. The IDW series is in America, and we know how our friends across the pond have botched the show's fundamental concepts before... Sceptre (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is fair, but when the TV Movie was considered canonical while having apparently no knowledge of the show prior to getting a production check, the IDW series which was personally overseen by Gary Russel and received RTD's blessing and has proven to be at least on par with the DWM comics in terms of quality can hardly be considered blasphemous. Not to make it personal but, if you are unfamiliar with the material itself, how can you fairly review it? For the record, the reason the books have not received UK release is entirely legal in nature, resulting from licensing issues with Marvel, who owns the UK rights to Doctor Who comics.137.229.131.34 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sycorax comic from DWM isn't mentioned in the Christmas Invasion article at all. Similarly, the Eighth Doctor/Agatha Christie audio adventure(s) aren't mentioned in the Unicorn and the Wasp article. As far as relevance goes... television overrides Big Finish audios overrides books overrides any other licenced material. Sceptre (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the original edit, if the original editor had waited for issue 6, then he would have found out that it's not the half-human Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

music from journeys end[edit]

hi can anyone tell me the name of the song from journeys end the song thats playing when they pulled earth back to our rightful place thanks for helping my wife will be happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.223.28 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Series 4 soundtrack, it's listed as "Song of Freedom". DonQuixote (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donna's Return[edit]

Should it say final episode for Donna Noble? We seem to know now she'll return for the Christmas Special (possibly called Last Days). 78.146.202.228 (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says it marks her final appearance as continuing companion, which is accurate. We don't know what her role in the Christmas specials is and speculation is inappropriate. Strictly speaking, as well, this remains her final appearance until the special airs. Incidentally, there's no reliable source for any episode titles at present. Maccy69 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm glad she's gone. She was a complete witch (to put it nicely). --SDSpivey (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't say "final appearance", as that itself would be speculative (given there is evidence she will appear in the Christmas special). MultipleTom (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Group ???[edit]

Nine people in the TARDIS at once, 2 Doctors, Donna, Rose, Martha, Sara Jane, Capt. Jack, Micky, and Jackie.

I was wondering, is this the largest number of people that has been shown inside since the very beginning? --SDSpivey (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Who cares? Mezigue (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you could be bothered to work it out, it'd definitely be original research to include it. My guess would be The Invasion of Time. Maccy69 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probability[edit]

If all of creation could be destroyed why hasn’t an alternate version of Davros done it googolplex years ago? It’s like the monkey typing Shakespeare if it’s possible it happens some were in the Multiverse

Clarity[edit]

"it was the first longest regular episode of Doctor Who. " From the article. What is meant by this? 86.45.199.69 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all, it's drivel, I'll correct it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor[edit]

I wish someone would write the wiki article on the Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor... — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happily there is already an article for Deus Ex Machina.  ;) Mezigue (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI SIR I WANT TO SAY THAT OIR MEMOREY VERY WEAK SO THAT I AM ADVICING YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.72.158 (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Journey's End (Doctor Who). 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:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Journey's End (Doctor Who). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Journey's End (Doctor Who). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the default page when you search for journey’s end?[edit]

No offense, but that is disgraceful. I’m sure R.C. Sherriff is rolling in his grave. 2601:C3:C200:1460:FCCE:EE1:AB0F:E969 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The default is Journey's End. If you're talking about the drop down box, this page is probably the most popular. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journey%27s_End_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1207865821"