Talk:The Time of Angels/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

River Song

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Could it be possible that River really is a companion? Because in the clip in "Doctor Who: The Ultimate Guide", she was flying the TARDIS and anybody flying it or in it when it travels would be a companion, right? Goku1st (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly, someone's a companion when a reliable source says they're a companion ... Edgepedia (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FORUM—thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 11:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

source

Thanks. Some of that information may be quite useful to this artical, particularly that bit about the TARDIS piloting scene being inserted because of the weather problem. DonQuixote (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. That blog entry by Moffat himself is a great find. You can sense his own fan enthusiasm as he writes about standing on location looking at photos of himself in the same spot that were loaded minutes before by fans. Er, it contains encyclopedic information too, of course... Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'Graham Norton Advert' Controversy

Earlier today I posted the article below. It was removed, so I put it back. This happened several times and finally I got a warning from Wikipedia telling me I was engaged in an Edit War and that my content was controversial.

I believe both accusations to be untrue. I wanted to keep the story online because it related to the topic and it is not in any way controversial or argumentative. Nothing in the article is untrue and it is written from a neutral viewpoint. Check Twitter trending if you don't believe it. Also, visit http://www.denofgeek.com/television/471290/open_letter_to_whoever_put_a_graham_norton_graphic_over_tonights_doctor_who.html for proof.

I have asked several hundreds of my contacts via Twitter/Facebook etc to pass the content of the article around their own contacts and if they notice it disappears from the page, to post it again, so blocking me will do no good as I will not be posting again.

Here is the content of the article. Read and see for yourself that it is nothing but the truth, and completely neutral.

During the closing minutes of the original BBC One broadcast, as tension was being built up to a cliffhanger, an advert appeared on screen for the next show Over the Rainbow which featured a cartoon version of Graham Norton. This caused mass outrage amongst fans who claimed that the tension had been completely deflated. The terms "Graham Norton" and "Doctor Who" temporarily became worldwide trends on Twitter immediately following the initial broadcast. Comedian Simon Pegg was one of the highest profile fans to mention the incident in his Tweets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.212.43 (talk • contribs)

I notice that complaints about an intrusive "Coming Next" trailer broadcast over the cliffhanger of the original broadcast have shown up in comments on Moffat's blog, though it's too early to tell whether this will make any news coverage (which I would regard as an absolute minimum requirement for coverage here).
For what it's worth, this was a property of the live broadcast only. The version on Virgin's "Catch Up" feature, for instance, is the full episode without a hint of Graham Norton. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Brightly-coloured, appearing over a darkly-coloured program, less than a minute before displaying exactly the same information over the credits? Let's hope it gets some attention... 81.86.49.118 (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right in points. It is neutral, and it is true. But it is not notable under the current amount of coverage. If it is reported on, or if the BBC issues a statement about it, it can be included with that. Wait until then though. There is this [1] however, but being a (albeit very professionally run) blogspot I doubt it is acceptable? U-Mos (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
how about this report on it then? http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s7/doctor-who/news/a216394/doctor-who-fans-angered-by-pop-up-norton.html 86.130.227.103 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The BBC officially apologised for it after getting 3,000 complaints, so it's probably notable now. Now to wait for some wag to call it Rainbowgate. Sceptre (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Rainbowgate? I think we should wait for a comment from Zippy and Bungle before going that far! Given the setting, I wouldn't have been too surprised if Father Noel Furlong had appeared and announced the winner of the screeching competition. --TS 22:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Weeping Angles' Leitmotif?

When the Weeping Angels are mentioned for the first time, at around 11 1/2 minutes in, the incidental music includes the repeated chord motif that appeared in Blink when the angel is seen for the first time, and I am fairly sure it is repeated throughout that episode. Would this qualify as a leitmotif, or would we need to wait for them to appear in more episodes before deciding this? Jrmh (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that we can quote. DonQuixote (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need an external source if somebody can identify a sequence of notes (do-fa-ti-la or whatever) that appears in Angel episodes when they appear on screen. Murray Gold does use leitmotifs extensively in his screen writing and it would be extraordinary if he did not employ one for a creature as significant as the Weeping Angels. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"Identifying a sequence" borders rather closely on OR, unfortunately.... It would be safest, and less argument-inducing, if a reliable source is quoted (hell, there's arguments even with reliable sources). DonQuixote (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't need an external source to tell you it is the same motif - it is the same chord (possibly in a different key - I haven't checked), the same rhythm, the same dynamics and the same speed. My question is whether the composer is intending it as an indicator of the presence of the angels, or just used it this time as a one-off. I believe it is a leitmotif but it would require a source, which I don't have. Jrmh (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that identifying the theme is OK, actually (we already do this on the soundtrack articles), since it's no more subjective than recognising the shadow of a Dalek, or whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Byzantium

Call me stupid, but was the name Byzantium used at all in the episode? We can't really use it in the plot if it wasn't... U-Mos (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

When they find themselves under the wreckage, "Wow, there it is, the Bynzantium". DonQuixote (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This. Plus, if you look at the concept-art on the BBC website, there are various more subtle references. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The first line of that scene is "what caused it to crash". The clerics arrive and say "you promised me an army". Still not hearing any naming of the ship. U-Mos (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It is the Byzantium, do a little basic research and stop wastinng peoples time!! Look right here [2], the fact file clearly states that it is the Byzantium, and how about the concept art here [3]. magnius (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've found where the line is later in the episode. Thank you. Magnius, your attitude is not at all helpful. It's manners like that that dissuade people from editing Wikipedia. U-Mos (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
...I tend to agree, though his point is right, you could have spotted this yourself! :) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the Bishop refers to the crashed ship as the Byzantium when they finally see its hull after climbing to the top of the catacombs. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, really? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Image up for deletion

An image to accompany this article is up for deletion. You may wish to contribute to the discussion of its deletion here. HairyWombat (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Later. The result of the review was no consensus, and the image was not deleted. I see no reason why it cannot now be restored to the article. It was originally in the Infobox and, as that is vacant, I will restore it there. HairyWombat (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for it being re-added..the nomination was a bit pointless anyway imo. magnius (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
At least you're being mature about it... ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the decision of no consensus has been appealed here, should you wish to contribute to the discussion. HairyWombat (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Later. It survived the Deletion Review as well. It can be relisted for deletion, so people who are interested might like to add the image to their watchlists. HairyWombat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Some reviews:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/7625478/Doctor-Who-review-The-Time-of-Angels.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/apr/24/doctor-who-time-of-angels

Here's the summary Primaler (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hello, Sweetie!"

Isn't this the same form of greeting used by River Song in the Ten story, Silence in the Library? I don't think it would be unreasonable to class that as a continuity point. She could, after all, have identified herself by name on the Home Box. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, here we are. --TS 22:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Brooker

The Graham Norton fuss was mentioned in Charlie Brooker's celebrity TV quiz show, You Have Been Watching on Channel 4 on Thursday. Brooker became quite animated. On Twitter at the time, he had compared it to "smear[ing] shit all over the screen during the final scene" and later added that he hoped Moffat was bellowing down the phone at somebody at the BBC about the animation. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuity reference

Minor point, I know, but worth asking - the Doctor's speed reading of the ancient text ("Not bad, bit slow in the middle"): is this a City of Death reference? Absurdtrousers (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Or a Rose reference, for that matter, but without a source, it's original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

TARDIS Flying?

The article here has stated that River Song can fly a TARDIS to a more advanced level than The Doctor. Whilst in the episode, she flew the vessel in a less volatile manner than The Doctor, this does not confirm that she is at a more advanced level than The Doctor; especially as it is implicit from The Doctor's complaint that she did not leave the brakes on to make the TARDIS 'noise' and that her way of flying the TARDIS is 'boring', and the stabiliser button makes flight so, that The Doctor is capable of such navigation, however consciously decides against it. Considering The Doctor was a military leader of the Time Lords in the Time War, it would also seem highly unlikely that his TARDIS flying capability is so poor without his own choosing.--86.148.247.201 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a fair amount of guesswork there, but I'll check out what the article says. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Observations all taken from the episode in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.247.201 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry: your use of phrases such as, "it would also seem highly unlikely that," must have confused me. [Rolls eyes.] However, our policy on original research means that drawing inferences and/or observations from the episode without a reliable source reaching exactly the same conclusion isn't allowed. Apologies. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 20:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


What does "fly to a more advanced level than The Doctor" mean? Are you the person who wrote the plot summary, by any chance? That too shows a very poor grasp of the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article say the Doctor taught River Song to fly the TARDIS? That's not true. River states that she was taught by "the best" and then says to Eleven, "You were busy that day." Someone else taught her. As far as I'm concerned this is a clue to who she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.194 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion re Image of an Angel talk page section

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. A request was made at the Third Opinion project for an opinion concerning whether the "Image of an Angel" section should have been removed from this talk page. I have removed that request. Disputes for which a Third Opinion are requested need to be first discussed between the individuals involved in the dispute. If such a discussion takes place, and no resolution can be reached, feel free to re–list the question. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Emerging from the monitor?

Is the Angel emerging from the monitor not similar to Sadako emerging from the television in The Ring?

Reference: Den of Geek - Doctor Who series 5 episode 4: The Time Of Angels review

This edit was previously removed for being "random" on 21:30, 25 April 2010 by U-Mos --rjcuk (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly random, and also original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 10:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Time_of_Angels/Archive_1&oldid=1145853590"