Howling:Flickering light bulbs...

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → Flickering light bulbs...

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on The Howling if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Den of Geek recently made an article about something they had noticed in each episode so far: flickering light bulbs. A light bulb was seen flickering in the room where Amy was captured in "Asylum of the Daleks", a light bulb was replaced in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship", the street lights were flickering in "A Town Called Mercy" and the Doctor was seen replacing the light bulb on the top of the TARDIS at the end of the Pond Life mini series. I think they're onto something. Could it possibly be teasing an appearance of the Silence, the Weeping Angels, the Cybermen, the Dalek puppets or something else? 94.72.192.2^{talk to me} 21:18, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

It could easily be teasing an appearance by something. However, as your own post shows, there's quite a range of possibilities for what that something might be. Even your "something else" can be split into two: 1. something else that we've encountered before that you left out of your list to avoid the list filling the screen or 2. something else that we have no chance of guessing because it hasn't been introduced yet.

If (big if) it really is a harbinger of something, my guess would be that its main narrative purpose will be to show that the something has been following the Doctor for a long time. It'll be worth watching for signs that the Doctor is getting suspicious about it. There may, in fact, have been such signs in A Town Called Mercy. He didn't seem entirely convinced by the "obvious" explanations offered by the other characters.

The danger, as always, is that we might be over-interpreting things. I don't think we can avoid that danger without also missing what Moffat's getting up to. --89.240.254.19^{talk to me} 00:34, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

The lightbulbs are a,most certainly nothing. In Asylum of the Daleks, the lightbulb seemed like it was just supposed to invoke the light bulbs on the Dalek's heads that blink whenever they're talking. In A Town Called Mercy, the reason they were flickering was obvious, and you really wouldn't expect them to work properly under those conditions. In Dinosaurs on a Spaceship the lightbulb was not flickering. It just wasn't working, and it seems to have been a problem with the fitting. Really, it was just a plot device to bring Brian to Amy and Rory's house. In Pond Life, the bulb most likely just burned out, and it was a chance for the Doctor to perform a mundane task. I think there was also a joke about that bulb in one of the Night and the Doctor episodes.Icecreamdif ☎ 01:43, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

As much as I love over-interpreting, I would tend to classify that one as a motif, like the 'eyes' from previous seasons. But it's a good catch, I definitely think the motif is there between the TARDIS bulb change, Bryan, and Mercy (missed the Asylum one). Granted, two of the big bads at large right now (Angels and The Silence) have displayed disruptive effects on lightbulbs for different reasons. I would be extremely surprised if we don't see the Angels do that trick in the mid-season finale, but even that wouldn't elevate it out of the category of 'Series 7 symbolism'. What might elevate it, is if we revisit the 'faulty fitting' in Power of 3. Wibbly-Wobbly ☎ 05:27, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

...point of order, though. I went back and checked, and realized that, even though the main plots of Asylum and Dinosaurs were off-world, all 4 lightbulbs were Earthside (granted, a filament bulb, even the Mercy ones, are idiosyncratically Terran tech). Wibbly-Wobbly ☎ 05:51, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if I would say that the eyes in season 5 were a motif. I think there were just eyes in a few episodes, and people were seeing patterns that weren't there.Icecreamdif ☎ 21:22, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Professional astronomers (but, admittedly, only a few of them) did precisely that with the "canals" of Mars. If you look hard enough, especially at things just on the borderline of visibility, you will see patterns that aren't there. We're all looking pretty hard & any clues Moffat leaves lying about will be on the borderline of visibility. To adapt a familiar phrase: Caveat spectator! --89.242.75.176^{talk to me} 05:22, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Either way it's fun to look for these things, even if they are coincedences. There was another scene where the lights went out in this week's episode, around the part where the cubes begin the countdown. 94.72.194.203^{talk to me} 22:08, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

What's interesting about the most recent one is the that power outage, although well-timed, seemed completely idiosyncratic. The rest of the world didn't seem to have a massive power outage, and the Doctor seemed to almost treat it as a new line of questioning with Stewart, ending with a 'Hmm' as he got back to business. The flickers always seem to occur at natural moments in the plot, but are strangely unrelated, and everyone has approached them the same way - with an exaggerated aside of confusion followed by getting on with what they were doing. Wibbly-Wobbly ☎ 21:16, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

The Christmas thing seems like it has to be either an actual plot point or a red herring, but the flickering lights could just be a "theme motif" that's real and intention, but doesn't mean anything in-universe. Like the countdown in series 5, which was there to give the story arc a feeling of building urgency, but gave us absolutely no clues (even retroactive) to the finale. (As for the eyes, that still isn't clear, but I vaguely recall Adam Smith saying the only reason he shot so many closeups of Amy's eyes was something like 'With an actress like Karen Gillan, wouldn't you?'). Of course even if that's the case, that doesn't make it any less interesting. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 21:55, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

It might be teasing the appearance of the Angels in the next episode. I would certainly put in little teasers like flickering light bulbs in each episode if I was a Doctor Who writer. Part of the fun is that these arcs don't actually lead to anything, because you feel clever for noticing them and it's nice to see a continuing theme that isn't always given to you on a plate at the end of the series. It's something that makes Doctor Who unique in a time when the audience are usually treated as idiots. 94.72.194.203^{talk to me} 18:56, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

What a surpsise! We got several flickering light bulbs in "The Angels Take Manhattan". 94.72.194.203^{talk to me} 19:42, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm as astonished as you are! :) --89.241.77.184^{talk to me} 21:44, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, please pardon my lack of ability to properly judge if the two posts above this are sarcasm or not. I'm just bad at it. Plus, honestly, both of those posts could go either way.

That being said, I am glad to see the return of the "flickering lights", most importantly the moment towards the end when River asks about the TARDIS bulb. This makes me think that it may be leading up to something else entirely. I realize there was an Angel near them when she asked, but it would have no reason to mess with the light in the middle of broad daylight. It also seems like they do it purposely in every other situation, rather than it just happening while they're around. So perhaps something else entirely is causing it? Even if nothing is technically "causing" it and its just a plot device, it still doesn't seem to me like this was what the previous light bulb references were building up to, since there seemed to be no other reason for the inclusion of River asking about it.

The TARDIS bulb itself already had me intrigued when the Doctor replaced it in Ponds Life. How often does it even need changing? More importantly, why would it? It's not even technically a "real" light bulb, since the TARDIS exterior is just made to look like a Police Box, not be one. You would think that the light would just be another part of the illusion, and never really need to be changed. Especially since the TARDIS rebuilt itself not that terribly long ago, which does seem to affect the appearance of the outside, thought I can't imagine why.

[In regards to the TARDIS bulb and the outside appearance: I heard someone theorize somewhere else (can't really remember where, may have even been here) that the TARDIS's Chameleon Circuit isn't actually still broken, and that she chooses to keep that shape because she knows the Doctor is fond of it. Which I suppose would be a fair thing to say since the TARDIS can rebuild itself. So if the light bulb is "real" it would seem reasonable to then assume it could fix such a minor problem all on its own. That would also make me stop questioning why the outside of the TARDIS changes appearance when the inside does, since it being "stuck" as a police box seems like it would stop that from being able to happen.] Saghan ☎ 18:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't really know how often the lightbulb needs changing—but the fact that River brought it up casually implies that it's fairly often. It's possible that it's still a sign of something wrong, it's just that the something wrong goes back to before series 6, so River just takes it for granted as normal. But that seems like a stretch—most of River's knowledge about the TARDIS seems to come from the TARDIS herself.

As for the chameleon circuit: The 6th Doctor fixed it in season 22, it started going wrong again, and he announced that he liked it better that way anyway. It sounded like sour grapes, but… Anyway, since then, the only thing we've ever heard on TV is "it's broken".

Meanwhile, early in the NAs, we learn that it didn't really break again; the Doctor turned it off because it was a security hole in the Type 40. And to confirm that, after he started traveling in the parallel 3rd Doctor's TARDIS, the Monk hacked into it and changed its shape into the Statue of Liberty.

The EDAs implied that it's the TARDIS who likes that shape and refuses to change, rather than the Doctor who doesn't want it to change. And of course there's Marie, the type 103 humanoid TARDIS who's stuck in the shape of a blue-uniformed 1960s WPC, but hints that it's intentional. And then Compassion, who could choose any form she wants, but instead chooses something just barely different enough from her previous form that the observant can tell something's changed (just like the TARDIS each time she rebuilds herself). --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 03:40, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: The posts by 94 & 89 (me, though my IP address is 2.something, just now) were indeed sarcasm. That can be difficult to put across when tone of voice isn't available.

To all: There may have been another, very indirect, reference in the episode. The shiny metal plate (the Rolls Royce one) that the Doctor used as a mirror seems to be from a Foden marine engine. From what I can gather via Google, that engine was often used to drive a type of electric generator that was notorious for being unreliable & (guess what) making the lights flicker. --2.96.26.113^{talk to me} 12:46, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the metal plate: I'm still not convinced that it's supposed to reference something in the real world. I should, however, note that I've seen several difference people find an engine or a piece of equipment online that they attribute that plate to. While I don't really agree with any of the finds so far (since none them exactly match this plate) I do think its interesting how many ways people were able to connect those items to the DWU. My personal favorites were the connections people made to Merlin and Spitfires. I will say, I had to stop the episode in the middle of my very first viewing just to get a picture of the plate, and to write down a copy of everything on it. So far the only thing I can speculate of being of seeming to be any importance on the plate is the lack of numbers after each of the "No." segments. I kind of just chalk this up as somehow being a small reference to information "disappearing" in this current story arc. I am sure that we'll find out what it means later when we have more information and episodes. Saghan ☎ 23:26, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm? I was genuinely surprised! 87.102.118.41^{talk to me} 16:10, October 2, 2012 (UTC) (was 94)

I thought the Rolls plate was implying that when the TARDIS reconfigures herself she's actually stealing bits and pieces from the outside world. This plate was the next one on the stack, ready to be stamped and stuck on the next engine off the line, but it never got its chance. Of course the TARDIS could just create the exact same things from pure block transfer computations or whatever, but stealing things that won't really affect history is just more fun. And really, the plate is having more fun in the TARDIS than it would have on a jet or whatever it was destined for, so what's the harm? --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 08:19, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

After suffering a long and painful lack of internet, one of the first things I wanted to mention was that from dialogue overheard in the filming of new episodes, there is quick mention of flickering lights again. I'm pretty happy to see this may be continuing further. Saghan ☎ 20:48, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: You have my sympathy. I get twitchy if my internet connection goes down for a matter of minutes, never mind anything longer than that!

The flickering lights thing is interesting but (as I'm sure I've said before) it's one of those things whose significance is liable to be obvious in retrospect, once Moffat has told us what it is, but unfathomable until he gets around to telling us. It's not that I'm getting impatient or anything but... --2.101.48.25^{talk to me} 21:20, November 11, 2012 (UTC)