Talk:Children of Earth: Day Four (TV story): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Created page with 'Why did the Home Office want to destroy the Torchwood Institute? Also, wouldn't the Queen have something to say about Torchwood's destruction?--~~~~') |
m (moved Talk:Children of Earth: Day Four to Talk:Children of Earth: Day Four (TV story): Acting on Forum:Story names should be automatically disambiguated; redirect for un-dab-ed name retained) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Why did the Home Office want to destroy the Torchwood Institute? Also, wouldn't the Queen have something to say about Torchwood's destruction?--[[Special:Contributions/81.98.0.33|81.98.0.33]] 20:03, December 21, 2009 (UTC) | Why did the Home Office want to destroy the Torchwood Institute? Also, wouldn't the Queen have something to say about Torchwood's destruction?--[[Special:Contributions/81.98.0.33|81.98.0.33]] 20:03, December 21, 2009 (UTC) | ||
:They destroyed it because they were meddling in a secret government cover-up and the Queen wouldn't be informed because it's a secret government cover-up. [[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 21:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC) | |||
Why do you insist on this point that number of kids is too small. It is clear from the series that all 'posessed' kids were of similar age, around 5-10 years, not all Britons under 15. | |||
*There were 12.1 million children under 16 in the UK 2000. Since then, the number has risen. Are you saying that at ''minimum'' of 8.85 million children were between 0 and 5 and 10 and 16? [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 23:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: No idea what you're saying. What I saw in the series was they only talked about prepubescent schoolchildren all the time. I'm not going to study government statistics how many girls in each school had menarche last year or whatever you would call ''source''. It's evident from the series they did not mean 10% of all children but children of some (not stated onscreen) age range. so this ''production error'' is just wrong. | |||
:: While 456 ambassador ''had'' said he wanted 10% of children, he did not necessarily know what defines human children and moreover was later proven to be drug abuser so this one sentence should not be treated as production error although I agree it's interesting piece of argument it should be moved to other section and explanation should not be removed without argument. | |||
Latest revision as of 05:38, 18 February 2012
Why did the Home Office want to destroy the Torchwood Institute? Also, wouldn't the Queen have something to say about Torchwood's destruction?--81.98.0.33 20:03, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
- They destroyed it because they were meddling in a secret government cover-up and the Queen wouldn't be informed because it's a secret government cover-up. Azes13 21:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
Why do you insist on this point that number of kids is too small. It is clear from the series that all 'posessed' kids were of similar age, around 5-10 years, not all Britons under 15.
- There were 12.1 million children under 16 in the UK 2000. Since then, the number has risen. Are you saying that at minimum of 8.85 million children were between 0 and 5 and 10 and 16? The Thirteenth Doctor 23:54, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
- No idea what you're saying. What I saw in the series was they only talked about prepubescent schoolchildren all the time. I'm not going to study government statistics how many girls in each school had menarche last year or whatever you would call source. It's evident from the series they did not mean 10% of all children but children of some (not stated onscreen) age range. so this production error is just wrong.
- While 456 ambassador had said he wanted 10% of children, he did not necessarily know what defines human children and moreover was later proven to be drug abuser so this one sentence should not be treated as production error although I agree it's interesting piece of argument it should be moved to other section and explanation should not be removed without argument.
