Howling:"You saved me in 2008."

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → "You saved me in 2008."

This thread has been archived.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.

A pesky continuity error that everyone overlooks. In The Fires of Pompeii, Donna says the Doctor saved her in 2008 - what event was she refering to? The Runaway Bride was December 2007, and Partners in Crime was around Spring 2009. What is this 2008 business about?! Delton Menace 17:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh great more things that RTD has f**ked up on. -- Michael Downey 18:45, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

You can hardly blame him for not keeping up with online fan discussions :S Cannon881 21:40, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm blaming him for contradicting himself my naming different dates in episodes. -- Michael Downey 21:43, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

RTD didn't write that episode. -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:47, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think RTD has the duty to ensure the dates used for episodes are consistent. That's the Continuity Department's problem, if anything. Cannon881 21:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know RTD didn't write it but RTD oversee's everything and part write's all the scripts e.g like adding things like bad wolf etc and the episode had probably have to been read by many people over like 100 times to check it's okay with no mistakes. -- Michael Downey 22:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

The famous dating controversy of the Russell T. Davies era is, like the UNIT dating controversy, simply irresolvable. Best thing to do is forget about it, relax, and enjoy the show, keeping in mind that now (somehow or another) the Doctor Who universe timeline is back on track with ours. --Bluebox444 , 17:24, February 27, 2010 (EST)

The one who could be held responsible for the mistake is the writer (James Moran) or the script editor who must make sure their is no problem with the continuity (Brian Minchin) ; but in Doctor Who, we also have someone who is suppose to supervise the continuity, in this episode it was Sheila Johnston. But is it really their fault, maybe it was Catherine Tate who simply didn't remember the correct number or it might have been a typo mistake... Anyway, it's just a TV show... --4me 23:50, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's not as infamous as Planet of the Dead coming before The End of Time and after The Stolen Earth/Journey's End (Christmas 2009, no problem there), but... being in April when The Stolen Earth/Journey's End is suppodly in May. If they didn't include the "planets in the sky" reference, there would be no problem there. Planet of the Dead being in April 2009 (before the series 4 finale) and Donna's 2008 (her episodes were 2007 and 2009) reference are like the UNIT dating controversy. Russel messed up when he decided to make e everything one year ahead in Aliens of London, and then have everything that aired in 2009 take place in the same year as stories that aired in 2008: have them both take place in 2009. He probably wasn't aware of the April/May problem. And in series 5, there is the Doctor being in 2010 for present day Earth stories (Paris 2010 in Vincent and the Doctor), so we can't go back now.

 Delton Menace 06:27, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

You saved me in 2008, you saved us all! Please try to quote the full line - that was very important! It is perfectly possible that Donna was not in fact referring to the events of The Runaway Bride Which would have been in 2007, as you say. But! In the episode before the Pompeii episode, Donna spoke of all the alien stuff she nows believes in - but then dismissed the Titanic incident as ridiculous. This event would have been in 2008. And in the time between Partners in Crime and The Fires of Pompeii, which probably wasn't that long admittedly, the Doctor and Donna WILL have spoken to each other. And it is probable that they had a conversation. And in that conversation, the Doctor could quite easily told Donna about the Christmas after the one that she met him, and how the Titanic replica really did almost crash into Buckingham Palace. Which Donna would therefore have used in an example soon after talking to the Doctor then. In the Pompeii episode. There.Feumas 17:23, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there were no end-of-the-world events in 2008 other than what never happened (the Master's reign). The only thing in 2008 Donna could refer to involving the Doctor saving everyone in 2008 was Voyage of the Damned - but she didn't believe that was real... unless the Doctor confirmed it. She must have been refering to that - Partners in Crime wasn't an event where "you saved us all." And the writers know damn well The Runaway Bride wasn't 2008. So yes, she must have been refering to Voyage of the Damned, assuming the Doctor confirmed that it wasn't a hoax to her when traveling. Delton Menace 19:15, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact this line is so awfully contradicting, its first class canon. But I was just thinking about Series 4 and the 2009 Specials are all in 2009. Partners in Crime, The Sontaran Stratagem and Journey's End are set after Voyage of the Damned (Christmas 2008), but before Planet of the Dead (Easter 2009) Seeing as it is greatly implied there is quite a long space of time between Partners in Crime and The Sontaran Stratagem and between The Sontaran Stratagem and Journey's End, Partners in Crime would have to be set in very early 2009, or late 2008. What if Partners in Crime is set in late December, 2008 and The Sontaran Stratagem and Journey's End will then slot in nicely to January, February and March. I know about the Beautiful Chaos contradiction, but that's second class canon and this is first class. I have put Partners in Crime in 2008 now. Another thing to think about, Captain Jack's Monster Files say it happened in early 2007, but that's maybe not even canon at all, so don't debate that over the TV stories. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 22:25, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

The Monster Files dates Partners in Crime as early 2007? That is chronoligcially disgusting. Please tell me you it's not true they said that... Yeah, and about the same year thing, it's the same as how Torchwood series 2 (aired in 2008) and Children of Earth (aired in 2009) are set in the same year, and it applies to the two sister shows. Considering this happened with the end of the Davies era, it makes sense they did that. But indeed, the Planet of the Dead continuity error is only because of a novel - as you said, second class canon. What is revealed on-screen and by the head writer personally regarding placments in important to take into account.

And I, like you, solve the error by pushing the Doctor Who series 4 finale a little further back - perhaps in putting it in April at the latest. Even in Planet of the Dead, the reference to The Stolen Earth/Journey's End alone is as if the events of them episodes was very, very recent - like a week or something. The passanger instantly refers to them like not much time has passed. Ans as we know, clearly it hasn't been much time between the stories.

One person tried placing series 2 and three in the same year - 2007, ignoring how it placed series 3 Doctor Who before The Runaway Bride, and placed series 4 Doctor Who like a month after it and before Voyage of the Damned. It is painful when people don't see how many errors that casued. Strangely, wikipedia completely ignored the year-skip from series 1 through 4, placing The Christmas Invasion in Christmas 2005, before Aliens of London/World War Three. Delton Menace 00:46, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

But back to the original point of the thread. Perfectly simple. For most people the difference between Christmas and New Year's is so insignificant as to make no odds. If something happened to me on Christmas 2009, I'd be more inclined to say it happened "at the start of 2010" than anything else, except in very technical contexts, like tax returns and medical billing. She was off by a smidgen over six days, guys — not a year. Don't go pullin' out the long knives over that. The Fires of Pompeii line refers to The Runaway Bride, and it's not in error. It's just approximately, colloquially right. Pretty good, actually, for a character who's established to have fairly poor observational —especially this early into her character arc. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:32, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Then she would have probably mentioned Christmas... and I keep finding lines where the past four years of series have been refered to as taking place during their airdate year. Good god. The writers can be sloppy sometimes, which would mean they might personally even have thought The Runaway Bride was 2006 because a lot of them forgot the the year skip only one year after Aliens of London aired. Then again, in The Waters of Mars, the Doctor describes the events of the series 4 finale as having happened 50 years ago, which would be 2009. Yay, the writers remembered the chronology for once. Delton Menace 09:07, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

I strongly dispute that. Remember, she's talking in spring 2009 about something that happened Christmas 2007. If she had said simply "Christmas", that would have meant "Christmas 2008", which really would have been wrong. She's talking about something that was a year and a quarter ago. But it's still, for all practical purposes, "last year". At worst, last year -6.25 days. It's really not "sloppy" as you contend. It's just casual, understandable. I mean, look at the way the marketing team, quite logically I think, deal with the Christmas specials. They aren't, despite what a few people around here are contending on another thread, a part of the previous year's season. They're a part of the next year. The 2005 special began the 2006 series, the 2006 special began the 2007 series, and so on. That's because to most people, that last week of the year is effectively the first part of the new year. Since a lot of people are off work or school during that time, it's a "no-man's land". It's not really part of the last year, and it's not really quite the next year. So there are plenty of people who would view events that happened in the last week of the year effectively part of the next year. Sure, officially it's not. But it's like saying something happened two weeks ago when really it happened 17 days ago. Or like when it's second day of May and you say "last month" to refer to something that happened on the 29th of April. Or the way people say "In last month's Doctor Who Magazine . . . " when it's not actually a monthly magazine. Donna wasn't precise, but she wasn't misleading either.

Dates are already difficult enough in DW. Don't kill yourself by taking things so literally, when there's a perfectly obvious solution staring you in the face. James Moran did not mean The Runaway Bride happened in Christmas 2008. It's quite illogical to read it that way. The reason that this is, as you say, something that "everyone overlooks", is because it's really quite . . . nothing. The simpler explanation is almost always the better one. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 21:04, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and The Waters of Mars said the The Stolen Earth/Journey's End happened in 2008... if you combine that with the 2008 reference in The Fires of Pompiie, it looks as if the writers intended for series 4 to take place in 2008 and completely forgot how it should be in 2009 for continuity's sake. Oh, I'm confused. Someone shoot me. :( Delton Menace 21:42, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, be fair. WOM doesn't "say" 2008 in any dialogue. Some graphics that were on the screen for less than a second, written by a trainee script editor and not overseen by RTD, said that. And these same graphics were littered with errors ranging from plain grammatical and spelling errors, to claiming that Susie's crew were the same as the crew on Bowie Base One. So the WOM 2008 reference is a plain, old mistake — not authorial intent. There is a clear difference between an obvious production gaffe and a continuity contradiction. I'm surprised you're hung up over this frankly very minor stuff, and not completely driven crazy by the real continuity nightmares caused by The Waters of Mars with respect to The Moonbase, The Wheel in Space and The Seeds of Death. WOM drove a big, ol' RTD-shaped hole right through the heart of the Troughton era.

But the broader point is that this is Doctor Who, not Star Trek or Star Wars. Dates simply aren't crucial to one's enjoyment of the show, on most occasions. As both Moffat and Cornell have said, the dude's a time traveller. Continuity errors are generally impossible, because time is fluid, wibbly-wobbly, and timey-wimey. You will only drive yourself crazy by spending so much energy trying to find precise chronological alignment in this show. People smarter than both you or I have been trying for 50 years, and it only gets more difficult the more episodes that are filmed. The only thing you can kinda hope for is that the basic narrative from the Doctor's perspective makes sense. His own relative timeline is what's key, and violations in that probably should be noted, if they're major enough. But as for the progression of time in the larger Doctor Who universe? Nah, that's just not possible to follow. An objective view of the "chronology of the Whoniverse" is extraordinary elusive because "people assume that there's a strict progression from cause to effect", when the show has definitively established that there isn't. You will enjoy the show so much more if you — to reverse a sports metaphor — follow the man, not the ball. Another way of looking at it is to assume that the writers have done their homework, they're making a good-faith effort, but production realities (like trainee script editors and the occasiional mistake by the graphics department) are occasionally present. You can spend your time here buried in writing theories in the discontinuity sections, or you can write the substantive, factual parts of articles. For me, the choice between those two things is a no-brainer. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:18, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

You can't use the "wibbly-wobbly" excuse on the Journey's End/Planet of the Dead dating contradictions. We know Planet of the Dead is set after The Stolen Earth/Journey's End and the former is in April and the later is in May, and they're both shoved into 2009. Because Planet of the Dead is therefore references a story that it, chronologically, takes place before, how the hell do you explain that? Unless, the TV series retconed the date to the finale being in April and not May because the May date was only refered to in second-calss canon. Planet of the Dead is extremely unstable in the timeline, placing itself before The Stolen Earth/Journey's End, but referncing those events. Delton Menace 08:39, March 16, 2010 (UTC)