Talk:The Zygon Invasion (TV story): Difference between revisions
Tag: sourceedit |
Tag: sourceedit |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
It's been said right from the beginning (before the Series 9 start) that these episodes are not a conventional two-parter. They are simply linked stories. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:05, November 6, 2015 (UTC) | It's been said right from the beginning (before the Series 9 start) that these episodes are not a conventional two-parter. They are simply linked stories. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:05, November 6, 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I removed the statement in question, not because of this two-part of not two-part question, but because it was simply incorrect.--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 12:06, November 6, 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:06, 6 November 2015
Companion?
Perhaps I'm being a bit picky, but if Clara wasn't travelling with the Doctor, and more importantly, not taking part in the episode's events, doesn't that disqualify her as companion of the episode, like the previous week? --115.64.76.111talk to me 22:07, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
Previous two episodes are a two-parter?
"another opportunity for the Doctor to reflect on his mortality, a theme which now appears to be limited to two-parters only, having been absent from the previous two episodes."
Isn't this factually incorrect? The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived (the previous two episodes) were indeed a two-parter. Sure the plot did differ quite a bit, but they have the same story code.
Nsibai ☎ 03:39, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
- That's a discussion to be had on the other page. I would say that two stories being produced together does not make them a two-parter -- if what you've said is true. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:49, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
It's been said right from the beginning (before the Series 9 start) that these episodes are not a conventional two-parter. They are simply linked stories. --DCLM ☎ 07:05, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the statement in question, not because of this two-part of not two-part question, but because it was simply incorrect.--Skittles the hog - talk 12:06, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
