Talk:Bad Wolf meme

Table for References

I started to make a table for all the references here. It's not completed, but just looking for opinions as to whether it could be slotted into the article or not. --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  email  10:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very good, but the problem is, it's out-of-universe and I doubt that it could be not. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs

• And is there any way I can fix that? --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  email  11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Perhaps you could turn it into a list about BW occurances in the Doctor's lifetime, e.g:

Image	Date	Reference
	5,000,000,000 AD	The Moxx of Balhoon mentions to the Face of Boe the "classic Bad Wolf scenario."
	1869	When the clairvoyant Gwyneth reads Rose's mind, she says, "The things you've seen... the darkness.. the Big Bad Wolf!"

etc. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wolf and The Invasion

Is the message on Isobel Watkins' wall canon? And if so, was it meant for the Doctor's eyes or did Rose send it to the wrong place and time? - Tawaki 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of it as the Bad Wolf literally re-writing time, which is what resulted in the reconstruction of the episode. The message was almost certainly meant for the Doctor, one of a few early hints to embed it in his mind and help ensnare and guide him. Don't forget, the Bad Wolf references continued into Series 3 and returned at the end of Series 4.--TheOmnius 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why has it been moved to behind the scenes? It's part of an official release and therefore canon. It should be moved back to be part of the timeline.--TheOmnius 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as canon because that element did not appear in the original broadcast. otherwise you have two perfectly canon versions of two episodes of the The Invasion. I think the original version with Patrick Troughton counts more than a recreation done nearly forty years later, by different people. --Stardizzy2 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Doctor Who. Time re-writes itself. This is a minor difference in canon, where we see the mechanism for the change in the show itself - meaning the Bad Wolf Entity re-wrote time itself using the full power of the time vortex.

The Time War and the Bad Wolf entity re-wrote multiple aspects of reality and time - we've seen the Earth destroyed at least twice. Gallifrey was also destroyed on multiple occasions, nearly a dozen of them if we include the nine copies.

In continuity, first the Bad Wolf graffiti was not there, then when the Bad Wolf Entity re-wrote time, it was placed there. The events were literally re-created, in and out of continuity. We've seen similar things in other places, such as Sam being written out of history.

MAY-BE you could put this on the Myths or Continuity sections. But Behind the Scenes? It's on the screen. It's part of the scene itself! We're not talking about a writer, actor or member of the production team telling us their view of what happened on screen, like Julie informing us that the Doctor did, indeed, tell Rose he loved her on Bad Wolf Bay at the end, and had intended to the first time he spoke to her there after she was stranded. While that is quite arguably continuity and canon, it's also clearly behind the scenes. This doesn't even meet that standard.--TheOmnius 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But on the rewriting term, there needs to be a line between what is implied and what we draw direct conclusions from. From what is seen on screen/in media (through flashbacks or whatever) Rose leaves bad wolf messages to remind herself about what is to come. All the visible Bad Wolf memes are in places that Rose could have seen/imagined/known about etc. If there's a citeable source that shows that Rose knew about The Invasion then that might be cause to leave it in.

Sam's situation is a little different (depending on which writing out of history we're talking about), in Unnatural History it's a paradox/time loop effect, if it's Sometime Never... it's more of an implied thing that happens to several people (which at its end is even more vague).

If we put it in the article there's a few ways to include it; Deal with it the same way we deal with other conflicting accounts: 'Another account sees Bad Wolf written on Isobel Watkins' wall...etc' or something to that effect. Alternatively put after it something like (DW: The Invasion (DVD recreation ep.2 version)), or something to that effect (I'm going to have to grab it off the shelf as I didn't even notice the 'bad wolf' that last time I watched). --Tangerineduel 14:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

the re-constructed version of The Invasion doesn't count as any kind of canon. otherwise, why not include a picture of the animated Troughton in the Second Doctor section? --Stardizzy2 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"All the visible Bad Wolf memes are in places that Rose could have seen/imagined/known about etc. If there's a citeable source that shows that Rose knew about The Invasion then that might be cause to leave it in."

Rose knew about all of it. She looked through the whole of time and space. So anything that had happened she would have seen. The only things I would think she'd have been blind to were things coming out of the Void. But there is NO reason to think that she couldn't see it, or that if she couldn't the Doctor didn't tell her about that.

But even ignoring that, in Gridlock we see a new Bad Wolf reference in the form of the Evil Wolf japanese poster. A clear post-Rose Tyler Bad Wolf reference - because don't forget, the message wasn't just for her, it was for the Doctor as well.--TheOmnius 15:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

guys, I argued from the point of the real world, i.e. what actually appeared on screen versus what appeared in a re-construction of the same story. switching around to an in-universe explanation does not address my argument. --Stardizzy2 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My previous response was somehow deleted. Did someone do this on purpose? I have restored the post.--TheOmnius 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

you must have done what I did earlier and hit "Preview" thinking you'd saved the page. --Stardizzy2 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AHHH! Thanks! I was trying to figure out if I had somehow said something real objectionable or offensive without realizing it... This makes me feel better.--TheOmnius 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"why not include a picture of the animated Troughton in the Second Doctor section?" Because it's just one rendering of how he looks. The comics are quite arguably cannon, despite artistic differences and styles and showing "animated" versions of the various Doctors.--TheOmnius 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just re-adding my comments, please be careful when un/re-doing stuff--Tangerineduel 09:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said that's still implied (and therefore no reason to this she could see it all), I meant something like a passing reference to Vaughn or something in the novels. What Rose says in The Parting of the Ways is very vague and can be used to include anything.

Well...on Gridlock it depends exactly how you mean (see Outpost Gallifrey (old) forum membershp req). According to one poster "Further investigation shows that it clearly is an attempt to render "Bad Wolf"! The second (lower right) character is almost an exact match for Japanese okami, meaning "wolf". And the first (top left) character is the Japanese word aku, a noun meaning "evil". So it does translate as "Bad Wolf", even if it's not the Japanese for "Bad Wolf" (if you see what I mean)!" and another; "In Mandarin it reads 恶狼 "e-lang" = "evil wolf". Can also be translated as "vomitting wolf".".

Is I said if it needs to be included it just needs the 'in one account' statement added to it to clarify its position or/and a note within the brackets of the citation describing where it's really from. --Tangerineduel 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the bad translation is important. The same thing happened with Schlecter Wolf. Has anyone interpreted this to be anything other than a mistake on the part of the production staff?

The two of us are just clearly going round and round and round. Can someone else weigh in??--TheOmnius 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Stardizzy2 did weigh in. As I've continued to say if it really needs to be counted within the article it needs to be noted that you're referring to the reconstruction. Other wise it is implying that the reconstruction is more valid than the original broadcast.

But it was placed in there by an animator rather than a deliberate story decision as part of the reconstruction (unless there's a citable real world source that suggests differently), which is why it perhaps should be tine the behind the scenes section. --Tangerineduel 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Adherents of the Repeated Meme

Oh come on. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Because what is the message "Bad Wolf"? A repeated meme. ZeldaTheSwordsman 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)