Talk:Rose (TV story): Difference between revisions
(→Continuity Section: new section) Tag: sourceedit |
(Added signature.) Tag: sourceedit |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
However, since it refers to '''previous''' occasions ("once again"), I would question the inclusion of that reference. | However, since it refers to '''previous''' occasions ("once again"), I would question the inclusion of that reference. | ||
[[User:Smith, Alexander|Smith]] [[User talk:Smith, Alexander|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:35, November 16, 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:35, 16 November 2015
 |
Archives: #1 |
|---|
"Most watched first episode for a new incarnation"
- An immediate success, it remains, as of September 2013[update], the most-watched first episode for any new incarnation of the Doctor. Its 10.81 million BBC One rating bested the previous record-holder, Robot, and was not outdone by either The Christmas Invasion or The Eleventh Hour.
Would Hurt's appearance in The Day of the Doctor count as the holder of the title of "most watched first episode for any new incarnation of the Doctor" now with its BARB rating of 12.80 million? I ask this because although he's a regeneration, narratively the "War Doctor" only briefly sees himself as the Doctor at the very end of the life (and I'm gathering we're only counting full appearances, so The Day of the Doctor wouldn't technically be Capaldi's "first episode"). -- Tybort (talk page) 06:52, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
Continuity Section
Just a small thing...
The Doctor once again speed reads a book in a matter of seconds. (TV: City of Death, The Time of Angels, AUDIO: Invaders from Mars) (continuity section)
While the reference to 'The Time of Angels' is correct (he did speed-read a book in that episode), should it be included since it happened after both 'Rose' (from our POV) and the events of 'Rose' (from an in-universe POV)?
If it said 'It is one of the many occasions on which the Doctor reads an entire book in a matter of seconds.' then the inclusion of the 'The Time of Angels' reference would make a lot of sense.
However, since it refers to previous occasions ("once again"), I would question the inclusion of that reference.
