Talk:The Hungry Earth (TV story)

Rory

How do we know Rory Williams is a companion in this episode? Is he a companion in Amy's Choice too? -- Will101 16:22, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we don't really know if he'll appeer.

Watch the first long trailer. See that shot of Amy and the Doctor running in the greenish tunnel the Silurians are also seen in? Yeah, you can just barely see Rory running with them. This episode is supposedly set in the near future, so he can't just be there, he had to have gone there with them. --Golden Monkey 19:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

There looks like theres going to be a silurian human hybrid in one of the episodes as there is one breed that look more human than the normal silurians

Does Amy get turned into a silurian? I saw a picture of one of those human-silurion hybrids (if that's what they are) in shackles, wearing a mini skirt. Plus, she falls down one of those holes in the ground, doesn't she? Maybe that's how the human's are kidnapped. MidnightCat 16:46, May 7, 2010 (UTC) In the trailer from Amy's Choice you can see Rory so it is pretty obvius he is in the episode. Alpha111 19:24, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Heres a pic from the episode

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/SiluariansS5.png

Sea devils

Is it at all possible that the black-eyed creatures are heavily re-designed sea devils and the others are the silurians? Afterall the green ones seem to have a bump on their forehead, perhaps hiding the 3rd eye whereas the others don't.

The Big Bang

How can this episode be set in 2015 if the explosion that causes the cracks happens in 2010? Liamhenney 11:08, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

The same way that The Beast Below, Time of Angels and Flesh and Stone could be set in the 31st and 51st centuries. 86.140.235.125 00:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Philosophy

"A review for the episode by Beehive City states that the year is actually 2020 despite the press release saying 2015. It may have been changed due to some events of the previous episode happen in 2015.", Okay this is obviously wrong. We know that the Doctor landed in 1996 to pick up his new girl. Thus, "5 years after Amy travelled with the dcotor" (circa Amy's choice) would have been 2001. Thus, the time frame here can be 2015. But then again, how would you say it is 2020? Not say 2018 or 2017 instead of 2015? You are saying this is five year after the dream lord episode, which is possibly not true. Also, what i say here, is what i think is why they do not remember cybermen and others coming to earth as it happened after he picked up Amy, thus she wouldn't know the Dalek Invasion of 1999 or 2051 and would not know further the plastic creatures in 2005. Then again, Doctor Who (becuase of different writers that are not that good at looking into the past themselves, this can be a complete different timeline altogether.) Just saying. Not editing as i am not a user yet. And i could be wrong. :) I would like to know how, if this is true what you say on this article...how can it be 2015 in Amy's Choice? 86.177.207.188 12:18, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

According to Flesh and Stone, Amy's time is 2010. The date shown in that episode is the day of her wedding. The Doctor picked her up the night before her wedding. Meaning that "5 years after Amy traveled with the doctor" would be 2015 at the earliest. V00D00M0NKY 08:15, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Full Timeline according to Amy would be:

1996 First meeting "Fish custard"-> leaves -> (engine problems, is 12 years late)

2008 saving the earth from prisoner zero and Atraxi -> leaves -> (run to the moon that takes 2 years)

2010 picking Amy up in the night before her Wedding. (Wedding date is 26.6.2010, so this is 25.6.2010)

Jumping a bit completly of the timeline through future and past.

2015 Amy's Choice (5 Years in their future (2010 + 5 years = 2015))

2020 The Hungry Earth (10 year in their future (2010 + 10 years = 2020)

78.43.114.215 20:14, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy Teasers

1. Amy and Rory are expecting to arrive in Rio when The Doctor mistakenly lands them in a Welsh village in the year 2020. Yes, it's just an excuse to see Amy in a tiny skirt for the next two episodes but let's agree to overlook that.

2. Immediately The Doctor senses that there's something unusual with the ground below them. There's something wrong with the grass, too.

3. Pay attention to the script very early on in this episode. A lot of the lines will have added poignancy after the story is done with.

4. The Doctor loves a big ****** *****.

5. Nasreen Chaudhry (Meera Syal) is heading up a team that has drilled further into the Earth than anyone has before, 21km deep. Unfortunately her drilling has disturbed something below...

6. The Earth is pretty hungry. Ravenous in fact. It consumes Amy and it's still got the munchies!

7. Shameless! Plug! For! Sherlock!

8. The Doctor: "Silence. Absolute silence."

9. When The Doctor comes face to face with a Silurian, she claims to be the last of her species.

10. The Doctor: "Nobody **** today."

No.4 I think is *something* drill

No.10 nobody dies today, possibly.

Fan555 08:13, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 - A Big Mining Thing

1. Oh yes.

2. Ground feels strange, and there's blue grass.

3. Hmm... have to watch it carefully next time. With subtitles.

4. Didn't catch it. EDIT: The Doctor loves a big mining thing.

5. Yup, she sure is.

6. Yes. Happy day.

7. Elliot and his audio CDs.

8. Didn't catch that either.

9. True. A false claim.

10. Probably nobody dies today. Knowing the Doctor. Someone'll probably die anyway (next week). EDIT: It was indeed, "Nobody dies today" Adam 148 18:22, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not that sure about the "mistakenly" part, though

3. Ooh, lots of options: Ambrose apparently having phoned for help (she thinks it's Rory, but that is most probably a mix-up), future Amy and Rory waving at 2010's pair, the strange behaviour of Rory's about the ring (he wants Amy NOT to wear the engagement ring? wtf?) etc. pp.

4. a big mining thing

8. Yes, he does, when he makes the team be quiet in order to hear the drills

In regards to number 3, with Rory and the Ring. I thought the ring thing was just that he didn't want her to damage/lose it, I mean Rory is very aware of how dangerous things are. If I had spent a lot of money (at least compared to what I earned) on an engagement ring I wouldn't want my fiancée wearing if she was likely to being in such situations frequently. That said, there did seem to be a bit of emphasis on the scene for reasons I cant think of. Then again it could have simply have been an excuse for Rory to go back to the TARDIS without Amy and the Doctor. -- Looq 22:33, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought #3 might be regarding the story that Elliot and Mo are reading at the beginning, a story of a monster attack, but it could be any number of things. #8 is a new take on the silence theme cropping up differently. There is another (probably unintentional) silence reference in the subtitles, where; as the Silurians rise; the subtitles 'RUMBLING' appears to signify the tremors, when they stop, it shows in big capital letters 'SILENCE' 80.0.213.73 01:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Frontios?

According to the next time trailer, people get sucked underground in a very similar fashion as they do in Frontios. Anybody else notice this? V00D00M0NKY 08:09, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wavers

The two wavers from the future.

Here is a screenshot of the two waving people from the future. The right person looks a bit like Rory with his ponytail-type messy hair, though I'm still hopeful that it's not him. The Doctor certainly isn't telling us -- spoilers, eh? Question: Is Rory taller than Amy? Does Amy wear trousers? Hack59 22:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hard to tell but it does look similar to how Rory and Amy looked in 'Amy's choice' (fictional admittedly, but only five years out from this one). Interestingly enough, when Amy is captured by the Silurians, she is viewed through the 'infa red heat sight thingy', and the Silurian watching her pans down straight away to her stomach, as if looking for the pregnancy. (And before anyone says it -the Silurian doesn't seem to be staring at her boobs lol). Perhaps the Silurians know of these two?80.0.213.73 01:39, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows other species don't like human boobs unless they're Peri's. :) Anyway, it is kind of odd the way it focuses on her stomach. --Falcotron 03:39, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Just re-watched that bit, and when they scan her tummy there is a heart monitor pulse that briefly flares in the upper right hand corner of the screen - I think we've got a preggers Amy! DreamSong 05:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think we are reading WAY to far into this. Any visual discrepancies between the wavers and Amy and Rory can be put down to the fact its probably another set of actors, who just look a tiny bit like Arthur and Karen. Fan555 08:19, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Amy is wearing trousers in a couple of the clips in the TEH coming soon trailer, riding the horse and running at Stonehenge, both darks pairs but top and jackets don't seem to match 86.26.137.154 08:48, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I watched this episode's dr who confidential, and it showed parts of a deleted scene - a conversation between Amy and the Doctor as they walk to the mining thing shortly after leaving Rory. Amy asks if the waving couple means that she and rory will definitely get a happy ending, and the doctor says that it is probable (I'm not using his exact words coz I don't remember exactly what they were), but that time can be re-written. It probably will be re-written, knowing dr who. I sugest you see it for yourself on iplayer. MidnightCat 10:29, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, that was an enjoyable Confidential, and indeed a very nice deleted scene. I am probably reading too much into this, but I maintain the silent, private hope that the couple isn't actually R+A (and that the Doctor was lying to them), so that Amy doesn't end up with Mushbrain aka Cpt Obvious aka Rory. Hack59 23:01, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Third Doctor connections

This story seems to reference a lot more Third Doctor stories than just the obvious Doctor Who and the Silurians. In fact, take a look at the finales to each of his seasons, all of which aired a few days before 26 Jun, and took place in the future:

• Inferno: This one's obvious. "Big mining thing", problems ensue. Fire extinguishers are used to disable the baddies.
• The Daemons: Invisible (but red, and then black) barrier, sealing off a small town. Everyone into the church! The Doctor's companion is taken hostage, along with a couple other characters.
• The Time Monster: An ancient race from beneath the surface appears, and then the Doctor visits their civilization.
• The Green Death: In a small Welsh village, the Doctor's companion and one of the workers disappear down a mine shaft. People who are attacked by the monsters turn green and fall ill. (This story is also full of clues about the UNIT era dates.)
• Planet of the Spiders: Not sure how this one fits in.

Anyway, coincidence, homage to Jon Pertwee, or plot hint of some kind?

I don't think The Master's coming back, and the Third Doctor is even less likely (for obvious reasons), and I doubt the Brig or other old UNIT hands will be seen either. Maybe it's just pointing to the fact that the Doctor is soon going to be stranded without a working TARDIS? Or maybe the reason there's no PotS is because something from that episode is coming in the finale? (Of course we know the Doctor won't regenerate, but some other element of that story?)

Or maybe the UNIT dating controversy is the point; reminding us of the UNIT era is highlighting all the weird dating inconsistencies so far this season--each of which is arguably a production error, but they add up to a pretty amazing coincidence. As I mentioned elsewhere, this episode seemed to deliberately invite nitpicky fans to pore over dates looking for inconsistencies, but there were none to be found (or at least none that I could find). --Falcotron 05:41, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Do any of these count as significant references that should be included in the article? --Falcotron 08:08, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Editorial opinions in rumours section

Michael Downey added the comments "(Unfortunately)" and "(If so, most probaly like a Welsh Silurian.)" to the rumours section (and also removed the italics). Adam 148 removed these comments, then in this edit, Michael Downey added them back.

I think Adam 148 is right here. But, whoever's right, if there's a disagreement, it should be held on the Talk page, not in an edit war. --Falcotron 10:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I did not add anything that you have said I have, I think you need to look back at the history properly before accusing people. All I have did was add a reference and then undid Adam148's undo from me when all I did was add a correct reference. -- Michael Downey 10:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

OK, it was User:Son of Icthar who added these comments, in these two edits: [1] and [2]. However, when Adam 148 removed them, you reverted his change in this edit, and then when I removed them again, you reverted that again in this edit. You shouldn't be reverting things multiple times without a consensus.

I apologize for removing your other substantive change that you added in the same edit. I should have been more careful.

I still fail to see how "(Unfortunately)" could be anything but inappropriate editorializing, and you haven't given any argument against that. And the formatting errors introduced along with that editorializing clearly need to be fixed. So, I'm going to manually edit the two rumors, while leaving your additional reference intact. --Falcotron 11:00, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did construct an argument to tell you what I added. I did not add these "(unfortunately)" comments that you say of, research more because all I did was add a reference to the page, the only thing I will apologize for is undoing the page several times to revert that back but I was confused as to why a good reference had been removed but I did not do these comments and posts that your saying I did. -- Michael Downey 11:07, May 23, 2010 (UTC).

As I said, I understand why you added the additional paragraph to the References section, I agree that it was appropriate, I removed it by accident while removing the other changes you made in the same edit (re-adding Son of Icthar's editorializing), I apologized for that, and I undid that. So, you don't need to argue for that (at least not with me).

However, there's no argument for why "(Unfortunately)" and the other comment, and the formatting errors that go with them, should stay, so I stand by removing them.

Please look at how the article is now (or as of this edit) and let me know if you're happy with that solution. --Falcotron 12:00, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Cracks?

Are there and Cracks in this episode? The mirror in which old mining guy is looking when he discovers that he's infected is cracked, but it doesn't look like the characteristic Crack to me, nor is there the signature low-pitched sound of dread that usually goes with the Cracks. Hack59 11:25, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Plot copied from Wikipedia

In this edit, User:Arthur88 added a Plot section.

In this edit, User:Solar Dragon removed it, with the comment "Copied from Wikipedia, right down to the spelling mistakes".

Tardis:Manual_of_Style#Use_of_material_from_Wikipedia says that content from Wikipedia can be used. Obviously it's much better to rewrite and improve the Wikipedia version to meet the standards and style of this wiki (especially any in-universe and tense issues) than to just use it as-is, and even better (as the manual implies) to write it from scratch--but is it better to have nothing at all? --Falcotron 12:22, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Whenever someone copies the plot from wikipedia, they never cite the source, so that makes it plagerism. It's just easier to have our own written version, since sometimes wikipedia doesn't go into the same amount of depth we do. The Thirteenth Doctor 15:45, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it's generally better to have new content than copied content here (although I don't think the "amount of depth" argument holds--look back over the last few episodes on the two sites and tell me what depth Wikipedia is missing), and I know how the CC-SA attribution rules work for wikis.

But my point is that we have no content at all--still, 2 days later. That's 2 days where people could have been editing and improving whatever was here (which people are always much more likely to do than creating new content). Is that really better? --Falcotron 09:25, May 25, 2010 (UTC)