Talk:The Unicorn and the Wasp (TV story)

Questionable "discontinuities"

Removed

I've removed a couple of the alleged discontinuities because they're specifically addressed in the script.

• Why was Roger murdered? This accomplished nothing. The vespiform wasn't able to hold its human form due to being poisoned by pepper. It may have become angry or frightened and reacted by randomly killing one of the diners, or it may have chosen to kill Roger out of jealousy (since they were half-brothers).

Roger was murdered because Arnold felt that the Eddison title was rightly his. He's the older brother. Yes, in the end it accomplished nothing, because Arnold died too. But in the moment the rationale's quite clear: "I wanted to take what was mine."

Unlikely, the narrative says nothing of the sort. When I saw this scene I was very confused and had to re-watch it. Slacker1989 04:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In holding "court" on the subject of Roger's death, the Doctor says: "You realized your inheritance. After all these years, you knew who you were . . . the Firestone . . . beamed your full identity into your brain". Then, as the Vicar gets angry at being caught out. "That night, the universe exploded in mind. I wanted to take what was mine." The implication is quite clearly that Roger was a target because he held something which belonged to Arnold. Indeed, the throughout the piece, the pattern of murder is that he kills those who could establish his (human half's) illegitimacy. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, Davenport's on-screen reaction to the murder seems to be more puzzlement than grief, which is extremely odd considering he has just lost his lover. Donna, apparently having returned from comforting him, angrily comments in the next scene that Davenport cannot grieve properly because of prevailing social attitude. Perhaps his public composure was maintained at great effort to comply with social expectation. Or it could just be bad acting.

Heh, this description hits the nail on the head until the bit about bad acting is interjected. The script clearly says he couldn't mourn properly. So that's what the actor delivered. This section's not really for judging acting performances, anyway. Critique belongs elsewhere.

Then simply remove the portion about bad acting, no controversy needed Slacker1989 04:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is, if you remove the bit about bad acting, you're left with what's in the script. And not only that, but if you really look at the thing, the instant reaction that Davenport has is grief. He just very quickly comports himself. Plus, he uses Roger's first name in that instant, which immediately gives away their personal nature of their relationship. A footman just wouldn't address the future Lord Eddison so intimately in such a public venue. Therefore, there's no error or discontinuity. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• The book being read by Lady Clemency Eddison at the time the gem stone activated was The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but there is only one death in it and that is via a stabbing, where as the Vespiform kills three people: by hitting them on the head with a lead pipe; by crushing them by a statue and by stabbing them. Also The Doctor is poisoned with cyanide which also has no part in the book.The vespiform gets its views from the mothers mind whilst reading a book the mind will automatically be thinking of the authors other works thus these would be easier to access for the vespiform.

Again, the script tells you what's going on. Lady Eddison says, "I was in the library. I was reading my favorite Agatha Christie, thinking about her plots and how clever she must be. How is that relevant?" Note that she says plots — plural, not singular. So yes, indeed, it's more than just The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Retained for the moment

A couple I've left in, but I think they should be reworked somehow:

• Agatha mentions her extensive study of poison, claiming that cyanide poisoning is invariably fatal, in reality it can be countered by several methods, including the administration of nitres, hydroxocobalamin or certain chelants. It is surprising that she sniffed the drink, hydrogen cyanide is one of many poisons that can readily be absorbed via inhalation. She didn't know it was cyanide until after smelling it's almond scent

I'm not sure what the point of this one is. If she didn't know it was cyanide, then she wouldn't have known to protect herself from cyanide inhalation. So how's it an error to have smelled it? Cause she should have been on guard against the possibility of inhale-able cyanide poisoning? it seems to me that would have been an even bigger plot hole. Had she protected herself from an unknown (and unknowable) threat the scene wouldn't have parsed well for me at all. I think the first half of the point is valid, though. She possibly should have known not to characterize cyanide poisoning in such starkly terminal ways. Still, what are the chances that she would've had counter-active materials on her or in the house. Practically speaking it was terminal, but for the little Time Lord trick.

I would say that this one should be left unaltered because Agatha should have known better than to sniff anything that had been poisoned with any poison (The doctor clearly said he had been poisoned and this is obvious to infer anyway).Slacker1989 04:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, cyanide gas would not generally be released by mixing with water, but with acid. More than that, though, you'd have the much more difficult case of establishing that it was wrong of her to smell it. I mean, is it actually wrong of her to take a little risk when a man is dying in front of her? She had to do something. Given the lack of laboratory facilities, a tiny sniff doesn't seem unreasonable enough to form a plot hole or discontinuity moment. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• The car by the lake abandoned by Agatha Christie does not look anything like the car she really owned. We don't know who the car belonged to at the end, she just got in and drove off. Also, the car was really found in a chalk pit. The Doctor could have engineered that later on, just has he engineered Agatha's transportation to the hotel.

This is totally nitpicking. And the script addresses it: "time is in flux". Things are clearly not unfolding as they did prior to the Doctor's arrival. Getting the make of car or its location "right" is asking for a bit much. Still it's an interesting observation, as long as it can be reworded so as not to be characterized as an "error". CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 12:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Robina Redmond

The article currently refers to Felicity Jones' character as Robina Redmond throughout, however Agatha Christie deduces that the Unicorn is impersonating her. Is there a reason to keep it as is, or can I go ahead and note the impersonation? -- Noneofyourbusiness 05:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)