Talk:Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS (TV story)

Set entirely within the TARDIS

"This is the first full episode in the BBC Wales version of the show to be set entirely within the Doctor's TARDIS, although several mini-episodes have been as well." what about amy's choice?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.198.193.186 (talk).

Please sign your posts. Amy's Choice was set partially in the TARDIS, and partially in Upper Leadworth (both being dreams, of course).
--SOTO ☎ 04:17, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

More than that, this story wasn't set entirely in the TARDIS - primarily so, of course, but several scenes were set on the Van Baalens' spaceship. 210.1.215.90^{talk to me} 04:30, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well... if we went by that, then nothing would be set entirely in the TARDIS. Are we going to discount The Edge of Destruction simply because they walked out of the TARDIS for a few seconds at the end? Of course not! There's just approx. 4 and a half minutes of footage outside of the TARDIS in Journey, so I consider it to be entirely set within the TARDIS.
--SOTO ☎ 05:52, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between the end of The Edge of Destruction and the fact that this episode clearly has scenes set outside the TARDIS. Tardis1963 talk 08:10, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't we rename the category to something like, "stories set primarily in the TARDIS" or "stories set largely in the TARDIS". "Entirely" is such an absolute term, and there are bound to be exceptions, so why not give it a little wiggle room? Memnarc ☎ 04:17, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that earlier, but haven't had the time to bring it up. Also, somehow Amy's Choice ended up in Category:Stories set entirely in the TARDIS; how? --SOTO ☎ 04:20, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Because while they are dreaming, they are all actually in the TARDIS. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 16:37, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

People who know The Doctor's name

I specified that River was the first of the Doctor's companions to learn his name, not the first person. Drax knows it, as likely do many other Time Lords, up to and including The Master. Vbartilucci ☎ 20:07, April 28, 2013 (UTC)vbartilucci

Cast list

The credited actors for the time zombies aren't mentioned, though I'm not sure if it should be put up exactly as in the credits,

• Time Zombie - Sarah Louise Madison
• Time Zombie - Ruari Mears
• Time Zombie - Paul Kasey

Or the more streamlined

• Time Zombies - Sarah Louise Madison, Ruari Mears, Paul Kasey

Which seems more "proper"? -- Tybort (talk page) 07:45, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, what's our source for the actors in the first place? From the credits? If so, then we should put it exactly as in the credits, although, if the first option, the last two should be de-wikified.
--SOTO ☎ 22:39, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

By T:CAST, the first one and so SOTO said, only link the first one. MM/Want to talk? 14:56, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Telescope from Tooth and Claw

I don't have Tooth and Claw on hand right now, but is it really supposed to be the telescope from that episode or just any big observatory? The telescope in that episode isn't even a functioning one, it was just a weapon to kill the werewolf. -- Tybort (talk page) 16:43, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I was the one filling that note (sorry, no username, I think I'll register soon).

I did compare them, because that shape really remembered me that episode.

They differ a bit (the tube from Tooth and Claw is a bit bigger on the top, and smaller on the bottom, the half-moon figure is reversed), but globally, the resemblance is impressive.

It can't be from any observatory, as many details (the half moon, the wheels, the overall shape) are too much unique.

It's probably just a copy the Doctor made, anyway, not the original (which would account for the small differences) --93.50.83.19^{talk to me} 18:18, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

It may have been the same cgi/model used in the production as the Tooth and Claw telescope, but that does not mean it is meant to be the same in universe. Geek Mythology ☎ 18:20, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you. The art direction team probably repurposed the telescope but it's a leap to say it's the same telescope in the TARDIS as existed in Tooth and Claw. This implies that The Doctor removed it from its location and installed it in the TARDIS. Given the age of the TARDIS, it's more likely that the observatory has been there for hundreds, if not thousands of years and is not a recent invention. 63.143.218.107^{talk to me} 19:21, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

The Tenth Doctor admired the telescope so, he may have went to the end of the Torchwood Estate, whenever that will be, to purchase it, but why do so when he has the Architectural Reconfiguration System and can just make a new one just like it? In any case, I'd say two things: 1) it belongs in Continuity, not References (so I moved it) and 2) we can't say it's exactly the same. --ComicBookGoddess ☎ 04:45, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Why is the plot section so.. meager? I can extend it if no one else's doing it. Puchplimmirdeyslithin ☎ 19:43, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Production Error?

I don't think the bullet in the production error section belongs. It is not a production error. Who knows what the metal was or how the sonic screw driver put the message on there? It was, after all, the letters that burned her hand, not the device itself. I am going to remove that bullet and put "to be added." It may be a plot hole or a good discussion on the sonic screw driver, but it is not a production error. Whosethebestwho ☎ 04:59, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the type of metal, it is clear when they show the letters that they are etched - there is a edge depression at the top of the "BIG" and the light source shows the edgeing. That means that it's an etching, with the metal taken away. The letters, being empty spaces and not raised pieces of metal, never come into contact with the skin to burn them. --ComicBookGoddess ☎ 06:30, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Big Friendly Button

Big Friendly Button

But it is the letters themselves that burned the skin, NOT the metal casing, so it is not a production error. Could it be a plot hole? Possibly. Bad physics? Maybe. However it is not a mistake. Clearly the letters on the casing were intended to burn her hand and the did. That is not a production error. Whosethebestwho ☎ 07:47, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

It is an error because the clear absence of letter cannot transfer heat. Kindly refrain from reverting that edit again until others have the chance to weigh in. I'm not conceding the point, and I'd rather not keep recomposing it. --ComicBookGoddess ☎ 07:59, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I am going to remove it because it is NOT a production error. I am not sure how many times you want me to say that. It simply does not belong in that section, period. I am going to elevate the issue to prevent an edit war. Whosethebestwho ☎ 08:04, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I hate to step into an argument, but I think theirs some confusion of intent. Production errors happen all the time, and the actions behind they are frequently intended. Some crew member etched the letters into the button intentionally. The make-up artist created the burn on her hand to spell out the letters that the Doctor put on the remote. Someone probably drew out the design so that the letters were written roughly the same way in the same size. The error comes from not noticing that an indentation cannot create a burn. It's a production error, just the same way that the letters not being backward on Clara's hand would be a production error.

This could easily have been purposefully. Directors leave in continuity errors all the time that they are aware of because there are more important reasons for keeping the shots the way they are. Maybe everyone knew that the message on the remote should be raised, but the prop didn't look as good or read as well. Or maybe no one noticed, either way:

This isn't a plot hole. Consider this: a script calls for the Doctor to put a hat on his head in one scene, get the hat knocked off in another scene, and adjust the hat to fit more comfortably in the scene immediately after. We'd consider that a production error. This, likewise is a production error. Is the burn on Clara's hand important to the plot? Yes, of course. Are the letters on the remote important to the plot? Yes. Is it important to the plot that the letters be carved instead of raised? No. That's the difference. Anoted ☎ 11:36, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to provide moderation in this case by Whosethebestwho. Before I review the merits of the argument, let me quickly weigh in with a policy-only decision. You are both one edit away from clear violation of T:NO WARS. If either of you edit the page with respect to the issue of whether the remote could have/should have made that particular impression on Clara's hand, you'll be blocked, no questions asked. I will rule on the question of content soon.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  11:54: Mon 29 Apr 2013

In the discussion that created production error sections it was agreed that production errors are those things for which there is absolutely no possible narrative explanation.

So I'm going to issue a split decision in this case. I reject CBG's assertion that human skin cannot accept intaglio printing. In trying to think of an experiment that she can replicate, I went medical, since she's an EMT. Take a child-proof medicine bottle cap. These typically have big grooves around the edges. Press it into your hand. What's left behind is a negative of the groove. So I'd contend that it's possible Clara could well have received a negative image of sunken lettering. Should she also have received a burn of the space around the letters? Sure, maybe. But that gets into an area of artistic choice, in much the same way that one could quibble over the dimensions of the shadow shown in the cliffhanger of "An Unearthly Child". In the heightened reality of a TV show where the makeup department wants to make sure that you're able to read the lettering — but not too soon — they chose to bend reality to only show the letters in the hand. No biggie. If we went around reporting everything that wasn't possible in DW, we'd do very little other work. It's not possible to trap a decaying star in a police box either, but nobody's calling that a production error.

Another argument to make about the actual imprinting is that we don't know the process by which the Doctor carved these elements into the remote, or what's making the thing hot. (Or even if it's actually hot.) Presumably she hasn't just been branded like livestock. I'm assuming we're not going to see a scar left behind next week. And she's not walking around in the episode that she's got a major burn. She's blowing on it a little, sure, but it's not — apparently — like she's been struck with a red-hot cattle brand. Her acting is that of sharp pain followed by very mild discomfort. So is this a freeze burn or a heat burn or a wibbly-wobbly-unexplained-sonicy-it'll-go-away-in-three-hours-sorta-thing? Because of that very real narrative uncertainty, I just don't think we have grounds to call the imprinting process itself an error. But we do have plenty of grounds to talk about it at Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS.

No, the error is in the letters. Clearly, the props department and the make-up department weren't on the same page. It's absolutely not possible that the prop shown in closeup could produce the hand message shown in closeup. It's the wrong font and the wrong justification. That point is inarguable, and is very much of a production error. Someone didn't work continuity between the departments on that one. It's very much of a "Peter Davison isn't wearing Tom Baker's shoes in Castrovalva" kinda moment.

Accordingly, this observation may be entered as a production error.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  13:04: Mon 29 Apr 2013

Thank you for for your decision. T:NO WARS is the reason I asked for your help instead of continuing on. As promised, I will abide by your decision. Whosethebestwho ☎ 04:10, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Umbrella

Why are we confidently asserting it is the Seventh Doctor's umbrella that Clara finds? We sure it's not the one from The Snowmen? Any particular reason that language like "The Doctor finds an umbrella that resembles the Seventh Doctor's initial umbrella from Paradise Towers" wouldn't be preferable?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  03:54: Tue 30 Apr 2013

I just saw the episode today, and I was wondering the same thing. I didn't remove it because I'm not very far along in watching Seven, so I wasn't sure. I like your suggestion; something like it's already been done on the page with the TARDIS model. Shambala108 ☎ 04:03, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's confidently asserted because it's obvious what it is supposed to be, whether or not it says so. Even so, just in case, we should change it like you said. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 04:26, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Two people have questioned the statement, so it's not that obvious. Especially since Eleven had an umbrella in The Snowmen. Shambala108 ☎ 04:31, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a stretch to assert that this is the seventh Doctor's umbrella, given it does not feature its defining characteristic - the question-mark handle. Without that it's just an umbrella. The production team may have wanted viewers to draw that inference but that's a separate matter. 130.102.158.18^{talk to me} 04:42, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

The question mark umbrella wasn't the first umbrella the Seventh Doctor had. In his first couple of serials he did have one very much like the one Clara finds in the TARDIS and also similar to the one used in 'The Snowmen'. In fact I thought

while watching that christmas episode that the umbrella was either a reference to the Seventh Doctor's original umbrella or at least a happy coincidence. 86.31.164.87^{talk to me} 12:59, April 30, 2013 (UTC)