Howling:Series 5 Spans 2010.: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference

Howling:Series 5 Spans 2010. (view source)

Revision as of 12:31, 28 August 2010

9 bytes removed ,  28 August 2010
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Forumheader|The Howling}}
{{Forum archives header|The Howling archives}}<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ -->
<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ -->


Well, isn't that wizard. Since when was the timeline in sync with us? Though it has been noted that as of Children of Earth, The Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3, and The End of Time, the timeline is now in sycn with ours (stories that aired in 2008 and 2009 were both set in the same year). The latest stories set in 2009 wer Children of Earth in September 2009, The Sarah Jane Adventures series 3 in October and November 2009, The End of Time in December 2009. The Sarah Jane Advetnure sseries 2 was June, July, and August time 2009. But Planet of the Dead became a big discontinuity error: April 2009, seemingly before the series 4 Doctor Who finale. SIGH.
Well, isn't that wizard. Since when was the timeline in sync with us? Though it has been noted that as of Children of Earth, The Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3, and The End of Time, the timeline is now in sycn with ours (stories that aired in 2008 and 2009 were both set in the same year). The latest stories set in 2009 wer Children of Earth in September 2009, The Sarah Jane Adventures series 3 in October and November 2009, The End of Time in December 2009. The Sarah Jane Advetnure sseries 2 was June, July, and August time 2009. But Planet of the Dead became a big discontinuity error: April 2009, seemingly before the series 4 Doctor Who finale. SIGH.
Line 39: Line 38:
2:44, February 2, 2010 (EST)
2:44, February 2, 2010 (EST)
:He meets her as a child and again as a young adult. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 05:11, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
:He meets her as a child and again as a young adult. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 05:11, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
:  
:


:The problem is, with The End of Time being Christmas 2009, The Sarah Jane Adventures series 3 taking place not long before it in October and November time 2009, and Children of Earth in September 2009, what can be done about Planet of the Dead? That's set before them - in April! Unless we ignore the reference to their having been planets in the sky. Timeline wise, if you listen to Beautiful Chaos's date, Planet of the Dead happens before The Stolen Earth/Journey's End.
:The problem is, with The End of Time being Christmas 2009, The Sarah Jane Adventures series 3 taking place not long before it in October and November time 2009, and Children of Earth in September 2009, what can be done about Planet of the Dead? That's set before them - in April! Unless we ignore the reference to their having been planets in the sky. Timeline wise, if you listen to Beautiful Chaos's date, Planet of the Dead happens before The Stolen Earth/Journey's End.
Line 61: Line 60:
:::One more thing, the [[Erisa Magambo]] page places the Torchwood novel [[The Undertaker's Gift]], which is before Children of Earth, in November. Which would be the November of the year before? I don't have the book, so I can't tell if that's a correct interpretation of its contents. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 16:05, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
:::One more thing, the [[Erisa Magambo]] page places the Torchwood novel [[The Undertaker's Gift]], which is before Children of Earth, in November. Which would be the November of the year before? I don't have the book, so I can't tell if that's a correct interpretation of its contents. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 16:05, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
::Again, though, books cannot be seen as containing '''superior''' information to televised episodes. If the only source of a time for events is a book, then that's invalid information. Not saying you can't mention it in an article, but you certainly can't say that it is absolute fact. Going strictly on televised episodes, the most logical interpretation — unless I've missed something — is that ''Journey's End'' happens before Easter, 2009. Put it another way, the issue here isn't that POTD is in conflict with JE, it's that it's in conflict with ''Beautiful Chaos''. And there's no conflict possible there, because ''Chaos'' is '''just a book''', written well before POTD's script was finished. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 17:26, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
::Again, though, books cannot be seen as containing '''superior''' information to televised episodes. If the only source of a time for events is a book, then that's invalid information. Not saying you can't mention it in an article, but you certainly can't say that it is absolute fact. Going strictly on televised episodes, the most logical interpretation — unless I've missed something — is that ''Journey's End'' happens before Easter, 2009. Put it another way, the issue here isn't that POTD is in conflict with JE, it's that it's in conflict with ''Beautiful Chaos''. And there's no conflict possible there, because ''Chaos'' is '''just a book''', written well before POTD's script was finished. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 17:26, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
::
::




Line 72: Line 71:
:::Okay, couple of points here. Please don't call people "ignorant" just because they're not taking notice of episodes that ''haven't even aired yet''. Until episodes are aired, going off of ''presumed'' dialogue is a very risky thing on this wiki — something which can easily lead to an awful lot of duplication of effort. We cannot build this wiki on rumors and literal hearsay.
:::Okay, couple of points here. Please don't call people "ignorant" just because they're not taking notice of episodes that ''haven't even aired yet''. Until episodes are aired, going off of ''presumed'' dialogue is a very risky thing on this wiki — something which can easily lead to an awful lot of duplication of effort. We cannot build this wiki on rumors and literal hearsay.


:::Second, commentaries are almost never valid resources for narrative information. I've seen you make this sort of remark before, but you really need to understand that just because a member of the production staff makes a public commment about an episode, that doesn't make it an in-universe "truth". We can report that "RTD said the temperature of Midnight was -156 degrees Kelvin," in a background/behind the scenes section, but we can't definitively enter that as the temperature of Midnight unless it '''explicitly says so in the episode'''. I think there's really only one sort of case where commentaries do contain legitimate information about the narrative, but I'll talk about that in a moment.  
:::Second, commentaries are almost never valid resources for narrative information. I've seen you make this sort of remark before, but you really need to understand that just because a member of the production staff makes a public commment about an episode, that doesn't make it an in-universe "truth". We can report that "RTD said the temperature of Midnight was -156 degrees Kelvin," in a background/behind the scenes section, but we can't definitively enter that as the temperature of Midnight unless it '''explicitly says so in the episode'''. I think there's really only one sort of case where commentaries do contain legitimate information about the narrative, but I'll talk about that in a moment.


:::Now, though, time to tackle the WOM/POTD "contradiction". I put that in quotes, cause there really isn't one — unless you wanna go out of your way to create it. It's widely accepted that the on-screen graphics for WOM are riddled with continuity errors, not to mention basic typos. And that's the only place you're getting 12 May 1999 as Adelaide's date of birth. In fact, the graphic that establishes her birthday is itself internally inconsistent. Here's the exact sentence, with which I'm sure you're already familiar:
:::Now, though, time to tackle the WOM/POTD "contradiction". I put that in quotes, cause there really isn't one — unless you wanna go out of your way to create it. It's widely accepted that the on-screen graphics for WOM are riddled with continuity errors, not to mention basic typos. And that's the only place you're getting 12 May 1999 as Adelaide's date of birth. In fact, the graphic that establishes her birthday is itself internally inconsistent. Here's the exact sentence, with which I'm sure you're already familiar:
::::"Brooke, born in Finchley, North London on 12 May 1999 lost her parents at the age of 10 when they were pronounced missing and presumed dead after the Dalek invasion of 2008."
::::"Brooke, born in Finchley, North London on 12 May 1999 lost her parents at the age of 10 when they were pronounced missing and presumed dead after the Dalek invasion of 2008."
:::There's no way you can be born in 1999, but 10 years old in 2008. The only years in which you can be 10 if you're born in 1999 are 2009 and 2010.
:::There's no way you can be born in 1999, but 10 years old in 2008. The only years in which you can be 10 if you're born in 1999 are 2009 and 2010.
Line 80: Line 79:
:::Now, i know what you're going to say. "Yes, yes, everyone knows the error is that the Dalek invasion wasn't in 2008. It's established to be in 2009 through other sources, so that's what we "nip/tuck" here. And if you change the Dalek Invasion date to 2009, then it must've occurred after her birthday, which therefore creates this POTD/WOM incompatibility."
:::Now, i know what you're going to say. "Yes, yes, everyone knows the error is that the Dalek invasion wasn't in 2008. It's established to be in 2009 through other sources, so that's what we "nip/tuck" here. And if you change the Dalek Invasion date to 2009, then it must've occurred after her birthday, which therefore creates this POTD/WOM incompatibility."


:::But the thing is, you have to ''change'' what we see on screen in order to believe the graphic. So, why stop with just the Dalek Invasion date? I mean, we have to change what it says about Adelaide's granddaughter's crew, or believe through some freak effect, her crew all have the same names as her grandmother's. So why not change Adelaide's birthdate, too? I honestly don't see a way that you can logically argue to change '''only''' one thing about the graphics.
:::But the thing is, you have to ''change'' what we see on screen in order to believe the graphic. So, why stop with just the Dalek Invasion date? I mean, we have to change what it says about Adelaide's granddaughter's crew, or believe through some freak effect, her crew all have the same names as her grandmother's. So why not change Adelaide's birthdate, too? I honestly don't see a way that you can logically argue to change '''only''' one thing about the graphics.


:::See, the weird thing is that this one of the very few cases in which the commentary actually ''does'' provide you with valuable behind-the-scenes information that you ''can'' use to identify the validity of a narrative resource. RTD says the graphics were written by a trainee script editor, and that they weren't a part of the script. He also makes it very clear that he himself didn't double-check the newbie's work. So this trainee naturally made mistakes and they weren't caught. The graphics are therefore clearly gaffes, which shouldn't be treated seriously by this wiki. Fine, the close-ups which show information changing, that's valid, because that part — like the location of Adelaide's death changing from Mars to Earth — '''was''' in the script and was therefore the focus of the director's attention. But the stuff you'd actually have to freeze frame to see? Nah, that stuff has too many obvious errors to be consider valid.
:::See, the weird thing is that this one of the very few cases in which the commentary actually ''does'' provide you with valuable behind-the-scenes information that you ''can'' use to identify the validity of a narrative resource. RTD says the graphics were written by a trainee script editor, and that they weren't a part of the script. He also makes it very clear that he himself didn't double-check the newbie's work. So this trainee naturally made mistakes and they weren't caught. The graphics are therefore clearly gaffes, which shouldn't be treated seriously by this wiki. Fine, the close-ups which show information changing, that's valid, because that part — like the location of Adelaide's death changing from Mars to Earth — '''was''' in the script and was therefore the focus of the director's attention. But the stuff you'd actually have to freeze frame to see? Nah, that stuff has too many obvious errors to be consider valid.


:::Thus what we're left with is dialogue. It's 2059. The Doctor says the Dalek invasion happened "50 years ago". Adelaide was a girl when it happened. We don't know, from dialogue, how old she was at the time of Dalek incident. So we are completely free to put ''Journey's End'' before Easter 2009. Personally, I think that's where the inquiry should stop, but let's press ahead for those who really feel the need to somehow include the graphics.
:::Thus what we're left with is dialogue. It's 2059. The Doctor says the Dalek invasion happened "50 years ago". Adelaide was a girl when it happened. We don't know, from dialogue, how old she was at the time of Dalek incident. So we are completely free to put ''Journey's End'' before Easter 2009. Personally, I think that's where the inquiry should stop, but let's press ahead for those who really feel the need to somehow include the graphics.


:::At least twice we have a graphic on screen which merely gives the years of her life as 1999-2059. And that's fine, too. She can be born in ''early'' 1999 and still have ''JE'' prior to Easter. It's only the one graphic which I've quoted before, that gives a problem. So, based both on the totality of the dialogue, but the ''majority'' of the graphics, there's nothing about WOM which says POTD can't come after JE. It's only when we get to a level of detail that is obviously flawed, and for which the commentary gives adequate explanation for why it is flawed, that we run into a problem. So we should ignore it and go for the '''most sensible''' reading of the televised chronology. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 17:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
:::At least twice we have a graphic on screen which merely gives the years of her life as 1999-2059. And that's fine, too. She can be born in ''early'' 1999 and still have ''JE'' prior to Easter. It's only the one graphic which I've quoted before, that gives a problem. So, based both on the totality of the dialogue, but the ''majority'' of the graphics, there's nothing about WOM which says POTD can't come after JE. It's only when we get to a level of detail that is obviously flawed, and for which the commentary gives adequate explanation for why it is flawed, that we run into a problem. So we should ignore it and go for the '''most sensible''' reading of the televised chronology. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 17:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/420735"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information