Talk:Boom Town (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV Movie similarities[edit]

Although they might not be exactly the same, the similarity is nevertheless curious, and the TV Movie seems an obvious inspiration for several elements in the episode. I see no reason why these parallels are unworthy of note.

This is especially true in the case of the "regression" phenomenon, which to my knowledge has never been seen in any other episodes of the series. The fact that the TARDIS could heal Grace and Chang in the movie has long been a contentious issue, as the TARDIS had never before exhibited even a similar quality; it has always struck as a silly deus ex machina, not really in the spirit of the canon to the series. And yet here, the TARDIS does something remarkably similar. Sure, the specific implementation is different; as you note, in the TV movie it's a yellow glow and here it's got to do with a bright light. I don't see how that's really relevent, however. The principle is the same.

Not really. Let's compare and contrast:
  1. In the TVM, the action happens in the Cloister Room, with no ripping open of the TARDIS involved (the Eye of Harmony is closed at this point in time). In Boom Town, the TARDIS console is "ripped open" by the turmoil caused by the rift.
  2. The "healing" manifests itself as a white glow instead of glittering pixie dust (in fact, if you want similarities, the nanogenes in The Doctor Dances resemble the pixie dust more than the white glow in Boom Town does - and they even bring Jamie back to life!).
  3. The bringing back to life of Grace and Chang Lee is a healing of sorts - they remember dying, so it isn't really reversal in that sense. Here, Blaine isn't being healed; she's being regressed.
The parallels are not as strong as you suggest. True, we've never seen regression in other episodes of the series, but that doesn't mean that it's the same function that we see in the TVM either. --khaosworks 14:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
That being said, in the spirit of some compromise, I've noted the television movie in a weaker manner that I hope is acceptable, along with some other instances. --khaosworks 15:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Doctor doesn't bring them back to life. If you'll remember the inside of the TARDIS is in a state of temporal grace (now realize the horrible pun that could have resulted in that scene... "What happened, Doctor?" "Just something temporal, Grace"...) And as far as age regression in or by the TARDIS never being seen before, I beg to differ. What about in Mawdryn Undead, when the Doctor tries to leave with Nyssa and Tegan from the space station... he not only makes them age, but they also get younger. Now, while this happens because of what they were infected with, it is still an effect of travelling in time, and in the TARDIS... now, where's my no-prize!? --travlr23
Ah, but as you pointed out,the Mawdryn Undead effect was not a product of the TARDIS, but an external infection. And temporal grace has to do with the prevention of weapons firing in the TARDIS, not regression or resurrection. And besides, "temporal grace" hasn't worked since Earthshock. --khaosworks 01:29, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
In 'The Infinity Doctors' two alien races get locked in a TARDIS and kill each other over and over again, until they realize that killing each other doesn't work, and they work out a peace accord, thanks to 'temporal grace'. So perhaps dying is allowed, but not killing... the Master 'kills' Chang Lee and Grace... maybe Grace returned the 'temporal grace' to the TARDIS... (it's a sentimental old thing...) Anyway, whatever caused the Slitheen to regress had something to do with the TARDIS itself, or maybe even with the Rift. --Travlr23 03:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Odd example, though, as The Infinity Doctors doesn't even seem to take place in the same universe as everything else, and deliberately so. I don't doubt that the TARDIS was responsible - after all, the Doctor says even he doesn't know how powerful the TARDIS is, but it's certainly a new thing (sort of) as far as the show is concerned. --khaosworks 04:42, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Well. After more recent events, clearly the similarities are growing. We've got the yellow "pixie dust" effect from the vortex. We've got Rose bringing people back to life, by manipulating time -- and Jack seems aware that he just died. And again, it comes from forcing open the console.* In Boom Town, the TARDIS apparently reacts in a defensive manner. In the TVM and Parting, it instead reaches out to the Doctor's companions (and Chang) -- which might or might not have something to do with the supposed "affinity" the TARDIS has for humans, in particular the Doctor's friends. Anyway. This all seems part of the same mechanism, one way or another. Whether responding to attack or bringing people back to life, it's still the TARDIS energies manipulating time in a focused area to some specific end.
And yet. This is all kind of beside the point I was making earlier. Regardless of the literal similarities, the intent on Davies' part to reference the TVM should be blatantly obvious by this point -- especially when you include the rough (yes, rough) plot outline of Boom Town and details like the "cloaking device" conversation, along with Davies' more recent fondness for smooching Doctors. And it's that -- the intent and influence; not the practical result -- that's at issue here. I don't see much room to argue that he wasn't directly influenced in writing this episode, especially given his professed fondness for the TVM on other occasions. The parallels are too many and too "cute" to conclude otherwise. About the only TVM issues Davies has yet to try to reconcile are the "half-human" and the Eye things, the latter of which is perhaps avoided by the new structure of the TARDIS and the former of which... might take some more work to deal with. To deny the influence because the practical implementations slightly differ is kind of backwards.
*: Which, frankly, seems the center of power in this incarnation. Earlier, at various times, the TARDIS had engine rooms and a link to the Eye of Harmony powering it. Things seem to have changed around a lot since 1989. I guess they must have changed even more dramatically since the Time War. Who knows how the TARDIS is configured now. The "heart" under the console, as portrayed in the new series, does seem to serve the same role as the Eye in the movie, though.

Sonic Screwdriver[edit]

I think there should be a list of all of the things that the Doctor has done with the sonic screwdriver on the sonic screwdriver page, possibly with episode references. --Jawr256 15:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

That would be quite a list. He's used it a hell of a lot, and minutiae like that would surely be fancruft. --khaosworks 15:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mickey and girlfriends[edit]

I think the plot summary doesn't reflect the interpretation that Mickey is possibly lying about Trisha, and is giving Rose the excuse to break their ties. GraemeLeggett 09:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How are you going to phrase that, though? (personally, I don't think he's lying, but that's just me). --khaosworks 12:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Our interpretations shouldn't really make it beyond talk pages though really ... --Vamp:Willow 12:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's much harm in saying "This is thought by some people to be...". I mean, in this case, I think we all agree that it is quite a possibility, not just a load of made up rubbish. --bjwebb 14:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Problem is "thought by some" is so horribly vague, and I have serious doubts whether it's notable. I mean, a couple of people talking about it in a pub is technically "thought by some", and that's not notable. Besides, does it really matter? it's not like Trisha Delaney is the Bad Wolf of anything... :) --khaosworks 14:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Extrapolator[edit]

Is it a
tribophysical waveform macrokinetic extrapolator
Or a
tribophysical waveform magnokinetic extrapolator? --Jawr256 07:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The "Doctor who?" gag[edit]

Wouldn't it be more relevant to have this note at The Empty Child, given that that's the first instance of the gag in the new series? I know I could move it myself, but I thought I'd better ask as there might be a good reason for it to be here that I've missed. Angmering 01:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, go ahead and move it. I don't recall it in the Empty Child, however. Where was it? Sean 01:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the corridor at the hospital just after Rose and Jack have met up with the Doctor, and he's complaining at her for telling Jack he was called Doctor Spock. Angmering 01:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last bulletpoint before "Production"[edit]

That "Deadly Assassin" bit needs looking at.

I don't want to just delete it, because I assume there's a point about it that needs to be made but someone just forgot to fully include it. Anyone want to write something in if they know what the link is?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Boom Town (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matty.007 (talk · contribs) 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to try and review this, but please bear in mind that this is my first review; please feel free (anyone) to correct me. What I would quite like is, when replying to my comments, if you reply individually to each comment, as I believe is the norm, please sign each fix/comment withthree tildes (~~~), which signs only your name, and means the conversation doesn't get too confusing. Thanks, Matty.007 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose quibbles[edit]

  • “time traveller the Doctor”: if 'The Doctor' is his name, should the 'The' be capitalised? I ask this not because I am lazy, but to get your opinion
  • “is alive and willing to destroy the planet to ensure her freedom”: is alive? Should this not be removed/moved to plot as it requires previous knowledge?
    • Not sure what you mean. I did change it to "recently defeated enemy". Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is alive after what? How about 'survived 'Episode', and willing to destroy...'? Matty.007
  • “Blaine due to her performance in "Aliens of London"/"World War Three" being”: should the episode names be in italics? I suspect that there is some guideline saying not, as the page names aren't in italics, but please could you link me to them?
  • “The actor playing Mr Cleaver, William Thomas, had previously appeared as Martin the undertaker in the 1988 classic series story Remembrance of the Daleks. This made him the first performer to appear in both the original and current run of Doctor Who”: please can you source the first sentence. Can the references to 'Burk and Smith?' be expanded for author, publisher...?
    • It's the same source as the next sentence; they don't always have to be repeated, but I did anyway. The publisher and stuff for that reference is found in the Bibliography section at the end of references, as is commonly done with this sort of multiple page number referencing. Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Davies stated that he originally intended to call this episode "Dining with Monsters". He joked that a much better name for this episode would be "What should we do with Margaret?"”: please can you source the first sentence?
  • “Davies intended the episode to be a character piece exploring whether the Doctor had the authority to take someone to their death sentence, as well as showing the consequences of the Doctor's actions the last time he met Margaret, both themes fitting for Eccleston's war-torn Doctor”: perhaps a bit of shortening, and simplifying please?
  • “the fact the TARDIS has a psychic link with people was established beforehand so the resolution did not come completely out of nowhere”: simplify please?
  • “author Robert Smith? called the episode”: any reason for the question mark?
  • “describing it as just a "fun romp"”: either remove the 'just', or add it to quotes. Personally, I think a fun romp isn't bad by itself.
    • The actual quote is "It's a fun romp. Nothing more than that." "Just" does work as it means "nothing else", but I understand the bad connotation, so I changed it to "nothing more".
      • Still seems like it's dismissing his quote. I changed it a little (and removed a stray 'The'). Matty.007
  • “calling bringing back Margaret a "bad idea"”: um... not in the source given he didn't

Miscellaneous[edit]

  • Perhaps 'Production' should be 'Production and casting'?
    • Back to the DW MOS above, "Casting" can be a section under production if there's enough info, but otherwise it's part of the production process anyway. Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Broadcast and reception' Needs more than a few reviews, surely some British newspapers have reviews online. Also, I think that the SFX and Radio Times reviews need shortening.
    • If they ever did they have been swallowed by changes to the Internet. I'll add The A.V. Club's review when they cover it. Back when the series was new, less sources covered it episode by episode. The size of the section is about normal with older non-event TV episodes (see numerous GAs of The X-Files, etc). RT is essentially just a sentence so I left that, but I shortened SFX a bit. Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I originally mistook RT and Digital Spy as the same. Matty.007
  • ' Burk and Smith? p. 46': does it have a question mark in?
    • Answered above. (Oh don't worry, I am used to this question.)
      • (Do you get this question every GAN?) Matty.007
  • Is 'Outpost Gallifrey' a RS? Is it used in other GAs? (I genuinely don't know this, I'm not trying to be annoying)
    • "Fear Her" and "Love & Monsters" are some recent ones, but it and its later Doctor Who News Page are used in several because the website has been cited by other reliable sources who reprint the information, and in the case with Outpost there is a definite author and editor, etc. I think they actually hire people to report for them. Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give years for some past Who episodes mentioned but not others. Is there a reason?
    • The historical episodes have dates while the ones mentioned that were produced/aired as part of the same series do not because that would be unnecessary. Remembrance of the Daleks doesn't have it in parentheses because the year was mentioned earlier in the sentence. Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In SFX, Blaine is stated to be played by Annette Badland. I am reasonably confident that this is a mistake, but is that the only place where Annette Badland is credited? Matty.007 10:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean; the character is Margaret Blaine and the actor is Annette Badland. She is credited at the end of the episode itself, on the official website, and numerous reference sources. Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh. Well done me for that mistake. Thanks, Matty.007
  • Per Wikipedia:ELMAYBE#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority", "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" should not be external links. I quote SilkTork from a previous GA review he did on Rose (Doctor Who): "At GA level we should not be directing readers to alternative reader generated sites like IMDB and external wikis. If those sites have more information than Wikipedia than this article is by default failing to provide enough information. For an article on a TV episode links to the script or a licensed stream of the video would be acceptable, but not fan sites such as http://www.drwhoguide.com, which offer nothing that can't be put in this article with appropriate research and use of reliable sources". Thanks, Matty.007 19:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh I've never seen that be an issue before as so many articles link to those (I might bring it up on WP:DW because we need to make sure we're following the guidlines). I've removed everything but BBC-licensed sources. Glimmer721 talk 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's OK now, it passes my reading of external link policies. Matty.007 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Fixed all my little quibbles

On hold until the issues I have set out are adressed. Best, Matty.007 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have replied to everything above. Thanks for the review! Glimmer721 talk 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks. Glimmer721 talk 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, passed. Well done! Matty.007 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boom_Town_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1206373606"