Talk:Forest of the Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forest of the Dead article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Predictions

Someone from IP address 81.158.105.80 added 'predictions' to the article. These are completely original research and have no place. They also called Professor River Song "Riversong". 92.5.113.238 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

This is quite sudden... Are we sure Newsround is correct here? — Edokter • Talk • 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the do say that the Production Team told them that the title had been changed from "River's Run", and they are (a) the BBC and (b) pretty reliable Stephenb (Talk)
Shouldn't this be added to a Production section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.224.209 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm
The episode was named River's Run and has a character called River Song in it - coincidence ??
193.243.227.1 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In the title screen, it was called "Forest of the Dead", so I think it should stay as this.
Anime No Kyouran (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redierection?

Is there any reason why this page was still being redirected to Doctor Who (series 4)? Type 40 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a thread discussing Matthew's deletion of this article's image here. Please make your comments centrally, rather than here. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Plot?

Can anybody add in a detailed plot of the episode? I'm sure the people who have added in the plots of previous episodes can do the same for this. Although I watched the episode, I am not able to write the full details of the episode - perhaps somebody else who is able to watch the episode again? Thanks Itsalive4 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Have some patience. I thought the same as you but I'm quite convinced they will add the plot details within the next hours. --SoWhy Talk 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Added, I took the liberty of regrouping events to be able to make things clearer. --MASEM 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I watched the episode and I'm not sure what happened, what the heck was up with that ending? I'm going to throw out some spoilers here so cover your ears...or better yet don't read the Wikipedia article before watching the episode :) Are the exploratory crew alive or dead? If they are alive why can't they be dumped out like all the other survivors? Because they were picked up via the wifi link and not the teleporters? Why is the Doctor so happy that Song is kinda sorta alive but stuck in the library? Why did he need the sonic screwdriver Kung-fu is none of the original explorers did? Finally, why did Song need the brain node thing in The Doctor's screwdriver when Song already had one on her neck? I know the talk section isn't a Q&A but I was hoping for explanation in the Plot section. Either I didn't get it or it didn't make any sense. 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Though this isn't a forum, I'll cover it, since the plot isn't going to be covering this in such detail. The library survivors were fully-formed humans stored as complete patterns. To use a little Star Trek, their transport patterns were still in the buffer. The Data Ghosts are just an echo of consciousness picked up by the Wifi and saved. They have no transport patterns to be reintegrated from, hence they're stuck. As for why Song needed the kung-fu, I got the impression that Song was vaporized, or at least fried so totally that the Data Ghost cm device wouldn't survive. The sonic screwdriver she carried was no doubt isolated to prevent damage, and unintentional upload. A little OR for your thoughts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm very impressed with this plot here. Very well-explained considering how complex the episode was. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Like Moffat's The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances, this serial is unique in that nobody actually dies (although this differs from the others in that River Song's crew is 'saved' rather than living at the end)". How can it be like other episodes and unique at the same time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.235.120 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed that; it was rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prof. River Song => own article?

Now we have two episodes featuring her and probably, deducing from those episodes, one or more to come in series 5 or later, I'd say she could warrant her own article, as we also gave Jenny her own article with only one appearance so far. Apparently Prof. Song will be quite close to the Doctor sometimes in the future, knowing even his real name, so I think she is an important character. What do you think? --SoWhy Talk 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree with Jenny getting an article, but if she does then River Song also should. U-Mos (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with U-Mos' argument above - if there was enough material in one episode to write an article about Jenny, there should be more than enough in two episodes to write one on Professor Song. All the more so given that the episode strongly suggested she would be returning in the future. Terraxos (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against one-off characters having their own article. Including Jenny and Astrid Peth, and - of course - River. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But Astrid was offically a companion, so surely warrants an article. But that's not the issue here. Jenny's article was created, put up for deletion and allowed to be kept. So if a good enough article were to be written about River Song (for instance, citing the numerous sources that speculate that she will return in the future), it would also be kept. U-Mos (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
While Astrid's companion status is debateable, I will nominate any River article for deletion, given her lack of notability (what needs its own article that can't be put in this one?). Even if a reliable source can be found, mention of return will be pure speculation nonetheless. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenny's article was kept because there was a very sizable amount of real-world information about the creative process behind her conception. Try making one in your article namespace, and if it comes along well, how about a vote (a pre-emptive AfD, if you will...)~ZytheTalk to me! 16:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think she should have a page, cus she's clearly an important person in the Doctor's life. plus shes a companion on the same scale as Donna, Martha and Rose. talk 23:35, 8th June 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant! We must consider in what ways she, a fictional character, is notable in real life.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a Steven Moffat episode - was he setting up series 5, which he'll be head writer of, by introducing a new companion early? We'll have to wait and see, but if that does happen, she'll definitely deserve her own article. Until then, same status as Jenny (Find background info if it's to be kept). Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That music I know

The music played on strings when River is uploaded has been used before, several times I think, as a vocal piece. I can't quite remember what it's from, but my mind connects it with Rose, and in particular to series 1. It may be what was used when she first saw the TARDIS, or when she manifested as Bad Wolf at the end of the series. It may have also been used when Elton saw the TARDIS in Love & Monsters (I remember recalling that from The Parting of the Ways at the time). Either way, if someone is sure what it was used in it's a notable reappearing motif imho. U-Mos (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I recognised it too and couldn't quite place it... I'll try to find out. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's one (near the end). I'm pretty sure that's what was used in L&M too, and we also have this quote from Rose (Doctor Who)#Production#Music which, if it refers to this, confirms other appearances: The music heard after the Doctor's speech about the "turn of the earth", as he walks towards the TARDIS, has a distinctive and eerie female vocal. On the DVD commentary of this episode, Russell T. Davies and Phil Collinson jokingly call this voice "President Flavia", a reference to a Time Lady character from The Five Doctors.[13] Davies says that this voice is heard "whenever it gets too Time Lord-y". It was also heard during the course of Series 1 in "The End of the World,",[7] "Boom Town,"[16] "Bad Wolf"[18] and "The Parting of the Ways."[17] The main point of interest is that it hasn't been used, I believe, for a long time in the series. We need confirmation on when it was last used and so forth to proceed though (I'm sure there are some DW music fanatic somewhere...). U-Mos (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the Doctor's them on the official soundtrack. Apparently a variation was used as recently as Partners in Crime, so I obviously just wasn't paying attention then. Not notable as it is then, I don't think. U-Mos (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're sure it's not "The Doctor Forever" - also a Doctor's theme on the second soundtrack? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure at all. If they're the same tune it could be taken from either. I'll listen to Doctor Forever when I'm at a computer with speakers. U-Mos (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely the Doctor's theme. U-Mos (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by Masem

I see an edit referring to ordering scenes, and I'm all ready for a quick revert. But I actually don't know which should remain. So which is better? There's only one way to find out: DISCCCUSSSS!!! U-Mos (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against any reordering. However, we need to keep the plot concise, and we need to keep the plot well understood. This episode is, if not more than the previous, extra confusing since there are 3 separate plot lines that touch but do not interact until the 2nd half. To me, it seems easier to separate out the 3 lines until it is necessary to say how they interact (at the point CAL starts the self-destruct sequence). Elements like the Doctor momentarily appearing to Donna, the girl causing the kid to strain his ankle, etc, are not absolutely necessary to appreciate the episode (IMO). Mind you, I don't think this is as rambling as I've seen other DW/TW episodes which I've helped to correct, so it's not absolutely necessary to improve like this. --MASEM 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
On a re-read, I think what you did was fine. It lets the first paragraph act as a sort of "intro" to the scenarios, and allows the seperate storylines to be explored seperately thereafter. U-Mos (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Words fail me...

[1] "Shock" is certainly not one that springs to mind! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of restoring that image to this article on the grounds that it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the scale of the library and, in the immediate context, the return of the thousands of missing people. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How exactly does the image depict "the return of the thousands of missing people"? It depicts a number of people standing - but nothing more. Matthew (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but given the weekly debate with Matthew, I can't face providing arguments any more. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm...I would've have thought that that image was fine in terms of displaying the scale...How about one showing Miss Evangalista's distorted face? DonQuixote (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with an image of Miss Evangalista's distorted face, and I think(!) Will may upload that image. As for Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, I've no idea who you are. Matthew (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have had debates with Matthew in the past, but not in the past year or so. In any case, if he should be the only person who holds to his interpretation of the policy he cites on this matter, it isn't his decision.
On the Evangelista picture, I think that would also be an excellent choice for this article, because it graphically demonstrates the nature of the world in which Donna finds herself. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Either is acceptable to me (!) - how do you suggest we proceed? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no hurry. My favored method of handling this minor dispute would be to wait until someone uploads a picture that we agree here is acceptable. Examples that work for me include the one removed by Matthew, the proposed picture of Miss Evangelista as captured (in corrupted form) in the core program, or any of the following: CAL (The Girl) using her TV remote control on her father and making him disappear, The Doctor appearing before Donna in place of Doctor Moon when he briefly interrupts the moon's signal, the duplicated children in the playground, a still of the handcuffed Doctor after River Song's death (showing Euros Lyn's use of comic-book like lighting to achieve an epic, mythic, doom-laden atmosphere), River Song overpowering The Doctor, and The Girl watching The Doctor hanging from a building on her television. There are plenty of such scenes that, in still form, would greatly improve the reader's understanding of the episode. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] Perhaps using the BBC's official Doctor Who site images would be more acceptable. One such example could be the Vashda Nerada suit. Phil (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a Suit Creature one before and Matthew decided that I thought it wasn't allowed. :-( ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think such a picture would be ok as "it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the topic". --Cameron (T|C) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually rather like the idea of using a still of either Miss Evangelista's distorted face, the handcuffed Doctor, or Song as she sits in the chair. Those would greatly increase the understanding of the episode. I would recommend that the Vashta Nerada-occupied suit be used in the previous episode (as it would accomplish the same effect there). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There, a picture of the corrupted Miss Evangelista. Anyone have any objections? I'm hoping not, looking at the above discussion... TalkIslander 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to have to look at that every time I edit the article, but fair dos! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we could do better but will not raise any other objections if that is what consensus wants. --Cameron (T|C) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Islander! Matthew (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we aren't prohibited from adding a picture to the article, like for example, a despondent Doctor cuffed to a pole, reflecting on the loss of Song say, in plot summary. As it offers rather interesting insight into the pathos of the episode's end, I would support adding it. I'll dig around to find a still for it.
On a side note, in regards to the image being considered for removal from Last of the Time Lords, I seem to recall a scene where the doctor set alight a pyre with the Master's body on it. To my reckoning, this would be an exceptional image for use in the episode article, and sidestep any usage arguments. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New images uploaded

Since folk seemed a tad unhappy with the choices presented to them for placeholder and other imagery, I've taken the liberty of uploading a number of images to choose from for use in this article. Please let me know here what you think of their relative usefulness in the article:

I think these show some of the pathos of the episode, and would be pretty useful in communicating the plot. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid they all fail NFCC, and they are in the wrong format. The current image on the article is quite OK. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Explain how the format is wrong and what specific criteria of NFCC the images fail, pls. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Format: they're all in strange proportions - some standard screen, some widescreen, but none the standard size of 480 x 270 px aspect ratio. That's important. NFCC:
  1. The Doctor is handcuffed and looks concerned. So what?
  2. The Doctor bears his teeth - completely non-unique.
  3. It's a picture of River Song sitting down. Non-unique.
  4. Same as 1.
  5. Same as 1.
  6. Same as 1.
  7. OK, in fairness this probably would pass NFCC, in my own opinion. Format's still wrong, though, and I prefer the Miss Evangelista picture.
  8. Same as 1 (perhaps 'sad' instead of 'concerned').
With the exception perhaps of picture 7, none are unique. Also, in future situations like this, please don't upload a load of non-free stuff to Wikipedia - use Photobucket or summit' - by uploading them, you're violating NFCC. TalkIslander 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)