Talk:The Christmas Invasion

Idle baseless speculation

"Look at you, beaming like you're Father Christmas." "Who says I'm not? Red bike when you were twelve." --Billpg 12:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further idle speculation: The Tempest's Sycorax trapped Ariel in a pine tree.

...she did confine thee,

By help of her more potent ministers

And in her most unmitigable rage,

Into a cloven pine;

In The Christmas Invasion, Rose and others are attacked by a Christmas tree. Connection? (Maybe.) Noteworthy? (Nah.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

And further: "I recognize the handwriting."

"Shakespeare's!"

"No, mine. Strained his hand writing sonnets!"--Sean|Black 07:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis

If someone can come up with a source for that synopsis that anon IP keeps inserting, please do. I've scanned the usual fan and news channels and Outpost Gallifrey and have come up with nothing. So unless a source reveals itself, I'm afraid I'll have to keep reverting it. --khaosworks 11:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Answer: On the offical BBC Doctor Who webpage had this to say about the Christmas Invasion: Filming of the Christmas episode kicks off in London and continues in various locations across Wales, predominantly in Cardiff. Christmas becomes a time of terror for Planet Earth, as the whole of mankind falls under the shadow of the alien Sycorax. Rose needs the Doctor's help, but can she trust a man with a new face?

And this:

Elisabeth Sladen resumes her role as the iconic character Sarah Jane Smith; remembered by a whole generation of Doctor Who fans as the assistant to both Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker.

I hope that answers your question!

The Master

When was it confirmed that Anthony Stewart Head was The Master, and not just a headmaster? Have I missed something? Sean 03:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you haven't. I just missed removing it when I was editing that anon edit. Mea culpa. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle, Khaosworks Sean 03:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

General season 2 information

There's a lot of notes in this article that refer to season 2 in general, and not to this episode specifically. I think most of that info is now either in List of Doctor Who serials, specific episode articles, character/actor articles, etc. Might it be a good idea to clear these out a bit? Radagast 12:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Preceded by...

Shouldn't it mention the Children in Need scene? Daibhid C 16:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We'll get around to it in 6 days or so once the situation becomes clear... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now that it's been shown, where shall we place the summary? In its own page? Here? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it deserves its own page, but in the absence of an official title I'm not sure where that should be. 2005 Doctor Who Children in Need Special seems a bit long-winded. At any rate, if Dimensions in Time gets its own page, this definitely should. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I haven't watched the CiN thing yet, but DiT is fairly notorouis in fan circles, which could give it an extra ounce of notability: Perhaps the question we're not asking ourselves is "Does DiT need an article?", which I don't have an easy answer for.--Sean|Black 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

DiT is a bit problematic, I admit (although as you say, its reputation for awfulness might give it a little oomph, making it comparable to The Star Wars Holiday Special. But since this turned out to be about 7 minutes long, and it was the first substantial appearance of the Tenth Doctor, I think it might merit its own page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Where DiT has unclear canonicity (where does it fit in the chronology, etc), this one is blatantly clear - it starts just after PotW, and is a direct lead-in to TCI. It had the usual opening credits (though no episode title), and shot on the usual console-room set. It is NOT part of TCI itself (separate production, direction, etc), so really should have its own article. Radagast 02:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been bold and created Doctor Who Children in Need special (2005). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a prelude to The Christmas Invasion - it explains why we are arriving on Earth on Christmas Eve and not the Planet Barcelona. PaulHammond 20:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's quote in Ghost Light?

The note about Arthur Dent mentiuons that the Doctor quotes the Guide in Ghost Light, but there's no note about such a quote in that serial's entry. Is this true? And can we source the quote and add it to the Ghost Light entry if it is? People will want to know what was said... -- Guybrush 00:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's the bit about never inviting your ancestors around for dinner, although I don't have my copy of Ghost Light around to check at the moment. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one: the Doctor says, "Who was it who said Earthlings never invite their ancestors round for dinner?" (The word might not have been Earthlings, though — that's from memory.) I'll head over to Ghost Light and see what I can do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Yep. "Who was it who said that Earthmen never invite their ancestors to dinner?" during the dinner scene, in reference to Nimrod, the Neanderthal waiter (har, har). And it's at Ghost Light (Doctor Who) now BTW.--Sean|Black 00:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Done (although someone should probably check the Doctor's exact wording). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Longer synopsis

There's a somewhat-lengthy introductory synopsis here: [1] (scroll to the bottom)

Would it be OK to replace the short one in the article now with this one, or is it too spoiler-heavy for a month before broadcast? Radagast 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that what we have here is adequate, but that's just me. I'd rather wait for the broadcast to do the full sypnosis. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, status quo it is. Radagast 15:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading that report, it seems to mention <SPOILER> Beagle 2 or a similar craft, and more specifically, its fate </SPOILER>. Reading through the synopsis, it does only seem pretty brief, and certainly doesn't conclude the story. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Crash landing

How cool does that crash landing Tardis sequence in the trailer look??? can't wait to see the episode! quercus robur 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

not to mention the exploding erotic gherkin! :P Tim! (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

unfortunately my mother talked all the way through the gerkin bit... despite being instructed to keep quiet or else go and do the Xmas washing up. Then predictably enough later said "Whens the exploding gerkin bit coming???" quercus robur 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's all looking pretty good. Waiting for Christmas! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 22:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Article says "In the BBC trailer to this episode, the TARDIS is seen crashing against multiple buildings while landing. This is the first time we see the TARDIS causing damage to other objects while in flight." What about the Skonnon ship in Horns of Nimon? Or the missles in Timelash and Parting of the Ways? Jm307 04:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right. I'd forgotten about the Skonnon spaceship (The Horns of Nimon is something that I try very hard to forget...). I did think about the missiles in Timelash and TPOTW, but treated them as exceptions because the former was never really explained how the TARDIS survived, and the latter was down to a force field. But, point taken. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot section

Feel free to clean it up, I rather rushed it tonight. Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, someone please do. I'll fill in the gaps with a more detailed summary and a screen capture after I've managed to watch the special. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong character

Llewellyn's comment that Martians don't look like the Sycorax presumably refers to the aliens seen in The Ambassadors of Death. While the Ice Warriors also come from Mars, they weren't encountered by humans until the late 21st century (in The Seeds of Death), so Llewellyn probably isn't referring to them.

The comment isn't made by Llewellyn (until five minutes ago, he didn't have a clue aliens existed), it was by the officer who was killed. Unfortunately, I've forgotten his name, but could someone who does know it please update it. smurrayinchester ^{Merry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling)} 21:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to EALacey for cleaning that up. smurrayinchester ^{Merry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling)} 21:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

<cough> I changed two of three incorrect attributions :-) --Whouk (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Terribly sorry; thanks to you too! smurrayinchester ^{Merry Christmas!(User), (Go Carolling)} 12:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem :-D --Whouk (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot section is an absolute mess

It reads like a school kid's essay. Full of factual erros, character mix ups and mis-heard quotes, not to mention every line filled with breathless "and then this and then that and then and then and then".

Clear it up someone! doktorb | words 21:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying but I can't do better than quick changes because so many of us are editing the page at the moment. --Whouk (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

But that's not the main issue here - the plot of any story is not a screen-by-screen run down of every single act performed by every single character.

I could reduce the plot to three paragraphs - Doctor is seriously ill during his post-regeneration stage; meanwhile the Sycroax are invading earth with blood control; Doctor is reinvigorated and helps defeat the aliens. Done, with possible Torchwood additons.

Seriously ill? For goodness sake, it's the best joke in the whole episode! He is 'dying for a cuppa'.

We do NOT need "Jackie and Mickie were doing this and then the TARDIS came and did this and then something else happened.." That's not plot, it's commentary and fairly basic commentary at that! I don't mean to be rude, but the whole point of Wiki is to ensure standards are maintained, and the plot section is over-long and out of place. Outpost Gallifrey may allow it but Wiki won't doktorb | words 22:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I mind one way or the other, but as far as standards go it's not very out of place when compared with the Plot sections of other Doctor Who story article. --Whouk (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many experienced editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who who will come and clean this up, so Don't Panic. Many articles go through phases of crapness, and this has only just been broadcast! ;) Tim! (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what was the point of adding scene by scene commentary as the program was actually rolling? Anyone interested would have been actually watching it! quercus robur 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If they live in the UK, perhaps, but Wikipedia is global. (Not that I'm saying Wikipedia should be treated as a liveblog...) --Whouk (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor *not* Doctor Who

I'd just like to point out that in the end credits that David Tennant gets credited as "The Doctor". *Not* "Doctor Who".

Really? I don't get to see it until tommorrow, but that's interesting.--Sean|Black 23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't catch this. I know last season they called him Doctor Who -- I guess someone finally caught the error. 23skidoo 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was an error, any more than 18 years of "Doctor Who" or "Dr. Who" was an error. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Routemaster

Do we see the route number in the episode? If not, it could be one of the two legacy routes that are still running, and should still be running this time next year. --Whouk (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No it was just a fleeting glimpse of of the back open platform as a bus pulled away IIRC, so whilst it could be a 'legacy' route bus, I still think this little continuity error is worth a note... I think its very unlikely that the script editor thought "lets put a legacy route routemaster bus shot in", much more likely that back in July or whenever the episode was filmed nobody on the Dr Who production team actually knew that this particular London icon was due to be phased out in December... personally i thought it quite an ironic touch, but doubt it was intentional quercus robur 01:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly worth noting the coincidence that they've been phased out on proper routes so soon before TCI aired. --Whouk (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just re-watched the sequence on video- its on screen for literally half a second or so- almost subliminal- I'm amazed I picked up on it! quercus robur 02:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a bit much to call things like this "continuity errors". The series is now clearly into the realm of "alternate reality", more so than ever before. Different PM, aliens in the open etc. What's one more little difference? (And this applies to many other so-called "errors".) -DudeGalea 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup. I think the Routemaster is worth noting because they've only just gone out of service (and therefore it wasn't a deliberate diversion from reality in the way that, say, the female PM in Zygons was), but it's no more an error than the street it was on actually being in Cardiff :-) --Whouk (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, 'continuity error' isn't really the right word, but maybe I should be forgiven bearing in mind the amounts of alcohol I'd imbibed yesterday- I'm quite amazed I managed to type at all, but using the bus is definately notable for the irony quercus robur 20:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot seems a bit short.

The plot section is short compared to other episodes, such as Aliens of London, and the CIN special is an 8th of the length, but has a plot section as long. Yes, I messed it up adding it in progess, and I welcomed people to clean it up. I propose that [2] an edit like this should be used for the plot, instead of the bite-size chunk on the Article page. It's possible that the Canadian fans might add some details Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the plot section SHOULD be short; that's what a plot is - the story's outline. As someone has seen fit to replace a plot with a screen-by-screen analysis, I've renamed the section. doktorb | words 10:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the consensus has been to retain this kind of summary. Please discuss further on the Wikiproject talk page if you wish. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Satsuma incident

The article says that

"…the Doctor uses a satsuma he finds in Howard's dressing gown to knock the leader over the edge, sending the alien plunging to his death."

My impression was that he threw it at a control which opened some sort of trap-door under the alien: can someone make it more explicit whether I'm right or wrong? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Just checked it again, and you're right! At first watch it looked like the satsuma ricocheted off the control and hit the Sycorax leader, but on closer examination, it opens a section of the wing which he then falls through. I'll fix that, thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation device

Was any explanation given for why the UNIT translation software took a while to translate the Sycorax message the first time, but instantly every time after? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I could tell, but one could assume that it took a while to get the basic syntax down, and once it managed it, the rest was easier. In Star Trek terms (ugh), it needed time to create the basic translation matrix. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the suggestion was that they time initially was spent working out how the language was structured and how it mapped onto English. Once that was established and their translator programmed, it could translate live. --Whouk (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

God knows how it knew Sycoraxic, though!--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it was like a "code-breaking" programme that finally cracked the code. PaulHammond 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sycorax vs. Faction Paradox

Anyone think this is worth noting? Technology disguised as voodoo, an obsession with bone armor... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The song

Anyone know anything about the song at the end we could add as a note? The only stuff I can find online is reporting a rumour that it was specially written for the episode by Murray, but I've got no definitive source. --Whouk (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sally Jenkins or Sally Jacobs?

In the Tower of London scene — just as the Sycorax arrive — the PM is introduced to a Sally Jenkins, by the time she has fallen under the influence of the Sycorax, she has become Sally Jacobs. (This is the character played by Anita Breim.)

I've watched it again; Blake does say "Sally Jacobs", not "Jenkins", but it can be mistaken for Jenkins because of the incidental music covering up part of it. But if you listen carefully it's definitely "Jacobs". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, definitely Jacobs.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ice Warriors

Might it be better just to say "This could be a reference to the Ice Warriors" and leave it at that? It's quite possible that UNIT could know about them from any source, including unrecorded adventures. The Ice Warriors article covers The Dying Days. --Whouk (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but where does the reference come from? I can try expanding the note a bit, now that you mention unrecorded adventures, I recall something... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was really that the reason we're mentioning the Ice Warriors is that they are the Doctor Who Martians. Even if there had been no on-screen association previously between UNIT and the Ice Warriors, RTD could still have intended Blake's comment to refer to them. --Whouk (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but once we make that connection some bright spark is going to go, "Hang on, UNIT never met the Ice Warriors!" Or they're going to wrongly identify the Ambassadors of Death as the Martians or get the chronology wrong with the Seeds of Death, or whinge about a continuity error to prove their anorak credentials. At least this way can pre-empt that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :-) --Whouk (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Khaosworks, who are you to talk about anoraks? Sycoraks, maybe:-)--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I wear my anorak with pride - I need no credentials. To quote a certain Time Lord, "I don't have to claim anything, I know how good I am." ;-) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"There is no covering up the existence of aliens this time"

It is a new start for Earth as well; with so many people seeing the Sycorax ship, there is no covering up the existence of aliens this time. The Government covered up countless other incidents (the destruction of Big Ben in Aliens of London, the global Auton attacks in Rose etc). Why should this be any different? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

'cause that's what the Doctor said. :) And the Guinevere One website and the UNIT website both take this position, with the latter only covering up the fact that the Sycorax ship was destroyed by the Torchwood-fired device. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Although as of Torchwood, we now know that it was, in fact, covered up, with Gwen's boyfriend Rhys believing it was all down to terrorists slipping psychotropes in the water. As Jack says, "What's it gonna take?" Daibhid C 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we know no such thing - it may very well be that the situation is like what happened in the wake of UNIT: The Coup: the Silurians were revealed to the world but everyone figured it had to be fake. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. The effect's the same, but the public are doing it to themselves... Daibhid C 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Music

I didn't think it was the tree playing the music when I watched, but I haven't got the episode to hand to check. However, I'd contend that the song in The Gunfighters is as much incidental music with lyrics as the song in TCI. --Whouk (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whouk on both counts. Also, whether it's the tree or the incidental score, I'm not sure whether the playing of "Jingle Bells" is notable. It's not like the appearance of the Beatles footage in The Chase, or even Jo Grant's Beatles misquote in The Three Doctors. I'm not even sure it's the first Christmas song heard on Doctor Who — wasn't there a snippet of "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" in The Unquiet Dead? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I bit my tongue, but I agree about the notability (or lack of it) too. It would also be worth checking the audio of "The Feast of Steven" just in case... --Whouk (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Watching that bit in TCI again, you're probably right that the tree wasn't playing the music. I got that impression because it was out of place compared to the rest of the score, it seemed to speed up with the spinning of the tree, and abruptly stopped when the tree was destroyed. Anyway, the notability bit still stands. In "The Feast of Steven" there were a couple of lines of "Good King Wencelas" (of course) at the start of it. I'm going to alter the note to reflect The Gunfighters. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I still think that it deserves a mention. And, I don't think that the tree played the music.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rose and Bad Wolf

Does Rose know she was Bad Wolf? Will it be "mentioned for viewers" in the new series (as, in many series, much is said out of episodes).

Jackiespeel 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we know one way or the other whether the story of "Bad Wolf" is over or not. It might never be mentioned again on screen, or it might be a key plot point in the next series. Rose's merging with the heart of the TARDIS might have a long-lasting influence on her and/or the timelines, or it might be treated as old hat, done and dusted. We just don't know.

The only Bad Wolf-related business that we know will be dealt with at some point is the return of Captain Jack in Torchwood and the 2007 series of Doctor Who. Early indications are that we won't be told in Torchwood how Jack got from the 2001st century to the 21st, but I'd expect that his survival and/or time travel will be dealt with when Jack and the Doctor meet up again. (I hope that it's addressed more than it was in the Children in Need special, when the Doctor (in post-regenerative mania) spouted something about Jack "rebuilding the Earth".) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

wondering if there should be points linking this to torchwood and instances of his immortality being assistance to plot

Also - wondering if the cut-off hand could be made reference to?Crescent 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Allusions

I can see why the allusion to Spider-Man had to go. That was on the fence as far as being deliberate, interesting though the coincidence is! I have to disagree with the removal of the Star Wars references. I can't see how a well-rounded sci-fi fan/writer could have a scene that parallel's Luke's severed hand and the Death Star firing SFX without it being intentional. Those scenes are now so classic that they are practically canonical, even in the eyes of non-SW fans. I mean, if someone writes a web comic with a severed hand in a sword fight that falls a long way down followed by a five-beam laser system that converges to a single beam, everyone is going to say: "So, watch much Star Wars lately?" I don't even think there would be a question of whether it was intentional. What do you think? --proteus71 23:36, 16 Mar 2006

While I agree that the Star Wars reference is much more suggestive, barring a statement by the production team I'd still leave it out. I'd rather err on the conservative side. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was extremely surprised to see the Death Star beam go unmentioned in the article. Questioning the hand I could understand (it never registered to me, at least) but the beam was such an obvious homage it seems incredibly strange to omit it. It would only have to be something like "the weapon fired by Torchwood bore a strong resemblance to planet-destroying beam of Star Wars' Death Star". It needn't be said that it was obviously intended. Just look up Torchwood and Death Star together in Google and you get several mentions from those (likely the vast majority, in truth) who noticed. --81.132.103.64 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Independance Day references? Firstly, the mars probe hitting the alien ship with ID style music and then a cut to back to Earth, also the ship entering the atmosphere and positioning itself over the city. raptor 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with all these references is that no matter how obvious they may seem to a particular viewer, unless we can cite a reliable source making the comparison, it's original research. It's not about what it looks like to us, it's what we can say it looked like to notable others. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Timing

“At the start of Rose and Mickey's shopping trip a Routemaster bus is very briefly shown, presumably as a device to indicate that the episode is taking place in contemporary London. Most Routemasters were withdrawn from service on December 9, 2005, approximately two weeks before the show was broadcast in the UK, and at least one year before the date on which the episode is supposedly set. However a small number of these buses remain on the streets of London serving "heritage" routes aimed principally at the nostalgia market.”

Just curious, is there anything which explicitly prevents Rose from being set in 2004, which would allow everything from Aliens of London onward to be set in 2005, including this? Or any official/canonical statements placing those episodes in 2006? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In Aliens of London the date of Rose's disappearance is definitively set, on her missing persons poster, as March 5, 2005. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Connection

Should it be pointed out that the aliens, when first introduced, are sitting in exactly (and I mean exactly) the same way as Queen at the beginning of the video clip for Bohemian Rhapsody? Or is that, y'know, ...

Cite a source comparing the positions of the Sycorax to the video's choreography, and we'll talk.--SB | T 11:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The actors certainly thought so: see the 'out-takes' in the Series 2 DVD box set. Deliberate direction, or did the joke come afterwards? Funny, but not hugely significant. Gwinva 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Radio Times Cover

The trivia for this episode mentions the special Radio Times cover for the Christmas fortnight as having a Doctor Who cover. This cover currently the infobox picture for the article at Radio_Times and the cover itself is at Image:RadioTimes-cvr.jpg. Should this be mentioned in the article? We cannot use this picture in this article though, as it is uploaded under Fair Use which wouldn't apply in this case. JP Godfrey (Talk to me) 12:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough to link it to the image; I've done so. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Music

It should be pointed out that the last time an original song was written for the series was "The Ballad of the Last Chance Saloon" in The Gunfighters (1966).

Factually incorrect. The last song written specificly for the program was "Here's to the future" in the 1987 Episode "Delta And The Bannermen." and was written by Keff McCulloch.

Meme?

There is an online meme phrase inspired by this episode that goes "Don't you think Bush looks tired?". I'm quite bad at gauging how "big" a meme has become. What do you think? Does it qualify for a mention?

This episode also includes the first appearance of the (rather short-lived) running joke, "Harriet Jones, [former] Prime Minister"; "Yes, I know who you are". It's even said by the Dalek that exterminates her in "The Stolen Earth"Jeff (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Why doesn't the Tardis translate the Doctor when he speaks in Sycoraxic? ^anemone│_projectors 14:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, so no place to start a discussion, or to speculate. However, we do know that the Tardis translation is a "Time Lord gift", somehow connected telepathically with the Doctor (see TARDIS#Other systems). It would seen logical that it doesn't translate the Doctor's speech if he doesn't want it to. The Doctor himself knows thousands of languages. Gwinva (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My excuse is that I thought it might have been some kind of error worthy of possible mention in the article. I wasn't expecting an answer, so thanks. It makes sense. ^anemone│_projectors 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood S2 Ep.3

In this torchwood episode Tommy, the subject of the episode says to Ianto, or the other way around "Saving the world in your pyjamas, nonense really" or something to that affect. Is this not an obvious allusion to this episode and so worth mentioning here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.54.118 (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's alread mentioned in the respective Torchwood article, and it doesn't need to be repeated here. DonQuixote (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

US première

I am in the UK, but I am absolutely certain that it was said by US fans at the time that the Children in Need special was not shown there as part of this episode. I just wanted to double check with you lot before I removed this apparent misinformation. Angmering (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Elliott, author of the "This Week in Doctor Who" TV schedules column, has confirmed over on the Doctor Who Forum at Outpost Gallifrey that this never happened. I have now removed the offending passage. Angmering (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to see here, and with other 60-minute specials/episodes, some discussion of the differences between the UK version and the version shown in the US on BBCAmerica. Since BBCAmerica runs commercials, I mean "adverts", they have to cut it down to the same 48 minute length as "regular" episodes to make room for the commercials. I always find myself curious about the 12 minutes that gets cut (I'm a Doctor Who newbie); if I want to see the "whole" episode, I have to purchase or rent it in one format or another. Considering the number of references back and forth among episodes, 12 minutes can cover a lot. I'm not sure (I have to check next time it's shown), but, e.g., the appearance of Wilfred Mott has apparently been cut from the BBCAmerica version of "Voyage of the Damned", but is referred to in "End of Time".Jeff (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Christmas Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624091020/http://www.unitnews.co.uk/story.php?article_id=633 to http://www.unitnews.co.uk/story.php?article_id=633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622161603/http://www.unitnews.co.uk/story.php?article_id=644 to http://www.unitnews.co.uk/story.php?article_id=644
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206072218/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/sounds/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/sounds

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)