# Talk:The Unquiet Dead

KhaosWorks: The placement of the screen grab seems fine and that seems like the best spot to have it.Tim! (talk) 08:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the RT, Gatiss said the original script was much darker, worth mentioning in passing?

After cocking up the gas business, I'll start here first. The Gelth inhabit dead bodies because the dead generate gas, but presumably the newly departed aren't gassy (Victorian diets aside) so how do they turn them (eg Redpath and Sneed) into "zombies" GraemeLeggett 12:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is, I think you'll find, only the first in a long list of "Things That Don't Make Sense" about this episode if you examine them too closely; are the Gelth made of gas, or can they merely animate it? If the former, then why does the presence of gas in human corpses aid them? (Don't forget that was a guess on the Doctor's part.) In either case, why would they be drawn out of the corpses by the gas in the air? And so on. I've compiled a long list, but don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the hell out of it. For the record, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for such discussion; indeed, I'm creating a few web pages for this sort of analysis of the new episodes, in the style of the About Time books... -- Guybrush 12:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not going with the Discontinuity Guide style then? GraemeLeggett 12:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did at first... I have DG style entries for Rose and The End of the World, and I'll probably stick them up as well. The About Time format allows for more critical discussion, I find, though for this reason those entries are being co-written and will take longer... -- Guybrush 07:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seemed that the Gelth went into the best possible medium for their metabolic state - that they weren't entirely in control of where they could go. Hence the presence of gas in the room would pull them from the less gassy bodies into that medium. That being said, I've just realised that is surmise on my part that snuck into the synopsis, so I'm going to rewrite that bit to make it hew more to what we see on screen. --khaosworks 14:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When the Doctor says that the future can change just like that, doesn't that completely contradict the storyline of The Aztecs?

There are some possibilities that suggest themeselves.
The Doctor was not being entirely truthful when he told Barbara, "You can't change history - not one line!". As we see in Day of the Daleks, history can be changed. The premise of Genesis of the Daleks also assumes history can be changed, even if it's debatable if the Doctor managed to change history then. In Remembrance of the Daleks the Doctor says that the Daleks could destroy Earth in 1963, but even they would hesitate at making such a "rrradical alteration to the timeline." So what he tells Barbara seems to be already contradicted. Perhaps you can change history, but it simply needs a lot of power - like being a Time Lord, or an advanced race like the Daleks - to do so.
The situation has changed since The Aztecs. Because of the time war, the web of time is much more fluid and vulnerable.
Both.
--khaosworks 18:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All very interesting and possible. One interesting position put forward in About Time 4 is that only Time Lords can change the course of history (perhaps because of the "Rassilon imprimature", or just because of the level of sophistication of their time travel technology; only TARDISes seem to enter the Vortex, for example). This means they are the only beings with true free will, which is what makes them true Lords of Time and why other time travelling races are little threat to them until they develop to a certain level of sophistication. (It also explains why the Daleks want to recreate their time experiment despite having access to time corridor technology in Remembrance of the Daleks.) And it's also why the Enemy of the books - and the enemy in the Time War of the new series - is such a power to be frightened of, since they must necessarily have a similar level of ability with time travel.
I like this idea, and it's more or less supported by the series; no-one save the Doctor ever seems to change history (and he only manages it in Genesis), though I prefer The Aztecs version of the truth since it agrees nicely with established philsophic thought on the issue and my own views. Not that those are that important in the grand scheme of things, of course... -- Guybrush 07:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Time Meddler contradicts The Aztecs so nothing new eh, otherwise the Monk would be no threat. Tim! (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
And in the later episode, where Rose tries to save her father, he has to die regardless or everybody is destroyed.

"Author and Faction Paradox creator Lawrence Miles posted a damning review[1] (http://www.beasthouse.fsnet.co.uk/who03.htm) of this episode on the Internet"
The content on that page currently says "Go away. I'm thinking about it." It said that last time I looked, abour two or three weeks ago. Should the link go? 
Telsa 21:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded the note to reflect that it is now a placeholder, so it's not as deceptive. --khaosworks 22:17, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that's a better solution. Great. Telsa 07:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a source for Terry Nation being the reason for the Llandaff reference? I ask because it's also where BBC Wales have their headquarters, which I had assumed was the reason. Angmering 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic, I'm afraid, but:  For those of us not in the UK, why does Rose stop dead in her tracks upon hearing she's in Cardiff?  Ditto for the Doctor saying he's about to die in Cardiff?  Thanks.  Proteus71 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Cardiff is not seen (by outsiders, at least) as the most exciting place in the world.  The scene is a bit tongue-in-cheek, when you consider the new series is filmed/produced in Cardiff.  Forget criticisms of earth-centric stories, the fact is, the Doctor (in all incarnations) appears to have a preference for the south of England.  Even BBC Wales is having trouble escaping...   How often do we hear (in other media)reporters/journalists/weathermen/economists name every county in the south of England, then refer to 'the north and Scotland' as one entity and ignore Wales altogether.  
The general feeling is well summed up by 'Margaret Blaine-Slitheen' in 'Boom Town'.  Rough quote: 'The whole of Wales could fall in to the sea and no one would notice.'
So... for some reason, the new series of DW is stuck in London... but the writers can still laugh about it. Gwinva 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor gives Rose some very complicated directions to the TARDIS wardrobe: "First left, second right, third on the left, go straight ahead, under the stairs, past the bins, fifth door on your left." This establishes that the interior corridors of the TARDIS beyond the console room still exist despite the redesign, and echoes a similar conversation between Romana and Chris Parsons in the uncompleted serial Shada about where to find the TARDIS medical kit. The presence of such mundane items as rubbish bins recalls The Invasion of Time, where the TARDIS interiors resembled an Earth-style building (complete with a swimming pool).

Diddn't Shada actually get finished by the BBC I've seen it and it looks like it was completed as they realeased a finished Special Edition of Shada on VHS some time ago. It was actually a good episode... An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! (talk)(contribs) 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The live action version was never completed but there was a Big Finish audio play of it, and a "webcast" of some Jackanory style limited Flash animation. Which can be found here. --GracieLizzie 09:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Although this answer is very late what The Doctor is remembering is a VHS that was released in the 1992. Under John Nathan-Turner's direction BBC Enterprises took all of the existing Shada footage and put it together in the six part format. There was a narration by Tom Baker which filled in the gaps created by the studio session that was lost due to the strike. We also got to see the costume worn by the Krargs which was interesting since there was no live action filmed using it. MarnetteD | Talk 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should this not have a spoiler warning so that people who have not seen it will be warned?
....No: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.14.112 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) 

Has anyone spotted any reference to Jack Harkness in this episode? Jack states in the episode Utopia that after the events with the Daleks in 200100, he warped back to 1869.
Robin.lemstra (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no referneces to Jack; the character wasn't even conceived when the episode was made.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you be sure they didn't write some stuff up front? Or an entire season at once? As I understand it, writing is all done before filming an entire season.Robin.lemstra (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the least we can assume is that this is a series 1 episode and Jack mentioning that he'd been in 1869 was in series 3, which means that the creators had no idea that Jack was going to be in 1869 until about two years later. DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning the reference to the story in The Unicorn and the Wasp?

"Coincidentally, writers Mark Gatiss and Russell T Davies were both born in Swansea."
Errrrr...why does Mark Gatiss' wiki page say Co. Durham then?  RTD was born in Swansea, but there's no "coincidentally" about it so I think this section should be removed.  As Mark Gatiss' page might be wrong (unlikely considering his school is listed and it's also Co. Durham) I have left this to someone else to deal with 78.86.230.62 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot consistently refers to Charles Dickens as "Charles". I think it would sound more natural to write "Dickens" - that's how we all think of him if we think of him using one of his names. So maybe it sounds a bit weird writing "Rose" and "Dickens" in the same sentence, but I still think it sounds even weirder calling Charles Dickens just Charles. RenniePet (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Burke and Smith is incomplete. I'm very new to editing and know little HTML, so I'm probably not the person to fix the article. BUT, here's the info that would be needed:
Burke, Graeme; Smith, Robert (2012). Who Is the Doctor: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who: The New Series. ECW Press. ISBN 978-1550229844.
Once the full citation is corrected, the question mark should be removed after "Smith" in the body of the article.