Talk:Love & Monsters (Doctor Who)

message: What's the source for this title? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OG forums report that it is/will be in the English newspapers, and Shaun Lyon has said that the title jibes with what he has been told on the sly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta.  As I said, it's a great title — I just wanted to make sure it was legit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source?

message: I'm not sure what to do about this: the article I just linked to (from which I got the casting of Simon Greenall) also has a spoiler about the Absorbaloff (although it's one you might well have guessed already).  It doesn't seem appropriate to put a spoiler tag in front of the references section, but is there any other way to warn prospective readers that they might not want to follow a link? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning for a reference? 

message: Put an image of the abzarbaloff on? http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/newseries/abzorbaloff-1.jpg
Why did you take my image off?
::Image:Abzorbaloff-1.jpg is lacking a copyright tag and source details. Follow the link in the red box on the image page for more details. —Whouk (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: May I ask why Mark Warren (and a couple of others) were removed from the Cast list? The_B 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast - Removed? 

message: Obviously we won't know for sure until the episode airs, but is it worth noting that Linda was also the name of the woman in Bad Wolf and Parting of the Ways that the Doctor rescued (although was later killed by the Daleks) from the Big Brother house?
Also, the note about the TARDISODE contents, in that really necessary given the TARDISODE page that already exsists? Also, I'd say it's inaccurate due to it not actually displaying the whoisdoctorwho page, just something similar... The_B 00:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re Linda; No, 'cos her name was Lynda (with a 'y'), not Linda. --DudeGalea 06:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Lynda mentioned a Linda who was eveicted for damaging a camera. Probably irrelevant to this discussion though. --Billpg 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I think it'll be the new identity for the whoisdoctorwho website, much like it went from Who Is Doctor Who to Defending The Earth at the beginning of this series... The_B 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Note 10 mentions that L.I.N.D.A. was previously used by RTD in Why Don't You..? Is Elton's line about coming up with it a while ago and waiting for a chance to use it ever since worth adding here, as a possible bit of self-reference? Daibhid C 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  L.I.N.D.A. 

message: This may not be the first episode to have an ampersand in the title after all; it says Love and Monsters in the Radio Times. Daibhid C 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a picture of the cover of one version of the script, and that also uses an "and". I guess we'll have to wait and see on Saturday... —Whouk (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and we get an actual & in tht title.  Morwen - Talk 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ampersand

message: Shame it wasn't a demask'd Sycorax. Vitriol 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hoix 

message: The episode has been aired now, and the plot should be done now.
:When the story section goes blank, it means they're working on it. Vitriol 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, it's probably taking a bit longer because they're trying to find a way to not make the episode sound like a steaming pile of incoherent nonsense. Boom-boom! - Chris McFeely 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying something about the programme itself?! Vitriol 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaven forbid! Perish the thought! :D - Chris McFeely 21:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Mission to the Unknown doesnt feature the doctor at all mellery 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And then there's Revelation of the Daleks where the Doctor and Peri wander around for most of the story. DonQuixote 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: Bridget. It's on the BBC Doctor Who website. Resakov 10:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "somebody else who I've forgotten" 

message: A note mentions the bad wolf virus may refer to the one given to Mickey to upload. I know the websites aren't treated as total canon but on Whoisdoctorwho, Mickey stated he didn't upload the virus. Given the whole specific Bad Wolf name, I'm inclined to think that damaging the files to protect herself is something Rose may have unknowingly done to protect herself when she was merged with the time vortex. Would it be ok to switch this note or at least add my (I think logical) speculation? --HellCat86 15:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad wolf virus

message: I'm almost certain that Peter Kay's Brian Potter character in Phoenix Nights says the line "Avanti! Vamoosh!" to his staff in one of the episodes, just like I seem to remember he did in last night's episode Love & Monsters as Victor Kennedy, but my Phoenix Nights DVD is in another country at the moment, and I just missed the repeat of Love & Monsters, so can't confirm it. Can anybody else?
::Kay used "Avanti!" in the John Smith's advert where he sends his Mother to the old folks home so he can watch the Snooker. The_B 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix Nights reference? 

message: Hopefully the other half of the story, from the Torchwood perspective *should* be developed.
When did Bad Wolf manipulate the Torchwood programs - when the original references were being scattered through history or is the composite entity capable of protecting itself even after the purpose for which (suitable pronoun) came into existence has been served?
The Face of Boe (for which something like this may be the backstory) and Hustle crossover fanfic stories are probably already being written. 
Jackiespeel 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can see the attraction that people have in wanting to equate Mickey's computer virus with the Bad Wolf virus, it just doesn't work for the simple reason that the Doctor designed the virus to wipe out all information about himself, not Rose. In the "Who is Doctor Who?" website, Mickey writes that he is unwilling to use the virus; even if you don't consider that as having any bearing on the television series, in Love and Monsters Kennedy singles out Rose's file as lacking because of the Bad Wolf virus, but doesn't say anything about the Doctor's files being affected in the same way, which lends credence to the idea that Mickey didn't use the virus. It is more likely - although just as speculative in the long run - that Rose's information was corrupted by herself while she was the Bad Wolf and extending her reach through time and space. There's also the added problem of why the Doctor would name it the Bad Wolf virus (it has to come from somewhere) when he didn't notice the Bad Wolf until Boom Town (there's ways around this, but I won't get into that right now). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Torchwood etc

message: Do we really need this bit of the article? We already have a section in the List_of_Doctor_Who_villains#Abzorbaloff for the Abzorbaloff... The_B 23:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current thinking on talk pages is that one-shot villians/monsters should be moved from the list to the episode article, and have the list of villians/monsters contain references to the episode articles, and probably only entries for recurring monsters/villians.  Morwen - Talk 16:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've missed those discussions, but it's a position I agree with. Unless monsters recur, they should be dealt with in the episode article. —Whouk (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abzorbaloff 

message: My assumption is that the episode was designed around the considerable commitments of Tennant and Piper in Planet/Pit or something like that, because it wasn't compelling enough to be a story that completely justified having so little of the Doctor and Rose. Oh, they made it fun (ELO dancing, Elton's monologues, etc.), but it felt like filler (and one of the most kiddy-oriented episodes yet). Is there anything that's been said about this, so we can explain it in the article? --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe on the commentary and/or the Confidential episode, they explained that this was filmed at the same time as The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, hence the scheduling conflict. -- MisterHand 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no Doctor? 

message: I think this is the worse Doctor Who episode EVER, worse then the Twin Dillema or Dimensions Of Time. It was too long and too boring
: I have to agree it's bad, though it stands out all the more because it follows an excellent two-parter. It's a real pity that so much just didn't work, because fundamentally it could have done. I remember thinking if it had been played straight and without the silly concrete slab at the end it would have been much better. Kouros 07:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe look at bad reviews? cyclosarin 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this is why Wikipedia's NPOV policies are supposed to be in effect for articles, and why I'm glad they are. Out of all the random newer episodes of Doctor Who (Ninth and Tenth Doctors) I have caught on SciFi Channel here in the 'States, this is actually my favorite, precisely because it's interesting to see how the Doctor's frequent travels in and out of time and places have affected even the smallest group of people in such a profound way, given how much the series usually seems to focus on the issues of the main cast and the random people they help in a given episode (i.e. it was like seeing follow-ups to episodes that never happened). And it was fun. And Elton, while not all that bright, was a fine character for a one-shot in my opinion. I especially like his closing statement about life being "so much stranger... so much darker, and so much madder... and so much better". (Oh, and it had fun music, too) Of course, it was obviously a filler episode (it felt like they were giving extra time off for the main cast or something, I'm not surprised to find out about the scheduling conflicts at all), but am I seriously the only person who doesn't think "filler" is always inherently bad? Look at Firefly, for isntance, my favorite episodes are Jaynestown and Our Mrs. Reynolds, and they have essentially NOTHING to do with the main plot arcs (I don't even think the Hands of Blue guys showed up, though I could be wrong), but they're still great fun to watch. One of my favorite ever episodes of Buffy was The Zeppo, and that pretty much features the dork of the main cast as the main character and has nothing to do with the major Season 3 arcs, and it's still a great episode. Non-arc or "filler" episodes can be great fun, so let's not denigrate it for being filler, OK?
Also, lovely bit of foreshadowing with "maybe that's what happens when you touch the Doctor - even for a second". I may not be an obsessive Doctor Who fan, but I know enough to know how... foreshadowy, that is. Any case, I thought it was a fun standalone episode, I don't care what all whopping four of you think. :D It's my favorite so far. (In fact, I would argue that for people who don't watch as regularly, it's a great episode, because it doesn't depend on too awfully much on knowing the mythology of the series or recent episodes in order to enjoy it). This episode's title caught my eye in the guide and this episode is the first time I have actually felt I knew why people loved this series so much. 63.21.59.2 04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just my opinion here 

message: I know this is pure original research, but am I the only one who picked up on a lot of similarities between the mannerisms and actions of the Abzorbaloff and Fat Bastard from the second and third Austin Powers movies? Perhaps I'm nuts, but I picked up on what seemed to be a bit of fanservice for the Scottish baby-eating fatty right away. 24.34.23.216 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you’re right, in both make-up and dialogue, he is fat-bastard-y. I didn’t notice at first, but at one point after he revealed his true form, he even sounded a bit Scottish. I don’t really think it belongs in the article unless there’s evidence of a link, but I want to assure you that you are not crazy. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abzorbaloff Mannerisms 

message: Having read this article before, I always thought Elton was older and plainer. Seeing it on Sci-Fi tonight I was quite surprised. Based on the choice of a young-looking actor and the was he dresses and acts, I’d venture that the character was not meant to be more than 27 or so, maybe much less, and he is absolutely adorable( and I don’t usually care for blonds). There must be some way for the synopsis to reflect this. Maybe call him a “young man” instead of just a man, and mention how Jackie is always admiring his looks. Also, I think the fact that the villian is from Clom, sister planet of Raxacoricofallapatorius, merits a continuity or triva mention. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite?

message: Did not come to pass - Rose and Jackie have what appears to be a happy ending (albeit in a parallel universe). Jackiespeel 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elton's Prediction

message: I can't remember this actress being in it in any role other than Elton's mother, so surely she becomes Mrs Pope?--Rambutan (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they divorced and she kept her name, but I thats just an opinion, not fact.--Wiggstar69 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mrs Croot 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Auton stories}} 

message: Right at the top it says in thefirst paragraph that the episode ...hardly features the regular cast, I dont understand this as Jackie, Rose and the Doctor are all in the episode
:I think it can be read as "comparatively speaking", if you will. Compared to other episodes, they really are "hardly featured", even though they do appear in the episode, speaking roles and all. Perhaps it should be changed to something more like "Features the principle cast much less than other episodes in the series"? 63.21.59.2 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it currently stands, the wording is POV, however. The main point is that the primary focus of the story is not on the Doctor and Rose, nor is it on a recurring character like Jackie, not even on the villain, but on one-shot characters Elton and (to a lesser extent) Ursula. The statement itself is not that important: the use of a narrator (a device latered echoed in the last two Season Two episodes) is much more noteworthy. What other Doctor Who TV stories (current or "classic series") used a narrator as a primary storyteller? In itself it was as radical a stylistic departure as "The Gunfighters".147.70.242.40 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly Regular Cast? 

message: :Image:Absorb1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the FUR for this article. However, I notice there was one there already for List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, which apparently no longer has the image on it.  It might be good to either add it back or remove the extraneous FUR, but I do not presume to say which! --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Absorb1.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Love & Monsters. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/doctor-who/russell-t-davies-on-love-and-monsters/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/4042/47/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Love & Monsters. 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/20060619203147/http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/love-commentary.mp3 to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/love-commentary.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Love_and_Monsters_(film)|Love_%26_Monsters In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Surely [[Love & Monsters (Doctor Who)]]

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Love and Monsters (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress