Talk:42 (Doctor Who)

message: Doesn't it contravene Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? --GracieLizzie 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank's Josiah! --GracieLizzie 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even notice your question, GracieLizzie — I just took the section out on principle as soon as I noticed it.  Good that we're on the same page, though. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to know that we have people dedicated to keeping the WHO pages nice and verifiable. Some of the other pages on Wikipedia are a complete mess! --GracieLizzie 13:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we really have that speculation section? 

message: Is it really noteworthy that this is "the first time that numbers have been used as opposed to being spelt out (i.e. The Three Doctors) since Galaxy 4 (1965)"?  My feeling is not.  I'm not even certain about the "shortest title" note, but I can't see how indicating whether numbers in the title are spelled out or not is encyclopedic.  Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I'd agree but I think RTD actually made a point of the fact it was numbers and not words. Of course this could have been him just making sure the reporter (I think it was in DWM) wrote it down correctly, then they quoted him for some reason. --GracieLizzie 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've read this comment - certainly, in the Radio Times article publicising the start of the new Dr Who season, RTD expressed his satisfaction at the idea that the listing for this episode would come up as "7: 42" - but that seems like a usual piece of RTD whimsy rather than anything particularly noteworthy about the fact that it's "42" rather than "Forty-two". I'd suggest deleting this note after the episode has aired... PaulHammond 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers in title 

message: There was info in this article that contradicted stuff in the List of Doctor Who serials article -- I commented out the offending portion, but if the info here was correct, please feel free to reinstate (and fix the other article instead). --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production block contradiction 

message: How do we know that :Image:42(Doctor Who).jpg is from this episode? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The woman in the BBCi preview who says "What are you" is standing in the same setting as Mr Welder here, but since we can identify the woman as being in this episode, we can assume that the welding-mask chap's sharing the stardom.--Rambutan (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks.  I'm a bit uncertain about this sort of reasoning (see my similar concerns at Talk:The Lazarus Experiment).  It's great for fan discussions, and it's probably correct, but I think it's a bit OR-ish to say that two shots in industrial-type settings with pipes on the wall are necessarily from the same episode.  (I'm playing devil's advocate here, but recall that Doctor Who has reused locations before, although generally not in the same series — for example, part of the Intensive Care ward in New Earth was the same location as the Nestene Lair from Rose.)  If we've identified the actress saying "What are you?", it might be better to use an image of her until we've got more confirmation that Mr. Welder is her intended conversational partner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is from the episode. I'm just watching it now, and its one of the characters (Evil Possessed Guy, Naturally) wearing a welding mask of some sort. --Fullforce 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think it's relevant and worth adding that this episode is scheduled to air in the UK the day after the sixth anniversary of the death of Douglas Adams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.90.154 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's relevant if it's deliberate. Otherwise it's coincidence. Kelvingreen 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's hardly likely that a doctor who story references one of the most famous works of their former writers in both name and plot in an episode that's as close as they can get to the anniversary of his death by chance, don't you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.99.243 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We know hardly anything about this episode at the moment. It's quite possible that the title is a reference to Adams, but without any confirmation, we can't really add it to the page. Similarly, until we know that the reason it's being broadcast when it is is as a tribute to Adams, we can't put that on the main page. Kelvingreen 13:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want evidence? In the previews a the end of this saturday's episode of Doctor Who there was a VERY clear picture of him wearing the Arthur Dent dressing gown. Satisfied now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.73.88 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TRAILER. FOR. REST. OF. SERIES. NOT. JUST. 42. GAHJGBJRHVRJV. --Quadratus 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So - now that the episode has apparently been put back a week because of Eurovision, can we have a big OR paragraph on the deep significance of that fact (perhaps with a link to the Wikipedia article on Sod's Law)?  PaulHammond 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The episode has not yet been broadcast and there is no reliable source connecting the title of the episode to Douglas Adams.  I've removed a very large chunk of speculation which seeks to justify such a connection.  Let's wait a couple of weeks or keep watching the magazines and websites for something authoritative. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Sanity prevails. Kelvingreen 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence to say it's a tribute, bt someone at the BBC has noted the connection, at least. See BBC fact file. Gwinva 09:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute to Adams 

message: I'm wondering, with the Doctor having 42 minutes to save the world or whatever, could this episode be shown in real time? U-Mos 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a episode being 45 minutes, about a 45 seconds worth of titles and previews, that would require the countdown to begin just under two minutes into the episode. Since this 2 minutes could start before the titles. It's plausible that the episode could be shot in real time.--Nosxalc 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very plausible. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Plausible enough to be added to the article without backup evidence? I think not. Kelvingreen 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Backup evidence! See here, fifth paragraph --OZOO (vote saxon) 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it doesn't out and out say that it's a real-time episode, but it's good enough for me! :) Kelvingreen 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real time? 

message: I (along with someone else it seems, as I got an edit conflict when I tried to the first time), removed the note about Captain Jack appearing in this episode... the preview at the end of today's episode showed footage from all the rest of the series, not just 42's, so it's impossible to confirm this.  Besides I'm sure I heard somewhere Jack won't be back until Episode 11. Jez MM 18:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the same trailer showed the scarecrows from Family of Blood, and surely no one thinks they're going to be in 42! I think it's safe to assume that Jack isn't in this episode, and I'd agree that it looks like Jack's in Cardiff in a couple of those shots. Kelvingreen 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: Jack is only in 11-13, and the Coming Soon trailer and the end of TLE was for the next 7 episodes and not just 42 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the person who put that note in.  I also thought he didn't appear until episode 11, but I didn't realise that the preview was for the whole season.--Andy mci 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Jack 

message: You've missed John Simm off the character list here. I don't for sure know which character he plays in 42, but im fairly sure he was signed up to the cast to play Mister Saxton (Harry) James Random
He is not in 42.
The trailer at the end of The Lazarus Experiment was for the rest of the series and not just this episode. 86.152.187.183 11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simm

message: Where does the bit about Francine Jones appearing in this episode come from? --OZOO (vote saxon) 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francine 

message: A trivia section was added.  It contained:
* This episode has the shortest Doctor Who episode title — at least in terms of the number of characters; it has three syllables, which makes Rose (the runner-up in number of characters) still the shortest in that regard. It is also only the second time that numerals have been used as opposed to numbers being spelt out (i.e. The Three Doctors), the first being the (1965) serial Galaxy 4, although An Unearthly Child is sometimes titled 100,000 BC.
This is admitted trivia, and Original research.  The length of the title of a Doctor Who episode is of vanishingly small significance (perhaps less than a scene-by-scene count of the number of specks of dust on the Doctor's suit) So I've removed it (twice).  If someone thinks it is significant then I recommend that they find a way of working it into the text at some point and explaining its significance. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: This image seems to be from a trailer.  There is no fair use rationale for its use and it will be deleted in six days if one is not written.  Since we don't know the plot of the episode, and it hasn't been broadcast, I don't see how it can be said to illustrate the article in any meaningful way.  I have removed it from the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do see a problem.  It isn't doubts about whether this image is from this episode.  Please read my comments above to see what the problem actually is. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:T22.jpg]]

message: I'm removing this because it's unsourced and the episode has not yet been broadcast. We'll all know in a week or so, so I don't see any rush to add something not known for a fact to the article:
Continuity
*Adjoa Andoh will only appear in this episode when Martha phones her up this is like the episode The End of the World when the Ninth Doctor modifies Rose Tyler's phone to call Jackie from a different time period.
--Tony Sidaway 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why this continity point has been removed. It is poorly structured but the content alone has no purpose prior to the broadcast.--Nosxalc 14:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a clip was shown on Totally Doctor Who, a reference to the clip should be included in the article.  --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone call

message: Should we add a disambig link to the top of one of the other articles on the number 42? It took me a while to find this article by searching. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkorponokX (talk • contribs).
:I'll do that.--Rambutan (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I am still relatively new to editing so didn't have the confidence to do it myself. SkorponokX 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding this article

message: The other day someone remarked on the similarities between the ending of The Lazarus Experiment and that of the latest Spider-Man film.  I dismissed this as coincidence at the time.
Now we've got a space ship heading towards the sun and everybody getting a bit hot under the collar.  A little like the recently released Danny Boyle film Sunshine, in fact.  Still this could all be coincidence and I still haven't seen the actual episode, but those who like me have seen the film might like to keep your eyes open during the broadcast. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode is very similar visually and thematically indeed. Just like the film, we have a crazy aggressor on a ship heading into the sun. Similar indeed, although I don't think its a direct copy. Its still very much Doctor Who. --Fullforce 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very much like the storyline of the Impossible Planet/Satan Pit episodes. A craft/planet is falling into something that would destroy it at the will of a mysterious creature. In IP/SP, it's a Satan-like creature, in 42 it's a star. I get the feeling that Chris Chibnall just ripped off the previously mentioned two-part story, but just compressed it into a single episode. Don't both stories take place in the 42nd century/millennium? --D'Argent 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably was a bit of a rip off but Chris did it SO much better, and we dont know when The Impossible Planet/Satan Pit was set. DAVID CAT 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not precisely when it's set, but Phil Collinson said in the commentary it's meant to be in the same time period as Impossible/Pit, and that the celestial bodies mentioned in the three episodes, along with the visual design, are meant to establish this episode sharing a roughtly common environment.  The inference I got from the commentary wasn't that 42 was "ripping off" the earlier episodes, but a move to establish continuity, in the same sense as the "New Earth Trilogy". CzechOut 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Danny Boyle obviously got the idea from the Red Dwarf episode Duct Soup 8-). Daibhid C 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I see your point everyone: Chris Chibnall obviously ripped the idea off from somewhere.  I mean, here we have the Doctor in deep space, stuck on a base/spaceship, effectively under seige.  He must race against time to fix the problem and avoid the whole crew being killed -either directly or undirectly- by a vengeful alien force.  All that running down corridors, death-defying clambering by the Doctor, using computers to open/shut gates, hurried wire- and machine-altering, time ticking down like a bomb... must have been copied from somewhere.  You'd think a Doctor Who writer could come up with something original. Gwinva 06:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of a coincidence

message: A reference to the use of the sentence "Burn with me!" by Florence Finnegan at the end of Smith and Jones was placed under continuity, sourced to a "Fact File" on this episode on the BBC website .
However, the same fact file contains all kinds of meaningless coincidences, such as "42 is the age that Russell T Davies reached when Series 1 of Doctor Who began in 2005", "42 is not a Happy Prime number", and "42 minutes was the length of The Beatles' last live gig, performed on the roof of Apple HQ."  The BBC is having a bit of a fun with the nerdish propensity to read meaning into casual coincidence which plagues fandom, and no evidence is provided to suggest that the phrase is anything other than a coincidence.  I've removed it.  Let's stick to known facts, and avoid speculation and possible red herrings. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this has more significance. The repetition of an obscure phrase within the series itself is overwhelmingly likely to be deliberate, especially when the phrase has no real meaning out of context. This is quite different to the the examples above where elements from the series are compared to elements outside the series. However, if others agree with Tony, fair enough. Tomsalinsky 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, if you think those are far-fetched, please, for the love of God, don't go near Lost articles. There's random speculation based on the number 42 for you :) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Belief is not verification.  If it proves significant later on (emphasis on 'proves' there), add it then. We're not here to build theories.  Digby Tantrum 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, take it out. Tomsalinsky 11:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burn with me

message: Regarding the item:
*Mr Saxon is referred to by a "Sinister Woman" who thanks Martha's mother on his behalf for her cooperation, and bags the mobile phone Mrs. Jones has used to receive her third call from her daughter. Martha's mother tells Martha during the last call that it is "election day", but Mrs. Jones pointedly refuses to tell the mysterious woman which candidate she has voted for
I can't work out what this has to do with continuity? -- Chuq (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious place for it is in the plot summary, when that's finished.  Digby Tantrum 13:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Saxon has 'his' own wiki page. All references to him (and the election) are listed there. As he is mentioned it may be a good idea to at least mention his reocurance and the link to that page. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity - election day 

message: I removed this because it's unsourced:
* Anthony Flanagan was reportedly on the shortlist to replace Christopher Eccleston, before David Tennant was offered the role of the Tenth Doctor.
If this was reported in a public source, please reinsert and disclose the source to conform to verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthony Flanagan

message: Perhaps this is purely coincidental, but I couldn't help but think the writer of this episode might have - at least subconsciously - drawn on elements from an old edutainment game I played on the Amiga 500 called "Discovery". In addition to the profile of the ship depicted in 42 looking somewhat like the side-view map of the game (which I'm aware is a variation on a common design), the premise of the game - summed up in the final sentence of the game's synopsis, delivered by the traditional goofy synthesized voice - is "Pass security doors by answering questions". That is, the game will frequently block your progress with security doors that deliver a pop quiz in much the same fashion as the ones in this episode (though unlike the ones in this episode, you get as many tries as you need). A further note is that the game starts in the aft of the ship, with your goal on the main bridge (after you "Collect 12 fuel crystals" to "Repair the ship and win the game"). Of course, there are no masked monsters burning people to death, though that doesn't stop the alien animal specimens running amok from being a nuisance...
I'm aware that in the 90's-gen Tom Swift novels, the titular character had a security lock which posed music trivia questions...though note that the thing actually operated on a voiceprint lock and the trivia was just for show.--Tenka Muteki 04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starship Discovery? 

message: There's been a minor dispute over a character's name, apparently due to the fact that Hal Korwin is referred to as Korwin McDonnell in the BBC prequel.  The edit I've performed reverts the character name to Hal Korwin, while adding a footnote to the effect he's named differently in this prologue.  I've weighted things in this manner for two reasons:
#The project level MoS (see ) directs that the cast list takes its lead from the programme credits;
#The prologue is written by someone other than the episode author.
If someone has a neater way of handling this, I won't object.  However, I will restate that we tend to give authority to the programme credits unless there's something to trump that (eg. a statement from RTD saying that they messed up the credits). --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Devil's advocate here; Carla Espinosa calls her husband "Turk" more than she calls him "Chris(topher)". Different show entirely, but there's a prime example. Will (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hal Korwin vs Korwin McDonnell 

message: Is the following note:
"The plot bears some similarities to the Fourth Doctor serial Planet of Evil, which involves a sentient planet, problems caused by the mining of (in that case) antimatter from the planet, and the return of the stolen material as a resolution."
really necessary? It may have similarities, but is this very encyclopediac? Thelb4 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet of Evil 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 42 (Doctor Who). 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/20070516025257/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/42-prologue.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/42-prologue.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516025257/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/42-prologue.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/42-prologue.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified