Talk:The Eleventh Hour (TV story)

Donna?
I noticed that at the end of the episode, when the camera is making its way through the "Ragidy Doctor" memorabelia, one of the Amy dolls looks like Donna and is wearing similar clothes as Donna work in Planet of the Ood
 * I didn't notice that, but did spot that the childish blue peter style creations (surely a nod to Biddy Baxter and Blue Peter's close links with the series) are in 2 different styles, the Dr dressed in his raggedy clothes and in his new stolen clothes, and Amy in her nightclothes as well as wearing her blue coat. Does this indicate that after the tardis noise she heard in the garden while waiting the 5 minutes for him to return (before the cut to grown up Amy) she did see the Doctor again as a little girl, we just haven't been shown it? Otherwise she wouldn't have known he changed his clothes. I bet there's something in the crayon pictures too but I couldn't make anything significant out. Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_100403_01/Eleventh_Hour_Extras 86.26.137.154 07:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * When the Doctor came back for Amy at the end of the episode, two years had passed since he confronted the Atraxi and prisoner zero. It seems likely that Amy would have then made another Doctor doll during that period of time.-Jedman67 06:35, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but why would a 20 something year old do that in such a childish fashion? And even if she did, why is there not a grown up Amy in kissogram police outfit figure too?86.26.137.154 07:06, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * As Prisoner zero said something along the lines of "Amelia Pond, still just a child" Invictus152 09:26, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * And, as she said herself, she'd been through four shrinks since she'd first met the Doctor. She almost definitely hase some more issues to work through, which will probably play a big part in future episodes.MrCatharsis 06:08, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Duck Pond?
What happened to the Doctor after he examined the "duck pond" he says something like he's not ready or not now and he clutches his chest. I initially thought it was the TARDIS key burning him but then he later remarks that he has no screwdriver and no TARDIS....any thoughts? (Please feel free to edit this to format the page as I have no idea what i'm doing) 60.229.42.169 10:00, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * It was residual energy from his regeneration. Tardis1963 11:18, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this may have been the longest regeneration for the doctor.Invictus152 03:37, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

From start to finish, perhaps, but from the point where he first changes physical apperance to the end of the episode? It was pretty much literally fourty minutes for him. The Tenth Doctor had spent pretty much an entire afternoon, night, and morning regenerating from the point he stepped out of the TARDIS to the point he regrew his hand (which are both just loose reference points, seeing as we don't know how long it was from the point where the Ninth Doctor kissed Rose and regenerated in the Series 1 finale to the point the Tenth exited the TARDIS at the beginning of Series 2, nor do we know the exact point his regeneration stops).MrCatharsis 06:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

The scanner screen in the TARDIS scene...?
OK, while watching the scene towards the end with Eleven and Amy in the TARDIS, the screen prominently focuses on the scanner screen behind Eleven rather than his face while he's talking, there's a wavelength wobbling about on it or something and a constant line showing too. He turns to it and flicks a switch, and on my screen at least it seems like a distinctly different frame pops up before it switches to the next shot, like a still image was inserted in the middle. I'm thinking that A, whatever the screen was showing will be important later as it was the focus of that shot, but maybe the inserted still image might be important too? Does anyone have the know-how to find out what's up there? Ponk 14:09, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it's some sort of lie detector. The Doctor said the only reason he was taking Amy was because he was lonely...Excalibur-117 17:30, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

There is a rumor that the Doctor went to the moon for 2 years on purpose to research the Pandorium (spelling?) I cant quite remember what they called it, but that and the Shadow and he came back because Amy had something to do with it thats why the scanner acted weirdly. I don't know just a theory 124.176.71.44 23:04, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's fairly important. The sound effect that played was the same sound effect when they were discussing the crack in Amy's wall, which is/was related to the series arc. 68.52.163.69 03:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, hang on. The static line ('crack') on the scanner screen, is it the same shape as the crack on the wall? Patient Zero spouted some jabber about what caused the crack along with the Pandorium stuff towards the episode's end, could the crack be consistent and have to do with that? Ponk 09:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

That… that is brilliant. And the crack's match each other. Nice catch! 68.52.163.69 22:59, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Went back to look at this scene frame by frame. When The Doctor presses the button, the next shot is of the screen and the center is blue. The next frame is back at the Doctor. Then the next fame is back on the screen, similar to before. Then the next frame is back to the Doctor looking at the screen. The way he lingers at the screen makes it seem like something odd happened. Perhaps he turned it off & it turned itself back on?192.249.47.165 13:55, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a sound in that scene, kinda like a horn, Reminded me of the Titanic. Anyone else notice that?.Invictus152 03:45, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also.. The doctor does indeed flick the switch and the circles on the scanner light up and seem to turn off, but when the doctor is talking to Amy, the screen is again on.Invictus152 03:47, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

MΨTH
The laptop that Jeff and the Doctor use is branded with a "MΨTH" logo. This may be important in later episodes and something that could be carried through the series. SilverDevastation 20:43, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO the use of the greek symbol Ψ 'psi' instead of 'Y' is significant because it is used for Schrodinger's Equation which relates to wavefunction and change over time in quantam physics and can be applied to the whole universe, ie the cracks. Shrodinger is equally / more famous for his cat experiment, which provides a scientific backdrop for the existence of multiple universes / many worlds / parallel universes and time travel etc, and in a way the weeping angels. Furthermore, in mathematics Ψ is also used to represent the reciprocal Fibonacci constant, whose closed form is the golden ration, which artistically was used from the Renaissance onwards by artists and architects. And Fermat's Spiral links this golden ratio to sunflowers and daisys. Is this why we have future episodes in the series set in 16th century Venice with the vampires, and with Van Gogh who is most famous for his sunflower pictures? Furthermore, the golden ratio is also evident in the design of the Great Pyramid and Stonehenge. Is this why we get archeaologist River Song at Stonehenge in the finale? Additionally, Fibonacci is credited with intorducing the use of zero into Europe, and actually published proof of the same specific case that Fermat did (n = 4) in 1225, but this is largely overlooked today. Finally, the Wile's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in the real world was published in 1995 so if the ideas about Rory's ID badge dated 1990 are correct that time has been tampered with somehow, the proof would not have been known to the experts the Doctor showed. The circle links, and links most of the episodes! (and IMHO It will also link the others that we don't know very much about as yet). Is it recognition (even if subconcious) of the psi symbol which prompts the Doctor to use the specific egs he does to the experts? 86.26.137.154 07:50, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Fear of the Doctor?
This is the second time (with Forest of the Dead being the first) where the Doctor simply getting a hostile force to look up his biography made them run in fear. This may become a trend. 124.254.80.117 07:39, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Another trend is stealing clothes from Hospitals 124.176.71.44 23:08, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ood?
How can the Atraxi have footage of The Ood in 2010?


 * It may be that the Atraxi did some sort of temporal scan. They follow the Doctor twelve years into the future to recapture Prisoner Zero, which implies time travel technology, and many segments of the video displayed happen in the relative future from 2010 (including the clip of Nine, which is clearly from The Parting of the Ways). This would explain the apparent inconsistencies in their knowledge, including of things that didn't even happen on Earth.


 * Please remember to sign off all posts with . Tardis1963 01:36, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think that the atraxi did a psiprobing on the doctor and they were using his memories as database, much to the likes of the guards of the alien prision in the infinite quest miniseries. Gridcube 04:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Blue Light
Sorry, I don't know how to create a new heading, but when the Doctor shows the older Amy the apple, why does a strip of blue light come across them?

The blue light was a lens flare because they put a light halo around them, notice that the edges of Amy's hair go golden during the shot too... According to Confidential they also slowed down the camera a bit too. I think it was just to increase the drama of the moment but I actually got a bit distracted by it. Ponk 01:30, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

>>> Did the header for you! =) The Brig 21:25, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * To the owner of the first post - Please remember to sign off all posts with . Tardis1963 01:37, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Premature image?
Do we know for certain that the image of the Doctor outside his TARDIS used to illustrate this article is from this episode? I would think one of the shots of him in the Tenth Doctor's outfit would be more appropriate for this story. (The image is a good one to use for the season article, though, as well as whatever episode ends up actually having the sequence). 23skidoo 02:18, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. And beyond that, it's low-res, drawn from a webcast. And it's got the wrong license on it. And it likely doesn't even capture the narrative mood of the story. So it's a total waste of time to even have uploaded it and attached it to this article. Putting a picture up of a story which hasn't even aired yet is, frankly, insane. Patience allows for better, more efficient work.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 13:28, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with having the image removed for now. 23skidoo 03:15, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously we now know the image being discussed is indeed from this episode, however I much prefer the one of the Doctor and Amy being used now, especially with Amy's "I'm only a little crazy" expression! 23skidoo 23:41, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Bogus airdate
I removed the 13 March airdate. The BBC has not announced the schedule yet. Any airdate from any source that is not the BBC is to be removed as bogus. 23skidoo 03:15, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * And as the BBC has now officially announced April 2010, that proves my point. Sources other than the BBC have never been correct for any of the 3 series in predicting the airdate. This probably means 3 April as that's Easter Saturday, but let's hold off until it's official in case the show is changing nights or the season premiere is shifted to Easter Sunday as a special. 23skidoo 22:48, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * the latest trailer says easter :D
 * There was a trailer that said specifically "Saturday, 3rd April", and there is a photo proof of that trailer. However, BBC denies such a trailer has been aired. What do we do with this information? Follow the trailer or the BBC crew? 188.33.195.231 18:46, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where's the photographic proof? I've never seen a trailer which said anything other than Easter. The article in fact linked to a trailer which said "Easter", but tried to claim that was a source for "3 April". Thus, I've changed all references to "Easter 2010", because that's all we seem to be able to prove at the moment. The 4th is just as probable to me, now that we have in fact had an episode to run on a Sunday (WOM).  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 15:19, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen the trailer with the 3 April date. I'd link it if I could, but I've no idea where I actually saw it other than it was recorded off the telly. RoccondilRinon 21:52, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly, both BBC website versions of that still say "Easter 2010"...  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  06:38, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is odd, but I've linked the trailer showing the airdate in the main article now. The "Series 5" page has listed the 3 April date uncontested for a while now. RoccondilRinon 07:25, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Errrr...every other episode page has specific dates, where did these come from? Because, surely, if they are true we have a definite date for this episode as well. (3rd April)  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  15:34, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The other pages are probably worked out from the assumed 3rd April starting date. --Tangerineduel 15:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh...okay  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  16:20, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

In case another source is needed for April 3, Moffat said so on BBC Breakfast after the press launch. I'm replacing the source on the Infobox which was a) a blog, b) apparently working off the disputed trailer, and c) was loaded with javascript adds that caused my Intel Mac to crash (heaven knows what it might do to others). As always, we should use BBC sources when possible and Moffat on BBC Breakfast is much better than a fan blog. 23skidoo 14:24, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

You have "in it's title" ... it should be "in its title". Sorry to be pedantic, but I would just correct it, but it's been semi-protected and thus I cannot.

The East Coast debut is listed as April 14th, 2007. I think it should be changed to 2010. Jedman67 15:38, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it April 17th as well?  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  07:42, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Setting
I'm tentatively going to take down the time period given in the infobox. There's no dialogue to suggest a time period. The only date in the entire episode is on Rory's ID badge, which says it was issued on 30th November 1990. Even given the fact that people don't regularly get such badges re-issued, he's simply not old enough to have an 18-year-old ID bage. The issue is even more complicated because of that stupid tacked on opening sequence, which is proving all round to be more trouble than it was worth. It prominently shows the London Eye. Somewhere here there's a production error. Don't know if it's the fact that the digital artists didn't remove the Eye, or that the graphic artists put the wrong date on Rory's card. Either way, for now, we don't know what the current year is in the Matt Smith era.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 04:11, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The episode most certaintly could not have taken place in 1990 as Rory's phone has an option to upload to Facebook, which did not exist until 2004, and the ability to upload to Facebook from a mobile phone did not exist until 2007. The Doctor specifically mentions Facebook when talking about the virus. He also mentions Twitter which was created in 2006 and really did not become popular enough to mention until 2008. The story most likely takes place in ~2010 as technology dictates. CodenameZ 05:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the episode to double check it, but if that's Rory's birthdate, rather than the date of issue of his card, all the numbers work fine. 121.216.151.169 07:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the card's issuing date, not his DOB, unfortunately. The card must be wrong then, 'cause it's easier to say the card's wrong then explain away Facebook and Twitter as being in the mid 90's. Tardis1963 07:28, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's more dramatic than the UNIT dating controversy! Earth's history shows 2007 events, Facebook (2004 onwards) and Twitter (2006, became popular from 2007 through 2009 onwards) are mentioned, there s the whole picture upload thing, a very modern laptop and goood quality webcam, phones that are clearly in the late 2007 onwards era, and other things. Heck, they had filming settings an coloured screens and Facebook! That 1990 thing must be a production era, as all of the modern things we mentioned were actually - and obviously - in the script for the story, whereas that 1990 thing probably wasn't anything from the script.

As mentioned before, many on-set reports reported that Amy childhood scene was in 1996, placing the main story in 2008 (when Facebook and Twitter very much existed, and Twitter was popular, and they had thin coloured screen phones with filming settings), and the Doctor's second return in 2010, explaining why Amy's home period is seen as 2010 later in the series. Delton Menace 07:53, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, look: I understand all this is mightily inconvenient. I get all the incongruities it causes. But the issue date on Rory's ID is the only actual date in the entire episode. Everything else you're saying is true of the real world, but may not be true of the DWU. The opening shot shows us the London Eye; are we to believe that the London Eye exists in 1996? And the Atraxi's look at earth "history", well that's a bit of a joke, too. The Atraxi seese things that happened on parallel Earths, the far flung future, and things that didn't happen on Earth at all. So that's no help. None of it makes any sense, but we don't have any other actual hard date to go by. "Set reports" are not valid references for the wiki. Until we get some greater confirmation from actual episodes, we have to report in this article the facts that are at hand. There's not enough hard evidence to say this thing happened in 1996/2008/2010. So I'm definitely reverting the infobox again. But I'll do you a deal, though. I won't put any dates. That way we can add it later, once it becomes absolutely clear — by viewing finished episodes — what was in error about this episode and what wasn't. Logically, we must be getting an actual date of this episode, because at some point Amy has to turn to the Doctor and say, "Okay, it's time for me to get married, take me to ." I mean that last scene of the episode does seem to set up a very precise time travel request from Amy. We'll almost certainly get to some sort of definitive date for this one. Maybe it is 96/2008/2010. But we can't say it yet. This is Moffat we're talking about, after all. We can't expect we're going to get everything handed to us in a simple, straightforward manner. We just have to wait until all the cards are on the table.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 09:16, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, look at this from another angle. What if you were to throw out the badge altogether and accept that everything else in the episode happens at the same time as those events normally do in the real world. So take DM's laundry list of technological dates above. Thing is, you can't actually pin it down to 2010. The main bulk of the episode works being in 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or 2011. Or 2012. Or 2013. Nothing wrong with any of those dates, really. Twitter/smart phones/Facebook they're all likely to exist in this date range. So without any actual dates give we're still left swinging a bit, even if we consider the ID badge as in error. But again the badge could still be proven right. We don't know that much about Rory, even from set reports. He could be displaced in time, himself.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 09:43, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. But the dates should be tentatively set at 96/08/10 for the time being. Tardis1963 09:48, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there is nothing to say the Tardis didn't travel back in time after crashing into Big Ben. So the opening scene could have taken place in 2005(the date The Tardis left Earth from in the end of time). The scenes of Amy as a child then took place in 1996 as the Tardis had travelled back in time. Therefore 12 years later it was 2008 with the final scene in 2010. That ID card was an error and The Atraxi was scanning the Doctor's memories, not Earth's history.

Rory's phone is a Blackberry Storm, which was released in mid Nov. 2008, which places this after or during November 2008. You don't usually expect to see a nurse in a rural village sporting the latest gadgets, and also, if it was December, there would have been Christmas decorations somewhere. So it could easily be 2009 when the bulk of this is set, or even 2010. It could, for all we know, be 1998/2010/2012 that this episode takes place in. It really only makes sense to me that Tennant regenerated in 2010. That bump could have been the TARDIS being jolted back in time a few years. It doesn't make that much sense to be in 2008, with so little of it left if you use the gadget dates. -Ravrahn2 08:43, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

1996 + 12 2008. Plus, that would make the Doctor's second to Amy 2010. And guess what time it is when the Doctor returns to present day Earth later in the series? 2010 - and it's snowing. Delton Menace 09:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Theres nothing onscreen to indicate Amelias time period except the shed. The shed was either rebuilt exactly (yeh right) OR the doctor actually went slightly backwards in time (he doesnt say that 12 years have passed just that the shed is 12 years old and Amy accepts it). The Clock is used to fool the viewers we didnt see it go forward just change... I think Amy is not Amela, perhaps a Zygon? timeywimey backto the future stuff coming! betcha youll all have to rewrite the article by the end of the series :) 212.87.66.138 21:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, can we please stick to normal theories? Stephen Moffat may like to throw us off a bit here or there, but that is just complete balony. Most logical theory is that the ID badge is a production error, and the bulk of the story takes place between 2008-2010. There is nothing to indicate that it does not take place in the present day, and the presence of the blackberry storm can also be a production error. Stick to reality, people. Jedman67 23:37, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * And my point is that we shouldn't be engaged with theories at all. Just stick to the facts and have patience. It'll all become clear in the end.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 21:26, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Another refference to previous Moffat stories
It may be worth mentioning that when examining the crack in Amy's Wall, The Eleventh Doctor states, "You've had some cowboys in here," a line that mirrors the Tenth's in Girl in the Fireplace.


 * Please remember to sign all posts with . Tardis1963 06:21, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

New TARDIS
The note about the TARDIS interior in the Story Notes does not mention the new Exterior of the TARDIS.


 * Please remember to sign all posts with . Tardis1963 10:59, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Added a screenshot of the Time Console from the new TARDIS set to the 'Plot' section Jedman67 23:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Talking to Himself.
I think that in Room with a Deja Vu ( IDW Comic) a significant aspect was that he talked to himself. perhaps a reference?Excalibur-117 11:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Pictures
Please consider adding them to the actual page. Thanks Trogaf

Plot Synopsis
When the Doctor wakes up secured to the radiator Amy is clearly adopting an English accent (reverting to her Scottish accent when she asks why he said five minutes soon after), I think it should refer to this in the plot summary, however, it clearly says Amy is Scottish before it is revealed that she is Amy. Adam 148 13:35, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sontarans/Wandering Off...
Wasn't the shot of the classic Sontaran from The Two Doctors?

And the Eleventh Doctor says 'Don't wander off'. Both the Ninth and Tenth Doctors expressed dismay when their companions had wandered off withour them.

Camborner 14:59, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner Zero imitating Amy
I don't think Prisoner Zero imitating the Doctor from Amy is an error, since it was already established that it imitates the main image in it's psychic hosts' minds. When the Doctor got Amy to think about Prisoner Zero's true form, she didn't appear with it either, so Prisoner Zero doesn't necesarrily take the form of the host it forms a link with, but the main image from their mind.


 * Please remember to sign all posts with . Tardis1963 22:05, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

That would mean that all the victims of Prisoner zero, all the comma patients were very self-centred.Invictus152 03:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Rumors about the future
Just because series has started doesn't absolve us from the rigors we imposed before The Eleventh Hour began. We have a duty to our readers to try not to include rumours unsourced by reputable news outlets (i.e., not some dude's blog). I've therefore removed a couple of items, but am preserving them here so that they might be reincorporated later, if they turn out to be true.
 * This one's not a direct quote, but a summary. Speculation about the dates of this episode based upon purported dialogue in Vincent and the Doctor. It may well turn out to be true, but we have no context for any leaked lines, nor do we know for sure that what might have been heard/seen in filming will make it through the editing process.
 * This was lifted directly from article: One of the episodes of Series 5 is rumoured to be called The Pandorcia Opens and it has also be rumoured that a silent menace will follow the Doctor and Amy on their travels, the term "silence will fall" was mentioned a few times by Steven Moffat when refering to arc and nature of series 5. Prisoner Zero also reveals that he has nothing to do with the crack in Amy Pond's wall, and mentions that there are cracks throughout the universe, amused that the Doctor does not know what the cause is; these are likely the watchwords and things to look out for planted throughout the series, much like 'Bad Wolf' and 'Torchwood'.

Please try to add things to articles that are based on finished, broadcast episodes, especially as we don't have to wait so long now for our questions/theories to be answered/validated.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 21:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Production Error: Six rooms?
There are only five hallway doors on that floor of the house, two at the end of the hallway where the Doctor is chained to the radiator, prisoner zero's room, the one to the left of zero's and the one to the right of zero's. Production error? -- Karm1c 00:55, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, cause there's one to the left of the one to the left of Zero's. That is to say, in back of Amelia's room, under the stairs. You don't see it for the longest time, but Amelia's room clearly doesn't run the entire depth of the house. Also, adult Amy points to it when she does her count. Look where her hand lands on "five"; it's clearly pointing diagonally behind her, towards the stairs. It finally shows up when Zero knocks down the door.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 21:39, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was the only place a figured there could be another door, but, having watched and re-watched the scene with the Doctor running up the stairs (just before the cricket bat), didn't see anything. Jump to the scene you pointed out, and there it is. -- Karm1c 11:43, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Blackberry storm
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Eleventh_Hour suggest blackberry storm is used to write the virus. If that's the case, timeline would be 2008? And 2 years later (2010), the Doctor invites Amy Pond to the Tardis?


 * Please remember to sign all posts with . Tardis1963 06:34, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Production Error : The key
When the Atrexi are departing there is a shot showing the doctor from the side digging in his pocket, the next shot is the doctor just standing there and starting to dig through his posket (because the TARDIS key gets hot). Only other time when the Key's gotten hot was in Father's Day. Invictus152 03:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Production Error
When the Doctor leaves the hospital to return to Amy's house - how did he get there??? He got to the hospital with the fire engine and Amy got there in the the red VW. She obviously drove the VW home, but the Doctor had NO WAY to get there. Idji 18:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

It is unsure how they got back. They could have got back the same way or they could have run just they left it out probably because of timing in the episode. It is a question that will probably never be answered. -- Michael Downey 17:26, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have a answer, as shown in many stories the doctors stamina is much greater than a human, as is his lung capasity, so that means that if he ran flat out, which he proberly didn't it wouldn't take him that long, as it doesn't take eather of them long to get there by car, so with a greater stamina and plus, lets not forget that as he was still in the first few hours of his regeneration, where it has also been previously shown, stated or hinted that during it his physical abbilities increase, he could have made it in only a little while, although admitally some of it was left out due to timing, but still it wouldn't take him that long. --General MGD 109 18:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really any part of the story anymore, so they glossed over it, and hoped the viewer wouldn't notice. Idji 18:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Its a tiny village. He walked (Or ran). Jedman67 23:40, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * The best place to ponder how the Doctor made it back to the village would be in the Forum:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/The Eleventh Hour. --Tangerineduel 14:15, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I dunno. This is one of those ambiguous cases that might be seen as a plot hole, but it's only that way because of the way the director shot it. This is more about flawed scene geography than anything else.


 * There's a circular flower bed in front of the hospital. Between that and the front door of the hospital is a roundabout. When looking straight at the door, the Doctor parks the fire truck on the left side of the door. Rory parks his car on the right. When the Doctor rushes out of the front door, the fire truck would then be on his right. But he runs across the circular flower bed, he goes diagonally left (or away from the fire truck). So he's clearly eschewing the truck as a way back to the village. The question then becomes, if he's going to ignore his means of transport, why does the script have Amy say that he needs a car? I think that is a production error, because all the director had to do to preserve the possibility that it all makes sense is to have Matt run across the flowerbed from left to right, thus at least implying that he might be running back to the truck. The movement actually filmed, though, implies he's running all the way back to the village (cause it's already established to be to the left, if your back is facing the hospital).  Czech Out ' ☎ | ✍ 22:16, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he needed a car because there was, at that time, a need to get there quickly? After it was all over, there would be no 'limit' to the time he could take to get there, and the interval, however long, was cut. -Ravrahn2 09:39, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * ^ I agree with Ravrahn2. Perhaps Amy saw him and tried to keep up running after him, probably yelling "Wait!", but she didn't manage to keep up and the Doctor got back to the TARDIS and left, just as she caught up. Bttsstewart 05:26, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Jeff on his laptop
When the Doctor snatches the laptop off of Jeff he hints that Jeff was viewing porn. He later tells Jeff to clear his browsing history, again hinting at this. 92.237.115.175 22:27, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would also love to know what Jeff said as the Doctors' "best man", and whether he did get a job offer out of it 86.26.137.154 07:30, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Deaths
Ramsden's death is a notable first - a death in a Steven Moffat story where the person in question isn't resurrected or doesn't die of old age. Surely this deserves a mention? -- Will101 17:16, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Put it in, if you think it's worth mentioning.Excalibur-117 17:19, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned it as it's been talked about for a long time, even by Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat. Also, it is mentioned on other episode pages, including The Beast Below. -- Will101 17:21, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Disappearing custard
Another continuity glitch: the Doctor tips up the bowl of custard to drink from it, but when we see the bowl from the side in the next shot the sides are clean. Offog 19:38, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

This is what we call a production error, I noticed it too. Excalibur-117 19:48, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Continuity
I may have spotted another continuity glitch:

at the end, in the tardis, when amy asks the doctor why he's taking her,

she approaches him from his left. When she is convinced and says "okay",

she's suddenly on his right

Five things to watch out for
So someone put that Matt Smith said there were 5 things in the episode to look out for throughout the series. The crack is one of them, Magpie electricals is most probably another as it's appeared in two consecutive episodes. Anyone else think of any others. Mc hammark 11:36, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it there are 4 or 5 things that turn out to be significant (or something similar) the way Smith phrased it? Several possibles have been mentioned on various talk pages and the Howling already, such as the raggedy dolls, the MΨTH logo on the PC, allusions to zero, silence falling etc. Also Moffat said "... don't assume you know everything, and don't assume you've understood everything you've seen" in Totally TV guide w/c 3rd April 86.26.137.154 07:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops, forgot the other one, Rory's ID badge issue date, and the date discrepancy in The Beast Below about Amy's age in the voting booth as 1306 / 8 86.26.137.154 07:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Missing screenshots?
I uploaded a screenshot of the new TARDIS interior, but it seems to have been taken down. Is there a reason for this?

-Jedman67 05:55, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Another production error
In the hospital, when the ladder crashes through the window, the two girls switch sides for one shot. --84.188.238.154 04:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
Does this episode shift the 'modern day' timeline back in parallel with our own after the Ninth Doctor's shenanigans?

^^Sign your posts, and no one on production gives a crap about the year thing anymore. Just look at the Torchwood in-universe website, no one cares. Even dialouge in Torchwood series 1 and 2 and 3 didn't have them one year ahead, no did dialouge in series 3 and 4 'Who, or The End of Time's commentery. As Moffat says, "the Doctor is a time traveler, he can fix some of his mistakes." Delton Menace 07:48, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

The episode "Aliens of London" really did screw everything up, didn't it? <:-(

Is this timeline correct? (Using Whoniverse dates):

"Rose" - Mid-2005

"Aliens of London" - Mid-2006

"The Christmas Invasion" - Christmas, 2006

Doctor Who Series 2 (first scenes of "New Earth") begin Early 2007

"Doomsday" - Mid-2007

Torchwood Series 1- BEGINS: Mid-2007, ENDS: Early-2008

"The Runaway Bride" - Christmas-2007

DW: "Smith and Jones"- Early-2008

DW: "Last of the Time Lords" (last scene, as Doctor says goodbye to Martha) - Mid-2008

The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 1: BEGINS: Mid-2008, ENDS: Late 2008

DW: "Voyage of the Damned"- Christmas 2008

Torchwood Series 2- BEGINS: Early 2009, ENDS: Mid-2009

Doctor Who Series 4- BEGINS "Partners in Crime": Early mid-2009, ENDS "Journey's End": Mid-2009

The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 2- BEGINS: Mid-2009, ENDS: Early/mid- 2010

Torchwood: "CHILDREN OF EARTH"- Late 2009 (Epilogue with Jack leaving Earth in Mid-2010)

DW: "Planet of the Dead"- Easter 2010

The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 3- BEGINS: Early/mid 2010, ENDS: Mid 2010

DW: "The End of Time"- Christmas 2010

Which places "The Eleventh Hour"'s first segment with young Amelia Pond in 1996/1997 sometime. The bulk of the episode in 2009 and the final scene in 2011...

All of this could've been avoided if that little "5" on Rose's 'Missing' poster seen in "Aliens of London" was instead changed to a little "4", placing the first episode in 2004...Sad...:-(

In my own head, I tend to find excuses for these little continuity errors when someone mentions the wrong date: For example, in "The Fires of Pompeii", Donna says "You saved us in 2008!" when "Partners in Crime", by the above timeline, took place in 2009. Okay, that's fine; Donna simply mispoke.

How hard would it be to say that Jackie Tyler simply made a typo when making her latest batch of "missing" posters???

Anyway, I'm getting off subject; is the above timeline correct? Bttsstewart 10:58, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the timeline is correct, but all these little inconsistencies might be corrected this series. The Doctor said that the crack was two points in time which should have never met touched together. Now, since it's been seen in several places I think it's safe to assume that these cracks are all over the place (and not just the one same crack). So if they're all over the place, I'd say that all these inconsistencies with dates could be put up to the cracks. Mc hammark 11:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again it's shown that it's impossible for Doctor Who to have a continuity error ;-) But still, I think it'd be best (just for my own personal continuity obsession OCD) to say that Jackie Tyler made a typo while making the missing posters...This places the Whoniverse at the same time as ours once again, fixing everything forever! I like the "cracks in time" solution to the problem too. Bttsstewart 11:08, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, far from "not giving a crap", as I understand it - you'll need to check the DWM interviews and podcasts for the chapter and verse - The End of Time was set up in part to adjust the timeline and remove the "year ahead" idea. It was a fringe benefit of not having to do a full season. It started with us being able to see the calendar dates in Children of Earth. So it has been addressed. 23skidoo 13:38, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that works... How exactly did 'The End of Time' adjust the timeline? Bttsstewart 16:40, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Too Much Time Spent On Duck Pond?
Now, this is just a theory, but I believe that the Doctor and Amy spent waaaay too much time talking about the duck pond. It seems to me, as such an early stage, that this could be like "the bees are disappearing". Matt Smith noted that there are four or five things to look out for in the series as a whole, maybe even in each episode, but that all five are definitely in the first episode. What if the duck pond is one of them? Remember, just a theory. Simson. 23:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it did seem wierd... I wonder if it will be relevant, but we can only speculate at the moment. 220.236.233.108 00:41, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or it could have been the Doctor rambling in a "why is the sky blue" sort of way. Moffat can misdirect with the best of them, too. 23skidoo 23:43, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dating the end of the episode
In the Year article for 2010 someone says the Doctor returned to get Amy in June 2010. I don't recall any reference to a month in the episode. Anyone know where this comes from? Or is a wedding date indicated in a later episode? 23skidoo 13:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)