Talk:The Rings of Akhaten (TV story)

Type of leaf
In the "Production errors" section, the leaf shown in The Bells of Saint John is described as coming from a maple. The tree was in an English suburban street & is most likely to have been a plane tree (genus Platanus), not a maple (genus Acer). The leaves are similar in shape but planes are much more common in Britain than are maples. --89.242.68.62talk to me 01:27, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Cultural reference
The Doctor says "I've seen things you wouldn't believe." Sounds like the "I've seen things you poeple wouldn't believe" from Blade Runner...

193.48.172.25talk to me 13:23, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

I actually believe that the Real World Cultural References subheading of the references section should be removed entirely. Some of the things that are being added are getting ridiculous. That's not to say some of them aren't valid references. The literary references should receive their own subheading. The reference to Akhenaten could be moved to the Akhaten article under the Behind the Scenes heading. The Hooloovoo reference has been moved previously to the Behind the Scenes heading on its own article and therefore doesn't need reiteration in this article. Everything else that's been edited there so far have been reaching for references at best. Just my two cents.

Tynus ☎  02:05, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I kind of disagree, thought being only a reader I won't modify anything apart the talk page. I find it usefull to have a trivia section on the page of the episode, even if the trivia is mentioned elsewhere. That way you only have to read the episode's page to get them. For exemple as a big HHGTTG fan (thought the books and radio series, not the movie) I'm quite happy to see the reference directly on ths apge and not on the Hooloovoo page...

Furthermore, since there is another mention of Blade runner on the page of the article, I think that my remark has it's place :) 193.48.172.26talk to me 05:12, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an open forum post regarding the References section. Personally, I feel these references belong on the story page. I'd forgotten the name, and never would have drilled deeply enough to see a favoured reference otherwise. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  01:19, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Discontinuity with Bells prequel?
The Bells prequel has the Doctor engaging in a conversation with Clara as a child, yet in this episode she seems to only recall the Doctor observing her. Could be a discontinuity though that assumes the version of Clara met in the prequel is the same girl - note that in the prequel she is called Oswin, but she denies having that name in the main episode. 70.72.211.35talk to me 15:53, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * She's not called Oswin in the prequel, she's called Clara Oswald. And I don't think it's that much of a discontinuity - she didn't visibly remember kicking the soccer ball into his face in Rings either. I mean, can you remember every person you ever met as a child? TARDIStraveler ☎  16:07, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

plot hole?
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this but Ive spotted a possible plot hole. Why does the tardis not translate Doreens barking for Clara? Ecleme11 ☎  20:03, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Two things here. I discussed it with a friend as we were watching the episode, and we thought it could be another sign that the TARDIS doesn't like Clara, so it won't translate for her, but at this point that's pure speculation. That being said, there's definitely precedent for the companion, and therefore the viewer, hearing the alien language untranslated - the Hath from The Doctor's Daughter and the Judoon in The Stolen Earth come to mind. TARDIStraveler ☎  21:20, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * TARDIS not liking her. --> I thought that to, but Clara can understand Merry. I think Doreen's language is just one the TARDIS doesn't translate. Like Judoon. -- Future Companion
 * A bit speculative, but it could be both - perhaps the TARDIS only acclimated her to the primary local language, when for others (like the Ponds) she does for all.--ComicBookGoddess ☎  01:53, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Leaf Continuity
"'Clara's leaf is featured and the story behind it is explained. (TV: The Bells of Saint John)'" This is not correct. We saw a different leaf in The Bells of Saint John and this episode did not say that this leaf was the one seen before. We don't know if there are supposed to be two leaves in Clara's story or if this was a production error. Maybe the leaf in this episode is supposed to be the same one in The Bells of Saint John but we don't know that and can't say that there's continuity. Anoted ☎  08:18, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here are screenshots of the two leaves:


 * I find it more reasonable that they accidentally used the wrong type of leaf in the Bells than to think that Clara had TWO important leaves in her book, especially considering the Doctor only pulled out the one.--ComicBookGoddess ☎  14:01, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that's a huge assumption. We don't know if they are supposed to be separate leaves or the same leaf. And until we do it seems much safer to simply say that the Doctor asked her about a leaf she called "the first page". A leaf which may or may not be supposed to be the same leaf. We can't say that it's the same leaf because we don't KNOW that. No character tells us that it's the same leaf. We're assuming it's the same leaf. We can't say that we know it's a different leaf because we don't know that. We see two leaves that look completely different and assume that they are not the same. All we can do is provide the information on both leaves and say that we don't know if they are the same. Anoted ☎  18:04, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also as a matter of course I think it's a bad idea to assume an error. Yes, production errors happen all the time. But tiny details in stories are often important. When you watch Flesh and Stone and you see the Doctor in his jacket you might think it's just a production error. The Doctor isn't supposed to be in his jacket. But it's not a production error and we don't find that out for several episodes. Calling the leaves a production error has consequences. It forces a narrative and that seems like a very dangerous thing to me. Both because the show has a history of using what seem like small discrepancies as a part of a large plot, and because we should never assume a narrative and force it on other people. We're only two episodes into this character, we can afford to be a little patient. Anoted ☎  18:30, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe when the Doctor went back in time and spied on the meeting of Clara's parent's he caused a different leaf to fall? We will have to wait and see if the series explains the two different leaves. (PS: If you notice, the book's cover changes as well.) -- Loyal Companion


 * I never mistook the rolled up sleeves and different demeanour of the Doctor for a production error, but that's a far cry from leaving the previous episode on a line about the leaf, then starting the next episode on a different leaf that we'd never heard of. Why would the Doctor bother trying to find out about a different leaf? And why call this leaf the most important leaf in human history, then have another leaf in the book?
 * I'm saying that to say it was definitely another leaf is speculative, as well. It could have been artistic license.--ComicBookGoddess ☎  03:30, April 10, 2013 (UTC)