Talk:The Eleventh Hour (TV story)

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)

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)

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.

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?

CzechOut = Douche

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)

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)