Talk:A Christmas Carol (TV story)

Looking under the Bed
the doctor saying about not looking under 12 year old Kazran's bed is clearly a reference to him having dirty magazines not the Clockwork Robots since he said 'okay, you're 12 we won't look under your bed'

That's what I thought when I watched it too. Geek Mythology 11:38, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only dirty magazines here are in your head. The reference was to monsters under the bed - a fear most children have. 22:10, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * False. The Doctor said that HE wouldn't look under the boy's bed. He didn't tell the boy not to look under the bed. I've removed the incorrect reference. MrItty 00:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, he says "We'll stay away from under your bed." And with the way he throws the bed coverings down and moves on to talking about the face spiders, I think monsters under the bed is more likely than dirty mags.Yumekage 12:00, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with the original poster. 12 is a bit old to be worried about monsters under the bed, especially if you're interested in giant carnivorous flying fish. The Doctor's tone is very similar to when he admonished Amy's friend to "clear his browser history" back in The Eleventh Hour.DorianX 00:45, December 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the first poster. The gag doesn't make sense if he's referring to monsters under the bed. Why would the Doctor be scared of monsters? Remember, in "The Hungry Earth," the Doctor said, "Monsters are afraid of me." If there were monsters under the boy's bed, the Doctor would find them out and fight them, in the same way that he quickly helped Amelia when he learned that she had a scary crack in her wall. On the other hand, 12 is the age for puberty for most boys. It seems much more likely that he was avoiding seeing something down there (i.e., dirty magazines) that would embarrass both him and Kazran. -- TomH 06:47, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Fog Fish
Just out of curiosity, and i'm not sure if they were properly named in the episode, but is anyone up for nicknaming the species of fish as Fog Fish? i thought it would be a pretty nice idea. Rawrgoaway 22:45, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone else get the weird feeling they might be some kind of enormous, tame version of the Vashta Nerada? (Especially as the Doctor reacted to clearly invisible/too-small-to-see things biting him). --Witoki 07:20, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it's a stretch to link them to the Vashta Nerada, it's worth noting that no CGI fish were added into the scene, while biting was repeated and verbally mentioned. Adding in fish would have made for a funny gag; keeping them out of the scene opens it up for later re-interpretation. What if he wasn't being bitten by fish; what if something else, something invisible, was somehow jabbing or affecting the Doctor? This might be a detail worth noting for re-examination during the next season.98.180.49.44 02:09, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, where do you people come from?--Skittles the hog 18:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we bother you or something? :\ Rawrgoaway 04:37, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't you, Skittles was referring to the habit of people making near random associations (Adam Mitchell is Davros, every woman is Romana or the Rani, etc.) It becomes distracting and sometimes hijacks other people's topics. To your original question, it looks like someone went with sky fish with a conjecture tag because he wasn't absolutely sure if they were actually called that in-episode. --Nyktimos 02:17, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Biggest Question of All
Did the Doctor actually rewrite any of Kazran's life? Or did his appearance simply "jog his memory", and the Doctor wove this into an elaborate lie to trick him into thinking his memories were being rewritten? --Witoki 07:20, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Doctor can travel in time. Of course he actually went back into Kazran's life. The notion of him brainwashing Kazran with a lie is completely out of left field, and is unsupported by anything in the episode. -- TomH 06:50, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

With the second biggest being... with the sonic broken and half in the shark, does this mean they try to sell us ANOTHER new Sonic Screwdriver? Lmb02 08:57, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

They better not! I just bought the prop remakes for the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor's sonics, and I'm not ready to buy anymore! But yes, I think they might, I made the change in Sonic screwdriver about the Mark VII being destroyed in the episode. TheTARDIScontroller 08:50, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember the Tenth doctor's screwdriver being broken and he makes another one exactly the same, can't remember which episode though. Geek Mythology 11:38, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

This was 'Silence in the Library' wasnt it?

I'm hoping he either retrieved one half from Abigail at the end and let it repair itself after somehow retrieving the other half from the shark, or has an identical replacement from the TARDIS. ProtoKun7 18:27, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Tenth Doctor overloaded his screwdriver in 'Smith And Jones'.Zodisgod 21:56, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't River tell the 10th to "Use the Red Setting", and he replied that it didn't have a Red Setting? Seeing as how the 11th's original was green, I'm thinking he has to get a new one that has a Red Setting eventually.... MrItty 00:55, December 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * River's Sonic, though clearly not the same screwdriver, is more similar in design to the tenth doctor's than the eleventh. If his comment in Time of the Angels about meeting River "Always in the wrong order" holds true, that would suggest that the red sonic is something the Doctor used during the missing time between the Specials -- with him gifting it to her in a meeting sometime after Journey's End and before The End of Time (And subsequently switching back to the "older" blue Sonic)

I would just like to mention that the half the sonic that the doctor has still works so can't he attach some spare parts or something? Alpha111 17:05, January 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Going back to the original point, yes, he did rewrite it. The painting changed from his father to Abigail, which means it must have been rewritten. Also, in the confidential, Moffat actually says that it was rewritten. The Thirteenth Doctor 01:00, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Cratchitt Family
Am I the only thinking that in the many decades between Sardick being a young man and Michael Gambon, Abigail's family just didn't age at all??? Geek Mythology 11:38, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too. I'm glad I'm not the only one too. The Doctor was trying to do card tricks with the little boy when Kazran was a teenager. Then at the beginning, when Kazran was an old man (when the Doctor came down the chimney) he was about to hit the same little boy. I say thats about a 50 year gap, and the boy is still a boy. We know Abigail didn't age because she was cryogenicly frozen, but the fact that her family didn't either is just strange. Gryffindor1991 03:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it the same boy, or is the boy of the card trick scene the father in the beginning, when the Doctor comes down the chimney, and the boy in that scene thus the grandson of the father in the card-trick scene? I couldn't tell if the actors changed, but the Sardick father and son (Kazran) were played by the same actor to highlight their similarity: the same situation might obtain in the generations of the Cratchitt family. Clearly Abigail's sister aged, since the old woman in the beginning claimed to be the sister who was much younger at the Christmas dinner.

Plot Finishing
I just tidied up a pretty shockingly written plot summary however it seems to stop at the apperance of the shark. I can tidy but I can't write so thats where Ill stop untill someone can put something up.

Isomorphic controls
Any thoughts on why the Doctor claimed isomorphic controls didn't exist, even after the Master's laser screwdriver had them installed? Maybe just him being him. ProtoKun7 18:32, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

He didn't claim they didn't exist. He was just trying to look smug by saying Kazran did not have such technology. He has stated that isomorphic exists himself on occasion. (DW: Pyramids of Mars, The Daleks)--Skittles the hog 19:01, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, he did claim they didn't exist. He said "there's no such thing." However, we know that isomorphic controls don't work through DNA, but through brainwaves. The Thirteenth Doctor 01:03, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounded more like when Kazran said the controls were isomorphic, the Doctor said "they are no such thing", not "there's no such thing". —67.217.9.198 05:32, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's likely that he is making a wry observation about the fact that the allegedly isomorphic controls of the TARDIS have nonetheless allowed allies, enemies, and strangers alike to operate the TARDIS numerous times over the years -- he's suggesting not that there's no such thing as isomorphic controls at all, but rather that there's no such thing as functional isomorphic controls.DorianX 00:56, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

I saw it as more of a denial that he knows is wrong. That's what I ment by my statement.--Skittles the hog 14:48, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Companions
Does Kazran count as a one-off companion, or no? Thricewise 01:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes, same with Abigail. Ausir(talk) 03:41, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah on one hand they travel with the doctor once a year. And on the other there only in one story and we didn't give Jo and Sarah Jane companion status for only traverling in the tardis in one story Joshoedit 08:23, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah on one hand they travel with the doctor once a year. And on the other there only in one story and we didn't give Jo and Sarah Jane companion status for only traverling in the tardis in one story Joshoedit 08:23, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the listed Production Error.
The listed Production Error claims that old Kazran touching his younger self is a violation of the Blinovitch Limitation Effect. I don't quite follow. Tell me if I'm overthinking this: In "The Big Bang", we saw the Sonic Screwdriver spark with itself due to the Effect, so that the Doctor could confirm that it was the same screwdriver. But Kazran is a human. He changes. The human body is completely renewed every seven years. Old Kazran is clearly more than seven years older than younger Kazran. He is physically different matter at this point. It is for that reason that I believe that touching his younger self does not violate the effect. This also explains why Amy touching her younger self in "The Big Bang" also does not result in a spark - she is at least seven years older than her younger self (even if you don't take into account the 1,894 years inside the Pandorica, since it appears to have preserved her matter, she was still 21 when she went in, which is more than seven years older than 7). Even though I've come to this conclusion, I realize that it probably does not satisfactorily explain the Time Lord touching his twelve-minutes-older self in "The Big Bang", but obviously, we do not know exactly how the Blinovitch Limitation Effect affects Time Lords.

So, in summary: Sonic Screwdriver sparks when it touches itself because it is the same matter. Humans do not if there are at least seven years between the older version and the younger version, because they are different matter. Am I overthinking it, or does this make perfect sense? Memcginn 08:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

But in Mawdryn Undead, where we first learn about the Effect, it's the two aspects of the Brigadier touching each other that generates the energy that saves the day. And they were different, as the contact had affected the Brigadier so he didn't remember encountering himself years before until the moment of contact (again). So, call it a continuity or production error, or Moffat trying to pretend what had been a central plot point for the 5th Doctor no longer applied. Lmb02 09:08, December 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Small quibbel: "Mawdryn Undead" doesn't imply that the Brigadier's time line has been altered. It's a straight shot from 1977 to 1983. Within this story the Doctor fiddles with Kazran's time line. Does that pre-empt the BLE? Maybe. Could the preceeding series changed the rules a bit? Maybe. Either of those, or both, could be used to explain what is an important character plot point in this story. - Byfield 09:18, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your points are good. However, the contact did effect the Brigadier: his "breakdown", his quarters so unkempt when before very ship shape, the memory of contact with his older self suppressed until just before he touches and says "I remember...". Certainly not an authority on BLE to say either of us is "right", but there are similarities that lend to the belief of either error or pretending what was "true" in the past no longer is. Which gives us a stronger emotional moment (the Kazrans hugging and getting thrown across the room would not have had the same drama as them hugging and the elder apologising as he cried).
 * Ignoring BLE made a better story, even if it waived a "law".Lmb02 09:35, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * In "Mawdryn Undead", the older Brigadier is only older by six (less than seven) years, so he's not made of entirely different matter. Some of the stuff between them is exactly the same, so it seems to me like the Effect would apply there without contradicting my idea. Memcginn 09:41, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that in the very next scene, Kazran's rejected by his isomorphic controls -- The Doctor has literally changed him into a different man. DorianX 00:58, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that in the very next scene, Kazran's rejected by his isomorphic controls -- The Doctor has literally changed him into a different man. DorianX 00:58, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

I added the error. As shown in Mawdryn and Father's Day, bad stuff happens when the same object/person from one timeline touch.--Skittles the hog 14:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a production error, though. Moffat/Haynes/Gambon intended the scene to be played out that way.  I'm sure if we had access to all takes, we'd see that they touch in every one.  It's not a mistake by the production crew.  If it's an error at all, it's a narrative one, so I moved it to its proper home at the discon page.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  08:02, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

honeymoon roleplay
when rory and amy came onto the bridge they implied they were dressed as a police officer and roman soldier to make things more interesting i think this might have been a reference to only fools and horses where rodney does this exact same thing (same costume no spaceship)92.10.238.10 00:47, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Or maybe there's no reference at all. Amy and Rory both had these outfits from other occasions, and they were just wearing them again. (Quite how Rory got his Centurion armour back I'm not sure, considering that he presumably didn't have it after the universe was rebooted.) ProtoKun7 05:37, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Abigail's Song
The page's culture section says that the song reads " Silence will fall all around". That is incorrect. The song is called Abigail's Song. It says "music is all around".

When you're alone, silence is all you see.
 * Please remember to sign your posts. Actually, that is the second part of the song. The first part says "when you're alone, silence will fall all around"...or something close to that. I'm not completely sure. -- Bold  Clone  03:35, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The lyrics are as follows: (- Ummwhat 06:37, December 30, 2010 (UTC))
 * The lyrics are as follows: (- Ummwhat 06:37, December 30, 2010 (UTC))

When you're alone, silence is all you'll be.

''Give me your hand and come to me. ''

''When you are here, music is all around. ''

When you are near, music is all around.

Open your eyes, don't make a sound.

Let in the shadow, let in the shadow,

Let in﻿ the light of your bright shadow.

Let in the shadow, let in the shadow.

Let in the light of your bright shadow

Storm Gates
In the opening scene, one of the crewmen announces that "Both engines failed and the storm-gate's critical". "Storm Gate" is also the name (or perhaps the type) of prison River Song is held in. I'm wondering if this means something. Perhaps a "storm gate" is some sort of hyperdrive, with the implication that perhaps River's prison was located in hyperspace or something. Just a thought. 74.103.29.181 05:39, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

rewriting a persons life.
Didn't this come dangerously close to breaking the rules? Has this ever been done before? dposse 18:51, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which rule? The Doctor can't change certain fixed points in time (as in The Waters of Mars), but I never heard any rule about not changing a person's life. He's always changing people's lives in one way or another. If you have any example of the rule you're talking about, I would be happy to hear it. -- TomH 06:54, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem to involve crossing his own time stream, in essence undermining his own past. His actions are similar in kind to the bit with his tie in Smith and Jones, which he says is forbidden except for the sake of cheap jokes. DorianX 17:02, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem to involve crossing his own time stream, in essence undermining his own past. His actions are similar in kind to the bit with his tie in Smith and Jones, which he says is forbidden except for the sake of cheap jokes. DorianX 17:02, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

TARDIS commercial
Did anyone else see that awesome/hilarious commercial that aired on BBC America during this episode? It was made to look like a cheesy daytime TV commercial, all about buying your own TARDIS. I tried to find the clip again on YouTube and I can't. Even though it didn't directly affect the continuity of this episode, should we include a listing about the commercial on this episode's page, since it aired for the first time during this episode? Does anyone have any more information about it? -- TomH 06:58, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you go to the Where's the TARDIS website, it will have a video of that commercial on the homepage. It is actually something for a contest for building your own TARDIS and putting it in a very odd place where people could see but it would look odd in (like a tree in the middle of Central Park, New York). There's like a grand prize of a Doctor Who series 6 screening I think... Hope that helps! TheTARDIScontroller 00:10, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * That commercial is awesome, Ive seen it many times :) Its funny when the old woman says "What happens on Raxacoricofallaptorius stays on Raxacoricofallapatorius." The commercial didn't air for the first time during A Christmas Carol because I saw it early Christmas day. Gryffindor1991 00:38, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was watching BBC America (since I'm in America haha), and the first time I saw it was as a commercial in between Doctor Who at the Proms 2010. It was so funny, I like how the younger lady at the beginning of the commercial quoted the Jack and said "Imagine you world, a little more 'sonic'" haha! I love the commercial! TheTARDIScontroller 05:31, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Shark - cause of death
...The Screwdriver starts to kill the shark from the inside...

The shark is suffocating, since it can't return to the clouds after being stunned.

At 23:30, quoting the Doctor:

I doubt they can survive long outside the cloud - just quick raiding trips

Mike.norrish 22:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)