Talk:End of Days (Torchwood)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jack is Back!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

Oh my god, Jack is back with the Doctor! I'm looking forward to Doctor Who even more now!!!!! Dannyfrankland 23:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree but we have to wait until it starts and then another 11 eps 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that was the Doctor's TARDIS? ;)

Actually, you've got a point there anon. Its aid their will be recurring villains this season, and although Jack returns episode 11 it isn't said how. Possibly the Rani kidnaps him? Dannyfrankland 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah me too! Think outside the box 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rani isnt coming back.

Ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andral (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Would the doctor's hand be glowing if it wasn't him? 124.178.55.37 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of this relevant to the article? This is not a fan forum, it's a place to discuss the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.113.88 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ianto's Book[edit]

I added Daniel to Ianto's readings since the first part he quotes is "Go Daniel, and seal away these things until the End of Days." Daniel is an apocalyptic book and the reading is correct. (I don't know how to sign this properly) - Leto 2/01/2006


Just put four tildes. Didn't Ianto quote the wrong verse after reciting it, saying it was from one it wasn't (sorry, i don't know much about religion or i'd make more sense :)) Dannyfrankland 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was actually Daniel 12:8-9, not 10. Also, it I find it important to mention that the passage says the "time of the end" not the "end of time." The "end of time" implies that time can end. "time of the end" means that something will end, not that time will end. Its a mistranslation. This isn't his only mistranslation leidan125 7/24/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.11.116 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Anyone else think this was meant to be the Crucifixion, Resurrection & Ascension? Shades of one of Russell T. Davies other works, The Second Coming. He loves playing with religious themes doesn't he? Indisciplined 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, he's a complicated man. I love the way he's slipping Mr Saxon into Doctor Who AND Torchwood... Dannyfrankland 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS materialising time[edit]

Ok, so this may seem like being picky, but in the plot section it says: "a breeze sweeps through the area and the sound of a TARDIS materialising is heard. Jack smiles, walks forward (presumably, towards the TARDIS) and the sound of the TARDIS dematerialising is heard." Anyway my point here is that Jack doesn't walk forward, he stands where he is. As we've seen in previous episodes of Doctor Who, if the TARDIS materialised where someone is standing they get taken inside. As the time between its arrival and leaving is very short, is it not more probable that this is what happened? As I said, its being picky, but its a thought. Think outside the box 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I don't think there's any reason to debate this, so I'm going to go ahead and make the edit. Andral 09:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed (to me) like there was a time cut between the implied TARDIS materalisation and then it leaving. It just seemed too short to me, and it probably wouldn't have been able to get Tennent in to do a cameo without anyone knowing (at least, not easily). I have the feeling that there'll be a flashback to a bit of a conversation that happened then at some point too! But that's just my thoughts. 80.176.4.125 23:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently assumes that this scene is just prior to Jack rushing up and grabbing on to the TARDIS as seen in Utopia. However, I have a problem with that connection... we do not see Jack leaping up, and rushing off (and he would have to go outside to match continuity with the scene in Utopia). Also, in Utopia Jack states that the rest of Torchwood has been sent off on various missions (so they will not be present to stop the Master, we presume). This has not happened. Given these continuity issues, I think we need to assume that this is a different meeting with The Doctor (one not yet shown in Dr. Who) and not the one shown in Utopia. Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Master who told Jack that they had been sent off, so that parts taken care of in the narrative. DonQuixote (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abaddon's Prison[edit]

The trivia section mentions that there could be other demonic creatures trapped in other planets. However, if the war between Light and Dark happened "before time", then no planets would have existed back then. Also, Bilis clearly states that Abaddon was trapped in the Rift, not Earth. Perhaps Earth intersected with the Rift, and the Rift was "grabbed" by it. Also, the Forces of Light set up a trap for the Beast, in case he ever broke out. Wouldn't it make sense for them to do the same for Abaddon? Chronolegion 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did: Captain Jack. 71.131.3.210 08:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the Forces of Light foresaw Abaddon breaking out billions of years ago and conveniently gave immortality to Jack? I thought it was Rose who gave him eternal life. Chronolegion 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they controlled Rose to do it?

Toshiko[edit]

I'm curious, why did Toshiko so happily disobey Jack in opening the rift? It seemed that the other three were doing it for loved ones... unless it was Mary who Jack incinerated. cyclosarin 02:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I forgot there was also her mother from the hospital. cyclosarin 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billis Manger[edit]

This edit introduced a trivia section (WP:AVTRIV), the text seems overly speculative, and wouldn't the translations of Latin require sources considering they're not English (and thus you'd need to know Latin to verify)? Matthew 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a source for the Latin, it would still be original research. I deleted it. --Brian Olsen 01:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity[edit]

A lot of the continuity listed are actually anarchisms JayKeaton 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who's Hand In a Jar[edit]

I've thought since the first time I saw episode 2 that the hand the doctor had choped of by a sycorax on Christmas day is the one in the jar, I thought this was obvious but since no-one is metioning this i thought i drop it in.--Wiggstar69 09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it was mentioned several times in previous episodes' articles. Chronolegion 13:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that, I opologise for irrelivent coment then, thanks.--Wiggstar69 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten kudos points[edit]

...to anybody who looked at Bilis Manger and said "So that's what happened to the young gay bloke from A Taste of Honey." Murray Melvin's strange features lend themselves so well to science fiction that I'm suprised he hasn't turned up on TV and in film more often. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the article?--71.245.113.88 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted???[edit]

Why has all the material on this page been removed? Unless there is a problem I'm bringing it back Prcjac 16:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything has been restored since the vandalism Prcjac 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continutiy Section[edit]

I added a comment in the continuity section about this episode taking place immediately before the events in Utopia (Doctor Who). This was removed as "redundant." Nowhere in the article is this stated explicitly, where the article has explicit mentions of episodes that are far less directly related. When I pointed this out, I'm told that it's in the footnotes. Well, that's nice but it's not in the actual article content. The completeness of the content should drive the decisions about adding content. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this addition isn't reasonable and I find the repeated deletion to be puzzling. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is achieved by using the talk page. That's what it's here for. I do not really understand your objections to my points. Please explain it here and do not engage in an edit war. I'm not saying that I think you're wrong, I'm saying that I don't understand your point and I don't see how exactly you are refuting my points. Henrymrx (t·c) 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body Count[edit]

I made an edit a few weeks ago to refer to the high body count in this episode but it got reverted. Surely it's worth including? Huge numbers of innocent bystanders get killed by the shadow of the monster as it passes through Cardiff. We don't see any consequences on screen, e.g. a massive torchwood cover-up operation, we just see Gwen grieving over Rhys and Jack. Both of them get restored to life but those bystanders don't! So our torchwood heroes, by opening the rift, are responsible for massive death. Just a thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing that says one way or the other if the innocent bystanders in the street get brought back to life or not. Since the only example we have to go off is Rhys, who does get brought back, we can easily say that the rest of them do too. Opening and closing the rift put everything back where it was. Speculation, yes, but a sound one. Lvsxy808 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack as Jesus[edit]

There's an undeniable allusion in the episode to Jack playing a Jesus role here. He is betrayed by his closest disciples, he sacrifices himself to save the planet, he lies dead for three days before coming back to life, and then he goes off into "heaven" to return to his "god" (aka the Doctor). I'm just not sure if or where to place that into the main article. Lvsxy808 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a place, what I have heard is original research, unless there is a reliable source to back up the claim. -- Matthew RD 23:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deathclaws[edit]

Just saying, Abaddon is obviously a Deathclaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:307B:2800:30B4:E423:B374:C4A6 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on End of Days (Torchwood). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on End of Days (Torchwood). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:End_of_Days_(Torchwood)&oldid=1201756264"