Talk:The Idiot's Lantern

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

Grandma was not a Connolly[edit]

Margaret John is credited for playing Grandma Connolly but she can't have been a Connolly since she was Rita not Eddie's mother. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis Findings[edit]

I am taking this infomation from Outpost Gallifrey in the spoiler section, hence I'm not keen to post a link to it less it doesn't work for some people. It's also still speculation, so I placed that in mind.

The forums? That's not a reliable source. However, OG's news page does have atiny blurb that says something about "an unusual sort of alien intelligence.".--Sean|Black 02:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll stand by that synopsis.

Wonderfull. I'll admit that everything seems to indicate that your synopsis is correct, but it's always better to stick with the facts.--Sean|Black 02:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1950s police and a 1950s police box[edit]

I think that, despite being obvious, it should be in the article. Please discuss, noting that the non speculative version would run as follows - Police boxes were used mainly in the 1950s, and the TARDIS resembles one or similar.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how this is notable. Police boxes were in wide use in Britain from the 1920s to the early 1980s. It would be absurd to put a note like this in every Doctor Who story set in that period. While it's certainly possible that the fact that the TARDIS's camouflage would be appropriate in this case may prove relevant (and I don't think that TV Who has visited the '50s before), we don't have any specific reason to suppose that it will be, any more than its presence in the 1940s was relevant in The Empty Child (1940s police boxes weren't that different from 1950s, as far as I know). Unless we have a leading comment from someone notable that suggests that the police box shape will be relevant in this story, I think this is too trivial and non-notable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in Rose, when asked what a police public call box was, he said "It's a police box. From the 1950s". I beleive that he also mentioned something similar in Boom Town. So the actual, individual "model" of police box that the TARDIS resembles is probably a '50s one. Q.E.D.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and...? As I said, I don't think 1950s police boxes were that different from the ones used in the 1940s or 1960s. So instead of being a generally appropriate disguise (as it is in Britain circa 1930–1980), or a wildly inappropriate one (as it is in most other times and places), it's an exactly appropriate disguise. And this is more notable than its dozens of appearances in the 1940s and 1960s because...?
The only way I can see this being at all worth mention is if you point out that televised Doctor Who has never before visited the 1950s, and then mention the TARDIS's disguise. Otherwise it just seems pointless. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this were the first time the TARDIS had landed in the appropriate era for the police box disguise, this would be worthy of mention, but it isn't. See "An Unearthy Child", which takes place only a very few years after the time frame of Idiot's Lantern. 23skidoo 19:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the fact that the Police Box was a great disguise for the TARDIS in those days is the in-story reason why it is that shape - I guess that appears in detail in the TARDIS article. PaulHammond 23:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the others' sentiments and say "so what?" The only reason you have it in there seems to be to try and draw some connection between the fact that the TARDIS resembles a police box and your initial intent to squeeze in that speculation that the episode has something to do with the TARDIS shape. Removing that speculative bit doesn't make it any more notable, and it's a statement of fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the "episode", in the same way that a note that "London buses in 2005 were red" is completely obvious and useless if you placed that note in Rose. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point was that this episode appears to rotate strongly around the police of the 1950s, who might, by accident, wander into a police box of the 1950s. I understand that this is speculation, but a non-speculative version, like the one in my first comment would, I think, be OK.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our point is that the sentence on its own, without the speculative bit, no longer has any connection to the episode, so leaving it in is pointless. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

Should we put a screenshot from the trailer into the article or just wait until the episode airs? --Jawr256 07:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that we should wait - we may find a more appropriate screenshot then. --khaosworks (talk • contribs)

We should put one now as we did with TGITF, New Earth, Tooth and Claw, School Reunion and the Cybermen.--Keycard (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that guy being attacked by purple "Watch with mother" tentacles is very cool... PaulHammond 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RT[edit]

Could someone tell me what the RT says about this episode? Thanks--Keycard (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this link takes you to a search result page where clicking on the link for Doctor Who brings up a pretty large pop-up review talking about Maureen Lipman's abilities to produce spine-tingling demonic laughs amongst other things. Too big to reproduce on this talk page... PaulHammond 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link gets you to the review directly... -- Smatthewman 11:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flipping Jack[edit]

One person added a note on here saying that it was impossible to turn a Union Flag upside-down, which was deleted, and then someone else added the same comment again, paraphrased. It is completely possible to hang the Union FLag upside down. Observe:

The Union Flag

The white bars are slightly thicker on one side of the red bars. She meant flipping it, not rotating it 180°.

So it's rotationally symmetrical, just not laterally symmetrical... ;-) Jeff (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related theme, while Rose corrects Connolly about both the name and the orientation of the Union Flag in this episode, I recall that she called it a Union Jack when it was plastered all over her chest in Empty Child/Doctor Dances. This presumably means she only uses this nugget of information to put Connolly in his place because the opportunity arises whereas she is happy to use the incorrect term in more familiar company, or (more unliklely) that Jackie dated the sailor after Rose's experience in Empty Child/Doctor Dances, or (even more unlikely) Rose considers her breasts an example of British maritime heritage....--86.27.60.124 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood[edit]

Did one of the police officers mention it? I was listening out for Torchwood references as soon as the Doctor mentioned someone high up wanting to cover things up, and I missed it. OTOH, I missed it in Rise of the Cybermen as well... Daibhid C 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was mentioned. Something about 'having Torchwood on our backs', I think. They definitely said Torchwood, anyway. --86.143.215.5 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Faceless ones[edit]

There was an episode of the Twiglet Zone or soemthing similar with a faceless girl. Anyone remember definately? Rich Farmbrough 11:15 28 May 2006 (UTC).

You're probably thinking of the movie. Strangely enough, she was watching TV in that scene. DonQuixote 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a copy of It's a good life to check. Rich Farmbrough 22:08 29 May 2006 (UTC).
Khaosworks and DonQuixote are correct it's the movie. Rich Farmbrough 22:21 29 May 2006 (UTC).
This is because culturally, attacks on the idiot box come more often from cinema (see Videodrome) than from television itself. DavidFarmbrough 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betamax[edit]

I think the tape actually a VHS tape; it looked too big to be a Betamax (I know the Doctor called it a Betamax, but I'd imagine quite few Betamax tapes survived, and it wouldn't be easy for the props department to get hold of them). But could someone else verify this? smurrayinchester(Talk) 15:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was definately a Betamax tape. Here's a picture I found where the Betamax logo is clearly visible: [1] -- MisterHand 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that could have been faked... but I just checked, and when the tape is in the Doctor's hand, you can see the top surface. Definitely the right shape for Beta, and it has the classic design with just one transparent window (VHS has two). --DudeGalea 15:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in case anyone is sad enough to care, the symbol on the tape label that hadn't been crossed out is the Gallifreyan number 3. --DudeGalea 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very easy for the props dept to get a Betamax tape, there were millions made and huge quantities still exist. Some TV studios occasionally used them for non-broadcast archiving too. Colin99 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, all kinds of Beta-based stuff was common in TV studios and other production houses throughout the 80s, as it gave better picture quality than VHS and the features that made VHS more competitive in the home market (90-minute-plus recording time, marginally lower cost) were less important. Plus various formats with better reproduction incompatible with home systems were crammed into the same shell. It's probable that the BBC used Beta instead of VHS in this case simply BECAUSE they had piles of them going begging in a back room, but didn't have any VHS cassettes to hand. As well as the plot point of it then being largely incompatible past the mid 80s should the doctor not get chance to erase it and the cassette be left hanging around somewhere, and an in-joke for the adult viewers (similar to an episode of [Cowboy Bebop]) who would recognise the thing as being slightly unusual whilst the kiddies would have no idea :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have plenty of them... —Whouk (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been "a nice touch" to link the yard where the faceless ones are taken to that used in An Unearthly Child - and perhaps a reference to The Empty Child.

I disagree. Totter's Lane has been revisted on-screen in Attack of the Cybermen & Remembrance of the Daleks; on audio The Harvest; & God knows how many times in novels, short stories & fanfic. Using THAT yard to house the Wire's victims would be too fanboyish & claustrophobic. It's a shame the Doctor's line about being scared of transmitter masts since he fell off one once (killing his 4th regeneration in Logopolis) was cut though.

Would a lower middle class wife in 1952 have chucked out her husband in the manner shown - or would some compromise be reached (as may be implied with Tommy going after his father)? What would happen to the televion shop now that its owner has "disappeared" (as far as most people would be aware.)

There does seem to be a degree of moral comment throughout the series - the Doctor on several occasions, the son in this episode.

It is to be presumed that the Daleks are not in the vicinity (the build up to the invasion of Bad Wolf having not started) - or that the TV frequencies in use in 1952 are more compatible.

Probably more a case of Plotholes = Inbuilt opportunities provided for developing fanfic (g).

Why, in science fiction in general, does there seem to be a penchant for attacking Earth and its resources, when, as The Grand List of Overused Science Fiction Cliches (readily found on the web), points out there are likely to a number of equally suitable places on the way. Would humans, once interstellar travel has been developed (actual method irrelevant) do the invading - or be invited to intervene (by either side)?

Jackiespeel 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - you could see the L750 clearly on it. In response to the 'Why Earth' question above, just because this episode showed an attack on Earth, there is no reason to rule out attacks on other planets at the same time. Personally I would prefer to watch the attack on 1953 Earth as I do not care what is happening on the planet Zog. DavidFarmbrough 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The first sentence of the above refers to the Betamax question (just for clarification).

A 'mention'/'not at' of the visitation to Totters Lane would have surficed for my comment - and not everybody watched the earlier series in full (g). Sometimes though too many loops and in-joke references tangle up the plot.

The "alien invasion of Earth" is a science fiction cliche - I was just pointing out that the reverse might be an interesting plot device (and the Doctor in the Christmas episode did wonder who the aliens were).

Jackiespeel 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial[edit]

These looked like half swastikas to me. Rich Farmbrough 22:25 29 May 2006 (UTC).

What the heck is a "half" swastika? You mean like two Ls joined together somehow? 2/3rds of a Manx logo? A squared-off Integral symbol? Hmmmm. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are intentionally shaped like Swastikas, by the set design team, to evoke the post-war era, as according to the doctor who wikia and the DVD commentary (checked) Lord loss210 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TV price[edit]

What was the going rate in 1952? Rich Farmbrough 22:27 29 May 2006 (UTC).

It says here that the cost was about £70, including the antenna and the wiring. To put that into perspective, a weeks wage was on average £9-10. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 06:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. A new console TV in the US at that time was about $300, which would have been about £70.Jeff (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the average price of a set was 60 to 80 pounds including purchase tax, when Magpie said that his televisions were 5 pounds each he may have been stating the rental price

Wasn't the whole point that Magpie was selling the TVs at a massive loss, just to ensure people in Florizel street had them? --DudeGalea 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the whole point. The Wire didn't care about Magpie's profits (or indeed about his life) - only that he ensure as many people as possible had his TV sets, so that she could eat them all! PaulHammond 10:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he was 200 pound overdrawn he would have only had to sell 40 sets to get out of debt.

Only if he was somehow making £5 profit on each set... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.101.220 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granny's comments[edit]

About what the TV would do to people's brains was not #entirely# wrong (g). Jackiespeel 21:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Faceless Ones[edit]

Should the note about other faceless people include a mention of the 1967 Doctor Who serial The Faceless Ones? I don't believe that the faces of the aliens in that story were ever seen, but the narrative suggests that they had lost their identities somehow and needed to steal human beings' faces. It seems likely to me that Gatiss was at least aware of that story, but I'm not sure what the best way to word a mention would be. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, we do know what the Faceless Ones looked like, and they were these gross, "faceless" but with skin that looked like burn victims rather than blank features. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 Jun

Production Note[edit]

What was the radio programme ;-) that the Connollys were listening to in the family room during the prologue? "Goon Show", maybe? Definitely a comedy, maybe a sketch show, I couldn't make out any dialog.Jeff (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

This Should be moved to "The Idiots Lantern (Doctor who)" as many people i know still refer to the Television set as The idiots lantern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation is only if there is confusion with another article. Since there is no other article titled "The Idiot's Lantern", the name should stay. See WP:DAB for details. -- MisterHand 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always finding aliens a coincidence?[edit]

This query can be generalised to many episodes but I put it here as it stuck in my mind. Why is it that no matter where (or when) the The Doctor goes he always comes across aliens (within the Doctor Who universe - ignoring the fact it is just fiction!)? When The Doctor and Rose arrived in this episode, they were expecting to be in America and a later period so doesn't it seem very coincidental they come across the The Wire? I was just wondering if there was some sort of internal explanation (e.g. the TARDIS decides to go there for The Doctor to sort it out) or is it just haphazard coincidence? Marky1981 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the series has been inconsistent. It's been suggested once or twice that the TARDIS seeks out trouble spots, but it's never really been confirmed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or perhaps they don't make episodes about nothing happening in particular? EG - Tardis lands on deserted planet - The Doctor plus one wander about for a bit - they get boed and go off somewhere else. Even when the BBC was strapped for cash they didn't stoop to that... Totnesmartin 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were references, especially in the old series, that the TARDIS didn't work very well, and that often you would end up in a random place. Considering Rose's comments to Mickey often, it is obvious that we do not see every adventure - presumably we just see the interesting ones with aliens, so a lot of what they do would be without the danger we see. To add, in the more recent episode when the 11th Doctor speaks with the woman who is the TARDIS, he states she doesn't always take him where he wants to go, to which she replies, I always take you where you need to go (unquoted as they may not be the exact words but that was the exchange). I know this is years after the original, but it may be of use to people seeing the page now. Lord loss210 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Things[edit]

i think that some of the text in this article needs changing, as it refers to the Wires energy beams as Pink Lightning and i think Pink Energy would be more accurate, and when the Wire Destroys Magpie the article claims that she consumed him while it looked to me that the Wire Reduced his body to atoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Alexandra Palace[edit]

why does this article say that alexandra palace is the largest television transmitter in north london, in 1953 it was the ONLY transmitter in the entire south of England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Because "largest transmitter in North London" is how the Doctor describes it in the episode. (Note, I'm not saying that this makes the description correct; I'm just explaining that this is why it was used.) --Paul A 02:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed in the cast notes[edit]

As always hello to all you Doctor Who wikipedians. I noticed that in the cast notes for this episode it says that Megan John is the sixth actor to have appeared in the classic and new series. It says the same thing about Colin Spaull in the Rise of the Cybermen cast notes. Obviously one of these is incorrect. Will it be possible for one of you to check this and fix whichever entries need fixing and be aware that there may be a knock on effect to any actors in episodes to come who are being numbered in this way. Thanks for your help. MarnetteD | Talk 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this khaosworks. MarnetteD | Talk 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 1952 'or' 1953[edit]

The queens corination took place on February 1952 yet this says it takes place in 1953, please explain.--Wiggstar69 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She acceded to the throne on the death of her father in February, 1952, but the coronation was held in June, 1953 after a period of mourning for her father, King George VI. --Tony Sidaway 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?[edit]

The storyline given here is too long and over-detailed. It needs shortening. it's almost like someone was typing it in during the programme. Totnesmartin 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, vastly. Details of precise scene layouts, and what each character is wearing, are utterly out of place in a plot summary. Are the others like this? TSP (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Name[edit]

Call me stupid, but what does the name of this episode actually mean? Does it refer to something? U-Mos 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television is usually derisively called 'The Idiot's Lantern', or in America 'The Idiot Box'. DonQuixote 17:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Shop of Horrors Reference?[edit]

Should it be mentioned that the plot is somewhat similar to the film Little Shop of Horrors? Both are set in a similar time frame (Idiot's Lantern the 1950s, Little Shop the 1960s), and both feature alien life forms who take residence in an innocuous shop, manipulating the man who works there into helping them in their plot to take over the world. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed the similarities.

The answer is no. This is considered fancruft. Now fancruft is just fine in blogs and Doctor Who fan websites where this kind of coincidence can be celebrated, but, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, has requirments such as citing sources and verifiability of edits. Unless an interview with the writers and producers state that the were emulating a given source it is just a coincidence that there are similiarites and that is not notable here. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Belgium[edit]

Is the king of Belgium bit really that noteable? The psychic paper showed the guard a relevant I.D...storywise, he could have seen 'Senator Smith of Florida, USA'. Lots42 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter registration number[edit]

The comment about the number plate under historical details is surely irrelevant. It doesn't show a D registration. In fact it reads YWV 140. I don't know whether that number had been issued by 1953, but it is the correct format for the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.164.248.44 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Anatomy[edit]

The Doctor states when under questioning, that you cannot wrap your hand round your elbow and get your fingers to meet. While this may be generally the case, it is not universally true of our species. However this is, I suppose, not really worthy of a note in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndaisley (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union Something[edit]

Do we really need all that about British flags? Lots42 (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. The Union Jack article is already linked within this article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Idiot's Lantern. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Idiot's Lantern. 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) 10:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source for DVD[edit]

For the DVD of Rise of the Cybermen, The Age of Steel and The Idiot's Lantern, here is a source. Someone should use this as a reference: http://doctorwhoworlduk.com/series2vol3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterCashier (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Idiot%27s_Lantern&oldid=1207691568"