Talk:The Family of Blood

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

"He doesn't not get married"[edit]

I've altered the wording about the Doctor's "romantic liaison" in this episode, because David Tennant has been very careful about his words in describing the supposed wedding. If you've read the novel version of Human Nature, you'll understand why — in the novel, the Doctor (temporarily) changes his biodata (incorporating his entire history and identity as well as biology), to become a human being named John Smith. In the novel, John Smith becomes engaged — it would seem that the television version takes things one step further. But in both the novel and the television story, "John Smith" is not really the Doctor — he's just a human whom the Doctor has become. (You saw the clip of Tennant saying "I'm not the Doctor" in the preview.) So although John Smith will get married, the Doctor won't — at least, not exactly.

So we should avoid saying that the Doctor has a romantic liaison in this story — although he "doesn't not", he's literally not himself at the time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Should bullet point 4 say "does not get married" when the wording so far has been "doesn't not get married"? 81.152.33.236 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wedding is a vision that John Smith sees, along with a baby, and his eventual death, when he looks into the watch.Davie4264 16:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trailer at the end of Human Nature[edit]

was I the only one who got the impression that the trailer was some sort of dream sequence (which would mean there's no marriage, kids, or suchlike)? After all, he hardly has time to get married with the Family of Blood on the loose.

Hear hear. And I just don't think that they would do that to us!! Dan-the-man278 08:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Bronzethumb, 27 May 2007

Picture[edit]

Since we saw this image in the trailer from "Human Nature", I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's from this episode. Took a cap, uploaded, added, put in an appropriate quote from the episode. If anyone has a better suggestion for the pic and/or quote then I'm all ears.

Personaly, I think the the "fire and ice..." quote and image would be better. 77.99.107.117 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 'whole family' picture better: The "Fire and ice" quote is nice but there is not a really good shot of that besides a shot from the bewildered doctor. At least not one that defines this episode. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no scarecrow in that one and it's ruined by the green. Matthew 09:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right on the scarecrows...Will make a new one asap.(Army of scarecrows picture on top.)--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Of Blood Redirect[edit]

Does anyone with more knowledge than me know how to tidy the other uses template to just read Family Of Blood, as List of Doctor Who villains#Family Of blood seems rather messy to me, but i dont know how to fix it. Thanks Willow177 12:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should read "see List of Doctor Who villains" (linking to the Family of Blood section). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 13:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon references[edit]

Although there wasn't an explicit reference to Saxon in this episode, does anyone else think it's significant to note that the Journal of Impossible Things was left with Joan Redfern, intact? Itsthomson 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are as smart as I am paranoid. Of course, I has to be. But probably it will turn up in the posession of Saxon or Torchwood. Nicely spotted. It would explain a lot about what Saxon seems to know about our Doctor.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it could also explain the some what advanced science in some on the Saxon scenes - the Journal could contain some of this information. Tjpeople
There has been sugested Saxon may be a timelord himself..the master. This would explain the tech. The Journal would explain his intel on where to look all the time.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really!? Yeah someone mention that. Don't know where though. I'm pretty sure that it will appear again soon.Dan-the-man278 12:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

I'm a bit confused why there is a quote section. Is it this really necessary to include random quotes from the episode here? Wouldn't that be better in the wikiquotes page, or integrated into the article if really needed? Helen Murdock 00:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed is in Wikiquotes[1] and up to date so it seems. One quote for flavor and a link should do it. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music from Remembrance of the Daleks[edit]

If this LiveJournal post [2] is to be believed, it's the same as was used for the possessed girl in that episode. 86.143.52.241 01:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been pointed out for Human Nature too. Will (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the present day"[edit]

The article says the episode ends in the present, with an elderly Lattimer; are we sure it's the present-present, or is it just "sometime when Lattimer is really old", because as of right now, the last WWI vet to actually see trench combat is 108 years old, and is one of three still living in the UK. That'd make Lattimer probably the oldest man in England, if not Europe. It's not impossible, but I figure it's more likely that we're seeing them in say, the 70s or 80s. HooperX 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the cars in the background identifiable?

I can't identify any of the cars, but they are more streamlined than cars from the 70s and 80s. Sam42 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, female vicar! So evidently set after 1994. 81.187.224.74 13:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should use the words "Modern day" rather then "present day" I know it doesn't make the artical timeless but its an alternative wording.--Wiggstar69 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "modern day" works, honestly. It's clearly the 1990s, but it may not necessarily be 2007. (there are currently exactly three WWI vets in the UK.) HooperX 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else noticed - with a female vicar, it has to be the nineties. But it certainly doesn't have to be 2007 PaulHammond 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Fact File[3] makes a point of mentioning that Tim is over 100 (and the oldest human character in the show's history), and that in real life there are "fewer than five" WWI vets left in the UK. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the fact file now and I'm not seeing anything about Tim's age. Mark H Wilkinson 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was there, I swear! It seems to have been shortened since yesterday, taking out at least one useful item and leaving in the seemingly irrelevant Blink-related stuff.--Karen | Talk | contribs 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a work of fiction. It's quite common in fiction to take liberties with the facts. Fictional universes are not supposed to be consistent. --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony: You are wrong. Liberties with facts that are explained are OK. Like a sonic screwdriver; what can't it do? But plotelements and timelines should make sense and as believable as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppy Zwolle (talk • contribs)
How do you feel about Doctor Who's London having a female Prime Minister some time between 2005 and 2007, then? Or about a rich American owning both the internet and a Dalek? Anyway, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant - there are plenty of examples of fiction taking liberties with timelines and plot elements. Indeed, I'd have thought that people could accept this with such a controversy surrounding the dates of the series - that is, with Rose being set in 2005, Aliens of London a year later, The Christmas Invasion the following Christmas, The Runaway Bride the Christmas after that, Smith and Jones some time after that ... which all means that the present day stories of Series 3 ought to take place in 2008 at the very earliest, but in Human Nature, the Doctor claims that they occur in "the year of our Lord two thousand and seven". So, y'know - you can't be too precious about these things.Steffan Alun 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Americans *don't* own the internet? (i don't really have a PROBLEM with it being 2007 or 2008 or whatever, I just figure that unless we're told otherwise, we shouldn't assume. It's after 1994, but it could be anytime between then and now. Or it could be next week. that being said, I prefer to think that, whatever year it is, it's the last one Tim attends before his death.) HooperX 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite. I doubt too much thought was put into the timing - I sincerely doubt any research at all was put into when there'd be female vicars and when the service book was used. I don't imply that fans can't discuss these things, but that's what forums are for, not Wikipedia articles. And that's a narky way of saying "I agree with you". Steffan Alun 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the vicar is holding an Alternative Service Book as claimed in the article, then it is pre-2000, as the ASB was replaced with Common Worship then. But, really, who cares... The point is that he was an old Tim. Exact age is irrelevant. Gwinva 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the book, of course, it's 1995. Which is completely irrelevent, but does suggest that the intent is it's "now", just as it was then... Daibhid C 20:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to the Martha Jones Myspace (a doctor who official spinoff site), the doctor takes her back to "her time" to go to the memorial service She is worried that hes going to take her home again. So we can presume that its 2008, Martha Jones time (82.20.83.45 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Also from Martha Jones Blog, it says " It really brought home how all this time travel thing is just all a bit mental. In 1913, seeing Tim as a young kid then seeing him again in 2008 as an old man" So there, deffinatly 2008!! settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.83.45 (talk • contribs)
No, it isn't settled. Speculation isn't allowed, the blog isn't reliable.--Rambutan (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It adds additional details to the televised stories, plus it bridges gaps between episodes. It's from the BBC. Why wouldn't it be reliable, and besides, we haven't got conflicting sources or anything. - 90.241.147.75 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clergywoman is definitely holding as green ASB...the same edition I used to own. There is nothing about her vestments to indicate she is an incumbent (eg a Vicar) and since she isn't wearing a stole but choir robes she could be a Deacon therefore this scene could be set before 1994. If it is set some time around 1995 on account of Timothy being too old in the present day then the use of the ASB would be very clever on the part of the props department. If it is set in 2007 then it is sloppy! Still, that doesn't annoy me as much as when the people from TV land put the vicar in a purple stole for a wedding. Honestly penance for a wedding! What ever next? 217.42.47.86 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girl in the mirror[edit]

This happened before albeit in a vey dissimilar sircumstance in The Girl in the Fireplace. And the reference to Alice in wonderland or better Through the Looking-Glass is obvious...Nothing to back it up though so not for the main article.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan gibbering[edit]

I don't often go all fannish and gibbering, but wow, this was an absolutely brilliant story. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You actually said something i agree with. 86.156.207.116 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the war memorial[edit]

St Fagan's or Cardiff I assume, but I need a better lead. There seem to be cadets with Welch Fusiliers flashes in the background. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I assumed it was intended to be outside the school. HooperX 12:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and worship[edit]

After today's sequence of edits, we've finished up with a section called 'Christianity and worship'. I can't help but feel that something's gone terribly wrong. Mark H Wilkinson 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, and I agree. However, it's worth mentioning that the poem, Bible and song weren't created specially for Doctor Who, and that they are real-world things. I can't think of a better section title; if you can, feel free to use it.--Rambutan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Outside references'? 'Real world things which got used'? Nah, I'm stumped for the time being. I chose 'Cultural references' in the first place because, well, it seems to have been used elsewhere as a catch-all for things not of in-universe continuity; but I can understand it's not necessarily that good a choice. Mark H Wilkinson 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the word "references" implies that Paul Cornell was deliberately referencing the hymn for some reason (eg. last year, in The Impossible Planet, a piece of music was played which was the piece to which to ice-skaters got full marks in a contest - 6, 6 and 6 from each judge. See Number of the Beast.) That was a reference, but these aren't. Since they're all connected, by coincidence, to Christianity, I thought, why not?--Rambutan (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, my actual preference is to yank the section and put the mention of Cornell & female vicars somewhere else (production?). Mark H Wilkinson 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - if it fits in OK!--Rambutan (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, unless anyone has objections about losing this section, I'll remove and redistribute what I can, some time tomorrow (afternoonish GMT should give people time to comment if they need to). Mark H Wilkinson 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact File/Dwarf Star Alloy[edit]

I've seen the fact that dwarf star alloy was first mentioned in Warrior's Gate added to the continuity section at least twice now. People seem to be getting this from the episode's Fact File at the BBC site [4], which would be fine were it not for the episode itself only mentioning "unbreakable chains, forged in the heart of a dwarf star"; I'm not sure we can make the leap that it's necessarily the same material. (And quite frankly, it underlines my concerns over using the Fact File as a source in the first place.) Mark H Wilkinson 23:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Tim Latimer" actor?[edit]

Who played this part... and how old is the actor? 86.143.50.151 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was played by Huw Rees, and he's been an extra for Welsh soap Pobol y Cwm a fair few times, which is also based in Cardiff's BBC Wales. He's around 75 years old, although this is original research, since my parents know him - there won't be any citations for this, so it can't be used. Steffan Alun 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you get an exact date from your parents, submit it to IMDB, then throw it up here. Easy. HooperX 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a professional actor by any stretch of the imagination. He just does some extra work every now and then. Besides, it's my understanding that IMDB isn't considered a reliable source. And even if it WAS, I don't really think the question of Older Tim's age is that particularly notable. And again, even if it was, Huw Rees would have been too young to fight in World War Two, let alone World War One, so if Old Tim is the same age, that service must have occurred in the late 70s at the latest. Steffan Alun 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persons[edit]

Why are the individual Family members being referred to as "Son Of Mine" and "Mother Of Mine" in a third-person article? This is how they refer to their relationships with each other, in the first person: it's not their actual names. Surely the article should refer to them as "Son" and "Mother"? Ed zeppelin 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how they name each other, there can be no ambiguity if they're referred to like they state. Matthew 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point - it's how they name each other. Lack of ambiguity through being distinctive isn't the point; the names require the context of a first person direct relationship to make grammatical sense. Ed zeppelin 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They name the other members relative to themselves - Lucy is referred to as "Daughter of Mine" by Clark and "Sister of Mine" by Baines. Will (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has been bothering me as well. Calling "Baines" Son of Mine is like calling Charlie Brown "Big Brother" on Wikipedia because that's what Sally calls him. I notice that the BBC material calls them by their human names, but in quotation marks to distinguish them from their victims. I don't see a perfect answer to the problem, though. Each clearly has its drawbacks. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can just use "the Mother/Father/Son/Daughter". Using capitals these are unambiguous, and since they refer to themselves as "The Family of Blood" (not just "family" or "a family"), using familiar names as titles seems to be the least unobtrusive way of naming them. If you want complete unassuming accuracy you can't name them at all and you'll have to go for "the Family member possessing X" every time, but that can't make for good reading. 82.95.254.249 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

School name[edit]

I've just seen lots of sites that call the school Farringham School for Boys. Where is this from? As Latimer ran past a messageboard when the scarecrows were pouring in, I froze the image, and I thought it read Scongham School for Boys. Any comments? [User: Stripey].

Music from elsewhere?[edit]

As there's been some commentary on various parts of score for this epsiode, I'm curious whether anyone else detected allusions to Journey of the Sorcerer at a couple of points in the second half. Asat 08:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, no, but even if we did, it's still original research to mention it.--Rambutan (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

Article needs a critical reception section. As well as AI rating (86), this might include

more needed. Jheald (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stage [8] --Jenny 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matron[edit]

Shouldn't the Doctor's fiancee Joan Redfern get an article? She showed up in two episodes, while his daughter, Jenny (Doctor Who) has only appeared in one, but has an article. His wife River Song (Doctor Who) has an article. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't the Doctor's fiancee. She was John Smith's love, similar to how Reinette was the Doctor's love in The Girl in the Fireplace. As to whether or not she deserves an article of her own...not my place to say because I don't mind one way or the other. DonQuixote (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor[edit]

"What do you know of history" is a quote from Jack London's 1899 The Editor. The Editor was also a villain in The Long Game, played by Simon Pegg.

Tenuous connection, if any, to The Long Game, as the details are wrong. The JL quote comes from his essay "On the Writer's Philosophy of Life", published in a NY magazine called The Editor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

markings on the back of the fob watch[edit]

Did it ever appear to anyone that the markings on the back of the fob watch, which the doctor uses to store his identity while being human, are exactly the same as a prophecy given by a phrophetess of the Timelords in The End of Time? During The End of Time one of the members of the 'Timelord council' picks up this prophecy and explains it to the president. He says that it's hard to decipher it, but that it states that there will be two survivors of the time war. Maybe it's a very little detail, but it could be added to the paragraph continuity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.57.153 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Family of Blood. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Family_of_Blood&oldid=1207177496"