2.01: Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang

[Essie]

Re: 2.1: Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang

They did something similar in Firefly didn't they? - the one with Malcolm's 'wife'. Didn't she wear some sort of very thin prosthetic layer on her lips? - its a bit vague but its definitley happened before.

 

[PTeppic]

It's been used a few times - I can remember it happening sometime in the early eighties in something...

 

[Dave]

Poison Ivy - Batman

 

[Essie]

Oh yes of course - I forgot about that.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Re: 2.1: Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang

No you aren't the first person I've heard say that.

Last year, I could have explained it because the "Torchwood" Jack may have been an older, more tired, more cynical Jack than the one the Doctor originally met in the 1940's. This Jack would have been living with the curse of immortality for a longer period of time. He could have already lived out an extended period of time back in the future, before returning to the 21st Century, "where it all changes."

After last seasons two series, two final episodes, in which Jack crossed from one series to the other, that can no longer be used as an excuse. So, I can only agree with you.

The way I read the story, Jack was not yet immortal when he met the Doctor and Rose during World War II. He only became immortal when Rose saved him after she looked into the heart of the Tardis. Seems to me that becoming immortal, being abandoned in the past and traveling through time the hard way (by living through it) rather than bouncing around in it in the time agent way would take its psychological toll.

 

[Dave]

But that would require Jack to have existed twice in the 1940's and lived through them twice - once as a retired Time Agent when he met the Doctor and Rose, and then again after he becomes immortal, this second time going right through from the early 1900's (circus performer) and up to the present. Now I'm not saying that isn't possible (though there are all sorts of crossed timeline problems with him meeting himself, especially since he seemed to be dressed exactly the same way and was pretending to be a RAF pilot on both occasions) but it was not made explicit that it was meant to be so, and it would be much more easily explained as him being the same Jack, and that the writers simply made a big mistake here.

 

[littlemissattitude]

But that would require Jack to have existed twice in the 1940's and lived through them twice - once as a retired Time Agent when he met the Doctor and Rose, and then again after he becomes immortal, this second time going right through from the early 1900's (circus performer) and up to the present. Now I'm not saying that isn't possible (though there are all sorts of crossed timeline problems with him meeting himself, especially since he seemed to be dressed exactly the same way and was pretending to be a RAF pilot on both occasions) but it was not made explicit that it was meant to be so, and it would be much more easily explained as him being the same Jack, and that the writers simply made a big mistake here.

Well, considering Jack's rather annoyed line at the end of this episode, when the explosion sends them back to the time when Captain John first arrived, that they would have to avoid themselves for the next 24 hours or whatever it was, it makes it sound like it's something he is at least fairly used to having to do.

Anyway, I guess I just have more faith in the writers than you do. Having been at Gallifrey One this past weekend with some of them, and having actually met a couple of them, they seem like a pretty bright lot. I can't really see that glaring an error escaping them, or even if it escaped them, escaping the process of the script going through a number of drafts involving not only the writer but the production staff as well.

 

[Dave]

My sincere apologies for dissing the writers!

I don't have a problem with the writing actually, however when writing for a long running series, or a whole universe such as the Doctor Who-Torchwood-K9 & Company-Adventures of Sarah Jane it cannot be easy not to make small continuity mistakes. A big franchise is full of them - Star Trek for example is riddled with them, even though they had the idea of putting Michael Okuda in charge of preventing them. That's what you get when you have something written by a host different writers.

If we, as viewers or fans, dwell on these errors too much you will a) become a total geek and b) it will spoil your enjoyment of the show. I do enjoy debating them here (surely that is the point of this forum isn't it?) but when I watch the show, instead I just suspend the disbelief.

Maybe you should ask the writers these questions next time though.

Also, encourage them to read the comments here. The producers of Stargate used to; in fact I'm pretty sure they used some of our ideas.