Talk:Out of Time (Torchwood)

I'm not sure how best to mention this in the article, but it's impossible to commit suicide in a modern car by carbon monoxide poisoning. All standard UK cars made/sold since 1990 are fitted with a catalytic convertor; gassing yourself will merely give you a very nasty headache.

I'm also puzzled why Jack doesn't die, and then get revived - the continuity of the story is a little odd...

217.115.67.73 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the review [I haven't yet watched the episode...and won't 'til Wednesday], continuity is more than a little odd. I guess we're going to have to discount the day "Friday", as a chronologer of the Terminator series would discount the day given by the cop in the first film... --Stripey1 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on the continuity error is messy ie 'about 2017' the next fri 29/12 IS 2017! Given the contemporary look of non-torchwood technology, it's unlikey to be set 11 years in the future, the passage needs tidying up. JP 11:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack doesn't die because he can't die; we already knew that. As for using a method that no longer works, maybe that is the BBC being socially responsible.

I have just watched the episode. Jack does not die at all. Only John dies; Captain Jack Harkness neither dies, nor resurrects. He doesn’t look dead in a single frame, nor does he seem to resurrect in any frame. He is just there holding John's hand. The suicide scene keeps being interrupted with Owen and Diane in bed (or the bed scene is interrupted with the suicide scene). Captain does not die-and-resurrect, he just keeps living without dying. Please, watch the scene again and edit the plot section accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.34.51 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that adapting cars to remove lead from exhausts also removes all carbon monoxide, which is the source of the poison. I think the method of Jack's death would affect any subsequent revival. Bear in mind this is only pretend, it's actually quite difficult to come up with a set of rules affecting people who can't die. For example, what if his head were squashed? What if a part of Jack were physically removed? I wouldn't expect consistency in this, but it's probably excusable given that asphyxiation is very different from a bullet through the head. DavidFarmbrough 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While I was watching, the fact that Jack was apparently unaffected by the fumes that were killing John did bother me - but then I reasoned that Jack's blood was processing the poison continunously, rather than letting it build up to lethal levels first, and this was why he remained unaffected, and it stopped bothering me... PaulHammond 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also something new for the 'story arc'.

I didn't record this episode, but I am sure he says he has died once already, and found only darkness beyond death. This is a new element and should be added by someone who can confirm what he said.--GwydionM 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack died in The Parting of Ways and rose revived him. The 'darkness beyond death' is something that has been cropping up in a few previous episodes of torchwood, think it's the first time Jack has mentioned it though. Struds 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

This episode is set in 2007, as noted here - 15.30 Hrs. Redwick Air Traffic Control Centre. 18/12/07. Can someone tidy up the "Continuity errors" section accordingly? — FireFox (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2006

Then it's clearly before Greeks Bearing Gifts, and likely before They Keep Killing Suzie and Random Shoes. Presumably six days before Tosh kisses Owen and a week before The Runaway Bride [User: Stripey].

• It's certainly 2007; if you check the 'false identity' listings, all 3 were given birthdates that match theirs if it's now '07. Stripey, what makes you say it's before Greeks Bearing Gifts? Radagast 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be from the episode's (Greeks Bearing Gifts, that is) suggestion that it is in circa. 2008, as quickly picked up by the episode's first reviewers. 2007 is, of course, before circa. 2008.--Stripey1 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

About sequence, I assume the point is that Owen and Gwen act like their previous liasons hadn't happened. It would have made more sense earlier on in the series. --GwydionM 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This theory would be fine if there hadn't been a flashback to Gwen and Owen's previous liaisons at the end of the show. DavidFarmbrough 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that assumption (GwydionM's) strange... Gwen is obviously embarrassed during her chat with Emma on sex and I took that to mean that Gwen was feeling guilty about her betrayal of Rhys. As for Owen, he seems to consider Gwen a "fuck buddy" (as per quote in episode) in a similar way he was going to be with Diane, and not a girlfriend, but then he actually fell in love with Diane... which took him by complete surprise. Nothing suggested to me this is set before any of the earlier episodes. --GracieLizzie 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I reckon Russell Davies isn't being that strict about all "contemporary" dates matching in-series continuity with the fact that Doctor Who "now" is meant to be at least a year ahead of real time - and I certainly don't expect that anyone is that worried about checking whether a particular date contradicts all this careful theorizing about dates. I find I could care less either. PaulHammond 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

...whereas those who make 'Doctor Who' chronologies, with all the spin-offs as well, do care. I have a so-far 1064-ish page file on cross-continuity, incorporating Wold Newton, Star Trek, D.C. Comics, Marvel and a hell of a lot more. I very much care what order Everything occurs in--Stripey1 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow... bet you must hate UNIT. Anyway, surely we should assume everything happens in the order its broadcast (except where explicitly contradicted)?. It makes things an awful lot simpler. RobbieG 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Which Star Trek Episode

Can anyone remember which Star Trek Episode is nearly identical to this? ISTR it's from TNG, but it could be from DSN or Voyager. DavidFarmbrough 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the Next Generation episode 'The Neutral Zone', although the Star Trek episode has the additional subplot involving the Borg and Romulans. DonQuixote 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also 'The '37s' from Voyager which (real) aviatrix Amelia Earhart features in. --GracieLizzie 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Diane's reference to the possibility of Earhart still being "around out there somewhere" was a deliberate nod to that episode - one of the better Voyager's as I recall. PaulHammond 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both - in this extract from the Neutral Zone article, I think it's clear that it's an inspiration: "Riker and Data counsel the three revived capsule survivors trying to help ease them into 24th century life....Offenhouse is concerned with his financial situation, demanding to use a telephone or see a Wall Street Journal. Clemmons makes himself right at home, requesting an alcoholic beverage and a cigar. Data explains to him such things can be synthesized from the ship's replicators, albeit with their "lethal qualities" eliminated. Clemmons is pleased at the high quality of the replicator, but is very disappointed when he learns of the obsolescence of television..." DavidFarmbrough 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But none of the Torchwood characters were really that worried about their financial situation, the money thing was a footnote in this episode and reading the full synopsis of 'The Neutral Zone' none of the Trek characters have sex with a regular and the one who is concerned about her family has a happy-ish ending unlike John Ellis. --GracieLizzie 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting plagiarism, only inspiration. In fact I think the Torchwood script is very well written, perhaps one of the best so far. DavidFarmbrough 12:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I thought it was well written as well... anyway I'll stop now because this is turning into a chat about the episode which we're not really supposed to do. I apologise for assuming about the plagiarism thing, I just keep running into people accusing some of the Torchwood episode as being "rip-offs" (e.g. Greeks Bearing Gifts of being a "rip-off" of "Earshot") so I have a tendency to get a little defensive. --GracieLizzie 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Answers to continuity "problems"

1) All that is said is "Friday 29th", who says he's talking about December? 2) Ianto might have a thing for classic cars, how do we know? 3) Jack could have "died" after the first scene where he is sitting with John in the car, and woken up before the second. And this episode is of course not set before any Torchwood episode already shown, that would be stupid. And Owen and Gwen's affair is clearly ongoing both before and after this episode - note the awkward looks after Owen is asked if he has a girlfriend and when Gwen is asked is sex with Rhys is best. U-Mos 14:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The episode is set around Christmas as seen by the various decorations and Gwen's cover story about Emma visiting for Christmas (and definitely starts before Christmas Eve since Emma asks about the hostel girls' plans for it), so it's December. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think U-Mos means the guy might have meant Fri 29th of a different month - the 29th of February 2008 is a Friday. However I would have thought that if this were true he'd have said "Friday the 29th of February" not just "Friday 29th" as the episode itself is definitely set in December. Anyway, I simply explain it by saying there are diffrences between the Whoniverse and ours - their Big Ben has had a spaceship flown into it, their 29th Dec '07 is Friday and Calamity Jane may have come out earlier in the UK in the Whoniverse. --GracieLizzie 17:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch, that, and requires that one postulate an unseen conversation. I seriously doubt it was meant that way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Maybe before the scene starts the man says "I probably can't fit you in til February" or something. Also, does it really matter? U-Mos 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It really matters. And I, alone or not, am sticking to my Terminator opinion. Reese scared the cop, so he gave a wrong day. Friday 29th of December doesn't fit 2007 or 2008, so I'm ignoring "Friday" on principle, but still accepting the 2007 bit, so still staying with my opinion it's before Greeks Bearing Gifts. It's a free world--Stripey1 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but "Reese scared the cop" couldn't make less sense. What are you talking about? And in my mind, Greeks Bearing Gifts was set in 2007 also, as in my mind all the programmes following "Rose" set in the present day are a year in the future. Therefore, the Christmas that Owen kissed Tosh was the year the Sycorax attacked London: this year. U-Mos 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)