2005 Children in Need Special a k a born Again Watch Online

This commodity is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated C-class, Mid-importance) This article is inside the scope of WikiProject Physician Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you lot can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project folio, where y'all can join the project and/or contribute to the give-and-take. Doctor Who Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who Doctor Who articles  C This commodity has been rated as C-Class on the projection'due south quality scale.  Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject BBC (Rated C-class, Low-importance) This commodity is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in manufactures related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, delight visit the project folio where you lot tin can join us every bit a member. You lot can also visit the BBC Portal. BBC Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC BBC articles  C This article has been rated equally C-Class on the project'south quality scale.  Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the projection's importance calibration. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history spotter purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Commodity requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (Tv channel) and BBC News to Practiced Commodity status post-obit previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Projection (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Tv set - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting Firm Expand : Top xx start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add gratuitous-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (come across assessment) and Coat of artillery of the BBC Render Dad's Regular army to a Adept article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated C-class, Depression-importance) This article is inside the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about idiot box programs. If you lot would like to participate, delight visit the project folio where you can bring together the discussion. To amend this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the blazon of work. Television Wikipedia:WikiProject Boob tube television articles  C This article has been rated as C-Form on the project's quality scale.  Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage job force.

Okay, Realplayer has it clocked at 8.02, only that includes the appeal sequences at the end of the online feed. Do we count that or not? If non, it'll probably be vii minutes. My mistake. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:51, xix Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, I'd say 7 is good. Twice as long equally sources were telling us! Can't trust anyone these days... Radagast 04:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [answer]

Those sequences didn't appear on the BBC Ane broadcast. It seemed like well-nigh 5 minutes to me - simply that was just me looking at the infinitesimal hand on my sentry while I was watching it... PaulHammond twenty:12, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I think it was 3 one/2 minutes of original cloth, when yous strip the titles, credits and reprise out - I haven't timed it though. DavidFarmbrough x:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I just timed it myself - information technology comes to most exactly 5 minutes of new material (not including the appeal sequences) -UK-Logician-2006 15:15, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC) [reply]

On the broadcast, if you time it from the start of the reprise to the final fade out on the "Doctor Who will return..." bit, it's simply under 7 minutes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Granted, but I personally wouldn't consider CGI as 'new material', as such images could easily be generated within a few minutes given the expertise. -UK-Logician-2006 fifteen:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Does anyone know if this sequence is going to exist part of the Christmas Invasion? I can't imagine a fundamental postal service-regeneration scene only e'er beingness shown equally part of a telethon ... though I imagine it'll make for a sweet DVD actress. 23skidoo 04:05, nineteen Nov 2005 (UTC) [respond]

Apparently, no - this was written and filmed after TCI was finished. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:sixteen, xix November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

That's insane. This isn't some sort of throwaway -- this is the post-regeneration sequence. 23skidoo 04:xix, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

It still might end upwardly on the DVD with The Christmas Invasion. Don't take Dimensions in Time as a standard: one of the reasons that will never see commercial release is that information technology was a concluding-minute affair with a huge cast, and the contracts had to be drawn upward chop-chop, so it was agreed that information technology would non be released on video or aired once more. This was planned well in advance, and had a bandage of ii. I'd wager that it'll be on the DVD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [respond]

It's also a million times better than Dimensions. But the thing is this is a cardinal moment and a major scene for Rose that to be honest a lot of folks were waiting to run into. In many respects I feel it was wasted on a telethon. If I hadn't been idly surfing just now I'd have never heard of it, and odds are the CBC hither in Canada aren't going to tack it on to the outset of Christmas Invasion. I wish in some respects I hadn't seen it considering now I will consider Christmas Invasion to be an incomplete story if it doesn't prove any of this. Of course it'due south also possible TCI will have a completely different take on events, which would return the special something of an alternate universe story ... 23skidoo 04:28, xix November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I sincerely incertitude that nosotros'll need to resort to alternate universes. I'm guessing that we'll encounter an abridged version of this in the pre-titles of TCI, in the "previously on Doctor Who" chip, for the sake of anyone who missed the special. (Oh, and you lot'll note that I said the contract matter was "one of the reasons" DiT volition never see commercial release. The other, of grade, is that information technology'due south utter pants. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) [answer]

I was able to obtain a copy of DiT a few years ago. Although it was cracking seeing all the actors specially Tom Bakery back in harness and Lalla Ward (my personal fav.), I agree with you that it was a case of trying to cram style too much into besides short a time. Making matter worse is that viewers had to settle for this in lieu of the Dark Dimension reunion TV motion picture that got canned apparently at the terminal minute. Anyway, one skilful thing about the Tennant special is that it does give us a preview of what he'll exist like, and while the "hopping" was a bit OTT, I think he'll do fine ... except for the disconcerting fact that he actually looks a fleck younger than Billie Piper! 23skidoo 04:52, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

There is actually no demand for this scene to be in the beginning of TCI. Consider this hypothetical scene: we see the TARDIS crash in the beginning. Rose rushes out, meets Jackie, tells her breathlessly, "I don't know. Offset he changed... well, he told me he changed, I don't know if I believe him... and so he started interim crazy, then the TARDIS crashed..." and nosotros're in. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [respond]

That makes a lot of sense. And, as I said to someone on OG, information technology'southward not similar Md Who hasn't started a new Doctor's era with him stumbling out of the TARDIS in postal service-regenerative defoliation before. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, xix November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

No, just we haven't had a primal scene being performed in a relatively obscure venue before, either. (No offence to CiN but unless yous're in the United kingdom information technology's obscure). With the exception of the Ninth Doctor, every new Doctor's era has begun with a sequence such every bit that shown in the CiN special, and IMO it'southward not only obligatory merely necessary for the institution of the graphic symbol. In the CiN special nosotros get to see Rose react to the alter. Obviously she fell in love with the Ninth Doctor (the whole Bad Wolf thing made that clear), and now there's this new guy and she doesn't know who to trust. IMO such a scene is obligatory and to just start things common cold is a cheat and is the offset major screw up in an otherwise exemplary performance. Guaranteed information technology'southward gonna piss off a lot of people, specially the Americans one time they finally beginning getting the show. As I said earlier this isn't a DiT throwaway, or a piece of nonsense like Search Out Space. It's a key scene and one that to be honest I fully expected to open TCI fifty-fifty before I heard of the CiN special. 23skidoo 05:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Rob Shearman, he say: "Information technology was never part of The Christmas Invasion in any form, and was conceived afterwards that script had been filmed." [1] Angmering 12:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [answer]

It wasn't the Telethon, the Telethon was an Thames Television thing (albeit copied from a Jerry Lewis American programme) that was abandoned since their franchise loss. Information technology was Children in Need. This was added subsequently The Christmas Invasion was in the tin, which indicates that it is optional. I would imagine some of the ideas and some very similar dialogue will already be in The Christmas Invasion. Dimensions In Fourth dimension did have some things going for it, like 3D, all the actors, the EastEnders, the theme music. The hopping scene is comparable to Tom Bakery'south running on the spot and skipping, post-regeneration, in Robot.DavidFarmbrough 10:53, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

As a USA resident I don't know much about EastEnders, but the Dimensions in Fourth dimension theme music? You must be joking! ;) --Jay (Thespian) (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) [respond]

Considering I'1000 even so not satisfied with this, I've got a new idea: We accept one article covering both DiT and this matter, which would likewise allow us to add together any other things, which, possibly non equally notable on their own, could exist in 1 umbrella article (A Fix with Sontarans might be worth a merge every bit well). Thoughts?--Sean|Black 20:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [respond]

In light of the fact that this ties in with the current serial continuity (encounter the discussion to a higher place), I believe this should remain a separate article. If it actually needs to be merged anywhere, I recommend merging information technology with the article on The Christmas Invasion since whether this gets aired on the serial or not, it's still a prologue. I don't want to see it mixed upward with DiT or any of the other half-assed productions. 23skidoo twenty:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I don't recommend a merge. Information technology's not much different from Mission to the Unknown, which is the prologue to The Daleks' Master Plan - it's a dissever production, different directors, it will have more data on the corporeality of money it raised and its ratings when those are published. There's enough info hither for it not to exist a stub. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC) [respond]

Alright, I'yard fine with that.--Sean|Black 23:56, nineteen November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

This special should definitely non be discussed in the aforementioned article as the Dimensions in Time short in my opinion. They are totally different from each other - i was classic series, this is new series - i was one-act clemency thing, this i was a serious scene played straight. PaulHammond twenty:19, xx November 2005 (UTC) [answer]

Alright. I already retracted my offer. Let's just forget information technology.--Sean|Black twenty:23, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

While I hate to mention canonicity, surely there is petty doubt that the special will be considered approved past the product team? It was written by Russell, has no unusual plot elements (like one-half the bandage of EastEnders!) that might make information technology not fit with the Whoniverse, and includes the end of The Parting of the Ways - and, as far as we know, sets up the opening of The Christmas Invasion. Would it be improve to remove the line about whether or not it is catechism?

Whouk (talk) 09:30, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC) [respond]

I'm uncertain. The fact information technology's written as an afterthought and may not even be referenced in the Christmas Invasion opens the question as to whether it might not be somehow contradicted later or replaced with something different entirely. I know office of that is even so my olfactory organ being a little out of joint over such an important moment being wasted (again no offence intended to CiN) on a production that in theory no one outside the UK will always see on Tv. I won't lose whatsoever slumber over the statement being removed, pending I suppose what happens in the opening moments of Christmas Invasion. 23skidoo 12:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC) [answer]

We have already established that canonicity is arbitrary, and so why not everyone have their own canon? DavidFarmbrough 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

All the more reason not to mention information technology in the article, although I'd argue that whether or not the production squad consider something canon is relevant when the series is still in product. Whouk (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Agreed not to mention it...even so there is a counter argument that the author of a work doesn't 'own' it, it is the consumer. DavidFarmbrough 17:thirteen, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I'd like to propose a litmus examination for canonicity: At the stop of "Parting of the Ways", the Physician and Rose leave, with Jack left backside. The Doctor is apparrently unaware that Jack is alive, and Rose appearantly remembers little of what she did while in God-mode. Dialogue in the Children in Need Special, nonetheless, indicates that both the Doctor and Rose knew that Jack was still alive. I propose that when the new season starts, we pay shut attention to any mention of Jack. If the Doctor and/or Rose appear to believe he's expressionless, then the CiN special is non-canon. Ravenswood 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure internal consistency can ever be taken as prove of canonicity. Y'all could utilize the same statement to rule the whole of the new series non-canonical on the grounds that in that location are elements that don't match the quondam series. I can't imagine RTD thought "I can ignore the fact that the Doctor shouldn't know almost Jack because this isn't approved." It's but something for the fans to explain creatively. Whouk (talk) 09:fifteen, 30 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Furthermore, nosotros don't know that Rose even knew that Jack was expressionless until she brought him back to life, so if she's forgotten that she brought him back to life, she may too have forgotten that he was dead - or she may by now take remembered both! And the Doctor may be comforting her (pretending Jack is all the same alive) or maybe it's his post-regenerative amnesia - we can't win with these things, sorry. DavidFarmbrough 12:38, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC) [reply]

And to pick this up now that Jack has appeared over again in the series, I retrieve Utopia is pretty clear the Doctor did know Jack was still alive. Timrollpickering (talk) xiv:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm at work and can't cheque, but I retrieve the quote in "Logopolis" is "wild catastrophes and calls to man the battle stations." In any example, even if "universal disaster" was said at ane point, it seems like all the examples of the Curtilage Bell ringing -- the infinite recursion in "Logopolis," the danger of reaching Event One in "Castrovalva," the Dalek Time Corridor in "Resurrection," the imminent (and impending ;) ) crash landing in the CiN special, and whatever the heck was going on in the TV picture ;) -- were all threats to the TARDIS more than than the universe. In dissimilarity, there have been plenty of threats to the universe as a whole that didn't sound the bell; Sutekh and the entropy released by the closing of the CVEs are two instances that come to listen. So I think fifty-fifty if someone did say "universal disaster," information technology could be written off as hyperbole. Your thoughts? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) xv:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) [respond]

I've gone back and checked the opening and the Doctor does say "it'due south a sort of communications device, reserved for wild catastrophes and sudden calls to human being the battle stations." I call up somewhere along the way information technology got confused with the Doc warning that the destruction of Logopolis would cause universal ending or disaster or something along those lines. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:57, xiii December 2005 (UTC) [respond]

Apparently The Christmas Invasion is going to be shown in a 90-minute timeslot on CBC on December. 26. Since that gives extra fourth dimension even with commericals for extra stuff, rumors are kicking around that the CBC might show the CiN special every bit a bonus or perhaps even incorporate information technology somehow into the episode. Has anyone heard if it's going to be shown? 23skidoo 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Nosotros have David Tennant listed here as 'Dr. Who'; however, there's no role credit in the episode! The simply two credits, in fact, are David and Billie in the opening titles.

The problem here is that POTW credits David as 'Dr. Who' (in the closing 'introducing' credit); but TCI credits him as 'The Doctor'. Which to use? Personally, I vote neither; every bit there were no official credits, yank the Credits section entirely. Thoughts? Radagast 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Were there credits at the end of CiN itself? (If anyone was still awake :)) - SoM 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Nope, there weren't any credits. --Whouk (talk) 06:58, four Jan 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I suppose in that location wouldn't be much point in putting credits for something transmitted between 2100 and 2130 at 0300 or then the following forenoon... - SoM 15:28, v January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, pitiful, I misread your question. I didn't stay up :) Nonetheless, credits accompany payment (Equity rules and all that), so when actors give their time for gratis, they aren't credited. --Whouk (talk) fifteen:46, v January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I thought yous might have, that's why I specified times :)

But they WERE credited, simply in the opening titles merely - and in the United states manner, names simply, no roles. Hence why I reverted you putting them downward as uncredited :) - SoM 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Oh, of course they were! Blimey, I actually am hard of thinking this week. Josiah's changes make sense to me. --Whouk (talk) nineteen:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [respond]

I fudged it - Md Who Children in Need special (2005)#Cast - SoM 15:28, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) [answer]

I didn't like "no part specified", which to me suggests that Tennant and Piper could have played roles other than the Doctor and Rose. So I inverse information technology, and added a note nearly the lack of end credits and how Tennant wasn't listed every bit "Doctor Who" or "The Doctor". Is this a improve compromise? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) eighteen:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [respond]

I call up people are overthinking this. Who cares if they didn't receive proper screen credit. I challenge anyone to find a source that says they played roles other than the Doctor and Rose. I'chiliad with Josiah on his change. It's just common sense! 23skidoo eighteen:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I do have a scrap of that occasionally. Stopped clock right twice a twenty-four hours and all that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Only got my easily on the Series 2 companion, and one of the tidbits that comes out of information technology is that the pages for this production were headed Doctor Who: Children in Demand. The Companion besides lists it equally Children in Need. Now that we have (kind of) a specific name for it, should this exist moved to "Children in Need (Dr. Who)" or "Doc Who: Children in Need" or a variation thereof? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) xv:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

I'd certainly agree with that. Angmering 15:48, ix September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Which title would y'all prefer? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) xvi:fourteen, ix September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I recall the Doctor Who: Children in Need looks better, personally. Brackets in titles always wait messy, I feel. Angmering 16:30, ix September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I don't share Paul'due south dislike of parentheses, merely I'd be OK with Doctor Who: Children in Need, since hither on Wikipedia parentheses ordinarily advise disambiguation, and it's non like we're really expecting there to exist confusion betwixt this mini-episode and the larger "Children in Need" fundraiser. My only concern is that an article nether this title might look every bit if it was about the history of connections betwixt Doctor Who and Children in Demand, rather than virtually this one scene. That might support Sean's earlier merger thought. (Was it the 1984 Children in Need that had a parade of Who actors coming out of a TARDIS, some in costume and some not?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) nineteen:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Co-ordinate to the BBC book, Doc Who: Companions and Allies, the name of this episode is Born Agian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.179.3 (talk) 06:21, five April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Can nosotros ostend this in whatever style? — Eastwarddokter • Talk • 11:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

As a BBC publication, the book itself is a reliable source. We don't need to be able to find information technology online, if that's what y'all're asking. (I haven't seen the book personally, only I've seen discussion elsewhere well-nigh its use of this title — no, we don't know where they got it from, but I don't doubt that the book gives this title to the mini-episode.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 Apr 2009 (UTC) [reply]

If you've heard about it, and so I guess it's good. Shall nosotros move there? — Edokter • Talk • xiii:28, nine April 2009 (UTC) [answer]

I'm of two minds on that. On the one hand, "Born Once more" seems more similar a name than "Doc Who: Children in Need" or "Pudsey Cutaway" or annihilation else the mini-episode has been called. On the other hand, it seems like it wasn't used in production and it looks to me as if it was created for the book. Part of me thinks that information technology makes sense to move the commodity, but part of me thinks it would be like moving Doctor Who (1996 film) to Enemy Inside (Dr. Who) (another title that was practical afterwards but was never used in product or promotion).

For the time being, my inclination is to put "also known as Born Once more" in the introductory line, with a ref to Companions and Allies, but to leave the article where it is. But I'thou interested in hearing what other people recall about this, 'cause it's not at all clear-cut. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:43, nine April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I've added it with a citation as best I can manage without having the book at hand. Information technology would exist great if someone who has the book could add the folio number to the citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:55, nine April 2009 (UTC) [answer]

Born Again sourcing [edit]

It'south also Born Over again in Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale - The Last Chapter in both the "Who's Who" department in the front (p27):

Euros Lyn: Director of 1.2,... 4.17/iv.18 and 2005's Children in Demand mini-episode Born Again...

--and in the Index at the dorsum (p701), where the title is used in exactly the same format as Time Crash [Built-in Once again (2005 Children In Need mini-episode) and Fourth dimension Crash (2007 Children In Need mini-episode), respectively. Also listed similarly is Attack of the Graske (interactive mini-episode), while all other episodes have their production code in the brackets - e.g. School Reunion (2.3).] - BrainiacBlink (talk) —Preceding undated annotate added 06:38, eight October 2011 (UTC). [respond]

If this is true near it appearing in The Writer's Tale that way so I might have to add my vote to moving the page to Born Again (Doctor Who). "Children in Need" was never really more than a place holder championship anyway. --DocNox (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

According to a discussion at the TrekBBS forum, the version of the CiN Special on the DVD is not the one that was broadcast, and in fact evidently it's a "rough edit" version because the BBC was unable to locate a principal of the version that was transmitted! Can anyone ostend this? If true, information technology should be mentioned in the article. 23skidoo 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

It appears to the final edit, but with an obviously unfinished soundtrack. What a mess. --KJBracey 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RTD said equally much somewhere... I think in an issue of Doctor Who Magazine but I don't know which one. --GracieLizzie 10:56, vii March 2007 (UTC) [respond]

I am sure this never happened. See the Christmas Invasion talk page. Angmering (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [respond]

From the article: Apart from the recap of the events at the determination of "The Departing of the Ways" and the fourth dimension tunnel effects, this is one of only 3 stories that accept identify entirely within the confines of the TARDIS and features merely the regular bandage, the others existence the Start Doctor story The Edge of Destruction and the later Children in Demand special "Time Crash". I would accept to argue that Fourth dimension Crash does NOT feature only regular cast, as Peter Davison was hardly regular bandage by 2007. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You're right. Information technology'south been removed. DonQuixote (talk) xiv:59, 20 Nov 2009 (UTC) [respond]

It'south back again129.139.1.68 (talk) xviii:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC) [answer]

In that location's now "Space" / "Time" to consider too. I'm going to remove this fact again on the grounds that that there'due south a question over "Time Crash" (equally discussed above) and because information technology opens a tin can of worms on what is a Doctor Who story. Maxim that this is "one of only three stories..." presupposes that information technology is a story itself, withal it's not an official "Doctor Who" serial. What virtually the "Meanwhile in the TARDIS" scenes from the Series 5 DVDs? Too many ambiguous questions.81.98.16.17 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

robersonhilen1988.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doctor_Who:_Children_in_Need

Share this post