Talk:The Second Coming (TV serial)

Reaction

Can we find some specific critical responses? Personally, I thought the ending was rubbish. Slac speak up! 13:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the ending. But I'm an atheist, so I would. Titanium Dragon 08:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I liked the ending, more or less. Davies had painted himself into a corner of sorts - he had to figure out some way to come up with a Third Testament, or wrap things up some other way. I liked it because, being an atheist myself, I think humanity is far better off without god(s), angels, demons, etc. MCB 05:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

First off Mr. Davies is one of my favorite writers however I found the Gnostic tone of The second Coming very disturbing considering the present biblical illiteracy among the masses. All that being said I wonder , was Mr. davies formaly train in christian theology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OleDeacon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

The child/abortion reference was omitted from the U.S. DVD release. Was it on the UK DVD release? MCB 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't even remember such a scene in the original UK *broadcast*, let alone on the DVD... I'm not sure where this has come from, to be honest. I can check my DVD just in case I'm being a bit dense, but I'm fairly sure there was never any such scene. Angmering 09:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I just checked... it's not on the UK DVD either, at least not as part of the main feature.

Page move

I'm not sure "TV series" is a very accurate description for this production — it was a self-contained two-part drama, whereas 'series' suggests a number of episodes and a different kind of show. Oughtn't it to be moved back to the more general "TV"? Angmering 20:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this and your polite comments. Based on your comment I've moved to it a (TV serial), though it may also qualify as a (TV programme), It should not be (TV). Check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) for more details. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:GMc performed a series of confused page moves today which undid this. I've posted on his talk and asked him to restore the page to "(TV serial)", which is correct according to the guidelines. --MCB 19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since GMc has not responded, I attempted to restore the page to the old name myself, but due to the convoluted nature of the previous moves I was unable to do so (it will require an admin to do it). I listed the page on WP:RM and put the move header at the top of this talk page. Hopefully this will be dealt with reasonably quickly. --MCB 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems uncontroversial. SnowFire 05:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Page moved per RQM. --Dijxtra 12:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you -- can you move the Talk page too, please? --MCB 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I think everything is complete now. Thanks. --MCB 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Black bars

Just a note that I've removed the black bars from the images. Nice article, all. WindsorFan 08:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Opening titles" screen shot?

It seems a little ridiculous that this image is here, doesn't it? It's just a grey box with the words "The Second Coming" in the middle, in a pretty nondescript font. And when you first pull up the page, it's the only image you see. I don't see how it adds to the article whatsoever, and I'd much rather see one of the other screen shots there at the top of the page. Yes? AaronL 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a generally accepted part of WP:TV's manual of style that a television programme's intertitle is used in the top right of the article. You should address your problem with how the title card looks with the Red Production Company, who produced the serial. Brad (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who relevance

I just wonder about the relevance of placing in ( ) that Davies was head writer of Doctor Who? He is very well known for it, but it doesn't seem necessary here. Perhaps it can be referenced under the characters list next to Eccleston? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.141.108 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)