Talk:Planet of the Daleks

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

Airings in the US[edit]

Seeing that there is rarely any mention of oddities in transmission of the episodes in the US I am not sure if (or how) this might be mentioned in the article so I will post it here. As the popularity of the show took off in the early 1980's the was still resistance to showing any serials in black and white. Whether this policy originated with the PBS stations or in the corporate offices of Time/Life (and later Lionheart) is unclear.

In spite of our clamoring for them we did not get to see the First and Second Doctors serials until the mid to late 80's when they began airing in the the omnibus (or Whovie) format.

Airings of the Third Doctor stories, in their episodic format, did begin around 1983 but they initially only aired the serials that were complete in colour. Thus, we saw Spearhead from Space and then skipped to Inferno and so on. The move to the omnibus versions did allow us to view stories previously unseen.

There were still two Pertwee stories that were affected by the corporate short-sightedness about B&W v. Colour. The first was The Invasion of the Dinosaurs wherein the airings simply began at the start of episode two. When TJ Lubinsky's Florida PBS station unearthed a fan copy of episode we finally got to see it (it was often aired during a stations pledge time).

The Planet of the Daleks was the other Pertwee affected by this policy. The version we got to see simply jumped from somewhere towards the end of episode two (remember that the omnibus showings did not have opening and closing credits between episodes so we were always guessing where the cliffhanger might be) into a spot somewhere after the beginning of episode four. You can guess how much fun it was to try to make sense of this stories continuity when we see the Doctor and Taron captured but never see them escape. Except for a few fans who might have been lucky enough to view this story at a convention episode three of this story was not seen in America until its release on VHS in November of 2003.

Since most of this info is from my experience of the show this is original research and can't go into the article. However, I feel that it is notable (for some anyway) and my posting it here may explain to any who come accross this why their viewing of this episode in the 80's and 90's was so odd. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article somewhere online about the various different versions. Basically Planet has traditionally been a mess in US because the black & white episode 3 has created confusion over how many episodes were available. The first package had episodes 1-5 (with 3 in black & white) only although the compilation instead cut episode 3 (and some bits of episode 4 to smooth the transition). A second episodic version with all 6 was sent, but somewhere in the pipeline someone looked at a listing that still said only five episodes and assumed the black & white 3 was a mistake, so wiped it and renumbered the rest accordingly. A third with all six episodes made it through but by this time most PBS stations had dropped the series. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found the article: http://homepages.bw.edu/~jcurtis/Z1R0_1.htm Timrollpickering (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot lengths[edit]

There seems to be a bit of a problem plaguing Who articles, plot lengths are much much longer than for other SF serials. I'm not sure who exactly is doing this but I've planned a rewrite for some of these over the summer. There is far too much to take in for an article, I beleive that the plot warning stands Alastairward 07:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this on the Wikiproject page for Who articles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Plot_lengths and yes, there are some very long Who pages out there that do need trimming Alastairward 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this story is approximately two hours and twenty minutes long. That is three times (with a few exceptions) as long as the Star Trek episode articles which you do a good job of taking care of. This fact alone justifies a longer plot summary. Also, a good deal of work went into creating these by people who care about these pages as much as you care about yours. Placing the template that you use devalues their work. Your opinion that these are too long may have merit (and is quite right in the case of City of Death which is a much better example for your argument than this story), but, there is no way of knowing how many users have come to read these articles and appreciated them as they are. The discussions that your link above leads to seem to bear out (though not overwhelmingly) that the members of the project don't feel that these are too long. That said I am not against paring them down, but, unless you are going to do that work now the tag is (and yes this is just my opinion) demeaning to the work of many others. MarnetteD | Talk 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to when I get my exams over to look into the tagged articles. But I would disagree that the tag demeans anyone's work, it simple points out a way to improve the article, which I feel is more the outcome of discussion on the Wikiproject page. And its not just Star Trek but other SF series (Stargate, Farscape etc) that I compared it to, just to be sure Alastairward 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are you interpreting the outcome? Of the people who have posted under the discussion you started you are the only one who is definite about them being too long and three others are okay with the lengths except for City of Death. You are also the only one, so far, who feels this article needs improvement. The other series you mention are also 45 minutes (give or take) long, sans commercials, while this is approx 140 minutes or three times as long. MarnetteD | Talk 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not solely for Doctor Who fans. Do you really think that a lack of review is a good reason to leave an article? I think the best way of showing it to you is the manner in which so many stories were condensed for novelisation, regardless of the length of the television serial.
Thousands have probably read this article yet you're the only one moaning about it being too long. Why would someone read this article? Probably because they want to know about the story. Therefore the length of the plot, etc. is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.130.54 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon that shortening an article will mean losing information, and that would be a shame. It is to the author's merit that these articles are so comprehensive. Martin —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Continuity note re: The Master[edit]

I am deleting the item in the Continuity section claiming that this story was initially intended to include, and kill off, the Master. This is because it wasn't. The external web page linked in as a source to that effect doesn't actually say that, but was poorly phrased and open to misinterpretation. The story referred to there was going to be part of the following season and titled The Final Game (Andrew Pixley, "In Production, Season 10: Saturday Night's Alright [sic] For Fighting," Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition #2 [The Complete Third Doctor], 5 September 2002, Panini Comics, p.49, in case somebody wants to work it into an article, but obviously not this one). In a sense, it's just as well that Roger Delgado didn't live to do it, as its idea ("...the story would reveal the Master and the Doctor to effectively be two aspects of the same character....," [ibid]) was in direct contradiction to statements in three previous serials (in Terror of the Autons, the unnamed Time Lord contrasts the two rivals' degrees, while both The Sea Devils & The Time Monster contain statements that the two were in school together, the latter further saying that they sabotaged each other's time experiments). Ted Watson (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to a liquid allotrope of Ice[edit]

I haven't seen the episode in question, but the plot synopsis refers to a 'liquid allotrope of ice'. Allotropes are different forms of a single element in the same state - so this reference is wrong on both counts. Clearly if the script uses the word we should keep this in, bad science can still be authentic science in the Dr Who world - but perhaps put a [sic] or "quote marks" in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antreid (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that that is correct (in terms of the plot synopsis). Since it is a plot synopsis, surely people will know that it doesn't necessary mean it is true, so [sic] or quote marks is not exactly required. ~~ [Jam][talk] 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the phrasing used in the serial (it's been a while since I watched it) there wouldn't be any harm in putting it in quotation marks. Also, if someone can find a reliable source pointing out that a "liquid allotrope of ice" would be... well, water, we could add a note to that effect in a "reception" section. I think that DWM's Time Team may have made that point when they watched "Planet" in their run-through of the entire series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1993 repeat[edit]

Was this the last time BBC1 ever screened a black and white TV show?--MartinUK (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke?!--82.0.207.86 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping! Sterlingjones (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this thread going through every Dalek episode entry discussing whether Daleks were intended to be understood as able to fly?[edit]

I find the self-insistence of this topic irritating. Is there really a demand for theories as to whether Daleks are able to fly in episodes where they don't fly? We all know that the topic is entertaining, but it's not really academically relevant, is it?

I'd like to cut it.

Any thoughts? Sterlingjones (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, obtain reliable sources: and then confine mentions to stories specifically named in those sources. Most likely, these will be Remembrance of the Daleks and Dalek, few others. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Planet of the Daleks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Planet of the Daleks. 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) 22:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section of plot deleted...what happened?[edit]

To those that read the plot and were confused, you aren't the only one. I noticed that a large amount of information (particularly a significant amount of ending information) got cut. Could someone explain what happened? Vincinel (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TVPLOT. DonQuixote (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planet_of_the_Daleks&oldid=1201194955"