Talk:Cassandra (Doctor Who)

Cassandra in series 4 trailer

The information on the page saying Zoe was in trailer is incorrect, you have mistaken her for Felicity Kendal. I shall be removing this information, please do not put it back on. Thank you. 89.241.230.135 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of Cassandra's survival

OK, so there was talk earlier that New Earth was set 25 years after The End of the World, but we didn't have official confirmation. Now, indirectly, we do, but the logic is a bit elaborate. I wasn't sure whether my account in the article page was clear enough, so I'm going to spell it out here — if it needs further elucidation on the page, someone else can rephrase. OK, bear with me.

• The BBC press release says, "Viewers join the Doctor and Rose as they embark upon an adventure that takes them further into the future than ever before..." Although it's not explicit, the context makes it clear that this is about the episode New Earth. (The next paragraph is clearly about Tooth and Claw, if you have any doubt.)
• Therefore New Earth is set after The End of the World, as had been previously rumoured.
• We know from other sources, including RTD, that Lady Cassandra and her spiders are also in this episode.
• Therefore, barring some sort of time-travel scenario (which I suppose is a possiblity), Lady Cassandra survived her face/body exploding on Platform One. (Presumably her brain-in-a-vat, which wasn't affected by her body going "splat", was hooked up to a new, cloned or artificial body.)

I feel that's pretty conclusive, but I worry that the logical chain is too long or tenuous for inclusion in the article. Opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it was set a little further than that after it, and the episode confirmed that Cassandra's new skinframe was skin taken from, as she put it, "...the back of my old body." As Rose comments "So that means you're talking out of your a-" "ASK NOT!". Classic stuff. 61.68.211.15 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. (Note that the "confirmation" above was from December '05, many months before New Earth aired.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT

Could someone please explain to me how Cassandra is a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgendered person? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.62.68 (talk • contribs) 20:45, April 10, 2006 (UTC)

With pleasure. Cassandra is a "Lady", and frequently refers to her past husbands, but she also says "when I was a little boy". Now I admit that the issue gets a bit fuzzy when you're talking about someone with no genitalia, but I think that "boy" + "she" = transgendered. "Husbands" could signify either transgendered or gay, depending on how much surgery Cassandra may or may not have had at that point but either way it puts her in Category:Fictional LGBT characters, by my reckoning. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

She may have said "when I was a little boy", but IIRC in the same episode she also refers to a Wurlitzer jukebox as an "iPod", so perhaps we're meant to think she's merely confused. In any case, it takes quite a few leaps of logic to label her as a LGBT character! 217.155.20.163 20:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being confused about history and about your own biography. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't think that it's a leap of logic to say that someone who was once a boy and is later female is transgender. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that she's LGBT. Also, the Monsters and Villains book, though not strictly canon, discusses in detail her sex-change from being a Mr Brian Cobbs.--Keycard ^(talk) 08:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The old film in New Earth clearly depicted her as a woman in her later life, so no confusion there, and since she claims to have been a boy, clearly something must have happened. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 09:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Practicalities of Lady Cassandra

How would Lady C actually "speak"? The mechanics seem impractical/bad science/voodoo science: even for science fiction the technicalities should be plausible - eg terraforming of Mars seems practical, but not Venus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) 13:43, April 19, 2006 (UTC)

Well, she's pretty much a cartoon character operating on cartoon physics. I could come up with a fanwank explaining how the movement of her lips is purely ornamental, and the linguistic centers of her brain in a vat are connected to a sophisticated speech synthesizer hidden in her "frame", which also contains equally sophisticated miniature speakers which create the illusion that the sound is coming from her mouth, but it would be pure speculation. The real answer is that Russell T. Davies is more concerned with broad satire and fun than with scientific accuracy. I'm not complaining. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "plausible McGuffin science" to the cartoon variety - and note the Evil Overlord hero sublist comment about operating to the universe of an author abiding by the laws of physics. (Mcguffin science - borrowable self explanatory neologism: invented technology that makes sense in contemporary terms: thus habitable Venus #was# McS before the planet's actual nature was realised, but is not now.) Jackiespeel 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The McGuffin science bit makes sense, but I'm afraid you lost me on "Evil Overlord hero sublist comment". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See [[1]] (Evil Overlords Lists) - advice for the hero:

101. If I find myself born or drafted into a universe wherein the laws of nature do not obey consistent principles, I will depart for an alternate universe created by a more reasonable author.

Another example of McS "feasible future science" - captain Nemo's submarine in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea

Sometimes, though, trying to provide a real science explanation for "fantasy science" can produce interesting results (g).

Jackiespeel 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense now — wasn't familiar with the Evil Overlord lists, so you can see the source of my confusion. Much better now, thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Born a male

• She had been born a male on Earth and lived on the edge of the "Los Angeles Crevasse"

This seem wrong to me now i've only watched the ep the once so this one line might of pasted me by can anyone confirm this to be true (Gnevin 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

No, both parts of that are correct. In "The End of the World" Cassandra says "...when I was a little boy" and refers to her parents' house on the edge of the Los Angeles Crevasse. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Captain Jack Human?

The end of this article states that Captain Jack is the last "pure human".. How can you be so sure that he is human?

Also, we know from the episode "Last of the Time Lords" that when Jack was younger he lived in the Boeshane Peninsula, which I believe is part of the "Silver Devastation". One of the reasons Lady Cassandra stated she was pure is because she was born on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed the Penguin (talk • contribs)

Well, there's nothing to suggest he's not human, and (getting a bit OR here) if he was alien, Torchwood's scanners would probably have noticed.

Cassandra's pride was based on having not "mingled" with other life-forms, not anything to do with Earth.--OZOO (What?) 12:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lady Cassandra.jpg

Image:Lady Cassandra.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost too Good to Correct

With absolutely no explanation, the article states 'After letting the flesh free, "Rose", the Doctor and Chip escape to the basement...'

Now, having just watched this episode last night, I know exactly what that means. But if I had never seen the episode I might get an entirely different impression of what was going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.233.132 (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)