Talk:The War Games

SIDRAT

Does anyone have the novelisation to hand? I'm sure it gives a different explanation of the acronym from Exodus. Timrollpickering 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First I agree with Timrollpickering that the term was used long before Exodus, but, to the best of my knowledge the term is not actually used in the televised story (unless one of you eagle eared wiki Dr Who members can give me the specific episode and time in the episode that it is used so I can double check it AND learn the errors of my way). I first remember seeing it in materials published in the US in the early 80's (it may well have been used earlier in materials published in the UK) and was struck by the fact that when I finally did get to see the omnibus version of the story in the late 80's that it wasn't used. I have the two tape VHS of this story, but, don't know when I will have time to get to it so I won't alter the note about it now. It does need to be double checked and corrected if the current note is in error though.User:MarnetteD | Talk 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not in the televised story. I don't have the Target novelisation, so I can't say for sure that it's first mentioned there, but this page, which is based on the Target book and gives the expansion of the acronym, suggests that it was indeed first raised in the 1979 novelisation - which also jibes with MarnetteD's recollection of seeing it in the 1980s. But of course a confirmation would be best. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Checked with a friend who has the novelisation. It's on page 34: "Ten minutes after the group had left the bedroom, General Smythe's Space and Inter-Dimensional Robot All-purpose Transporter, known by its initals SIDRAT rematerialized in the corner and resumed its appearance of a wardrobe." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping, in their book, Doctor Who: the Discontinuity Guide (Virgin Books, 1995), say, on page 104, "[They] are named SIDRAT only once (in episode seven, when it's pronounced 'side-rat')." I no longer have a video to get the exact timing, but when I did, I watched every story that either came on TV or via video into my hands, with their book at hand, and did confirm its presence and pronounciation, so I'm revising the text here. BTW, I bought a copy of the novelization in the mid-1980s, when I had no idea that any pre-Pertwee era material would ever be broadcast here in the US (I first bought "Day of the Daleks," because here it was numbered 1(?), and then, when I knew what to actually look for, "An Unearthly Child" and this one) and can guarantee you that the word is in it a lot more than once. Ted Watson (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find my copy of the DG but with the more detailed info posted by Tbrittreid/Ted Watson (and many thanks for taking the time to do so!) I put on my tape of episode seven. The term is said three minutes (give or take depending on when you set your counter to zero between ep 6 & 7) into episode seven. The War Chief is explaining to the Security Chief why he is having difficulty in tracking our heroes in the "side-rat". As my watching the tape to get this info would be considered WP:OR I won't post this on the main page. Rather, I will leave this message here and we can direct anyone who still has a question about it to the proper moment in the story. Interestingly, the plot summary for episode seven does mention the use of the term SIDRAT at almost the right spot. Having missed this in my numerous times of watching this story I can't tell you how much fun it is to learn something new today - Many thanks again Ted. MarnetteD | Talk 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Internal links

The internal links that I removed were a result of my misreading those links. Thanks for fixing it, and apologies for the mistake. Brad E. Williams 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the internal links for the War Chief, War Lord, Security Chief, and Chief Scientist weren't working properly because "The" wasn't part of their name in the lists of Doctor Who villains and henchmen. I removed the "the" from those links, and they are now working properly. Brad E. Williams 13:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuity

This article states that

"In his final serial, the Second Doctor states that Time Lords can live forever, "barring accidents." When "accidents" do occur, Time Lords can usually regenerate into new bodies, resulting in extremely long life-spans."

(and the word "final serial" links to here.) This might be worth a mention in the Continuity section, as it contradicts a few things in other serials. It kind of implies that Time Lords don't just have extra lives, they're also ageless. But this is contradicted by, for example, the first doctor being clearly elderly, and especially in "The five doctors", I seem to remember he needed to sit down and rest occasionally. And in "Last of the Timelords", the Master prematurely aged the Doctor. He seemed to be just fast-forwarding time, implying that that's really what the Doctor would have looked like after 900 extra years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithcoriel (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Devious

Have added a bit about Doctor not being able to speak French despite later episodes saying TARDIS should translate for him. Seems important to the overall continuity of the series. Although not very good I feel this is significant as it is included on the DVD and features Pertwee's last onscreen performance. If you want to delete it please outline reasons in discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Items made by fans, whether they are included on a DVD or not (should we include the Mark Gatiss comedy skits from The Beginning box set?), are not relevant to the series. The other item is purely your speculation (why should the Tardis translate for him in 1966 when this isn't even devised by the creators of the show until 1976) and thus violate WP:OR and both items violate WP:Synthesis. The Doctor Who wikiproject, and indeed wikipedia itself, has very strict guidelines about these sorts of edits. If you want to take this to the talk page for the project and see what they say please do so but do not reenter them until you have a consensus from the members who oversee the project. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All I have left now is the translation bit that is clearly mentioned within the canonicity of the series, with no speculation as to how this inconsistency might be explained. Friends now? from Villafancd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying but you did not read either of the policy links that I provided. It is clearly not part of the canonicity in 1966 and your trying to create a reason for it violates both of those links. Please read the policies involved and you will also want to learn how to sign your comments on talk pages. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia can be very frustrating to what is and is not allowed in editing. Please take your time to find out these policies by reading their pages. One other suggestion is that there is a Doctor Who wiki that does not have the restrictions that this wiki does. You may want to add your edits there. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1966 and 1976 are irrelevant to the Doctor he is a Time Lord. His TARDIS should be able to translate for him regardless of when the episode was filmed. I'm not suggesting this was the War Games' writers' fault, more likely it should've been checked or retrospectively explained by whoever decided that the TARDIS could translate in 1976 or whenever. It's still significant within the canonicity of the show so I'm putting it back in. I don't really know why you dislike it so much. Villafancd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. The Doctor is a fictional character. You are obviously a fan but you have little idea how television programmes are made. The creators do not have time to fact check every little thing done in the shows history. (apologies edit conflicts caused this next sentence to be dropped off) The item cannot stay in until you gain consensus from the project for their inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How will that happen if you delete it before anyone sees it? I reckon leave it in for a bit and see if anyone else minds? --Villafancd (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No you go to the talk page for the doctor Who Wikiproject and make you case there. You really need to learn how things are done around here before editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Stock footage

I should have posted this question some time ago so apologies for the lateness. Regarding the use of stock footage from previous episodes for the Tardis escape scenes. Is this really notable? The more that I read and hear in DVD commentaries and making of documentaries budget constraints were a constant part of the equation in making the show. Use of footage from previous episodes was a time and money saver. There is a place for these mentions when stories like The Frontier in Space and, more notably, Logopolis and Earthshock use footage from previous episodes as a specific reference to past stories. In this case however, the footage used in the Tardis escape sequence in this story is not used as a flashback to refer to those past stories. It is simply a cost saving event - a bit like the use of the Saturn Five launch footage used in Genesis of the Daleks and Revenge of the Cybermen. If others are okay with this item then that is okay. I am mostly posting this just so that it is on record that we should consider what stock footage items we should and should not include in our articles. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably non-notable as just about every show was doing this at the time. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's cited and might go into the production section, which currently only holds notes on the audience numbers.

There's a lot of trivia in the "firsts" and "lasts" section which might be pruned. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input all. WikiuserNI your suggestion bears some thinking about but even though it is cited the question of WP:NOTABILITY still needs to be answered. As DonQuixote mentions lots of stock footage reuse went on during this time period. Are we going to list all of them that can be cited? As I say this is just my opinion but I think that the item in question is perfect for the Dr Who wikia, I'm not sure that it fits here on wikipedia. thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If the production section was expanded to cover writing and shooting, it might well go in there. There's a lot about TV production that isn't notable, if taken point by point. Altogether it provides a bigger picture about the story itself. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The more I've thought about it the more I like your idea. If we don't get other responses in the next few days I think it should be moved there even if there is no further expansion of the section and I would certainly defer to your doing it since it is your idea. Please feel free to move it when you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if we're having an article about individual serials, and certain ones contained quite a bit of stock footage, it is perhaps notable. If many programs of the day used stock footage that does not neccesarily make it not notable - after all, we do say that this was monochrome don't we? Even though that was common. If every single Doctor Who story routinely used stock footage then it does seem redundant to add that to every article on each serial: it should be mentioned in the main Doctor Who article, and we do not need to list every instance. But if it was used only occasionally when there was an undershot sequence, a problem with the footage, or they went over schedule, then those instances are quite notable and I'd be interested to hear about them. If this happened it could be informative to list the shot in question and the reason for reuse, like, was the original ruined by a technical problem, miscrophone in shot, actor tripping, or did they go over schedule and were unable to shoot all the required scenes? Format (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

None of the above. Quite simply: cost. The reuse of old DW footage in The War Games was because only a few seconds of screen time were required for certain scenes, but these scenes needed sets which were vastly different from anything else in this production, and also from each other. To build special sets for such short scenes would have been expensive, so it was cheaper to pinch clips from earlier productions. As for the use of stock footage in Revenge of the Cybermen, etc: it was bound to be more impressive than a model shot, so if it was cheaper too, why not? Remember: the BBC typically gave DW exactly the same budget per episode as EastEnders, which was well known for its spacecraft, aliens, ray-guns etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems notable enough for the brief mention it has. It sounds like an unusual situation, not a routine re-use of footage. Also, that is not stock footage, just reused footage. Format (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Rule of Non-interference vs Prime Directive

At the end of The war games, the Doctor is returned to Galifrey to face trial for breaking the rule of non-interference. This rule seems similar to the Prime Directive of the Star Trek universe.

I looked up the Prime Directive and it seems to have originated with the Bread and Circuses episode, broadcast March 15, 1968. The war games was broadcast between April 19, 1969 and June 21, 1969, about a year after Star Trek. I have no idea when the strories for each were written.

The obvious question, was the rule of non-interference inspired by the Prime Directive or were they arrived at independently? I searched the various fan sites for both shows but could not find any information. Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.217 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your question falls into the realm of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unless you can find an interview with the writers of this serial stating that they had seen the ST episode and used its ideas on purpose there is no way the info is relevant to this article. BTW the US air date is not a good marker to use. What would matter is when B&C aired in the UK and even then it is unknown whether Dicks and Hulke watched it. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement about Time Lords at the start

The statement "sees both the first naming and first appearance of the Doctor's race, the Time Lords" is to my mind questionable. It is undeniably true that the Time Lord name is first used here, but of course a Time Lord had been on screen since the start of the series - the Doctor. Leaving this aside (and questions around Susan, we had already seen another member of the Doctor's race in the First Doctor's era - The Monk. Though he was not called a Time Lord it is explicitly stated that he and the Doctor come from the same planet. I wonder then if this should be reworded to say something like "sees both the first naming and first appearance multiple members of the Doctor's race, the Time Lords"? Dunarc (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

In a word, No. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VmhVfNcVbqQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.138 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)