Talk:The Daleks' Master Plan

Serial v multi-serial

I always thought this was a multi-serial (a la The Key to Time, Trial of a Time Lord) 132.205.15.43 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this was a 12-parter, produced under one production code. The only adjunct was Mission to the Unknown, which was a one-episode prologue to this (with The Myth Makers transmitted in between), but had a separate production code. --khaosworks 04:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really messed up

This requires reversion. I tried to fix a problem and ended up creating a larger one. Sorry. --Proteus 02 May 2005

Easily fixed, and done. Don't worry about it - it happens on occasion, though I'm not sure why. --khaosworks 17:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Donald Tosh

I've removed the note about Nation only writing 20 pages and Tosh inflating it, as it appears to be untrue. To quote David Brunt, one of the foremost Doctor Who historians and former head of the DWAS reference department, in a post on the Outpost Gallifrey forums a while back:

Having read all Nation's draft scripts for the story Tosh's memory is playing serious tricks with him there.

Nation delivered a good 30+ pages of script per each of his six episodes (or the usual 45/50 page Camera Script length when reformatted). If anything, Tosh just polished the dialogue - and actually cut a load of scenes for time and/or budget reasons.

In fact, the thought springs to mind that Tosh tended to rewrite every DW script that was delivered in his time on the show - maybe he was just a compulsive tinkerer in other people's work?

The direct link, for those of you who have OG forum access, is here [1]

Angmering 09:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we rephrase the note, about Tosh's claims and Brunt's rebuttal, then? --khaosworks 11:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, although if David claims he's read all of Nation's draft scripts I'd certainly believe him over Tosh's decades old remembrances. Angmering 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree entirely - but might as well just put the facts up objectively. --khaosworks 11:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Feast of Steven

I've gone and listened to the end of "The Feast of Steven" again - several times - and I don't believe that Peter Purves chokes and says "Hey!" as in protesting Hartnell's address to the camera. Rather, he's saying, "Hey-HEY!", as in the typical exclamatory toast, which takes place between him and Jean Marsh, while Hartnell addresses the camera. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What confuses me then is why Purves appears doubled-over in the surviving telesnap of that scene. (I tried to find in on the net in case I've misremembered it, but no luck.) proteus71 18:30, 30 Nov 2005

I haven't seen that, so I can't comment, unfortunately. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Found the telesnap. Purves is not doubled-over, but he appears to be laughing heartily. Jean Marsh is definitely corpsing. I would have thought that if all of the cast knew of Hartnell's address, they would have been smiling sincerely at the camera, toasting the audience, rather than visibily cracking up and causing an unprofessional level of studio noise. proteus71 14:52, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Equivocal. I could equally interpret it as Purves being completely unaware of Hartnell's address to the camera and just celebrating with Jean March (either in character or not).

The presence of the scene in the camera script does suggest that at the very least Camfield and Hartnell knew about it before hand, since the cameras had to be focused on Hartnell for it to work. It could very well be that Purves and Marsh were not aware of it as it was a last minute addition.

I just don't think that Purves' cry was a reaction to Hartnell's line. It doesn't sound like it and I don't think there's a strong enough basis to assert it even as an interpretation. The facts we know for sure are simply that Tosh and Wiles claimed it was a last minute addition, and that it appears in the camera script. That's enough, I think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that that has settled that bit of solution (to borrow a Hartnellism). Thanks. proteus71 16:46, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Spar

I thought "Spar" was the name of the type of ship Chen had, either make or model — so saying "Chen's Spar" would be like saying "Josiah's Toyota" or "Josiah's Prius". For what it's worth, it's capitalized on the BBC's plot summary (from Howe's Television Companion, I think). Not sure how best to indicate that, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a note to that effect. Feel free to demolish, er, edit, at your lesuire, as always :).--Sean|Black 06:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also note this [2]. I don't have the CD to check, but..--Sean|Black 06:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... the CD booklet says, "The name Spar (space car) was story editor Donald Tosh's idea." So it is capitalized, but now I'm not sure whether the word refers to a make or model, or a variety (like a cruiser). The scene breakdown does frequently refer to "Chen's Spar", but I'm not sure now whether that tells us anything or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. So "Spar" is capitilized as if it were a make or model, but it also has a definite etymology ("space car"). What does Peel's book say?--Sean|Black 07:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Peel italicizes it, as if it's the ship's name, but then the dialogue suggests it's an expensive luxury make. The technicians discuss it when Chen mentions it on the news. Roald wishes he had "one of those 740s. Elegant, luxurious, plus the ultimate in technology..." and Lizan cuts him off, "And an advertising campaign aimed at billionaires. ... You'll never be able to afford a Spar!"

Would one ever italicize Lamborghini? I wouldn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And here I thought that the book would simplify things. Sheesh!--Sean|Black 07:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this really such an issue that it needs to be included in the article? Alastairward (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Never seen outside UK

Interesting this serial is the only Hartnell serial never seen outside the UK. Wonder why? Maybe it was too long? Anyone know why it was never shown outside UK? Are there any other serials not shown internationally? Asa01 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It was never sold to overseas sources, although I believe copies were sent to other countries to see if they were interested. The length might have been a factor. IIRC, Master Plan is the only one that wasn't sent overseas, which is why the chances of recovering episodes are very, very slim. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The only country to request a viewing copy was Australia, who after viewing it decided it would never get past the censors for the timelsot they usually showed the programme in. What happened to these viewing copies (11 of them - no Feat of Steven) is something of a mystery. Australian fan Damian Shanahan spent some time in recent years trying to track them down in Australia or at least a record of what happened to them, but to no avail. The likeliest bet seems to be that they were either junked by the ABC or returned to the BBC. If it was the latter, then they could very well be the source of the episodes that ended up in that Mormon basement and that projector testing room at Ealing. Where the other eight went, of course, is open to question. Angmering 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to be pedantic here: "Wherefore art thou" is so often mistranslated as meaning "Where are you?" whereas "Wherefore" actually means "Why." "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo," is less of a query as to Romeo's current geographical status as it is Juliet's frustrated plea for the reason why the man she has fallen in love with has to be Romeo Montague, one of her family's hated enemies. So "Episodes, why are you?" really makes no sense. This moment of pendantry has been brought to you by someone who almost became a Shakespearean scholar. Thank you. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And me with a degree in English Literature too. I feel suitably shamed. Angmering 15:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I watched Doctor Who in Aust through the 1970s and beyond. When later I started amassing Who books and literature I realised I had never seen The Brain of Morbius and The Deadly Assassin tho I had seen all the other Tom Baker adventures repeated many times. A few years later I found an ancient TV guide at home and sure enough, Morbius had had a later evening screening on the ABC. It was not shown at the normal timeslot. Apparently the Mary Whitehouse complaints had had some effect. These adventures were apparently removed from repeat runs due to their violent scenes. Too bad I never kept that newspaper. 1980s repeat runs restored Morbius and Assassin. Asa01 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Deadly Assassin was rated "A", taking the ABC by surprise and thus could only be played after 19.30. This occurred with the first three stories and Caves of Androzani, with major repercussions in those cases. Assassin was pulled off the schedule after it was listed in weekly guides in April 1978, and premiered nine years late in episodic format. Brain of Morbius was also rated "A", but in its case the BBC offered an hour long movie version, which the ABC screened 11 October 1978, in the "A" rated slot of 20.30. It was repeated in January 1980.

The problem with Master Plan was that the plot rather than any particular scene was rated "A" so no amount of the omnipresent '60s excising could bring it down to "G". So ABC didn't buy it.MartinSFSA (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of other sales it seems (according to BroaDWcast) that most of the other countries who brought the series at this stage (Barbados, Zambia, New Zealand, Sierra Leone and Singapore) relied on the Australian ABC to do most of the rights clearance costs. (Other countries who purchased earlier Hartnells had stopped showing Who at this stage; either due to interest dropping or because the talent unions negotiated higher costs on the later stories once the series proved a success; this may also be why no-non Commonwealth countries brought the later Hartnells or any Troughtons and why Enterprises retained negatives for earlier Hartnells [3]). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DW021-07-telesnap01.jpg

Image:DW021-07-telesnap01.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 insure 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) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

At present, the "Continuity" section has a lot of information that is not immediately useful to understanding the episode. Particularly so the following;

• It is left unclear whether "spar" refers to the classification of Chen's ship, the manufacturer, or something else entirely. The Television Companion capitilises the word, suggesting a make or model. This interpretation is reinforced by a line of dialogue from Episode One referring to a type of spacecraft called a "Spar 740", reminiscent of car models such as the Saab 900 or the Mazda 626. Peel's novelisation, meanwhile, capitalises and italicises the word, as well as referring to it as "a Spar". Notes included with the CD release indicate that it was meant to be a contraction of "SPace cAR," and was a suggestion of script editor Donald Tosh.

But also, the list of "firsts" in Doctor Who, or brief similarities between small plot points in this story and others later on.

Is there anyway to trim it and please everyone? Alastairward (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the fourth wall

There were several indirect addresses to the audience in later episodes. In The Caves of Androzani, the character Morgus (John Normington) makes private comments in a theatrical aside to the camera having misunderstood director Graeme Harper's instructions; in Enlightenment, Captain Wrack (Lynda Baron) gives the final line of Episode 3 directly to camera; Colin Baker delivers one of his first lines as the Doctor directly to the camera; Sylvester McCoy delivers a line directly to the camera in the third part of Remembrance of the Daleks; and in The Shakespeare Code, the character Lillith makes a speech deliberately styled in the format of a soliloquy to the camera. In "Journey's End", Martha Jones seemingly grins to the camera as she tends to the TARDIS console, however it could be argued that is a POV angle of the Doctor, and therefore she is grinning at the Doctor.

This all belongs somewhere, if not here. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for two reasons: it wasn't really relevant to this story more than any other, and it was bordering on the prohibited area of original research. I wouldn't remove it if you found somewhere else to put it that made more sense, but it does need some kind of source. The last sentence in particular sounds like one person guessing. The place for that is Doctor Who Wiki, not here. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

MartinSFSA, it's not that important anyway, regardless if it was episode specific. Why is it to you so notable? WikiuserNI (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is is so notable to me? You'd mean why do I think it's notable? Reading the list makes me want to find more examples or double check the existing list. The 'net is better for this list of information, and that constitutes knowledge. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wanting to find more examples and check the existing list are both cases of original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The information does have some worth, but I think it's better suited to the Doctor Who Wiki than it is to this one. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Freakin' Obvious.MartinSFSA (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, no need to be snarky. If you did know this information could have been left to the Doctor Who Wiki, why didn't you leave it there in the first place? WikiuserNI (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question, but the answer is probably "Because I'm not its author"?MartinSFSA (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The information though is free for anyone to edit, you can take it from here and leave it on the Doctor Who wiki if you so wish. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless of course the question is related to placing it on another Wiki at some unspecified point in the past. In which case the answer is of course "Because I'm not a magical man".

If it relates to moving it to the talk page, that I can answer. This being something I've actually done, as opposed to some speculation about possible past actions. MartinSFSA (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In summary then, no real reason can be provided for including it in the article, grand, thanks. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Feast of Steven "telerecording"

What's being referred to as a "telerecording" in the cited BBC PasB is the studio taping of the episode in question (3rd December 1965). The word "telerecording" was used at the time to mean any pre-recording of a television programme to either tape or film. It does not mean a film recording (i.e a video to film transfer) was made on this date. Somebody has got the wrong end of the stick. Wonder why Wikipedia has a bad name? 2.101.219.45 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Telerecording is not the original recording to videotape, it is the copying of a finished programme from videotape to film. See Telerecording. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the modern usage of the term. On the document in question the "Telerecorded" date is the date the episode was made in the studio and it's followed a videotape number. That was the recording to tape. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)