User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170305025619

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170305025619 What I meant was that, while the Daleks certainly don't go around murdering people and aren't the main villains, I see no proof that they were meant to be some sort of spoof.

What you're asking us to do here is the chose a version of the Daleks that we definitely should compare the film to. You're going off of the new series Daleks and using specific examples to contradict the film. But I don't see how their actions are that different than in Series 5 -- when they work with several other species to try and stop the Doctor. In fact, many would argue that since Moffat hasn't really let the Daleks kill in many years, they haven't exactly be the same. Is Moffat's era invalid now?

Subjective interpretations on if characters or ideas are done can not be used to call a story invalid.

The film's portrayal is far from being as silly as their appearances in the 1960s TVC comics (or whatever name the comic went by when they appeared). My main point wasn't that they're exactly what we should expect within specific continuities, but that there's no evidence that they are from a "reboot" continuity.

If an Auton and a Weeping Angel can talk, a Dalek doesn't need to kill.