Talk:Victory of the Daleks (TV story)

Is there a link for the leaked audio clip? I wouldn't mind listening to it.

Wrong statement
Actually it is the second longest gap: the first being Day of the Daleks wich was a five years gap.


 * This is the statement to which the above anon poster referred:
 * Discounting their flashback cameo in DW: The Waters of Mars, this is the longest gap between Dalek stories in the New Series, at almost two years since Journey's End. It is also the first standalone Dalek episode since DW: Dalek in 2005 and the Dalek appears to be an earlier model, using grey armour that was last seen in Remembrance of the Daleks.
 * I have now removed it, because it's such a nebulous claim. If you ignore that there were Daleks in TWOM, and if you ignore the fact that thre was no series in 2009, then it's a 21-month gap. But those "ifs" are very iffy indeed. From a production standpoint, the 2009 specials are a part of series 4, so there's two Dalek appearances in the latter part of series 4, and there's one here at the top of series 5. That's not at all that big a deal. The other way of looking at it, is that there are Daleks in every series of BBC Wales DW. Very many people would not consider there to be any sort of gap in Dalek stories in 2005 DW, and would counter with the point that the Daleks have been used more frequently now than at any point in DW history.


 * As for the second sentence, it's not clear at all what it is meant. What does "standalone Dalek story" mean? And there are two Dalek models in the trailer, anyway — possibly three. So who knows what that sentence means.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 18:50, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure by "standalone" they mean the first Dalek story since "Dalek" that consists of one episode  The b-Unit's  167th Drophyd  13:57, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. This sounds even worse than Catherine Tate

Having taken a look at the trailer after Eleventh Hour in slow motion, I'm not sure the pilot of the Plane flying towards the screen is human. Either that, or it's a rather strange space helmet...

Another wrong statement is "the Dalek Saucer seen in the dogfight with the Spitfires is the same sort as those from DW: Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways and DW: The Stolen Earth/Journey's End"

The Saucers seen in The Stolen Earth/Journey's End were different than the ones seen in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, though they were similar. Furthermore, the saucer seen in the trailers is seen to have more weapons on the top half, while it has a strange disc firing a blue ray not present on any other models on the underside. A more appropriate statement would be "The Dalek Saucer seen in the dogfight with the Spitfires is similar to those from Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways" as it is NOT the same.


 * Changed. And please remember to sign your posts with four ~. -Jedman67 22:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
The silver Dalek was fan made and the black Dalek has no relation to this story whatsoever.

Since the new looking daleks(White,Blue,Yellow,Red) look super new while some keep their Russel look should we say these daleks my have a higher rank than the normal daleks?-207.241.247.1 16:14, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm
In the 2005 episode called DALEK Henry Van Statten doesnt seem to regegnise that dalek and amy doesnt as well, Hmmm

Daleks and Radio Times
The new issues of the Radio Times have different images on them. They have the red, blue and yellow Daleks. apparently the blue and red are produced in the same amount but less of yellow was produced, possibly showing bias towards Labour and Conservatives.

I also heard, although have no rock solid source, that the new Dalek colours are just so that the BBC can get more money from different colour toys. ☆ The  Solar  Dragon  ( Talk ) ☆ 15:19, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

More Dating Issues?
I may be jumping the gun a bit, since the episode doesn't even air until tomorrow evening, but I'm sure the trailer shown after the repeat airing of "The Beast Below" tonight (16th April 2010) featured another one of these 'Production errors/dating issues' (like Rory's ID Card and Amy's age). Over Churchill's Left shoulder (to the viewer's right), there was a portrait of Queen Elizabeth wearing her crown - She wasn't Queen until 1952 and didn't have her coronation until '53. Twelve years after this episode. Look out for it tomorrow. Bet I'm shown to be wrong now I've written this! 86.134.188.188 21:15, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it isn't a young Queen Mother ? The other photo is definately George V1 86.26.137.154 07:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that its the Queen Mother, based on this photo: http://www.vandaprints.com/image.php?id=149238 Jedman67 02:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Knew that would happen - Yes it is the Queen Mum, I was viewing a tiny clip on a trailer. In the full episode, you can clearly see and identify both photos. Damn the royals for looking so similar at a glance! lol. However With Amy not recognising the Daleks, the funny dating issue is not dead...yet ;-) 86.134.188.188 17:36, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple solution, which could very well be explained further in the series: When Amy left with the Doctor, it was prior to the Stolen Earth story. But if she forgot, then it must be a hint. Watch more episodes, and we"ll find out. -Jedman67 23:02, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's Official
Something is messing with the Timeline. Could factor into the ID Badge crisis?Excalibur-117 18:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

No it's not anything to do with the ID Badge because Steven Moffat confirmed that was a genuine mistake of props with the date on that badge. The website to hear the interview is on the Eleventh Hour story page under story notes. -- Michael Downey 18:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard about that. Still, the timelines being messed with, we should look out for that stuff in later episodes, no?. Excalibur-117 18:21, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh Yes I totally agree time things will crop up but we do need to be aware of what is genuine and what is a mistake :). -- Michael Downey 18:23, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Excalibur-117 18:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Last two episodes line
In the article is the line "This could mean that the Daleks do not feature in the last two episodes.". Don't be absurd. They don't spend a lot of money on new Dalek models and props not to use them. It's like saying "The Doctor can regenerate, therefore this could mean Matt Smith does not feature in the last two episodes". You can't say something either way without proper sourcing. Either there's a source that they will be, or a source that they won't, or it's pure pointless speculation in a factual article. 92.21.63.165 18:45, April 17, 2010 (UTC) I agree this statement is wrong but I also doubt they will be in the finale, if they are I will be really disapointed because we need them space Dalek stories. -- Michael Downey 19:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sitting watching Doctor Who Confidential, and Stephen Moffet said that he thinks those Daleks will be important in a future episode of Doctor Who, but that he doesn't know when. Unless he's bluffing, I doubt the Daleks will be in the finale. Mc hammark 18:51, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That too isn't a source on whether they will or will not for definite. You could also say "....this could mean they do not feature in the Weeping of Angels". I would bet the farm on them appearing in the final two episodes. 92.21.63.165 19:01, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed. Untill anything is released by the BBC, its pure speculation, which we have quite enough of as it is, thank-you-very-much. When something official is announced, post it. Otherwise, don't.(personally, i'd be very dissapointed if they do show up at the end. I'm sick of Dalek's. They've been done to death and more. RTD should never have put the Daleks in the Torchwood story. Give it a break. If they show up towards the end of next season, i wont complain) -Jedman67 23:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Confused
Feeling a bit ill tonight and I am still confused about the episode...

What does Amy and the Doctor mean when they come to confront the Scottish Scientist babbling about 10,20,30 minutes etc.? --The Brig 19:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

They where basically telling him to run away so they could not de-activate him but he wasn't getting what they meant until they kept adding more time before they would pretened to return to de-activate him. -- Michael Downey 19:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, okay! Thanks for that - what a dope I was =P... The Brig 19:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

The Crack
Whilst I like the idea of a reccuring theme throughout the new series in the vain of Bad Wolf, Mr Saxon, etc. I dislike the idea of making a blatant effort to highlight it to the viewer each time. (Shining light, dramatic camera zooms, etc.) Kind of takes the fun out of listhening for it and makes it less of a suprise for viewers who aren't as attentive.

What do you guys think?

That goes to the forums, not episode talk pages.Excalibur-117 19:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just use Wiki's for viewing mostly. My apologies.

-Anon 20:37, April 17, 2010 (GMT)

Revelation?
Steven Moffat talked of a "revelation" about thirty minutes into the episode, saying that you would need to watch the episode twice to understand it. It could just be me, but I have no idea what this supposed revelation was. Does anybody else know? I've watched it three times and still don't have a clue what he is on about. Simson 23:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)Simson.

I only watched it once, but i would suppose that since the Daleks plan was to rebuild the Dalek race, and they needed to trap the Doctor into unlocking the machine, they acheived victory - they succeeded. I dont get why you need to "watch it twice" in order to get that.-Jedman67 23:30, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not think it is that. He talked about a revelation that you have to watch twice to understand, and while the Daleks winning is great, it's not a revelation. Certainly not one you need to watch twice. I just hope someone asks him what he was on about so he can explain it. Simson. 03:16, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

The "revelation" potentially is the fact that Amy doesn't know and has never met the Daleks, and thus isn't afraid of them. Earth was moved to the Medusa Cascade and she doesn't remember? That is, in and of itself, IMPOSSIBLE, unless she A) was in a coma at the time and NEVER saw ANYTHING remotely close to the subject - which is a dubious theory at the very best-, B) an alien lifeform, which the Doctor would have seen and guessed the origin of before, or the better C) the cracks in time and space are LINKED TO HER (and maybe others). From what we've seen thus far, the cracks were in her bedroom - fairly close to the Tardis crash site, on that ship - probably close to the departure coordinates inside SpaceshipUK, and right on the wall on the back side of the tardis - when they departed through the time vortex. Why else would we see those fissures this regularly? Maybe someone's seeking her through time itself?

Please sign your posts with four tildes - the ~ symbol. The only thing I noticed that seemed out of place near the 30 minute mark was just before the Doctor told the pilot he could disrupt the Dalek shield. He seems hesitant, almost reluctant to do it. Monkey with a Gun 07:02, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thought Moffat said it was "about half way through" the episode? Surely the revelation is that Bracewell was created by the Daleks not vica versa? Extremely interesting choice of surname for the character ... check out the Bracewell Probe! 86.26.137.154 07:41, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a reference to Amy and the rest of the world forgetting the Daleks even though in 2059 the Bowie base 1 crew (or at least Adelaide Brooke) knew about them. It could suggest that the silence that's descending is altering the timeline. Remember the 10th once said that changes take time to ripple through the timeline, it could be a sign that the Paradigm Daleks will return in the season finale and are involved with Pandorica . - 121.44.254.120 07:54, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

It could very well mean that the events were removed from the timeline, they never happened, like something he reset the timeline, meaning there never was a Dalek invasion now. But who or what would have done that, is the question. Delton Menace 08:03, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this on my first watching, but when Amy is helping Bracewell evoke the sensation of "loving someone you know you shouldn't," she says "hurts, doesn't it?" then glances briefly at the Doctor, then looks back at him and says "but kind of a good hurt." I really, really hope that wasn't intended to imply another companion with a romantic attraction to the Doctor, but it might be the case and that might be the revelation. It's still vague enough to possibly just be her looking to see if he approves of or is impressed by her idea, though. 122.107.81.33 09:09, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think the revelation probably refers to the cracks - we see the Tardis materialise at about 30 minutes in, the first time in this series where we see a crack location before the reveal at the end of the episode - and that's why you have to go back and watch again to see it. Or rather not see it, as there's no crack on the wall, yet one appears by the end of the episode... 62.56.48.27 12:12, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good theories everyone, the timeline seems to be the most popular, but again, why do you have to watch it twice to understand that? Simson. 13:33, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Never been on here before but i've recently gotten right into my Doctor Who and i'm similarly eager to know why Amy can't remember the daleks. Could this have something to do with the timelords? .. I vaguely remembering reading that Rassilon and the gang are set to return at some point? ..

Cracks only seem to appear after outside the TARDIS when it travels in time, but don't appear outside it when it travels only through space. The Daleks will most likely appear at the end of the season. From trailers the Doctor is heard to say "putting him in a trap" is not wise etc, and there's someone dressed pretty much the same as him but a lot older. However, it probably isn't coincidental, even though Moffat and RTD discussed the "timelords" that cracks appear in the fracture of the Universe after Rassilon tries to rip the time vortex apart. In my opinion it is likely that either the Timelords did something else....possibly to the TARDIS as they were sent back, or something else slipped through before being noticed. It should be noted from Moffat's episode guide - http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/910-doctor-who-steven-moffats-episode-guide/ that the final two episodes are outlined as:


 * "A message on the oldest cliff-face in the universe, a puzzle box opening from the inside and a love that lasts thousands of years… The fates are drawing close around the Tardis - is this the day the Doctor falls? "There was a goblin. Or a trickster, or a warrior. A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. Nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it - one day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world""

From The End Of Time, assuming it is linked, the final sentences could be linked to the unseen Nightmare Child, Trickster, the Daleks (probably) or various other things. It is possible "is this the day the Doctor falls?" is linked to Rassilon himself ("You'll die with me Doctor"'' etc). ''But we could second guess every line muttered in the series thus far - Moffat and RTD are two different writers with different ideas. We could be all thinking "oh it's obvious" but then it turns out it isn't. We'll only know after watching the series! 92.21.63.165 18:42, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * In his book REF: Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale - The Final Chapter, Russell T. Davies indicated that he checked with Moffat before writing his script to see if Moffat had plans to return the Time Lords. Moffat's response "take them" would suggest the Time Lords are not returning in the near future. [Its not conclusive, but dont expect to see them]. Jedman67 23:30, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

The crack is in the shape of a smile. Trickster?

The bit about amy "forgetting" about the daleks - the doctor could have grabbed her before the events of the medusa cascade.

Dorabella
Braceman mentionned a "Dorabella" as his "love". I just google/wiki'd the term and one of the first results to pop on my screen was the Dorabella Cipher. Could it possibly have anything to do with the mysteries at hand? We got monsters, we got escaped Daleks, we got a regen'd Dalek empire, we got androids serving the UK, we got a totally screwed up timeline... Maybe that cipher will be used later in the season?

more RTD daleks?
The new Daleks killed three of the RTD era daleks but there were severel more on the ship because there were quite a lot of them posing as 'ironsides' on earth, so they would have teleported back to the ship. Does that mean that the new Daleks will use the RTD daleks as slaves?Dalekcaan14 09:56, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be also possible that the new Daleks killed the other RTD Daleks later offscreen after the escaped through time and only had "better things to do" while they were in the room with just the three RTD Daleks so that they didn't have time for the others.78.43.114.215 10:35, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think there were only two "Ironside" Daleks, and both got vaped on the ship...Excalibur-117 11:27, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we only saw two "Ironsides" on Earth. As they could have fired multiple lasers when they destroyed the Nazi planes. Llamaman201 (talk) 12:03, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Daleks from The Parting of the Ways, not Journeys End?
How certain are we that the Daleks are the ones from Journeys End and not The Parting of the Ways? I only ask this because the Doctor says that the last time they met they were at the end of their tether, more akin to the The Parting of the Ways Daleks. Add to the fact that the human DNA would mean they were not pure Dalek, a problem Davros would be able to overcome even if he used his own DNA to create them. Just had me wondering. Unless I missed something on Confidential.Clarkey3262 23:31, April 18, 2010 (UTC)