Talk:The Pilot (TV story)

Daleks
The episode hasn't aired in Canada yet. I'd like to add this to, but I need to know if the Daleks play a "major role" or a "minor role", based on the examples you can see there on the template. 20:31, April 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * They basically only have a cameo. --DCLM ☎  21:06, April 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * It's enough to call it a "Dalek story" but not enough to call the Daleks the "main enemy" of the story. OS25 (Talk) 22:48, April 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks for your answers. It seems someone has already added this to the template. 23:09, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Friend from the Future
Having rewatched Friend from the Future, the Doctor states that they're going "back to the future" and that "2017 needs us". My question is, how do we sit on this story's connection to The Pilot. As quite rightly stated here, the scene we see in The Pilot was "adapted" in order to make more sense in the context of the episode, with many of these lines removed. If we were to treat FftF as valid (which may require its own inclusion debate at some point), then it would mean the difference between placing this story in "the 2010s" and in "2017". That's a muddle of thoughts but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at.

An adaptation doesn't make something invalid (just see the Big Finish Novel Adaptations). In fact, it's just the same adventure with two different "witnesses" (so to speak). My immediate question is "Can we use FftF to determine this story as being 2017?" My question for a later date is "What is the exact relationship between FftF and The Pilot?" Because it's not a prequel. Does it classify as a story? As I said, my question here regards the time setting. Any other questions may be best discussed in a Inclusion Debate thread. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  23:34, April 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * What we see in the episode itself goes. The short trailer mentioned 2017, but that is cut out in this story. That means we can't say the main setting in the episode is 2017. --DCLM ☎  16:04, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * Friend from the Future is absolutely not a valid source. The only "valid bits" are those that are actually used in this episode. Friend from the Future is essentially a deleted scene, except that it was never fully intended to be used, and was a marketing video to begin with, to show off Bill's personality and get people excited for series 10. Moments from trailers that are not used in the final cut are not valid sources. Friend from the Future does not take place during this story; it does not take place at all, in fact. Them needing to go back to 2017, because "2017 needs us", is not something that even makes sense within the story that Moffat in the end devised.
 * Until and unless future valid stories indicate Bill's from 2017 specifically, the 2010s will remain the setting for this episode. 18:52, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * What you say about adaptations is true if the original was in fact a valid story of its own to begin with. In this case, it was a marketing video, and to Moffat, something that "maybe" could be reused somewhere in an episode. Friend from the Future was never intended to truly be set in the Doctor Who continuity to begin with. 18:59, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * But didn't Steven Moffat confirm in the Aftershow that Friend from the Future did happen? He said that he wrote The Pilot so that Friend from the Future slots properly into it and that the part of Friend from the Future included in The Pilot was only shortened because it was unnecessary to have another set of introductory dialogue with Bill in the same episode.Flabshoe1 ☎  19:23, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * But didn't Steven Moffat confirm in the Aftershow that Friend from the Future did happen? He said that he wrote The Pilot so that Friend from the Future slots properly into it and that the part of Friend from the Future included in The Pilot was only shortened because it was unnecessary to have another set of introductory dialogue with Bill in the same episode.Flabshoe1 ☎  19:23, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely silly. Friend from the Future is completely a valid source, and there is no reason to call it otherwise. Steven Moffat made it clear in the post-party that he specifically designed the episode so that the fans would "know how it all fit together." There are even specific references and lines in The Pilot that only make sense if you've seen FftF. You can see it as an over-blown "Prelude" or it's own one-off that was then incorporated into the episode, but either way there is 0 reason to call it invalid. OS25 (Talk) 19:49, April 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * Let us move this debate to Thread:214342. OS25 (Talk) 20:35, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Sentient oil or spaceship?
Didn't the Doctor conclude that the Heather-thing was a piece of a spaceship in that scene in the far future? CoT    ?  03:01, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oil that leaked from a spaceship, yes. Feel free to suggest a better name for the page on sentient oil; that one seemed closest to how the Doctor describes the stuff in the scene you mention. 18:55, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Edwardian Working Class?
In the uncredited cast, someone is listed as playing "Teacher in Edwardian Working Class", followed by a reference linking to IMDB. Am I right in thinking that this is false information which may relate to a different episode? 66 Seconds ☎  15:37, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would it be false information? It's about the episode "The Pilot". He is credited on there as being in "The Pilot". --DCLM ☎  16:04, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * IMDb is a user-edited wiki like ours, and is not a valid source on this wiki. That listing can be re-added if and only if a valid source is attached. 18:35, April 16, 2017 (UTC)