Talk:Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)/Archive 1

Dab
Should this page be "Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)"?  Tardis1963   talk  09:05, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because he appeared in two films, not just the one, and may or may not have been the character intended to be featured in the planned Stanmark radio series. 70.72.211.35talk to me 15:36, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

PARRALEL UNIVERSE???
Maybe this is doctor who from a parralel universe like in Pete's world with the cybermen but not nessesarily that one but just a different universe from the actual doctor's universe. --Brian talk to me 17:07, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Speculation is fine, but it needs to be backed up by a TV episode, novel, short story or some other licensed fiction to be included here. 70.72.211.35talk to me 15:38, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Updates
Elsewhere in this very wiki, Richard Bignell has debunked the "third movie" rumour, so I have added this. Also, the Nothing at the End of the Lane article on the radio show is ambiguous as to whether they intended it to feature Dr. Who, or a new version of The Doctor played by Cushing (considering they originally wanted another actor - Karloff - to play the role and Cushing was actually a last-minute choice, after the pilot episode script had been written.) 70.72.211.35talk to me 15:38, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

"Dr."
Our pages for characters usually leave off honorifics, so shouldn't this be "Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)"? Klisz ☎  18:11, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Ian and Barbara
In an official book that I own but can't find at the moment, it is said that the movies regarding Dr Who are based on in-Whoniverse books, written by Ian and Barbara, based upon their travels. We should look for a reference and add this point in as it explains the way its fits within the Whoniverse. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  13:07, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * It would have to be a valid source. Shambala108 ☎  17:13, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * It took me ages to find the title of it and I turned my room upside-down but eventually I found it. Unfortunately, it's not a canon book and when I Googled the title, it seems you've already discussed it, which is a shame. I just remembered it at the back of my mind and thought it was left out. Never mind though! :D
 * http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:I_Am_the_Doctor:_The_Unauthorised_Diaries_of_a_Timelord
 * The Farty  Doctor   Talk  19:47, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Cushing Interview?
RE: this point...

In an interview, Peter Cushing stated that he believed that his human incarnation of the Doctor was canon, and that his film version of the Doctor and the television Doctor were bridged together by the Celestial Toymaker. His theory was that his Doctor is a future incarnation kidnapped by the Toymaker, who "wiped his memory and made him relive some of his earlier adventures."

Do we have a definite source for this? This feels like we need to verify this.


 * You are absolutely correct. I've added a "source needed" tag. Thanks for catching this. Shambala108 ☎  02:12, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the interview text, but not the source...


 * Q: The character you played in those two films was very different from the character on the TV show. Were those films a complete remake?


 * A: Well I’ll tell you something I thought once. I just said I didn’t watch TV, but one of the few episodes of the ‘Dr. Who’ series that I saw was one that involved a kind of mystical clown (‘The Celestial Toymaker’? – ed.), and I realised that perhaps he kidnapped Dr Who and wiped his memory and made him relive some of his earlier adventures. When Bill Hartnell turned into Patrick Troughton, and changed his appearance, that idea seemed more likely. I think that’s what happened, so I think those films we did fit perfectly well into the TV series. That would not have been the case had I taken the role in the TV series.


 * Hope this helps! --Pluto2 (talk) 00:16, November 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone ever found the origin of this interview? I've seen this site cited in a few places, but never found an origin for the interviews it hosts... Additionally, the site in question has caught the eye of Bidmead before for posting an interview that he outright said was not a verbatim account. Though I'm not outright suggesting anything nefarious of the site... I do want to raise a concern about the legitimacy of some of its contents, either intentionally or unintentionally on the part of its owner. JDPManjoume ☎  13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus these days is that this is a fabrication, although I ironically don't have a source for that, itself… Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Invalid tag? Splitting? Or something?
Isn't it a bit weird that the page as a whole still bears the Invalid tag even though there is a sizable portion of the page that is taken up by what's known about him in valid stories? I can understand (indeed, I support) making the page primarily about the character in his own canon of stories, but then we shouldn't put “Within the Doctor's universe” in the first half of the biography section, which gives the impression that the page is first and foremost about him as he exists inside the DWU. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  12:30, June 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is! This is "currently" being discussed in the forums as you know but for anyone else wishing to participate in the discussion the link is here. --Borisashton ☎  14:21, June 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, is it? Sorry — while knowing of that thread, I'd forgotten how it started, and I misremembered it as being more broadly about the matter of how to cover the Dalek Movies. Thanks! --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:25, June 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! Note my use of inverted commas as the issue hasn't been commented on for months. --Borisashton ☎  14:28, June 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * The thread link doesn't work for me. It (and similar ones elsewhere on the site) just redirect to the default "/f" page. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  20:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a result of the Forums having been deactivated by the FANDOM-wide update. There are people working on bringing the archive back online in a new format, allowing us to finish existing threads and start new ones — though things have been frozen at this stage for rather a while now. This is the very lack of Forums that you may by now have seen frustration about on various talk pages. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, I look forward to the forums being reopened, however long it takes, as they seem to be the only way to overturn decisions that I disagree with (such as this being invalid). Cookieboy 2005 ☎  12:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)