Talk:Dr. Who (Dalek films)

Canonicity

This Doctor is not generally not considered to be canon, although attempts have been made in spin-off media to fit the films in with Doctor Who continuity.

Which spin-off is this? Sounds intriguing, or at least, amusing. -Logotu 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Virgin New Adventure Head Games by Steve Lyons. It's explained that the new Master of the Land of Fiction has been preparing for the Doctor by training against fictional counterparts of his. Oh, and it's quite good- Although it's probably best to skip it if you're a fan Melanie Bush...--Sean Black | Talk 19:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

'Attempts have been made in spin-off media to fit the films in with Doctor Who continuity.'

Why not list these attempts? I remember the Cushing Doctor being portrayed in a Short Trips: A Day in the Life short-storey. DrWho42 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity is meaningless in a fictional setting129.139.1.68 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

...or not. See Canon (fiction) and WikiProject Doctor Who - Canon, amongst others.80.41.138.131 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...or not not. There's no such thing as cannon for fiction. If I choose to accept a book as part of the story, who is anyone else to tell me I'm wrong? You can't prove it never happened because none of it actually happened, it's fiction. Cannonicity is on an individual basis. I'll accept what I want as "true" and you can accept what you want.129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

...or not. So your argument, then, is that the Wikipedia article dealing specifically with the subject of canonicity in fiction and the reference to the subject at WikiProject Doctor Who are both about something which is meaningless and doesn't exist. I have to say that, in my experience, that's not a generally accepted POV. Have you read either of these items? The article lead is particularly informative and succinct in describing the use of the terms 'canon' and 'canonicity' in relation to fiction. It is within this context that the terms are deployed when people raise the subject on forums and talk pages such as this. Engage with any popular fictional constructs, from Star Trek to Sherlock Holmes, and you will find canonicity being debated, sometimes with passionate (if not ill-natured) fervour. Basically such discussions are attempts to place the matters in question into a common referential framework, although admittedly to the dispassionate observer this may, indeed, seem a pointless exercise. This is demonstrably not so for those with a keen interest in the subject, however. We appear to be in danger of casting our nets too wide and drifting off-topic. Perhaps this is discussion better hosted on the 'Canon (fiction)' talk page? 80.41.144.138 (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

...or NOt not NOT nto nOT otn not knot gnat, After reading those items, you're saying that there is a context, but it's arbitrary.129.139.1.68 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with IP 129.139.1.68. since 80.41.144.138 isn't really making much sense.68.196.93.32 (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The point under consideration, 129.139.1.68, is your statement that "Canonicity is meaningless in a fictional setting". What I'm saying is that the term does have meaning within a fictional setting (or context if you prefer), and it's the meaning(s) ascribed to it in the Wikipedia Canon (fiction) article. The term can have different meanings dependant upon the body of fictional work to which it is being applied, either as the result of pronouncements by the creator(s), a general consensus arrived at by a fan-base, or both. Whether such determinations are arbitrary is not the issue and, even were this the case, it demonstrably fails to prevent the canonicity of fictional works being considered and debated in many fora. 68.196.93.32, I'm perplexed by your contribution. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you could specify in what manner I'm failing to make sense? In any event, I'm hoping that support for either of the positions being put forward in this discussion might be predicated on rather more than simply failing to grasp the opposing point of view. Donlock (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stolen Earth reference

In the new series episode The Stolen Earth the 10th Dr muses about someone wanting to steal the Earth before. Could this be construed as having been a reference to the old episodes where teh Daleks set up a mining camp on Earth in order to extract the core? 173.71.52.42 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but then you could construe it as practically anything you want to. 85.210.183.238 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dalek Film Doctor?

You know, I've never really read or heard him being referred to as the "Dalek Film Doctor" all that much. Most people just call him the Cushing Doctor. Maybe this should be moved. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, "Cushing Doctor" is more common. Plus, "Dalek Film Doctor" is against the MoS recommendation on capitalization (which would prefer "Dalek film Doctor"). Unless anyone objects, I'll move this some time in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Really, this article should be titled "Doctor Who (films)" or something like that.Rhindle The Red 13:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Blog?

Can this blog really be considered a reliable source? I find it highly unlikely that Cushing would have speculated that his Dr Who character was a far-future version of the TV Doctor, with his memory erased by the Celestial Toymaker. This seems rather more like fan speculation.

The other quotes from Cushing on that site are similarly suspicious. For example, Cushing apparently claiming to have been asked to return to Doctor Who "twice" - once to take over from William Hartnell, and once to appear with Tom Baker. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that Cushing was ever so approached, but more strikingly Cushing completely fails to mention the late-60s Doctor Who radio pilot he recorded (which wasn't known about at the time the blog was published, but would obviously been known to Cushing when the interview was conducted). Marwood (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. First, attempting to use blogs as a reliable source is usually deprecated on Wikipedia by default, so I'm surprised this has survived as a citation as long as it has. Second, I find these 'quotes' unconvincing for all of the reasons Marwood has set out. They don't ring true on reading and appear even more unlikely upon analysis. Unless a reputable source for these quotes can be found, detailing when and where these interviews took place, then I think the citation and what hangs upon it should be struck. Donlock (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)