Talk:Evolution of the Daleks

Sec

How do we know Dalek Sec will be in human form? Xdt 11:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A bbc press release... D'you think it's bit innapropriate for there to be a picture of him in Dalek form when it says so early in the episode synopsis that he gets turned into a human? --Sekhmort 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• The picture'll likely be changed when a better one comes up. And besides for all we know, human Sec could be a human/dalek clone while Dalek Sec is still running the show. But not likely since it'll probably by the cliffhanger with the human. At any rate, don't worry about it. --76.199.4.41 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look at the talk section on the Daleks in Manhattan page, there's a link to the radio times image of the thing. We should try and use that here because the Daleks had better have a good reason for doing this when they're all about racial purity. --130.126.84.218 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i put that link there, i would nick it and pu it up bu i'm newand don't totally understandow to work this, and it's in some flash broswer so the bestoption' probably be for someone to takea screenshot...--Sekhmort 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about te rubbish typing by the way but my keyboar nees cleanng...--Sekhmort 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the BBC said about it's a spoiler so maybe not put the RT cover image on incase it is accidently seen. Xdt 09:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

spose you've got a point... --Sekhmort 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Art Deco Daleks?

So are they a complete hoax or what? Obviously if the Daleks are walking around with missing pieces on the back of their shells, then they can't possibly have the resources to build even more Daleks? Not to mention we hear the phrase "the last four Daleks in existence" thrown around alot, is it possible that the Art Deco Daleks were nothing but a hoax?--172.134.61.220 22:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that they're still coming, gven that Thay called the ariel thing on the top of the empire state building a 'contactor', and remember, in the chase, blue-and-white daleks went to the empie state building, and that's the colours that the art deco ones are meant to be... maybe the cult want to contact these things for help, but they turn up and decide that the sec/hybrid is an abomanation and go to war with the clt of skaro? --88.110.106.73 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think someone should just get their hands on the magazine in question and verify the photo in question.--74.134.239.15 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such picture (nor text) of silver and blue daleks in Starburst magazine #349. Where this came from I don't know (a colour blind Starburst reader?). The only evidence of 'Art Deco daleks' appearing are a comment made by David Tennant in an issue of TV Times and the release later this year of Art Deco daleks by Character Options. Any comment made by a member of the Doctor Who production team that Art Deco daleks are just a fan based rumour and wont appear (comments that I have not seen myself and I cannot validate) might just by a ploy to throw us off track (they have done this before). Therefore (as is often is such a case as this) the original evidence is our strongest lead. And if Art Deco daleks don't show up, well I suspect they were originally planned but were axed due to budget constraints. Also the Daleks in The Chase visit the Empire State Building in 1966, not 1930.

I'm not an expert on design movements but I believe the daleks from The Dalek Invasion Of Earth could be described as Art Deco (with those big round bumpers! Again, silver and blue, a colour that the New Series daleks were going to be before RTD declared they should be gold). If they do show they may all be CGI, or perhaps one of more of the four BBC owned daleks will have been resprayed (dalek Sec's shell is now presumably defunct). Andy B 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well could the Daleks as they're currently designed by considered Art Deco? I'm all for axing the reference if it hasn't been already.--76.199.4.41 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reckon that the mast made from Dalek Thay's case will summon these art deco Daleks, and that the Doctor will have to team up with these Daleks as the "unholy alliance" in order to defeat the Cult of Skaro.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.94.175 (talk • contribs)

Actor Query

'Peter Brooke' is credited as 'Man #2', but this is linked to the conservative politician. I may be just speculating, but are we sure that it is the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.37.29 (talk • contribs)

• No, it's likely just a case of the same name but when you put the web-links around it, it automatically goes to the politican. And sign your comments. --74.134.239.15 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better that a disambiguation page is made, so people do not get confused when they think that a politician ended up playing a character in Doctor. Even if it is a minor character, it is neither fair on the actor nor the politician.--Nosxalc 08:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

photo caption

The current caption for the photo is a bit long "Daleks are bad enough at any time, but right now they're vulnerable - and that makes them more dangerous than ever."

could we shorten it - perhaps "it's started" or "the daleks lauch an attack on hooverville". StuartDD 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It kinda suits it - I took the screenshot from the 30 seconds we had from the trailer. I think the purpose of the caption is to give a feel for the episode in one line without spoiling it (Bad Wolf, deadly reality TV. School Reunion, K-9 and Sarah Jane are back.) - and there is a definitely longer quote on Army of Ghosts, and the caption on Daleks in Manhattan isn't much shorter either. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuity note removed

I have removed this note in the continuity section as it serves no purpose here unless it is related to this episode.--Nosxalc 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Torchwood Institute website states that 1930s New York suffered an infestation similar to the Weevil infestation of Cardiff, and that it was covered up by rumours of sewer crocodiles. This may or may not be linked to these episodes.

Stop reverting this edit without an explaination.--Nosxalc 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. You could at least say "please". I've explained on the talkpage for Daleks in Manhattan.--Rambutan (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you consider my previous comment rude then you must be extremely sensitive. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if my words caused you distress.--Nosxalc 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to have manners and say "please". -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Unholy alliance?

The website said that The Doctor enters a deadly alliance to save humanity, quite possibly with Dalek Sec (Human/Dalek hybrid form). Should this be mentioned? --Das654 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned. Look under "plot". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I doubt it will be with the Dalek sec hybred, more likly that it will be with the remainding Cult of Skaro Daleks to stop Dalek Sec.--Wiggstar69 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably will be an alliance with the "pure" members of the Cult of Skaro. The three daleks were arguing with Sec about his experimentations in Daleks in Manhattan .Michael Mad 12:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were wrong 86.156.47.163 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalek tommy guns

Yep, that looked good. --Tony Sidaway 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although it would've looked better if beams shot out of their left hands, and their right hands acted as plungers... Anyway, considering that this topic has barely anything to do with the article, I may as well make it relevant and mention that the "Art Deco Daleks?" and "Unholy alliance?" sections have now been resolved, and its not what the commenters seemed to think. Not that that made the topic any more relevant to the page... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Last of the Daleks

How many times have we encountered this now? The Daleks have either been extinct or only 'one' left at least twice in just the new series. How many instances of this have happened in the previous series? Perhaps something that could be brought to light in the article. Tim 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's something about multiple extinctions in the Daleks in Manhattan page, but that's probably not what you're asking for. In the classic series, I think only Remembrance of the Daleks had one left at the end, similar to Caan in this one (and also it was the then-leader of a small group of Standard Daleks, the Renegade Daleks), but the Dalek in Remembrance then killed itself (I think, I've never actually seen the classic episode, just read about it in variouis places). Maybe referencing the "last" Daleks isn't too good, although is it a coincidence about the similarities to Davros episodes - Genesis, revolt and extermination against their leader, Remembrance, for reasons stated above, and plus, a reference to him early in the episode? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're best off looking at the continuity note Daleks in Manhattan. From memory, it happened in The Daleks, The Evil of the Daleks (emperor survived, I think), Remembrance of the Daleks (Davros survived), the Time War (mutually assured destruction), Dalek, The Parting of the Ways (total), Doomsday (Cult survived). Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Emperor died in Evil, although as the episode is lost it's hard to check for sure (though it is explicit in the novelisation). That said, I remember reading in the DWM archive that a late in the day decision was made to use a heartbeat sound to give an indication the Daleks may not be dead after all, similar to the Daelk eyestalk in Power. Timrollpickering 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The doctor has allstar shoes

In the episode, timeline 28:01 the doctor is seen wearing allstar shoes. How amusing is this.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.128.5 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

You're kidding me right? Go back and watch every episode you can see his feet - he wears cons ALL THE DAMN TIME. Either a cream pair with the brown suit or a red pair with the blue suit. Seriously. Missing that is like looking in the mirror, seeing your nose and screaming "THAT WASN'T THERE YESTERDAY". 59.100.23.42 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalek Khan or Dalek Caan?

I can't find the proper spelling anywhere. neither of the above spellings will google me to the BBC. Can anyone help? Totnesmartin 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Subtitles said Caan. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go and change the Khans to Caans. Totnesmartin 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a lame joke regarding the Cult that I remembered when I saw your edit summary: Why do the Cult of Skaro think they're so Sec-sy? Thay Jast Caan! (totally stolen from OG). Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exterminate! Exterminate! :D Totnesmartin 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just so they can bring him back in The Wrath of Caan! MartinMcCann 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea!!

Or perhaps an episode where all the characters speak in the form of rapping? It would be called U Caan Touch This!!! - NP Chilla 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Now this matter has been cleared up, would all user please stop using this talk page for social discussion and joke-telling regarding the use of the word Caan. These are not what these talk pages are to used for. There are plenty other boards for these type of discussions. Thank you.--Nosxalc 14:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

Someone has edited the page and has added a strong POV to hating the episode. Someone should reverse this ASAP. If I have time, I will. Walters1 19:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a coincidence?

Martha tells the Doctor "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going", the title of the signature song from the play, and hit 2006 movie, Dreamgirls.

Is this just a coincidence? If so, it's not really of note, is it? David 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The series, especially with the tenth doctor has been notable for it's references to other films and TV shows, however there are quite a few and only worth noting the ones that are important to the story or the character. If was deliberately put in by the writer, well spotted.--Nosxalc 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a coincidence, it's phrased so perfectly. How often does a person choose to use both contracted and uncontracted versions of the same term (I am, I'm) in one line? It's kind of awkward, really. There's a musical theater element to these episodes, too. But most of all, I detect a glimmer of amusement in Martha's eyes and the corner of her mouth, when she says it.

The doctor is in

The Doctor when curing laszo says "the doctor is in" as he said ib new earth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.139.123 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Cultural References?

Three references to culture? I'm not sure whether they are worth keeping. The first one is unsource so that will have to go unless the contributer can reference. The second one, I fail to see the significance and the third is slightly worthy of staying but still it's doubtable. What are other thoughts? --Nosxalc 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this episode has a cultural reference of going to the toilet, doing a big crap and then looking at it for 45 minutes. Doctor Who is dead. Andy B 13:50, 2 May 2007

Actually, I thought that the THIRD point was the MOST deserving of being disregarded. It's the sort of thing that turns up in those awful "goofs" list, and this one's particularly pedantic. It isn't a reference, as it's highly unlikely that this was intentional, and the writing itself implies that these were errors on the writers' part. (Bonus question - what's the policy on deleting comments on these talk pages? I'm referring specifically to trolling such as Andy B's above.) Steffan Alun 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy for it, so instead of deleting it, I choose to laugh at the author of this very pointless message. In reply to his message I thought it was an absolutly brilliant episode, instead I might describe "Fear Her" as one of the more crappy episodes.

Well I guess some of us have taste and some of us like any old crap. So far this is turning out to be one of, if not the worst series of Doctor Who ever made. I could make a massive list of holes in the story such as the fact that the daleks would rather die than alter themselves (if you disagree then you know nothing of Doctor Who, or Daleks), the Doctor surviving the mast scene, his DNA being passed throught it (probably the worst bit because it shouldn't be feasable to anyone WITH A BRAIN), the stupid dalek tommy guns (nearly as unimaginative as rhino-headed aliens), dalek Caan not killing the dalek-human(-gallifreyans?) as soon as they rebel, dalek Caan not shooting the Doctor at the end (he's a bit crap that dalek Caan isn't he), need I go on? Now please tell me it is still an absolutely brilliant episode, as presumably you failed to notice anything I have just listed. Please also state your name and the date after your message. Andy B 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this is NOT to discuss the episode or the series, it is to discuss the article. If you wish to talk and flame the series, do it in a doctor who forum, NOT wikipedia. mattbuck 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Exterminate their leader?

I'm not certain that the Daleks in this episode "turn against and exterminate their leader, as they did in Genesis of the Daleks" as the article states. While they certainly turn against Sec, he is only inadvertently killed when he steps in the way of an exterminating blast aimed at the Doctor. In Genesis, Davros is quite deliberately blown away (those old school Daleks were a lot less touchy-feely than these Cult of Skaro guys).Dr Faustus AU 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hooverville

This follows an edit dispute between myself and PeeJay2K3.

In the episode, the shanty town is referred to as "Hooverville" not "the Hooverville" or "a Hooverville", merely Hooverville. The way it is referred to in the article should be the way it is referred to in the episode. It is irrelevant if there are other Hoovervilles across america, because this is the only one in the story. Opinions anyone else? mattbuck 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. AvatarMN 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was refered to as Hooverville in the story, and (although I have do definate opinion on this) the sign outside the Hooverville had "HOOVER VILLE" written upon it, although that may just have been to show that it was a Hooverville, not the Hoover Ville. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 11:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Slocombe's Pussy

I have previously removed the assertion that the Doctor's remark "first floor, perfumery" as the lift doors open explicitly references "Are You Being Served" and now it's back again. As far as I can see, it doesn't. Both the Doctor's remark and the AYBS theme tune reference the same thing: the way real department store lift announce the floors. For the time being, I have compromised as follows: "When the Doctor arrives in the lift, he says "First Floor, Perfumery", in the manner of a department store lift attendent. This method of announcing both floor and departments found thereon is also used as the basis of the theme music to the popular BBC sit-com Are You Being Served? (itself set in a large department store)." This seems hardly worth mentioning, and I'd be grateful therefore if a) someone else removed the line altogether and b) it didn't get put back in its more interesting, but unlikely version. Cheers. Tomsalinsky 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you write ANYTHING ANYWHERE about Are You Being Served, you have to use the words "Mrs Slocombe's Pussy". You just have to. It's the law.

Sorry, didn't notice this discussion before I made other changes to the AYBS reference. Personally, I don't see how it can not be a reference to AYBS, as Tennant delivers the line not simply in the "manner of a department store lift attendant", but specifically with the same intonation and inflection of Stephanie Gathercole, who voiced the AYBS theme. Neither Tennant nor Raynor are old enough to have a real life experience of "lift operators" on which to base the line. Still, I don't think I've substantively altered your compromise language, except to point out that the exact words, after accounting for the fact that this is an episode set in America, appear at the top of the AYBS theme song. CzechOut 08:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption

I've rewritten the caption for the picture so as to improve comformance to the Non-free content criteria. The caption is now "Daleks hover over the trees of Central Park in the attack on Hooverville", thus clarifying its relationship to the text of this article. Please check that changes to this maintain the correspondence with the text so as to make the use of the image functional rather than decorative. --Tony Sidaway 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No Picture?

Can someone please tell me why there is no picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.142.47 (talk • contribs)

The image that was being used lacked a proper fair use rationale. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalek weapons...

Did anyone notice that these had changed from their previous visual style in the series? In S1/S2 they were solid beams, in this episode they're bolts which also cause explosions on impact at times... this somthing to do with the Daleks being on low power or an alt firing mode?

Anyone notice that the gunfire in Hooverville actually HIT one of the Daleks (causing sparks) rather than the bullets dissolving as they did on S1/S2... fried power cells again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.41.60 (talk) 22:13, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Some day

Eh? In the last paragraph, is it linked to S4, Ep 13 for any particular reason? Or am I being a fool and not seeing something obvious? 80.176.145.76 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is quite speculative. I've removed the link. — Edokter • Talk • 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

The Doctor was not forced into helping the Daleks... he was convinced... he really thought he was doing good this time. Izhido (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Puttin' on the Ritz

"Puttin' on the Ritz" was not written by Benny Goodman, it was written by Irving Berlin. The Benny Goodman version didn't come out until 1939. It's unclear if the soundtrack is using an existing version or (more likely, 'cause less expensive) put together a couple of verses & chorus in the studio. And, now that I think of it, not in this episode, but in the previous. Jeff (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia FAIL: This episode is clearly paying homage to Frankenstein.

The book and the movie, and no one even gets that.

What a colossal bunch of dumbasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.45.56 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please publish that in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evolution of the Daleks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070911120221/http://www.behindthesofa.org.uk:80/2007/05/daleks_invasion.html to http://www.behindthesofa.org.uk/2007/05/daleks_invasion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution of the Daleks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312164215/http://www.dwscifi.com/articles/show/227 to http://www.dwscifi.com/articles/show/227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)