Talk:Marco Polo (Doctor Who)

Display error

When I view this page, I see the bottom of the text box on the right hand side of the screen overlying the table of episodes. I don't know how to fix this other than to insert a few blank lines, and this might not work properly on all systems. Can someone who knows more about it fix this? Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Telesnaps are frames of footage!

"Telesnps are not frames of footage but soft focus photos of John Cura's tv" - by this logic the telerecordings are not true footage either as they're just series of photos of a tiny, flat TV screen. Davhorn (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you will. In the telesnaps case the photographs are of a television playing a video feed, so "field " would be the objective term. A frame of footage would be a frame of film. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the telesnaps were taken with the exposure lasting 1/25th of a second, so they do contain a complete video frame, just like the telerecordings that weren't made with field suppression. Davhorn (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Footprints

I really think this article should mention what the footprints from the end of "The Edge of Destruction" are, especially as there are apparently no sci-fi elements in this serial. After all, it's the one thing most people reading this article will want to know. U-Mos (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

most photographed episode

during an offical director/fan recreation* of splicing the sound track with all the photos taken there was a brief commentary at the start saying that ontop of being the most colorful and having the greatest wardrobe to work with this DR who was offically the most photographed episode ever made. this is what allowed the crew to sucessfully recreate this episode even with non of the original visual tape surviving. because of this achivment i think we should toss this on the page. may need someone to view the episode to confirm who it is that said this as I can not tell actors and famous people apart from another person on the street. but if it was part of the original crew then that makes it a credited fact.

• official in the sense that BBC recognise it as the only legit version of the episode in existance and the most completed version avaliable152.91.9.153 (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1964 pounds

How much would make £210 now ? I would say £4,000 ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Approximately £3,713 as of 2013. But see ref 4 here. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Recovery

Might be an idea if someone gets an update to this page ready to roll. Rumours that Marco Polo's long rumoured recovery is to be unveiled soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.201.188 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are any admins out there I'd keep an eye on this page for people making edits for recovery before there are any official announcements of the recovery of this story. There are a few rumours out there from a couple of sources (which seem to be becoming more solid) that it has finally been recovered. IF it has we will have to wait for any official announcement before any changes can be made. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 23:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does not spread rumours but describes only what can be verified. This rumour has been a problem on this article for a few weeks now, so I've given it a month's semi-prot. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And now this has made it to The Telegraph Hektor (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Historicals

Not sure why Philip Cross is removing discussion of the historical as a subgenre within Doctor Who. Seems to just be because it was mainly Big Finish material, which doesn't seem like a problem. I mean, it's still Doctor Who, no? I'll grant the list may be a bit much, though. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Big Finish audio recordings were made decades after Marco Polo was transmitted. They have negligible connection to policies followed by the producers and script editors of the original TV series, except for the casting of the original characters, and it must be doubted how canonical they can be considered. For example, there is no sign the new companions introduced here will ever surface in the series itself.

The passage creates confusion because most readers of this article, excepting hardcore fans, will have little knowledge of this particular spin-off. Philip Cross (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth covering here because we don't have an article called Historical (Doctor Who), although such an article would probably be sourceable and notable. And given that, the first story to set up the subgenre seems a good place to talk about it in brief - it does trace the legacy of this story in a meaningful sense. That said, I do think listing Big Finish historicals was probably a bridge too far. But I think ignoring them as "not canon" goes rather beyond the remit of Wikipedia. They're part of Doctor Who, broadly considered. Canonicity seems irrelevant. (Though to be fair, Night of the Doctor did name the Big Finish companions for Eight...) Winter's Tulpa (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

According To The Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-missing-episodes-seven-2839102

The episodes have now been found. Recorded onto 16mm film by a fan. No Audio for the episodes was recorded however the BBC holds onto the audio still.

Nickbphoto (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that until there's an official announcement, rumors in tabloid aren't sufficient to claim that the story is recovered. Although a case could be made for a section called "Recovery rumors" or something that dispassionately states that reports of a recovery were made, but that the BBC has not confirmed anything. At this point I could be persuaded that the rumors have gotten enough circulation that they're worth covering as events in themselves even though it's in no way verifiable that the episodes have in fact been found. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please see also Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#Marco Polo series recovered. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't count the article as truth. In fact, I think that someone most likely said that because they were a fan of the serial. Vincinel (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vincinel: What do you mean? – Rhain ☔ 08:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I Meant That Someone Faked It. Of Course, It Might Be True, But Until We Get An Official Announcement, I'm Not Believing Anything. Vincinel (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

silly Zenia Merton blooper

Please look at her exact date of birth. She wasn't "19", she was 17 when she auditioned and 18 when it was filmed.Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. The error has been removed. DonQuixote (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Very Short Plot

The Plot Section Of This Article Is Very Short. Of Course, This May Be Because The Serial Is Completely Missing, But They Should Include A Few Short Details Here And There To Increase The Size Of The Section. Vincinel (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are you capitalising every word? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Serial Numbering

Why is labeled as the 4th serial when it's the 5th one (Child, Daleks, Edge, Marinus)? If this is being done because Edge of Destruction isn't considered a "serial" because it's one episode, this should probably be explained somewhere and is likely going to cause confusion if readers are expected to treat story numbering as distinct from serial numbering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.6.13 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Marco Polo is fourth; The Keys of Marinus is fifth. The Edge of Destruction is two episodes, not one. – Rhain ☔ 13:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, see Doctor Who (season 1)#ep3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)