# Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

So is this based, or at least influenced, by the Douglas Adams book/game? Kuralyov (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know until it airs.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I really doubt that it will be. StuartDD contributions 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it was definitely inspired by Starship Titanic, though the plot and execution were somewhat different. --Veratien (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that it had to have at least been inspired by the book/game.  There was also some obvious inspiration from The Posiedon Adventure too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.140.119 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 

If there was inspiration taken from Starship Titanic, you'd figure they'd have inserted at least one Douglas Adams in-joke.  Did anyone spot one?  I didn't.  --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Among the numbers the Doctor uses to try to trigger the Hosts' override protocol is "42." Pat Payne (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The override code for the angels was 'One', which was also the super secret access code for the Starship Titanic website a while back. Not to mention the ship crashing into the TARDIS, which is essentially The Doctor's 'house'. --71.226.104.94 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information on a Canadian broadcast? The past two years have seen the Christmas special aired by the CBC on Boxing Day, but there's nothing on the CBC Website's schedule for the day. Is CBC even going to be airing it, or are us Canucks out of luck?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.26.95 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 

the episode has ended over here in europe, can we add the plot now?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you can add the plot.  Also, does anyone know when the semi pretection ends? StuartDD contributions 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
till tommorow? we could still gain massive vandalism if we end it now.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not merged; perfect 50-50 split in opinions, defaults to status quo. Will (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"This episode marks the first time in Doctor Who history that blood has been shown as a result of injury, after Frame was shot." - This isn't true. From what I recall there's blood on the Fifth Doctor before his regeneration into Sixth. Please check that and remove this if its true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.54 (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 

It's just dirt, I think, but there's a considerable amount of blood in State of Decay at least. I've changed the note.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There's definitely blood in Torchwood (for example Jack being shot), and in past Doctor Who serials, not sure about the new series but I think in Empty CHild/Doctor Dances they have blood on one of the patients. Is it really a noteworthy piece of information though? It seems a bit pointless to me NIKKKIN (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's certainly notable if it's true. It's pretty incredible to think that the show, frequently criticized in the past for its violent and horrifying situations, has gone almost 45 years (minus the dry years) without showing a drop of blood until now. -Father Inire (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't 45 years, it's 3 years. They have shown blood in the old series NIKKKIN (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I misread. Also, the claim is not even true for the new series - blood was shown in "The Christmas Invasion". I've removed the whole item. -Father Inire (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely forgot about the Christmas Invasion, there was a large vat of blood featured. I was sitting here thinking if any episode had bllod in it, and that is probably the clearest example. At least we have resolved the issue NIKKKIN (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Pyramids of Mars. Dr Warlock gets shot and bleeds. Phillipmorantking (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone noticed the Doctor referring to himself as "Passenger 57" near 05:00? Should that go to Outside references? --Toredid (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. I'd say it should certainly be added, it seemed to be quite an obvious reference the first time I heard it. DigitalAvatar (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end the Doctor tells Copper that a million pounds is equivalent to 50 million credits (actually 50,000,057). But earlier Foon tells her husband that she ran up 5000 credits on the phone bill, to which he says they will never be able to pay it off. But this figure is only a hundred quid (actually just under). Why can't they pay this off? They both have jobs. TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They are very poor. Simple as that. LizzieHarrison 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
So poor it'll take them 10 years to pay off 100 quid? I find it hard to believe they earn only 10 pounds a year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the Doctor was able to convert pounds to credits, we must assume it was possible to do so. Otherwise the conversion would be pointless. Therefore this is a mistake. TharkunColl (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they are too poor to afford that much excess on top of what they need to survive each year  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIKKKIN (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

but she also adds, after her confession, that after spending this amount of money on the phone calls- she may as well have paid for the cruise. So does this mean that to fly on the Titanic cruise across space to visit Earth on Christmas day with unlimited shopping money is only just under £100? where can I book?. preceding comment was added by 88.97.17.31 (talk · contribs) at 00:24, December 27, 2007 (BST), but was signed with a wrong name
Yes it doesn't add up. The conversion factor is out by a factor of about 100 I would say, just at a guess. TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was simply a mistake made by the doctor, he isn't perfect, and perhaps he exaggerated slightly to cheer up Mr Cooper, we don't know NIKKKIN (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's possible to live quite well for months in some parts of the world on what would amount to a week's wages in Britain.  There is no reason why hypothetical monetary systems should be the same as earth's, moreover the cost of basic living expenses, accommodation and so on, which could be very high, could be met by their employer, leaving them with a very low take-home wage with large fringe benefits.  Thus there is nothing inconsistent about 5,000 credits being beyond the ability of poorly paid wage slaves to pay off.  However the deeper point to be made about this observation is that it doesn't matter, because it's of only tangential relevance to the story.  --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the third Christmas special of the revived Doctor Who series by Russell T. Davies, and the first episode to be made available for free on the internet by the BBC iPlayer service.
Where is a source for that? The BBC iPlayer has most BBC shows available after they've been broadcast, such as Doctor Who season 2 and 3 which I just watched the other week. To say this is the first one is incorrect. carocat (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly the first non-repeat to be made available on iPlayer. --Veratien (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of noting that Kylie Minogue performed alongside Tom Baker in a non-Who related production? Seems like 'one step removed' to me, and I think it should be deleted. Martpol (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I've removed it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When the Doctor says, "I am the Doctor, from the planet Gallifrey, in the constellation of Kasterborous, and I'm going to save your lives and six billion people on earth", or whatever his exact words were, this is surely a nod to Highlander?
But, even more obviously, the whole plot was a clear nod to The Poseidon Adventure. Even down to some of the characters, like Foon, the apparently comical fat woman who later sacrifices herself to save others. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Synopsis section keep being removed? All other story articles have one - why not "Voyage of the Damned"? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Aren't "Plot" and "Synopsis" the same thing?  A brief overview should be in the lead, as a summary of the larger plot section in the body of the article, so another brief overview is redundant.    Paul  730 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"Mr. Copper...is left by the Doctor to live on Earth since the ensuing investigation is bound to reveal his fraudulent position."  What fraudulent position? What's the antecedent for that reference?Jeff (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

the story arc was mentioned somewhere in this episode reportedly
did anyone spot it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.10.232 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 

I didn't.  It's a bit pointless to speculate about what the arc is. StuartDD contributions 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
We won't know what it is until it's been in at least two episodes. anemone|projectors 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
We should probably not put any new arcs on pages until its confirmed what the arc is, though I believe it will be the Doctor being shown with a god-like status. Anyway, that theory is pure speculation so it should probably be left....for now. Xdt (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the prose is terrible. 
For example:

"only confessing his status as such to waitress Astrid Peth, who has a desire to travel the stars." as such?
"Although the special takes place aboard an otherworldly namesake of the famed ocean liner, the RMS Titanic and its sinking was mentioned previously within the series in Robot,[3] The Robots of Death,[4] The Invasion of Time,[5] "Rose"[6] and "The End of the World"[7]. " Although? Why although? I'm not sure this is even relevant.
"Kylie Minogue was initially reported by The News of the World in April 2007, indicating that she would be playing a "sexy Cyberwoman".[17]" I'm sure this doesn't need an explanation.
"Filming took part summer of 2007, starting on the scene where the group are accosted by the Host on a bridge, referred internally to as the "strut", to differentiate it from the ship's command center.[16]" Filming occured in summer 2007, starting _with_
"while Baker, a fan of the series, included aspects in Kylie's tours" Aspects ... of Doctor Who? 'Aspects' sounds funny anyway.
You use semicolons way too often throughout when you should use colons.
"Tim Teeman of The Times however, found that the episode "sucks", " - Sounds stupid, either rephrase it to something like "tim teeman of the times said that the episode 'sucks'" or take it out.
"The chorus of the song "The Stowaway", which has a particular Celtic feeling." 'particular'?
"The Mirror found the episode had" - I don't know what's with the overuse of 'found', but it sounds stupid. They haven't _discovered_ anything about the show.
"The episode also received coverage in Minogue's native Australia, with The Daily Telegraph called the episode the "best ever" Doctor Who episode.[37]"
composer Murray Gold and arranger Ben Foster make a cameo appearances,"
Either reference everything in the lead, or nothing.
There are a few MoS things that need to be fixed, specifically placing references outside of the periods. For example: "BBC soap EastEnders.[27]."

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The fail review was endorsed, and it was recommended that the article be copyedited. Please see the archived discussion for further information.
Further to this, if there were only a few sentences needing to be fixed, I would have done it myself, but there are actually many. One example of bad writing is "She saves the Doctor by ramming Capricorn with a forklift truck, both falling over a precipice to their deaths." So, what, or who fell over the precipice? The semantics make it clear, but the syntax doesn't.
I would be happy to help, and will keep this article on my watchlist for a while, but I'm only a moderately okay copyeditor myself, and you probably need to work with someone better to make this article really shine. I do apologize if this GAR has been a bad experience (particularly in view of my harsh comments!). I am sure it is not fun to be told your prose is weak, and editors of Doctor Who articles have created a lot of great content, that I am sure visitors to Wikipedia really appreciate. But you really need to team up with some editors with excellent writing skills to lift this article to GA and FA level. Try WP:LoCE, try WP:PR, try whatever you can. And really, good luck! Your contributions to Wikipedia are important and valued. Geometry guy 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the article have to comply with manual of style (MoS) before it is sent to WP:LoCE? If so than our only option is is WP:PR until the article complies with WP:MOS, anyway we're doing well with the typos at the moment 3 more have been corrected since the last edit.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the image caption really need to include Christain Voice's response to the imagery? That's covered in the article. The caption seems a little long. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The better the description, the less chance of getting deleted by copyright paranoia. Will (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both - it's too wordy, but the Christian Voice part is a good rationale for having the pic. I think the part about "after Astrid" is unnecessary, though - I'm going to remove it. --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's the other way round - the latter mentions the picture's place in the plot, while the latter merely notes that a bunch of loonies whinged about it.  MartinMcCann (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It expresses the notability of the scene, though. It's good to have that. Will (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That's my point - it's notable due to it's role in the plot.  A bunch of nobodies whinging is barely a greater claim to notability than if I said I particularly liked that bit of the episode. MartinMcCann (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability in terms of Wikipedia. And I wouldn't call Christian Voice a "bunch of whinging nobodies" either - they did manage to get the Jerry Springer opera pulled. Will (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following line from the Music section: "The song is loosely based on the episode, from the captain's point of view regarding the Doctor." This appeared to be a speculative, unsourced statement. I have not seen the episode so it's possible that the captain is a gay character with a romantic interest in the Doctor (wouldn't be the first captain we've seen with such intentions) but all the response I'm seeing regarding the song suggests it's from a female point of view, with additional speculation being that it's from Astrid's point of view or even Rose Tyler's. As I say, the episode might prove me wrong, but if it doesn't, then this statement needs to be sourced otherwise it's speculative even if here's a roaring love scene between the captain and the Doctor (which somehow I doubt). 23skidoo (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Murray indeed said it was from the Captain's POV in Confidential - and come on, Russell T Davies wrote the episode. Will (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I think the line should come out, we must have misunderstood it. The Captain never saw or met the Doctor; surely it means that in the song, a (female, hence the voice) captain falls for the Doctor... —TreasuryTag talk contribs 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, i'm going to remove it as doesn't make sense.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks ;)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

 Will (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the captain never meets The Doctor, he dies after meteors crash into the titanic, which captain do you mean? It can't be him because he is dead! Why has this been re added to the article?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Because Gold outright says "it's written from the captain's point of view". The plot can change between the time Gold wrote the song and when they started filming - Astrid wasn't supposed to die in the first draft. Will (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

These citations might be useful to use for the production section of the article:
[1]() and [2](). Eagle Owl (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I read in the article (and the source attributed to it) that the episode may not be seen until 2009. I find this hard to believe. While negotiations may still be continuing with the BBC, I know we are not a season behind as is stated in the source. Not only has season 3 been broadcast on ABC in Australia, it has also now been released on DVD. I understand that the statement is sourced, however the article source isn't correct about where we are up to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.6.243 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 
The episode was broadcast by the ABC in Australia on the 29th of June, with series four being aired from next Sunday onwards. The DVD for the episode has been available before this, and the episode had already been shown in ABC shops as a promotion for the DVD before the 29th as well. --Choc chik (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Voyage of the Damned" is an episode of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who. First broadcast on 25 December 2007, it is 72 minutes long and the third Christmas special since the show’s revival in 2005. 
The plot is loosely based on  The Poseidon Adventure  and the narrative continues from the final scene of Last of the Time Lords,  when  a luxury space cruiser called the Titanic breaches the walls of the TARDIS.  The Titanic’s Captain, Hardaker (Geoffrey Palmer) sabotages his ship and The Doctor works with waitress Astrid Peth to prevent an imminent collision with Earth.
The role of Astrid Peth is played by Australian singer and actress Kylie Minogue and this is her only appearance in the series. Executive producer and writer Russell T. Davies described her casting as a "very exceptional case" because he had written the part of Astrid specifically for her.
On its original airdate, "Voyage of the Damned" was watched by 13.31 million viewers, the highest viewing figures for Doctor Who since the 1979 serial City of Death. It was the second most-watched programme of 2007, beaten only by the episode of EastEnders which aired immediately after the episode. Critics' opinions over the episode were divided; the writing and Minogue's performance were both praised and criticised.
GrahamColmTalk 11:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another Astrid pic in the actresses article and anoter in the character's article.  I don't know if these should be added or not as this article was worked a lot to be a featured candidate and maybe they were here but removed, but should they be added?  William Ortiz (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of those images have their own purposes; Astrid Peth shows the character; Kylie Minogue shows her together with David Tennant. And this article simply shows Kylie. We shouldn't interchange them.  — Edokter • Talk •  10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

"sabotages the ship shortly after the Titanic's collision with the TARDIS." --> "...shortly after its collision..." might read better.
"beaten only by the episode of EastEnders which aired immediately after the episode" - repetition of "episode"... and does the EastEnders ep. have a name?
Same in Broadcast section.
Showgirl (as in, the Kylie tour) shouldn't have italics.
The stuff in quotation marks in the Writing section needs direct citation.
They are group-referenced at the end.
Ref 25; reliable source?
"The organisation Christian Voice expressed offence at the religious imagery of a scene in which the Doctor is lifted through the ship by robot angels;" - I had to check the ref to find why it pissed them off (messiah portrayal), so you probably should say so somewhere.
Rest looks good. Leave me a note when done. Cheers, giggy (:O) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to ref 25; Yes, Outpost Gallifrey has a reliable reputation as a news aggregator in this field; they have press-access to various sources like BARB and the BBC.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In order of points:

Done.
It has no name.
I'm not sure that citing every quote after the quotation mark in that section would be helpful - it could make it rather unreadable.
Ref 25 is a reliable source.
Done.
Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Passed. giggy (:O) 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that this man has to be credited for providing much of the basic ideas of this episode (even if the show itself did not credit him). It seems like blatant plagerism in some ways. For those who arent familiar with douglas adams Starship titanic please check out the wiki page
--Reballare (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Douglas Adams used to write for Doctor Who, so if anything it's a nod as opposed to a plagarism 68.2.35.62 (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It really is borderline plagiarism, though a Wikipedia article is not the place to complain about it.  However I have added a reference because really the whole idea comes from that game. Mezigue (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Capricorn says the crash will wipe out the arth, but in turn left, only london is destroyed. 82.25.130.155 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy to state that Capricorn is horrible in arithmetic. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Astrid" is an anagram of "Tardis" - surely no accident?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.245.155 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC) 

Hmm. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The fourth doctor said this in The horns of Nimon, ep 2 17"20'And the fifth Doctor said that too in "Four to Doomsday" episode 2.
So he actually said this before.193.48.172.106 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And "Aliens in London". It's a throwaway gag which serves no relevance to the plot, though, so shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Sceptre (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

He diverged from the trope in its climax; the format of Doctor Who dictated the requirement of an antagonist: Max Capricorn, whose plan was to sabotage the ship as part of an insurance scam.[2]
I don't have access to the source (well, I can hit the website, but not the video within), but is this really correct?  And even if it's what the source says, I don't think we're obligated to mention it if it was a mistake.  I just watched the episode yesterday, and it didn't sound like there was any insurance scam at all going on.  It just seems like what the rest of the article says - that Max Capricorn was intentionally screwing with his Board of Directors for his motive, trying to make them lose money.  Can someone who can watch the source clarify?  (Maybe this was a scrapped idea or something.) SnowFire (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The character Astrid Peth is a character who appears in only this episode (Voyage of the Damned) of the show, and the character's reception and development sections are tied heavily to the overall development and reception of the episode. Much of the casting information on Peth is already discussed in Voyage of the Damned, and what bits aren't discussed are easy to carry over without bloating the article. In terms of reception, much of it can easily be slotted into Voyage of the Damned (Which only has two paragraphs of reception). Much of Astrid's reception is bloated by an over-sized quote, and much of Astrid's reception ties directly into Voyage (Particularly the bits regarding how her appearance boosted the episode's coverage). There's a very clear distinct overlap in coverage; those who want to know about Astrid will need to go to Voyage's article, but those at Voyage's article need to go to Astrid to get information about her. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, these two subjects complement each other and have a greater benefit when discussed together, and thus are better off merged. There shouldn't be any size issues either when merged, which should help matters as well.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)