# Talk:The Almost People

Preempting a discussion that seems to happen every week with the new Doctor Who episode: Please don't upload any image until the article is fleshed out (no pun intended). If it turns out that there is a specific section that you think the audience will not be able to understand without an image, please propose your addition here. Who knows, we might be able to head off drama that way. NW (Talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, my idea of sticking a hidden message there, which must've been noticed because it was deleted at the same time, obviously failed too. Keep trying, that's what I say! Thanks for your efforts. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think tonight's Doctor Who Confidential can be used to source this. Also, that the Eleventh Doctor said the famous Third Doctor phrase, "I reversed the polarity of the neutron flow", or whatever it is. –anemoneprojectors– 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. David Tennant's voice was also used for "Hello, I'm the Doctor." (confidential cuts to the scene as broadcast to display the voice as with Baker's, and the episode's subtitles define it as "Tenth Doctor's voice".) Also from confidential we know that the script originally had the Doctor naming Jo before the reverse the polarity bit, and that the first bit was a direct reference to the First Doc's words in An Unearthly Child ep1. U-Mos (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Amy was replaced by the ganger in this episode and the previous ones of Season 6, can she still be considered as a companion for these adventures ? Hektor (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Only her body was replaced, she was always there in spirit.  — Edokter (talk) —  12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put Ganger of Amy Pond or Amy Pond - ganger instead of Amy Pond as companion in the cast list ? Hektor (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No. Why? She was Amy in all intent and purpose.  — Edokter (talk) —  12:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
From what we learned in TRF and TAP, gangers are not completely "linked" to the "original" but simply a perfect copy at the time of their creation which sometimes experiences things the original experiences. As such, I think it's valid to add "ganger" to Amy's entry in the infobox to denote that the original Amy is lying in a hospital somewhere. Regards SoWhy 12:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)Unless  the producers or some reliable source says that she's not, then she is (mainly because she's been touted as such  in Series 6). DonQuixote (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be too 'fancruft' IMO. She is revealed to be a Ganger in this episode, but we have no idea for how long she has been a ganger, and consequently, how many past episodes we would have to update, which would in turn be a huge OR trap. The person is Amy; let the plot section deal with the details.  — Edokter (talk) —  12:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we know that. Beth Willis clearly says on Confidential that the Flesh as Amy was with the Doctor "in episodes 1 to 6" while the real Amy was trapped in the birthing chamber. So we have a reliable source for this. Regards SoWhy 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Does she say that Amy is not a companion in Series 6?  No, and that's the point.  DonQuixote (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
My reply was to Edokter's comment. Imho, the question whether Amy is a companion in series 6 is not the same question as whether Amy is a companion in this episode (and the previous ones). Willis does say that the Amy seen on screen was a ganger, not the real one. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Completely missed that one. Anyway, my point was that it's fancrufty (as mentioned by Edockter) to try and define (which is rightly mentioned as OR above) what a companion is or is not. Agree with keeping it in the plot section. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Since none of the other ganger characters are listed as gangers, there's no need to do this for Amy. We go by how they are named in the credits. As for "is Amy really a companion" my opinion is yes, since Ganger Amy apparently didn't know she was a Ganger, and real Amy apparently didn't know she was about to give birth, so it was essentially Amy who has been travelling with The Doctor. Although that does kind of go against what we learned about the gangers in the two episodes.  –anemoneprojectors– 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
To breifly dip my toe in-universe (not in any way suggesting this goes in the article), Amy's ganger is created from Flesh not in its "early stages", so it is perfectly feasible that more advanced Flesh, working as it should and to a different purpose, could replace its human without knowing it. More relevantly, Amy should still be listed as a companion and as Amy for s6 so far. It doesn't matter if she's a ganger or a hologram or an apparition or whatever, she is still Karen Gillan playing Amy Pond. U-Mos (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If its the same Flesh from "New Earth" then that makes total sense. Is it? Someone added it to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens and I asked about it on the talk page there. –anemoneprojectors– 14:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No it's not, not without citation/confirmation in an episode anyway. U-Mos (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm... this is perhaps an odd one, but Confidential stated that the Doctor did not kill anyone when Flesh Amy disintegrated: he merely broke a connection.  This would mean that Flesh Amy was rather different from the other gangers, wouldn't it?JPBarrass (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to pop in here, but a simple thought occurs: why not call the Amy in this, and previous episodes, Avatar Amy? It shows the difference between the Gangers shown throughout eps. 5 and 6, and the linked-flesh-Avatar of Amy used throughout the season (as, they clearly are not the same thing). It is explained, in-universe, in episode 7 that she indeed was present in mind and spirit in the TARDIS, despite physically not being there---hence, it was merely a connection that was severed. 74.40.95.139 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of "ganger of The Doctor", "Ganger Of Amy", just use the word "Flesh Doctor" "Flesh Amy" or "Ganger Doctor" or "Ganger Amy" since the crew members refer to these entities as Gangers. Andy_Howard (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the confusion is here?  Amy is just like all the other non-malfunctioning Gangers as seen at the start of the two-parter - being controlled by her own consciousness while her original body is kept safe elsewhere.  This is explained in Doctor Who Confidential and is clear in the episode as well; it's why she sees the Eyepatch Lady and feels pregnancy pains, they're being experienced by her real body.  The only difference to the other Gangers is that Amy was never aware that her consciousness was acting through a Ganger. 86.176.139.220 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's the mind that counts, not the body.  The ganger still had Amy's thoughts, feelings, and personality and had a telepathic link to her. Chartered Wombat (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Beth Willis statement about Amy being replaced between the seasons might be plain wrong. We don't know if she kept in mind that there were Amy/Rory scenes before they start their travel to America, which could picture real Amy, also there is a huge gap between episode 1 and 2 and we actually have no idea what happens in this time. Episode 1 pictures no Eye Patch Lady, therefore not indicating ganger-Amy, also Amy tells the doctor, she was pregnant, which didn't show, so it was probably in the early stages of pregnancy. If Melody was in fact Rory's child Amy had to be replaces after she was pregnant or Rory's DNA (preferably semen) needed to be stolen, too. And, the episode closes with Amy firing a gun, but episode 2 opens with Amy being alone, followed by Canton and there is a time gap of, iirc 6 Month, as written on screen. So it might be, that Amy was replaced in this time period. I might be clarified at some later point, however. Heinrich krebs (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this bit might be wrong:

The Doctor's ganger quotes the First Doctor's last words, "I shall come back", before regeneration,
I'm pretty sure he said "we shall get back", quoting from Unearthly Child - that's how I heard it, and they played the clip on Confidential. David (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Although Dalek Invasion of Earth came to my mind first, the actual quote was "I wonder if we'll get back... yes, one day", a confusion of "One day we shall get back, yes, one day..." from Unearthly Child as confirmed by confidential. U-Mos (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention that the First Doctor's last words were actually "yes, very good, keep warm" or similar... U-Mos (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Having just heard it for the third time, I still think it sounds more like (a slightly mumbled) "One day..." but the subtitles do say "I wonder" David (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. Changing. U-Mos (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

At 19:35, The Other Doctor (while pretending to be the real one) gives a sonic screwdriver to The Doctor (pretending to be a "ganger") so that it may be used to find Jennifer. The two did not meet again until 35:00, but The Other Doctor is shown using a sonic screwdriver at 29:30. This establishes that there are two sonic screwdrivers but does not explain why The "ganger" Doctor would be holding both of them to begin with. Then at 39:01, The Doctor passes a sonic screwdriver (which presumably is the one he is given at 19:35) to The Other Doctor so that he can use it dissolve the rampaging "ganger" Jennifer. At this point, The Doctor should have been left without a sonic screwdriver if there are only two because both screwdrivers would have been left with The Other Doctor. And yet The Doctor pulls out a third screwdriver from his jacket while in The TARDIS near the end of the show, this time to dissolve "ganger" Amy. So, is this an inconsistency or continuity problem? I suppose the third screwdriver can be explained away as a regeneration following the destruction of the others, but it still makes no sense why the two Doctors need to toss around the one screwdriver between themselves during the show.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neargonad (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 

It's unclear (and confusing), and therefore not something that can go into the article. U-Mos (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be simplified as a short mention of a production error (as suggested in http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Almost_People) where the sonic screwdriver appears in scenes where the two Doctors are apart but using the same tool at the same time.Neargonad (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
People should bear in mind WP:FORUM. Unless anyone has a reliable source on this topic, there's no need for further discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add to the text the following information from the episode:
The real Doctor comments to his ganger that although this is his death "their not all invited", revealing that Amy had accidentally informed the real Doctor of his own death and the details of it.
Itachi2432 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-worded and done. U-Mos (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Amy waking up in her real body, I'm wondering what we should call the place where she wakes up. I referred to it as a "harness", as that is the term used in the show to describe the prop people sit in when linked with their gangers. TreasuryTag changed it to "room", as to be fair it doesn't look much what you or I would call "a harness". "Room" doesn't fit very well either, though - unless the inside of a bath tub or a coffin is a room as well. We could just say "lying on a bed" if we knew for sure she wasn't upright (it's unclear from the footage we have seen). "Casket", perhaps? "Tube"? I thought "harness" was the best word for it, as it's the word used in the show for such a device. Thoughts? --JCrue (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

'Harness' is the word used to refer to a 'harness', so that's clearly not correct here. How about "in a white-walled medical facility"? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good. Maybe without the 'medical', though? She's giving birth there but we don't know the facility's function yet. --JCrue (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please change "they last question in their eyes" to "the last question in their eyes" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the synopsis section.
(Spelling error: "they" vs. "the")
Thank you.
Atwoodtea (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. David (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this is a bit wishy-washy, and I can't find sources, but it's possible I'm not alone and there could be general concensus on this.  Then again maybe not!  Anyway, it seems to me that, shortly after the "Would you like a jelly baby?" question, while the Ganger Doctor holds on to the real Doctor, Matt Smith's acting echoes Peter Davison's perfectly.  It's uncannily similar to the fifth doctor in my opinion.  Any thoughts?JPBarrass (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Does not really matter unless someone outside of wikipedia writing for a publication viewed as a reliable source discusses it. Until then it is WP:OR. See WP:NOTFORUM. Heiro 08:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I had rewritten the plot summary to, not only put it in a form of longer paragraphs, but to re-establish the cliffhanger ending and to list the actors for the roles; this was reverted by JCrue, claiming that we don't need to reestablish setting on two-parters and that the cast list is in the infobox and doesn't need repeating here.  This is contrary to DW episode articles (and probably for other series) that have passed through Featured Articles : Doomsday (Doctor Who), Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), and The Stolen Earth. Each reiterates actors with the first appearance in the prose, and specifically on Doomsday, the 2nd parter, the setting is re-established in the first para.  Now, I'm not saying the rest of my version is necessarily better though I believe hits the more major points of the episode (the whole with with the eyes and "why" seems irrelevant at this stage of the series), but the issues of reestablishing the setting and the cast names should be there. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"This episode sees the identity of the 'Eye Patch Lady' finally revealed." - really?  Who is she then?  I don't think the episode reveals anything at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Her identity was not revealed. All that was revealed was Amy being in labour, and the Eye Patch Lady was there. We don't know why she was there, other than to tell Amy to push. But that doesn't reveal her identity. –anemoneprojectors– 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
And the image is about to be deleted anyway. But otherwise good :P ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just added this page to the BBC wikiproject as it is a BBC programme. However, I was surprised at the Start assessment for the page given by WikiProject Doctor Who and WP Television. This seems very long and detailed with reviews and references to be classed as start. Rafmarham (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reassessed it as C after improving it more. I'm planning to get this up to GA-class soon. Thanks for adding the WikiProject! Glimmer721 talk 17:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Almost People/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture: Add the rationale in the infobox to the picture page
Added more detail. Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Intro: "However, a solar storm had caused the Gangers to become concious,…" Change 'had' to 'has'
The only reason I had "had" was because it happened in the previous episode. Makes sense either way. Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Production: "Matthew Graham was originally to write a single episode for the previous series,…" Funny wording. Maybe, "Matthew Graham was originally scheduled to write a single episode for the previous series," Also, the word 'write' is used three times in two sentences, maybe mix it up a bit
Good catch. I apparently left out a verb before "to". Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Filming: "It was then filmed through November and January." Maybe add that it was January 2011, so as not to confuse people
Done. Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Reception: I would add a cite after the "…more sense on second viewing" line, because I believe direct quotes always need one
Done. Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
References: [2], [6], [7], [16], [17] needs a space between "p." and "80"
Done. Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Those are the only issues. On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I've fixed everything. Thanks for reviewing! Glimmer721 talk 01:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Everything looks good now. Passing! Congrats!--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of Plot:  In this Episode the Doctor is VERY concerned about these Gangers being Living Entities with minds and hearts and souls, obviously worthy of his Protection and yet at the end of the episode he quite callously destroys one that thinks it's Amy.  Shouldn't this contradiction be commented on, or at least mentioned in the Plot Synopsis?
albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally  Known as Al Gordon 20:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source that comments on this, then you're free to quote them. Otherwise it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)