Talk:Doctor Who (film)/Archive 1

message: Paul A removed the description of this production as a pilot episode.  I was very much under the impression that it was hoped that this would be the start of a series, starring Paul McGann, but that it wasn't popular enough to continue. Doesn't that make it a failed pilot, or am I misinformed? At the very least, we should state that fans hoped it would become a series - and perhaps also that it was/is sometimes described as being the pilot for one? - IMSoP 03:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it was hoped that this would be the start of a series, but it was just hope, not backed up by anything on paper. The network wasn't interested in a series, and as far as they were concerned the telemovie was a one-off deal. The hope was that the telemovie would be a big success and the network would decide that they were interested in a series after all, but at the time the network was only prepared to commit to one telemovie, and that was the basis on which it was made. --Paul A 05:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The film was officially described as being a "backdoor pilot", meaning it wasn't produced as a pilot specifically but would have been treated like one had it been successful. An example of a backdoor pilot is the V mini-series of 1984 which was popular enough to spawn a sequel miniseries and then a weekly series of its own. The first Six Million Dollar Man TV movie was also a backdoor pilot as there was no plan to do a weekly series when it was made. According to online reports after the movie failed to spark a series, Fox had the choice between giving Dr. Who a go-ahead or bankrolling Space: Above and Beyond and chose the American creation. 23skidoo 18:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilot

message: :Jacobs claims that all of these elements were added at the insistence of network executives of the Fox Network.
Who is Jacobs?  He/she is only mentioned once in the article and it is never explained who he/she is. AlistairMcMillan 20:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew Jacobs, the author. Timrollpickering 20:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah.  Found it in the page history.  Added a quick mention to the beginning of the article. AlistairMcMillan 20:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacobs

message: I removed the side box because the cast and crew list link at the bottom of all the episode synopses serves the same purpose. In the various synopses I have done, I have not made use of the side box at all, and my current take is that for consistency (not to mention that aesthetically the box is unpleasing), the format should remain as it is. I thought that this was agreed on some time ago (I think there was a discussion on Talk:List of Doctor Who serials), but if things have changed or should change, let's talk about it. --khaosworks 22:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Side box

message: Just added the little note about the doctors book.
How come an X-Ray showed hearts?
:I don't understand the question. Your heart will show up on any X-ray taken of your chest. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes. 

message: I'm not fond of the current article image. You can't see faces and it doesn't mean a lot by itself. Surely there must be a better piece of art available, preferably one of the publicity shots of Paul McGann and Daphne Ashbrook? 23skidoo 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article image 

message: There was another instance of the "z" (i.e., American) spelling of "materialise," which I changed to the "s" version.  However, since the TV movie was an American co-production, and since so much fan comment has labeled it the "American" version of Who, I'm curious: could the "z" spelling be justified? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  S vs Z? (spelling trivia) 

message: #This story was never called "Enemy Within" on-screen.
#It was never called "Enemy Within" in any official paperwork.
#The DVD release isn't called "Enemy Within".
#There was no novelisation called "Enemy Within".
Basically, the only source for "Enemy Within" is an offhanded remark by the producer. It's not even commonly used in fandom AFAICS, with "the TVM" (for "the TV Movie", or occasionally "the FOX TV movie with the Pertwee logo" in... certain sections).
So why is the page at "Doctor Who (Enemy Within)" again? - SoM 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that was how the consensus above seemed to pan out - it seemed the least ambiguous for our purposes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not terribly keen on opening this can of worms again, but I do think that Doctor Who (1996) or Doctor Who (1996 television movie) would be more accurate than Doctor Who (Enemy Within).  It has to be piped in either case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm staying out of this one this time - I'll go with whatever the others want, as long as I don't have to fix all the redirects. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Doctor Who (1996) seeming the most sensible option. Enemy Within is just plain inaccurate. Angmering 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I'd go for Doctor Who: The Movie (the DVD title), but Doctor Who (1996) or Doctor Who (1996 TV movie) would be better too. Either way, the current title makes no sense IMO. - SoM 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I consider the part in brackets in be dismbiguations from Doctor Who (its on-screen title), a job it does fine as it is. That said, if there is to be a change (which I don't think necessary), I would prefer Doctor Who (1996). --Whouk (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO Doctor Who (1996) would be the best option.--βjweþþ (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is made quite clear during the first paragraph of this article that the film has never been called "Enemy Within", and that only Mr. Segal has ever called it this in a single throwaway comment. Personally, I'm more than happy to see it called "Doctor Who: The Movie", or even "Doctor Who (1996)" (although it is slightly trickier to type... well, for me, anyway); but the moniker of "Doctor Who (Enemy Within)" just makes very little sense, especially to someone less familiar with the show who may be confused by the "Enemy Within" part. - NP Chilla (talk) 17:47, 8 January (GMT)
I suspect Doctor Who (1996) is the title least likely to cause problems in the future. Phil Sandifer 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll move it to Doctor Who (1996), forthwith. Now begins the redirect fixing... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (the move, not the redirect fixing) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it. I started off fixing a couple, and the rampage of the other editors has started. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and bless the AWB. :) - SoM 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I've been active here for months and I never knew about that program!  I don't suppose there's a Macintosh version, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, since it's heavily tied into the Internet Explorer core (a pity, since I use Firefox myself). If you wanted a Mac version, you'd have to basically start from scratch (probably tying into the AppleWebKit/Safari) - SoM 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not the man for that.  I get flustered by simple HTML, and run from anything resembling programming.  (Heck, I originally got a Mac because I was scared of the DOS prompt!) :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have I got this straight? 

message: Can an admin please move it then? (Doctor Who (1996) is a redirect that's been edited before), or do we have to go through a whole WP:RM thing after we've already had a discussion with a clear consensus? - SoM 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move it to Doctor Who (1996), forthwith. Now begins the redirect fixing... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (the move, not the redirect fixing) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it. I started off fixing a couple, and the rampage of the other editors has started. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and bless the AWB. :) - SoM 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I've been active here for months and I never knew about that program!  I don't suppose there's a Macintosh version, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, since it's heavily tied into the Internet Explorer core (a pity, since I use Firefox myself). If you wanted a Mac version, you'd have to basically start from scratch (probably tying into the AppleWebKit/Safari) - SoM 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not the man for that.  I get flustered by simple HTML, and run from anything resembling programming.  (Heck, I originally got a Mac because I was scared of the DOS prompt!) :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: Where did the poster come from? Seeing as this was a made-for-TV film, not a theatrical release, I find it unusual a poster was produced for it, and I've certainly never seen it elsewhere. Are we certain it isn't a fan-made poster? The image page offers no information and the lack of any text other than the title would seem to suggest this was a fan production. The Wikirights police are really cracking down on unsourced images these days (and the image source tags are no longer sufficient on their own, it seems) so it might be speedied if it's not a verifiable Fox or BBC promotional item. There isn't even a logo on it to tell which. 23skidoo 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster is a Fox promotional item, sent to TV stations for their own promotional purposes, usually for newspaper or TV Guide advertisements - I found it in my archives recently from the time I worked at Fox, back when the movie aired. This is NOT a fan-produced item. The lack of identifying marks comes from the fact that this image was designed to be modified by the individual stations. It was not downloaded from anywhere - I scanned it myself from the original this morning. TheRealFennShysa 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand happily corrected. :-) 23skidoo 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd be smart to put that explanation on the image summary page itself, BTW, since if you don't it's 50/50 that someone will slap a  tag on it some time in the nearish future and get it deleted. - SoM 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the poster

message: I support Josiah's reverting of the novelisation comments. I take issue with the POV statement "the novelisation was so popular it's considered canon". There's no way to prove that and I've never encountered any statements to that effect. In fact I've never encountered the novelisation, period, since the BBC failed to obtain an international distributor for the book (I know from experience, trying for about 6 months to get anyone to bring it into Canada in those pre-Amazon days). 23skidoo 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelisation edit

message: The Doctor's most famous alien adversaries, the Daleks, are not seen in the film; but they are heard condemning the Master to death during the film's opening sequence (sporting their trademark warcry of: "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!"). This show trial may be due to the Master being an erstwhile ally of the Daleks who had betrayed them – events seen in the Third Doctor serial Frontier in Space. The Daleks' 'appearance' and role here has proven to be controversial amongst fans for a number of reasons, ranging from the arguably trivial (the DWAS said that their voices were "too squeaky") to the claim that it was uncharacteristic of the Doctor to run an errand for his mortal enemies – though his assertion in the opening narration that "they" should "never have granted" the Master's last wish quite possibly refers to the Time Lords being prepared to accept the Masters remains, rather than the Daleks willingly giving them to the Doctor, suggesting that it is his own people for whom the Doctor is acting as an agent, as on numerous previous occasions in the series.
He isn't running an errand for his enemies, surely? He's fulfilling the Master's last request for the Time Lords. It might be uncharacteristic of the Daleks to let him go... But then if this accusation has been levelled, perhaps it should stay in...? —Whouk (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone might (or might not) do to mention that Russel T. Davies has, in the most recent annual, "retconned" an explanation for this whole scenario, connecting it to the "Time War" plot thread in the new series. The reasoning he gives there is that the Time Lords throw the Master to the Daleks as a sort of a bone, in attempt to appease them for a while and put off out-and-out war. I'm sure someone here can give more specific information than I. Of course, the annual is not necessarily "canon" -- though as it's written by Russel T. Davies, and other such information (likt the Monsters and Villains material) has worked its way into the new series, it seems about as official as you get without actually being detailed in a televised episode. --Aderack 16:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Note 9. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. --Aderack 01:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daleks note 

message: The articial is overall too long.
* plot could be made smaller it currently gives too much detail
* 38 notes is far too many i'd suggest merging some and removing others 
(Gnevin 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot is no longer than in any of the other story articles, which consensus has more or less accepted can be that long. The length of the article really isn't a cleanup issue - Wikipedia is not paper. Cleanup is meant for writing, style, wikilinking, etc. to bring the content up to standard, not to cut it down. --15:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, we've been flexible in articles about note sections before. You're probably right and it could do with a little reorg if possible. Let's take a stab at it over the next few days. I'll look it it when I have a more substantial block of time to spare. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've just popped in my DVD of the TVM, and, in order, the opening credits lists Paul McGann, Eric Roberts, Daphne Ashbrook, Sylvester McCoy, Yee Jee Tso, John Novak, Michael David Simms. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Credits order

message: I've restored the casting info, in its own subsection.  I think it's interesting, and I've provided another source: Regenerations by Philip Segal and Gary Russell.  This was almost certainly the source for Shannon Patrick Sullivan's page — which, incidentally, is rather more reliable than any old fan site, but I suppose that's moot now that I've cited the book.
I'm a little bit concerned that the long list of names is unencyclopedic, even though I think it's fascinating how wide a net the producers originally threw.  I also don't know whether we should note that most of the Doctors from The Curse of Fatal Death were on the list or not.  Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there was a wide net cast is notable: but a laundry list surely isn't? Interesting it may be, but is it actually useful or should we have a short note that points to Sullivan's page instead? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's of some interest, but it's just too many. Pare it down to those who actually auditioned, or were asked to audition. "Considered" is just too wide. --KJBracey 13:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting 

message: Shouldn't a production segment be started focusing on the "pilot"'s development? DrWho42 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See History of Doctor Who. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: Hey, this is looking pretty nice now! All things considered. --71.139.9.136 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: :Image:Doctorwho1996dvd.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Doctorwho1996dvd.jpeg

message: In the Cast section, why has the Seventh Doctor been referred to as the "Old Doctor" when there have been 7 old Doctors to this point?
:Because that's the role as named in the credits. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast: "Old Doctor"? 

message: It's been long held that Fox did not choose to produce a Doctor Who series because it chose to do Space Above and Beyond instead. However I just checked Wikipedia's own article on SAAB and discovered that that series actually began in 1995 and its final episode aired only two weeks after the Doctor Who movie was shown. It's possible the Wikipedia dates are wrong; if they are, please revert my edit. If the dates are correct, is it possible the story has been reported wrong and Fox greenlit another SF series? Anyone remember what they had in the fall of 1997 besides X-Files? 68.146.47.196 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the dates for Space: Above and Beyond are correct.  I think it's simply a case that someone's put in a rumour that doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny, which wouldn't be the first time.  It's certainly unsourced. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Above and Beyond 

message: There is a "fact" fact for the line (Unofficially known as Enemy Within).  If the tag is for the fact that fans call it that, just look through the early history pages on Doctor who serials, as it was used then. (see here) If it is the fact that it is unofficial, then look no further than the movie itself, as that title was never used for the movie.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's for "unofficially known... by fans".  But we'd need something stronger than a Wikipedia edit history: luckily, there's an immensely useful tertiary source provided here.  I shall pop it in. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unoficially known" 

message: :Image:DoctorWho96.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DoctorWho96.jpg

message: When discussing the changes the console room had over the show's run and the suggestion that it is a "desktop theme" as the fifth Doctor suggests, remember that in one forth Doctor episode the Doctor is seen leading Leela around the interior of the TARDIS whereupon they come across the "secondary control room" where the Doctor finds a recorder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.253.217 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Console room 

message: Wasn't a script book released, too? 23skidoo (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In print

message: I think it's worth noting in the lead that  the film is a continuation of the original series. Although it is implied in the article that it is, there's nothing really stating it outright in the lede. I'm using Lofficier's book as a source here because it's the one I have. However the book Regeneration which details the making of the telefilm, likely has reference to this if someone with the book wishes to add a chapter-and-verse citation. 23skidoo (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro changes

message: That's because he wasn't the product of a union of a Human mother with a Timelord. It was through regeneration. It was another process. Besides, it is obvious that if half-human means still having two hears and still regenerating, there's no point of even discussing it. It was obviously another case. --Leladax (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "but the 10th doctor seems to find the experience new" argument doesn't have much merit 

message: Both the edited and unedited versions have also been released in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.
Um... is this right? According to the List of Doctor Who DVD releases, the Movie isn't available down-under just as it isn't in the US. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ and AUS release? 

message: Has there been any published suggestion that the Doctor was half human through use of the Chameleon Arch? Type 40 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: chameleon arch

message: Am I the only one who doesn't understand the film's ending? The went into a "temporal orbit", then they simply went back to a few minutes before midnight. How did that change the imminent destruction of the Earth? 70.20.211.100 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ending

message: Is this a continuity error?  It's unclear where the Doctor possibly could have got any Jelly Babies from...in America...in a newly regenerated body...with stolen clothes...without the TARDIS. 129.120.86.129 20:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. I used to live right next to the hospital which I believe must be portrayed in the story, and there is a British foods shop only four or five blocks away, that sells jelly babies. As for why the fellow in the morgue would have a bag of them in his pocket... well. Serendipity, I suppose. --76.235.67.79 (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jelly Babies 

message: I just watched the movie and wondered a few things: After the regeneration, the Doctor wanders through a devastated section of the hospital, even dodging some water spouting out from a broken pipe in the ceiling. Is there any explanation as to why an otherwise properly functioning hospital should have one floor in ruins? (It shouldn't be a side effect of the regeneration being too powerful or such, because the morgue itself appears fairly unaffected.)
Also, at the end the Doctor advises Chang "not to be around next Christmas". What does he mean by that?
I suspect we have cases of heavy editing at hand which would explain this; does anybody know more details? -- Syzygy (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not heavy editing. What you see is what you're supposed to see. There is no explanation as to why that particular wing is in disrepair (earthquake maybe?). And the line to Chang is an allusion to some future disaster (again, earthquake?). DonQuixote (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably in the script, why there is a destroyed room in the hospital, but it never made it into the dialog. Does anyone understand the bit where a motorcycle cop with no brakes drives down the alley, into the TARDIS and then drives off? 108.52.78.61 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy editing? 

message: Should the recent revelation of the doctor's hybrid status (Heaven Sent) be mentioned in this movie's continuity section?
Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. First this would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH interpretation of what was shown. Remember that different viewers will have different interpretations of what was seen and said. Even if everyone could agree it is too early to say that this is the final word on things. Moffat (and Davies before him), more than once, wrote a story arc that seemed to be going in one direction only to have it change in the next episode or season. Indeed somethings things percolated for a year or more - the preview for "Hell Bent" included characters from "The Day of the Doctor" and I thought I saw someone from "The Last Day". Remember article entries need WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The continuity section is a bit out of control as it is and could do with a bit of weeding. I just removed the "steampunk theme" and Jules Verne bit, as both comparisons require a source (two, actually), particularly as they are being mentioned in the same breath: Verne is a 19th century science fiction author (one of many), whereas 'steampunk' is a modern subgenre which sets sci-fi stories in (usually) 19th century settings, hardly the same thing. Even with some kind of source, you'd need it say that was the effect they were going for, and it would be an outside reference (nothing to do with continuity) or else part of the critical reception if some critic made that connection. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity with "Heaven Sent" 

message: We don't list any of the considerations for the Master in the article and we should. David Bowie was on the list of considerations for the Master, although when they inquired, he was unavailable due to his being involved with his Outside tour until the end of February 1996. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the casting of secondary characters notable and, if so, where do you stop? In any event, inclusion of this type of information would require citing to good, independent sources. What are they? Sprite96 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  casting thoughts for the Master?