Talk:The Five Doctors

message: Why does Douglas Adams get a writer's credit here for Shada, but Terry Nation doesn't get one for the excerpt from Flashpoint used at the beginning? Angmering 16:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't added it yet :P Tim! (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True! But I thought I'd ask in case there was a specific reason why it had been decided this was the case. As it's probably just an oversight I shall add it now. :-) Angmering 19:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit for Terry Nation? 

message: Flavia's history (and the history of Gallifrey's Presidency) after this story is complicated and convoluted, and probably doesn't need to be detailed in this article.  Short version: in Happy Endings by Paul Cornell, Flavia was found drunk in charge of the Sash of Rassilon and removed from office; Romana became President.  However, The Eight Doctors ignores this (as it ignores most of the developments of the NAs) and has Flavia in charge again.  And The Apocalypse Element has Romana's presidency interrupted by a 20-year imprisonment by the Daleks, during which her (male) predecessor served as Acting President.  It's a right mess.  I found a page full of elaborate theories about how to reconcile the events in Eight Doctors with the NAs and the audios, but I'm not sure it's really possible or even worth the effort. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time Lords can get drunk, too? With alcohol? And yet they don't sweat? They are 'marvellous, aren't they??!!!!! ;) NP Chilla 21:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you forget the Doctor's reminiscences of boozing it up with Azmael?  (Oh, right — you can forget it because it's in The Twin Dilemma, which most people who've seen would give good money to erase from their memories.)  Right, let's leave that out — how can you forget the Doctor's reminiscences of boozing it up with David Lloyd George?  (That's better.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavia 

message: Just out of curiousity was Thalia the Chancellor as played by Elspet Gray in Arc of Infinity (which I always thought of as the forerunner for The Five Doctors with the Gallifrey setting, the appearances of both stories of Borusa and the same Castellan as well as beginning the 20th anniversary season) intended to be in The Five Doctors. After all it would seem that Flavia had replaced Thalia as Chancellor not to mentioned their names sounds a bit similar. Was Elspet Gray intended to be in The Five Doctors but couldn't appear due to her unavailability?--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavia = Thalia? 

message: This story featured a Dalek, and is therefore a Dalek story. It might not have been an army of Daleks, but what defines a "Dalek story"? If you go by what's driving the plot, it isn't really a Cyberman story either. The Dalek menaced the Doctor and Susan - by denying it as a Dalek story, you deny anyone looking at the infobox any chance of discovering this. Hence, I have reverted the last change. Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might as well include The Space Museum or their appearances in flashbacks in Logopolis, then. It's counterproductive to have discussions in both places: let's talk about whether it actually even belongs in the template at all before. I would like others to provide their thoughts on this at Template talk:Dalek Stories. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Dalek story

message: The New Doctor Who Season 2 story 'School Reunion' seems to place the canonicity of this story in some doubt, as in that story it is very explicitly said that Sarah-Jane Smith has not seen the Doctor since the events of 'The Hand of Fear' and not 'The Five Doctors'. The story non-canon would also be helpful in erasing the continuity errors inherent within it (the Third Doctor recognising the Fourth and so on). Worth mentioning in the article or perhaps best held off until RTD and the New Who producers comment explicitly on the issue?--Werthead 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the School Reunion article itself. I think that, given the staggered broadcast schedule of the new series in various countries, it's probably better to avoid spoilers referring from the old series to the new one if possible, but leave the notations for the later story's article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Canonicity's not the issue; it's continuity that might be up for debate. I think the implication is pretty clear in the episode, though. They parted in Hand of Fear, and haven't had any meaningful interaction since. Did the Fifth Doctor and Sarah Jane converse, in this story? I don't recall so, offhand. Were they even introduced? Even if they had some contact, I think the Doctor had other priorities at the time. Hand of Fear was still goodbye, for all practical purposes.--Aderack 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewatch The Five Doctors when you get a chance. The Fifth doctor and Sarah Jane do meet, albeit breifly, in the Tomb of Rassilon. Sarah shakes hands with Tegan and they, and the Brigadeir, have a conversation about the travails of travelling with The Doctor. The canonicity conundrum set up by School Reunion is one of those things that will be debated among fans forever (unless Russell T Davies addresses it in the new Sarah Jane series). The last time I watched it I was struck by the "I thought you were dead" line of SJ's. There wasn;\'t any event in The Hand of Fear that seemed to fit this reaction of Sarah's. It led me to surmise that there might have been one further unseen adventure where the Fourth Doctor and SJ were reunited in a much more dangerous endeavour. Yes the South Croyden is Aberdeen comes up in this scenario but I cou;d just see the "teeth and curls" Doctor saying "This time I AM dropping you off in SC" and SJ then having to say "He blew it AGAIN! and farther away this tine too". But, of course, this is just my attempt to fit things together and it will be very unsatisfying to most. However, it is more satisfying to me than trying to say that the events of the 20th Anniversary (and wildly anticipated by the fans at the time) special never occurred. I hope you get to rewatch The Five Doctors soon and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, a simpler explanation is that Sarah thought she was having an adventure with the Third Doctor and all his previous incarnations (provided that she didn't know that he was, in fact, the third). DonQuixote 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best explanation is that Sarah did not realisise that the 5th doctor is a future vertion of her (fourth) doctor.  The fourth doctor does not appear, and her first conversation with the third doctor shows she is confused as to why she is with the third Doctor in the first place.  The "i thought you had died" suggests she expected the fourth vertion to come back for her, or expected one of the other vertions she met to come for her after this adventure.
StuartDD 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon? 

message: An anonymous IP kept putting in that the first VHS release of this episode was edited by two minutes. The source that they provided was an eBay description. I have found no other website for the show or any resouce book (and I have several in my collection) that verifies this. Until a detailed description of what 2 minutes were missing I have removed the note because a) the eBay link no longer works and b) the description did not detail any missing scenes. The 2 min could simply be watching the time tracker on the two versions and noting that release two had two extra minutes that read on the clock. Thus, release two might have had longer leader info and/or BBC ads, which they started to add to tapes and DVD's in the late 90's. If anyone can detail what two minutes were missing than this should be noted on re-entering. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VHS releases

message: really shouldnt the other doctors know what the proverb means if the 1st doctor works it out? i may have worked it out differently but to most people it does seem right --Dwrules 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you get some years on you, you will realize that if you met your younger self and said, "There's some things that you think you understand that you don't," your younger self would reply, "Well, what do you know?"  Something like that is what's being played out in the story's conclusion. I realize that this isn't an exact analogy, but it should be close enough.  That and the trick of all the Doctor's fixing the problem at once had been used already in The Three Doctors, so Dicks had one particular Doctor solve it. Proteus71 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In "Day of the Doctor" there was some technobabble about time steams being out of sync, which means that whenever the Doctors meet, they can't remember what happened. So there. --UserJDalek 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  did you realise that you were replying to a thread from over seven years ago? At the time, the last story to have been broadcast was "42", and "The Day of the Doctor" was still a long way from even being proposed. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  a dud story??? 

message: Should it be noted that the Brigadier has an assistent named "Kryten" in this one? A Red Dwarf reference? 207.202.227.125 06:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. How could this possibly be a Red Dwarf ref. This episode was made and aired in 1983. RD did not start airing until 88. The spelling is also totally different. Please reserve fancruft questions like this for non encyclopedic websites.MarnetteD | Talk 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside References 

message: Can someone please write a bit about the behind the scenes footage that was shown in the last episode of Doctor Who Confidential? Apparently its never been seen before. 86.140.188.246 08:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who Confidential 

message: The DVD release section states:
"The story was the first to be re-edited by Vengeance as an Enhanced Special Edition, and was made available on 25 January 2008."
Can someone please explain what Vengeance is/what this means?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardBerry (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know what it means either.  Added a citation needed tag, because I can't find anything about it google. DonQuixote (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing comment says "see CIA forum for details".  No idea as to what this is either!  Possibly referring to a fan board?  Celestial Intervention Agency...?! Howie ☎ 01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am Vengeance. The Enhanced Special Edition is a version of the story that takes the special edition as a master and edits several of the more effective special effects back into the story from the Original Edition. It also adds approximatly five fan made special effects, and finally, edits footage from four different episodes to give Tom Baker a FULL ROLE IN THE STORY! For more information on this edition, please see: http://forum.syc0somatic.com/viewtopic.php?t=366  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.200.220 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vengeance? 

message: The article says this was released on March 3, 2008.  I've found references to the Region 2 DVD set at Amazon.co.uk, but can't find any listings at any North American vendors.  Does anyone know the current plans/release date for a Region 1 version?  Skyraider (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  25th Anniversary Edition 

message: Someone just added a passage detailing John Levene's problem with what was intended to be his one scene as Sgt. Benton. For the record, the source citation which was already there does indeed explicitly support that as well, with no less than a direct quote of Levene, in fact. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levene's refusal 

message: I just encountered this in "Broadcast, VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD releases" (come to think of it, as that section also describes a Betamax release, that title probably out to be changed):
:There were a few scenes in the BBC broadcast that had not been shown in the US airing [which came first, by two days].
Just what was missing? I find this to be notable, and posted a "clarification" tag. Probably should've put up a cite request one, too. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a much delayed answer to your question Tbrittreid. There were at least two scenes missing in the initial US showing. One was when the Master finds the burned to a crisp body of one of the Time Lords sent before him into the death zone. The other is when the dying cybermen tries to remove the rope that the 3rd Dr and Sarah are sliding down from around the rock. I have known this for so long that I can't remember the exact source but I am pretty sure that this is mentioned in at least one Dr Who Monthly from 1983 or 84 and reiterated in one of the books by Howe Stammers et al. Sorry I can't be more specific. MarnetteD | Talk 07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "missing" scenes I mentioned and that you removed from the article were definitely missing from my 1980s video copy of the story, so presumably that was edited totally differently from the US version... in fact, aside from Tom Baker quoting the names of Cambridge alumni and part of the Dalek chase sequence, I also remember the scene of Richard Hurndall eating pineapple not being there! Dave-ros (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be careful in that the UK version was edited into a Special Edition for VHS release with additional scenes, such as Richard Hurndall eating a cake and a dying Cyberman trying remove the Third Doctor's rope.  You'll have to compare the unedited original transmission version, which was just released last year. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes DonQuixote is right the scenes that you are referring to Dave-ros are part of the special edition VHS released wth the Kings Demons. This morning I have compared my tape from 83 with the original broadcast versions on both the 1990 VHS and the DVD from earlier this year. The two scenes that I mentioned above are not on the US broadcast version but are on the other two. I think that further confusion may ensue from the statement that the 1985 VHS Betamax release was the US version. My investigation shows that this may not be the case. Unfortunately this is all original research on my part and my Dr Who mags and books are in storage so we will have to rely on any Wikipedian who has them to hand. There help will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One further thought comes to mind - especially since the Cambridge alumni sequence is on my original broadcast tape. Remember that Beta tapes could only hold 60 minutes or so if info. Tha could mean that the 1985 release might have been severlly truncated compared to any other version and this might have carried over to the VHS tape. Cheers to all for trying to straighten this out. MarnetteD | Talk 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA premiere edited? 

message: At the end the third doctor seems to say 'nice meeting you too' to Sarah Jane, but doesn't he already know her, as he seemed to when they first met in this story?
It's in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqKe5vMKZdQ
Thoughts?
80.44.184.146 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah says "it was nice meeting you" to Dr. 5, and (as a joke, since they are really the same person) Dr 3 responds "Thank you Sarah Jane, it was nice meeting you too". Luminifer (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Doctor and Sarah Jane 

message: What is fancruft? Why is it OK to include on this page "There is no explanation as to the absence of Kamelion from this story", a trivial comment with no bearing of any kind, yet it is not OK to include a sourced comment about a continuity error regarding costuming. An error that the show's author agrees is fairly significant. Is anyone else being bullied by MarnetteD for disobeying them? 71.146.16.112 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) See WP:FANCRUFT. (ii) See WP:POINT. (iii) The best place for questions like this is at WT:DOCTORWHO, not on several talk pages at once, see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Please don't call me a "bully" without evidence of such; see also WP:NPA. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancruft 

message: There have been a number of recent amendments concerning the cast members listed in the infobox. It appears that these should be in the same order as the programme's closing credits, and in the same form. I see no reason to disagree, but I do observe that the versions sold retail (whether VHS or DVD) are not consistent between each other, and therefore at least one of them does not match the programme as broadcast; possibly all are "wrong".
One thing I am certain of: the "Special Edition" Region 2 DVD (BBCDVD 1006, November 1999) does not have the broadcast credits. I deduce this because one of the names listed is Benedict Peissel. Individually, Benedict and Peissel are very uncommon names in the UK, so in combination must be unique. How do I know that that name wasn't in the originals? As it happens, I was at school with somebody of exactly the same name, who now works for the BBC in Birmingham. I left school in June 1983, but The Five Doctors was recorded in March 1983, so I hardly think that Mr. Peissel was involved in the original production of TFD. So, if the person named in the closing credits is the same one that I was at school with (which is highly likely, given the high probability that the name is unique), then his involvement was some years after broadcast, and was most likely in connection with the preparation of the Special Edition. Therefore these credits are not the originals, and so the rest of the credits may also have been amended, and it follows that the particular arrangement of the credits for the actors portraying the Doctor should be regarded as suspect. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the instructions on this Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode which are specific in how to present the cast list in a multi-Doctor story. I usually try to keep the cast list as it was in the original broadcast - and I still have my fading VHS from Nov 83 :-) - but in this case the guidelines of the DW wikiproject override this. I don't really feel strongly about it one way or the other but if you want it changed you might try starting a conversation on the talk page for the template. MarnetteD | Talk 21:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't mind how it's arranged, but I keep seeing what are (to me at least) pointless changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast in infobox 

message: While I realize no canonical explanation for Rassilon's later return, I think it would be appropriate to mention that parallel ressurrections have occurred to Time Lords, even Time Lords with no regenerations left. Specifically, the Master was ressurrected by the Time Lords to use in the Time War, and he later recorded a method by which his "Secret Cult of Saxon" was able to ressurrect him.
The point is that the present version of the article makes it sound as though there is no precedent or similar situation (to the ressurrection of Rassilon) in canonical Time Lord history, and that is just not true - there are precedents. Are there any objections to including a link to the relevant episodes parenthetically?Mad2Physicist (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but there's no precedents in relation to this episode.  Eveything you mentioned happened after this aired. DonQuixote (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rassilon 

message: There has been debate over whether the Doctor's reference to The Five Doctors in The Time of the Doctor should be added. I think it should.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.104.52 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to demonstrate that it is relevant to a description of this story, and provide a suitable source that states so; you also need to do so in a manner that is not original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion