# Doctor Who "ASYLUM OF THE DALEKS" Sept 1, 2012 BBC America



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

Doctor Who* "ASYLUM OF THE DALEKS"* 
September 1, 2012
BBC America

If you missed it, this episode does re-air this week.

BBC America page for this episode.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/doctor-who/guide/season-7/episode-1/

Videos:
http://www.bbcamerica.com/doctor-who/videos/

Reminders/ Spoilers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_of_the_Daleks

If you missed an episode, here is the tv schedule for current and re-run episodes:
http://www.bbcamerica.com/doctor-who/schedule

Also check On Demand and On Demand HD if your cable guys offer this.
(Some shows that are missing in HD are available in non-HD.)

Doctor Who specials include:

THE SCIENCE OF DOCTOR WHO

THE WOMEN OF DOCTOR WHO

THE TIMEY-WIMEY OF DOCTOR WHO

THE DESTINATIONS OF DOCTOR WHO

Don't forget the old threads like:

No new Doctor Who til summer, what will you do?
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=333509

Doctor Who "A Good Man Goes to War" June 11, 2011 BBC America
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=471209

So, what are your thoughts on this episode?


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)




----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)




----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)




----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)




----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Good first episode.

It won't break my heart when we are done with the Ponds though.

Interesting way to reboot the Daleks, it will really remove the advantage from the Doctor.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The Doctor's plans always remind me of this cartoon...










...except his plans are usually all Step Two.

So is he officially Doctor Who now?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

To the OP. Could we try and keep the ep threads about the ep? 

I thought it was good. Again they setup someone you could imagine as a companion but they didn't make it to the end. 

Not sure how this removes the advantage from The Doctor. Seems it gives him an advantage.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JohnB1000 said:


> I thought it was good. Again they setup someone you could imagine as a companion but they didn't make it to the end.


Ironically,


Spoiler



she IS the new companion, although nobody seems to be able to figure out how that's going to work. Her presence in this episode was a very well-kept secret. She (re)joins the cast for good in the Christmas Special.





JohnB1000 said:


> Not sure how this removes the advantage from The Doctor. Seems it gives him an advantage.


Seems to me it could cut both ways. On the one hand, the Daleks will underestimate him. On the other, they won't waste all their time screaming in panic.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ironically,
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



Well, the Doctor does have a time machine. Maybe he will meet her before she got Dalek-ized. And find that her name is not really Oswin. But that would also require that Oswin had her memories of the Doctor wiped (since she did not recognize him), which is possible but makes this theory less likely.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

...

What color?

Made me giggle. And not really a bad question. (it could have been relevant)...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I don't mind but that's a pretty big spoiler without any warning


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JohnB1000 said:


> I don't mind but that's a pretty big spoiler without any warning


Without extra additional redundant warning, you mean? Because the word "spoiler" seems like a warning to me.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

But you have no clue what the spoiler is about. The main warning would have been 'future episode spoiler'


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I enjoyed the episode a lot, probably since I didn't see the ending coming at all and that's likely because as far as I know, the Daleks have never actually converted a human into a full blown Dalek before. They reluctantly used human DNA to splice together Daleks (which were considered impure), but never converted a human into a Dalek. I think Moffat confused the Daleks for the Cybermen. 

Still despite that somewhat major flaw, I enjoyed the episode.

Oh and I thought this was TCF, not Reddit.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

morac said:


> I enjoyed the episode a lot, probably since I didn't see the ending coming at all and that's likely because as far as I know, the Daleks have never actually converted a human into a full blown Dalek before. They reluctantly used human DNA to splice together Daleks (which were considered impure), but never converted a human into a Dalek. I think Moffat confused the Daleks for the Cybermen.
> 
> Still despite that somewhat major flaw, I enjoyed the episode.
> 
> Oh and I thought this was TCF, not Reddit.


But remember these were insane and crazy daleks placed in an asylum.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JohnB1000 said:


> But you have no clue what the spoiler is about. The main warning would have been 'future episode spoiler'


 Very funny.

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
--Niels Bohr


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

morac said:


> I enjoyed the episode a lot, probably since I didn't see the ending coming at all and that's likely because as far as I know,


I guessed the correct ending as soon as the Doctor mentioned how difficult it is to hack Dalek tech. Then I was 100% certain when the Doctor asked how she was getting milk for the souffles.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I watched the BBC airing and now watch the BBC America recording. Was there much cut?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I guessed the correct ending as soon as the Doctor mentioned how difficult it is to hack Dalek tech. Then I was 100% certain when the Doctor asked how she was getting milk for the souffles.


I thought maybe she was converted into a human puppet and was seeing things (like Amy was earlier), but being totally converted into a Dalek didn't even cross my mind since as I've said, it's never been done before. I'm not sure how it's really even possible. Did they put her brain in a Dalek shell or something, or did they turn her into a squid?


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Kamakzie said:


> I watched the BBC airing and now watch the BBC America recording. Was there much cut?


Probably. I've been watching the marathon episodes, and have been noticing the scenes they've cut even since the original BBCA airing. So annoying.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Wait a minute. How were The Doctor and Rory hearing a human voice?


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> Wait a minute. How were The Doctor and Rory hearing a human voice?


They spoke through ship's comm. They only did "Dalek Voice" when the Doctor was in the same room and hearing with his own ears.

--Carlos V.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> I don't mind but that's a pretty big spoiler without any warning





john4200 said:


> Without extra additional redundant warning, you mean? Because the word "spoiler" seems like a warning to me.





JohnB1000 said:


> But you have no clue what the spoiler is about. The main warning would have been 'future episode spoiler'





john4200 said:


> Very funny.
> 
> Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
> --Niels Bohr


Yes it would have been nice if it was mentioned that it was a spoiler about a future episode. This thread is about the first episode of the season. Since I already watched it I didn't think I had to worry about reading something in a spoiler tag. But I was wrong since the spoiler was not about the episode but an episode far in the future of this season.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That's why it had a spoiler tag.

There's no such thing as a spoiler from the current episode in an episode thread.

Ironically, I thought I had given too much away with the "ironically," since there's really only one spoiler that could have followed in that context. The reason I went ahead is because it isn't really a spoiler, since


Spoiler



the new companion has been very widely publicized, and the intent of the producers wasn't to slip her in unnoticed, but rather to have it be a huge shock when she showed up several episodes early.


----------



## ThePennyDropped (Jul 5, 2006)

I also guessed the reveal about poor Oswin (sp?).

I was disappointed in the episode as a whole, although I can't exactly pin down why. It was crazy and chaotic, which should have equaled "fun", yet somehow it didn't for me. 

I will say that the entire business about Amy and Rory splitting up was unnecessary, and the reason for their split was terribly contrived. Do they live in an alternate universe where men never face disappointment and where adoption/surrogacy/infertility treatments don't exist?

Why did the Daleks not think that the Doctor had been killed, as the rest of the universe was led to believe last season?


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

I've been watching Dr. Who for 40 years.

This. Was. Awful.

It was one of the worst episodes I can remember. I'm not a fan of Matt Smith to begin with, and this is solidifying it even more.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

JohnB1000 said:


> Wait a minute. How were The Doctor and Rory hearing a human voice?





Unbeliever said:


> They spoke through ship's comm. They only did "Dalek Voice" when the Doctor was in the same room and hearing with his own ears.
> 
> --Carlos V.


I understand JohnB1000's question, and while it hadn't occurred to me while watching I think it is a very good one. I don't follow Carlos' answer: are you saying that the ship's comm somehow converted the Dalek-sounding-voice to make it sound human?

As far as the spoiler goes, I'll weigh in to say:

(spoilerizing, because I comment about the substance of Rob's spoiler)


Spoiler



1. I've known there is going to be a new companion this season, but I hadn't heard when or who. So Rob's spoiler did spoil me.

2. Rob spoilerized it, so I have only myself to blame for reading it.

3. It might have been nice had there been a contextual warning preceeding it, but I don't think forum rules require that. (e.g. parenthetically stating (plot spoiler) or (casting spoiler) etc).

4. The fact that the new companion has been widely publicized wouldn't make it fair game to be stated unspoilerized, since news from third party sources must be spoilerized, but, again, Rob did spoilerize it.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> I watched the BBC airing and now watch the BBC America recording. Was there much cut?


To me it SEEMED like the BBCA airing moved more quickly, but I don't remember anything important from the BBC One airing not being there.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

danterner said:


> (spoilerizing, because I comment about the substance of Rob's spoiler)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



In response to 3, that would have only made it worse. "casting spoiler" would have given it away to anyone paying attention to the context.



Rob followed the rules, and not only that, he followed them wisely.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JoBeth66 said:


> I've been watching Dr. Who for 40 years.
> 
> This. Was. Awful.


I agree. I am used to suspending disbelief with Doctor Who, but the plot and consistency problems in this episode were far beyond what I normally expect from Doctor Who. None of the characters behaved in ways that made sense given the situations and things that have happened in the past. I think the writers really wanted to do a Dalek episode, but they really forced the situations instead of finding a way to let it flow "naturally".


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's why it had a spoiler tag.
> 
> There's no such thing as a spoiler from the current episode in an episode thread.
> 
> ...


So widely publicized that even though I watch everything, listen to a podcast, and casually read a couple of blogs, I did not know.

I realize you have to always be right and yes you followed the rules, but a little context would have been welcomed.

Nice to see johnn4200 actually making a comment about the show.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JohnB1000 said:


> I realize you have to always be right and yes you followed the rules, but a little context would have been welcomed.


Rob was not only in the right, he followed the rules wisely. You are asking for him to do something unwise. Additionally, your previous comments make no sense (I thought you were joking).


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

Oswin BTW, appears to be an old English name meaning 'God's friend'.



Spoiler



Time Lord... God... Friend... companion...


Oh noes! A spoiler tag! Should I clicks on its?

PS: Leave Rob alone! After all he's been through!

*smirk*


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I really liked Oswin. I didn't guess that she was a Dalek. I was thinking along the lines of "Devil in a red dress".

I'm tired of Amy and her bs. Can't wait until she leaves the show.

This episode was severely lacking in River Song awesomeness.

AT&T and American Express. I don't remember this show having such big sponsors or at least I didn't notice until this episode.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

danterner said:


> I don't follow Carlos' answer: are you saying that the ship's comm somehow converted the Dalek-sounding-voice to make it sound human?


She's in complete control of the computer. She can (subconsciously) make it sound like whatever she wants.

--Carlos V.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Unbeliever said:


> She's in complete control of the computer. She can (subconsciously) make it sound like whatever she wants.
> 
> --Carlos V.


Ah, okay. I can accept that. Thanks.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

danterner said:


> Ah, okay. I can accept that. Thanks.


It's alo possible that the Dalek shell just has crappy speakers or audio circuitry, but going through the computer gives hifi. And maybe Dolby stereo, also.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

JMikeD said:


> It's alo possible that the Dalek shell just has crappy speakers or audio circuitry, but going through the computer gives hifi. And maybe Dolby stereo, also.


How annoying would that be? No wonder they're always so cranky!


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I agree. I am used to suspending disbelief with Doctor Who, but the plot and consistency problems in this episode were far beyond what I normally expect from Doctor Who. None of the characters behaved in ways that made sense given the situations and things that have happened in the past. I think the writers really wanted to do a Dalek episode, but they really forced the situations instead of finding a way to let it flow "naturally".


Yep. I have no problem suspending disbelief, but the whole thing left me, my husband & my son looking at each other going 'really?? really??'

Especially the end. When all the daleks are saying 'Doctor Who?'

Bleh. I really hope it gets better. It almost HAS to.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I agree this was a pretty weak episode. 

I'm so over amy and rory, and ready for the next companion.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I imagine making the Daleks forget the Doctor, and then leave them asking the question "Doctor who?" is a setup for the event that Dorium Maldovar told the Doctor would come to pass.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I thought this episode was fun. Not great, but fun. I know it borders on blasphemy to say so, but I think the Daleks are easily the least interesting Doctor Who villains, so any time they throw in a monkey wrench like Oswin to mix it up I can only count that as a plus.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's why it had a spoiler tag.
> 
> There's no such thing as a spoiler from the current episode in an episode thread.
> 
> Ironically, I thought I had given too much away with the "ironically," since there's really only one spoiler that could have followed in that context. The reason I went ahead is because it isn't really a spoiler, since * SPOILER *


Yeah. The ironically did it for me. So I clicked it to confirm what the ironically said to me.

But you did the spoiler right. Cannot spoil something from the current episode since it is already being talked about.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Whatever Rob did, I'm against it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

ThePennyDropped said:


> I will say that the entire business about Amy and Rory splitting up was unnecessary, and the reason for their split was terribly contrived. Do they live in an alternate universe where men never face disappointment and where adoption/surrogacy/infertility treatments don't exist?


I think you missed the point. It wasn't about Rory not understanding nor was it about Amy realizing the things you just stated. It was post-traumatic stress for Amy. She was taken, sequestered for her entire pregnancy while a doppelgänger lived her life and her baby, who she never met until she was middle aged, was programmed to kill her best friend. And the end result was that she cannot get pregnant. I'd say she is allowed a bit of hysteria about it all.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I'd say she is allowed a bit of hysteria about it all.


I wish she'd do it off camera.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

We don't like the Daleks much, so this episode was just something to endure. Hopefully this is the last Dalek-focused episode we get for awhile!


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

When I think about the Darlek's, how scary is a villain with a plunger attached to it?

In terms of story arc, the Darleks are his main enemy without question, I just wish they would go through some evolution or something to modern them up.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Did that girl in the red dress remind anyone of Denise Richards (at Starship Troopers time, not now)?

Too bad she died, would have been an excellent companion.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> Did that girl in the red dress remind anyone of Denise Richards (at Starship Troopers time, not now)?


Do you mean Jenna-Louise Coleman?

No, I don't think she looks like Denise Richards. Her eyes and round face do remind me of Christina Ricci.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yes I was also thinking Christina Ricci


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

robojerk said:


> When I think about the Darlek's, how scary is a villain with a plunger attached to it?
> 
> In terms of story arc, the Darleks are his main enemy without question, I just wish they would go through some evolution or something to modern them up.


I would say his main enemy during the history of the show is the Master.

I love their commitment to the Dalek design. When they changed it up last year I think it was a bit of fail.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

robojerk said:


> When I think about the Darlek's, how scary is a villain with a plunger attached to it?
> 
> In terms of story arc, the Darleks are his main enemy without question, I just wish they would go through some evolution or something to modern them up.


An Evolution of the Daleks? Like this?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ironically...


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

busyba said:


> An Evolution of the Daleks? Like this?


Fine, if that's the plan to evolve them then they went the right direction by dropping that plan.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The Daleks have been an iconic symbol of British culture for half a century. I suspect any serious attempt to change their look would result in a massive outcry, and possibly the overthrow of the British government.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I was under the impression that the Daleks were little squid-like one-eyed brain creatures living inside of the metal exterior (revealed in a Chris Eccleston episode 6 - "Dalek" - in 2005). So to have Oswin have to metamorphose into the metallic container didn't make sense to me. I thought she was trapped inside the metal shell with the plunger and the telescope.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

john4200 said:


> *spoiler*





Spoiler



I'm thinking that maybe the crash is an important part of the Oswin arc. Perhaps the Daleks did something different with her specifically because she had been a companion of the Doctor. Or maybe she just had a twin sister. 





john4200 said:


> Rob was not only in the right, he followed the rules wisely. You are asking for him to do something unwise. Additionally, your previous comments make no sense (I thought you were joking).


Yeah. It makes far more sense to give extra details about lesser spoilers than major ones. This whole discussion about spoilers has probably done far more to spoil what Rob put in spoiler tags than how he put them in spoiler tags.

Ironically, our frequent use of spoiler tags has caused spoilers to lose their significance. But in general, the safe thing to do is assume all spoilers are the worst possible spoiler until more information is given. If one is uncertain, then either leave it alone or ask for more details before clicking.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

getreal said:


> I was under the impression that the Daleks were little squid-like one-eyed brain creatures living inside of the metal exterior (revealed in a Chris Eccleston episode 6 - "Dalek" - in 2005). So to have Oswin have to metamorphose into the metallic container didn't make sense to me. I thought she was trapped inside the metal shell with the plunger and the telescope.


I think they extracted her brain, and converted it into a Dalek one. For some reason, she was able to fight back against the Dalek programming via the delusion that she was still trapped in her ship making souffles. Perhaps it was her love for her mother that kept her "sane".


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

BitbyBlit said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that maybe the crash is an important part of the Oswin arc. Perhaps the Daleks did something different with her specifically because she had been a companion of the Doctor. Or maybe she just had a twin sister.





Spoiler



Future episode speculation commentary ahead


Spoiler



You know, it won't have been the first time that Doctor Who (show) had an actress who played a one-off character join The Doctor as companion *as a completely different character.* 
Freema Agyeman for example.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

More info about The Spoiler:



Spoiler



Jenna-Louise had a clever response to the question, "Do you have a favorite monster that you'd like to meet?"

I wonder if it could be that she is River Song's daughter. Being 1/2 somewhat Time Lord might be what gave her the ability to resist the Dalek programming.


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

Did everyone watch Pond Life yet?

If your Tivo can view Youtube, just run a search on Pond Life and view the 5 videos + commentary from the BBC there...

Doctor Who Prequel: Pond Life part 1 - Series 7 Autumn 2012 - BBC One
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdBsc5pQ1k[/media]

Or use this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00wqr12/features/pond-life

I thought it was interesting seeing which files had the most activity.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's why it had a spoiler tag.
> 
> There's no such thing as a spoiler from the current episode in an episode thread.
> 
> ...


 What I posted was my thinking at the time. I don't know why I was thinking that a thread about an episode would have a spoiler tag about content in that episode? But that is what I was thinking at the time and the reason I clicked on the spoiler. Major  for me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, if it's any consolation, you're meant to know that...and people everywhere else who don't have such pedantic forum rules are having much more interesting conversations because they're able to discuss the actual implications of what was revealed in this episode instead of pretending that it's a spoiler.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The whole "Dalek conversion" thing reminded me of the way Star Trek tweaked the Borg assimilation thing between TNG and the movies... and it was bad there, and it was bad here.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> The whole "Dalek conversion" thing reminded me of the way Star Trek tweaked the Borg assimilation thing between TNG and the movies... and it was bad there, and it was bad here.


I think it depends on how far they take the conversion. If the conversion was limited to the planet of rejects (and the woman who lured the Doctor was an exception so that they could trap him) then it makes sense that they wouldn't care about having their species diluted by outside DNA.

So as a defense mechanism it makes sense. They can't beat you if they join you.

On the other hand, I have to wonder what the purpose of doing a "full conversion" on Orwin was. The Doctor said it was because the Daleks "needed genius". Given that the outside Daleks had no clue what was going on down there, he must have been referring to the ones on the planet. But I'm not sure what they needed genius for. To escape? Because they wanted something more out of their existence?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

She looks like Miranda Kerr.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Do you mean Jenna-Louise Coleman?
> 
> No, I don't think she looks like Denise Richards. Her eyes and round face do remind me of Christina Ricci.


Yes.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

ThePennyDropped said:


> Why did the Daleks not think that the Doctor had been killed, as the rest of the universe was led to believe last season?


I had to rewatch to answer this. They took a gamble. He had died. And some said he may have come back. Let's hope that is true. Recap of he voice over by the dalek puppet at the beginning. They heard rumors of his return and played the odds. Pretty simple, actually. They didn't "know" he was alive. By just worked that angle in case he was.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Also, given the Doctor's nonlinear existence, it almost doesn't matter.

You set a Doctor trap, you're likely to get a Doctor passing by at some point in his life, even if he is indeed known to have died.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Anubys said:


> Did that girl in the red dress remind anyone of Denise Richards (at Starship Troopers time, not now)?
> 
> Too bad she died, would have been an excellent companion.





john4200 said:


> Do you mean Jenna-Louise Coleman?
> 
> No, I don't think she looks like Denise Richards. Her eyes and round face do remind me of Christina Ricci.





vertigo235 said:


> Yes I was also thinking Christina Ricci


I am willing to concede that she is a good mix of Christina Ricci and Denise Richards 



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ironically...





Spoiler



Just read Alan Sepinwall's review of the episode and he talked about how she is the next companion. I hope you enjoyed yourself, in an ironic way, of course!


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ironically,
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



How is it going to work? It probably "just does." If this was the Tom Baker era, I'd expect somebody to say, "It's a fascinating story; remind me to tell you someday."

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but back in the "Trial of a Time Lord" days (in the Colin Baker/Sixth Doctor era), they introduced Bonnie Langford's character as a companion from the Doctor's future, who suddenly became his companion "in the present," and they never did explain how he found her in the first place.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But,


Spoiler



given Moffat's penchant for planning his seasons out in excruciating detail, I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing. I just hope what he's doing lives up to the hype! It's a brilliant move on his and BBC's part, however, to get this kind of conversation going...at least, in places where it's allowed. They very cleverly manipulated events so everybody over there would know she was going to be the new companion starting at Christmas (there was a lot of publicity this summer with her, Moffat, and Smith), and concealed her presence in this episode to get people wondering how the hell she could possibly end up being the new companion? They're making very good use of the way society works these days to enhance people's enjoyment of the Doctor Who experience and build a lot of buzz in the process.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But,
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



Yeah-- I'm of a similar mind. It reminds me of the River Song story-- he knew her ulitmate end before he really knew her. Since he never saw Oswin, perhaps when he meets her he'll not reconginze the voice-- but that doesn't explain why she does not recognize him. They may play some angle about miniatureized people and she was inside the dalek and in full control of it, but she was in fact really miniturized and not not really the dalek itself. Somehow that would be less satisfying to me, but I could see it. Looking forward as always to how they unbend it all. If he knows her after this event he'll have to show up in a very small window to rescue her before the asylum is destroyed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cstelter said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah-- I'm of a similar mind. It reminds me of the River Song story-- he knew her ulitmate end before he really knew her. Since he never saw Oswin, perhaps when he meets her he'll not reconginze the voice-- but that doesn't explain why she does not recognize him. They may play some angle about miniatureized people and she was inside the dalek and in full control of it, but she was in fact really miniturized and not not really the dalek itself. Somehow that would be less satisfying to me, but I could see it. Looking forward as always to how they unbend it all. If he knows her after this event he'll have to show up in a very small window to rescue her before the asylum is destroyed.


Or something altogether else could be going on, that just isn't occurring to us. Which could be very cool (if it works) or very not so cool (if it doesn't).


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I must be an old fart for sure now, because I am sitting here thinking how I seem to enjoy Russell T. Davies' wild flights of self-indulgence much more than I do Moffat's.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I must admit, I enjoyed this episode, but am I the only one who thinks a regeneration is way past due?

I haven't been a fan of "David Tennent Lite" since day one.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I must admit, I enjoyed this episode, but am I the only one who thinks a regeneration is way past due?
> 
> I haven't been a fan of "David Tennent Lite" since day one.


I used to be a fan but now not so much.
Matt Smith is aping Tennant, not bringing his own style to the character.
It's like when they switched Darrens on Bewitched.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I must admit, I enjoyed this episode, but am I the only one who thinks a regeneration is way past due?


Well, they don't have that many left - IIRC, it's "the original plus 12 regenerations" (the "fifth doctor" (Peter Davison) once referred to himself as "the fourth regeneration," so I assume that's how it works).

Then again, there's a way to "reset your count"; I think somebody (The Doctor? The Master?) was told in "The Five Doctors" that he could get a new set of 12 regenerations.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

That Don Guy said:


> Then again, there's a way to "reset your count"; I think somebody (The Doctor? The Master?) was told in "The Five Doctors" that he could get a new set of 12 regenerations.


I think you have to somehow take them from another timelord, I don't think you can just manufacture them. IIRC.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

john4200 said:


> I think you have to somehow take them from another timelord, I don't think you can just manufacture them. IIRC.


From River Song?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

That would be my guess. She only had two regenerations.

Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> Well, they don't have that many left - IIRC, it's "the original plus 12 regenerations" (the "fifth doctor" (Peter Davison) once referred to himself as "the fourth regeneration," so I assume that's how it works).
> 
> Then again, there's a way to "reset your count"; I think somebody (The Doctor? The Master?) was told in "The Five Doctors" that he could get a new set of 12 regenerations.


Pretty sure the limit is gone. It was imposed by the leaders on Gallifrey. And the Master never took them from another time lord. He did it himself on Trakken and later in the USA. The Time Lords did give him more so he could come back in the new series.

Anyway, Matt Smith is here through next season at least. And I like him. He is not aping Tennant. Go watch the Tennant episodes again as I am now. Tennant was much more serious. Much more. The Doctor has often been flippant. That part of Matt Smith is more Tom Baker than Tennant.

Oh. And i loved the episode. It was tight and consistent and worked in many levels.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, in the past the Time Lords gave the Master another whole set as a reward, which implies it's arbitrary. And since there are no more Time Lords, it can be argued that there's no one to set limits any more.

Since the whole regeneration thing was always an ad hoc plot device to get new actors into the role, and since so many different things have been said about the process and limitations or lack of same, they will have no problem coming up with some hand-waving that is consistent with something that's already happened when the time comes.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

There was an episode of, I think, the Sarah Jane Chronicles or whatever it was called that made it clear there really was no limit on regenerations. It's in the canon now. No limit.

And I think Matt Smith is one of the best. Tom Baker was my first Doctor, and will always hold a special place for me, but both Tennant and Smith are good in my book.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Matt Smith's Doctor, but even I can see that he's in no way imitating/emulating/whatever Tennant's Doctor. What I think that Matt Smith is trying to convey is the age of the Doctor, and there are definitely times I get that. He's not serious like Tennant's Doctor was... he's just worn out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I'm not the world's biggest fan of Matt Smith's Doctor, but even I can see that he's in no way imitating/emulating/whatever Tennant's Doctor. What I think that Matt Smith is trying to convey is the age of the Doctor, and there are definitely times I get that. He's not serious like Tennant's Doctor was... he's just worn out.


That works for me. Travel weary. But youthful at the same time. Flirty. Trying to be cool like the "cool parent" which I guess conveys age as well.

Tenant was not only serious, he was angry. He did just about one foaming at the mouth scene each episode.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Tenant was not only serious, he was angry. He did just about one foaming at the mouth scene each episode.


Eccelston was angrier. I still remember the spit flying from his mouth in _Dalek_.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I think you have to somehow take them from another timelord, I don't think you can just manufacture them. IIRC.





robojerk said:


> From River Song?





aaronwt said:


> That would be my guess. She only had two regenerations.


And then she gave up the rest of them to save The Doctor. If they do need some plot device other than just stating that there isn't a limit, all they need to do is say that when she gave up her regenerations, The Doctor got them.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't see any resemblance between Tennant's Doctor and Smith's Doctor. I much prefer Smith to Tennant. Frankly, I always thought Tennant was too skinny and his voice too tinny to pull off the gravitas that my idea of the Doctor should have.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I don't see any resemblance between Tennant's Doctor and Smith's Doctor. I much prefer Smith to Tennant. Frankly, I always thought Tennant was too skinny and his voice too tinny to pull off the gravitas that my idea of the Doctor should have.


I'm with you. Tennant grew on me over time, but he remains my least-favorite modern Doctor. Still like him, but not as much as a lot of people seem to. I always thought he tried to have a lot more range than he actually had.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I love this.

The fact that some of you disagree with me shows passion for the show, which promotes not only discussion, but longevity!

Long live the Doctor - in whichever incarnation! (As long as they don't bring Sylvester McCoy back! )


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I love this.
> 
> The fact that some of you disagree with me shows passion for the show, which promotes not only discussion, but longevity!
> 
> Long live the Doctor - in whichever incarnation! (As long as they don't bring Sylvester McCoy back! )


Or Paul McGann.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I hated the guy who came after Tom Baker and the Doctors who wore the multicolored clown suits that came after him. I liked Eccleston, was "eh" on Tennant and really like Smith. Amy has become my least favorite companion of the reboot by far. Rory has become one of my favorites.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

So, both Amy and Rory were partially converted to dalek. Are we to believe that that process is stopped or completely reversed upon leaving the asylum? Or will this come up again?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I love this.
> 
> The fact that some of you disagree with me shows passion for the show, which promotes not only discussion, but longevity!
> 
> Long live the Doctor - in whichever incarnation! (As long as they don't bring Sylvester McCoy back! )


McCoy was okay. The stories were a jumbled mess. They tried to be so mysterious, there was no sense to a lot of it.

The only really bad doctor (McCann doesn't count, not enough body of work) was Colin Baker.

Anyway, a lot of tastes in Doctors has to do with when you started watching.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

busyba said:


> Eccelston was angrier. I still remember the spit flying from his mouth in Dalek.


Spit coming from Tennants mouth every episode. I'm watching them again now. Very angry. Often dogmatic. They used Donna to make him more human again.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> So, both Amy and Rory were partially converted to dalek. Are we to believe that that process is stopped or completely reversed upon leaving the asylum? Or will this come up again?


I suspect Amy will now (because of the changes) be able to have children and she and Rory will leave the Doctor to have a family.

Sorry if my memory is terrible. Wasn't Amy pregnant a while back? TARDIS kept showing her with and without a baby or something like that? how did that story get resolved?


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> So, both Amy and Rory were partially converted to dalek. Are we to believe that that process is stopped or completely reversed upon leaving the asylum? Or will this come up again?


Rory wasn't partially converted, he had his armband on the entire time. The one that Amy got came from the Doctor.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Sorry if my memory is terrible. Wasn't Amy pregnant a while back? TARDIS kept showing her with and without a baby or something like that? how did that story get resolved?


She gave birth to River Song.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

zordude said:


> She gave birth to River Song.


Yeah, that would definitely qualify as "terrible memory," since it was the key plot point of last season...

Either that, or Anubys suffered the biggest Zoom in all of time and space!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, that would definitely qualify as "terrible memory," since it was the key plot point of last season...
> 
> Either that, or Anubys suffered the biggest Zoom in all of time and space!


No, no, that's what I remember, actually. I don't remember how they explained the pregnancy so I dismissed my memory as false. Heck, I assumed this is why Rory and her were getting a divorce until she threw the "I can't have children" bomb. So I am just not sure what is going on anymore!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Amy was replaced on the TARDIS by a doppelganger while she was off in captivity pregnant.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Anubys said:


> No, no, that's what I remember, actually. I don't remember how they explained the pregnancy so I dismissed my memory as false. Heck, I assumed this is why Rory and her were getting a divorce until she threw the "I can't have children" bomb. So I am just not sure what is going on anymore!


Apparently, part of the fallout from Madame Kovarian (the eyepatch lady) messing with Amy's pregnancy was that Amy was left infertile. This was, as far as I know, the first time that was revealed to the viewer.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm just a casual Dr. Who watcher--which is almost impossible--so my question...
who is River Song's father?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> I'm just a casual Dr. Who watcher--which is almost impossible--so my question...
> who is River Song's father?


Rory
She was conceived on the Tardis, which is why she's special.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

OH! that's much better...all this time, I thought she was the Doctor's daughter; which made the incest angle a little too weird.

Whew!


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Apparently, part of the fallout from Madame Kovarian (the eyepatch lady) messing with Amy's pregnancy was that....


Certain people's memories were wiped. Or perhaps they are Daleks and were wiped this week.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> Certain people's memories were wiped. Or perhaps they are Daleks and were wiped this week.


Huh?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Huh?


You just proved his point.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Anubys said:


> OH! that's much better...all this time, I thought she was the Doctor's daughter; which made the incest angle a little too weird.
> 
> Whew!


No. The Doctors daughter is still roaming the universe somewhere. We haven't seen her since she regenerated without changing at all.

River is the Doctor's wife. Not to be confused with his "wife" Idris who is actually the T.A.R.D.I.S.

I love putting insane stuff like that in writing.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Don't forget that The Doctor's Daughter was played by The Doctor's wife, who is The Doctor's daughter and mother of The Doctor's daughter.

ETA (explanation):


Spoiler



The Doctor's Daughter was played by Georgia Moffett who later married David Tennant, the tenth Doctor.
Georgia Moffett is the daughter of Peter Moffett AKA Peter Davidson, the fifth Doctor.
Georgia Moffett is the mother of David Tennant's daughter.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I noticed on Amazon that there was a 3 minute prequel to this episode. (well not sure if it's a prequel but it was listed as episode zero for this season) Does anyone know anything about this? These used to be free, but Amazon wanted 99 cents for it so I did not purchase it. Not for a 3 minute skit. But if it's worth it then I will buy it. Is 3 minutes really worth it for 99 cents?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> I noticed on Amazon that there was a 3 minute prequel to this episode. (well not sure if it's a prequel but it was listed as episode zero for this season) Does anyone know anything about this? These used to be free, but Amazon wanted 99 cents for it so I did not purchase it. Not for a 3 minute skit. But if it's worth it then I will buy it. Is 3 minutes really worth it for 99 cents?


It's the message from the woman who claimed that her daughter had been kidnapped by the Daleks. Check again. It's free now.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> Don't forget that The Doctor's Daughter was played by The Doctor's wife, who is The Doctor's daughter and mother of The Doctor's daughter.
> 
> ETA (explanation):
> 
> ...


David Tennant is his own grandpa.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

busyba said:


> David Tennant is his own grandpa.


That's wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> So, both Amy and Rory were partially converted to dalek. Are we to believe that that process is stopped or completely reversed upon leaving the asylum? Or will this come up again?


Rose: "Is that a Dalek appendage, or are you just glad to see me?"










Other images of robots with pretty girls ... _(NOTE: Dalek pix may be considered NSFW)_


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

This image has nothing to do with this episode...but doesn't it seem like it really should?


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Anubys said:


> OH! that's much better...all this time, I thought she was the Doctor's daughter; which made the incest angle a little too weird.
> 
> Whew!


Yeah, I thought they kept saying she was part time lord or something--is that because she was conceived on the Tardis, or do I have it wrong? (probably that)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

stellie93 said:


> Yeah, I thought they kept saying she was part time lord or something--is that because she was conceived on the Tardis, or do I have it wrong? (probably that)


You are correct. I think someone mentioned earlier that it was because she was conceived on the TARDIS.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

robojerk said:


> Rory
> She was conceived on the Tardis, which is why she's special.


Aha...there's the post that mentioned it.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

So if the Doctor brought lots of couples aboard the Tardis and they all had babies, he could repopulate the universe with half breed time lords?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Amy was special. It wouldn't work with other people. Or am mistaken?

Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

robojerk said:


> She was conceived on the Tardis, which is why she's special.





aaronwt said:


> Amy was special. It wouldn't work with other people. Or am mistaken?





stellie93 said:


> So if the Doctor brought lots of couples aboard the Tardis and they all had babies, he could repopulate the universe with half breed time lords?


It might be a combination of the fact that Amy grew up next to a crack in space & time, being exposed to whatever a crack in space & time radiates, plus conceiving a child on the Tardis, is what makes Melody Pond River Song so special.

It might also explain why she can't have children. Maybe she was only able to conceive by being on the Tardis. Perhaps they'll end their companion status by getting pregnant again? But then again I highly doubt this, I think I read somewhere...


Spoiler



that it's _speculated_ that their finale story ends badly for them.


----------



## ACoolDude (Dec 11, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Doctor does have a time machine. Maybe he will meet her before she got Dalek-ized. And find that her name is not really Oswin. But that would also require that Oswin had her memories of the Doctor wiped (since she did not recognize him), which is possible but makes this theory less likely.


Are we allowed to speculate about the new companion yet without spoilerizing? Well, just in case...



Spoiler



Who's to say she is the same character. The actresses that played Martha Jones and Amy Pond were both in episodes as other characters before they were companions. Admittedly this was a more spotlighted role, but Martha was on screen quite a bit in her pre-Martha role and she died


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

ACoolDude said:


> Are we allowed to speculate about the new companion yet without spoilerizing? Well, just in case...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



The main problem with that argument is that the circumstances are completely different. In Freema's (Martha) case, when she played her first role, she was just some actress; there was never any inkling that she would possibly be cast as a companion some point in the future. Presumably, in this most recent instance, she was already cast as the next companion when she started this episode. The "coincidence" in this case is completely deliberate, so they're probably going to pay it off with something more than the semi-retcon of Martha being a Patty-Dukeian cousin of the person from the earlier episode.


----------



## ACoolDude (Dec 11, 2001)

busyba said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The main problem with that argument is that the circumstances are completely different. In Freema's (Martha) case, when she played her first role, she was just some actress; there was never any inkling that she would possibly be cast as a companion some point in the future. Presumably, in this most recent instance, she was already cast as the next companion when she started this episode. The "coincidence" in this case is completely deliberate, so they're probably going to pay it off with something more than the semi-retcon of Martha being a Patty-Dukeian cousin of the person from the earlier episode.


Yea,


Spoiler



I'm hoping for something with a little more gravitas


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The main problem with that argument is that the circumstances are completely different. In Freema's (Martha) case, when she played her first role, she was just some actress; there was never any inkling that she would possibly be cast as a companion some point in the future. Presumably, in this most recent instance, she was already cast as the next companion when she started this episode. The "coincidence" in this case is completely deliberate, so they're probably going to pay it off with something more than the semi-retcon of Martha being a Patty-Dukeian cousin of the person from the earlier episode.





Spoiler



Yeah, given Moffat's penchant for planning out his seasons (he may wing it from year to year, but his seasons are TIGHT), there's no way he would have used the same actor in two roles by accident. And there's no way he would have made such a big deal out of concealing the identity of the actor in this episode (publicly bragging about it) if it wasn't significant.

He's up to something. Can't wait to see what.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

morac said:


> I enjoyed the episode a lot, probably since I didn't see the ending coming at all and that's likely because as far as I know, the Daleks have never actually converted a human into a full blown Dalek before. They reluctantly used human DNA to splice together Daleks (which were considered impure), but never converted a human into a Dalek. I think Moffat confused the Daleks for the Cybermen.
> 
> Still despite that somewhat major flaw, I enjoyed the episode.
> 
> Oh and I thought this was TCF, not Reddit.


This bothered me since I read it. Something didn't sit right. And I finally found it. Davros used humans to create Imperial Daleks in Revelations of the Daleks (Colin Baker). It is not new nor a flaw.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

The speculation about conception and the TARDIS has it sounding like a Tokyo Love Hotel. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Doctor Who themed one there already.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

ACoolDude said:


> Are we allowed to speculate about the new companion yet without spoilerizing? Well, just in case...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



The name of the new companion is known to be Clara Oswin. In this episode she was called Oswin.

More things to speculate about - is Clara going to be cleverer than the Doctor?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> This bothered me since I read it. Something didn't sit right. And I finally found it. Davros used humans to create Imperial Daleks in Revelations of the Daleks (Colin Baker). It is not new nor a flaw.


The notion of a Dalek prison sorta bothered me, the Daleks don't take prisoners (even though a Dalek prison is also old - but that prison could better be described as a slave labour camp).

What bothered me most was the blurring of the line between Cybermen and Daleks - and the planet and the imagined reality being a tad like the Library.

But I give a few marks for the misdirection about the milk. I thought the reason why the soufflé was a disaster was because there wasn't any milk and Oswin didn't want to tell the Doctor her soufflé was a disaster.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> The notion of a Dalek prison sorta bothered me, the Daleks don't take prisoners (even though a Dalek prison is also old - but that prison could better be described as a slave labour camp).
> 
> What bothered me most was the blurring of the line between Cybermen and Daleks - and the planet and the imagined reality being a tad like the Library.
> 
> But I give a few marks for the misdirection about the milk. I thought the reason why the soufflé was a disaster was because there wasn't any milk and Oswin didn't want to tell the Doctor her soufflé was a disaster.


Where did they blur the line between the Daleks and the Cybermen?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Where did they blur the line between the Daleks and the Cybermen?


Turning humans into Daleks, removing the love etc.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Turning humans into Daleks, removing the love etc.


That is always part of Daleks.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Idearat said:


> The speculation about conception and the TARDIS has it sounding like a Tokyo Love Hotel. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Doctor Who themed one there already.


"No, I swear -- it's bigger on the inside."


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> That is always part of Daleks.


Daleks are Skaroians in armoured vehicles.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

trainman said:


> "No, I swear -- it's bigger on the inside."


Made me laugh.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

pgogborn said:


> Daleks are Skaroians in armoured vehicles.


They're Kaleds, not Skaroians.

Skaro was the home planet of the Kaleds (anagram of Dalek) and Dals (or Thals).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

robojerk said:


> They're Kaleds, not Skaroians.
> 
> Skaro was the home planet of the Kaleds (anagram of Dalek) and Dals (or Thals).


Who were humanoid. But the part about removing love has always been part of them.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

robojerk said:


> They're Kaleds, not Skaroians.
> 
> Skaro was the home planet of the Kaleds (anagram of Dalek) and Dals (or Thals).


If you believe Americans, Brits, **** sapiens, **** erectus are not all also Earthings/Terraneans - fair enough.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Who were humanoid. But the part about removing love has always been part of them.


I do not think in the past they created more Daleks by removing love from humans, I think they were created without love, they were not bonded to metal (the head stalk).

Cybermen multiply by upgrading humans into Cybermen by removing love and other emotions and bonding them with metal.

Oswin was a special case in that she was fully converted to Dalek and wasn't bonded to a head stalk - but it does raise the question of how Daleks multiply - do they have genders, crawl out of their armored vehicles, corpulate and give birth?

(I did post the line was_ blurred_, not Daleks became the same as Cybermen)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> I do not think in the past they created more Daleks by removing love from humans, I think they were created without love, they were not bonded to metal (the head stalk).
> 
> Cybermen multiply by upgrading humans into Cybermen by removing love and other emotions and bonding them with metal.
> 
> ...


You would be wrong. Davros created human Daleks in the old show because the Kaled Daleks were not loyal to him. They saw him as inferior. It is not new at all.

Both Cybernen and Daleks bond humanoids to metal and remove emotion. Daleks keep hate. Cybernen remove all. The big difference is their motives. Cybernen believe they are saving everyone from pain and frailty. Daleks want to rule. Even then, Davros created them to bring peace to the universe.

There is Dalek history reaching back to 1963 TV wise. I don't remember it all. However, I do know that the Kaleds were much like humans and they were bred to be how they are today. It was a reaction to degrading mutation from a nuclear war with the Thals. The removal of love et al, was chemical and, presumably still is or the genes gave mutated.


----------



## rich (Mar 18, 2002)

"Eggs."


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> You would be wrong. Davros created human Daleks in the old show because the Kaled Daleks were not loyal to him. They saw him as inferior. It is not new at all.


Something which I have posted several times on the Internet is "there is nothing new under the sun".

But to add a tad of nuance - yes Davros has done all sort of stuff - I think there is a tad of difference between what he does and what common-or-garden Daleks do out in the field.



TonyD79 said:


> Both Cybernen and Daleks bond humanoids to metal and remove emotion. Daleks keep hate. Cybernen remove all. The big difference is their motives. Cybernen believe they are saving everyone from pain and frailty. Daleks want to rule. Even then, *Davros created them to bring peace to the universe*.
> 
> There is Dalek history reaching back to 1963 TV wise. I don't remember it all. However, I do know that the Kaleds were much like humans and they were bred to be how they are today. It was a reaction to degrading mutation from a nuclear war with the Thals. The removal of love et al, was chemical and, presumably still is or the genes gave mutated.


As it happens I have probably watched every surviving Doctor Who episode reaching back to 1963.

I am reasonably certain the Cybermen want to rule.

And at the risk of Godwinning the thread, Davros has always been a Nazi.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> Something which I have posted several times on the Internet is "there is nothing new under the sun".
> 
> But to add a tad of nuance - yes Davros has done all sort of stuff - I think there is a tad of difference between what he does and what common-or-garden Daleks do out in the field.
> 
> ...


Garden variety Dalek? Insane Daleks kept in an asylum are garden variety Daleks? A few of them were from the battle where Davros created human Daleks, if i recall right. No idea if any were the human ones, though. If any survived. But Oswin was not turned into a Dalek by the "sane" ones on the ship but by the "insane" ones.

As for Cybermen ruling. Depend on the definition. They are ruling only because of uniformity. They don't make slaves. They make Cybermen. They are inclusive. While Davros stated he was doing the same when he created the Daleks, he was actually about power for himself. That continued to when he tried to destroy the universe a couple of years ago. The Cybermen are about peace through uniformity and a lack of all emotions. Daleks remain emotional and ambitious. Cybermen are about logic taken to a wild extreme. No emotion, no problems. Actually closer to Borg than Daleks.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

pgogborn said:


> ...And at the risk of Godwinning the thread, Davros has always been a Nazi.


Not Godwinning.

More than just being a Nazi, Davros was Hitler, an impure who demanded purity, but unlike Hitler, Davros' Aryan race rose up against him for being impure.


----------

