Talk:The Daleks' Master Plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Serial v multi-serial 2 Really messed up 3 Donald Tosh 4 Feast of Steven 5 Spar 6 Never seen outside UK

[edit] Serial v multi-serial

I always thought this was a multi-serial (a la The Key to Time, Trial of a Time Lord) 132.205.15.43 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this was a 12-parter, produced under one production code. The only adjunct was Mission to the Unknown, which was a one-episode prologue to this (with The Myth Makers transmitted in between), but had a separate production code. --khaosworks 04:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Really messed up

This requires reversion. I tried to fix a problem and ended up creating a larger one. Sorry. --Proteus 02 May 2005

Easily fixed, and done. Don't worry about it - it happens on occasion, though I'm not sure why. --khaosworks 17:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Tosh

I've removed the note about Nation only writing 20 pages and Tosh inflating it, as it appears to be untrue. To quote David Brunt, one of the foremost Doctor Who historians and former head of the DWAS reference department, in a post on the Outpost Gallifrey forums a while back:

Having read all Nation's draft scripts for the story Tosh's memory is playing serious tricks with him there.

Nation delivered a good 30+ pages of script per each of his six episodes (or the usual 45/50 page Camera Script length when reformatted). If anything, Tosh just polished the dialogue - and actually cut a load of scenes for time and/or budget reasons.

In fact, the thought springs to mind that Tosh tended to rewrite every DW script that was delivered in his time on the show - maybe he was just a compulsive tinkerer in other people's work?

The direct link, for those of you who have OG forum access, is here [1]

Angmering 09:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we rephrase the note, about Tosh's claims and Brunt's rebuttal, then? --khaosworks 11:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, although if David claims he's read all of Nation's draft scripts I'd certainly believe him over Tosh's decades old remembrances. Angmering 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree entirely - but might as well just put the facts up objectively. --khaosworks 11:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feast of Steven

I've gone and listened to the end of "The Feast of Steven" again - several times - and I don't believe that Peter Purves chokes and says "Hey!" as in protesting Hartnell's address to the camera. Rather, he's saying, "Hey-HEY!", as in the typical exclamatory toast, which takes place between him and Jean Marsh, while Hartnell addresses the camera. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What confuses me then is why Purves appears doubled-over in the surviving telesnap of that scene. (I tried to find in on the net in case I've misremembered it, but no luck.) proteus71 18:30, 30 Nov 2005

I haven't seen that, so I can't comment, unfortunately. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Found the telesnap. Purves is not doubled-over, but he appears to be laughing heartily. Jean Marsh is definitely corpsing. I would have thought that if all of the cast knew of Hartnell's address, they would have been smiling sincerely at the camera, toasting the audience, rather than visibily cracking up and causing an unprofessional level of studio noise. proteus71 14:52, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Equivocal. I could equally interpret it as Purves being completely unaware of Hartnell's address to the camera and just celebrating with Jean March (either in character or not).

The presence of the scene in the camera script does suggest that at the very least Camfield and Hartnell knew about it before hand, since the cameras had to be focused on Hartnell for it to work. It could very well be that Purves and Marsh were not aware of it as it was a last minute addition.

I just don't think that Purves' cry was a reaction to Hartnell's line. It doesn't sound like it and I don't think there's a strong enough basis to assert it even as an interpretation. The facts we know for sure are simply that Tosh and Wiles claimed it was a last minute addition, and that it appears in the camera script. That's enough, I think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that that has settled that bit of solution (to borrow a Hartnellism). Thanks. proteus71 16:46, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spar

I thought "Spar" was the name of the type of ship Chen had, either make or model — so saying "Chen's Spar" would be like saying "Josiah's Toyota" or "Josiah's Prius". For what it's worth, it's capitalized on the BBC's plot summary (from Howe's Television Companion, I think). Not sure how best to indicate that, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a note to that effect. Feel free to demolish, er, edit, at your lesuire, as always :).--Sean|Black 06:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also note this [2]. I don't have the CD to check, but..--Sean|Black 06:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... the CD booklet says, "The name Spar (space car) was story editor Donald Tosh's idea." So it is capitalized, but now I'm not sure whether the word refers to a make or model, or a variety (like a cruiser). The scene breakdown does frequently refer to "Chen's Spar", but I'm not sure now whether that tells us anything or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. So "Spar" is capitilized as if it were a make or model, but it also has a definite etymology ("space car"). What does Peel's book say?--Sean|Black 07:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Peel italicizes it, as if it's the ship's name, but then the dialogue suggests it's an expensive luxury make. The technicians discuss it when Chen mentions it on the news. Roald wishes he had "one of those 740s. Elegant, luxurious, plus the ultimate in technology..." and Lizan cuts him off, "And an advertising campaign aimed at billionaires. ... You'll never be able to afford a Spar!"

Would one ever italicize Lamborghini? I wouldn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And here I thought that the book would simplify things. Sheesh!--Sean|Black 07:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Never seen outside UK

Interesting this serial is the only Hartnell serial never seen outside the UK. Wonder why? Maybe it was too long? Anyone know why it was never shown outside UK? Are there any other serials not shown internationally? Asa01 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It was never sold to overseas sources, although I believe copies were sent to other countries to see if they were interested. The length might have been a factor. IIRC, Master Plan is the only one that wasn't sent overseas, which is why the chances of recovering episodes are very, very slim. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The only country to request a viewing copy was Australia, who after viewing it decided it would never get past the censors for the timelsot they usually showed the programme in. What happened to these viewing copies (11 of them - no Feat of Steven) is something of a mystery. Australian fan Damian Shanahan spent some time in recent years trying to track them down in Australia or at least a record of what happened to them, but to no avail. The likeliest bet seems to be that they were either junked by the ABC or returned to the BBC. If it was the latter, then they could very well be the source of the episodes that ended up in that Mormon basement and that projector testing room at Ealing. Where the other eight went, of course, is open to question. Angmering 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to be pedantic here: "Wherefore art thou" is so often mistranslated as meaning "Where are you?" whereas "Wherefore" actually means "Why." "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo," is less of a query as to Romeo's current geographical status as it is Juliet's frustrated plea for the reason why the man she has fallen in love with has to be Romeo Montague, one of her family's hated enemies. So "Episodes, why are you?" really makes no sense. This moment of pendantry has been brought to you by someone who almost became a Shakespearean scholar. Thank you. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And me with a degree in English Literature too. I feel suitably shamed. Angmering 15:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I watched Doctor Who in Aust through the 1970s and beyond. When later I started amassing Who books and literature I realised I had never seen The Brain of Morbius and The Deadly Assassin tho I had seen all the other Tom Baker adventures repeated many times. A few years later I found an ancient TV guide at home and sure enough, Morbius had had a later evening screening on the ABC. It was not shown at the normal timeslot. Apparently the Mary Whitehouse complaints had had some effect. These adventures were apparently removed from repeat runs due to their violent scenes. Too bad I never kept that newspaper. 1980s repeat runs restored Morbius and Assassin. Asa01 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)