Talk:Time War (Doctor Who)

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 Act of Master Restitution 2 Timewar-Timewars? 3 Terminology 4 EDA/Faction Paradox War 5 The Enemy revisited 6 The last Time Lord 7 The latter type of Time War and the Temporal Cold War 8 Series 2 Finale 9 Fall of Arcadia 10 Gallifrey audio series 11 Theory

[edit] Act of Master Restitution

If the parenthesis I added about the "Act of Master Restitution" is too speculative, please feel free to remove it. I just thought that it was likely that the "Master Restitution" was literally that: the restitution of the Master to the Daleks, whom he had once betrayed. Of course, it could also be any of a number of other interpretations, which is why I said "may". Nevertheless, I defer to the community's judgment as to whether this is a likely and noteworthy interpretation, or just fanwankiness. :) —Josiah Rowe 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fanwankiness aside, if indeed the Act of Master Restitution is the handing over of the Master to the Daleks, it's triggering my paradox senses. Currently, it seems from the entry (I don't have the Annual, so you'll have to tell me) that Romana tried the Restitution first, then Etra Prime bollixed it up. Is that correct?

If so, the sequence of events needs to go like this:

1. Romana gives the Master to the Daleks to make peace.
2. Daleks kidnap Romana, invade Gallifrey in The Apocalypse Element and are defeated by the Sixth Doctor. Human retinal patterns are used as a security measure on the Eye of Harmony.
3. mumblemumbleEye of Harmony in TARDIS installed with same security measure.
4. The Master is executed and is picked up by the Seventh Doctor (said assignment given to him by Romana in Lungbarrow).

But since by his seventh incarnation the Doctor should know that the handing over of the Master to the Daleks didn't work, why should he go to fetch the Master's remains anyway? If there's a full blown war going on at this time, why would the Daleks even allow this request? Sure, you can postulate that the Daleks and the Master were in cahoots to screw over the Doctor, but the Doctor wouldn't be that dumb if a state of war existed between the Daleks and the Time Lords, would he? (Then again, he didn't check the scanner before walking out into a hail of gunfire, either)

It would make lots more sense if the Etra Prime incident happened before the Act of Master Restitution. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Davies is careful to be very non-specific about the order of events in the Annual. The relevant sentences are:

While it's hard to find precise records of these events, it's said that under the Act of Master Restitution, President Romana opened a peace treaty with the Daleks. Others claim that the Etra Prime Incident began the escalation of events.

This leaves the order (and, indeed, the meaning) of these two events open to interpretation. I'll try to reword the entry to be equally ambiguous. —Josiah Rowe 05:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Restitution" implies return - i.e., the "restituation" in question is allowing the Doctor to collect the ashes in the TVM rather than any initial handover of the Master. - SoM 14:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Restitution means compensation. The difficulty I have with your reading is that the act of restitution is initiated by Romana as a means to make peace with the Daleks. Why would allowing the Doctor to retrieve the ashes be a peace overture? Besides, it was the Master who requested that the Doctor do this. The Master was allied with the Daleks in Frontier in Space and screwed up badly enough that it's conceivable that the Daleks wanted to exterminate him — the usual Dalek penalty for failure. It makes much more sense if it was Romana handing the Master over to the Daleks for trial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timewar-Timewars?

Is it possible that the Timewar mentioned in the 2005 series is just one of a series of wars fought throughout time? I personally think it is after all the Ninth Doctor refers to the war as "the Last Great Timewar" (Dalek) The only difference between this and other timewars may be that it was the last one and the most destructive.

It is already explained adequately in the Doctor Who Annual 2006 section, where it is explained there were two previous Time Wars. The "Other time wars in Doctor Who" section also talks about time wars in the spin-off fiction. So... already covered. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, isn't "last time war" slightly oxymoronic? :) - SoM 17:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe its just that everbody thinks that there isn't going to be another one (virtually all of the previous time travelling races have been killed), but of course there could be another..... --βjweþþ (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the war between the timelords and great vampires, in State of Decay. I think that's properly characterized as a Timewar, and don't really buy RTD's exclusive chronology as such.Jahenderson

There is no suggestion anywhere in the series or the licensed fiction that the war against the Great Vampires was one that utilised time as a weapon or was fought between two factions divided by time. All accounts point to it being a vicious war happening within the same time zone. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

What can one argue or deduce from the term Timewar? Does it mean that the events took "a long period of time" or that there were "non-sequential movements through time" (ie in the sense that the Tardis can move between different times without being present in the intervening intervals)?

Jackiespeel 18:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

From what Captain Jack & the Doctor were saying in Parting of the Ways, it sounds more like the TLs and the Daleks were taken out of time completely, and the effects of them fighting wherever-they-did caused major disruption - both conventional and timewarp (i.e. retcons) - SoM 19:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, consider RTD's article in the Doctor Who Annual 2006, which identifies the Doctor's mission to prevent the creation of the Daleks (Genesis of the Daleks) as the "first shot" in the Great Time War. That suggests that time-travel was used as a weapon in the Time War. The same article suggests that most of the War took place in the Vortex itself ("and beyond that, in the Ultimate Void, beyond the eyes and ears of ordinary creatures," whatever that means), and that was why its effects were so widespread throughout time and space.

I think it's likely that Davies is indicating (with broad, audience-friendly strokes) the same sort of War throughout history that Lawrence Miles and his cohorts thought up for the EDAs and Faction Paradox lines: that is, a war in which history itself is both a battlefield and a weapon, a war in which cause and effect, beginning and end become confused. It's certainly more than, say, a longer version of the Hundred Years' War. —Josiah Rowe 22:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, what Josiah said :). It doesn't exactly mean changing history or anything- or it doesn't have to, what with the whole Zagreus-Sometime Never Alt Universe idea. The Time Lords, I imagine, would be much more careful with time travel than the Daleks, so history could be intact- indeed, what could be a better blow to to all these time travelling races than "fixing" history! On the other hand, I have this sinking feeling that they'll use "Uh, Time War!" as a blanket "continuity sweep", which is the same reason I don't buy the "Erased Gallifrey" thing. Sean 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EDA/Faction Paradox War

Do we really want to get into the whole "Who is the Enemy" question here? According to Lawrence Miles, neither the Celestis (future Celestial Intelligence Agency) nor Faction Paradox are the Enemy. The Ancestor Cell presented a completely different alternative (the first lifeform in the universe? that wanted to make all other life in the universe over in its image? or something like that? it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me). As for the Daleks, when was it hinted that they were the Enemy?

I think that we might be better off avoiding the entire subject. —Josiah Rowe 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's largely speculation, and it's more appropriate for the EDA article anyways. Besides, Mad Larry has a tendecy to subvert people's expectations. I can recall people saying that he Enemy was the Daleks after Dalek aired, but again, speculation.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. Out it goes. —Josiah Rowe 22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the Enemy was supposed to be the Daleks. That single eye gazing down in (was it Adventuresss of Henrietta Street? Somewhere around there) was a giveaway, as well as the mention of the Klade (oh, those wacky anagrams!). Permission was not obtained, however, and the books went off on that tangent anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew about the Klade, but I always interpreted the eye-in-the-sky in Henrietta Street (which was after The Ancestor Cell, remember) as being the blasted remains of the Eye of Harmony. If it was meant to be representative of the Enemy, I suppose the Daleks are more likely monocular foes than, say, the Monoids... —Josiah Rowe 00:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate the Monoids! A foe so scary Australia's ABC removed every single close-up of them from The Ark. Allegedly. Angmering 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that's where they're going with Season 28 (or Series 2, if you prefer). Er, Monoids, Torchwood.. Yeah, I got nothing :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the final story of next season will feature an epic war between the Monoids and the Nimon. ("Army of Ghosts" is a dummy title, to throw off suspicion.) —Josiah Rowe 01:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What is it, "The War of the Silly Costumes"? :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Colin Baker makes a cameo. —Josiah Rowe 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*/Rimshot!*/ :)--Sean Jelly Baby? 05:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be here all month. And don't forget to tip your waitress! :) —Josiah Rowe 05:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Rereading it on the history page, it's almost pure speculation. Sorry. Daibhid C 18:33 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Anyway, it produced the above bit of silliness, so more good than bad in my book. :) —Josiah Rowe 18:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Enemy revisited

In the AHistory essay about Gallifrey being destroyed (once or twice) he mentions that the Daleks can be the trigger for a single destuction of Gallifrey without being the books' Enemy. I was considering adding this bit of the theory to the EDA section, but in order to do that we'd have to explain who the Enemy is further. I'm slightly abashed, since I was the one who excised the Enemy discussion before. But now we've got published speculation by Lance Parkin, so it's not original research, is it? So, should this bit go in the article or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't, really, since Parkin's essay is purely speculative, even though it's published. Those interested can go pick up the book (it's a good book!) and it's not really necessary to understand what went on in the books or the television series, which do not suggest the Parkin scenario at all. Basically, if we're going to put this in, we're going to be pretty much invalidating all this at the end by saying, "Well, they weren't the Daleks, anyway, and the production team says it's two wars, not one, and it's only a neat little bit of fanwankery on Lance's part which isn't even explicit or implicit in The Gallifrey Chronicles..." and it all winds up looking a little silly and useless, if you see what I mean.

On a related note, I reverted the edit (sort of) because Parkin's exact words in AHistory are: "If there was only one destruction of Gallifrey, he and his future self would have to be present, and both culpable." It's a bit of semantical juggling, but the reason I prefer "both selves" over "both times" is because it makes it clearer that there is only one destruction, witnessed/caused by two of the same guy, rather than two occasions, which although technically correct, muddies things up somewhat. Or perhaps I'm just easily confused. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one. The reason I had made the previous edit was that in our summary "both culpable" seemed unclear to me, since the previous clause hadn't (grammatically) referred to the two versions of the Eighth Doctor as two persons. (Douglas Adams was right — the most difficult thing about time travel is the grammar.)

The current wording is fine, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The last Time Lord

There is a mention of Dr Who being the last Gallifrayan in the latest episode of S2.

How does Dr Who count as the last of his kind as he moves back and forth through time - at certain points he will be co-existing temporally (and temporarily) with other Time Lords? Or is there some sort of paradox-prevention occurring? Jackiespeel 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In the old series, it was said to be forbidden by the Laws of Time for the Doctor to meet his past selves, but that never really stopped him doing so when it was necessary. As we saw in Father's Day, a human whose past selves touch each other can cause a paradox (the same happened in Mawdryn Undead). There is a huge discussion in fandom about why the Doctor just can't go back; people have noticed that whenever the Doctor goes back to Gallifrey, he never goes back to a past version, but one later than the last he visited. This may be some kind of limitation as well. In the books, it is forbidden to go into Gallifrey's past (though typically, the Doctor's done that as well). In The Gallifrey Chronicles, after Gallifrey was destroyed in The Ancestor Cell, it was explained that that destruction created an event horizon in relative time, a barrier that prevented anyone from going to Gallifrey prior to its destruction and anyone there travelling to a point beyond it, which explained why the Eighth Doctor no longer encountered Time Lords. Headache inducing, yeah, but there you go. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to "date" the Time War in which the Dr becomes the last Timelord - to somewhere before "real present" - going by S1 episode Dalek and S2 episode School Reunion. Jackiespeel 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, at least, a fact that the winner of The Weakest Link in Bad Wolf dated the Time-War as being "thousands of years ago". That's all I'm adding.--Stripey1 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all Rodrick said was (in reference to the Daleks) "they disappeared thousands of years ago." Given the nature of a time war, that really means very little. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The latter type of Time War and the Temporal Cold War

I doubt it would be worth mentioning on the article itself, but the latter description bears resembalance unto the Temporal Cold War as was seen throughout the length of Star Trek: Enterprise. Even though it's a story-arc they never properly done right, in my opinion and seeing as UPN forced it on them..

Though, the otherwise article has listed the Time War under Comparisons, so I s'pose a See Also might be fitting in some way.. What do you think?DrWho42 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)#

[edit] Series 2 Finale

Should some referance to be made to the speculation aboiut the up and coming series ending double episode Army of Ghosts/Doomsday?

It is rumoured that this episode contains a war between the Cybermen and the Daleks, two species who have used time travel. This war could be some form of Time War.

"Speculation", "rumoured", "could", "some form"; all these words should tell you that this is a bad idea. There's no basis whatsoever for assuming that there is any non-superficial connection, at least at this time. Let's wait and see, please.--SB | T 09:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Whatever you say. 213.162.107.4 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Arcadia

Was the Doctor really speaking literally when he said he was at the "fall of Arcadia"? I think this is probably a figurative reference to the destruction of Gallifrey, rather than a planet called Arcadia. The Wikipedia entry for Arcadia (utopia) describes it as a "poetical name for fantasy land (having more or less the same connotation as Utopia)". This fits with the theme of Time Lords-as-lesser-gods that has been particularly evident during the Tenth Doctor's tenure.

Interesting interpreation, but I'd adhere to Occam's Razor for this one, particularly since RTD is fond of inserting these little continuity Easter Eggs into scripts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallifrey audio series

Is there a way to acknowledge the apparent attempt to dovetail the Gallifrey audio series with the events of the Time War without delving into original research? In Gallifrey:Panacea Braxiatel speaks of "rumours out there in the big wide universe — more than rumours, in fact — that something's coming to Gallifrey, something worse than you could possibly imagine", which is almost certainly intended as a reference to the Time War; he also says that if the Imperiatrix had ruled Gallifrey, the dismal future he's heard tell of could have been prevented, alluding to "what you saw in the Matrix projections — remember, Romana?" This is probably a reference to the Matrix projection of Imperiatrix Romana obliterating the Dalek Emperor from history in Neverland, reprised (with the Nekkistani taking the Daleks' place) in Gallifrey: Imperiatrix. Along with the extremely weakened state of Gallifrey at the end of the series (facing economic and social collapse as well as the Free Time virus rampant among the population), it all looks very much like an attempt to set up the Time War. But how do we say that while avoiding OR? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

Theory in the time war final battle the doctor use the hand of omega from (Remembrance of the Daleks)to destroy Gallifrey sun and the dalek Armada. He said in dalek (2005) the dalek ships were on fire this is one Theory how timelords were destroyed.

the beast he said rose would die in battle tecnicily go to a diffrent realty from satan childern are abdon and great vampiers beacuase they slept of eturnety and are devil like —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stargate2007 (talk • contribs) 14:36, February 9, 2007 (UTC)