This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Utopia (Doctor Who) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Utopia (Doctor Who) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please can we remain calm in the rush to edit the article and do it properly (ie correct spellings, punctuations and so on). Also there has been no mention of Saxon until the trailer for next week's episode so it doesn't need a major mention until the end of the article.
Also feel free to post in here first to build a consensus, I'm guessing there are a few conflicts at the moment. AlanD 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably ought to be re-added now that the Sun has turned out to be completely spot on :-) 91.84.13.71 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The Sun claimed that the Professor would reveal himself to be the Master when he regenerated. It turned out to be a little more complicated than that. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
David Tennant reports "The Face of Boe isn't lying, but there isn't really another Time Lord kicking about. It's a bit more complication than that. Yeah, stay tuned, yeah. But also, the Face of Boe story isn't finished yet either" during an interview by Michael Parkinson on 5th May 2007. [1],
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
'Jack was last seen walking towards the (off-screen) TARDIS which disappeared at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days.' Yeah quick thing he didnt walk he just smiled and looked around.
This:
Should be removed, as there is no explination of how this relates to the continuity of the episode?
But it expains how he turned up in Cardiff, he was left on the gamestation at the end of parting of the ways.
Should add a note (and external reference) that the year 100 Trillion is considered to be the fourteenth cosmological decade (1014 years), and marks the end of the The Second Age of the Universe - The Stelliferous Era of the five Ages of the Universe. The descriptions given throughout the episode are fairly accurate for what are hypothesized for the end of The Stelliferous Era. 32.97.110.142 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"Utopia is also the name of a short trips story featuring the Seventh Doctor." I think explanation or link to what short trips is would be useful. Otherwise it makes no sense. 220.237.81.74 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What is our reason to believe that Derek Jacobi's character shows up in this episode as opposed to The Sound of Drums? The Daily Mirror story merely says "toward the end of the series", and the official site's story doesn't say anything about which story he's in (except that he's "caught in a desperate bid to save the human race"). Was he seen in filming for this episode or something? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see: it's in the latest DWM. My bad. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Tennant and Jacobi are not wearing the same outfit at all, and the Tennant scene is almost certainly from Human Nature/The Family of Blood, a story in which The Doctor believes he's someone else, and which is set in a period which matches the Doctor's outfit. Kelvingreen 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Triva is advised against. ADBandicoot ( talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The article, in the published rumours section, says this:
The Sun has reported that the Professor (Sir Derek Jacobi) is the Master in disguise, and that this will be revealed when he regenerates. The Sun has also reported that John Simm (who is in the succeeding two episodes) will be playing the Master.
Whilst this could very well be true, it should really be accompanied by a note stressing that this is only a rumour. The article makes it sound very much like this is true. Perhaps a note such as, 'However, this has not been verified by the production team. The Sun has been known to get such rumours wrong in the past.', would do? - Weebiloobil 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The Sun has made many false predictions about Doctor Who. I don't see why we even include their rumors. -- Phoenix Hacker 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the rumors. Encyclopedias do not have "rumors" sections. -- Tony Sidaway 10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably ought to be re-added now that the Sun has turned out to be completely spot on :-) 91.84.13.71 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
"This episode also sees the return of a monster from the Patrick Troughton era. Many believe it to be the Macra." Says who? This needs citation ( Black Dalek 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)).
The doctor says that the rift has been active, does this not make reference to The last 2 Torchwoods of series 1
Actually the entire series. 82.32.48.236 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll be removing the image again in a minute. The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove.
Unless a verifiable source is provided I will remove this image aggressively according to Wikipedia policy, those be the rules. Remember: the onus is yours, not mine ( WP:V). Matthew 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The source is that that SirDJ is in that episode alone, and that is logically true. I've requested that the page be changed to "my version", since that was the pre-war one, and the fact that it was protected at the wrong version was due to when it was protected, not divine approval of your scheme.-- Rambutan ( talk) 14:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.
Why not use a picture that we know is in Utopia? Like Jack dangling from the TARDIS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.173.62 ( talk • contribs)
The image appears to be entirely lacking in commentary and importance to the article. Is the need to see the role severely impacting the article? It is not, from the looks of it. The image would seem to be decorative, something not allowed per the fair-use criteria.- M ask? 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Remove 'subscript text' below the tags, is ugly. Riana ⁂ 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just realised that ref 4 can be used to cover rene zagger's apperence in this ep. Could admin update it please. Also, you might want to change the companion format in the infobox to match prevous episodes. Thanks Willow177 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} Can we change the opening word Utopia to "Utopia" as it's an episode not as serial.~ Zythe Talk to me! 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Torchwood episode, the TARDIS appears in Jack's office, and in this episode, he has to run across the plaza to get onto it...what's the deal with this? Kuralyov 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You don't only hear the TARDIS arriving, you also see things blowing around (which usually accompanies the TARDIS when it materializes, which means it was in close proximity to Jack, i.e. in the same room. Also, only seconds pass from when Jack leaves Gwen in his office to hearing the TARDIS materialize/dematerialize – not enough time for Jack to grab a bag, get out of the base, and run to the TARDIS. 71.58.249.160 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The TARDIS landed ontop of the invisble lift seen in Torchwood so maybe the wind came down from there and blew everything about.
Could someone maybe grab an image from last night's trailer? Then all the hundreds of those arguing against consensus ( Matthew) will be happy.-- Rambutan ( talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Citations for all the actors appearing in this episode are found in DWM 383.
"A Doctor Who Special of Blue Peter will be shown on Wednesday 13th June 2007": cite for this is DWA 31
Can this be semi-protected instead of fully protected? Also, can someone italicise "Blue Peter"? - Trampikey( talk)( contribs) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Most users agree that it is not a violation. It's consensus. What don't you understand?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've unprotected this article. While discussion continues regarding the inclusion of an image, no image should be added or removed from the article. I'm trusting that all editors will be able to exercise some self-control and use dialog rather than starting a new edit war. I want this article to be editable by everyone, and because this is an isolated issue with the page, I feel that everyone can keep discussion regarding the image on this talk page, while still preserving the ability to edit the page and its contents freely. If the disputed image is added or removed again, the page will most likely return to full protection. Please exercise some restraint. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So, in agreement are: myself (1), Karen/Mavarin (2) and Willow177 (3). One more person is needed.-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this must be rather complicated for you. Read the following bullet points, and perhaps you’ll understand:
Can you follow that?-- Rambutan ( talk) 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection; Will, thanks for reverting: I'm close to 3RR!-- Rambutan ( talk) 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Some git's removed the image, and deleted it. Any suggestions?-- Rambutan ( talk) 11:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As I explained, the consensus was, that policy was not broken. The consensus was not to break policy. We decided that the image was fine with NFCC. Thus, you're acting in a unilateral way.-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) If it's crystal clear, then how come four or five users didn't understand it?-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did the image have a fair use rationale? - Trampikey( talk)( contribs) 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This image should explain the situation to those who don't understand it.-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... look, I'm as big a fan of nuking non-free content as the next person, but this image can clearly pass #4 and #8 with minimal fuss. Any image from the trailer has been published (we'd just be using a very small excerpt from the video), and the case of illustration seems to me significant - given that very little is known about an episode before it airs, an image goes a long way to illustrating the tone of an episode. Similarly, casting news like Derek Jacobi's appearance is well-illustrated by a picture of his character. The only thing that may well not have been good was the image tag, but that could readily be fixed by a re-upload with a proper tag. Phil Sandifer 14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've readded in an image - the original one. The original one does pass WP:NFCC, to 81's concerns:
I hope there aren't any concerns. Will ( talk) 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, does this mean that all images on all Doctor Who articles should be removed?-- Rambutan ( talk) 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
guys can we try to get along, i hate edit wars they tear users apart, now stop removing and deleting the images-- Lerdthenerd 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The following summary appeared on the official BBC Youtube channel for a day or so on their Utopia trailer. It has since been edited but several people/websites have noted the original version:
The TARDIS propels itself to the end of the Universe where they encounter the Futurekind, a wild race that hunts humans for food. After a narrow escape the Doctor, Martha and Captain Jack find themselves in Silo 16 where Professor Yana is building a rocket for the remaining humans to escape to a distant Utopia.
There are some who say the name "Yana" is very significant for reasons I won't immediately point out as it is perhaps spoilerific. TaraLivesOn 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was going through and citing this article, but I appear to have removed the reference table. Also, I am tempted to remove the section about the TARDIS refueling, as it seems like speculation. Feedback please Willow177 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find the source of this again so I won't put it in the article but it seems very familiar from the director of Utopia (SPOILER WARNING)
"filmed a regeneration, but it's not the Doctors. It's something you really wont expect"
-- TaraLivesOn 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like the rumour that Derek Jacobi's The Proffessor was the Master in disguise, and he regenerates into John Simm's Mr Saxon. Digifiend 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Acording to the times, Mr Saxon will be appearing in this episode. I found it here : http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/wardenoftheveil/Utopia1.jpg
The Radio Times website however fails to mention John Simms as appearing in the episode, so it can't be definate
http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=92&programmeId=61796644&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details_fullpage.jsp
User:Chris
22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the "name in credits" quote is from What's On TV not the Radio Times. Its' not in copy of RT, and I had a flick through WoTV in a newsagents and the quote was there so I jotted down the page number and article title... but It seems the "joy to play" and "sad leader" quotes aren't from RT either and I only gave WoTV a cursory glance... are these from there too? -- GracieLizzie 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Can people please note that a line from a children's television presenter may not mean that the production office views Utopia as the first of a three-parter? Last I checked, DWM still has eps 12 & 13 as a two part story. That episode 11 leads into this two-parter is neither here nor there unless RTD or someone official says something to that effect. Mark H Wilkinson 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be nice if we could keep the plot to the main things: The Master, Captain Jack, Utopia and the regeneration, and so on. Some of our plot summaries are nothing more than "he did this then she did that and then..." which is painful to read and not very encyclopedic. -- Tony Sidaway 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Buried in the haze of noises that Yana hears as he remembers who he is, there seem to be some classic Master quotes. I definitely heard "You will give your power to me," from The Daemons. Anyone able to pick out any more? - Chris McFeely 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I do remember seeing in the CC a line of dialog credited to "Second Master" but I can't remember what the line is. 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt, you can't just revert. It's there to support WP:MOS, and to stop some of the crap edits that have been pouring in.-- Rambutan ( talk) 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, after an episode, I spend about 45 minutes "policing": I've not yet made a single genuine edit to the page for Utopia, SoD, LotTL or the Master, because I've been too busy with my poopa-scoop. If we warn people to use correct spelling and grammar, then that could potentially reduce the number of reverts by 10%.-- Rambutan ( talk) 06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we please remove the reference to Martha realizing that the Master's new body is Mister Saxon? Viewers who skip the "Next Episode" trailers to avoid spoilers may not have realized the Saxon/Master connection yet, and it would be terribly unfair to spoil such a surprise in a future episode. Further, the reference to the return of the Master at the very beginning of the article should be eliminated for the time being; someone who clicks on this page who hasn't seen the episode yet may not realize that the Master returns (particularly viewers in North America), and it would be unfair to put such an important spoiler at the very beginning. If they read the detailed synopsis, then, sure, it's on them, but it's not like people don't accidentally click links. -- User:DarthSci 23:59 16 JUNE 2007 UTC
The lead must contain the following facts, which are the most signficant about this episode:
This follows from the Lead section guideline and our duty as an encyclopedia to Neutral point of view. We don't omit details just because some people don't want to know them. This isn't a fan wiki and it isn't a blog. It's an encyclopedia.
In deference to the fact that this episode has only aired, presently, on BBC, I suggest that we follow the practice recommended in the spoiler guideline and put a {{spoiler}} tag at the very top of the page. -- Tony Sidaway 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Matthew ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that we're not having the spoiler tag ( [2], [3]).-- Rambutan ( talk) 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Simple as, if you read WP:SPOILER, it says that spoiler-warnings are permissible when the editors can prove that it would spoil enjoyment if they weren't there. We've done that, so it's allowed.-- Rambutan ( talk) 09:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been done above, but I'll do it again since you evidently can't reach the PgUp key.
WP:SPOILER says that if a spoiler-tag is justified according to those two criteria, it's allowed. It's policy. It's justified, so it's allowed. It's allowed. What is it you find complicated? Is WP:SPOILER not policy any more?-- Rambutan ( talk) 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ckatz seems to be debating whether we should link the Master or the Master. I think we should use the former, since it's his name.-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ckatz, apologies for the lack of clarity. Since the articles are written in the third person, the definate article should be used. MartinMcCann 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Do people think that it's worth noting that the Master is the fourth character to appear in both the old and the new series? GusF 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Even the Macra have returned:) 86.140.113.129 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been saying "The Master regenerates during the course of the episode, so he is played by two actors" in the lead section, and Sceptre has been removing it.
Maybe we should discuss this.
It seems pretty important to me. Time Lords seldom regenerate, and when this happens in Doctor Who there are two actors playing the part: one before and one after. I'd like to know why this keeps being removed from the lead section as "not important enough." -- Tony Sidaway 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'Plot' section for this article needs rewriting - it goes through the story but not in too much detail (it leaves out what the Doctor and Jack talk about when he is in the radiation room which i think is quite important) and i do not like it when it says 'A subplot includes...' as this should just be intergrated into the article as it goes through the story. Could someone please change this? I'd do it myself but i have exams i need to revise for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 June 2007
I've removed the "Master No Six" thing as original research for now. It would be nice to have a reliable source. -- Tony Sidaway 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't seen and confimation that "Mister Saxon" was meant as an anagram of "Master no Six", but the BBC's fact file on the episode "Utopia" points out that the John Simm incarnation of the Master is the sixth incarnation that the Doctor has faced. Peter Pratt and Geoffrey Beevers played the same incarnation and the Gordon Tipple incarnation didn't face the Doctor onscreen. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Edited by Gallifreyan Summoner 22:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The BBC website uses the formulation "Master No. Six". Not only is this an anagram of "Mister Saxon", it is an unusual formulation too. Given the Tremas>Master thing in the past, it cannot be a coincidence. It is not original research, just a straightforward, uncontroversial deduction.
I imagine that after the next episode, the BBC website will be explicit about this. Although I see no need to wait a few days to re-add the info, I suppose it is only a matter of a few days before your objection will be removed, The Tribe of Gum 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The synopsis section is full of flowery, non-encyclopedic language. Most notably, the decidedly non-neutral closing sentence: "But will the vicious Futurekind thwart his plans?" Is this an encyclopedia article or an advertisement for the show? I was just going to change it, but a comment within the article pointed me to the talk page -- but I can't find any relevant discussion. Let's get this cleaned up. -- MisterHand 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me.-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're an IP doesn't make you wrong, but most IP edits within the first two hours of the episode's broadcast are wrong.-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that this is the first regeneration of a character - other than the Doctor - to be shown on screen? I know that Romana regenerated in Destiny of the Daleks, but the actual regeneration was not shown on screen - you just saw her coming in with different bodies. StuartDD 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, there should be three more zeros if we're talking about a British trillion here, which I think we have to assume. Gives us all a bit more hope for the future of the universe, too - I'd like to think it lasts a bit longer! Famico666 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Love and bless them, are the YouTube Whogasm girls worth mentioning in this article? Mark H Wilkinson 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The following section continually keeps getting taken down, despite being significant enough to become a national news story about Utopia, where it's confirmed as an internet hit. What's everyone's thoughts on this? I think it's significant enough to be mentioned.
The Metro newspaper reported that a pair of female Doctor Who fans from Ireland had "become internet stars after a clip of them enjoying an episode of the sci-fi series just a little too much was shown on the web". The clip, titled Whogasm was uploaded on June 17, 2007 and shows them watching Utopia, when, as The Metro describes, "Suddenly, they start to scream and swear as the action unfolds in front of them in what can only be described as a 'Whogasm'." [1] [2] bingo99 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Its still has a readership in the millions in the UK. It's the fourth most read daily paper.
bingo99 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The Whogasm clip also has a story about it on The Stage website
And also gets a mention by a journalist on The Guardian website
bingo99 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
References
Is this sourced and/or true?-- Rambutan ( talk) 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have reverted it, but I'd have been blocked because someone would decide I'd broken 3RR. Would you mind?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You hear Anthony Ainley laughing, and you hear... there, that's Roger Delgado, who's speaking in I think The Dæmons!
— Phil Collinson, 36:55 to 37:01, "Utopia" commentary
It isn't mentioned in the article (and perhaps it shouldn't be since it smacks of OR) but the Master was supposed to have reached the end of his regeneration cycle before the events of The Deadly Assassin, thus the need for him to take over of Tremas' body after failing to gain the Doctor's in The Keeper of Traken. The end of this marvelous (sorry POV I know) episode quite clearly shows him regenerating. Now I don't have access to much of the info that is currently available to you UK wikipedians and it is two months until we will get to hear the commentaries on the DVD. So I have to assume that (like the Doctor's regen from the eighth to the ninth) an untelevised (and unwritten?) tale in which the Master regained a new regen cycle (like the one that was referred to in The Five Doctors) must have occured. Has there been any comment on the net or in Doctor Who Monthly? Any info you can add will be appreciated and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that a computer keyboard used had hiragana on them, as well as english letters, just thought this might be worth noting as I don't remember any references to any real languages set this far in the future (50trillion years wasnt it?) before (but I may be wrong).-- 211.28.212.240 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I read a review that claimed Eric Roberts' voice (from his portrayal of the Master in the 1996 film) can also be heard during the same sequence where we hear Ainley and Delgado. Can anyone confirm this? It's certainly worth noting, not the least of which because it would be the second concrete bit of evidence (after the on-screen appearance of the Eighth Doctor's image in Human Nature) that the TVM is indeed being treated as canon by the revived series, a topic still of much debate. PS. I just found an uncited reference to this very thing in the Wikipedia article on the Eighth Doctor. If a source is available for this information, it should be added to that article, too. 68.146.41.232 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've quick-failed this because it's in no way complete - it misses out a lot of production and reception. Some tips before renominating:
Thanks, Will ( talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
When Martha rushes to inform the Doctor about Yana's fob watch, she starts with, "Think what the Face of Boe said..." Jack (aka Face of Boe) looks at Martha. She continues, "...his dying words..." Jack looks at the Doctor, then stares at the floor. She never completes because the rocket starts to take off shortly thereafter.
Apparently, Jack was paying attention to what Martha was trying to say, which is why his question to the Doctor, "Will I ever be able to die?" seems out of place in Season 3's last episode, 'Last Of The Time Lords'.
Doctor051 ( talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that Tim was right to remove the bald assertion that this is a three-part story. There is conflicting evidence from reliable sources; on the one hand, you've got Totally Doctor Who and the DWM poll saying it is a three-parter, on the other hand you've got the writer and executive producer saying that it's not. I think that Tim's wording was appropriately neutral for the introduction. It would even be worthwhile for the article to go into the matter in a bit more depth later on — I'll take a look at Davies' DWM column and see what I can put together. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Even though I've seen the episode, I can't recall what the 'truth' is. I think that some people who read this sentence may also wonder this vague allusion is, so could someone include what the truth is? 82.32.11.95 ( talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There should be some continuity about the Master hearing the sound of drums. I have not seen very many of the Classic Doctor Who episodes featuring the Master during the Pertwee era, so I don't have the information. I did read a lot of the books though, and I don't remember any references to this. However, there IS a reference to him hearing them in the book "Decalog" in the short story "The Duke of Dominoes" by Marc Platt, published in 1994, nine years before the new series started airing. The reference is made in passing, as a reminder of something the reader should already know, so I am assuming there are more references to it in either previous episodes, audio stories, or novels. If someone has information and citations for it, please add them. 74.139.197.36 ( talk) 01:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Utopia (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Utopia (Doctor Who) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Utopia (Doctor Who) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Please can we remain calm in the rush to edit the article and do it properly (ie correct spellings, punctuations and so on). Also there has been no mention of Saxon until the trailer for next week's episode so it doesn't need a major mention until the end of the article.
Also feel free to post in here first to build a consensus, I'm guessing there are a few conflicts at the moment. AlanD 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably ought to be re-added now that the Sun has turned out to be completely spot on :-) 91.84.13.71 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The Sun claimed that the Professor would reveal himself to be the Master when he regenerated. It turned out to be a little more complicated than that. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
David Tennant reports "The Face of Boe isn't lying, but there isn't really another Time Lord kicking about. It's a bit more complication than that. Yeah, stay tuned, yeah. But also, the Face of Boe story isn't finished yet either" during an interview by Michael Parkinson on 5th May 2007. [1],
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
'Jack was last seen walking towards the (off-screen) TARDIS which disappeared at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days.' Yeah quick thing he didnt walk he just smiled and looked around.
This:
Should be removed, as there is no explination of how this relates to the continuity of the episode?
But it expains how he turned up in Cardiff, he was left on the gamestation at the end of parting of the ways.
Should add a note (and external reference) that the year 100 Trillion is considered to be the fourteenth cosmological decade (1014 years), and marks the end of the The Second Age of the Universe - The Stelliferous Era of the five Ages of the Universe. The descriptions given throughout the episode are fairly accurate for what are hypothesized for the end of The Stelliferous Era. 32.97.110.142 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"Utopia is also the name of a short trips story featuring the Seventh Doctor." I think explanation or link to what short trips is would be useful. Otherwise it makes no sense. 220.237.81.74 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What is our reason to believe that Derek Jacobi's character shows up in this episode as opposed to The Sound of Drums? The Daily Mirror story merely says "toward the end of the series", and the official site's story doesn't say anything about which story he's in (except that he's "caught in a desperate bid to save the human race"). Was he seen in filming for this episode or something? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see: it's in the latest DWM. My bad. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Tennant and Jacobi are not wearing the same outfit at all, and the Tennant scene is almost certainly from Human Nature/The Family of Blood, a story in which The Doctor believes he's someone else, and which is set in a period which matches the Doctor's outfit. Kelvingreen 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Triva is advised against. ADBandicoot ( talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The article, in the published rumours section, says this:
The Sun has reported that the Professor (Sir Derek Jacobi) is the Master in disguise, and that this will be revealed when he regenerates. The Sun has also reported that John Simm (who is in the succeeding two episodes) will be playing the Master.
Whilst this could very well be true, it should really be accompanied by a note stressing that this is only a rumour. The article makes it sound very much like this is true. Perhaps a note such as, 'However, this has not been verified by the production team. The Sun has been known to get such rumours wrong in the past.', would do? - Weebiloobil 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The Sun has made many false predictions about Doctor Who. I don't see why we even include their rumors. -- Phoenix Hacker 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the rumors. Encyclopedias do not have "rumors" sections. -- Tony Sidaway 10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably ought to be re-added now that the Sun has turned out to be completely spot on :-) 91.84.13.71 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
"This episode also sees the return of a monster from the Patrick Troughton era. Many believe it to be the Macra." Says who? This needs citation ( Black Dalek 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)).
The doctor says that the rift has been active, does this not make reference to The last 2 Torchwoods of series 1
Actually the entire series. 82.32.48.236 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll be removing the image again in a minute. The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove.
Unless a verifiable source is provided I will remove this image aggressively according to Wikipedia policy, those be the rules. Remember: the onus is yours, not mine ( WP:V). Matthew 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The source is that that SirDJ is in that episode alone, and that is logically true. I've requested that the page be changed to "my version", since that was the pre-war one, and the fact that it was protected at the wrong version was due to when it was protected, not divine approval of your scheme.-- Rambutan ( talk) 14:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.
Why not use a picture that we know is in Utopia? Like Jack dangling from the TARDIS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.173.62 ( talk • contribs)
The image appears to be entirely lacking in commentary and importance to the article. Is the need to see the role severely impacting the article? It is not, from the looks of it. The image would seem to be decorative, something not allowed per the fair-use criteria.- M ask? 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}} Remove 'subscript text' below the tags, is ugly. Riana ⁂ 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just realised that ref 4 can be used to cover rene zagger's apperence in this ep. Could admin update it please. Also, you might want to change the companion format in the infobox to match prevous episodes. Thanks Willow177 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} Can we change the opening word Utopia to "Utopia" as it's an episode not as serial.~ Zythe Talk to me! 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Torchwood episode, the TARDIS appears in Jack's office, and in this episode, he has to run across the plaza to get onto it...what's the deal with this? Kuralyov 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You don't only hear the TARDIS arriving, you also see things blowing around (which usually accompanies the TARDIS when it materializes, which means it was in close proximity to Jack, i.e. in the same room. Also, only seconds pass from when Jack leaves Gwen in his office to hearing the TARDIS materialize/dematerialize – not enough time for Jack to grab a bag, get out of the base, and run to the TARDIS. 71.58.249.160 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The TARDIS landed ontop of the invisble lift seen in Torchwood so maybe the wind came down from there and blew everything about.
Could someone maybe grab an image from last night's trailer? Then all the hundreds of those arguing against consensus ( Matthew) will be happy.-- Rambutan ( talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Citations for all the actors appearing in this episode are found in DWM 383.
"A Doctor Who Special of Blue Peter will be shown on Wednesday 13th June 2007": cite for this is DWA 31
Can this be semi-protected instead of fully protected? Also, can someone italicise "Blue Peter"? - Trampikey( talk)( contribs) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Most users agree that it is not a violation. It's consensus. What don't you understand?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've unprotected this article. While discussion continues regarding the inclusion of an image, no image should be added or removed from the article. I'm trusting that all editors will be able to exercise some self-control and use dialog rather than starting a new edit war. I want this article to be editable by everyone, and because this is an isolated issue with the page, I feel that everyone can keep discussion regarding the image on this talk page, while still preserving the ability to edit the page and its contents freely. If the disputed image is added or removed again, the page will most likely return to full protection. Please exercise some restraint. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
So, in agreement are: myself (1), Karen/Mavarin (2) and Willow177 (3). One more person is needed.-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this must be rather complicated for you. Read the following bullet points, and perhaps you’ll understand:
Can you follow that?-- Rambutan ( talk) 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection; Will, thanks for reverting: I'm close to 3RR!-- Rambutan ( talk) 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Some git's removed the image, and deleted it. Any suggestions?-- Rambutan ( talk) 11:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As I explained, the consensus was, that policy was not broken. The consensus was not to break policy. We decided that the image was fine with NFCC. Thus, you're acting in a unilateral way.-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) If it's crystal clear, then how come four or five users didn't understand it?-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did the image have a fair use rationale? - Trampikey( talk)( contribs) 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This image should explain the situation to those who don't understand it.-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... look, I'm as big a fan of nuking non-free content as the next person, but this image can clearly pass #4 and #8 with minimal fuss. Any image from the trailer has been published (we'd just be using a very small excerpt from the video), and the case of illustration seems to me significant - given that very little is known about an episode before it airs, an image goes a long way to illustrating the tone of an episode. Similarly, casting news like Derek Jacobi's appearance is well-illustrated by a picture of his character. The only thing that may well not have been good was the image tag, but that could readily be fixed by a re-upload with a proper tag. Phil Sandifer 14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've readded in an image - the original one. The original one does pass WP:NFCC, to 81's concerns:
I hope there aren't any concerns. Will ( talk) 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, does this mean that all images on all Doctor Who articles should be removed?-- Rambutan ( talk) 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
guys can we try to get along, i hate edit wars they tear users apart, now stop removing and deleting the images-- Lerdthenerd 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The following summary appeared on the official BBC Youtube channel for a day or so on their Utopia trailer. It has since been edited but several people/websites have noted the original version:
The TARDIS propels itself to the end of the Universe where they encounter the Futurekind, a wild race that hunts humans for food. After a narrow escape the Doctor, Martha and Captain Jack find themselves in Silo 16 where Professor Yana is building a rocket for the remaining humans to escape to a distant Utopia.
There are some who say the name "Yana" is very significant for reasons I won't immediately point out as it is perhaps spoilerific. TaraLivesOn 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was going through and citing this article, but I appear to have removed the reference table. Also, I am tempted to remove the section about the TARDIS refueling, as it seems like speculation. Feedback please Willow177 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find the source of this again so I won't put it in the article but it seems very familiar from the director of Utopia (SPOILER WARNING)
"filmed a regeneration, but it's not the Doctors. It's something you really wont expect"
-- TaraLivesOn 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like the rumour that Derek Jacobi's The Proffessor was the Master in disguise, and he regenerates into John Simm's Mr Saxon. Digifiend 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Acording to the times, Mr Saxon will be appearing in this episode. I found it here : http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/wardenoftheveil/Utopia1.jpg
The Radio Times website however fails to mention John Simms as appearing in the episode, so it can't be definate
http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=92&programmeId=61796644&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details_fullpage.jsp
User:Chris
22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the "name in credits" quote is from What's On TV not the Radio Times. Its' not in copy of RT, and I had a flick through WoTV in a newsagents and the quote was there so I jotted down the page number and article title... but It seems the "joy to play" and "sad leader" quotes aren't from RT either and I only gave WoTV a cursory glance... are these from there too? -- GracieLizzie 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Can people please note that a line from a children's television presenter may not mean that the production office views Utopia as the first of a three-parter? Last I checked, DWM still has eps 12 & 13 as a two part story. That episode 11 leads into this two-parter is neither here nor there unless RTD or someone official says something to that effect. Mark H Wilkinson 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be nice if we could keep the plot to the main things: The Master, Captain Jack, Utopia and the regeneration, and so on. Some of our plot summaries are nothing more than "he did this then she did that and then..." which is painful to read and not very encyclopedic. -- Tony Sidaway 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Buried in the haze of noises that Yana hears as he remembers who he is, there seem to be some classic Master quotes. I definitely heard "You will give your power to me," from The Daemons. Anyone able to pick out any more? - Chris McFeely 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I do remember seeing in the CC a line of dialog credited to "Second Master" but I can't remember what the line is. 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt, you can't just revert. It's there to support WP:MOS, and to stop some of the crap edits that have been pouring in.-- Rambutan ( talk) 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, after an episode, I spend about 45 minutes "policing": I've not yet made a single genuine edit to the page for Utopia, SoD, LotTL or the Master, because I've been too busy with my poopa-scoop. If we warn people to use correct spelling and grammar, then that could potentially reduce the number of reverts by 10%.-- Rambutan ( talk) 06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we please remove the reference to Martha realizing that the Master's new body is Mister Saxon? Viewers who skip the "Next Episode" trailers to avoid spoilers may not have realized the Saxon/Master connection yet, and it would be terribly unfair to spoil such a surprise in a future episode. Further, the reference to the return of the Master at the very beginning of the article should be eliminated for the time being; someone who clicks on this page who hasn't seen the episode yet may not realize that the Master returns (particularly viewers in North America), and it would be unfair to put such an important spoiler at the very beginning. If they read the detailed synopsis, then, sure, it's on them, but it's not like people don't accidentally click links. -- User:DarthSci 23:59 16 JUNE 2007 UTC
The lead must contain the following facts, which are the most signficant about this episode:
This follows from the Lead section guideline and our duty as an encyclopedia to Neutral point of view. We don't omit details just because some people don't want to know them. This isn't a fan wiki and it isn't a blog. It's an encyclopedia.
In deference to the fact that this episode has only aired, presently, on BBC, I suggest that we follow the practice recommended in the spoiler guideline and put a {{spoiler}} tag at the very top of the page. -- Tony Sidaway 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Matthew ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that we're not having the spoiler tag ( [2], [3]).-- Rambutan ( talk) 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Simple as, if you read WP:SPOILER, it says that spoiler-warnings are permissible when the editors can prove that it would spoil enjoyment if they weren't there. We've done that, so it's allowed.-- Rambutan ( talk) 09:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been done above, but I'll do it again since you evidently can't reach the PgUp key.
WP:SPOILER says that if a spoiler-tag is justified according to those two criteria, it's allowed. It's policy. It's justified, so it's allowed. It's allowed. What is it you find complicated? Is WP:SPOILER not policy any more?-- Rambutan ( talk) 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ckatz seems to be debating whether we should link the Master or the Master. I think we should use the former, since it's his name.-- Rambutan ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ckatz, apologies for the lack of clarity. Since the articles are written in the third person, the definate article should be used. MartinMcCann 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Do people think that it's worth noting that the Master is the fourth character to appear in both the old and the new series? GusF 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Even the Macra have returned:) 86.140.113.129 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been saying "The Master regenerates during the course of the episode, so he is played by two actors" in the lead section, and Sceptre has been removing it.
Maybe we should discuss this.
It seems pretty important to me. Time Lords seldom regenerate, and when this happens in Doctor Who there are two actors playing the part: one before and one after. I'd like to know why this keeps being removed from the lead section as "not important enough." -- Tony Sidaway 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'Plot' section for this article needs rewriting - it goes through the story but not in too much detail (it leaves out what the Doctor and Jack talk about when he is in the radiation room which i think is quite important) and i do not like it when it says 'A subplot includes...' as this should just be intergrated into the article as it goes through the story. Could someone please change this? I'd do it myself but i have exams i need to revise for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 June 2007
I've removed the "Master No Six" thing as original research for now. It would be nice to have a reliable source. -- Tony Sidaway 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't seen and confimation that "Mister Saxon" was meant as an anagram of "Master no Six", but the BBC's fact file on the episode "Utopia" points out that the John Simm incarnation of the Master is the sixth incarnation that the Doctor has faced. Peter Pratt and Geoffrey Beevers played the same incarnation and the Gordon Tipple incarnation didn't face the Doctor onscreen. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Edited by Gallifreyan Summoner 22:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The BBC website uses the formulation "Master No. Six". Not only is this an anagram of "Mister Saxon", it is an unusual formulation too. Given the Tremas>Master thing in the past, it cannot be a coincidence. It is not original research, just a straightforward, uncontroversial deduction.
I imagine that after the next episode, the BBC website will be explicit about this. Although I see no need to wait a few days to re-add the info, I suppose it is only a matter of a few days before your objection will be removed, The Tribe of Gum 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The synopsis section is full of flowery, non-encyclopedic language. Most notably, the decidedly non-neutral closing sentence: "But will the vicious Futurekind thwart his plans?" Is this an encyclopedia article or an advertisement for the show? I was just going to change it, but a comment within the article pointed me to the talk page -- but I can't find any relevant discussion. Let's get this cleaned up. -- MisterHand 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me.-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're an IP doesn't make you wrong, but most IP edits within the first two hours of the episode's broadcast are wrong.-- Rambutan ( talk) 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that this is the first regeneration of a character - other than the Doctor - to be shown on screen? I know that Romana regenerated in Destiny of the Daleks, but the actual regeneration was not shown on screen - you just saw her coming in with different bodies. StuartDD 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, there should be three more zeros if we're talking about a British trillion here, which I think we have to assume. Gives us all a bit more hope for the future of the universe, too - I'd like to think it lasts a bit longer! Famico666 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Love and bless them, are the YouTube Whogasm girls worth mentioning in this article? Mark H Wilkinson 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The following section continually keeps getting taken down, despite being significant enough to become a national news story about Utopia, where it's confirmed as an internet hit. What's everyone's thoughts on this? I think it's significant enough to be mentioned.
The Metro newspaper reported that a pair of female Doctor Who fans from Ireland had "become internet stars after a clip of them enjoying an episode of the sci-fi series just a little too much was shown on the web". The clip, titled Whogasm was uploaded on June 17, 2007 and shows them watching Utopia, when, as The Metro describes, "Suddenly, they start to scream and swear as the action unfolds in front of them in what can only be described as a 'Whogasm'." [1] [2] bingo99 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Its still has a readership in the millions in the UK. It's the fourth most read daily paper.
bingo99 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The Whogasm clip also has a story about it on The Stage website
And also gets a mention by a journalist on The Guardian website
bingo99 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
References
Is this sourced and/or true?-- Rambutan ( talk) 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have reverted it, but I'd have been blocked because someone would decide I'd broken 3RR. Would you mind?-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You hear Anthony Ainley laughing, and you hear... there, that's Roger Delgado, who's speaking in I think The Dæmons!
— Phil Collinson, 36:55 to 37:01, "Utopia" commentary
It isn't mentioned in the article (and perhaps it shouldn't be since it smacks of OR) but the Master was supposed to have reached the end of his regeneration cycle before the events of The Deadly Assassin, thus the need for him to take over of Tremas' body after failing to gain the Doctor's in The Keeper of Traken. The end of this marvelous (sorry POV I know) episode quite clearly shows him regenerating. Now I don't have access to much of the info that is currently available to you UK wikipedians and it is two months until we will get to hear the commentaries on the DVD. So I have to assume that (like the Doctor's regen from the eighth to the ninth) an untelevised (and unwritten?) tale in which the Master regained a new regen cycle (like the one that was referred to in The Five Doctors) must have occured. Has there been any comment on the net or in Doctor Who Monthly? Any info you can add will be appreciated and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that a computer keyboard used had hiragana on them, as well as english letters, just thought this might be worth noting as I don't remember any references to any real languages set this far in the future (50trillion years wasnt it?) before (but I may be wrong).-- 211.28.212.240 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I read a review that claimed Eric Roberts' voice (from his portrayal of the Master in the 1996 film) can also be heard during the same sequence where we hear Ainley and Delgado. Can anyone confirm this? It's certainly worth noting, not the least of which because it would be the second concrete bit of evidence (after the on-screen appearance of the Eighth Doctor's image in Human Nature) that the TVM is indeed being treated as canon by the revived series, a topic still of much debate. PS. I just found an uncited reference to this very thing in the Wikipedia article on the Eighth Doctor. If a source is available for this information, it should be added to that article, too. 68.146.41.232 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've quick-failed this because it's in no way complete - it misses out a lot of production and reception. Some tips before renominating:
Thanks, Will ( talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
When Martha rushes to inform the Doctor about Yana's fob watch, she starts with, "Think what the Face of Boe said..." Jack (aka Face of Boe) looks at Martha. She continues, "...his dying words..." Jack looks at the Doctor, then stares at the floor. She never completes because the rocket starts to take off shortly thereafter.
Apparently, Jack was paying attention to what Martha was trying to say, which is why his question to the Doctor, "Will I ever be able to die?" seems out of place in Season 3's last episode, 'Last Of The Time Lords'.
Doctor051 ( talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that Tim was right to remove the bald assertion that this is a three-part story. There is conflicting evidence from reliable sources; on the one hand, you've got Totally Doctor Who and the DWM poll saying it is a three-parter, on the other hand you've got the writer and executive producer saying that it's not. I think that Tim's wording was appropriately neutral for the introduction. It would even be worthwhile for the article to go into the matter in a bit more depth later on — I'll take a look at Davies' DWM column and see what I can put together. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Even though I've seen the episode, I can't recall what the 'truth' is. I think that some people who read this sentence may also wonder this vague allusion is, so could someone include what the truth is? 82.32.11.95 ( talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There should be some continuity about the Master hearing the sound of drums. I have not seen very many of the Classic Doctor Who episodes featuring the Master during the Pertwee era, so I don't have the information. I did read a lot of the books though, and I don't remember any references to this. However, there IS a reference to him hearing them in the book "Decalog" in the short story "The Duke of Dominoes" by Marc Platt, published in 1994, nine years before the new series started airing. The reference is made in passing, as a reminder of something the reader should already know, so I am assuming there are more references to it in either previous episodes, audio stories, or novels. If someone has information and citations for it, please add them. 74.139.197.36 ( talk) 01:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Utopia (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)