Talk:Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005)/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
(→2010 Series: new section) |
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) m (Bongolium500 moved page Talk:Series 5 (Doctor Who)/Archive 1 to Talk:Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005)/Archive 1: per Forum:2023 Naming Scheme Reset) |
||
(69 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Series 5. YOUR OPINION== | |||
==[[The Eleventh Hour]] Series 5. YOUR OPINION== | |||
If Series 5 Is Actually The Series That Is In 2010 (Aka The Next Proper Series Not Specials) Who Do You Think Will Be The Next Bad Guy/Girl/Alien/Robot ?, Who Do You Think The Next Companion Will Be ? And What Other Villains/Aliens/Events/Robots/Companions And Any Other Things Will Happen In The Next Series ? | If Series 5 Is Actually The Series That Is In 2010 (Aka The Next Proper Series Not Specials) Who Do You Think Will Be The Next Bad Guy/Girl/Alien/Robot ?, Who Do You Think The Next Companion Will Be ? And What Other Villains/Aliens/Events/Robots/Companions And Any Other Things Will Happen In The Next Series ? | ||
Please Reply To This At The Bottom As Im Sure Everyone Has An Opinion Who They Want And Who They Think Will Be In The Next Series? | Please Reply To This At The Bottom As Im Sure Everyone Has An Opinion Who They Want And Who They Think Will Be In The Next Series? | ||
Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
: I think that you did not write your message correctly. Don't use capitals at the beginning of every word, it makes the passage into an assault on the readers' senses and difficult to decipher. There are guidelines about polite online communication. Please follow them and people will be happy to communicate with you. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | : I think that you did not write your message correctly. Don't use capitals at the beginning of every word, it makes the passage into an assault on the readers' senses and difficult to decipher. There are guidelines about polite online communication. Please follow them and people will be happy to communicate with you. -- [[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Did anyone notice that the dalek has a british flag on it? | |||
and the cybermen didn't have a cybus logo? OUR UNIVERSES CYBERMEN :) | |||
There is always two enemies from the classic series returning in the revived series. In series 1 the Autons and Daleks returned. In series 2 the Cybermen returned. In series 3 the Macra and the Master returned. In series 4 the Sontarans and Davros returned. Who next? For series 5, I've placed my bets on the Ice Warriors and the Yeti. Its just a theory. The evil dudeArnie 10:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | There is always two enemies from the classic series returning in the revived series. In series 1 the Autons and Daleks returned. In series 2 the Cybermen returned. In series 3 the Macra and the Master returned. In series 4 the Sontarans and Davros returned. Who next? For series 5, I've placed my bets on the Ice Warriors and the Yeti. Its just a theory. The evil dudeArnie 10:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Line 75: | Line 80: | ||
I just heard on GB that Steven Moffat has decided to restart the numbering (this is apparently in the new DWM, which we haven't gotten here yet)...I have absolutely no clue why he would do this, but will just be renamed series 1 (2010) or just kept as is (since everyone is just going to call it series 5 anyway)? --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | I just heard on GB that Steven Moffat has decided to restart the numbering (this is apparently in the new DWM, which we haven't gotten here yet)...I have absolutely no clue why he would do this, but will just be renamed series 1 (2010) or just kept as is (since everyone is just going to call it series 5 anyway)? --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
* To be clear, Moffat has nothing to do with it; the BBC is planning to do this. But as we discuss in the thread below, I just can't see them promoting it as Series 1 again. It'd be too confusing, especially to American audiences. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 19:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | *To be clear, Moffat has nothing to do with it; the BBC is planning to do this. But as we discuss in the thread below, I just can't see them promoting it as Series 1 again. It'd be too confusing, especially to American audiences. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 19:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
It has also been announced that it may be publicised as Season 31 [[User:The Brig|The Brig]] 21:06, April 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== What does this rumor mean? == | == What does this rumor mean? == | ||
Line 103: | Line 113: | ||
::::Yeah, most likely the general public (and fans) will refer to it as series 5 'cause this so random and confusing, so we should keep it here. This is just plain confusing...--[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | ::::Yeah, most likely the general public (and fans) will refer to it as series 5 'cause this so random and confusing, so we should keep it here. This is just plain confusing...--[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::It might not hurt to get the message out to the powers that be, though. The new Doctor Who News Page seems to have missed this tidbit. I didn't bother signing up to GallifreyBase so I don't know if they've touched on it yet. It's not the end of the world, but it is an easy-to-rectify dumb decision [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | :::::It might not hurt to get the message out to the powers that be, though. The new Doctor Who News Page seems to have missed this tidbit. I didn't bother signing up to GallifreyBase so I don't know if they've touched on it yet. It's not the end of the world, but it is an easy-to-rectify dumb decision [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::: On the Doctor Who website in the galleries it shows SERIES ONE wallpapers. Not Five or Thirty One.--[[User:The Brig|The Brig]] 09:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Daleks== | ==Daleks== | ||
*Pictures posted on gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com provide evidence that the [[ | *Pictures posted on gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com provide evidence that the [[Dalek]]s will appear in [[Series 5]]. The photos indicate that the Daleks will appear in a story set during World War One that will feature actor Bill Paterson. It also appears that the Daleks will once again sport the grey colour scheme from the stories of the [[1970s]] and [[1980s]]]. | ||
:I thought it would be set in World War Two seeing as Bill Patterson is playing Churchill. --Catkind121 14:11, November 27, 2009 (UTC) | :I thought it would be set in World War Two seeing as Bill Patterson is playing Churchill. --Catkind121 14:11, November 27, 2009 (UTC) | ||
Line 113: | Line 124: | ||
==Neil Gaiman rumor== | ==Neil Gaiman rumor== | ||
There's a list of "Series 5 writers" circulating among forums today that includes Neil Gaiman, however Gaiman issued a Twitter message denying this. As such the whole list is suspect and should not be used for this article. A list of writers will no doubt be issued by the BBC or DWM in due course, so we should wait till they are confirmed (not including Curtis, who has been confirmed, and Moffat, of course). [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 22:02, September 30, 2009 (UTC) | There's a list of "Series 5 writers" circulating among forums today that includes Neil Gaiman, however Gaiman issued a Twitter message denying this. As such the whole list is suspect and should not be used for this article. A list of writers will no doubt be issued by the BBC or DWM in due course, so we should wait till they are confirmed (not including Curtis, who has been confirmed, and Moffat, of course). [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 22:02, September 30, 2009 (UTC) | ||
I think its been confirmed that he is writing an episode for Season 6. [[User:The Brig|The Brig]] 21:08, April 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Broadcast date for US removed== | ==Broadcast date for US removed== | ||
Line 152: | Line 167: | ||
: | : | ||
:I thought they had been confirmed they were coming on the Perthshire Advertiser website. It clearly says thtat Neve McIntosh is starring as the twin Silurians. It clearly isn't a rumour anymore, so why remove it? [[Adlerj]] | :I thought they had been confirmed they were coming on the Perthshire Advertiser website. It clearly says thtat Neve McIntosh is starring as the twin Silurians. It clearly isn't a rumour anymore, so why remove it? [[User:Adlerj|Adlerj]] | ||
::The reasons for why this is being removed is because this so called rumour which has been confirmed has been confirmed by an un-confirmed actor therefore we can not take this as real and with no other sources confirming this. Until the likes of a direct reference such as the BBC this will continually be removed until a proper and reliable source comes along. -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 21:34, February 18, 2010 (UTC) | ::The reasons for why this is being removed is because this so called rumour which has been confirmed has been confirmed by an un-confirmed actor therefore we can not take this as real and with no other sources confirming this. Until the likes of a direct reference such as the BBC this will continually be removed until a proper and reliable source comes along. -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 21:34, February 18, 2010 (UTC) | ||
Line 158: | Line 173: | ||
== Two Changes == | == Two Changes == | ||
I made two changes to this article today. The first was to remove the claim, under confirmed rumors, that the contest for creating a new TARDIS console would "definitely" not be the Doctor's TARDIS. The article referenced by this claim said nothing of the sort - in fact, it said flat out that Matt Smith himself would be picking the winner, leading us easily to believe that it will, quite likely, be the Doctor's TARDIS. If nothing else, the claim had to be removed for lack of evidence. Further, I removed the mention that the redesign of the TARDIS console had anything to do with the interior damage done to the TARDIS by the Doctor's regeneration. The interior is mutable, and as we know easily repairable. Hell, the Fifth Doctor described the interior of the TARDIS as a "desktop" in Time Crash, suggesting that one could change TARDIS "themes" as easily as one might change a desktop background in Windows. Either way, the article referenced was sufficient confirmation, and today's new edit was unnecessary. {And to be honest, the lack of punctuation plain irked me.} [[User:Lostdrewid|Lostdrewid]] 05:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC) | I made two changes to this article today. The first was to remove the claim, under confirmed rumors, that the contest for creating a new TARDIS console would "definitely" not be the Doctor's TARDIS. The article referenced by this claim said nothing of the sort - in fact, it said flat out that Matt Smith himself would be picking the winner, leading us easily to believe that it will, quite likely, be the Doctor's TARDIS. If nothing else, the claim had to be removed for lack of evidence. Further, I removed the mention that the redesign of the TARDIS console had anything to do with the interior damage done to the TARDIS by the Doctor's regeneration. The interior is mutable, and as we know easily repairable. Hell, the Fifth Doctor described the interior of the TARDIS as a "desktop" in Time Crash, suggesting that one could change TARDIS "themes" as easily as one might change a desktop background in Windows. Either way, the article referenced was sufficient confirmation, and today's new edit was unnecessary. {And to be honest, the lack of punctuation plain irked me.} [[User:Lostdrewid|Lostdrewid]] 05:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Gaiman? == | == Gaiman? == | ||
Line 176: | Line 180: | ||
==!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - MAJOR SPOILER - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!== | ==!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - MAJOR SPOILER - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!== | ||
*While watching the new trailer for Series 5 with my speakers on full blast I discovered from 0.49 seconds there is a low talking that probably was not meant to be on the trailer. Could this be any type of clues? The only words I can make out is "News" and "Scottish" I think? What can you make out? [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 20:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC) | *While watching the new trailer for Series 5 with my speakers on full blast I discovered from 0.49 seconds there is a low talking that probably was not meant to be on the trailer. Could this be any type of clues? The only words I can make out is "News" and "Scottish" I think? What can you make out? [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 20:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Classic Daleks Revived? == | == Classic Daleks Revived? == | ||
Line 183: | Line 187: | ||
I just watched the trailer, it actually has a different eyestalk but it is possible. --[[User:Dalek036|Dalek036]] 10:29, January 3, 2010 (UTC) | I just watched the trailer, it actually has a different eyestalk but it is possible. --[[User:Dalek036|Dalek036]] 10:29, January 3, 2010 (UTC) | ||
yeah the eyestalk does seems a tad bit decorative and the pupil is a bit weird...yet would their be any chance of it being an imperial dalek? | yeah the eyestalk does seems a tad bit decorative and the pupil is a bit weird...yet would their be any chance of it being an imperial dalek? | ||
Line 191: | Line 195: | ||
I simply hope it is an up-to-date classic Dalek and more realistic, because it would look weird on today's filming quality, especially high definition. I hope there is an explanation for the colour change, too. :/ [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 01:58, January 4, 2010 (UTC) | I simply hope it is an up-to-date classic Dalek and more realistic, because it would look weird on today's filming quality, especially high definition. I hope there is an explanation for the colour change, too. :/ [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 01:58, January 4, 2010 (UTC) | ||
It could be [[Dalek X]] from [[ | It could be [[Dalek X]] from [[PROSE]]:[[Prisoner of the Daleks]]. [[User:DBuddy|DBuddy]] 00:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Phillip Pullman? == | == Phillip Pullman? == | ||
Line 254: | Line 258: | ||
I believe that the Series itself right now should not be called anything until confirmation and believe it should be named "2010 Series". The reasons I think this is because everyone is discussing that it should NOT be called series 1, 31 etc but yet it stands as series 5 when Steven Moffat has made it quite clear it shall not be called that. I'm not getting into the whole what it shall be called but for right now and to make it quite clear it should be called "2010 Series" this way it is not any designated title. It's that chosen title because of when it's broadcast. -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 12:24, February 23, 2010 (UTC) | I believe that the Series itself right now should not be called anything until confirmation and believe it should be named "2010 Series". The reasons I think this is because everyone is discussing that it should NOT be called series 1, 31 etc but yet it stands as series 5 when Steven Moffat has made it quite clear it shall not be called that. I'm not getting into the whole what it shall be called but for right now and to make it quite clear it should be called "2010 Series" this way it is not any designated title. It's that chosen title because of when it's broadcast. -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 12:24, February 23, 2010 (UTC) | ||
* I disagree. For one thing no one in any official channels is using this term. BBC Video is calling it Series 5. And to use another name will cause discontinuity for anyone following the wiki's articles sequentially - Series 1, 2, 3, 4, 2009 Specials (which may end up as Series 4 Specials) ... and 2010 Series? Doesn't work. Whether one agrees with it or not, BBC Video's titling is considered definitive (see: An Unearthly Child, The Edge of Destruction, Children in Need Special). They've made the call to refer to the 2009 Specials as the Series 4 Specials (ref: the deleted scenes feature on the DVD/Blu-Ray) but that hasn't been picked up yet and the box set just says "Complete Specials" so there is some debate. But now they've announced a Series 5 Volume 1 episodes DVD/BR release, so unless there's compelling reason to change it we should leave it be. Moffat's wishes are irrelevant. In DWM 417 he suggested Series Fnarg, too. It's what the BBC does that matters. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 13:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Instead of disagreeing with my why don't you read what I have said and when I said it. I said call it Series 2010 because it is a name that stands bias as it doesn't agree to any rumours and fighting to what the series is called except the only piece of information there is is that it's broadcast see 2010 Series on wikipedia for an example but now it's been confirmed with the DVD release it's series 5 so then this post is no longer validated and that's fine just in future read things carefully and understand WHEN they where posted (Before the confirmation of Series 5) and what I am actually saying (Temporary calling it Series 2010 until we have a correct title. -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 13:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I also disagree. Moving the pages around creates something of a headache for page names. If we call it 'Series 2010' that means people will start linking to that, instead of Series 5, which means we'd have a variety of re-directs all over the place (or double redirects as the case may be). | |||
:Also...the argument for 'Series 2010' is that there's no argument about that name...I doubt very much that if we were to move it that wouldn't be the case for very long. | |||
:Additionally as has been mentioned elsewhere it is best to wait and see what in a commercial sense the BBC does, when the DVD actually gets released. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::And I'd point out that today doctorwhonews.com are reporting that Amazon is listing the first Matt Smith DVD as "Series 5, Volume 1". So we really need to wait and see. In the end, '''no action''' may be required. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 14:47, March 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Does no one read what I have said I put that suggestion way before it was confirmed it's now called Series 5 with the DVD release. The only reason why I said call it this was because it it a bias title therefore it would cause less problems for people fighting to what the series is called and that the title would obviously be temporary until it a title was confirmed which now has therefore this post is no longer valid. You people really should read and take notice of what I say and when I post it. -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 19:01, March 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I was fully aware of this when I posted my initial comment, for the very reason you state - not everyone would have noticed the date you made the suggestion and I didn't want to see someone (not you, of course) unilaterally deciding to move the article, which has happened before which is why this page is under protection. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 13:50, March 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Episode 11: The Lodger?== | |||
According to postings at the TrekBBS forum, episode 11 is an adaptation of [[The Lodger (comic story)|The Lodger]], a DWM comic strip by Gareth Roberts - who is writing the episode. Some filming photos have been posted [http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-series-filming-pics.html here] that support this (this is also the Corden episode). As forums aren't considered good sources, I can't add this to the rumors section without violating the sourcing guidelines we've set out. Has anyone else seen any reports confirming or supporting the notion that this a comic-strip-based episode? If it is The Lodger, that means it may be a companion-lite story, too. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 22:28, March 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==BBC "official announcement" of airdate== | |||
There is no such thing on the link listed. The only "official" announcement is Moffat stated April 3 on BBC Breakfast a few days ago. I'm updating the article accordingly. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 16:38, March 22, 2010 (UTC) | |||
* The official announcement has now been made, so I updated links accordingly. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 13:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Not quite sure how your link to a completely unsourced article on the Doctor Who News page is preferable to a link in which we actually see Steven Moffat question someone hooked into his earpiece whether he can reveal the date, and then he says it after getting the go-ahead. Primary sources tend to rank higher on the "sourcing tree" than second-hand reports — especially those that haven't been themselves sourced. But whatever, in 10 days it will hardly matter. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 14:34, March 24, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Something about the words "official announcement", I should think. The News Page wouldn't put up information of this detail without having obtained it from the official source. Frankly the moment the BBC said Easter it was a no-brainer that they meant April 3. The fact Moffat said April 3 on the air is ''meaningless''. Smith said on Ross that Episode 6 is Vampires in Venice, which was taken as gospel too, but it was wrong. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 16:15, March 29, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Alien Appearances == | |||
I think the list of unconfirmed alien's is getting out of hand it just seems to be people placing their own opinions. Not really rumours and have no sources for the rumours. What shall we do and does anyone agree? -- [[User:Michael Downey|Michael Downey]] 17:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC) | |||
i agree with you, all the following should be removed as they are just pure speculation and no articles that i know of say they will be in series 5 | |||
*Ice Warriors | |||
*Autons | |||
*Sea Devils | |||
*Axons | |||
*Zygons | |||
*Slitheen | |||
*The Beast | |||
*Judoon | |||
*Robot Yeti | |||
[[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revanvolatrelundar]] 17:15, March 31, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Changing the image? == | |||
I uploaded the version of the logo from the Series 5 intro. Should we add the logo the same way the other logos are put on top of season/series pages? | |||
[[User:AJ the Shinigami|AJ the Shinigami]] 20:50, April 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Cybus Cybermen? == | |||
Can we still be sure it's only Cybus? [http://www.kasterborous.com/2010/04/08/slightly-new-cybermen/ This image] shows that the "C" is missing, making it unclear whether they're Cybusmen or original Cybermen with a reused design. --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 12:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC) | |||
* Considering that, with the exception of the head seen in ''Dalek'' the revival has ''only'' used Cybus Cybermen, it can be assumed the version featured will be the "Cybusmen" (to borrow a term coined by someone on the TrekBBS). It's really up to the episode itself to indicate differently. Even with all the reports and pre-broadcast announcements there has been no reference to the "original Cybermen" coming back, and this would have made some headlines somewhere. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 05:44, April 12, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Finale? == | |||
Is there anything to confirm that the Cybusmen will be the villians of the final episode? There doesn't seem to be a source for this but the article treats it as a fact. [[User:Aldris247|Aldris247]] 07:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC) | |||
''Well we know that there are Vampires in the Vampires of Venice, and they would have appeared in the trailer no doubt if they were in that episode. In the Silurian 2-parter, it is unlikely they will appear along with the Silurians and Sea Devils, and also they will <u>not</u> appear in Vincent and the Doctor, there is this strange yellow monster instead. I don't think they will be appearing in Episode 11 (The Lodger?) - To be honest I thought they would appear in Amy's Choice along with the Dream Lord, but people are saying they will come out of the Pandorica in the finale, so I think they will be the villians of the final episodes... ''[[User talk:Who7|Who7]] 16:16, May 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:As far as I know, the only evidence we have that they'll be in the finale is: | |||
:* We know they'll appear somewhere (because of the season trailer), and none of the other episodes seem likely. | |||
:* Nick Briggs gave some coy hints that he would be voicing Daleks and Cybermen interacting. (I forget the exact quote, but it was in the Digital Spy interview, and it was on the lines of, "Hypothetically, if I were to have to voice the new Daleks and the Cybermen in the same episode, I'd need to set up two separate effects boxes because I wouldn't be able to twiddle the knobs fast enough. And it worked great. I mean hypothetically, of course, because I can neither confirm nor deny that I ever did such a thing.") But again, the only evidence that this episode will be the finale is that none of the other episodes seem likely. | |||
:More importantly, even if the Cybusmen are in the finale (which they probably are), that doesn't mean they're "the villains". The most common rumor is that they'll be among a slew of past enemies, none of which will be the main villain (just like in [[The Five Doctors (TV story)|The Five Doctors]]) --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 02:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Eyes == | |||
Has anyone else noticed that eyes are a recurring theme through out the series so far. [[The Eleventh Hour]] the prison guards main feature was their eye, in [[The Beast Below]] children crying is an important theme in this episode(i know that this one isn't a very strong piece of evidence), in [[Victory of the Daleks]] the new Daleks have a new eye stalk and in [[The Time of Angels]] Amy is told not to look into the Weeping Angles eyes. Matt Smith told a interviewer that the cracks may be one of five things and a reference to eyes has been made in every episode. what do people think? [[User:Alex1442|Alex1442]] 20:26, April 24, 2010 (UTC) | |||
''Why yes, this could certainly be one, Alex1442. Don't forget in Flesh and Stone when there was that eye thing in the background. You certainly have good 'eyes'. Maybe in Vampires of Venice there eyes go red, or even the Silurians, I don't think they have any! [[User:Who7|Who7]] 15:40, May 3, 2010 (UTC)'' | |||
:This has been brought up in a number of threads in [[Howling:The Howling]]. I'd start by reading [[Howling:5 Things to look for in Series 5]], and add any new comments to [[Forum:5 things to look for: Eyes]]. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 14:46, May 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Number 5 as a story arc == | |||
User Who7 added this paragraph (in two edits on 2 May) to the Story Arc section: | |||
:Another element is the number five. The Doctor says he will be five minutes (The Eleventh Hour), He revisits Amy Pond in five years (Amy's Choice), and they discover the drillings of the earth in 2015, (The Hungry Earth). Also, there are five winders (The Beast Below), five vampires (Vampires in Venice) and five different coloured Daleks (Victory of the Daleks), and in Flesh and Stone, there are five people in the forest after the Doctor, River and Octavian leave, and it takes Amy to five before the Doctor realises she is counting down. | |||
While this is certainly one possibility of the "five things to look out for", it's just one of a dozen or two speculative fan theories, and it belongs on The Howling with the rest of them. If it's confirmed, it can go in the Story Arcs section. If it becomes a notable rumor, it can go in that section. But so far, it's neither. | |||
So, I've removed it from the article, and replaced it with this HTML comment: | |||
:There are a dozen or more fan theories as to what the other four things might be. The best place to discuss them is in The Howling, under the forum. Don't add something here unless it's actually confirmed. | |||
--[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 14:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== The Crack as a story arc == | |||
In the Story Arc section, there was a paragraph about the rumours of the upcoming episode Flesh and Stone. Since that episode has now aired, it seemed like a good idea to replace that with a paragraph describing what we actually learned, so I did so. But someone might want to read that paragraph over, just to make sure I didn't let any speculation creep in. (It's really hard to avoid this season, isn't it?) --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 14:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==More Possible Story Arc Plots== | |||
I have a theory that there will be something to do with a Perception Filter in the last episode(s). Its been in The Eleventh Hour and now Vampires of Venice. While this may seem a long shot, I hardly think its coinidental that they are in both stories but it is just a long shotted theory [[User:Ooiue|Ooiue]] 21:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::They also had one in The Time of Angels when The Doctor and River Song realize that the Angels are actually the statues. "Maybe it's a perception filter, or ''maybe'' we're just thick," when they realize that the statues only have one head. I was thinking about this last night haha. [[User:Musedae|Musedae]] 14:11, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: | |||
::What do you mean haha? i posted this before you so haha :P :D[[User:Ooiue|Ooiue]] 14:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I didn't mean haha like "haha i thought of it first!" I meant haha as in "Haha I was thinking of this too! Glad I'm not the only one!" [[User:Musedae|Musedae]] 16:55, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Is http://drwhospoilers.webs.com/ really a reliable source? == | |||
In [http://tardis.wikia.com/index.php?title=Series_5_(Doctor_Who)&diff=prev&oldid=344789 this edit], [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/BillyWilliam3rd BillyWilliam3rd] added the titles "Reality Check", "The Pandorica Opens", and "Enemies of a Time Lord" for episode 11, 12, and 13, citing [http://drwhospoilers.webs.com/]. | |||
I notice that pages now exist under these names, and the series 5 template has been updated. | |||
If you follow the link, it's a generic webs.com site with empty photo, forum, etc. sections, a generic layout, and only 3 pieces of content: | |||
* "Hey all you Dr. Whoniverse peeps! It's me, FruitLoops! And do I have a treat for you, I have all the titles of all the episodes of the series!" | |||
* The list of titles. | |||
* One blog entry, posted on 8 May, "Eleventh Hour - Filming on Set!", which says "Hey guys, I've got some pics of filming on set for the Eleventh Hour! Have a peak, but don't tell Steven!!!!" and then has 3 long-released pictures. | |||
This hardly seems like a notable site, or a reliable source for spoilers. Anyone could have set this up in 2 minutes, and apparently someone just did. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 01:12, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I dont think it is reliable, although I think the titles seem right... :P -- [[User:Dragonfree97|<span style="color:#006400;">Dragonfree</span>]] 09:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Every other spoiler source I've seen calls the episodes "The Lodger", "The Pandorica Opens", and either "The Big Bang" or just "Big Bang". I've never heard "Enemies of a Time Lord" before, and I searched although if some of the rumors of what happens are true I suppose it makes sense. | |||
::I googled for "Enemies of a Time Lord", and every site that has a source mentions this page as the source, which is not very encouraging. I think we're just helping to spread an unsubstantiated rumor at this point.... --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 14:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree. It's completely unsubstantiated and we're meant to be more...substantial, for want of a better word. The pages have been deleted, though, so it's null and void now. Just keep an eye out for with guy and DrWhoSpoilers.webs.com for now. [[User:Musedae|Musedae]] 14:09, May 9, 2010 (UTC) | |||
The same hoaxster (presumably) has not only created 30 more blogs, webs.com sites, etc., he's also created another fake Karen Gillan Twitter account (and this time he put "official" as part of the name, so you know it has to be official), and created a fake Doctor Who Facebook account (which may not be linked from any of the official BBC Facebook accounts or the official Doctor Who website, but it has the BBC logo and says it's "official", so it must be). | |||
And now, a few more reliable blogs have been taken in. People on the fan forums are mostly citing this wiki or Combom's blog, instead of brand-new blogs like "1christiantardisfan". | |||
The funny thing is, most of the people claiming it's on the "official Facebook page" don't even have links to that page. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 01:44, May 10, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==The trailers section is no longer needed.== | |||
Nearly everything seen in the trailers has been seen in the episodes now (most of the trailers contained clips from only the first 6 episodes that aired already). The only things in a trailer or two that haven't been aired yet is a clip or two from The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood and the about two clips from the finale (Amy fighting Cyberman, the Doctor, Amy, and River running through Stonehenge). My point is, what is the point in that section anymore? Most of it's seen, and most people have seen the trailers more than once. It's just clutter now, and honestly shouldn't be there now that we're coming to episode 7. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 07:06, May 11, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== timoreen == | |||
i think that timoreen might be raxacoricofallapatorius becuse they are ending with een i also think they might be yellow becuse slitheen are green blathereen are orenge so all familys are diffrent and in vincent and the doctor vincent will stab a yellow monster | |||
[[User:Drwhoworld|Drwhoworld]] 13:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah, I thought of that but this belongs in the forums. ☆<span style="font-family:Algerian;">[[User:Solar Dragon|<font color="green">The</font> <font color="red">Solar</font> <font color="blue">Dragon</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Solar Dragon|<font color="gold">Talk</font>]])</sup></span>☆ 13:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Things looking like humans == | |||
I've noticed that in every episode something that looks like a human has been involved. | |||
The Eleventh Hour - Prisoner Zero disguised himself as a human | |||
The Beast Below - Smilers look like humans | |||
Victory of the Daleks - Prof. Edwin Bracewell was a robot disguised as a human | |||
The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone - The Weeping Angel pretends to be Bob | |||
The Vampires of Venice - The Saturnynians use a perception filter to look like humans | |||
Amy's Choice - The Eknodines live inside old people | |||
etc and all that. OK, so it is the Doctor in the Pandorica. But it isnt likely that all of his enemies would form an alliance. I think it just looks like his enemies. | |||
[[User:Bannanaaaron|Bannanaaaron]] 22:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC)User:Bannanaaaron | |||
== Volume 3 of Series 5 == | |||
I've just found something on the product page of Volume 3 of series 5. Volume 3 will only have 3 episodes, rather than 4. It will have episodes 7-9. http://www.bbcshop.com/Matt-Smith/Doctor-Who-Series-5-Volume-3-DVD/invt/bbcdvd3215 [[User:Kranitoko|Kranitoko]] ([[User talk:Kranitoko|talk]]) 11:30, June 16, 2010 (UTC) | |||
UPDATE: Volume 4 does indeed contain the last 4 episodes 10-13 - http://www.bbcshop.com/Doctor-Who-Store/Doctor-Who-Series-5-Volume-4-DVD/invt/bbcdvd3216 [[User:Kranitoko|Kranitoko]] ([[User talk:Kranitoko|talk]]) 11:31, June 16, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Companion lite == | |||
There is something I'd like to note on the page, but I'm not sure where's the best place. Series 1 didn't have a Doctor or Companion lite episode because there was no Christmas Special to film. Series 2 and three both had ones at the same time, Series 4 in different episodes, but in Series 5, the Doctor never had a series lite episode, but Amy did. I think this is worth noting, but I'm just not sure where. [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 12:22, July 17, 2010 (UTC) | |||
==DVD== | |||
we're no very good @ updating home media or whats it called on the eipsode pages [[User:Joshoedit|Joshoedit]] 11:25, October 3, 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:35, 20 April 2024
The Eleventh Hour Series 5. YOUR OPINION[[edit source]]
If Series 5 Is Actually The Series That Is In 2010 (Aka The Next Proper Series Not Specials) Who Do You Think Will Be The Next Bad Guy/Girl/Alien/Robot ?, Who Do You Think The Next Companion Will Be ? And What Other Villains/Aliens/Events/Robots/Companions And Any Other Things Will Happen In The Next Series ? Please Reply To This At The Bottom As Im Sure Everyone Has An Opinion Who They Want And Who They Think Will Be In The Next Series? I Think Personally It Could Be::
- The Black Guardian,
- The Rani - Or
- A New Race/Individual Villain That Has Been Created By Steven Moffat And Will Be The Next Person/Race To Try And Beat The Favoritism Of The Daleks And Cybermen.
The Reason Why I Think This Is Because The Daleks And Davros Have Just Been And The Cybermen Will Be In The Christmas Special And The Master Was In The 3rd Series. And I Personally Think That Creatures Like The Zygons, Ice Warriors And The Sea Devils and Etc Are Not Big Enough Characters To Be The Finale Villains. But Who Do You Think ?
For The Next Companion I Think It Will Be A Boy Because The Last Time We Had A Proper Boy Companion Was Vislor Turlough And I Wouldnt Call Adam Mitchell Or Mickey Smith a Companion As A Companion Because Adam Was Iniit For About 2 Mins And He Betrayed The Doctor And Mickey Smith Is Just An Old Boyfriend Of Full Time Companion Rose Tyler. Although Rumours Have Been Going Around That Mickey Smith Will Be playing The Part Of The New Companion Due To The Fact That He Said In Journeys End He Said He Didnt Know Whatt He Was Going To Do With His Life And Ended Going With Torchwood But We Dont Actually Know If He's Joining Torchwood and The Fact That Hes Staying In This Universe Other Than Rose's Parallel. I Dont Think Its A Girl Because Theres Has Been Loads All Though It Could Be River Song. But What Do You Think ?
Rumours Have It And What I Personally Think Is That The Sea Devils, The Zygons And The Wire Are Due To Appear In The Next Series. But What Do You Think ? - Signed Michael Downey
- I think that you did not write your message correctly. Don't use capitals at the beginning of every word, it makes the passage into an assault on the readers' senses and difficult to decipher. There are guidelines about polite online communication. Please follow them and people will be happy to communicate with you. -- Noneofyourbusiness 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that the dalek has a british flag on it?
and the cybermen didn't have a cybus logo? OUR UNIVERSES CYBERMEN :)
There is always two enemies from the classic series returning in the revived series. In series 1 the Autons and Daleks returned. In series 2 the Cybermen returned. In series 3 the Macra and the Master returned. In series 4 the Sontarans and Davros returned. Who next? For series 5, I've placed my bets on the Ice Warriors and the Yeti. Its just a theory. The evil dudeArnie 10:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey i just thought, how about Jenny as the doctors companion in series 5?
I know this isn't about Series 5 but what if the character called Hartigan to be played by Dervla Kirwan is really the Rani and she will return in the Series 5 finale. MercM, 18:14, 11 July 2008.
At this moment in time it is to far away to tell Dark Lord Xander 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Though I don't think they're going to appear, I really would like the Mondasian Cybermen, the "originals", to come back to the series. How many times can Cybermen from a parallel would try and take over our world?
As to Michael's questions, I think the next villian will either be the Mara or the Rani. I really hope the next companion is a past one, someone who, like Sarah Jane, the Doctor probably forgot about like Peri or Ace(since there younger than someone like Jo or Leela). Of the alien races they should bring back I think they should bring back the Sea Devils and the Silurians, the Great Intelligence and the Yeti, or the Rutans, which works well since the Sontarans have returned.
I don't feel positive the Rani will return in Series 5 as it may be better to forget the "hand" so that when she does come back it's all the more exciting. If she does come back, I hope Joan Collins plays her. It may also be interesting to have an alien from a novel appear, something like the N-Form or the Gappa. If I had to say the one thing I would like most to be brought back to Doctor Who it would be Romana. User:Steed 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
New Page for 2009 specials?[[edit source]]
I think that, at least for now, until some official designation is given to next years specials, they should have their own page entitled '2009 special' or something similar, whilst this page is left for the series 5 proper. Taccer 07 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I think there should be something like that so as to separate the two. I don't think they will be given any series number - just the "specials" so it's probably best to separate this from Series 5 which we know almost nothing about. Jack's the man - 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Big call[[edit source]]
Article currently has this seemingly innocuous little statement:
- David Tennant will return as The Doctor.
Isn't that slightly premature? What's your source for that? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhapse "It is beleived David Tennant will return as The Doctor." or Rumoured would be better as if it is removed enirely it will be replaced within days Dark Lord Xander 08:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right, but my point is that the article USED to say that. It used to hedge its bets, until the last edit. Then someone (anon) came and changed the article in only one way: to sayd that DT WILL return. So it makes me think it might be based on some actual report or something. Course, the wording of this article is confusing right now, because it's not clear whether we're talking about the 2009 series of specials or the 2010 series. Which is odd, because the BBC have definitely called only Doctor Who in 2010 "Series 5". Maybe I'll change that now. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't bothered to go back and look at the histories of previous Series pages to see how they're handled in early pre-production days such as this. So I'm not sure how we handle them. But still I tried to give greater sourcing for statements such that there's at least not much speculation. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Right, but my point is that the article USED to say that. It used to hedge its bets, until the last edit. Then someone (anon) came and changed the article in only one way: to sayd that DT WILL return. So it makes me think it might be based on some actual report or something. Course, the wording of this article is confusing right now, because it's not clear whether we're talking about the 2009 series of specials or the 2010 series. Which is odd, because the BBC have definitely called only Doctor Who in 2010 "Series 5". Maybe I'll change that now. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think we should move the DT line to a behind the scenes that way its on the page (so Anon's) won't go re-adding it but also because it isn't likly to be officially confermed until next year at the earlest Dark Lord Xander 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Tennant rumor[[edit source]]
I see someone has placed another "Tennant is leaving" rumor on the page with no source and no confirmation. I added a strongly-worded embedded note in hopes of preventing this from continuing. Until the BBC or a major piece of media like the Times announces it (in other words no Daily Mail, Daily Star, Daily Sport or Daily Fleabag reports, thank you very much; Guardian and Scotsman, maybe) such rumors should be treated a bogus and not included. Gardner announced at ComicCon that Tennant is in for the 2009 specials (so any reports of Morrissey taking over at Christmas 2008 are bogus) and all we have for certain is that he's "made his decision" regarding 2010. No doubt an announcement will be made in due course, but perhaps not for awhile if Davies is trying to avoid the spoilers that ruined Eccleston's supposed-to-be-surprise regeneration. Granted, Gardner's comments could be part of a smokescreen, but unless or until she is proven to have fibbed her statements have to be treated as authoritative. 23skidoo 03:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, David Tennant's contract is around for 5 years so if I am correct that gives him until 2010 but with this Gap Year thing perhaps 2011. -The Doctor Forever 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
GAP YEAR?![[edit source]]
NO THEY CAN'T! Seriously?! No Doctor Who until 2010?! That's impossible and I have to wait until August because I live in Australi! Someone PLEASE tell me that it's not true! -The Doctor Forever 04:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not true. There are three specials in 2009. -- Noneofyourbusiness 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Cites[[edit source]]
Anyone have cites for rumors of a Nightshade adaption and Faces in the Sand? Golden Monkey 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
And again...any cite for no old enemies coming back? --Golden Monkey 23:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Old enemies[[edit source]]
"Moffat has stated that there will not be any enemies from the old series returning." Gee, I'm totally willing to accept this completely and utterly citeless statement. *deletes* --Golden Monkey 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Series 1[[edit source]]
I just heard on GB that Steven Moffat has decided to restart the numbering (this is apparently in the new DWM, which we haven't gotten here yet)...I have absolutely no clue why he would do this, but will just be renamed series 1 (2010) or just kept as is (since everyone is just going to call it series 5 anyway)? --Golden Monkey 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- To be clear, Moffat has nothing to do with it; the BBC is planning to do this. But as we discuss in the thread below, I just can't see them promoting it as Series 1 again. It'd be too confusing, especially to American audiences. 23skidoo 19:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It has also been announced that it may be publicised as Season 31 The Brig 21:06, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
What does this rumor mean?[[edit source]]
There is also a rumour stemming from this that there could also be a twist in the plot that the Eleventh Doctor is the 10th incarnation and the Tenth Doctor is older.
I don't understand what it means, can someone explain if possible. --Torchwood 2 12:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that too; I'm going to delete it. We KNOW that Tennant is the Tenth; he regenerated on-camera. Monkey with a Gun 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The Sun Slideshows[[edit source]]
Ok, i've never actually seen pictures of filming but I assume that they don't use special effects for a stationary tardis. Have you seen the tardis in those pics? it looks so bad, I hope that's not part of the re-design cause it doesn't look as good... or was this just a test run filming to see how the characters and actors work together? Anyone else hate that Tardis? --Torchwood 2 14:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Look at other on-location images of the TARDIS. It never looks as good in person as it does on screen. Personally I can't tell the difference except that the St. John sticker is back. The color is meaningless because colors are always muted on film, and if you're going to harp about the size of the windows, remember Moffat already made fun of you in Blink. ;-) 23skidoo 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does that mean, "Moffat already made fun of you in Blink". What are you talking about? --Torchwood 2 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the belated response but I just noticed your question. DI Shipton's comment regarding the windows in the TARDIS being too small to be a proper police box, according to DWM and a few other sources, were directly aimed as an in-joke regarding people's complaints over the TARDIS design in the revival. 23skidoo 17:59, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
- What does that mean, "Moffat already made fun of you in Blink". What are you talking about? --Torchwood 2 23:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Spoiler tag[[edit source]]
(Adding this note because I accidentally hit return before I could complete my edit summary). We don't need another copy of the Doctor Who logo, especially since we don't know if that version will be used for Series 5. What we do need is a spoiler tag given that certain guest stars and other details are now starting to emerge. 23skidoo 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Series 1 all over again[[edit source]]
DWM #410 contains a minor bombshell on p.5 that hasn't been picked up yet - the BBC plans to start numbering the series from scratch, so 2010 will not be Series 5, but Series 1. That's going to make marketing things like DVD box sets a pain. I recommend, for the sake of avoiding confusion, that we stick with calling it Series 5 rather than going to Series 1 again; alternately we could drop the whole thing and just go with Series 31. Thoughts? 23skidoo 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the 1963 series changed production teams several times without renumbering; I see no reason that the 2005 series should start over just because Davies and Gardner are leaving. I agree; this is Series 5. Monkey with a Gun 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, stick with Series 5 for now. It seems madness from a marketing point of view for the BBC to need to market two Series One boxed sets. --Tangerineduel 13:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's a good call, and I agree - I have no idea what the BBC is thinking, because the general public will be seeing this as the 5th series. I'm worried that the BBC might be planning to do what it did with the "classic series" and retire marketing of the Eccleston and Tennant eras once the Smith era begins (as in discontinuing printing the New Series novels with Doctors 9 and 10, and deleting the DVDs). I wouldn't put it past them. 23skidoo 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, most likely the general public (and fans) will refer to it as series 5 'cause this so random and confusing, so we should keep it here. This is just plain confusing...--Golden Monkey 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It might not hurt to get the message out to the powers that be, though. The new Doctor Who News Page seems to have missed this tidbit. I didn't bother signing up to GallifreyBase so I don't know if they've touched on it yet. It's not the end of the world, but it is an easy-to-rectify dumb decision 23skidoo 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- On the Doctor Who website in the galleries it shows SERIES ONE wallpapers. Not Five or Thirty One.--The Brig 09:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- It might not hurt to get the message out to the powers that be, though. The new Doctor Who News Page seems to have missed this tidbit. I didn't bother signing up to GallifreyBase so I don't know if they've touched on it yet. It's not the end of the world, but it is an easy-to-rectify dumb decision 23skidoo 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, most likely the general public (and fans) will refer to it as series 5 'cause this so random and confusing, so we should keep it here. This is just plain confusing...--Golden Monkey 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's a good call, and I agree - I have no idea what the BBC is thinking, because the general public will be seeing this as the 5th series. I'm worried that the BBC might be planning to do what it did with the "classic series" and retire marketing of the Eccleston and Tennant eras once the Smith era begins (as in discontinuing printing the New Series novels with Doctors 9 and 10, and deleting the DVDs). I wouldn't put it past them. 23skidoo 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, stick with Series 5 for now. It seems madness from a marketing point of view for the BBC to need to market two Series One boxed sets. --Tangerineduel 13:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Daleks[[edit source]]
- Pictures posted on gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com provide evidence that the Daleks will appear in Series 5. The photos indicate that the Daleks will appear in a story set during World War One that will feature actor Bill Paterson. It also appears that the Daleks will once again sport the grey colour scheme from the stories of the 1970s and 1980s].
- I thought it would be set in World War Two seeing as Bill Patterson is playing Churchill. --Catkind121 14:11, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
- Daleks in series 5 has been confirmed by a trailer on the BBC website. Digifiend 03:05, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman rumor[[edit source]]
There's a list of "Series 5 writers" circulating among forums today that includes Neil Gaiman, however Gaiman issued a Twitter message denying this. As such the whole list is suspect and should not be used for this article. A list of writers will no doubt be issued by the BBC or DWM in due course, so we should wait till they are confirmed (not including Curtis, who has been confirmed, and Moffat, of course). 23skidoo 22:02, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
I think its been confirmed that he is writing an episode for Season 6. The Brig 21:08, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Broadcast date for US removed[[edit source]]
Since the BBC won't announce the airdates for Season 5 until as little as a few weeks before broadcast, maybe a month or two if we're lucky, it's impossible for BBC America or anyone to speculate that the show will air in April, May, and June, so I removed this. Also removed is the speculation/assumption that BBC America would show the season uninterrupted if the BBC splits it. We don't know this - BBC America can only show the episodes once BBC UK releases them (they're not the same company, remember); this also goes for Space in Canada and the other broadcasters. If the season is split, it will be a game changer and we need to wait until official sources (not blogs or fan sites) tell us what is going to happen. It could just as easily be speculated that the BBC could decide to hold the series till fall, and as they don't announce airdates far in advance they could very well make such a last minute decision for all we know. 23skidoo 13:26, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
Filming in Croatia[[edit source]]
According to the website of one of the assistant directors, they filmed one of the episodes in Croatia back in August (they kept that quiet). The BBC has yet to confirm so I had to put it into the Rumours section. I'm not too comfortable about having a personal webpage used as a source, so if another source can be found, even a fan site or something like DigitalSpy, I'd prefer that link be used instead, if possible.23skidoo 17:55, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
Addition of logo[[edit source]]
I've added the new logo (or, rather, the first version of the new logo to be unveiled) to the top of the page to be consistent with how other season articles have featured the logo, such as the 2009 Specials article. The logo is meant to be centered, however the protection tag is messing up the formatting at the moment. Since we don't know which version of the logo - this one or the horizontal version also released by the BBC - this could be changed once the opening sequence for series 5 is finally known. 23skidoo 14:28, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
RUMOURS[[edit source]]
I suggest that we move the rumours section to the forum pages like the waters of mars page or somewhere else. most of the rumours placed are irrelevant and many of them are just fan base speculation and as there are so many and only leave the confirmed rumours on this page. Michael Downey 13:19, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
CLEAN UP[[edit source]]
This page seems unorganised and has many pieces of information scattered everywhere and most of it just speculation or false The Page needs a massive clean up does anyone agree? Michael Downey 10:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly agree. Will see if I can figure out more of the unconfirmed from the real information, and edit accordingly. Lostdrewid 05:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Episode Names[[edit source]]
Apparently one of the set reporters for Series 5 named Scooty has released a list of episode titles and writers, I have list them here for possible implementation into the article if found out correct.
Info available at: http://lifetheuniverseandcombom.blogspot.com/2009/11/doctor-who-series-5-episode-titles.html
Michael Downey 16:46, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the site itself that these names may change, so we might want to leave it for a while before they are more confirmed. --Dalek036 18:21, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Removing the episode names (as they and their descriptions are of potential spoiler nature). --Tangerineduel 08:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
- Good call, since this information is so much subject to change. Look at all the titles Midnight went through, and as Season 3 went into production, any similar list would have shown a Stephen Fry episode, which of course never happened. Similarly, Midnight was itself a last-minute replacement for a cancelled episode, written while the season was well into production. Whatever list Scooty purports to have may bear no resemblance at all to what is finally broadcast. 23skidoo 19:13, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Removing the episode names (as they and their descriptions are of potential spoiler nature). --Tangerineduel 08:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
Cast List[[edit source]]
Why have some of the cast that appear in the End of time are in the series 5 cast list. --Catkind121 11:59, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Silurians[[edit source]]
I am removing all content on the page that suggests that the creatures in the new trailer are the Silurians without proper reliable sources. I personally believe they look in no at all resemblence to them and for the simple fact that this has not been confirmed or even rumoured/mentioned. Michael Downey 21:31, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
- The Silurian page also had some rumours on it, which I removed. These two pages, The Series 5 page and the Silurains and maybe the Sea Devils pages will need to kept a close eye on Mini-mitch 18:57, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I thought they had been confirmed they were coming on the Perthshire Advertiser website. It clearly says thtat Neve McIntosh is starring as the twin Silurians. It clearly isn't a rumour anymore, so why remove it? Adlerj
- The reasons for why this is being removed is because this so called rumour which has been confirmed has been confirmed by an un-confirmed actor therefore we can not take this as real and with no other sources confirming this. Until the likes of a direct reference such as the BBC this will continually be removed until a proper and reliable source comes along. -- Michael Downey 21:34, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Two Changes[[edit source]]
I made two changes to this article today. The first was to remove the claim, under confirmed rumors, that the contest for creating a new TARDIS console would "definitely" not be the Doctor's TARDIS. The article referenced by this claim said nothing of the sort - in fact, it said flat out that Matt Smith himself would be picking the winner, leading us easily to believe that it will, quite likely, be the Doctor's TARDIS. If nothing else, the claim had to be removed for lack of evidence. Further, I removed the mention that the redesign of the TARDIS console had anything to do with the interior damage done to the TARDIS by the Doctor's regeneration. The interior is mutable, and as we know easily repairable. Hell, the Fifth Doctor described the interior of the TARDIS as a "desktop" in Time Crash, suggesting that one could change TARDIS "themes" as easily as one might change a desktop background in Windows. Either way, the article referenced was sufficient confirmation, and today's new edit was unnecessary. {And to be honest, the lack of punctuation plain irked me.} Lostdrewid 05:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Gaiman?[[edit source]]
Does anyone have a link to that non-denial denial Gaiman dropped back in December about him possibly writing Who? IIRC It was something like "If I were, hypothetically, writing for the next season of any long-running science fiction show, it would also hypothetically be true that nothing more can be said until January 2nd" or something like that. I've no idea if it's legit, but... --NotGodot 18:30, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - MAJOR SPOILER - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![[edit source]]
- While watching the new trailer for Series 5 with my speakers on full blast I discovered from 0.49 seconds there is a low talking that probably was not meant to be on the trailer. Could this be any type of clues? The only words I can make out is "News" and "Scottish" I think? What can you make out? Michael Downey 20:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Classic Daleks Revived?[[edit source]]
shown in the Series 5 trailer is a grey, old-style dalek (not unlike the ones in Genesis of the Daleks)...any ideas? --Inundated 01:24, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I just watched the trailer, it actually has a different eyestalk but it is possible. --Dalek036 10:29, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
yeah the eyestalk does seems a tad bit decorative and the pupil is a bit weird...yet would their be any chance of it being an imperial dalek?
--Inundated 01:14, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
I simply hope it is an up-to-date classic Dalek and more realistic, because it would look weird on today's filming quality, especially high definition. I hope there is an explanation for the colour change, too. :/ Delton Menace 01:58, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
It could be Dalek X from PROSE:Prisoner of the Daleks. DBuddy 00:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Phillip Pullman?[[edit source]]
Skittlesthehog added Phillip Pullman to the list of confirmed writers. Is this truly confirmed? If so, where? -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:28, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely not confirmed. Steven Moffat listed the writers for Series 5 (or Fnarg, as he called it) in DWM 417's Production Notes, and Phillip Pullman was not among them. Jim393 17:55, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Series 1 or 31[[edit source]]
In DWM 417, Moffat apparently declares that it cannot at all be known as series 5, either 1 (first series for Smith) or 31 (overall). According to him, it doesn't count as the fifth series of anything and people who call it series 5 are wrong. So, will we acknowledge this or just keep it at five? If we do decide to change, I would argue that it'd be better to change 1 - 4 to 27 - 30 and also change this to 31. Because that's indisputable and not subject to the whims of the next production team. --Golden Monkey 19:43, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
I agree RTD made a bit of a mess up and I think we should change all new series to their original number not there supposed new one. It's not going to make sense if all the series look like: Series 1 to 26, 1 to 4 and specials and then Series 31. -- Michael Downey 20:37, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think he is tring to break the barrier between what people call New Who and Old who by having the entire series simply be refered to as Doctor Who by having the new series labled as the seasons following the original seasons.
I don't know where Russel mucked up by not having the revived series be called season 27, or Moffat is making a bad move. Couldn't he simply name it: series 5/Season 31? Delton Menace 03:23, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get his logic. If it went by actor, Series 2-4 would be 1-3. It's perfectly natural to call it the fifth series since the revival, and calling it Series 1 opens up confusion with the recent Series 1, which could not itself be so easily confused with the original Season 1 because a different word is used, Series vs. Season. I think he should bow to the consensus on this one. -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:40, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Two comments. First: don't blame RTD for this. The BBC made the decision not him. Second, whatever we end up doing, don't put in crap like "much to the annoyance of fans" unless you can cite chapter and verse of an article that says so (I just deleted this from the article and it makes us sound stupid). In the meantime, let's just wait and see what happens.23skidoo 00:37, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Richard Curtis and a February start[[edit source]]
I've tried to remove the "confirmed rumour" of a February start which sources Richard Curtis but had it reverted, without explanation. First off, Richard Curtis is not a member of the production team so he's not in a position to confirm anything. It's just as likely that he's mistaken. Secondly, his exact quote is "...I'm doing a Doctor Who that will be on TV next February. I've got Van Gogh stabbing a monster." (from the source) - for it to be true that his episode is airing in February the series would have had to start on December 26 (if it's episode 10, which it almost certainly is) or January 23 (if he though it was going to be episode 6, which it was in the same block as). Thirdly, the trailer says "Spring 2010" and February isn't in spring. So, it looks like Curtis has not confirmed a February start - at most he has suggested it (if you're generous about what he really means) but that hardly makes is a "confirmed rumour". The current entry states that the series will definitely be starting in February (that's what confirmed means), if there's any doubt (and there's plenty) it should be removed. Maccy69 19:50, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
You may be wrong and / or right. This rumour has been confirmed for a very long time so how do you not know that Series 5 was originally planned to be broadcast in February but changed because of unknown reason's since he released that statement. Michael Downey 20:27, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the rumour has never been confirmed. Nobody from the BBC or the production team has ever confirmed a February start. I don't see how a writer employed on a freelance basis is any sort of reliable source of information. Confirmed means something is a fact - a February start is not a fact and therefore should not be listed as confirmed. What is the benefit of leaving this in the article? Maccy69 20:43, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
- And the fact we're now in February and no broadcast date has been announced (which it would be by now), coupled with the fact that Tenth Doctor merchandise is still being released into March, would seem to close the book on this rumor. 23skidoo 23:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
River Song appearances[[edit source]]
We need a source for the statement that she's appearing in 4 episodes. So far DWM has only confirmed the one two-parter. 23skidoo 23:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I know it hasn't been confirmed but theres pictures of her on set of the filming of the final 2 episodes -- Michael Downey 00:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC) == Episode 6 & 10== Until the episode names for 6 and 10 are confirmed by a reliable source, I'm removing them. Jim393 14:46, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Many people have seen River Song filming for the finale at Stone Henge with the Doctor and Amy. I saw the pictures, too. Delton Menace 07:28, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Nick Briggs and Barnaby Edwards in ep12/13 note.[[edit source]]
This comment needs a citation surely, there does not appear to be any evidence or news elsewhere that these two are on set for the final (indicating that only a small number of enemies could be in the final if this were true).
They have been on seen on set. I also kept that statement on but removed the statement of them being the Daleks because there was no evidence to that but they still themselves where seen on set. -- Michael Downey 17:36, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
IMDb airdate[[edit source]]
The Internet Movie Database is a bogus source for this information. The only source that will be accepted is an official announcement by the BBC. I don't mind sounding a bit "authoritative" on this because non-BBC sources for airdates have had a zero per cent rate of accuracy since 2005. Any joker can add a date to IMDb. 23skidoo 03:09, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Dark Horizons isn't a good source for this either. I removed a reference to its claim the new series will start on March 6. If you want an example of a site getting it wrong, there you go. If it was airing on March 6 the BBC would have announced it by now, and you'd also have Tenth Doctor merchandise being released after the start of the new series, which is unlikely. 23skidoo 13:00, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Let's get a consensus on what to call this article[[edit source]]
I haven't seen DWM 418 yet (it won't be available in Canada for another month) but according to this article Moffat has made the announcement that "Series 5" (or, as he called it in DWM 417, Series Fnarg) is going to be officially known as Season 31. Now I'd rather wait to see what happens when the BBC officially announces its schedule whether they actually do this or not. If they do, then we need to come up with a consensus as to what to call not only this article, but retroactively the 2005-2008 seasons. If 2010 is called Season 31 officially, do we rename the other articles Seasons 27-30? Or do we stick with 1-4 despite the discontinuity in numbering? Or do we keep the original and revival series separate (even if Moffat is clearly integrating them by using Season 31) and stick with Series 5? It's just numbering, but this is actually an emotional issue for some people and I don't really want to see us start a "Move edit war" over this. I'd rather we come to an agreement before articles are moved, or remain where they are. My personal view is if Series 5 is "Season 31" officially, we should retroactively rename the other seasons articles for the sake of simplicity. However I'm not one of those who treats this as an emotional issue so I'm quite fine to leave things status quo. (Just as long as the BBC doesn't follow through with the "Series 1" idea, I'm happy.) 23skidoo 03:58, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Even if this year's episodes are officially listed-as/called/referred- to-by/addressed-as/nicknamed/shadowmongered/hufnied/produced-under-the-title-of Season 31 I don't think we should retroactively change anything officially listed as Series' 1 through 4 either in this wiki or anywhere else. Firstly it will be a massive headache and secondly my boxset says The complete series 3 and that's what I'm calling it forever. --Stillnotginger 04:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
- See also this discussion Forum:Season 31 or Series 1, not Series 5 - Steven Moffat. --Tangerineduel 13:37, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
While I personally think this should be called Season 31 (and Series 1-4 called Seasons 27-30); we should wait until something like a DVD release to confirm its official name. If it does officially become Season 31, then it would be logical to rename Series 1-4 as Seasons 27-30. TemporalSpleen 19:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed start date[[edit source]]
Doctor Who has just been confirmed to start on April 3rd on a tv advert on BBC1 just before Top Gear :D
2010 Series[[edit source]]
I believe that the Series itself right now should not be called anything until confirmation and believe it should be named "2010 Series". The reasons I think this is because everyone is discussing that it should NOT be called series 1, 31 etc but yet it stands as series 5 when Steven Moffat has made it quite clear it shall not be called that. I'm not getting into the whole what it shall be called but for right now and to make it quite clear it should be called "2010 Series" this way it is not any designated title. It's that chosen title because of when it's broadcast. -- Michael Downey 12:24, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. For one thing no one in any official channels is using this term. BBC Video is calling it Series 5. And to use another name will cause discontinuity for anyone following the wiki's articles sequentially - Series 1, 2, 3, 4, 2009 Specials (which may end up as Series 4 Specials) ... and 2010 Series? Doesn't work. Whether one agrees with it or not, BBC Video's titling is considered definitive (see: An Unearthly Child, The Edge of Destruction, Children in Need Special). They've made the call to refer to the 2009 Specials as the Series 4 Specials (ref: the deleted scenes feature on the DVD/Blu-Ray) but that hasn't been picked up yet and the box set just says "Complete Specials" so there is some debate. But now they've announced a Series 5 Volume 1 episodes DVD/BR release, so unless there's compelling reason to change it we should leave it be. Moffat's wishes are irrelevant. In DWM 417 he suggested Series Fnarg, too. It's what the BBC does that matters. 23skidoo 13:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Instead of disagreeing with my why don't you read what I have said and when I said it. I said call it Series 2010 because it is a name that stands bias as it doesn't agree to any rumours and fighting to what the series is called except the only piece of information there is is that it's broadcast see 2010 Series on wikipedia for an example but now it's been confirmed with the DVD release it's series 5 so then this post is no longer validated and that's fine just in future read things carefully and understand WHEN they where posted (Before the confirmation of Series 5) and what I am actually saying (Temporary calling it Series 2010 until we have a correct title. -- Michael Downey 13:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I also disagree. Moving the pages around creates something of a headache for page names. If we call it 'Series 2010' that means people will start linking to that, instead of Series 5, which means we'd have a variety of re-directs all over the place (or double redirects as the case may be).
- Also...the argument for 'Series 2010' is that there's no argument about that name...I doubt very much that if we were to move it that wouldn't be the case for very long.
- Additionally as has been mentioned elsewhere it is best to wait and see what in a commercial sense the BBC does, when the DVD actually gets released. --Tangerineduel 14:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Does no one read what I have said I put that suggestion way before it was confirmed it's now called Series 5 with the DVD release. The only reason why I said call it this was because it it a bias title therefore it would cause less problems for people fighting to what the series is called and that the title would obviously be temporary until it a title was confirmed which now has therefore this post is no longer valid. You people really should read and take notice of what I say and when I post it. -- Michael Downey 19:01, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I was fully aware of this when I posted my initial comment, for the very reason you state - not everyone would have noticed the date you made the suggestion and I didn't want to see someone (not you, of course) unilaterally deciding to move the article, which has happened before which is why this page is under protection. 23skidoo 13:50, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Does no one read what I have said I put that suggestion way before it was confirmed it's now called Series 5 with the DVD release. The only reason why I said call it this was because it it a bias title therefore it would cause less problems for people fighting to what the series is called and that the title would obviously be temporary until it a title was confirmed which now has therefore this post is no longer valid. You people really should read and take notice of what I say and when I post it. -- Michael Downey 19:01, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Episode 11: The Lodger?[[edit source]]
According to postings at the TrekBBS forum, episode 11 is an adaptation of The Lodger, a DWM comic strip by Gareth Roberts - who is writing the episode. Some filming photos have been posted here that support this (this is also the Corden episode). As forums aren't considered good sources, I can't add this to the rumors section without violating the sourcing guidelines we've set out. Has anyone else seen any reports confirming or supporting the notion that this a comic-strip-based episode? If it is The Lodger, that means it may be a companion-lite story, too. 23skidoo 22:28, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
BBC "official announcement" of airdate[[edit source]]
There is no such thing on the link listed. The only "official" announcement is Moffat stated April 3 on BBC Breakfast a few days ago. I'm updating the article accordingly. 23skidoo 16:38, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
- The official announcement has now been made, so I updated links accordingly. 23skidoo 13:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite sure how your link to a completely unsourced article on the Doctor Who News page is preferable to a link in which we actually see Steven Moffat question someone hooked into his earpiece whether he can reveal the date, and then he says it after getting the go-ahead. Primary sources tend to rank higher on the "sourcing tree" than second-hand reports — especially those that haven't been themselves sourced. But whatever, in 10 days it will hardly matter. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 14:34, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Something about the words "official announcement", I should think. The News Page wouldn't put up information of this detail without having obtained it from the official source. Frankly the moment the BBC said Easter it was a no-brainer that they meant April 3. The fact Moffat said April 3 on the air is meaningless. Smith said on Ross that Episode 6 is Vampires in Venice, which was taken as gospel too, but it was wrong. 23skidoo 16:15, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Alien Appearances[[edit source]]
I think the list of unconfirmed alien's is getting out of hand it just seems to be people placing their own opinions. Not really rumours and have no sources for the rumours. What shall we do and does anyone agree? -- Michael Downey 17:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
i agree with you, all the following should be removed as they are just pure speculation and no articles that i know of say they will be in series 5
- Ice Warriors
- Autons
- Sea Devils
- Axons
- Zygons
- Slitheen
- The Beast
- Judoon
- Robot Yeti
Revanvolatrelundar 17:15, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Changing the image?[[edit source]]
I uploaded the version of the logo from the Series 5 intro. Should we add the logo the same way the other logos are put on top of season/series pages? AJ the Shinigami 20:50, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Cybus Cybermen?[[edit source]]
Can we still be sure it's only Cybus? This image shows that the "C" is missing, making it unclear whether they're Cybusmen or original Cybermen with a reused design. --Golden Monkey 12:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that, with the exception of the head seen in Dalek the revival has only used Cybus Cybermen, it can be assumed the version featured will be the "Cybusmen" (to borrow a term coined by someone on the TrekBBS). It's really up to the episode itself to indicate differently. Even with all the reports and pre-broadcast announcements there has been no reference to the "original Cybermen" coming back, and this would have made some headlines somewhere. 23skidoo 05:44, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Finale?[[edit source]]
Is there anything to confirm that the Cybusmen will be the villians of the final episode? There doesn't seem to be a source for this but the article treats it as a fact. Aldris247 07:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Well we know that there are Vampires in the Vampires of Venice, and they would have appeared in the trailer no doubt if they were in that episode. In the Silurian 2-parter, it is unlikely they will appear along with the Silurians and Sea Devils, and also they will not appear in Vincent and the Doctor, there is this strange yellow monster instead. I don't think they will be appearing in Episode 11 (The Lodger?) - To be honest I thought they would appear in Amy's Choice along with the Dream Lord, but people are saying they will come out of the Pandorica in the finale, so I think they will be the villians of the final episodes... Who7 16:16, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the only evidence we have that they'll be in the finale is:
- We know they'll appear somewhere (because of the season trailer), and none of the other episodes seem likely.
- Nick Briggs gave some coy hints that he would be voicing Daleks and Cybermen interacting. (I forget the exact quote, but it was in the Digital Spy interview, and it was on the lines of, "Hypothetically, if I were to have to voice the new Daleks and the Cybermen in the same episode, I'd need to set up two separate effects boxes because I wouldn't be able to twiddle the knobs fast enough. And it worked great. I mean hypothetically, of course, because I can neither confirm nor deny that I ever did such a thing.") But again, the only evidence that this episode will be the finale is that none of the other episodes seem likely.
- More importantly, even if the Cybusmen are in the finale (which they probably are), that doesn't mean they're "the villains". The most common rumor is that they'll be among a slew of past enemies, none of which will be the main villain (just like in The Five Doctors) --Falcotron 02:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Eyes[[edit source]]
Has anyone else noticed that eyes are a recurring theme through out the series so far. The Eleventh Hour the prison guards main feature was their eye, in The Beast Below children crying is an important theme in this episode(i know that this one isn't a very strong piece of evidence), in Victory of the Daleks the new Daleks have a new eye stalk and in The Time of Angels Amy is told not to look into the Weeping Angles eyes. Matt Smith told a interviewer that the cracks may be one of five things and a reference to eyes has been made in every episode. what do people think? Alex1442 20:26, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Why yes, this could certainly be one, Alex1442. Don't forget in Flesh and Stone when there was that eye thing in the background. You certainly have good 'eyes'. Maybe in Vampires of Venice there eyes go red, or even the Silurians, I don't think they have any! Who7 15:40, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- This has been brought up in a number of threads in Howling:The Howling. I'd start by reading Howling:5 Things to look for in Series 5, and add any new comments to Forum:5 things to look for: Eyes. --Falcotron 14:46, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Number 5 as a story arc[[edit source]]
User Who7 added this paragraph (in two edits on 2 May) to the Story Arc section:
- Another element is the number five. The Doctor says he will be five minutes (The Eleventh Hour), He revisits Amy Pond in five years (Amy's Choice), and they discover the drillings of the earth in 2015, (The Hungry Earth). Also, there are five winders (The Beast Below), five vampires (Vampires in Venice) and five different coloured Daleks (Victory of the Daleks), and in Flesh and Stone, there are five people in the forest after the Doctor, River and Octavian leave, and it takes Amy to five before the Doctor realises she is counting down.
While this is certainly one possibility of the "five things to look out for", it's just one of a dozen or two speculative fan theories, and it belongs on The Howling with the rest of them. If it's confirmed, it can go in the Story Arcs section. If it becomes a notable rumor, it can go in that section. But so far, it's neither.
So, I've removed it from the article, and replaced it with this HTML comment:
- There are a dozen or more fan theories as to what the other four things might be. The best place to discuss them is in The Howling, under the forum. Don't add something here unless it's actually confirmed.
--Falcotron 14:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
The Crack as a story arc[[edit source]]
In the Story Arc section, there was a paragraph about the rumours of the upcoming episode Flesh and Stone. Since that episode has now aired, it seemed like a good idea to replace that with a paragraph describing what we actually learned, so I did so. But someone might want to read that paragraph over, just to make sure I didn't let any speculation creep in. (It's really hard to avoid this season, isn't it?) --Falcotron 14:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
More Possible Story Arc Plots[[edit source]]
I have a theory that there will be something to do with a Perception Filter in the last episode(s). Its been in The Eleventh Hour and now Vampires of Venice. While this may seem a long shot, I hardly think its coinidental that they are in both stories but it is just a long shotted theory Ooiue 21:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
- They also had one in The Time of Angels when The Doctor and River Song realize that the Angels are actually the statues. "Maybe it's a perception filter, or maybe we're just thick," when they realize that the statues only have one head. I was thinking about this last night haha. Musedae 14:11, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean haha? i posted this before you so haha :P :DOoiue 14:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean haha like "haha i thought of it first!" I meant haha as in "Haha I was thinking of this too! Glad I'm not the only one!" Musedae 16:55, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Is http://drwhospoilers.webs.com/ really a reliable source?[[edit source]]
In this edit, BillyWilliam3rd added the titles "Reality Check", "The Pandorica Opens", and "Enemies of a Time Lord" for episode 11, 12, and 13, citing [1].
I notice that pages now exist under these names, and the series 5 template has been updated.
If you follow the link, it's a generic webs.com site with empty photo, forum, etc. sections, a generic layout, and only 3 pieces of content:
- "Hey all you Dr. Whoniverse peeps! It's me, FruitLoops! And do I have a treat for you, I have all the titles of all the episodes of the series!"
- The list of titles.
- One blog entry, posted on 8 May, "Eleventh Hour - Filming on Set!", which says "Hey guys, I've got some pics of filming on set for the Eleventh Hour! Have a peak, but don't tell Steven!!!!" and then has 3 long-released pictures.
This hardly seems like a notable site, or a reliable source for spoilers. Anyone could have set this up in 2 minutes, and apparently someone just did. --Falcotron 01:12, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think it is reliable, although I think the titles seem right... :P -- Dragonfree 09:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Every other spoiler source I've seen calls the episodes "The Lodger", "The Pandorica Opens", and either "The Big Bang" or just "Big Bang". I've never heard "Enemies of a Time Lord" before, and I searched although if some of the rumors of what happens are true I suppose it makes sense.
- I googled for "Enemies of a Time Lord", and every site that has a source mentions this page as the source, which is not very encouraging. I think we're just helping to spread an unsubstantiated rumor at this point.... --Falcotron 14:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. It's completely unsubstantiated and we're meant to be more...substantial, for want of a better word. The pages have been deleted, though, so it's null and void now. Just keep an eye out for with guy and DrWhoSpoilers.webs.com for now. Musedae 14:09, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I googled for "Enemies of a Time Lord", and every site that has a source mentions this page as the source, which is not very encouraging. I think we're just helping to spread an unsubstantiated rumor at this point.... --Falcotron 14:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
The same hoaxster (presumably) has not only created 30 more blogs, webs.com sites, etc., he's also created another fake Karen Gillan Twitter account (and this time he put "official" as part of the name, so you know it has to be official), and created a fake Doctor Who Facebook account (which may not be linked from any of the official BBC Facebook accounts or the official Doctor Who website, but it has the BBC logo and says it's "official", so it must be).
And now, a few more reliable blogs have been taken in. People on the fan forums are mostly citing this wiki or Combom's blog, instead of brand-new blogs like "1christiantardisfan".
The funny thing is, most of the people claiming it's on the "official Facebook page" don't even have links to that page. --Falcotron 01:44, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
The trailers section is no longer needed.[[edit source]]
Nearly everything seen in the trailers has been seen in the episodes now (most of the trailers contained clips from only the first 6 episodes that aired already). The only things in a trailer or two that haven't been aired yet is a clip or two from The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood and the about two clips from the finale (Amy fighting Cyberman, the Doctor, Amy, and River running through Stonehenge). My point is, what is the point in that section anymore? Most of it's seen, and most people have seen the trailers more than once. It's just clutter now, and honestly shouldn't be there now that we're coming to episode 7. Delton Menace 07:06, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
timoreen[[edit source]]
i think that timoreen might be raxacoricofallapatorius becuse they are ending with een i also think they might be yellow becuse slitheen are green blathereen are orenge so all familys are diffrent and in vincent and the doctor vincent will stab a yellow monster
Drwhoworld 13:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought of that but this belongs in the forums. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk)☆ 13:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Things looking like humans[[edit source]]
I've noticed that in every episode something that looks like a human has been involved. The Eleventh Hour - Prisoner Zero disguised himself as a human The Beast Below - Smilers look like humans Victory of the Daleks - Prof. Edwin Bracewell was a robot disguised as a human The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone - The Weeping Angel pretends to be Bob The Vampires of Venice - The Saturnynians use a perception filter to look like humans Amy's Choice - The Eknodines live inside old people etc and all that. OK, so it is the Doctor in the Pandorica. But it isnt likely that all of his enemies would form an alliance. I think it just looks like his enemies.
Bannanaaaron 22:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC)User:Bannanaaaron
Volume 3 of Series 5[[edit source]]
I've just found something on the product page of Volume 3 of series 5. Volume 3 will only have 3 episodes, rather than 4. It will have episodes 7-9. http://www.bbcshop.com/Matt-Smith/Doctor-Who-Series-5-Volume-3-DVD/invt/bbcdvd3215 Kranitoko (talk) 11:30, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: Volume 4 does indeed contain the last 4 episodes 10-13 - http://www.bbcshop.com/Doctor-Who-Store/Doctor-Who-Series-5-Volume-4-DVD/invt/bbcdvd3216 Kranitoko (talk) 11:31, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Companion lite[[edit source]]
There is something I'd like to note on the page, but I'm not sure where's the best place. Series 1 didn't have a Doctor or Companion lite episode because there was no Christmas Special to film. Series 2 and three both had ones at the same time, Series 4 in different episodes, but in Series 5, the Doctor never had a series lite episode, but Amy did. I think this is worth noting, but I'm just not sure where. The Thirteenth Doctor 12:22, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
DVD[[edit source]]
we're no very good @ updating home media or whats it called on the eipsode pages Joshoedit 11:25, October 3, 2010 (UTC)