Talk:Police 5: The Master (TV story)

What is this?

Is this a DWU story or not? It sounds like a different tv show that happens to feature a DW character. Shambala108 ☎ 02:37, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a Doctor Who themed episode of an unrelated TV show. Having just watched it, I don't think it should be taken seriously as the episode looks like it's supposed to be an in-universe version of Police 5, yet they use old footage from the show that should not be available to the in-universe editors, such as scenes on Gallifrey, and similar things, which is why I don't think it should be valid.

(removed by admin per Tardis:Video policy)

Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 21:23, June 1, 2020 (UTC)

Stories use footage which doesn't seem like it should exist all the time as an excuse to use stock footage from old episodes. The Eleventh Hour, for one — where did the Atraxxi get all these shots that just so happent to be shots from old Doctor Who story?

But more to the point, I don't think all that footage is necessarily supposed to "actually" be there in-universe. It's an equally valid reading of the TV story that we're looking at the classic flashback trick, of the relevant footage being played back for the viewers when characters talk about past events.

This isn't a "Doctor Who-themed episode of another show", it's essentially a crossover between that show and Doctor Who. There is no question that it takes place in the Doctor Who universe. Basically, it's like the "newscast sections" in e.g. The Power of Three and Army of Ghosts, where the Beeb would get famous news anchors and celebrities to act as themselves to give viewers a window into what their show is like within the DWU. Except in this particular instance, the story wholly consists of us being shown the in-universe broadcast, without a specific "real" Master story on either end of it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:43, June 1, 2020 (UTC)

I also said "and similar things" becuase at the end, the presenter refers to the Master as a "character", instead of criminal (or something similar), which does sound like an unexplained fourth wall break. He also possesses knowledge that he honestly would never have, like the Master's age.

The Atraxxi could've easily had the technology to scan the universe for those flashbacks, whereas a nineties TV presenter surely wouldn't.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 00:30, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and somehow he knew that the Master attended the Time Lord Academy with the Doctor, on Gallifrey. Seems this guy is more knowledgable than some of the Doctor's friends and foes.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 00:34, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Narrative breaks do not an invalid source make. Doctor Who and the Daleks's plot relies on Earth authorities being able to ring for the First Doctor to investigate a weird happenstance, and knowing him as an expert on Daleks. All else being equal, the TV presenter having knowledge about Gallifrey that he "shouldn't" really doesn't strike me as particularly egregious.

(It's not as though the Doctor and the Master growing up together, or the Doctor being from Gallifrey, is a carefully-guarded secret, either. The Doctor frequently introduces themselves as being "from the planet Gallifrey in the Constellation of Kasterborous" and makes no secret to those who know them, AFAIK, about their relationship with the Master.)

And, no offence meant, but a genuine question: are you perhaps not a native English speaker? Referring to a bad person as "a despicable character", or to an eccentric or memorable individual as "what a character!", is a well-recognised idiom. That's clearly the sense in which it's used in this story, again all else being qual.

I don't see how the Atraxxi's technological advancement changes anything; the question isn't how the person playing them got their hands on the footage, it's that this footage shouldn't logically exist because there was no in-universe camera in evidence in those spots in the relevant TV stories. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:42, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

I agree expert knowledge of the Doctor (or anyone) shouldn't be used to invalidate stories, we have The Doctor in popular culture and mythology for one. For the most damning example I can think of from the top of my head, an eleven year old child attending Coal Hill in the 2010s could pick out a book from the school library and have knowledge of the Doctor's part in creating human life (as well as detailed accounts of his part in practically every historical and pseudo-historical television story up to 2014) as per A History of Humankind. --Borisashton ☎ 00:49, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

In the context, hearing "character" without any adjectives around it made me think he was referring to the Master as an actual character, as opposed to simply describing the Master with such an idiom.

My native language is English, but it was a misunderstanding on my part.

Also, the presenter does say, and I quote, "as a reminder, this is what he looked like when he was last spotted" and then immediately a clip of Survival plays. The presenter directly references the clip, as if the presenter specifically wanted that clip, which should be impossible for him to have.

Also, if a student at Coal Hill did pick up A History of Humankind, that student wouldn't necessarily believe it, as a student wouldn't take a random source of information as fact, as they should have the gumption to not believe everything they hear. Otherwise, everybody's version of history would be different.

You wouldn't believe a random vagrant down the street claiming that he was actually a famous historical figure.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 01:06, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Lots of things are impossible in the DWU. Again, if it was intended to be set in the DWU, the fact that it fails to explain how it fits into the DWU in some respects doesn't really matter. And in the very quote you bring up, the idea that this is "what he looked like when he was last spotted" confirms that somehow, this is supposed to be in-universe footage, not a clip from Doctor Who, and that this is very much in-universe. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:10, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Same point stands though, how did he get in-universe footage, when there definitely was not a person recording the fight between the Seventh Doctor and the Master.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 01:13, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Two things:

• First, Tardis:Video policy prohibits linking to offsite videos. The video link above has been removed.
• Second, User:Freddie R. Aldous posted the following in the "Notes" section of the page: "Police 5: The Master has never been made available as a DVD extra due to copyright and clearance problems, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future." Any info that can clarify this statement would be greatly appreciated.

Shambala108 ☎ 02:32, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

I think it's because ITV and the BBC had an agreement for this crossover to be broadcast as part of the 30th anniversary celebration, but past that point, ITV own it but can't release it again without the BBC's go-ahead and the BBC own the Master but can't release it without ITV's go-ahead. It's quite similar to how Assimilation² is unlikely to be reprinted any time soon, unless a publisher finds itself holding the Star Trek and Doctor Who licenses at the same time again.

If that's what you're worried about, there was nothing wrong AFAIK with the licensing of the Master at the time of release. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:37, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

Look, I know about the offsite videos malarkey, but at the same time it is important to have a source for the infomation being discussed here. Sure, remove it after this discussion has concluded, but removing it now is counter productive. I don't want to defy the policies, but temporarily pausing them cannot hurt anyone.

Epsilon the Eternal ☎ 03:09, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

The word is "policy", not "malarkey". The policy exists to prevent people linking to non-official videos or to videos that will eventually be removed. And if you read the policy you will find that there is a way to allow the video on site. Shambala108 ☎ 03:14, June 2, 2020 (UTC)

So is this a valid story or not?

Was there ever any decision made on this? To me it clearly seems to be parodical, but I also can't point to anything definitive to say that it is or isn't. I was unable to find a separate inclusion debate on this, my apologies if there is one and I somehow missed it. I can't see how this is valid when other similar examples aren't. Since it is part of a program which almost exclusively discusses real-world events, it seems to me that the referral to DWU events as real-world should be enough to label it parodical of the DWU, as this referral establishes that it is a parody of Police 5. Perhaps that line of reasoning isn't enough, but that's how I see it at least. Belegityt ☎ 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it has any reason to be invalid. I do no longer support the argument I provided above, as I was, at the time, caught up in notions of canon and all that icky stuff.

Personally, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is parodical. It's simply an in-universe episode of Police 5. It doesn't parody anything to with Doctor Who, as the episode is played completely straight.

And for that matter, I don't believe A Fix with Sontarans is invalid for any parody reasons, I believe that the reason it is invalid it that the ending egregiously breaks the fourth wall. (And fourth wall breaks are a whole other matter, as the Wiki is extremely inconsistent about how fourth wall breaks are handled, as some apparently get away with it and others don't).

Epsilon📯 📂

18:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. The key insight here is: this might be a parody of Police 5, but it's not a parody of the DWU. It's similar to how the EastEnders sketch in Army of Ghosts is clearly "an EastEnders parody", and yet we (obviously) don't rule out Army of Ghosts for "being parody". If you'll look closely, you'll see this distinction is reflected in the description of the parody rule at Tardis:Valid sources.

Epsilon is also correct that A Fix with Sontarans isn't invalid because of Rule 4. In fact, it's not even invalid because of "a fourth wall break" directly — it's invalid essentially because it fails Rule 1. It's not a complete, self-contained story — partway through the actors all stop acting, with the Doctor becoming Colin Baker again, without any end credits or other delineation. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, okay. I think I understand. So just to clarify, it's definitively valid? Belegityt ☎ 20:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much. If new, compelling evidence of a Rule 4 (like a quote from the writer) came to light in a forum thread, that might yet change it to {{invalid}} — but short of that, yeah, valid. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)