Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Revolution of the Daleks

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
You are exploring the Discontinuity Index, a place where any details or rumours about unreleased stories are forbidden.
Please discuss only those whole stories which have already been released, and obey our spoiler policy.

This page is for discussing the ways in which Revolution of the Daleks doesn't fit well with other DWU narratives. You can also talk about the plot holes that render its own, internal narrative confusing.

Remember, this is a forum, so civil discussion is encouraged. However, please do not sign your posts. Also, keep all posts about the same continuity error under the same bullet point. You can add a new point by typing: 

* This is point one.
::This is a counter-argument to point one.
:::This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above
* This is point two.
::Explanation of point two.
::Further discussion and query of point two.

... and so on.
  • There's a chance this may be more a production error but; when the Doctor notices Jack in the penn next to her, she runs over to him and clearly puts her hands on the electrified bars without being zapped.
Terrible production error seeing as we saw the pting get zapped 2 minutes prior
  • How did no one on Earth seem to have heard of a Dalek, even though the Earth was invaded by the Daleks in The Stolen Earth (TV story)?
    • Those events were erased when the universe reset in The Big Bang (TV story).
      • They were erased by the cracks in time, but the purpose of the universe being reset was to restore everything they erased, like Amy's parents for example. The Dalek invasions would have been restored. It seems like a poor excuse for bad continuity.
        • No companion since Series 5 has recognised the Daleks however. So it appears whilst logically it should have restored by Big Bang 2, the Dalek invasion just wasn’t. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS - GEEZE IT'S ONE OF THE MAIN RULES
          • Real life explanation: Bad continuity, in universe explanation? Possibly world governments covering up events, mass drugging (retcon) or the stupidity of the human race.
            • It's possible some rogue sect of UNIT or Torchwood turned on the Archangel Network in order to make people forget aliens to recover the economy after Miracle Day.
            • So does that also apply to the Daleks in Victory of the Daleks (TV story) - a story with a not dissimilar storyline (a British prime minister using "Ironsides"/"defence drones") - or the Daleks of Doomsday (TV story)?!
Take it up at the episode's respective discontinuity page; not here because this is solely for the Revolution story.
  • I thought the whole point of a TARDIS chameleon circuit was to make a TARDIS blend in wherever it lands and typically turn into something that nobody would notice. So why would the spare TARDIS the Fam returned to Earth in turn into something as inconspicuous as a whole detached house, in the middle of a housing estate with residents who are bound to notice its sudden appearance and disappearance?
    • Remember "Boom Town"? Mickey asks the same question about the TARDIS. "Ricky, people see a blue police box smackdab in the middle o Cardiff.... And they walk by."
      • That’s a small police box in the middle of a busy street that your average person would probably only walk down every once in a while. This is a great big house occupying a big, empty (presumably) open space that at least a few local people would probably see through their window every day.
        • It was clearly using a Perception filter to be unnoticed, like all TARDISES.
          • Why bother with a chameleon circuit, then?
            • The perception filter is for those who know the area and knew there was no house there before, so they need little persuasion. The Chameleon circuit is for everyone else who otherwise wouldn't question the existence of a house there
  • The TARDIS(es?) have sentience, as established mby the myriad mini conversations the Doctor has with theirs, and the very literal personification of it. The Doctor, while willing to kill certain species, seems to draw the line at 'innocent sentient beings'. And yet, 13 seems to nonchalantly kill the 'spare' TARDIS without any hesitation or regret, as if it was nothibg more than blowing up a rental car. This seems to either contradict established lore that the TARDIS is sentient or suggests 13 doesn't care about sentient life as much as previous incarnations.
    • This is a huge mistake made by Chibnall, and it made me sad once I realized it. There is no logical explanation from the Doctor, and I think it was horrible. I don't blame the Doctor, who would never do that. I blame Chibnall, for forgetting that.
    • Worth noting the Doctor has previously been responsible for destructions of TARDISes in The Keeper of Traken (TV story), Seizure (audio story) and Eye of Harmony (audio story), and even attempted to destroy his own one in Blood Heat (novel).
      • I don't protest the destruction/killing as much as the attitude behind it. The Beast Below (TV story) Shows the Doctor deal with the prospect of essentially killing a sentient creature as means to an end. And yet in this story The TARDIS seems to lose its signature sentience and thus importance as soon as it's convenient to get out of the hole the writing dug itself into.
    • We don't know under what precise circumstances the Doctor set up the hologram in the "spare TARDIS"; it is possible that she had an offscreen conversation with it, and it consented to sacrificing itself to save the Earth. Also, we only have the Doctor's rather vague word that sending itself to the Void will "break apart" the TARDIS; it's possible that it broke apart the console room, but did not actually destroy the sentient TARDIS matrix itself, which may remain "alive" in the Void.
      • ^That is a good point.
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Theory:Doctor_Who_television_discontinuity_and_plot_holes/Revolution_of_the_Daleks&oldid=3194773"