Talk:Empress of Mars

Prequel

There seems to be no reference that this episode is a prequel to The Curse of Peladon.Dalek1099 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dalek1099: Do you have a source for this? -- Alex^TW 17:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the link handy but I did see comments from Gatiss et al in the Radio Times that named Curse of Peladon and how/why they brought Alpha Centauri back. I don't remember it being explicitly said a prequel (though clearly, OR-ly, it must be, but we can't start with OR). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has called it a prequel - but it would fit into the plot or continuity probably. If it helps this references Alpha Centuri and The Galactic Federation from the Peladon stories. Dresken (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. And I note that I've looked and "prequel"'s a hard word to attach here. (It is not wholly designed in that manner). However, I do think (and I have added it) that we can talk the narrative attachment this ep has to Curse, establishing it takes place in-universe before Curse does. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The reference currently used does call it a prequel, but I think that's a term which, for our purposes, should be avoided unless someone involved in production explicitly used it. The way it's evolving in the contintuity section now is the right way to go. On the subject, I've removed the mention of A.C. being played by the original actor because... that's normal. I cannot see it being notable that she's still alive and kicking and all, and was willing to play the part again. Even cast notes only note when someone returns to the programme playing a different part. Noting that she's played it after a such long absence is rather ageist IMO. If others feel she should be noted because of the long absence, fine, I'd suggest putting it under Cast notes because it's about casting--but again, strictly speaking, it's not notable in and of itself that the same actor is playing the part. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that a continuity note has been added to The Curse of Peladon article. I'm still working on understanding on how the continuity sections work - but I think the whole continuity section doesn't seem quite right on that article. Dresken (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not needed in that article per se, but I think that Gatiss' comments on his own impression of the ep can be used in that article's reception section and allude to the inclusion in "Empress". --MASEM (t) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was surprised. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Continuity notes are for. For some time now, someone or some people have been obsessively adding future events (i.e. 'first/next/last' sort of things) to continuity in the classic series episodes. (For a while I was going through the Hartnell years systematically removing unsourced stuff and anything else that just seemed crap but it gets on my nerves. It's too big a job for one person anyway.) Example, Harry Sullivan makes his last appearance as a companion in episode X, but appears one more time in 'Y', the obessive fan-editor dutifuly (and pointlessly) adds a note saying "This is HS's last appearance until Zygons'. There's no need to note it's his last appearance since it'll say he's leaving in the plot or in the lead--likely both. There's certainly no need to tell the reader he makes another appearance later, as that has nothing to do with continuity (we don't need to explain his appearance later now). The problem is till recently we've not really defined narowly what we mean by contintuity. I believe when it was first discussed (to the best of my recollection) someone did at the time suggest bookending references forwards as well back, and no-one actually objected to it at the time--I suspect because it was made long after the discussion proper was over. That editor, and whoever read that discussion afterward, may well be under the impression it's standard practice. But as we've been defining it the last few weeks, continuity notes are to aid understanding the plot of the current episode, and must perforce refer to past, not future events. Just had a look at Curse. Yup. Full of references to spin-off media published long after the episode aired. Nothing whatsoever to do with Continuity of that episode. It's basically later appearances of the same character or events or settings, etc., all of which belong in other articles, not in the article for a particular episode. Fans doing what they love to do. Sooner or later, every single episode article looks like that if no-one goes around removing the cruft. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I can understand it getting on the nerves, I've recently added every classic episode article to my watchlist and it's quite exhausting to keep up with the updates now. I've only had a glance at the MOSs - but I cannot see anything direct in WP:MOSTV about continuity sections, and our own WP:WHO/MOS might need some clarification/examples so we have it to keep referring back to - I'm trying to get better at this to help out - but at the moment I second guess a lot of it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

That's very noble and self-sacrificing of you D, a Herculean Labour, in fact, but perhaps you have greater patience than I. I suggest you take your time to avoid burn-out, that may have been my mistake. Plot length is also a problem in those articles, viz. (wait for it) The Brain of Morbius Behold! a mighty synopsis four times longer than need be! It needs an axe taken to it (think slasher-film) but I got a headache just looking at it, and restricted myself when I was last on that page for any amount of time to moving the "faces in the mind-bending sequence" out of Continuity, re-writing it properly under production (where it belongs, since there cannot be continuity for faces that never appeared before!). This again illustrates what happens: people see any bit of information that is genuinely useful or interesting, and add it to that section when it really belongs somewhere else. As I mentioned before, compounding the "forwards" referencing, they liketo add spin-off material "explaining" or "elaborating" or "continuing" events from the episode. All that stuff should be swept out like cobwebs (I've just done it for Curse). The one that absolutely galled me was a note on Peri's bikini being the first bikini in the show since Sarah Jane Smith or something, I just about grabbed my laptop and threw it over the balcony of my apartment (not really) but I did remove it and left a note saying "Now please take a cold shower" in my edit descr. (apologies if I've related this anecdote before.) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I added a "past episodes only" statement to the WP:WHO/MOS. I then wondered at what point continuity sections kicked in, second serial The Daleks with all references to future episodes. Dresken (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Ah, the obsessive creatures of the night, such lists they make. The first appearance of the TARDIS food machine (so what?). The Thals reappear later (which is why Thals has a goddamn hyperlik, so you don't need to establish it's a recurring thing in the show). The Daleks use static electricity here, but not later (which you could read about in the Dalek article). On and on and f***ing on. Not one of the things there remotely counts as continuity, and in fact has the net effect of putting the casual reader off the damned show. I've deleted the lot (as I've probably done before). This is actually an instructive example of how obsessive-fan/editors have got 'round us by turning these sections into WP:LINKPORN (if there's no article on this phenomenon there bloody well ought to be). Casual editor sees a bunch of well written, sourced paragraphs (hell sometimes multiply sourced), such as you'd find elsewhere. These people know we remove unsourced stuff on sight, so they're effectively disguising the cruft with link camouflage. Quite often if you look at the sources themselves they turn out to be primary. Good hunting, D. I've knocked out a few more from subsequent Hartnell stories to get you started. :) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is general why we want 3rd party sources to help narrow down what is important, rather that , even if super-obvious, fan interpretation. But we also want to make sure the article is complete enough. The connection to Curse of Peladon is very important as part of the episode's reception was the surprise reveal of AC, and the fact that Gatiss loved Curse, and that they brought the voice actress back for it. On the other hand, I could argue (hypothetically) that it is important to note this is the first appearance of the IW in the new series after being mentioned in Waters of Mars, but that's the type of detail I've not seen 3rd parties discuss nor that is essential to this article. It is just no easy, simple rule to use here ; I "know it when I see it". --MASEM (t) 01:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removal of things that are sourced and relevant but not everything that has a source is relevant for every article (you have to see what a mess many of the older articles turn into under Continuity to get a sense of how insane it gets). It's not so much things are subjective as they aren't always looked at critically before being added e.g. the "faces" in Brain absolutely belonged in the article, just not under Continuity. Ideally this gets sorted out on talk pages--but this breaks down on articles for old stories. Things really don't have to belong in more than one place e.g. the discussion concerning A.C. in the article is most relevant in this article under writing because we have sources in which Gattis addresses this. We don't need to put anything much about Gattis's story on the Curse of Peladon page under its Reception (Gatiss is not a contemporary critic nor is he writing a review of the story), certainly not under Continuity or else we end up with a very long list of the type "they appear again ...". So where does that leave us? I can see it being under a separate section called "Influece" but I'd like to hear what others have to say on that point. That sort of thing is usually reserved for works which are not in a direct line of descent, whereas Doctor Who writers being influenced by older Doctor Who stories is kind of a given. While it's absolutely relevant on this page to talk about Gattis writing and his love of that story, say, it may be considered trivial to do so on the Curse page. Isn't this going to be true, more or less, of every revived character or species? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Such sections are called "Legacy" usually. And in this case, because "Curse" inspired this episode per Gatiss, it at least should be mentioned there. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Just my two bits, but Curse doesn't have that much of a legacy, not as much as, say, The Deadly Assassin. DonQuixote (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and for other works, if I only have a single sentence or two of "legacy" information, I'll just add it to the bottom of "reception", to avoid a short H2/H3 section. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's bit back in the thread. 3rd parties are probably not mentioning that this is the "first appearance of the Ice Warriors in the new series" because of Cold War. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Originally set on Peladon?

"The story was originally to have been set on Peladon rather than Mars, hence the return of Alpha Centauri after 43 years." this references denofthegeek - which in turn slightly references DWM (so is tertiary source). I'm not sure what DWM actually says but this has Mark being quoted directly as planning to do a Sleep No More sequel for this series but changing his mind to do the "story I've always wanted to do, which is the Ice Warriors on Mars" and no mention of Peladon at all. Can anyone provide the quote from DWM? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Searched the digital version for the word "Peladon", and this is the only reference I could find of the story being set on Peladon. Page 18.

"Maybe it's been expense, I don't know," Mark considers. "I did very, very briefly say to Steven that maybe Empress should be set on Peladon! But there was apparently another 'corridors with flaming torches' type story behind mine, so I was a bit cross about that! But it's still very Pertwee. The question with Mars has probably always been, how do you do it? But I remember reading an interview with Eric Saward [Doctor Who script editor, 1982-86], years ago... Obviously they had far less money in those days, but Eric said that in a low-budget show you don't do the height of the Martian Empire. You do a lost tomb or, if you do the Indian Raj, you do an outpost which has been besieged by monsters. It's always been that principle for me, whereas maybe before they were like, 'Oh God, we can only afford two Ice Warriors, what do we do?' Also, closed spaces and bases under siege are kind of what you want."

A further note is that there isn't any reference to "Sleep No More" in DWM 513 either, baring a mention of the episode's low ratings. -- Alex^TW 04:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Writers are strange and curious things. Can't trust a word they say: after all, they lie for a living.:) Sources don't fundamentally contradict either of the various propositions per se, but we could say something other than "Originally to have been set" (that was my reading of the den of geek assertion) to "Gatiss had considered setting the story on Peladon" and quote DWM instead of Den for that part. Maybe even drop the "hence ..." as that could be construed as synthesis on my part. @Alex, you've got a DWM to hand, just FYI I do not so won't be of any help there. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)