Jump to content

Talk:Last of the Time Lords

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How did Jack manage to elude the Toclafane to enter the TARDIS and so disable the Paradox Machine?

[edit]

After viewing this episode, I still cannot figure out how Jack managed to enter the TARDIS, notwithstanding the Toclafane guards. A soldier accomanying Jack to the TARDIS remarks on encountering the Toclafane, "We are going to be slaughtered." Jack then lightly replies, "Yeah, that happens to me a lot." The next, we see Jack inside the TARDIS. How did he get inside? That is the mystery!

The Toclafane are nearly indestructable, and their blades should have ripped Jack to shreds. Not to mention their capability of laser fire, as was demonstrated in the earlier episode when they fulminated the US President. The firearms that Jack and his companions had, are useless against the Toclafane. Martha Jones herself stated that only one thing has been known to bring down a Toclafane sphere, and that was a lightning bolt!

So, how did Jack manage to survive the Toclafane and enter the TARDIS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Gatt (talk • contribs) 09:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They killed Jack many, many times, but like he says, that happens to him a lot. Finally, he made the tardis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.8.131.32 (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by...

[edit]

I see that the disagreement about whether to list "Time Crash" has spread to this page as well. I understand the perspectives of those who point out that we don't yet know whether "Time Crash" will follow on from the narrative of "Last of the Time Lords". However, I think that it does little harm to list "Time Crash" in the infobox here, especially if we also list "Voyage of the Damned". There are good arguments on both sides: one argument on the "pro-inclusion" side is that "Time Crash" is being made by the current production team, will be broadcast on BBC One, and has been announced on the BBC's official Doctor Who website. All this seems to me to indicate that it will be as "official" as the last Children in Need special was.

It's true that we don't yet know whether "Time Crash" will follow on from "Last of the Time Lords" (although the title, and the costume worn by David Tennant in the publicity pictures, certainly suggest that it will). At this point, though, we need to remember that ideally on Wikipedia we consider matters from an "out-of-universe" perspective. Even though the "preceded by" and "followed by" fields are somewhat "in-universe" by their very nature, I think that in an ambiguous case like this we should fall back on the broadcast order. And in terms of broadcasts, "Time Crash" is the next Doctor Who television story.

Obviously, if "Time Crash" turns out to be an out-of-continuity romp like "The Curse of Fatal Death", we can remove it from the infobox here. But I think that until the episode airs, it makes sense to list it in the "followed by" field — not least because if we don't, we'll spend the next month reverting its addition by editors who haven't followed the debate. (See my similar argument at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials.) Does that seem reasonable? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very reasonable! Harry matthews 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if only to prevent endless revert wars. — Edokter • Talk • 10:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis of the Daleks

[edit]

There is a bit in this episode where the Doctor warns the Master that he is changing history and the Master replies "I'm a Time Lord. I have that right." Does anyone else think this is a reference to the famous "Have I the right?" speech from Genesis of the Daleks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.96.32 (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but without confirmation from some official source (or at the very least, speculation by a noteworthy source, such as a review in Doctor Who Magazine) we shouldn't mention it in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

[edit]

This does not appear to be the Doctor's first encounter with the Titanic. Is this needed? According to reports, the Titanic in this episode is not the RMS Titanic but basically a space cruise liner. yettie0711 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the episode Rose. The Ninth Doctor is shown in one of Clive's photos, in Eighth Doctor costume, next to the Titanic ship in 1912. It's an unchronicled story between the book The Gallifrey Chronicles and that episode. However, that quote is Original Research anyway, so you was right to query it. Digifiend (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa Cascade

[edit]

According to the BBC fact file, the Master mentions the Medusa Cascade in this episode; the Cascade is later mentioned in The Fires of Pompeii. Does anyone recall the exact context of the Master's reference to the Cascade? It may be worth adding to the "Continuity" section. Kelvingreen (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said:

The Master: I remember the days when the Doctor, oh, that famous Doctor... was waging a Time War, battling Sea Devils, and Axons, he sealed the Rift at the Medusa Cascade, single handed. And look at him now, stealing screwdrivers... How did he ever come to this? Oh yes! Me!
The Doctor: I just... need you to listen.
The Master: No, it's my turn. Revenge. Best served hot.

LizzieHarrison 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe sealing that rift opened up the one to Rose's parallel universe! We'll find out in 22 days. Digifiend (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French translation

[edit]

The French version of this page is very short. Couldn't somebody who knows both languages translate this article? Digifiend (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Left

[edit]

This story was totally omitted from Turn Left, presumably because Jack never thrust the Tardis to the future in Utopia. It's the only present-day Earthbound DW story from series 3 and 4 not to feature. Worth mentioning in continuity? Digifiend (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... things that didn't happen aren't worth mentioning. — Edokter • Talk • 14:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lazarus experiment isn't featured either 86.154.185.86 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
because the master funded the Lazarus experiment ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the Time Lords

[edit]

OK. There is zero evidence that I can think of in the two seasons following this episode that there are any other Time Lords. There are repeated pieces of evidence that the Doctor is the last, of which Beast Below is the one I can think of first. There are at least briefly other Time Lords in The End of Time, but for the purposes of saying that the Doctor is the Last of the Time Lords at the end of this story, that's irrelevant.

So saying that the Doctor "believes himself" or is "apparently" the last of the Time Lords is about as necessary as saying that River Song "apparently" kills the Dalek in The Big Bang. Absent any evidence to the contrary and present considerable evidence supporting it, hedging is just bad writing. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the entire item has problems with its "In Universe" detail which are deprecated per WP:PLOT. Your post speaks to the problem of both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR as it is only your interpretation of events. We can't, and aren't supposed to guess at the intentions of the writers et al of the current or future stories. IMO the item shouldn't be there at all but I am okay with the wording that has been reached by a consensus of other editors. BTW you might also want to watch The End of Time where the Master, another Time Lord, is seen throughout the story. MarnetteD | Talk 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more than in universe detail, though. It's been a major theme of the new series - the Doctor as last of his kind. "Believing himself to be" actively implies that he's wrong, which is just off target - the show bludgeons the audience over the head with the theme that he's the last of his kind. It's why I'm kind of insistent on the point - because, for instance, it's absolutely central to Beast Below. And, for that matter, End of Time, where the Master is not seen throughout, but rather brought back (i.e. not around as of the first frame). And, you know. Destroyed again at the end. I mean, no doubt temporarily. I have zero doubt that we'll see more Time Lords. I also have zero doubt that the episode called Last of the Time Lords that ends with the Doctor begging the Master to survive so he's not alone and then being left alone does, in fact, end with the Doctor as the last. Whatever future retcons may happen, the intent of this story is not guesswork, it's basic visual literacy. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake for the 1st edit but you have obviously not read any of the wikipedia policies linked to in previous edits. Everything in this post is WP:SYNTH and all of this is your speculation. There are plenty of places on the web that you can post these at. They are not encyclopedic and that is your dilemma here. MarnetteD | Talk 07:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, bullshit. Speclation and synthesis is introducing the idea that there are other Time Lords potentially alive when the series has given no indication whatsoever that this is true. That's synthesis, original research, and speculation. Whereas concluding that, at the start of Utopia, the Doctor is the last of the Time Lords (saying he'd know if there were more), then events cause one to come back, then events kill that one, the Doctor is once again the last is straightforward and accurate summary of events. I mean, it amounts to the statement that 1+1-1=1. If that needs to be hedged with "believing himself" or "apparently" or something, virtually every sentence in every summary on Wikipedia needs to be hedged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.35.24 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened plot is lacking too much

[edit]

The current plot is 571 words - slightly longer than desired by the TV guidelines, but not killing us. But the trimmed version , while clearly under 500 words, removes way too much high-level details like the nature of the Toflacane, the use of the TARDIS as the Paradox Device, etc., that are elements to establish the major events of the episode. I've already taken steps a few weeks ago to trim it down [1] but it just needs a tiny bit more, not a whole pruning as the current reverted challenge is attemtping. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I just knocked it down to 486 trimming out and rewording. We should be ok now. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Last of the Time Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Last of the Time Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Lie of the Land

[edit]

I think the article should have a see also link for Lie of the Land as it has been noted that Lie of the Land looks similar to Last of the Time Lords. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Where has that been noted? --TedEdwards 13:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By people in general including in the Whovians episode on Lie of the Land. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example: https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/cult/a829632/doctor-who-series-10-episode-8-theories-questions/

"8. Is 'The Lie of the Land' just 'The Last of the Time Lords' in disguise?"122.106.83.10 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theories like that are great for chat rooms. However they are not encyclopedic. There are only so many plots t go around and similarities happen all the time (for example The Empress of Mars and The Eaters of Light both involve lost troops) they only become notable if the creators of the show made the second story similar on purpose and that needs a WP:RS indicating such. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give any credence to your reasoning on anything and I much rather you stay away from me. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Last_of_the_Time_Lords&oldid=1208103722"