Jump to content

Doctor who - the witches familiar - questions


TheArtfulDogger

Recommended Posts

If you haven't watched part 2 yet, then don't read on until you have


At the end the Doctor goes back to rescue Davros from the hand mines and teaches him the word "mercy" to enable the darlek that Clara is in to say "mercy" and thinking about the principles of time paradoxes if he didn't go back to save him would Davros have died at the hands of the hand mines and as a result would the Darleks then never have existed thus changing the future and cancelling out the need to go back to save Davros ... Therefore by going back did the Doctor assist in the creation of the Darleks ?


Second question

When we first met Clara she was inside a Darlek and was able to tell the Doctor her name, yet in the episode last night every time she said her name the Darlek said " I am a Darlek" - Is there a level of inconsistency and continuity failure here ?


Final question

In an earlier series the Darleks evolved into super Darleks, yet in this episode they are in their old form ( you even see the Darlek weapon first introduced during Sylvester McCoy incarnation of the Doctor, it's the one with the biggest gun In the background) and yes time travel means that the Doctor could have gone back to an earlier time, yet he mentions that Gallifrey has been found so this was ( in timelines) after the creation of the super Darleks ... What happened to them ?


Go to say I am loving the madness of Missy


Answers on a post card to

"Sad person"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the end the Doctor goes back to rescue Davros from the hand mines and teaches him the word

> "mercy" to enable the darlek that Clara is in to say "mercy" and thinking about the principles of

> time paradoxes if he didn't go back to save him would Davros have died at the hands of the hand

> mines and as a result would the Darleks then never have existed thus changing the future and

> cancelling out the need to go back to save Davros ... Therefore by going back did the Doctor assist

> in the creation of the Darleks ?


I understood it as that Davros did manage to escape the handmines before the Doctor 'saved' him, but by going back, he gave Davros the concept of mercy and that was then transferred to the daleks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FJDGoose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's Dalek isn't it ?


[geek]

Yep - it's an anagram of 'Kaled' which was Davros' race (before he defected) in the thousand year Kaled v Thal war on Skaro which led to the development of the Daleks as a weapon.

[/geek]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay so I am a dog and my pads aren't good on an iPad when it comes to spelling. You are correct it is Dalek and yes that is an anagram of kaled ...


Liz, you assume that Davros escapes the hand mines, however the paradox of time travel means that the Doctor must have gone back to save him and teach him the word mercy otherwise Clara wouldn't have been able to say it. Therefore his trip back was predetermined the moment she said Mercy but there isnt any proof that if he didn't go back theat Davros would have made it out alive... A real quandary but regardless it still doesn't solve the other two questions...


As for seabag and his question, a catch kids on Dalek would be brilliant but I expect by showing individuality it would be exterminated by the other Daleks ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the Dr. not saved Davros the Daleks would never have existed therefore when the Dr. came across Davros among the hand mines he would have saved him. The Daleks would then have existed .... this time travel thing can get very complicated if you think about it too much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he escaped the first time b/c the Dr left him his sonic screwdriver. But, obvs he escaped under a great deal of stress and fear (with no concept of mercy), so the Dr had to go back and help him in person b/c even whiny little twits deserve to be saved (and create their very own monster race).


When Clara was previously in the dalek, she may have been able to make the dalek say "Clara" becuase she was wired in differently or had learned how the educate the dalek software... or some other suitable plot twist.


Christopher Eccleston is still second only to Tom Baker in my book. xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher eccleston, John pertwee and tom baker all good. Peter capaldi doing his best with the now usual trite dialogue with lots of brooding music to make it seem more meaningful than it actually is. Matt smith and david Tennant pure pantomime sh*the but blame the writers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's just a story, aimed mainly at

> children and doesn't bear up to this level of

> analysis...



There are forums where they know Everything about anything that ever happened in DW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hmmm, millions of animals are killed each year to eat in this country.  10,000 animals (maybe many more) reared to be eaten by exotic pets, dissected by students, experimented on by cosmetic and medical companies.  Why is this any different? Unless you have a vegan lifestyle most of us aren't in a position to judge.  I've not eaten meat for years, try not to buy leather and other animal products as much as possible but don't read every label, and have to live with the fact that for every female chick bred to (unaturally) lay eggs for me to eat, there will be male that is likely top be slaughtered, ditto for the cow/milk machines - again unnatural. I wasn't aware that there was this sort of market, but there must be a demand for it and doubt if it is breaking any sort of law. Happy to be proved wrong on anything and everything.
    • I don't know how spoillable food can be used as evidence in whatever imaginary CSI scenario you are imagining.  And yes, three times. One purchase was me, others were my partner. We don't check in with each other before buying meat. Twice we wrote it off as incidental. But now at three times it seems like a trend.   So the shop will be hearing from me. Though they won't ever see me again that's for sure.  I'd be happy to field any other questions you may have Sue. Your opinion really matters to me. 
    • If you thought they were off, would it not have been a good idea to have kept them rather than throwing them away, as evidence for Environmental Health or whoever? Or indeed the shop? And do you mean this is the third time you have bought chicken from the same shop which has been off? Have you told the shop? Why did you buy it again if you have twice previously had chicken from there which was off? Have I misunderstood?
    • I found this post after we just had to throw away £14 of chicken thighs from Dugard in HH, and probably for the 3rd time. They were roasted thoroughly within an hour of purchase. But they came out of the oven smelling very woofy.  We couldn't take a single bite, they were clearly off. Pizza for dinner it is then. Very disappointing. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...