Talk:The Invasion (Doctor Who)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Doctor Who villains#Tobias Vaughn|Tobias Vaughn]] The anchor (#Tobias Vaughn) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Animated reconstruction

I think this is significant enough to warrant its own section (there was already an external link to the BBC page). I wonder if it would be OK to use a screen capture from the trailer to illustrate the point? 23skidoo 16:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the smaller picture of the Second Doctor and Zoe in the news article would be a better one to use. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice I'm sure, but the archive status is not "Black and White animation" but "Only stills and/or fragments exist". Unless the claim is that it was originally made as a cartoon? MartinSFSA (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dating - 1975?

On the blurb of the BBC audio soundtrack CD release of this serial it says it takes place in 1975 - seemed quite specific so i would have thought this would have been taken as this episode's dating but according to the UNIT dating controversy page on Wikipedia The Invasion takes place in 1979 at the earliest... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterspell (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh UNIT dating, such joy! To give you a crash course on it, no UNIT story involving the Brigadier can occur after 1976 (see Mawdryn Undead) and it is most likely that UNIT was formed in either 1967 or 1968 (see The Web of Fear). This would place The Invasion in either 1971 or 1972 as the Brigadier states that it has been four years since the events of The Web of Fear. - Andrew Byatt 12:00 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1975 was the date given for the story in the Radio Times in 1968, which is why the CD states that as the date of the story.86.5.134.132 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planet 14

I have altered the section entitled Planet 14 as I believe there to be overwhelming evidence that this advanced form of cyberman is of the same party seen in Attack of the Cybermen and indeed Silver Nemesis. - Andrew Byatt 11:05 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, we can't include that because it's original research. We can, however, include the opinions of noteworthy sources, so I've replaced your speculation with that of Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood. If there are other theories from reliable sources (like the Discontinuity Guide, for example), we could include them, but we can't put our own theories into the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and informing it is too. I would also say that despite my theory being the only known intelligent explanation for post- The Tomb of the Cybermen cybermen being on Earth before 1985, it still doesn't necessarily mean planet 14 is Telos (though it would be typical that they were referring to a previous televised meeting). Would it be possible for my explanation be used in a new section entitled Cyberman Variants? Though I suspect this is now getting geekier than geek it is a strong solution fans might like to now. Here is the said removed piece:

The Cybermen mention having encountered the Doctor previously on "Planet 14". Since from the Cybermen's perspective this story takes place before The Tomb of the Cybermen, it initially appears unlikely that Planet 14 is Telos, possibly suggesting an untelevised adventure. However, given the Cybermen's more technologically advanced appearance and the fact that they later use time-travel in an attempt to prevent Mondas's destruction (Attack of the Cybermen), it is likely that they are from the future. Further more, as a single cyber-ship survives the end of The Invasion, it is also likely that they are the same group of cybermen seen in Attack of the Cybermen and even Silver Nemesis. - Andrew Byatt 18:09 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Although that reasoning sounds plausible, it's still original research. We can put in theories like whatever David Banks says in his "Cybermen" book, or what Lance Parkin says in his chronologies, because those are noteworthy sources. But we can't put in our own theories, no matter how plausible. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After going through that lengthy series of edits to this section by Byatt (BTW, why are you an anonymous IP there but not here?), I intended to check my copy of Discontinuity to the point; they do have a sidebar/essay "Cyber History" so it's likely I'll find they said something relevant. I'll do that tonight. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinuity Guide checked. Its authors do indeed assert that the "Planet 14" remark refers to an "untelevised adventure" and acknowledge the tech advancement. However, they do not indicate any possibility that the Invasion Cybermen are time travellers. For whatever assisstance it might be, here are the "original series" Cybermen stories in chronological order from Cyber-perspective, according to that book (pp. 63-64): "Planet 14"; The Invasion; The Tenth Planet; Silver Nemesis; The Moonbase; The Wheel in Space; The Tomb of the Cybermen; Revenge of the Cybermen; Attack of the Cybermen; Earthshock (time travel is acknowledged as being part of these last two). --Ted Watson (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address might be anonymous because my router is using IP6, though I wouldn't have thought this would have made a difference. - Andrew Byatt 13:23 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.195.74 (talk)

Bad Wolf?

On the page it says the animated Episode 1 contains a reference to Season 27's "Bad Wolf" theme. I had a jolly good look through the episode, and could NOT see it. I couldn't figure out on the page history who added that here - does anyone know who put that there? Furthermore can we get confirmation with a screen grab? I'm not claiming to be the know all on it, but when I read that, I went and looked - three times, and could not find the Bad Wolf in Invasion Ep1 Animated. Thanks. - Dopefish (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was done on May 6, 2007 by IP 81.152.88.139, with no talk page existing. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the animators on the episode's commentary, it's written on Isobel's wall over her phone. The writing is pretty faint, though; I can only make out a "W". Binabik80 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that it was in the original - after all, this could have been a private in-joke by the animator concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novelisation restorations

There is a line in the section "In print": "The novelisation restores material cut from the broadcast including the UNIT raid to rescue Professor Watkins and Vaughan convincing Routledge to shoot himself." I know that the Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition "The Complete Second Doctor" (I don't have the original "Archive" feature on this serial) states that the first of these two examples was never recorded, while I'm not certain if it says anything about the second—I'll check. The quoted sentence on the other hand sounds like it is talking about post-production editing, stuff left on the proverbial cutting-room floor. What about Ian Marter's other restorations here? We need to make this more accurately indicate just what was restored (scripted-but-unrecorded, recorded-but-untransmitted, or some of each?), but I've never read this novelisation. Can somebody help with this? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe's costume

An editor has removed the sentence about the error with Zoe's costume, presumably because it's not backed up by the ref which follows. However, it's quite true: she should have started off wearing the silver catsuit seen in most of The Mind Robber, changing to the red mini-dress whilst trying out various items from Isobel's wardrobe; but the DVD shows her in that dress from the start. Anybody got a ref for this error? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an error in the animation. Here's a photo of the photo-shoot scene: [1]. And here's the same thing from More Than Thirty Years in the TARDIS [2] (skip to 1:53). Here's an on-location photo [3]. Here's a direct link to the image archive if the above links don't work: [4]. DonQuixote (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the photo gallery on the DVD has scenes from episode one with her wearing the catsuit (should've checked that first). DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. I am not looking for photographic evidence that Zoe wore the silver catsuit in the first 14 mins of episode 1 - this is something I already know. What I would like is reliable source material which notes the discrepancy between the original broadcast and the animation, which can then be used as a reference source, so that we can describe the DVD animation error. Photos such as those that you have linked above do not count as a reference source: to examine them and draw conclusions counts as original research.

Further, stills taken on location or in studio are no guarantee of similar costumes being worn in the actual story; they may have been taken during rehearsals; after all, the director would not want the sound of a camera shutter appearing on the audio. For example, The Daleks episode 7 (The Rescue) - Susan and Barbara are both in black trousers, Barbara's being of Thal style with four big holes up the sides; however, a still from this episode reproduced in

Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. photos between pp.96,97. ISBN 0 491 03612 4.

shows Barbara in plain trousers, and Susan in a grey knee-length dress - clearly different. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cerebration Mentor?

I wonder why this term is used for Professor Watkins machine, as in the actual episodes it is refered to as the Cerebratron or the Cerebratron Machine only, never as the Cerebration Mentor.86.11.32.155 (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an error. Feel free to correct it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, the phrase 'Cerebraton Mentor' is used twice in the story, once in Episode Three and once in Episode Six. DrWhoFanJ (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Invasion (Doctor Who). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720102512/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2006/06/20/33077.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2006/06/20/33077.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Cyber-planner

What i have noticed millions of times everytime I read the 'Plot' section of this page is the lacl of the Cyber-planner in it. At all. It gives no reference to the Cyber-planner. I might add a few references here and there in the plot, also including the scene at the start of Ep. 8 where Vaughn destroys the Cyber-planner. Hope no-pne minds if I do it, though. Vincinel (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed two typos in this. The first one:when I made the starting sentence, I said 'lacl' instead of 'lack'. The second one is when I said no-one: I typed 'no-pne' instead of 'no-one'. I apologize for this. Vincinel (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]