Talk:Logopolis

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.

Dalek clip 2005-May-19[edit]

Was the Dalek clip in the end montage definitely from Destiny of the Daleks? I've just watched it, and it looks more like it's from Death to the Daleks to me. --DaveJB 17:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's from Destiny. Episode four, I believe. This is referenced in The Television Companion and the Fourth Doctor Handbook (both by David J Howe, et al.) and on the Outpost Gallifrey episode guide page and the "Brief History of Time (Travel)" website. --khaosworks 21:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Part 4's End Credits[edit]

In the Trivia section I've noticed that it is stated that Peter Davison gets credited before Tom Baker. This is not accurate and I recommend that this gets edited to keep all information about Doctor Who correct.

- Alan

Watcher[edit]

Was the Watcher played by Davison? Kuralyov 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope — it was Adrian Gibbs, uncredited. (See here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one addition to Josiah's note that may explain what Kuralyov was remembering. Josiah is correct that Gibbs had played the Watcher throughout the serial. However, during the regeneration scene we first see Baker lying on the ground. He then begins to merge with the Watcher. We then see Gibbs face in the white makeup of the Watcher. Then, for a brief moment, we see Davison's face in the same white makeup and then we see him without the makeup just before he rises up on his elbows. I don't mean to speak for Kuralyov (and apologies for doing so) but if this is what you are remembering then, technically, you could say that Davison did play the Watcher for just a moment at the end of episode four. I hope this is of some help.MarnetteD | Talk 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, "He (The Watcher) was the Doctor all the time!" Format (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Emboitment"[edit]

I vaguely remember this serial from my youth, particularly the computer-geekery about it. One of the key plot elements is a "charged vacuum emboitment"; what is an "emoitment"? The vast majority of Google returns point to Logopolis, and there are a few academic references to the theories of Charles Bonnet, but what does the word mean? What kind of heady mathematical alcohol was Bidmead drinking at the time? Is this the most hard science sci-fi ever broadcast on BBC1 of a Saturday teatime? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC

I always heard it as envoidment which has the virtue of a. being right, and b. making more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word is definitely "emboitment" in the scripts and in the novelisations of Full Circle, Warrior's Gate, and Logopolis.

It's an obscure and archaic term borrowed from French, which means roughly the same thing as "embedding". Putting Russian dolls inside other Russian dolls is emboitment. The only scientific use of the term comes from the 19th century revision of preformationism to account for cell theory. The idea is that every sperm cell carries within it an animacule that has sperm or eggs within it, and so on infinitely down the chain.

It's explained a little but in Bidmead's notes, and in Andrew Smith's audio sequel to the E-Space trilogy decades later for Big Finish, but the explanation is scientific nonsense, and it still isn't clear why it's called an "emboitment".

It's a little strange that Bidmead, the prime advocate for a hard SF approach to Doctor Who, would borrow a term from an obsolete and discredited scientific theory, port it in a completely different context where its meaning can only be guessed by analogy, and then have that meaning turn out to be nonsense. --50.0.128.86 (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor[edit]

Should I add The Watcher,since he is technically the 5th incarnation of the Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk • contribs) 15:23, September 19, 2008

No, because the cast listing should reflect the programme's credits. And despite the line "the Watcher was the Doctor all along", Gibbs is credited as The Watcher.

I could get into a fan debate about the difference between a "full" incarnation and a projection like the Watcher or Cho-Je, but that would get us into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. For Wikipedia purposes, we should just stick to the facts — in this case, the credits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Regeneration4to5.gif[edit]

The image Image:Regeneration4to5.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remake[edit]

Is the anime Puella Magi Madoka Magica an remake of Logopolis? To me, it is a remake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkiryu64 (talk • contribs)

You would need to cite a reliable source that explicitly states that. DonQuixote (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So for example, I saw the words entropy and Heat death of the universe in both articles. And Homura Akemi was like one of the the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkiryu64 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by citing and summarising reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starkiryu64 to followup on DQ's posts what you are engaging in is original research and synthesis. You have seen a connection - which is fine BTW - I've done things like that many times over the years. But Wikipedia articles require sourcing for any info that it added to them. In other words you would need an interview with the makers of Puella... stating that they were purposely referencing this Dr Who serial in their story. You can certainly write about the connection that you see between these two tales in a blog or on your facebook page though. MarnetteD|Talk 23:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]