The 'Daleks every year' rule
inspector drake
Posts: 910 Forum Member
✭✭
Is there actually a rule stating that the Daleks must appear every year new who is on? I have heard a lot of talk about part of the contract with the Terry Nation estate stating that they must appear at least once a year. Or is that just an urban legend?
0
Comments
Is it? Can you provide evidence of this please.
"As If We'd Have A Series Without The Daleks!"
So I Think Its True, As Much As I Love The Daleks, I Don't Think They Should Appear So Much, Especially As Cameos. Steven Says He Doesnt Want To Bring A Character Back Unless He Has A Good Reason For Them To Come Back, I Think He Should Make This Rule With The Daleks Too
Well, maybe we'll find out someday, but it has a ring of truth about it as we know it wasn't a given that they would return in 2005 and alternatives were considered script wise before we got 'Dalek'. Of course it should depend upon there being a strong story to tell rather than contractual obligation, but there's always a way around it. Personally loved the scene with the stricken Dalek being mocked by Eleven in TWORS, but it was only a 'cameo'....
Edit: And the badly named 2009 'specials' year didn't have them.
No it is not, because the someone specifically stated that there was no such agreement. Therefore they must have the evidence to make such a statement.
Yes they did, in Waters of Mars. Which kind of adds weight to the theory that there is some sort of agreement because the Dalek's appearance in WoM was superfluous and added nothing to the plot.
Here is the evidence to prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9fyy7o4fczY#t=92
I would say that I believe it to be true. The inclusion of the Daleks in the Tennant Specials and Series 6 really weren't particularly necessary in regards to the plots, but perhaps were more necessary on a contractual level - it does add up. For the most part I do think that the writers have also done their best to minimise the impact of this agreement - the Series 2 appearance was more or less consigned to a single episode, Series 3's appearance was distanced significantly away from their next appearance at the end of Series 4 (I remember Evolution of the Daleks and The Stolen Earth being the longest absence of Daleks in NuWho up to that point) and Moffat has worked even harder to minimise their overuse.
Compare:
"Everyone knows that unicorns exist."
"No, they don't."
"Prove they don't."
Or, the classic:
"This elephant repellent is amazing, I haven't seen any elephants around here for ages." You can't prove that the repellent doesn't work.
The most parsimonious explanation is that they have the rights to use the Doctor's most famous enemies, and they're damn well going to get the most out of them.
You are of course correct.
Not this again. Just because there is no evidence of something (especially in this case because the lack of evidence is due to confidentiality) does not allow someone to say the opposite is true. I agree it is evidence that the null hypothesis may be true in some situations (e.g. bigfoot and other creatures whose existence is being questioned) but you can't say the null hypothesis is true without proof or a reasonably large amount of evidence to suggest it is true (rather than evidence that suggests the alternative hypothesis is false). All you can say is the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. As for the Unicorn example that is a bad example you can easily prove it is not the case by simply asking a few people whether they believe Unicorns exist.
I think that every recurring character or enemie should appear every 2-3 seasons, because if they appear too often, they are not so much interesting and exciting.
No matter how many people believe unicorns exist, that's no evidence that they do. Nor can we conclusively prove that a unicorn is logically impossible.
What we can say is - there are no known unicorns. There are no known contractual stipulations that the Daleks appear in every series. Any evidence presented thus far is circumstantial.
For example, you could equally draw the conclusion that there's a contractual stipulation that the Doctor's primary companion be female, based on the same kind of evidence.
How can you have evidence that a piece of paper doesn't exist. You can only have evidence if it does exist.
Therefore there is no evidence it is a myth which proves my point.
If I say that ghosts don't exist, the only evidence I could ever produce is that they have never been reliably shown to exist.
Asking me to prove my case by producing evidence that, if my case were true, wouldn't exist ... is a complete logical contradiction.