Talk:Attack of the Cybermen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDoctor Who Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTelevision: Episode coverage Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
Note icon
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.

Story Authorship[edit]

Since this is bound to spark a series of edits and at least one editor of a behind the scenes magazine once expressed his joy at ensuring that the relevant issue would be accurate and libel free, here's a quick rundown on the state of play as far as I am aware:

  • Different members of the production team have given different accounts of who wrote which bit.
  • It has been alleged that Woolsey always used the name Moore in her correspondence with the production office throughout.
  • Producer John Nathan-Turner always denied any official knowledge of the story being written by anyone other than Moore.
  • Eric Saward appears to have given contradictory answers in different interviews. The team behind The Sixth Doctor Hanbook/The Television Companion have stated that when they interviewed him for the book he stated:
    • Woolsey had submitted the original storyline.
    • Levine had proposed some elements, which Woolsey was asked to work into her storyline.
    • Saward did a substantial rewrite as script-editor.
  • However others who have spoken to Saward on different occasions claim that he said that Woolsey was no more than a front person and that it was he who had written the story.
  • The same sources claim that Levine also continues to assert he was a co-author.
  • Saward's recent interview with Doctor Who Magazine implies that all three contributed to the story, though Woolsey's input was minimal.
  • The Handbook/Television Companion team also spoke with Woolsey in the early 1990s, who also asserted authorship.
  • As a result of this the Handbook/Television Companion assigned authorship in their notes accordingly.
  • Other series guides have offered other notes.

Feel free to chip in with what else is in circulation. Timrollpickering 00:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the Sixth doctor guide also adds that Paula was a friend of Saward. GraemeLeggett 12:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, she was his girlfriend at the time. --khaosworks 12:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bit late to the party, think the section in the article reads OK, but are there any citations to back it up? Biscit (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm slightly confused about the supposed "Script editors can't commission themselves" problem. I assume The Visitation and perhaps Earthshock were commissioned by Root, but who besides Saward would have commissioned Resurrection of the Daleks and Revelation of the Daleks, both of which Saward was credited with? In terms of earlier script editors writing stories, Bidmead got credit for Logopolis and Holmes for The Ark in Space (which perhaps he didn't commission), The Deadly Assassin, and The Talons of Weng-Chiang. What exactly is the actual rule here? Why could Saward be credited for Revelation of the Daleks only a few months after he was supposedly not allowed to credit himself for Attack of the Cybermen? john k (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have my references to hand but as I understand it, the script editor was supposed to commission and re-work scripts but not actually provide the whole thing. Permission for them to supply a script had to be got from higher levels of management and would not necessarily be forthcoming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's another factor: the Script Editor was on a BBC salary, paid by the month; the scriptwriters were essentially freelancers, paid per episode. For a scriptwriter to commission from themselves could mean that they were paid twice: the BBC might have insisted that as salaried staff, they should waive the episode fee. This might be why pseudonyms were used by Barry Letts and Douglas Adams. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, again, plenty of script editors were credited with scripts during their tenure. Holmes was credited with Ark in Space (perhaps commissioned by Dicks), The Deadly Assassin, and The Talons of Weng-Chiang. My understanding is that Adams would have been credited with Shada, although I'm not certain of that. Bidmead was credited with Logopolis. Saward himself was credited with Resurrection of the Daleks and Revelation of the Daleks, the latter during the same season as Attack of the Cybermen (Root was the actual or nominal script editor for Saward's first two stories). Again: why could Saward be credited with the two Dalek stories, but not this one? john k (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Attack of the Cybermen. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]