Discussion Recap / DoctorWhoS33E1AsylumOfTheDaleks

I know that in S31E32 The Pandorica Opens there is a mention of the most feared being in all the cosmos... who would fall out of the sky and tear down worlds, supposedly being kept in the Pandorica. Which ultimately was meant to house The Doctor himself.

Gambit means "plan" not "trick". Only Kansas City Shuffle requires misdirection. Go look at the examples on the Batman Gambit page, even Batman himself has a few where he outright tells the "patsy" what his plan is. Or read the bottom portion of the trope description:

• Even so, the essence of a truly successful Batman Gambit is to make it appear like they do not have that option in the first place, or better yet making inaction far too costly to be seriousy considered, such as by raising the stakes so high that failure to act would be as or even more disastrous that doing what the mastermind has forced or tricked you into doing.

And it's most certainly a Batman Gambit because it's a plan that relies entirely on foreseeing the Doctor's actions: If the Doctor sits down and waits, or fails and dies, instead of escaping like he always does, then the insane Daleks flood the universe and everyone dies.

The key to a Batman Gambit is that the victim does technically have a choice, but is being manipulated in such a way that they will always take the option foreseen by the gambler. And for this to work, there have to be at least two valid option. The Doctor however, doesn't have an option here, there is only one course of action left for him.

It would be a Batman Gambit if the Daleks had approached him and simply told him about the Asylum, then leaving the choice to help them up to him. Because they know that he would never let a horde of insane Daleks be released upon the universe, he would always choose to help them, making it not actually a free choice. That would be a gambit.

Also, why did you re-add the example? This discussion is not yet resolved and before we have come to a conclusion, the example is supposed to stay of the page.

Alright, let's make this as close to the definition on tha page as possible: "A particularly Genre Savvy person will recognize the fact that heroes always win — and design a plan based on the assumption that they will succeed."

• The Daleks are Genre Savvy enough to realize the Doctor always escapes, and designs their entire plan to destroy their asylum on the assumption that if they drop the Doctor there, he'll be able to escape that situation too.

clearer?

Also still want you to point out the part that says an Unwitting Pawn is a requirement.

Assuming someone is going to win is not a Batman Gambit, otherwise any sports bet would be a Batman Gambit.

I never said anything about Unwitting Pawn, but the last sentence of the first paragraph links to it. I wouldn't say it is a necessity, but most of the time ,it is the case. The victim doesn't know it is being manipulated, or it knows it is manipulated, but doesn't know the reason or the direction.

In essence, a Batman Gambit is about correctly anticipating what a person will do and plan in accordance. The goal in this case is escaping the planet, but there is only one option to do so and that's why it is not a Batman Gambit. There is no choice. To quote from the page :" In short, if there is any reasonable action the pawns could take that would ruin the entire scheme, then it's a Batman Gambit." The Doctor doesn't have a reasonable alternative to disabling the force field here, as "doing nothing and dying" is not a reasonable choice. The Daleks don't run an elaborated scheme to manipulate him here, they simply kidnap the Doctor and throw him on the planet, with only one option to escape it.

This trope is about manipulating someone into helping them, so I ask you, when do the Daleks manipulate the Doctor here?

What they do is just Genre Savvyness: They know the Doctor is good at defeating them, so when they have a problem with insane Daleks, they call him.

Except the trope description says Batman Gambits include Genre Savvy individuals designing a plan to exploit The Good Guys Always Win. "Reasonable action" does not just mean "reasonable choice" but also "reasonable outcome", that earlier line would make absolutely no sense if it didn't. And failure and death is always a reasonable outcome in this genre.

Look, Tropes Are Flexible. Go ahead and make a TRS thread if you feel strongly that Batman Gambit is suffering Trope Decay. But under the current definition, this is an example. There are plenty of other ones listed on the Batman Gambit page just where letting someone die is the "reasonable option":

• In the "Hush" storyline, Batman finds himself facing off against a mind-controlled Superman, and is clearly physically outmatched. His solution is to have Catwoman dangle Lois Lane off a roof, and give Supes the choice of either saving her or continuing the fight.
• Metal Gear Solid features a hastily improvised Gambit (developed by the bad guys' resident psychic, sensibly enough) which revolves around a single-use keycard which will toggle a nuclear weapon from "active" to "inactive" or vice-versa. The bad guys seem to accept that facing off against the hero is a suicidal masquerade to set up deathbed conversions and make the plan convincing.
• In Soul Nomad & the World Eaters Rakasha travels with you, confident you will be able to defeat the other World Eaters (who he views as rivals), then waits until you are trapped and helpless before striking
• Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix: Voldemort creates a false vision to trick Harry into believing he has Sirius trapped in the Hall of Prophecy, correctly guessing Harry would go to rescue him, finding the Prophecy instead, which Voldemort's Death Eaters could then steal.
• and so on.

I have no idea how we can look at the same examples and come to so different conclusions, because I don't see how any of those support your view. In all of them the hero is being manipulated, which is exactly what the Daleks don't do here. They don't leave the Doctor a choice, they force him to do something.

Just take the last one: If it would actually work like you propose, then Voldemort would had simply kidnapped Harry and locked him in the ministry, telling him that he wouldn't let him out til he finds the prophecy. Harry then had the choice between doing so and dying.

I'm confused, what do you see as Harry's "other choice" in that situation? Also hero isn't being manipulated at all in 2 of those plans, I could just go pick out some more if you don't like 2 and 4.

The main point your interpretation directly contradicts lines in the definition. Unless you actually do have an example of a The Good Guys Always Win Batman Gambit that does agree with your interpretation. Or we could argue again about how an Unwitting Pawn isn't required, I thought you'd already conceded that point.

Anything. Call the rest of the order, try to contact Sirius, take Draco Malfoy hostage. The point is that what he does to try and help Sirius is completely up to Harry, but because Voldemort knows him well, he knows Harry will blindly leap into action.

And we have manipulation in all four of your examples: In the first Superman is presented with a dilemma, in the second the cards are swapped and in the third someone hides their true motive.

What part of my definition directly contradict the definition in your opinion?

Also, I never "conceded" anything. I never said that Unwitting Pawn is a requirement in the first place, that is all.

So "escape the planet or you and your friends die" isn't a dillema?

Your intepretation of "manipulation" directly contradicts the "trick or force" paragraph. Batman gambits include manipulations where "the stakes are raised to the point where inaction is too costly to be considered."

Do you deny by the current definition "inaction" is a reasonable option for the victim in a Batman Gambit? or that "escape or you and your friends die" is the same ultimatum as "stop fighting or your wife dies"?

Maybe some sort of metaphor. I doubt there were actual Daleks in there.

That's definitely a metaphor, he was referring to her mind. He didn't say they put a puppeteer /in/ her, just made her their puppet.

Fine, then. Eliminating/modifying the offensive language so this example won't violate these 2 important rules:

• A meta example was Jenna Louise-Coleman's appearance in this episode. On its own it makes a nice surprise, but what makes it whammy is the reveal at the end, which made for some very interesting speculation considering her known role in the series 5 episodes later.

Any viewer so extremely casual that they wouldn't know about the hype and publicity that the show's makers have been actively promoting for the past 6 months (Jenna Louise Coleman becoming the next Companion) wouldn't be looking up this episode on TV Tropes. And "5 episodes later" from this episode will always be true, whether 6 months or 20 years from now.

Foes refers singularly to the Dalek race, who made their first appearance in the second serial of the very first series, and who have had many different variations since.

A Dalek companion? Stranger things have happened.

She didn't want to live as a Dalek, she wanted to be remembered as a human, particularly since she was shown having to struggle against the urge to kill the Doctor near the end. Plus, I got the impression that she'd been there a lot longer than a year; everyone and everything she knows are probably long gone.

Maybe the Doctor could have made a token effort to convince her to come back with him, but it was clear she'd decided what she wanted when she told him to leave, and she was very strong willed. I think it would be awesome to have a good Dalek join the cast, but Oswin just didn't want that.

Also nobody's mind made anything real. The trope does not refer to a credible illusion.