Question From The Doctor Who Ignorant

[Wee67]

As a kid I watched Tom Baker on PBS here in the States, but I've never seen another play the Doctor. That is, until Mike sent me a copy of the recently revived version with Christopher Eccleston last year. I really liked it and set my DVR to grab up every episode. The problem is the only I've come across are the Eccleston eps until this week.

Sci Fi ran a mini-marathon and I now have a bunch of the Tennant episodes to watch. Now I see you guys saying Billie Piper is gone and her replacement might even leave!?!?!

So my questions-
-Is there anywhere in the States BESIDE Sci Fi to watch this series? I'm assuming they are one or two seasons behind.

-Why did Eccleston leave? I really liked him.

-How long was the series off the air?

-Was there some sort of movie during the hiatus? Can I get it somewhere?

-I saw a reference to "The 5 Doctors." What is this? Did more than one Doctor met himself in a single time period?

-Does the regeneration process also change the Doctor's personality? I was wondering if that's how the show explains the different styles from each actor.

-Is there a good website that explains a lot of this?

-Can you get the series on DVD separated by who played the Doctor? I'd like to have the Tom Baker years.

-Is there another Doctor you'd recommend I see? Keep in mind that I really enjoyed the seemingly absent-minded versions by Baker and a bit by Eccleston.

[Mikey]

-Is there anywhere in the States BESIDE Sci Fi to watch this series? I'm assuming they are one or two seasons behind.

I watch Series-1 (Eccleston) on PBS here in Eastern PA.
It's on every Sat night at 6-ish PM

-Why did Eccleston leave? I really liked him.

He only signed on for one year because he didn't wanna get bogged down in a series for more than a year ---- Eccleston was signed on for only 1 year even before the series began

-How long was the series off the air?

The series ran from Nov 1963 to Dec 1986 .... went off the air and came back Sept 1987 and went off again in Sept 1989..... Then came back for the movie 1996 ....... Then the new Series -2005

-Was there some sort of movie during the hiatus? Can I get it somewhere?

It was called "Doctor Who" starring Paul MaGann as the Doctor.... The movie took over after the series ... The movie even started with the old Doctor dying and regenerating in MaGann.

-I saw a reference to "The 5 Doctors." What is this? Did more than one Doctor met himself in a single time period?

Yes, in film there was The 3 Doctors (Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee) ....... The Five Doctors (Hartnell/Hurndal--Troughton, Pertwee, Tom Baker and Perter Davison ...... and the Two Doctors (Troughton and Colin Baker)


-Does the regeneration process also change the Doctor's personality? I was wondering if that's how the show explains the different styles from each actor.

Yes, in short basically all his cells explode and turn into SOMETHING ELSE... His brain is also regenerated-- but his mind and memories still remain... so he's different, but not exactly.

-Is there a good website that explains a lot of this?

Beginers Guide to Doctor Who
(have your souind on)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/guide.shtml

-Can you get the series on DVD separated by who played the Doctor? I'd like to have the Tom Baker years.

Yep, Many episodes are out on DVD... From all the Doctors

-Is there another Doctor you'd recommend I see? Keep in mind that I really enjoyed the seemingly absent-minded versions by Baker and a bit by Eccleston.

Here's a breif rundown as what the other doctor personalities are like

Jon Pertwee is James Bond
If you don't mind B&W, Pat Troughton is very absent minded
Willaim Harnell is a grouch in B&W
Peter Davison acts like a whiz kid
Colin Baker is nuts
Sly McCoy, that's a tough one... I dunno what best describes McCoy.

[ctc]

>-Is there anywhere in the States BESIDE Sci Fi to watch this series? I'm assuming they are one or two seasons behind.

Good question. The older episodes sometimes show up in the strangest places; like PBS and such. Don't know about the newer ones. Your cable or satellite provider might offer a BBC channel that features it. (We get the old ones here in Canada on BBC Kids.)

>-How long was the series off the air?

16 years; unless you count the Fox movie.

>-Was there some sort of movie during the hiatus? Can I get it somewhere?

Fox was gonna bring him back sometime in the late 90's; and they did a tv movie. I THINK it's available on VHS, which means it's probably available on DVD too. Gotta admit, I haven't looked too hard for it. (I didn't like the Fox version.)

>-I saw a reference to "The 5 Doctors." What is this? Did more than one Doctor met himself in a single time period?

The first three teamed up, the second and sixth teamed up, and the first five got together (more or less) in "The 5 Doctors." It was a pretty good episode if you'd seen a lot of the old ones, since they drew a lot from the history for the episode.

>-Does the regeneration process also change the Doctor's personality? I was wondering if that's how the show explains the different styles from each actor.

Yes it does. Some of the Doctors don't like their other versions.

>-Is there a good website that explains a lot of this?

Probably.

>-Can you get the series on DVD separated by who played the Doctor? I'd like to have the Tom Baker years.

Sort of. They've grouped some of the semi-related stories together for home release. There are copies of "The *actor* Years," out (on VHS at least) but they're retrospectives and not actual collections of episodes.

>-Is there another Doctor you'd recommend I see? Keep in mind that I really enjoyed the seemingly absent-minded versions by Baker and a bit by Eccleston.

Tough call. The first is a crotchety old guy who doesn't seem to have a problem with using his companions as fodder. (Except for his grandaughter.) The second guy was really nervous and not too brave. Most of his episodes are lost; but of the ones I've seen he's definitely one of my faves. The third guy is real popular. He's a cross between a swashbuckler and a mad scientist. (He uses martial arts too. Really, really slow and awkward martial arts...) Number four, Tom Baker. 'Nuf said. Number five was a young hero type. I wasn't a big fan 'cos there really wasn't anything wrong with him. well adjusted, considerate, level headed.... Where's the weird outfit and Martian Kung-Fu? (Although if you like Tom Baker the first episdoe with number five is pretty good.) Number six is probably the overall least favourite. His regeneration went poorly and he had some... er... problems. (like occasionally trying to kill his companion.) Number seven is my personal fave. He's very animated, disturbingly absent minded, and rather personable. A lot of the episodes are handled awkwardly though. Like there was a behind the scenes conflict going on for EVERY episode. Number eight, the Fox guy. I didn't like the movie; but not because of him. I've heard that he's really good on the "radio plays" the BBC has been doing. (Oh yeah; they've been doing Doctor Who audio dramas with the surviving actors. I haven't heard them yet, but a lot of folks seem to like them.) Number nine, the soccer hooligan. Number ten, Tennant. (Just three more 'til he turns evil!)

Then there's Peter Cushing, from the 60's theatrical remakes; and the cast from "Curse of Fatal Death." (You HAVE to see "Curse of Fatal Death!" ....they're Dalek bumps....)

Don C.

[Mikey]

Wrong date, the last regular season ended in December

Whatever......

Like I, or Bill really give a shipt about dates :)

[Mikey]

I can especially recommend the classic Power of the Daleks

I don't..........

Power of the Daleks is incomplete........

Why would you recomend that to a classic newbie ?

THINK, BUDDY.....

[Mikey]

Whatever Rob....

If you think a read-a-long Troughton picture book would be very interesting to a Tom Baker lover newbie... than more power to you...

My opinion, Bill

It's BORING......

Watch Tom Baker stories :)

[Mikey]

For people who actually like Dr Who........

That's a very insulting comment..........

Why are YOU better than me ?

TELL ME ...............

[Mikey]

Ok Rob, whatever,,,,,,,,,,,

Bore the ****TTTTTThTTTT out of all new peeps

That's the way to get them in-to Doctor Who

BTW,
Don't listen to him, Bill :)

[danadoll]

For starters there are two series, and two continuities here, also a third on screen in the form of the Dr Who Movies starring Peter Cushing. Doctor Who the science fiction series ran from 1963 to 1989 with a TV Movie special in 1996. The fantasy remake is only from 2005 and contradicts the original all over the place, and I loathe it to the core for being so dumbed down and nonsensical.

Rob, why are you being so blind? It contradicts very little, much less so than the Cushing Who film remakes, you adore so much.


The producer of it laughed on camera at how much Dr Who fans would hate his series.

Where and when?


Onto happy thoughts, all of Doctor Who (Sci-fi) is good, nothing to avoid at all. Especially recommended are The Daleks, The Aztecs, The Dalek Invasion of Earth, The Web Planet, the Ark, The War Machines, starring William Hartnell. The Tomb of the Cybermen, The Dominators, The Mind Robber, The War Games starring Patrick Troughton Dr Who & the Silurians, Day of the Daleks, Curse of Peladon, The 3 Doctors, The Carnival of Monsters, The Time Warrior, Monster of Peladon, starring Jon Pertwee, Most of the stories from 1975-77 are recommended, as are most from 1980-84, especially The Keeper of Traken, Logopolis (last T. Baker), Castrovalva, Kinda, Earthshock, Arc of Infinity, SNAKEDANCE the best of all, Terminus, Frontios, and Caves of Androzani starring Peter Davison.

Due to the insane psuedo communist system that ran the BBC much of the 60s original copies of Dr Who were wiped. Fans however recorded the soundtracks and some lost episodes have been recovered. Look for the Loose Cannon.com site to get free copies of reconstructed stories.

[danadoll]

Dana>Rob, why are you being so blind? It contradicts very little, much less so than the Cushing Who film remakes, you adore so much.

That's a contradiction in terms as I am noticing something you ignore. I don't dislike the TV remake for being a remake, its separateness is it's best feature. The problem is when the two programmes are lumped in together. I dislike it for being so dumbed down and insulting to the viewer.

How are they dumbed down? Again...It's. Not. A. Remake.
It is a continuation...Same premise, same time-traveling Police Box TARDIS (with a new console room...It's had many different looks in the past)...Same former companions (Sarah Jane Smith played by Elizabeth Sladen and K-9 played by John Leeson)...Same origin for the Doctor (he's still a timelord from Gallifrey, who likes Earth and humans)...Same Doctor (just newly regenerated 9th an 10th bodies)


Before the first episode of the remake was shown a making of show was transmitted, that's where the producer of the new thing pointed out that he intended to ignore any consistency with Dr Who, like having any number of regenerations, they would just ignore what happened in Dr Who. He would only quote from it, as shown in the first episode which is a remake of Spearhead from Space. When asked about Dr Who's loyal following he laughed and said that we would "absoloutely hate it" an obnoxious statement which sums the man up.

"The first episode ("Rose) is not a remake of Spearhead from Space...Have you watched it? It's nothing like it, a completely different story, different characters, etc...And another bit of proof that this series is a continuation...The Doctor had fought the Nestene and the Autons before in one of his past regenerations.


Doctor Who had a few near misses in continuity but never truly contradicted itself. On the other hand the remake is a fantasy show, not science fiction. The difference compares with relaunching the soft drink 1cal, only filling the new version with sugar. Then there are historical contradictions. In the remake Daleks are the ancient enemies of the Time Lords. In Dr Who the Daleks are a young race. The original Dalek story is set in the future of 1963, and the Doctor has never heard of them before! They are news to the Time Lords in The War Games also, reinforcing the point.

There are plenty of contradictions in Doctor Who history, Rob. The Daleks are the best example of this...Their origin in their very first story "The Daleks" contradicts their origin in "Genesis of the Daleks". The Daleks frequently have continuity glitches through most of their appearances in Doctor Who.

BTW...Classic Doctor Who is science fantasy too and not just strictly science fiction, Rob.


Then there is the end of the Earth in the Ark, and the exploits of the surviving humans in that serial and Frontios. In the second remake episode a totally different end of the Earth is shown and Homo Sapiens Sapiens is extinct.

Not so...They were said to have left the Earth and colonized...Some have evolved differently due to the various worlds they settled on. How did the Earth end in the Ark? It is destroyed by the sun, just as it is in the new series episode "The End of The World". How is that "totally different".



For another the remake Tardis is alive, not like in Dr Who where TARDIS is a machine with a bank of computers. Also the remake Tardis has a Police box door back within, indicating that it has always been a Police Box.

The classic Who TARDIS was alive too, Rob..It had telepathic circuits that translated languages, just as it does now in the new series...Just because something is a machine in science fiction, doesn't mean it's not alive.

Watch "The Edge of Destruction", "Attack of the Cybermen", "Logopolis" and "The Invasion of Time" again for more indications that the TARDIS was a living machine.

Websites about the classic TARDIS and classic Who all indicate that it is alive (in a way)...

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~abr/drwho/tardis/type40/node3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Destruction

http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/TARDIS

As for the inside appearance of the console room doors...Take alook at each of the Doctor's TARDIS' console rooms...They range from slight changes to being completely different, they've changed over time, just as the Doctor Has. Just because the doors currently look like the inside of a Police Box doors, doesn't make it a real Police Box...You're being ridiculous.


There must be further proof of the separateness of the two series. I couldn't sit through any more after the first season. All hope was gone. They have reused some of the names and that's about it, all similarities are purely superficial.

Superficial?...They've not only reused names...But they've reused the Doctor's origin, established history, The TARDIS, props (a new Sonic Screwdriver), former companions and enemies(Sarah Jane Smith and K-9, the Cybermen of a different reality, the Daleks, The Nestene and the Autons and the Macra...And possible soon...The Master), organizations(U.N.I.T.) and even actors in their original roles(Liz Sladen and John Leeson), Rob. It's not a remake...It's a continuation of the classic series!

Dana

[YANOULI]

well said Dana.

:clap:

[drwhofan74]

I have to agree with dana... I think the new series actually meshes very well with the old. The major difference is that the technology of the FX has finally caught up with the wonderful writing.

The only other difference I can see is the faster pace. I was a bit weary of them cramming entire storylines into one episode, but the pace adds to the excitement. The older episodes developed slower, so they had a chance to develop the plot into a more complex one. (maybe this is where the "dumbing down" comment comes from?) But, I think the new series has done well in developing complex long term stories over an entire season.

Getting back to the original poster...
I personally have gotten to the point in my Doctor Who obsession where I have no favorites. I too grew up with Tom Baker and have always considered him "the best." I have since come to love each of the Doctors for their own quirks. So, yes, do not avoid any of the shows. They are all worth watching. Paul McGann (8th Doctor) does a great job in the series of Big Finish audio adventures as well. Don't limit yourself to the television shows...

[Mikey]

I never got the whole New Series is "dumbing down" thing at all.

To anyone who thinks the New Series is "dumbed down", try watching some Classics over again ....... None of them is exactly Shakespeare either.

I resent the dumbed down statement because I like the New Series.
Calling it dumbed down is a blatant insult to anyone who likes it.

It's like calling THEM dumb for liking it.

[drwhofan74]

I never got the whole New Series is "dumbing down" thing at all.

To anyone who thinks the New Series is "dumbed down", try watching some Classics over again ....... None of them is exactly Shakespeare either.

I resent the dumbed down statement because I like the New Series.
Calling it dumbed down is a blatant insult to anyone who likes it.

It's like calling THEM dumb for liking it.

Amen, Brutha!

[palitoy]

To anyone who thinks the New Series is "dumbed down", try watching some Classics over again ....... None of them is exactly Shakespeare either.


Heh, what's that expression, "The Memory Cheats"?

[Surfsup]

Just out of interest Rob, what would you have done differently if you had the opportunity to continue the series?

Would you have reverted back to the good old days of JNT, recalling his eye for serious sci-fi stories and non panto production style?

[danadoll]

At last the message board is semi-functional again. You must all be aware of the panto style of the remake and of the tendancy to cheap toilet humour, attitudes of don't worry about the rabid monster chasing us, let's dance, and patently absurd plots-a giant fan that blocks it's own off switch. An alien that can't cool down in a space station-with freezing temperatures as the norm without a heating system?

Writing and plot problems, silly panto moments? Oh yeah...Because the classic series didn't have any of that, did it? :smiley8: The Daleks couldn't climb stairs and the Cyberman had a weakness for gold, for cripes' sake!


Onto Dalek history. If you can find a major inconsistency please state one. At the end of Genesis the Thals and Mutos depart leaving the Daleks in their bunker. When they return 200 years later in The Daleks the Thals have abbreviated the name to Dals. The Daleks have built a huge city which they cannot move from. This loss of technology is not a surprise as the last thing they did in Genesis was exterminate their Kaled research scientists, taking untold technology with them.

You're wrong about the Daleks being referred to as Dals (that came much later)...Alydon refers to them as the Dalek people when he first appears (and meets Susan) in "The Daleks". They are referred to as the Dalek people by the Thals later in "The Daleks"...And were said to be teachers and very learned...You're not seeing a problem, with this piece of history?

Davros is also a retcon, since he wasn't mentioned in the original Dalek story.

Check out these links...

http://www.whofic.com/viewstory.php?sid=8382

http://www.kaldorcity.com/features/articles/resurrection.html

I also have to ask you this Rob...Do you consider the novels to be canon or not?


In the remake the Earth is long since abandoned at destruction, in Dr Who The Ark leaves just in time to see it. Also we see humans, not quasi-human hybrids as mentioned in the remake.

Sigh...Both stories ("The Ark" and "The End of The World") could still have happened, Rob...You're being very small-minded.


The TARDIS is always described as a device, the Doctor sometimes called it 'old girl' as he might Bessie. "My machine can't think" as the Doctor explained in the Edge of Destruction.

You really need glasses or something.


Dr Who qualifies as Science fiction as there are no impossible magic creatures such as Dragons and werewolves. The Mind Robber is sometimes confused as fantasy, but it actually deals with the bizarre physics of other dimensions. Battlefield would let the side down if it had not been for The Daemons explaining that old world superstition was based on observations of aliens and their customs and technology. The Destroyer is a type of Daemon.

The Devil-like being in "The Satan Pit" could be one the Daemons too (as could the creature from Torchwood's season finale)...The werewolf in the new series was shown to be an alien and I don't recall seeing any dragons in the new series...What's your point again?


One thing I cannot understand is why you want to link the two programmes when you are so insulting to the original? Leave it be. The cheap shot about Shakespeare can easily be answered by referring to The Keeper of Traken episode 2 where Nyssa confronts Kassia. Now there is drama worthy of the bard.

Finally by ignoring my points you by implication accept them. A bald, unqualified insult establishes that you cannot rebutt the point, so as in normal debate it is left to stand. Please respond with qualified arguments, anybody can shout a nay from the hustings, pointlessly. So far Dana is the only one to attempt a reply.

You've ignored all of my points too, Rob (and the links I placed about the TARDIS being alive in the classic series)...So what's the difference? You're wrong and I'm done trying to get you to listen to reason (you're apparently beyond it)...You have been painfully blind, equally deaf and extraordinarilly dumb. You really need to stop this, you're starting to sound like a nut.

Dana

[ctc]

>and of the tendancy to cheap toilet humour,

Well, the only example of that I can think of was the Slitheen, which I didn't mind. (Not every alien is gonna be macho and scary.) Were there others I'm missing?

>attitudes of don't worry about the rabid monster chasing us, let's dance,

There were a lot of times in the old show where the Doc gave a really, REALLY long speech during the chase or fight. (Sorta how Marvel characters can give speeches between punches...)

>and patently absurd plots-

Here's where you really start to lose me. Dude travels time and space in a phonebooth that's bigger on the inside than outside. At that point "absurd" becomes REALLY relative.

>The TARDIS is always described as a device, the Doctor sometimes called it 'old girl' as he might Bessie. "My machine can't think" as the Doctor explained in the Edge of Destruction.

My computer can't think either; but it alwys seems to know what program to use, when I've added something, and the best time to crash and totally ruin my day. I suspect the Tardis doesn't "think" but anticipates based on the situation and it's owner. They've shown in the old series that each Tardis is linked to the Eye of Harmony, and posesses a certain measure of psychic connection to it's owner. So it's not alive; but it can react in a way that's beneficial to it's owner. At least that's how it seems to work to me.

>Dr Who qualifies as Science fiction as there are no impossible magic creatures such as Dragons and werewolves.

Okay; the fact that you feel the need to differentiate so bad still bugs me. But, okay; I'll play.

>The Mind Robber is sometimes confused as fantasy, but it actually deals with the bizarre physics of other dimensions. Battlefield would let the side down if it had not been for The Daemons explaining that old world superstition was based on observations of aliens and their customs and technology. The Destroyer is a type of Daemon.

Once you accept stuff like that, ANYTHING is sci-fi. You'd mentioned that 40K was fantasy 'cos the Thousand Sons had magic from their inception, but in 40K what IS magic? Rules wise psionics and magic (from Warhammer Fantasy) work EXACTLY the same, and story-wise there's no reason what was "magic" in the olden days wasn't actually psionics with a lot of window dressing. It's all in the presentation. (Presumably the Warp existed before anyone knew it was there.)

Ultimately I haven't seen anything in the new series that can't be explained science-fictionally. (If you accept the Daemons, and the Guardians; why not that devil guy in the planet?)

>One thing I cannot understand is why you want to link the two programmes when you are so insulting to the original?

Since the point is gonna be pressed regardless; howzabout YOU play along? Why do you think we like the show and don't consider it an icky-poo remake? Just for sake of argument. Put yourself in our shoes and see if you can think through our position.

Don C.

[Wee67]

HOLY HANNAH!!!! I hadn't come back after I received the answer to most of my questions. I appreciate those of you who took the time to answer them specifically. There'a bit much to take in, even with the actual answers.

Thanks again to Mike for turning me on to the new Doctor, though I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of the most recent incarnation.

Brain's comment about memory seems quite fitting for this post and, honestly, much of my 70's recall. Still, I enjoy my fuzzed memory with its warmly filled-in facts :cool3:

[danadoll]

This looks like my last post- the server is either sabotaged or overworked or something.

Surf Dr Who's time has come and gone. A story that has been told. JNTs last seasons were merely entertaining, after years of classics. If the 1996 film contradicted it's predecessor then I would happily disregard it as more OK material and separate. But I cannot.

Believe what you will, Rob...Some of us prefer to enjoy the ongoing adventures of Doctor Who, instead of sulking/whining and throwing tantrums about how different it may or may not be.


You can't knock the Daleks for not doing stairs a; because a Dalek is basically a small tank from an alien world unused to stairs, and b; because one flaoted upstairs in Remembrance. Cybermen's internals can be clogged by gold dust (presumably because of its high density), a rational idea from Gerry Davis.

Thinking about Dals that comes from an article so is probably a non-point. The Kaleds they descended from presumably were being described in the Thal history. A thousand year war degraded them, as T. Nation pointed out.

Novels based on TV dramas are not canon. Each form is it's own canon.

Are you saying that the people on the Ark and in Frontios are not human as stated? The contradiction is hard to avoid.

I didn't say that, at all (you're assuming)...Humans evolve and change over time (it doesn't mean they ever really stop being humans), they would definitely evolve differently if they settled on alien worlds. To believe that they'd remain exactly the same a million or more years into the future is height of arrogance and stupidity.

So Doctor Who novels aren't canon, but you consider the Peter Cushing, Doctor Who films still Doctor Who?


I note taht you descend to insults when I refute your argument with a quote from a story you vaguely cited. Life usually means biology, sometimes sentience, TARDIS has neither.

Ah...But life doesn't need biology (or sentience), Rob...Non-biological life is a staple of science fiction, you should know that.


The Cornell episode, silly dragons appear because time has been altered, pure fantasy. You raised a point about a satan character, not me. You left a list of familiar stories, none of which backs your argument and no actual points on or from them. Personal name calling is no match for a rational argument.

They weren't dragons, Rob...They were called Reapers (cosmic cleaners). Regardless of what you believe is fantasy and what is Science Fiction...Daleks from an alien world called Skaro and Cybermen from Mondas, Refusians, Quarks, the Animus, Menoptera...Are all still just fantasy, Rob....Please get used to it. Doctor Who is not straight up sci-fi...It never has been. It is science fantasy.

Dana

[ctc]

>CTC A long speech is very different to ignoring an immediate threat and play instead.

....not while you're being fired on....

>Unambigously described magic spells that contradict all natural law are the definition of fantasy, even if they are described with limitations.

True; but I consider the pseudo-science gobblegook of a sci-fi explanation to be pretty much the same thing. "We use accelerated tachyons to...." isn't all that different from "By the glowing codpiece of Rangoon!" One may SOUND better 'cos it refrences a real world something, but (true to the "fiction" part) it does so in a nonexistant manner. And in both cases a bad story will violate it's own precepts with impunity, whereas a good story will work within it's own established limits.

>Ten dimensional quantum physics is an accepted branch of science,

...uh....

>the theory of infinite realities an unconfirmed theory, but still considered in physics.

....UH.... I don't remember taking 10D physics at the U; and the infinite realities thing isn't given a lot of credibility because it can't be falsified. Currently it's still science fantasy.

>I understand you write comic books. That is a very different format to prose or TV drama, there are different looser accepted norms there. You can write a great fantasy story in comic form that fails as a script (or Vice versa with a sci-fi in comics).

True; but that's not inherent to either media. That all depends on the story, the genre, characterization, levels of humour, drama, etc. A good story is a good story is a good story; regardless of genre, medium, target audience, whatever.

>I did think through your position, which is why I query why you want to connect the contradictory versions.

Well.... if you can't reconcile that; then you haven't really thought through my position. Ask again, what would make someone NOT see the two seires as unrelated.

>If the remake continues anything then it is the Dr Who comic strips and paperbacks.

Hmmmm.... trickier.... I'd love it if they officially accepted some of the old comics; but even if they don't, a lot of 'em were episodic and don't really contradict anything. Except maybe some of the Dalek ones. (Y'know... an Absolm Daak show might be cool....) I know the new show continues from the radio dramas; so I suspect those things are considered cannon.

I guess THAT'S part of the equation too. If the actual producers consider something as official, shouldn't the audience? I can see not liking something; but if the actual folks making the show say "well, the Daleks and Time Lords wiped each other out" then isn't that the case?

It's THEIR show, we're just along for the ride.

>There is the point about the remake Tardis zapping Annette Badland but giving Piper super powers over life and death. That is very much fantasy, both for inconsistency (a natural force or energy cannot make a judgement call in science)

... but in essence a machine CAN. If it's attuned to the Doc it'd "know" Rose was an ally, and act accordingly. Sort of an advanced version of the IFF we use in the military.

>and for the impossible super power angle.

They've shown folks getting synched with the time stream/great cosmic all/universal power before, so it's not really inconsistent. If you can warp the bounds of time and space, scrooching a few aliens doesn't seem like that big a deal...

>I have faced hostility from the first.

Well, sure. Everyone here LIKES the new show, so when you come up with an unpopular theory you've got to expect a measure of recalcitrance. And you've got to be prepared to explain your position very meticulously; since a lot of folks here won't be working from the same assumptions you do.

>The remake is such but a remake is not automatically bad,

There's one there! Most folks don't consider it a remake, since it doesn't rehash any old story points but instead continues from them. Could be a somantics problem, but that's how most folks see it.

>my criticisms are based on the content.

Maybe; but you're still working with a lot of assumptions folks here don't have. "Science fantasy inferior to sci-fi" is one. Most of us don't care either way. So any point that comes up based on this will seem boggling to the majority of folks here. That's why I suggest trying to think through my position; it'll give you a better idea of the attitudes you';re dealing with, and a better chance of expressing your view in a way that'll register with more people.

Don C.

[danadoll]

This site is really on the fritz! Getting impossible to post.Wonder if this will make it?

Dana the Cushing films are their own canon, the current remake is it's own canon, the books and comic strips are their own canon Big Finish is it's own canon, probably shares with the Genesis LP and Slipback. The Original Doctor Who is it's own canon. All contradictory, some in Science Fiction, some in Space Fantasy.

Perhaps you're just to anal retentive for your own good, Rob?


You have assumed that The Ark and Frontios are set millions of years into the future.

I haven't assumed anything...I'm going by what was stated/shown in "The Ark" episode. In "The Ark"...Steven postulates that they must have traveled forward in time millions of years, because the Earth will soon be destroyed by the sun (a common theory grounded in science...However, it's till just a theory). The Doctor, using the Ark leader's segment of time reference guesses they must have traveled about ten million years into the future. The leader shows no knowledged of Noah's Ark (a well known part of human history/mythology...certain knowledge has been lost) and they have no resistance to the common cold...It does take place millions of years in the future.

I mentioned nothing about Frontios...But if you want to talk about it...In the episode, the TARDIS registers "Boundry Error: Time Parameters Exceeded"...The Doctor states that the TARDIS has drifted too far ahead in time...Sounds like millions of years to me....He also mentions that one of the last surviving groups of the human race has settled on Frontios...having escaped the destruction of the Earth.

None of this indicates there weren't spectators of the Earth's end or that humanity didn't interbreed with alien races or evolved.


They did not give dates in Anno Domini. But they were stated as humans, this pushes us to think that we are looking at perhaps 2 million years ahead at most, another contradiction with the remake. I think this episode probably intended to emphasize that the viewer was watching a new version, not what had started in 1963. The humans descendants described were hybridized with aliens to boot. Most of our ancestor species are extinct, we are not still fish, amphibians, lizards, monkeys etc.
Non-biological life sometimes pops up as was postulated with Xoanon, but it is always sentient, or else it would be chemistry.

Not true, Rob...Life does not need sentience...Animals are still believed by scientists to be non-sentient creatures...Is their existance just chemistry?


Even if something is called a reaper, it is still a big dragon shaped, dragon sized thing which behaves in a dragon like fashion in a fantasy situation. A rose by any other name.

They aren't dragons and were never called as such, Rob....And how do you know how a dragon would act?....They are ficticious creatures...The same as Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, etc...Science fiction is still just fiction, science fantasy is the same.


Definitions. Science Fiction is defined as an extrapolation of science, fantasy throws away all the rules and limitations, so that even truly impossible (instead of unlikely) things can happen.

Wow...You are too anal.



CTC can you quote an example of The Doctor ever standing around under immediate peril, and saying that it's all right we'll worry about that later. The Doctor tended to be devil-may-care, but not actually suicidal.

The number of dimensions in our spacetime is going up with each new theory. I heard of one person pointing out that we might need more than one time dimension.

My point is that science fiction has an anchor to something real in it, even if it is speculative. Fantasy has none by definition. It all depends on how far the writer is pushing the audiences credibility. Fiction has to reflect the real world, if it suggests a technology not invented then we loosen up into science fiction, if a magic troll appears, then we have loosened totally into fantasy.

Fiction does not have to reflect the real world at all, Rob...hence the term "fiction". If a "magic" troll does show up in a story, who's to say that his abilities or existance couldn't be explained scientifically? The Doctor Who series...Both classic and continuation, expain almost every thing scientifically. Even in the classic series, not everything was explained completely.

BTW...I find it ironic that you bring up trolls...Seeing as how your very first thread in the old MB's Doctor Who forum clearly stirred something up....You haven't stopped stirring things up since.


I think we might do better if we discussed the superiorities (or not) of Science Fiction over Fantasy elsewhere, points seem to be crossing over on this, I'm not saying that the remake is inferior for being a space fantasy, I am pointing out that it is a different genre, and so in consistent with the original Dr Who. If Cagney and Lacey was made as a fantasy that would be separate from the original for switching genres. Could we also stick to the same terminology? Science Fantasy could be used to mean science fiction, remember Well's term Scientific Romances?

The creature who started the remake said in the lead-in programme before the first episode that he was going to ignore continuity, and that Dr Who fans would hate his show, the one thing he got right.

Okay...The fact that you call the producer a "creature" is an indication that there is something wrong with your thinking. He's a person, Rob...Not a creation of fiction/fantasy. Regardless of what he claimed the series would be like...The new Who series does follow continuity and does continue from the old series. There is very little that conflicts with the original series.

BTW...Doctor Who fans do not hate the new BBC Doctor Who series...You do. Every fan I've met online (besides you) enjoys the series.


He also thought we would watch it just for the same name. The Dalek episode I understand is a clone of a Big Finish story, called jubilee, I think. Same writer credited. Plus the first episode bore a strong resemblance to Spearhead from Space starting with the new version Doctor fresh with a new face he says, and ending with Autons invading by posing as mannequins and bursting out of a shopping mall. I know you like the remake, but bear in mind the countless devotees who can't stand it. For me it signifies the decline in UK drama over the last two decades, something wonderful has been lost. Mass audiences, especially children are the primary aim, rather than an intelligent drama with a point that will last into the future. I came to the Mego site because I like to make heads, Wee67 asked a straight question about one of my great loves and here is an honest answer. As this is a proremake group of course you will like it, but to connect it to the Doctor Who it takes its name from is to misrepresent the original Doctor Who from which all others derive.

Pro-remake group (again with that bull)? You are wrong, Rob. We're not misrepresenting anything...We are enjoying the continuing adventures of Doctor Who...You are choosing not to. "Devotees"? Interesting choice of words...Are you a part of some Doctor Who religious group?


I am not picking canon randomly according to what I like, as some think, (Cushing is not the same canon) but to what can fit and what cannot.

You are picking what's canon and what's not simply on what your preferences are, Rob...There is no doubt about it. You've made yourself very clear in this. This series does fit with the classic Who, it is a continuation...You just don't want to see it for that.

Dana

[Mikey]

Are you a part of some Doctor Who religious group?

You're almost on the mark......

It's people like this that ruined the classic series during the Colin Baker years when Who SUPER-FANS were brought in as tech advisers.

They turned the series into crap.

[Mikey]

But a lot of kids use this forum, think of them when you use foul language, obscure it a bit eh.

The word crap is foul language ?

Maybe you should message the Mego Museum higherarchy and ask them to reprimand me.

[ramsey37]

I'm reminded of an old saying:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig likes it" ;)
George

[johnmiic]

Wee,

I just love a pi$$$ing contest! I wish I had discovered this thread sooner.

I have many old DW's on VHS and if you want to watch them I'll take a detour after work to deliver them uptown to you. I have very few Jon Pertwee episodes, Doctor #3 but have most Hartnell, #1 Troughton, #2, T. Baker, #4 some Davidson, #5 and some C. Baker, #6 and a few McCoy, #7. Look over an episode guide and throw some inquiries my way. Remember that many Hartnell and Troughton B&W stories are lost so I only have what was in syndication and offered to PBS in the 80's.

Anyway Mike makes an interesting point here, in the long forgotten, early part of this thread:

The series ran from Nov 1963 to Dec 1986 .... went off the air and came back Sept 1987 and went off again in Sept 1989.....

Every year DW was renewed almost without much thought of ending the show. There was the changeover to Pat Troughton, Doctor #2 in 1966. Then to Jon Pertwee, Doctor #3 in 1970. Those were tense times. But from Pertwee to Tom Baker the show pretty much chugged along without worry for years.

What happened in 1986 was the show was cancelled. The fans went into an uproar and the Beeb waffled saying it was just a hiatus because they were not entirely happy with the content of the show under the new incarnation as played by Colin Baker. When the show returned after the "hiatus" it still didn't seem to deliver in the ratings.

Colin Baker was blamed and fired. Interestingly JNT the producer was blamed by fans but not by the Beeb. Slyvester McCoy was hired and he limped along in many sub-standard stories till the "official" cancellation in 1989.

What is playing out in this thread is a microcosm of what occurred in the UK during the mid 80's. You had 2 camps of fans fighting over whether the series was good or bad or needed to be fixed or left alone. It was so bad Starlog magazine didn't know whose ***** to ki$$ and wouldn't touch it with an article until after Sly McCoy was cast in the role. It was a dark time and mercifully ended with the show's cancellation in 1989.

Many horrific plans to bring the show back as a movie or American series were floated and resembled the show as much as Bea Arthur's Amanda By The Sea resembled John Cleese's Faulty Towers, ( and lemme tell you what a stinker Amanda... was!). Until in 1996 someone actually suceeded in making a movie of the week for American television on the Fox network. It was one of the least offensive comeback's of DW to be developed but didn't catch on here in the states.

2005 brings us another comeback attempt. The series is updated and back on the air. Now many people use the term "new series". In fact this is a difference in the language of the UK and the USA. This is not truly a "new series" or new continuity. The term we are familiar with, season, is replaced with the term series. The unique thing about British TV is a show can be off the air for any number of years and when they decide to bring it back it goes into production again amost as if it never left the air. For instance: Are You Being Served? So in 2005 Doctor Who came back but was not a different show in the sense that Battlestar Galactica is a "re-imagining". DW in 2005 onwards is cannon.

[Wee67]

Thanks for the answers, guys. I assume, then, that Torchwood was indeed created in the Queen Victoria ep of the "new" series.

And John, thanks for the offer, but another good member has offered me a few Who eps to peruse.

[danadoll]

2005 brings us another comeback attempt. The series is updated and back on the air. Now many people use the term "new series". In fact this is a difference in the language of the UK and the USA. This is not truly a "new series" or new continuity. The term we are familiar with, season, is replaced with the term series. The unique thing about British TV is a show can be off the air for any number of years and when they decide to bring it back it goes into production again amost as if it never left the air. For instance: Are You Being Served? So in 2005 Doctor Who came back but was not a different show in the sense that Battlestar Galactica is a "re-imagining". DW in 2005 onwards is cannon.

Now you've done it, John...It isn't canon according to Rob.
Same thing was done with Absolutely Fabulous...The Fifth season (Series five, it's called in England) picked up a few years after the fourth season...Same characters, same premise, same continuity...Just a continuation (just like Doctor Who 2005).

John, nothing you say...No amount of proof will convince Rob he's wrong. It's wasted effort...He's too lost in his delusion.

Dana

[ctc]

>Definitions. Science Fiction is defined as an extrapolation of science, fantasy throws away all the rules and limitations, so that even truly impossible (instead of unlikely) things can happen.

See; THIS is the terminal disconnect. Fantasy DOES have rules and parameters. In almost every fantasy setting there ARE rules to magic, monsters and such. Just like how sci-fi has to set it's limits and definitions early on; so too does fantasy. Sci-fi doesn't just whip a cyberarm on you, it explains abit of how they work, how they're made, how people react to them... that way you know what to expect in the story and you have a frame of refrence from which to interpret events in the story. Fantasy does that too; regardless if magic comes from the great spirits, application of mystic formulas, or the descendants of the great witch-kings, it has an oriigin. And limits, and a place in society. Maybe it takes more imagination to accept them, or more daring.... but they're there. And they're no less real than cybernetic arms with built in lasers, or spaceships, or time travel. They may have more POTENTIAL to be real, bgut from where we're at they're still pretend.

>CTC can you quote an example of The Doctor ever standing around under immediate peril, and saying that it's all right we'll worry about that later. The Doctor tended to be devil-may-care, but not actually suicidal.

...didn't Tom Baker do that every couple of episodes? Except maybe when Harry was around....

>The number of dimensions in our spacetime is going up with each new theory. I heard of one person pointing out that we might need more than one time dimension.

I've heard stuff like that too; but Dr Swainson never mentioned it in my classes at the U; so I tend to consider it hyperbole.

>My point is that science fiction has an anchor to something real in it, even if it is speculative. Fantasy has none by definition.

I still think the real goal is internal consistency; not any adherence to real life. Not real is not real.

>I think we might do better if we discussed the superiorities (or not) of Science Fiction over Fantasy elsewhere, points seem to be crossing over on this,

HAW! YOU started it! I think again you'd be best served to think through our position a bit. We don't understand what you're getting at and it looks like you're repeating the same thing over and over. Try guessing why we don't see the new show as different. For sake of argument. No matter how odd the concept seems to you.

>I am pointing out that it is a different genre, and so in consistent with the original Dr Who.

See; we don't see that.

>If Cagney and Lacey was made as a fantasy that would be separate from the original for switching genres.

Unless there was a reason within the story as to why it was suddenly a fantasy. Then it'd still be the same show. (It'd be a much WEIRDER show; but still the same continuity.) And I guess that's how we see the new Doctor. It's different; but it clearly continues from the original.

>For me it signifies the decline in UK drama over the last two decades, something wonderful has been lost.

You seem to read a LOT into this; which implies to me that there's something more than the show itself stuck in your craw.

Don C.

[Mikey]

Is this sci-fi or fantasy and why is she holding a sonic screwdriver ? :grin:

http://www.jarillion.com/index.html

m

[johnmiic]

John, nothing you say...No amount of proof will convince Rob he's wrong. It's wasted effort...He's too lost in his delusion.

Dana

You should read my reply in the other thread where I liken DW to a Micronauts toy. Talk about fried breaker circuts!

[ABMAC]

>Definitions. Science Fiction is defined as an extrapolation of science, fantasy throws away all the rules and limitations, so that even truly impossible (instead of unlikely) things can happen.

See; THIS is the terminal disconnect. Fantasy DOES have rules and parameters. In almost every fantasy setting there ARE rules to magic, monsters and such. Just like how sci-fi has to set it's limits and definitions early on; so too does fantasy. Sci-fi doesn't just whip a cyberarm on you, it explains abit of how they work, how they're made, how people react to them... that way you know what to expect in the story and you have a frame of refrence from which to interpret events in the story. Fantasy does that too; regardless if magic comes from the great spirits, application of mystic formulas, or the descendants of the great witch-kings, it has an oriigin. And limits, and a place in society. Maybe it takes more imagination to accept them, or more daring.... but they're there. And they're no less real than cybernetic arms with built in lasers, or spaceships, or time travel. They may have more POTENTIAL to be real, bgut from where we're at they're still pretend.

Don C.

He means the rules and limitations of SCIENCE, Don, not arbitrary rules and limitations set by the author. Internal consistency is a necessity in all fiction; it's irrelevant to this argument.

Science fiction extrapolates future technology based on the scientific knowledge of the present. Although there are certain fantasy elements like time travel, ESP, inter-dimensional travel, alien lifeforms, and faster-than-light travel that are generally believed to be theoretically possible, and are therefore accepted in popular science fiction, any fiction that disregards the laws of nature is fantasy.

Magic and the supernatural, by definition, belong wholly in the realm of fantasy because we know they're impossible.

It certainly isn't a question of fantasy requiring more imagination or daring to be accepted (I'm offended by that assertion, frankly), rather it depends on whether the fiction can be accepted as scientifically plausible. Accepting a story's fantasy elements in context is no big deal, even when these fantasy elements are within a story (like Star Wars) that purports to be science fiction, but their presence turns the entire work into fantasy; All the scientific gadgetry in the universe won't help you if you whip out a magic fairy in your story without making its powers scientifically plausible.

Rob contends that the new Doctor Who stories include fantasy elements that preclude their being classified as pure science fiction. He can't accept them as canon because he feels that the fantasy elements taint them. Having been traumatized by Sabrina's arrival at Riverdale, I can fully understand how he feels, although I'm baffled by his unwillingness to let others enjoy the show. There's a tendancy for fans to develop a proprietary attitude toward the works they admire, and I suspect this is true in Rob's case, perhaps to an unhealthy degree.

[johnmiic]

OMG!!!! We have dragged ABMAC into the fray now!!!!

Lord Odin, have mercy on our mortal souls!

[ABMAC]

I've never watched a single episode of Doctor Who so I'm completely unfamiliar with its canon. I'm sure there are inconsistencies from series to series but that's the nature of the medium. You either live with them or you disassociate yourself from the franchise at that point.

There are major inconsistencies in each of the four Planet of the Apes sequels released in the '70s. They can't be explained away, so fans who notice them just have to accept them. There are some who reject the sequels and prefer to view the original as it was intended to be; a single film independent from all others. When Tim Burton "reimagined" the remake in 2001, he completely ignored the previous movies and made a film that was Planet of the Apes in name only. I hate it, but there are some people who enjoy it. Some even try to shoehorn it into the same continuity as the original movies. I can't change their minds, so I don't try to. To each his own. Acknowledge and move on, dude.

[Evel KMego]

I like Dr. Seuss better any way!

[ctc]

>Science fiction extrapolates future technology based on the scientific knowledge of the present.

That's where my problem is: sure you extrapolate from currently accepted notions; BUT because you're extrapolating them, you're taking them into the realm of the unreal. They may LOOK more plausible, but because we can never be sure where the next discovery is gonna take us we can never be sure of how "real" a sci-fi idea is. Time travel may be right around the corner, cybernetics as good as a human limb may be impossible.

To me, really dwelling on the distinction seems odd; since it's so secondary to wether or not a story is entertaining, engaging, or well done.

>All the scientific gadgetry in the universe won't help you if you whip out a magic fairy in your story without making its powers scientifically plausible.

But.... what counts as "plausible?" Magic fairy that can place an enchantment on you; fantasy. Extradimensional being with psionics; sci-fi. Difference; somantic. (Well, that; and how you present it. But that's a story point more than anything else. Neither explanation is more valid than the other I figger.)

>Rob contends that the new Doctor Who stories include fantasy elements that preclude their being classified as pure science fiction. He can't accept them as canon because he feels that the fantasy elements taint them.

Which I don't disagree with; but what I have trouble wrapping my brain around is how this is any different from the original show.

>Having been traumatized by Sabrina's arrival at Riverdale, I can fully understand how he feels,

HAW!

>although I'm baffled by his unwillingness to let others enjoy the show.

There's the thing. I'm curious about this too, which is why I keep pressing the point. If you've already ascertained that you're dealing with a tribe of nonacs who just don't get it; why keep beating your head against the wall?

>Am I therefore to understand it that you consider it fine for two contradictory versions to be considered a single canon then?

Okay; here it is: we DON'T consider them different. Most of us here don't see it. THIS is what I'm trying to get you to rationalize through. You see them as different; we don't. You can SAY it all you want, call it a fact, call us blasphemers; but wouldn't your cause be better served by presenting it to us in terms we understand? And to do that you're gonna hafta speak the same language as it were. Please, please, PLEASE; for the sake of argument, TRY to come up with a reason for our perspective. No matter how wrong or distasteful it seems to you.

Don C.

[danadoll]

Dana, show me some proof then, how can you square the contradictions?Your word is not enough.

I have to ask...What is the point, Rob? You haven't read a single thing I've posted. Once you state what these Earth-shatteringly massive contradictions are, then maybe I'll address them...So far, all you've posted are the anal-retentive, detail-obsessive ravings of a "devotee" (your word, not mine) of Who.

I'll post some Proof that it's a continuation, though...And you don't have to take my word for it...

Rose (The Doctor has fought the Nestene and the Autons before, has just regenerated, is a Time Lord and travels in a TARDIS)

Dalek (The Doctor has fought the Daleks before, the lone Dalek knows him as an old enemy) Is it so hard for you to image the Daleks (who had aquired time travel tech long ago) wanting to be rid of the Time Lords, that they'd go to war with them?

Bad Wolf (More Dalek survivors of the Timw War...ditto)

The Parting of The Ways (Ditto)

School Reunion (Sarah Jane Smith and K-9, former travelling companions...Help the Doctor, Rose and Mickey)

Rise of The Cybermen (The Doctor mentions fighting the Cybermen before, but not the ones from the alternate Earth that he, Rose and Mickey land on)

The Age of Steel (Ditto)

The Army of Ghosts (Ditto)

Doomsday (Ditto)

Smith and Jones (The Doctor goes by his old alias, John Smith)

Gridlock (The Macra make an appearance, the Doctor mentions having met them before)

Daleks in Manhattan (The Daleks debate with the Doctor why they always lose to him)

Human Nature (the Doctor is "John Smith" again and has sketches of his past selves in his notebook)

[Mikey]

Human Nature (the Doctor is "John Smith" again and has sketches of his past selves in his notebook)

Really ?

I seen that epsiode on youtube last week and I totally missed that.
Any still's of the sketches around ?
Were they sketches of former Doctors ?--- Like a sketch of Tom Baker etc ?

[johnmiic]

You take the episode The Shakespeare Code. It's a story about Witches who plot to bring their race accross dimensions to conquer Earth. It is explained that the use of incantation specifically worded can manipulate matter and energy. That's science under the guise of Magick.

Rewind- Logopolis.

The Logopolitans can use mathematics, have been using it, to stave off entropy which would destroy the universe. Math, configured properly can manipulate matter and energy. Science which seems to operate as magick. Why? Because it is beyond our understanding how to do it.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ... Arthur C. Clarke

[ABMAC]

…there are certain fantasy elements like time travel, ESP, inter-dimensional travel, alien lifeforms, and faster-than-light travel that are generally believed to be theoretically possible, and are therefore accepted in popular science fiction


>…Magic fairy that can place an enchantment on you; fantasy. Extradimensional being with psionics; sci-fi. Difference; somantic. (Well, that; and how you present it. But that's a story point more than anything else. Neither explanation is more valid than the other I figger.)
It's more than just semantics; ironically, it's also a matter of faith. Science fiction asks you to accept on faith that seemingly fantastic elements will be explained scientifically if they're ever encountered, while Fantasy presents a context in which you're expected to unquestioningly believe the impossible. You say that neither explanation is more valid, but that's the point; fantasy doesn't offer explanations, so it's only valid within its own context.

When a magic fairy appears in a fantasy story, you're not expected to assume that it will eventually be explained as an alien being with psionic powers, you're supposed to accept that it's a magic fairy.

[Mikey]

Very interesting you guys are using magic fairy's as your example...
An episode of TORCHWOOD ... TV-show related to Doctor Who, did a whole episode about fairy's and what they REALLY are :)
Yes, they are REAL and explained scientifically :grin:

Fairy's are real ?

Oh yes,

Creatures from the dawn of time with great power

[Surfsup]

Human Nature (the Doctor is "John Smith" again and has sketches of his past selves in his notebook)

Really ?

I seen that epsiode on youtube last week and I totally missed that.
Any still's of the sketches around ?
Were they sketches of former Doctors ?--- Like a sketch of Tom Baker etc ?

From what I remember, there were sketches of Tom Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann and Peter Davison. That was a classy touch!

[Mikey]

Very neat,
I just captured it from youtube.......

http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/files/7/Human.jpg

m
__________________________________________

Sly looks a little bit like Ringo :grin:

BTW, who's the guy on the upper right ?
Tom or Jon ?

and the guy (top of head) on the lower left ?
Pat ?

I can tell Davison's hair on the lower right

m

[drwhofan74]

Just to chime in on the whole Magic vs. Technology thing... Different incarnations of the Doctor dealt with these in slightly different ways. For example, in the 8th Doctor's novels, he is much more into the spiritual and the occult. He is thus willing to accept certain things as beyond common understanding. (I am specifically thinking of The City of the Dead by Lloyd Rose. It takes place in New Orleans and involves voodoo and sex magic. It is actually rather graphic in parts...) All of this is also partially a result of the holes in his memory due to the violence and quickness of his last regeneration.

But, the point is that there is a precedent in Doctor Who for both "magical" and "scientific" explanations.

[palitoy]

In the original script for "Love and Monsters" Elton's mother was killed by an Auton flower, it was rewritten because RTD wanted to include the tenth Doctor in the flashback.

Another scene of Elton witnessing the Loch Ness Monster from "Terror of the Zygons" as a child, were cut ,apparently for time.

[drwhofan74]

Another scene of Elton witnessing the Loch Ness Monster from "Terror of the Zygons" as a child, were cut ,apparently for time.


That would have been awsome!:rotfl:

P.S. The perfect gift those who want to continue the continuity debate...

http://www.amazon.com/DisContinuity-Guide-Unofficial-Doctor-Companion/dp/1932265090/ref=sr_1_36/105-0983136-6234865?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181663812&sr=1-36

[Surfsup]

Very neat,
I just captured it from youtube.......

http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/files/7/Human.jpg

m
__________________________________________

Sly looks a little bit like Ringo :grin:

BTW, who's the guy on the upper right ?
Tom or Jon ?

and the guy (top of head) on the lower left ?
Pat ?

I can tell Davison's hair on the lower right

m

I think the top right is supposed to be William Hartnell and the bottom left is Tom Baker.

[danadoll]

ABMAC I'm so pleased you brought up Planet of the Apes, one of my favourites! I agree that the original is contradicted by the later APJAC films, but unlike the different Dr Whos this can be reconciled, if we place Planet of the Apes at the end of the cycle rather than the beginning, after Cornelius and Zira go back and alter history. The two TV Dr Whos do not have an opt out like this, or Dana would have explained it rather than complained that I observed the contradiction to begin with.

What contradictions are you referring to, Rob? You have yet to post any that have an lasting, impacting validity. All the supposed contradictions you've posted are just minor quibbles, that you've blown far out of proportion.


Any number of references to the original Dr Who cannot reconcile the contradictions to it. The comics from Marvel and polystlye did exactly the same thing, seeing Daleks Cybermen etc, but also contradicting the original so confirming that it is a separate canon. This is the definition of a remake, or rewoking, or reimagining as Burton called his Apes movie, which referred back to the original frequently.

The series still continues on from the classic Who, Rob...A point you've ignored everytime somebody mentions it.

Dana
__________________________________________


That would have been awsome!:rotfl:

P.S. The perfect gift those who want to continue the continuity debate...

http://www.amazon.com/DisContinuity-Guide-Unofficial-Doctor-Companion/dp/1932265090/ref=sr_1_36/105-0983136-6234865?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181663812&sr=1-36

Hmmm...Interesting, DWF (thanks for posting it)...I doubt Rob is open to reading any such book, since he isn't even open to listening to anything any of us have to say on the matter. He is close-minded and close-eared.

Dana

[ABMAC]

Just to chime in on the whole Magic vs. Technology thing... Different incarnations of the Doctor dealt with these in slightly different ways. For example, in the 8th Doctor's novels, he is much more into the spiritual and the occult. He is thus willing to accept certain things as beyond common understanding. (I am specifically thinking of The City of the Dead by Lloyd Rose. It takes place in New Orleans and involves voodoo and sex magic. It is actually rather graphic in parts...) All of this is also partially a result of the holes in his memory due to the violence and quickness of his last regeneration.

But, the point is that there is a precedent in Doctor Who for both "magical" and "scientific" explanations.
I HATE that a movie can't be set in New Orleans without voodoo, corrupt cops, and a Mardi Gras parade. Dammit, we're also proud of our rampant ignorance!

"Beyond common understanding" means there's a scientific explanation that most people are unaware of. It doesn't mean the impossible is possible.

[Mikey]

I think any show that's been on for a crazy long time will inherently have continuity problems.
... and people seeking them out with a vengeance--- on varos :)

There's still people (classic fans) that swear the faces seen in the Brain of Morbius mind-battle are former Doctors BEFORE William Hartnell.
If this is true, why did the Hartnell/Hurndall Doctor refer to himself as "THE ORGINAL" ?

Being a fan, it's fun to look for this stuff and question it....
But there's a point, it can ruin your fun and trap you into a box if you let it.

[palitoy]

There's still people (classic fans) that swear the faces seen in the Brain of Morbius mind-battle are former Doctors BEFORE William Hartnell.
If this is true, why did the Hartnell/Hurndall Doctor refer to himself as "THE ORGINAL" ?



That scene bugged me as a kid and still bothers me now. As for Five Doctors, that'll make you go cross eyed if you try to think about it.

[Mikey]

I've always accepted the unknown faces were former incarnations of Morbius.

[palitoy]

I've always accepted the unknown faces were former incarnations of Morbius.

That's a pretty good one, I've just personally accepted it as a error and moved on. Putting entertainment under the microscope sometimes drains the enjoyment out of it.

[ctc]

>You say that neither explanation is more valid, but that's the point; fantasy doesn't offer explanations, so it's only valid within its own context.

...which is true; but of both. Sure, the theory of relativity makes transporters possible; but that's a HUGE step from actually making one. A step we may never take.

>When a magic fairy appears in a fantasy story, you're not expected to assume that it will eventually be explained as an alien being with psionic powers, you're supposed to accept that it's a magic fairy.

True; but there's typically a story that goes along with that magic fairy. It's a primordial being linked to the forest, it's the manifestation of human emotion, it's a being out of time.... Typically the explanation has something to do with the story; either plot of theme.

Just like the sci in a good sci-fi story. Computers are totally different in a Asimov robot story than in a Gibson story. Because each author is trying for a different feel, and trying to express a different idea. Is one more "valid" than the other? Maybe; but the important thing is the story. Both authors will fudge reality for a greater goal. Any decent author will.

Which is why I don't consider sci-fi any more realistic than fantasy. I also don't think it ultimately matters since quality and entertainment goes beyond genre. I prefer sci-fi myself; but it doesn't mean I see fantasy as an inferior genre. It DOES mean that all them stupid Dragonlance novels start looking a lot alike to me.

Don C.

[Mikey]

To me,

Sci Fi--Science FICTION and Fantasy is the same thing...

In other words, both are fake :)

[ABMAC]

...which is true; but of both. Sure, the theory of relativity makes transporters possible; but that's a HUGE step from actually making one. A step we may never take.

Taking the step is less important than making it scientifically plausible. Extrapolating a plausible reality is all that matters in a fiction story. If it contradicts scientific truths, it can't be science fiction.


True; but there's typically a story that goes along with that magic fairy. It's a primordial being linked to the forest, it's the manifestation of human emotion, it's a being out of time.... Typically the explanation has something to do with the story; either plot of theme.

You're evading the point. It's fiction, so of course there's a story. That doesn't change the fact that fairies aren't science. In fantasy, you accept that impossibilities are possible. An impossible explanation within its own context doesn't validate an impossible element. You're using circular reasoning.


Just like the sci in a good sci-fi story. Computers are totally different in a Asimov robot story than in a Gibson story. Because each author is trying for a different feel, and trying to express a different idea. Is one more "valid" than the other? Maybe; but the important thing is the story. Both authors will fudge reality for a greater goal. Any decent author will.

I'm not arguing good stories versus bad stories. Asimov computers and Gibson computers are both within the realms of possibility, so they're equally valid. Again, the argument is not about the quality of the story.


Which is why I don't consider sci-fi any more realistic than fantasy. I also don't think it ultimately matters since quality and entertainment goes beyond genre. I prefer sci-fi myself; but it doesn't mean I see fantasy as an inferior genre. It DOES mean that all them stupid Dragonlance novels start looking a lot alike to me.

I'm not saying that the fantasy genre is inferior for the purposes of illustrating a point, only that it's a distinctly different and incompatible genre from pure science fiction.

If you can't see how a plausible idea extrapolated from current knowledge is closer to reality than an idea that's admittedly impossible, there's no point in continuing this discussion.
__________________________________________


To me,

Sci Fi--Science FICTION and Fantasy is the same thing...

In other words, both are fake :)

Fiction is fake? Brilliant, Mike. Isn't there another Doctor Who thread you could be trolling?

[Mikey]

Isn't there another Doctor Who thread you could be trolling?

Trolling ?

I did not know I was unwanted here

[ABMAC]

To ABMAC ;consider the HGWells story, Country of the blind. The distinctions are not only obscured to your debators, it actually unsettles them to consider them.

Don isn't blind to the concept of science fiction, just unable to accept that it excludes fantasy. There should be a Law of Fantasy that parallels Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy; If you put a single science fiction element in a fantasy story, it's fantasy. If you put a single fantasy element in a science fiction story, it's fantasy.

[danadoll]

That's a pretty good one, I've just personally accepted it as a error and moved on. Putting entertainment under the microscope sometimes drains the enjoyment out of it.

Did you hear that, Rob? I should give up...It's like talking to a tree stump.

Dana

P.S. Somebody please tell me if we have an ignore feature on this board.

[Mikey]

It's ironic how the "Doctor Who Forum" was "moderated" by type1kirk a short time ago on the old forum ........ and now HE's the troll here.

Whatever guys,

Things change,

Have a field day guys, and I hope this place is MORE fun for you all.

Mike :)

[danadoll]

It's ironic how the "Doctor Who Forum" was "moderated" by type1kirk a short time ago on the old forum ........ and now HE's the troll here.

Whatever guys,

Things change,

Have a field day guys, and I hope this place is MORE fun for you all.

Mike :)

Mike...you are not the troll in this thread/forum. I respect your opinions (cause you don't sound like a nut from Telos) and have enjoyed your input (especially your posted links to the new Who eps...Thanks!). You're alright in my book.

Dana

[Mikey]

Thanks Dana, but I don't even care anymore.

THEY can have it........

Argue all you want, guys.-- to me this thread got sour.

If you guys want it, it's all yours

[palitoy]

You're not a troll Mike. Well maybe Captain Bringdown can be sometimes :)