Question From The Doctor Who Ignorant

[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!

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.......



m
__________________________________________

Sly looks a little bit like Ringo

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!

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

http://www.amazon.com/DisContinuity-...663812&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.

ABMAC Complaint 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