Tonight's post from the past concerns Regeneration Limits, a topic that
has been close to the Hearts of some here-abouts, recently!!
Quote from 'Olton' in the 'Favourite Dr Who' thread of June 1991
In "Nightmare of Eden," the Doctor says something about timelords having
125 lives, and that he had had about 190. This clearly doesn't "jive"
with other established facts, unless you want to think that he means
that their lifespan is 125 times the length of a human's. That's
possible, but the context that he uses it in implies 125 regenerations.
End Quote
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to suggest that
there had been many re-generations PRIOR to Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius" confusion).
Discuss.
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to
suggest that there had been many re-generations PRIOR to
Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius"
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly
establishes a limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated
by both the Doctor and the Master in The Keeper of Traken, the
4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Tonight's post from the past concerns Regeneration Limits, a
topic that has been close to the Hearts of some here-abouts,
recently!!
Quote from 'Olton' in the 'Favourite Dr Who' thread of June
1991 In "Nightmare of Eden," the Doctor says something about
timelords having 125 lives, and that he had had about 190.
This clearly doesn't "jive" with other established facts,
unless you want to think that he means that their lifespan is
125 times the length of a human's. That's possible, but the
context that he uses it in implies 125 regenerations. End
Quote
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to
suggest that there had been many re-generations PRIOR to
Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius" confusion).
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to
suggest that there had been many re-generations PRIOR to
Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius"
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly
establishes a limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated
by both the Doctor and the Master in The Keeper of Traken, the
4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Which would be fine and dandy as Doctor Who gospel if we wasn't
on the 15th Doctor... so where is that "limit" again?
Which just proves that Doctor Who is not consistent with
itself... and it's whatever the Executive Producer of the day
wants that counts!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <uvtoin$30ajm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to
suggest that there had been many re-generations PRIOR to
Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius"
confusion).
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly
establishes a limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated
by both the Doctor and the Master in The Keeper of Traken,
the 4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Good facts AGA!
Neither of you can handle the fact that Doctor Who has evolved
over the years and things change. Doctor Who will never be the
TV show it was in 1976 regardless of how much spitting of
dummies out of the pram happens. Life changes, people change,
the Doctor changes... that is the real fact here.
On 19/04/2024 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to
suggest that there had been many re-generations PRIOR to
Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius"
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly
establishes a limit of 12 regenerations and that is
repeated by both the Doctor and the Master in The Keeper
of Traken, the 4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Which would be fine and dandy as Doctor Who gospel if we
wasn't on the 15th Doctor... so where is that "limit" again?
Gatwa isn't the real Doctor. Doctor Who ended in 2017 after
the Doctor was given a new cycle of regeneration by the Time
Lords in The Time of the Doctor following the pleas of Clara.
The monstrosity of the Timeless Child created by Chibnall
after Doctor Who ended isn't canon.
Which just proves that Doctor Who is not consistent with
itself... and it's whatever the Executive Producer of the day
wants that counts!
No it doesn't. Staying true to the original character and
rationale is what counts. The Doctor died in The Fall of the
Doctor and that's it. I have written a fan fic in which he is
saved but it's fan fic just like everything written by Moffat,
Chibnall and Davies after the The Fall of the Doctor too.
In article <xn0okrqwaazkpgl000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
No it doesn't. Staying true to the original character and
rationale is what counts. The Doctor died in The Fall of the
Doctor and that's it. I have written a fan fic in which he
is saved but it's fan fic just like everything written by
Moffat, Chibnall and Davies after the The Fall of the
Doctor too.
Fan fic as a term doesn't automatically make something bad or
wrong. I've read some good fan fic over the years. I'd also
consider most of what Big Finish produce as fan fic, just
licensed by the BBC and released on audio... and a lot of it
is very good.
Being fair I suppose that's what any Doctor Who is really
when it all boils down to it if a fan of the show is the
Executive Producer... it's their ideas and their vision of
the show. Just like it would be yours or mine if we were
writing our ideas down on paper. The only difference is,
they are paid by the BBC which makes their ideas
legitimately part of the show.
Why don't you post your fan fic Doctor Who story somewhere
for us to read?
alt.drwho.creative is still kicking!
In article <uvtoin$30ajm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
Tonight's post from the past concerns Regeneration Limits, a topic that >>> has been close to the Hearts of some here-abouts, recently!!
Quote from 'Olton' in the 'Favourite Dr Who' thread of June 1991
In "Nightmare of Eden," the Doctor says something about timelords having >>> 125 lives, and that he had had about 190. This clearly doesn't "jive"
with other established facts, unless you want to think that he means
that their lifespan is 125 times the length of a human's. That's
possible, but the context that he uses it in implies 125 regenerations.
End Quote
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to suggest that
there had been many re-generations PRIOR to Hartnell (over and above the >>> "The Brain of Morbius" confusion).
Discuss.
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly establishes a
limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated by both the Doctor and
the Master in The Keeper of Traken, the 4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Maybe he was talking about going undercover 190 times or on 190
different planets or different historical periods.
Good facts AGA!
In article <v00f5u$3m6k4$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <uvtoin$30ajm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
Tonight's post from the past concerns Regeneration Limits, a topic that >>>>> has been close to the Hearts of some here-abouts, recently!!
Quote from 'Olton' in the 'Favourite Dr Who' thread of June 1991
In "Nightmare of Eden," the Doctor says something about timelords having >>>>> 125 lives, and that he had had about 190. This clearly doesn't "jive" >>>>> with other established facts, unless you want to think that he means >>>>> that their lifespan is 125 times the length of a human's. That's
possible, but the context that he uses it in implies 125 regenerations. >>>>> End Quote
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to suggest that >>>>> there had been many re-generations PRIOR to Hartnell (over and above the >>>>> "The Brain of Morbius" confusion).
Discuss.
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly establishes a
limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated by both the Doctor and >>>> the Master in The Keeper of Traken, the 4th Doctor's penultimate story. >>>>
Maybe he was talking about going undercover 190 times or on 190
different planets or different historical periods.
Good facts AGA!
Facts? Facts? (Not that I think there was any such discussion in Nightmare >> of Eden, but maybe my memory of that is faulty. Or maybe it’s another of >> those novelisation inventions like the nonsense Aggie loves from
Underworld.)
But wait - Aggie is saying that Deadly Assassin predates Nightmare of Eden >> therefore the 12 regeneration limit is absolute.
But Brain of Morbius came before that, and on screen showed 11 faces of the >> Doctor prior to Tom Baker’s. Therefore using Aggie’s logic, Peter Davison
was the 13th and final Doctor and when he says “Feels different this time”
he is dying. Doctor Who ended with Caves of Androzani in March 1984 and
every episode since has been a fever dream of the dying Doctor.
(I am of course not taking account of the retcon in the novelisation that
suggests the 8 unknown faces are those of Morbius. Morbius is clearly
winning the mind duel and it is the Doctor who is being pushed back, and
this was Philip Hinchcliffe’s intent).
Unless, of course, we go back further to The War Games, when the Doctor
reveals that his people can “live forever, barring accidents”. But perhaps
that can be construed as suggesting that Time Lords who do not suffer
twelve fatal accidents never reach their thirteenth and final incarnations. >>
Which explains the need for the Matrix - millions of years of memories
couldn’t possibly all be retained in one mind, so some sort of external
augmentation and storage would be very much needed.
But of course the idea that there had been earlier Doctors didn’t originate
with Morbius.
Whitaker's draft scripts (for The Power Of The Daleks) revealed that the
Doctor had been “renewed” before; he was to open a drawer in the console >> which contained relics from his previous incarnations, including an earring >> and a metal bracelet (which in the 60s would have suggested that at least
one previous Doctor had been female). The scripts also specified the
Doctor's age as 750 years, included various references to his grandchild
Susan -- whose present location the Doctor could no longer recall -- and
hinted that it might have been the Daleks who had destroyed his homeworld. >> All this material was cut in Dennis Spooner’s rewrites for time - much
additional background was removed to fit the very complex story and
introduction of the new Doctor into six episodes.
Then we move forward again to the 80s and The Five Doctors, where the
Master reveals that he has been offered a whole new cycle of regenerations. >> So the limit of 12 was never absolute, and the Master’s whole motivation >> for The Deadly Assassin is negated.
In short, a rigid insistence on a specific canon is pointless when it comes >> to Doctor Who. And paying any attention to Aggie, who insists on repeating >> his delusions about the show as “facts”, is a sure sign of a very limited
intellect. So know you know why Dave says what he says.
You seem to be skewered MM!
In article <v00i9e$3mvjr$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v00f5u$3m6k4$1@dont-email.me>,this time”
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <uvtoin$30ajm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
Tonight's post from the past concerns Regeneration Limits, a topic that
has been close to the Hearts of some here-abouts, recently!!
Quote from 'Olton' in the 'Favourite Dr Who' thread of June 1991 >>>>>>> In "Nightmare of Eden," the Doctor says something about timelords having
125 lives, and that he had had about 190. This clearly doesn't "jive" >>>>>>> with other established facts, unless you want to think that he means >>>>>>> that their lifespan is 125 times the length of a human's. That's >>>>>>> possible, but the context that he uses it in implies 125 regenerations. >>>>>>> End Quote
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to suggest that >>>>>>> there had been many re-generations PRIOR to Hartnell (over and above the
"The Brain of Morbius" confusion).
Discuss.
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly establishes a >>>>>> limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated by both the Doctor and >>>>>> the Master in The Keeper of Traken, the 4th Doctor's penultimate story. >>>>>>
Maybe he was talking about going undercover 190 times or on 190
different planets or different historical periods.
Good facts AGA!
Facts? Facts? (Not that I think there was any such discussion in Nightmare >>>> of Eden, but maybe my memory of that is faulty. Or maybe it’s another of >>>> those novelisation inventions like the nonsense Aggie loves from
Underworld.)
But wait - Aggie is saying that Deadly Assassin predates Nightmare of Eden >>>> therefore the 12 regeneration limit is absolute.
But Brain of Morbius came before that, and on screen showed 11 faces of the
Doctor prior to Tom Baker’s. Therefore using Aggie’s logic, Peter Davison
was the 13th and final Doctor and when he says “Feels different
But perhapshe is dying. Doctor Who ended with Caves of Androzani in March 1984 and >>>> every episode since has been a fever dream of the dying Doctor.
(I am of course not taking account of the retcon in the novelisation that >>>> suggests the 8 unknown faces are those of Morbius. Morbius is clearly
winning the mind duel and it is the Doctor who is being pushed back, and >>>> this was Philip Hinchcliffe’s intent).
Unless, of course, we go back further to The War Games, when the Doctor >>>> reveals that his people can “live forever, barring accidents”.
I have absolutely no idea what you think you mean by that Dave.that can be construed as suggesting that Time Lords who do not suffer
twelve fatal accidents never reach their thirteenth and final incarnations.
Which explains the need for the Matrix - millions of years of memories >>>> couldn’t possibly all be retained in one mind, so some sort of external >>>> augmentation and storage would be very much needed.
But of course the idea that there had been earlier Doctors didn’t originate
with Morbius.
Whitaker's draft scripts (for The Power Of The Daleks) revealed that the >>>> Doctor had been “renewed” before; he was to open a drawer in the console
which contained relics from his previous incarnations, including an earring
and a metal bracelet (which in the 60s would have suggested that at least >>>> one previous Doctor had been female). The scripts also specified the
Doctor's age as 750 years, included various references to his grandchild >>>> Susan -- whose present location the Doctor could no longer recall -- and >>>> hinted that it might have been the Daleks who had destroyed his homeworld. >>>> All this material was cut in Dennis Spooner’s rewrites for time - much >>>> additional background was removed to fit the very complex story and
introduction of the new Doctor into six episodes.
Then we move forward again to the 80s and The Five Doctors, where the
Master reveals that he has been offered a whole new cycle of regenerations.
So the limit of 12 was never absolute, and the Master’s whole motivation >>>> for The Deadly Assassin is negated.
In short, a rigid insistence on a specific canon is pointless when it comes
to Doctor Who. And paying any attention to Aggie, who insists on repeating >>>> his delusions about the show as “facts”, is a sure sign of a very limited
intellect. So know you know why Dave says what he says.
You seem to be skewered MM!
You do not know what skewered mean?
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <uvtoin$30ajm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
Tonight's post from the past concerns Regeneration Limits, a topic that >>>> has been close to the Hearts of some here-abouts, recently!!
Quote from 'Olton' in the 'Favourite Dr Who' thread of June 1991
In "Nightmare of Eden," the Doctor says something about timelords having >>>> 125 lives, and that he had had about 190. This clearly doesn't "jive"
with other established facts, unless you want to think that he means
that their lifespan is 125 times the length of a human's. That's
possible, but the context that he uses it in implies 125 regenerations. >>>> End Quote
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to suggest that >>>> there had been many re-generations PRIOR to Hartnell (over and above the >>>> "The Brain of Morbius" confusion).
Discuss.
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly establishes a
limit of 12 regenerations and that is repeated by both the Doctor and
the Master in The Keeper of Traken, the 4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Maybe he was talking about going undercover 190 times or on 190
different planets or different historical periods.
Good facts AGA!
Facts? Facts? (Not that I think there was any such discussion in Nightmare
of Eden, but maybe my memory of that is faulty. Or maybe it’s another of those novelisation inventions like the nonsense Aggie loves from
Underworld.)
But wait - Aggie is saying that Deadly Assassin predates Nightmare of Eden therefore the 12 regeneration limit is absolute.
But Brain of Morbius came before that, and on screen showed 11 faces of the Doctor prior to Tom Baker’s. Therefore using Aggie’s logic, Peter Davison
was the 13th and final Doctor and when he says “Feels different this time”
he is dying. Doctor Who ended with Caves of Androzani in March 1984 and
every episode since has been a fever dream of the dying Doctor.
(I am of course not taking account of the retcon in the novelisation that suggests the 8 unknown faces are those of Morbius. Morbius is clearly
winning the mind duel and it is the Doctor who is being pushed back, and
this was Philip Hinchcliffe’s intent).
Unless, of course, we go back further to The War Games, when the Doctor reveals that his people can “live forever, barring accidents”. But perhaps
that can be construed as suggesting that Time Lords who do not suffer
twelve fatal accidents never reach their thirteenth and final incarnations.
Which explains the need for the Matrix - millions of years of memories couldn’t possibly all be retained in one mind, so some sort of external augmentation and storage would be very much needed.
But of course the idea that there had been earlier Doctors didn’t originate with Morbius.
Whitaker's draft scripts (for The Power Of The Daleks) revealed that the
Doctor had been “renewed” before; he was to open a drawer in the console which contained relics from his previous incarnations, including an earring and a metal bracelet (which in the 60s would have suggested that at least
one previous Doctor had been female). The scripts also specified the
Doctor's age as 750 years, included various references to his grandchild
Susan -- whose present location the Doctor could no longer recall -- and hinted that it might have been the Daleks who had destroyed his homeworld. All this material was cut in Dennis Spooner’s rewrites for time - much additional background was removed to fit the very complex story and introduction of the new Doctor into six episodes.
Then we move forward again to the 80s and The Five Doctors, where the
Master reveals that he has been offered a whole new cycle of regenerations. So the limit of 12 was never absolute, and the Master’s whole motivation for The Deadly Assassin is negated.
In short, a rigid insistence on a specific canon is pointless when it comes to Doctor Who.
his delusions about the show as “facts”, is a sure sign of a very limited intellect. So know you know why Dave says what he says.
On 20/04/2024 14:15, The Last Doctor wrote:
But wait - Aggie is saying that Deadly Assassin predates
Nightmare of Eden therefore the 12 regeneration limit is
absolute.
But Brain of Morbius came before that, and on screen showed
11 faces of the Doctor prior to Tom Baker’s. Therefore using
Aggie’s logic, Peter Davison
No it doesn't. The faces other than Hartnell, Troughton, and
Pertwee were the faces of Morbius and that's what it says in
the novelization by Terrance Dicks who wrote the original
script.
Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
screen indicating that the more past regenerations you have
had the stronger your mind becomes in the game. Hinchcliffe
didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
But of course the idea that there had been earlier Doctors
didn’t originate with Morbius.
It didn't originate anywhere because The Tenth Planet is the
only Hartnell episode that establishes the existence of
regenerations (bodily renewals) and Hartnell states there and
then that he's never done it before.
So Troughton opens a draw and looks a Hartnell's past
possessions or keepsakes. This does not infer past renewals.
Earring and bracelet in the 1960s inferred pirate. In some
past adventure or other Hartnell had to dress up as a pirate.
[Doctor Who chat snipped so Dave can come along
with his thoughtful contribution...]
What a bunch of Chibnallites AGA!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 20/04/2024 14:15, The Last Doctor wrote:
But wait - Aggie is saying that Deadly Assassin predates
Nightmare of Eden therefore the 12 regeneration limit is
absolute.
But Brain of Morbius came before that, and on screen showed
11 faces of the Doctor prior to Tom Baker’s. Therefore using
Aggie’s logic, Peter Davison
No it doesn't. The faces other than Hartnell, Troughton, and
Pertwee were the faces of Morbius and that's what it says in
the novelization by Terrance Dicks who wrote the original
script.
Correct, that is what it says in the Target novel. Nobody has
ever disputed that.
Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
screen indicating that the more past regenerations you have
had the stronger your mind becomes in the game. Hinchcliffe
didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
the intent of the Production team of that story that those were
the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of Morbius"
as a child, that was the intent behind that scene. This is a
simple fact that has been mentioned many times over the years by
members of the production team (whose faces they actually were)
and it is easily researched.
Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation. So yes,
in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance over the
years where he explained why he changed it. But him not liking
the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the short version! He was
aware of the original intent behind that scene in the episode
though and has often talked about it.
But of course the idea that there had been earlier Doctors
didn’t originate with Morbius.
It didn't originate anywhere because The Tenth Planet is the
only Hartnell episode that establishes the existence of
regenerations (bodily renewals) and Hartnell states there and
then that he's never done it before.
Not correct. Clearly the idea originated or it wouldn't have
been part of the original "The Power of the Daleks" script.
However, the idea wasn't followed through with.
So Troughton opens a draw and looks a Hartnell's past
possessions or keepsakes. This does not infer past renewals.
Earring and bracelet in the 1960s inferred pirate. In some
past adventure or other Hartnell had to dress up as a pirate.
The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was cut from
the draft script following a discussion among the production
team.
to the children of 1967 that this sort of thing ("renewal") had
happened before so don't worry the Doctor isn't dead, this
happens all the time, sort of thing. Not because they actually
wanted to expand the show with pre-Hartnell Doctors. But the
idea was still there.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0okt4k1cdpbe1000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
screen indicating that the more past regenerations you have
had the stronger your mind becomes in the game. Hinchcliffe
didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
the intent of the Production team of that story that those
were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
This is a simple fact that has been mentioned many times
over the years by members of the production team (whose
faces they actually were) and it is easily researched.
Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation. So
yes, in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance over
the years where he explained why he changed it. But him not
liking the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the short
version! He was aware of the original intent behind that
scene in the episode though and has often talked about it.
I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
Unfortunately, Chris Chibnall decided that he liked the original
idea and ran with it when he created the "Fugitive" Doctor. So,
right or wrong, a pre-Hartnell 'Doctor' has now appeared
on-screen in multiple episodes of Doctor Who and is officially
part of the show. If anyone doesn't like that fact they can
ignore it and move on, or pretend Doctor Who ended in 2017, or
wait for Patrick Duffy to step out of the shower!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:23, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 19/04/2024 13:13, Daniel70 wrote:
So it would seem that Chris Chibnall was not the first to
suggest that there had been many re-generations PRIOR to
Hartnell (over and above the "The Brain of Morbius"
The Deadly Assassin which was 3 series earlier firmly
establishes a limit of 12 regenerations and that is
repeated by both the Doctor and the Master in The Keeper
of Traken, the 4th Doctor's penultimate story.
Which would be fine and dandy as Doctor Who gospel if we
wasn't on the 15th Doctor... so where is that "limit" again?
Gatwa isn't the real Doctor. Doctor Who ended in 2017 after
the Doctor was given a new cycle of regeneration by the Time
Lords in The Time of the Doctor following the pleas of Clara.
The monstrosity of the Timeless Child created by Chibnall
after Doctor Who ended isn't canon.
Which just proves that Doctor Who is not consistent with
itself... and it's whatever the Executive Producer of the day
wants that counts!
No it doesn't. Staying true to the original character and
rationale is what counts. The Doctor died in The Fall of the
Doctor and that's it. I have written a fan fic in which he is
saved but it's fan fic just like everything written by Moffat,
Chibnall and Davies after the The Fall of the Doctor too.
Fan fic as a term doesn't automatically make something bad or
wrong. I've read some good fan fic over the years. I'd also
consider most of what Big Finish produce as fan fic, just
licensed by the BBC and released on audio... and a lot of it is
very good.
Being fair I suppose that's what any Doctor Who is really when
it all boils down to it if a fan of the show is the Executive
Producer... it's their ideas and their vision of the show. Just
like it would be yours or mine if we were writing our ideas down
on paper. The only difference is, they are paid by the BBC which
makes their ideas legitimately part of the show.
Why don't you post your fan fic Doctor Who story somewhere for
us to read?
In article <v00q4r$3onc1$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v00i9e$3mvjr$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you think you mean by that Dave.
You seem to be skewered MM!
You do not know what skewered mean?
I absolutely do, in English. However I don’t think that when I demolish
Aggie’s silly argument and then point out that only an idiot would pay
attention to a fool who claims Doctor Who ended in 2017 when by the middle >> of June there will in actuality have been four more seasons since then,
that is me being “skewered” in any sense of the word in English.
Therefore I asked what YOU think you mean by it, as either the discussion
has gone completely over your head and you are imagining that something
completely different was written from what was actually written, or you are >> using a unique definition of “skewered” that somehow means something like
“brilliant”.
It’s a simple request. What do you think you mean by “skewered”?
You really are skewered MM!
In article <v02gsc$6qn1$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v00q4r$3onc1$1@dont-email.me>,Ah, so since you didn’t correct me by giving your alternative meaning, I >> take it you do mean “brilliant”.
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v00i9e$3mvjr$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you think you mean by that Dave.
You seem to be skewered MM!
You do not know what skewered mean?
I absolutely do, in English. However I don’t think that when I demolish >>>> Aggie’s silly argument and then point out that only an idiot would pay >>>> attention to a fool who claims Doctor Who ended in 2017 when by the middle >>>> of June there will in actuality have been four more seasons since then, >>>> that is me being “skewered” in any sense of the word in English.
Therefore I asked what YOU think you mean by it, as either the discussion >>>> has gone completely over your head and you are imagining that something >>>> completely different was written from what was actually written, or you are
using a unique definition of “skewered” that somehow means something like
“brilliant”.
It’s a simple request. What do you think you mean by “skewered”? >>>>
You really are skewered MM!
MM - The brilliant fool of atheism.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
the intent of the Production team of that story that those
were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
Nope. When I watched the story as a child the faces were
presumed to be those of Morbius as he was winning.
You were very clever then wasn't you, as that's not what the
intention behind that scene was, as you know. However, as I said
to Dave, people are free to take whatever interpretation they
want to from that scene, it doesn't change what the original
intent was. If people had read the Target novel first, before
watching the story on VHS or DVD (etc.), the idea that those
faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors would be a strange proposition
indeed. So I can accept that point of view.
But trying to say that the producer of "The Brain of Morbius"
didn't intend for them to be the faces of 'The Doctor' when
those episodes were filmed is historical revisionism.
Bi-generation is out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon and cannot be
accepted as being canon.
You make your own 'canon', or continuity... if you don't like
something in Doctor Who, just ignore it. I'm happy to do that.
Life is too short to get over-excited about what a TV producer
decides to do in an episode of a show.
Doctor Who ended in 2017.
I look forward to your reviews of the new Doctor Who episodes in
three weeks time. Oh hang on, it is 2024 right?! ;-)
Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was
cut from the draft script following a discussion among
the production team.
So they realized it would contradict what Hartnell said in
The Tenth Planet.
Not if the Second Doctor mentioned only one previous
incarnation!
Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who ended in 2017.
I look forward to your reviews of the new Doctor Who
episodes in three weeks time. Oh hang on, it is 2024 right?!
I don't!! My idea of a Review and the asswipe's idea of a
Review differ drastically!!
Blueshirt wrote on 22/4/24 5:34 am:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 20/04/2024 22:05, Blueshirt wrote:
Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
the intent of the Production team of that story that those
were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
Nope. When I watched the story as a child the faces were
presumed to be those of Morbius as he was winning.
You were very clever then wasn't you, as that's not what the
intention behind that scene was, as you know. However, as I said
to Dave, people are free to take whatever interpretation they
want to from that scene, it doesn't change what the original
intent was. If people had read the Target novel first, before
watching the story on VHS or DVD (etc.), the idea that those
faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors would be a strange proposition
indeed. So I can accept that point of view.
But trying to say that the producer of "The Brain of Morbius"
didn't intend for them to be the faces of 'The Doctor' when
those episodes were filmed is historical revisionism.
Did I read someone here or was it in the UseNet Archives??....
Did someone post that in 'The Brain of Morbius' there are actually TWO SCREENS and The Doctor is viewing one of these screens, seeing all those faces flash past.
So, I presume, Morbius could be watching the other screen, also seeing
faces flash past.
So couldn't each of them be seeing their own previous incarnations flash past .... which then brings up the question of all those other, extra,
faces ... that, to the best of the TV Viewer knowledge AT THAT TIME
hadn't been worn by The Doctor .... but the TV Viewer NOW knows could
have been previous Doctor Who incarnations.
[ Snip]
The [second Doctor] line about a previous "renewal" was cut
from the draft script following a discussion among the
production team.
So they realized it would contradict what Hartnell said in The
Tenth Planet.
Not if the Second Doctor mentioned only one previous incarnation!
It's possible somebody mentioned that. It was 1967, so who knows?
<shrugs> That line from the draft script was excised and we got
what we got in the episode.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor
Who bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of
the show is fine. We are all free to make our own
head-canon.
What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed
before Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and
the 1st Doctor in The Five Doctors. What transpired in The
Brain of Morbius can only be interpreted one way, the faces
viewers did not recognise were those of Morbius, just as
Terrance Dicks states in the Target novelization.
At the time, the kiddies didn't know that. Uncle Terrance's "The
Brain of Morbius" Target novel wasn't published until a year or
two later. So the BBC1 viewers of the day would have seen the
Doctor's faces on the screen go 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> then a few
more faces... so they could easily have interpreted it as they
were the faces of the Doctor. (As intended by Phillip
Hinchcliffe.)
Some children in 1976 wouldn't have been around to see any
William Hartnell episodes as a reference. We all watched Doctor
Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no repeat viewings,
videos or internet. A ten year old child in front of the
television in 1976 isn't going to know or care about established
"facts" that you maintain existed.
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0okv0j1dzlrrl001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0okufqzdooud7004@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things
to suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr
Chibnall chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
Retcon the Timeless Child!
Yes Dave, we heard you the 674th time... but thanks again for
your welcome contribution to the debate. At least your reply
is slightly relevant to the discussion, for once!
Mention it and you get called out.
That's your idea of calling somebody out? Methinks you'll need
to get up a bit earlier in the morning!
You are like a broken record...
If someone mentions Chris Chibnall, you say..
Retcon the Timeless Child!
If someone mentions the 15th Doctor, you say...
The REal 14th Doctor
If some says Easter, you say...
Ishtar
And on and on... <yawn>
You contribute nothing here bar one line sound bites, repeated
over and over again. You are such a bore.
The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0okt4k1cdpbe1000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Morbius is winning the game because his faces are on the
screen indicating that the more past regenerations you have
had the stronger your mind becomes in the game. Hinchcliffe
didn't write the story, it was Dicks.
Robert Holmes re-wrote the script as you well know and it was
the intent of the Production team of that story that those
were the faces of the Doctor. When you watched "The Brain of
Morbius" as a child, that was the intent behind that scene.
This is a simple fact that has been mentioned many times
over the years by members of the production team (whose
faces they actually were) and it is easily researched.
Terrance Dicks - like some fans - did not like the idea of
pre-Hartnell Doctors, so revised it in his novelisation. So
yes, in the Target novel they are the faces of Morbius.
There has been plenty of interviews with Uncle Terrance over
the years where he explained why he changed it. But him not
liking the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors is the short
version! He was aware of the original intent behind that
scene in the episode though and has often talked about it.
I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
What there is are established facts. No regenerations existed before
Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the 1st Doctor
in The Five Doctors.
Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William Hartnell Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First Incarnation of The Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number)
of times at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during his
reign??
Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had left??
In article <v08036$1i3mb$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
The Doctor wrote on 23/4/24 12:30 am:
In article <v05er9$teco$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel70
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other
William Hartnell Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he
was the First Incarnation of The Doctor or that he could,
in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number) of times
at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during
his reign??
Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell
had left??
Why just An Unearthly Child?
Do try READING FOR COMPREHENSION, a%e!! 'in "An Unearthly
Child" or *any of the other* William Hartnell Episodes'!!
And what abot the 10th Planet?
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
Doctor Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no
repeat viewings, videos or internet.
A ten year old child in front of the televison in
1976 isn't going to know or care about established
"facts" that you maintain existed.
A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out
from the start that the person whose face is on the screen is
the one who is winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the
faces after Tom Baker may as well have been those of Morbius
to the uninitiated.
Says you, because you know the story. I'm not sure a six year
old would actually care about whose faces they were, I was
around ten at the time and I didn't!
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year
old child knows more about story writing and can write better
Doctor Who episodes than Chris Chibnall.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that's actually correct.
But I say, right or wrong Chris Chibnall was the showrunner of
Doctor Who so they were his calls to make. A female 13th Doctor
and the Fugitive Doctor are part of the show.
RTD is the Doctor Who showrunner now and what happens with the
15th Doctor (and his companions) are his calls to make. Just as
bigeneration is part of the show now.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Doctor Who
evolves...
Doctor Who ended in 2017 since the character of the main
protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor.
You missed out the word "for me"!
As in... "Doctor Who ended for me in 2017 since the character of
the main protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor."
In article <v0881g$1ju4d$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 11:40, Daniel70 wrote:
The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
What there is are established facts.
Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the 1st Doctor >>>> in The Five Doctors.
Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William Hartnell >>> Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First Incarnation of The >>> Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number) >>> of times at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during his
reign??
It was implied from the very beginning that the character Hartnell
played was like any other human, other than the fact that he was a
fugitive from another world, as was his biological grand daughter Susan.
Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had left??
His possession of ability to perform bodily renewal is stated by
Hartnell in at the end of The Tenth Planet, as is the fact that he did
not know if it would work since he'd never had to perform it before,
just before he is shown to rejuvenate himself. Troughton was intended to
be a de-aged version of Hartnell.
When Troughton is interrogated by the Time Lords at the end of The War
Games no past forms of the Doctor are shown except those of Troughton
and Hartnell.
In The Three Doctors it is also demonstrated that there
are were only ever 3 incarnations of the Doctor at this time, and
Hartnell was the earliest.
Same goes for The Five Doctors.
Same goes for
the Doctor's memories in The Family of Blood.
Same goes for The Eleventh
Hour.
Same goes for Listen.
Same goes for Twice Upon A Time.
Exactly!
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
Doctor Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no
repeat viewings, videos or internet.
A ten year old child in front of the televison in
1976 isn't going to know or care about established
"facts" that you maintain existed.
A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out
from the start that the person whose face is on the screen is
the one who is winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the
faces after Tom Baker may as well have been those of Morbius
to the uninitiated.
Says you, because you know the story. I'm not sure a six year
old would actually care about whose faces they were, I was
around ten at the time and I didn't!
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year
old child knows more about story writing and can write better
Doctor Who episodes than Chris Chibnall.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that's actually correct.
But I say, right or wrong Chris Chibnall was the showrunner of
Doctor Who so they were his calls to make. A female 13th Doctor
and the Fugitive Doctor are part of the show.
RTD is the Doctor Who showrunner now and what happens with the
15th Doctor (and his companions) are his calls to make. Just as
bigeneration is part of the show now.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Doctor Who
evolves...
Doctor Who ended in 2017 since the character of the main
protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor.
You missed out the word "for me"!
As in... "Doctor Who ended for me in 2017 since the character of
the main protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor."
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
Doctor Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no
repeat viewings, videos or internet.
A ten year old child in front of the televison in
1976 isn't going to know or care about established
"facts" that you maintain existed.
A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out
from the start that the person whose face is on the screen is
the one who is winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the
faces after Tom Baker may as well have been those of Morbius
to the uninitiated.
Says you, because you know the story. I'm not sure a six year
old would actually care about whose faces they were, I was
around ten at the time and I didn't!
I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is rewatched.
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year
old child knows more about story writing and can write better
Doctor Who episodes than Chris Chibnall.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that's actually correct.
I’m sure it’s not. Chris Chibnall was never the best writer for Who but he’s far from the worst, and ridiculous hyperbole about 6 year old children really doesn’t help the debate.
But I say, right or wrong Chris Chibnall was the showrunner of
Doctor Who so they were his calls to make. A female 13th Doctor
and the Fugitive Doctor are part of the show.
RTD is the Doctor Who showrunner now and what happens with the
15th Doctor (and his companions) are his calls to make. Just as
bigeneration is part of the show now.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Doctor Who
evolves...
Doctor Who ended in 2017 since the character of the main
protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor.
You missed out the word "for me"!
As in... "Doctor Who ended for me in 2017 since the character of
the main protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor."
Er … it should have been
“Doctor Who ended for me in 2017 since, in my opinion, the character of the
main protagonist stopped being one that I personally was prepared to recognise as that of the Doctor."
Not that Aggie has ever been capable of distinguishing between his opinions and facts - like many people with mental health issues, he thinks they are one and the same thing.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/04/2024 11:40, Daniel70 wrote:
Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had
left??
His possession of ability to perform bodily renewal is stated
by Hartnell in at the end of The Tenth Planet, as is the fact
that he did not know if it would work since he'd never had to
perform it before, just before he is shown to rejuvenate
himself. Troughton was intended to be a de-aged version of
Hartnell.
When Troughton is interrogated by the Time Lords at the end of
The War Games no past forms of the Doctor are shown except
those of Troughton and Hartnell. In The Three Doctors it is
also demonstrated that there are were only ever 3 incarnations
of the Doctor at this time, and Hartnell was the earliest.
Same goes for The Five Doctors. Same goes for the Doctor's
memories in The Family of Blood. Same goes for The Eleventh
Hour. Same goes for Listen. Same goes for Twice Upon A Time.
And then in "Fugitive of the Judoon" we get introduced to Ruth
Clayton who turns out to be an unknown previous incarnation of
The Doctor... and another layer gets added to Doctor Who lore.
As someone here would say... gee whiz, we never saw that coming!
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v0881g$1ju4d$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 11:40, Daniel70 wrote:
The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 10:45 am:
On 21/04/2024 01:21, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I go with 4 Doctors taking on Morbius!
You can take from that scene whatever you like... it doesn't
change the way the scene was conceived. There is no Doctor Who
bible so whatever works for you and your enjoyment of the show
is fine. We are all free to make our own head-canon.
What there is are established facts.
Implied beliefs, it turns out. Not facts.
No regenerations existed before
Hartnell as stated by Hartnell in The Tenth Planet and the 1st Doctor >>>>> in The Five Doctors.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway.
Hey, Aggy, in "An Unearthly Child" or any of the other William Hartnell >>>> Episodes, did DoctorBill state that he was the First Incarnation of The >>>> Doctor or that he could, in fact, regenerate (pick a number, any number) >>>> of times at all?? Did he mention that ability at any time during his
reign??
No.
It was implied from the very beginning that the character Hartnell
played was like any other human, other than the fact that he was a
fugitive from another world, as was his biological grand daughter Susan.
That’s true. Did Aggie stop watching when it was revealed that the Doctor was an alien with two hearts who could regenerate?
What a complete retcon and destruction of the character and the show!
Doctor Who must have ended in 1966 when Hartnell regenerated!
Or was this "ability" ONLY mentioned AFTER Bill Hartnell had left??
His possession of ability to perform bodily renewal is stated by
Hartnell in at the end of The Tenth Planet, as is the fact that he did
not know if it would work since he'd never had to perform it before,
just before he is shown to rejuvenate himself. Troughton was intended to >>> be a de-aged version of Hartnell.
That’s all a load of horsefeathers. Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth Planet. He’s just
been rescued from captivity in the Cyberman ship.
DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's far from being all over.
BEN: What are you taking about?
DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
POLLY: All right, Doctor.
DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you catching your death
of cold.
(Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
(The Doctor leaves.)
Near the start of the episode he says everything else that is said about
his bodily condition:
POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit thin.
POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At all.
And Pat Troughton was never intended to be a de-aged Hartnell. In The Power
of the Doctor it’s made clear right away that he’s a completely different
personality and Ben has great difficulty believing he even is the Doctor.
When Troughton is interrogated by the Time Lords at the end of The War
Games no past forms of the Doctor are shown except those of Troughton
and Hartnell.
As far as I can recall no past forms of the Doctor are shown at all. There’s discussion of his actions and the Doctor shows mental images of recent foes: starting feebly with Quarks and Yeti, moving on to Ice
Warriors, Cybermen and Daleks.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway.
In The Three Doctors it is also demonstrated that there
are were only ever 3 incarnations of the Doctor at this time, and
Hartnell was the earliest.
That is correct.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, the Time Lords don’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway. So they would think there were only three.
Same goes for The Five Doctors.
True.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway.
Same goes for
the Doctor's memories in The Family of Blood.
True.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway.
And Aggie missed out the Next Doctor.
Same goes for The Eleventh
Hour.
True.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway.
Same goes for Listen.
Listen only has a scene supposedly from the Doctor’s childhood.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway, and it’s possible that regeneration started a a child.
Or that lots of Listen didn’t really happen.
Same goes for Twice Upon A Time.
True.
But all these recollections are pulled from the Doctor’s memories.
Of course, if the Timeless Child narrative is accurate, he doesn’t actually remember anything from before his Hartnell years anyway.
Exactly!
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be made to be completely consistent with the entire history of the show. It was crafted that way.
It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
So be like Elsa, and let it go.
In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be made to be
completely consistent with the entire history of the show. It was crafted
that way.
It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely unnecessary. But it >> hasn’t harmed the show.
So be like Elsa, and let it go.
I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
Doctor Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no
repeat viewings, videos or internet.
A ten year old child in front of the televison in
1976 isn't going to know or care about established
"facts" that you maintain existed.
A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out
from the start that the person whose face is on the screen is
the one who is winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the
faces after Tom Baker may as well have been those of Morbius
to the uninitiated.
Says you, because you know the story. I'm not sure a six year
old would actually care about whose faces they were, I was
around ten at the time and I didn't!
I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show >>> dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be >>> earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is
rewatched.
No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face
is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.
It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer
himself in his own novelization of his own script.
To anyone watching the episode who has never watched Doctor Who before,
and doesn't recognize Pertwee let along Hartnell it's made obvious from
the start that when Tom Baker's face is not on the screen then he's
losing to Morbius
and the intention of the director
and original script
writer is that all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year
old child knows more about story writing and can write better
Doctor Who episodes than Chris Chibnall.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that's actually correct.
I’m sure it’s not. Chris Chibnall was never the best writer for Who but >>> he’s far from the worst, and ridiculous hyperbole about 6 year old children
really doesn’t help the debate.
You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make
me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read
a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he
doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand
social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
But I say, right or wrong Chris Chibnall was the showrunner of
Doctor Who so they were his calls to make. A female 13th Doctor
and the Fugitive Doctor are part of the show.
RTD is the Doctor Who showrunner now and what happens with the
15th Doctor (and his companions) are his calls to make. Just as
bigeneration is part of the show now.
We don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. Doctor Who
evolves...
Doctor Who ended in 2017 since the character of the main
protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor.
You missed out the word "for me"!
As in... "Doctor Who ended for me in 2017 since the character of
the main protagonist stopped being that of the Doctor."
Er … it should have been
“Doctor Who ended for me in 2017 since, in my opinion, the character of the
Doctor Who ended for everyone.
main protagonist stopped being one that I personally was prepared to
recognise as that of the Doctor."
The character of the main protagonist stop being that of the Doctor period. >>
Not that Aggie has ever been capable of distinguishing between his opinions >>> and facts - like many people with mental health issues, he thinks they are >>> one and the same thing.
The fact that the viewership of the show and merchandise sales have
totally collapsed demonstrates that I am correct. 10 million viewers
down to only 4 million at best is terminal disaster. Only someone that
has been brainwashed by the woke propaganda of far left which emanates
the same hate filled bigotry as that of Adolf Hilter written in Mein
Kampf would think differently.
MM does get clueless.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 21/04/2024 19:59, Blueshirt wrote:
Doctor Who 'fresh' back then in the 1970's, with no
repeat viewings, videos or internet.
A ten year old child in front of the televison in
1976 isn't going to know or care about established
"facts" that you maintain existed.
A 6 year old child in front of the TV is going to figure out
from the start that the person whose face is on the screen is
the one who is winning. The Doctor lost and died. All the
faces after Tom Baker may as well have been those of Morbius
to the uninitiated.
Says you, because you know the story. I'm not sure a six year
old would actually care about whose faces they were, I was
around ten at the time and I didn't!
I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show
dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be >>>> earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is >>>> rewatched.
No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face
is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.
Contradiction is not an argument.
It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer
himself in his own novelization of his own script.
Aggie needs to make up his mind.
Does he want to include all off screen material by the writers directly relating to the show? If not, then no elaboration or additional fan fic
added in novelisations counts. If it was in the scripts but cut or changed
on screen then it is also no longer relevant. And on screen it’s clear those are pre-Hartnell Doctors and it’s so no matter how many times Aggie screams “IS NOT!”
But if so, then the material excised from the original writer’s scripts counts, and Whitaker’s take on renewal for the Power of the Daleks counts. And as that is earlier than Morbius then it takes precedence according to Aggie, and there are pre-Hartnell Doctors.
To anyone watching the episode who has never watched Doctor Who before,
and doesn't recognize Pertwee let along Hartnell it's made obvious from
the start that when Tom Baker's face is not on the screen then he's
losing to Morbius
and the intention of the director
Unless, you know, you believe the director. And the producer. And the
actual scriptwriter, Robert Holmes (Terrance Dicks’ original script was a true subversion of Frankenstein where the Monster is creating a Man, and disliked the total rewrite so much that he refused to be credited and the story is credited to “Robin Bland”).
and original script
writer is that all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
Aggie thinks Morbius was Tom Baker and the faces are meant to be Tom Baker
in disguise? Is that in Terrance Dicks novelisation too (or attempted total rewrite of the story, as it would seem)?
Or care that the producers of a TV show can change things to
suit themselves if they want to, like our friend Mr Chibnall
chose to do with Doctor Ruth!
Stop insulting the intelligence of the audience. Even a 6 year
old child knows more about story writing and can write better
Doctor Who episodes than Chris Chibnall.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that's actually correct.
I’m sure it’s not. Chris Chibnall was never the best writer for Who but
he’s far from the worst, and ridiculous hyperbole about 6 year old children
really doesn’t help the debate.
You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make
me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read
a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he
doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand
social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
Sounds like Aggie thinks he and Chris Chibnall are soulmates! He certainly seems to be describing himself (well, to be fair, Aggie does know a bit of science. But as he’s rejected logic and rationality, it doesn’t do him any
good).
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be made to be
completely consistent with the entire history of the show. It was crafted >>> that way.
It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely unnecessary. But it >>> hasn’t harmed the show.
So be like Elsa, and let it go.
I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
Doubt what you like. RTD has already doubled down on it in his first four episodes and cemented it in canon. So we’re all stuck with it, unless we go
the mentally unwell route and claim the show no longer exists even though
the BBC and Disney continue to produce and stream it, and millions of
viewers watch it.
In article <v0a8mg$261sh$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The clueless of MM is for all to see.
--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor
The True Doctor wrote on 21/4/24 11:11 am:
On 19/04/2024 22:39, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
Fan fic as a term doesn't automatically make something bad or wrong.
I've read some good fan fic over the years. I'd also consider most of
what Big Finish produce as fan fic, just licensed
by the BBC and released on audio... and a lot of it is very good.
Being fair I suppose that's what any Doctor Who is really when it
all boils down to it if a fan of the show is the Executive
Producer... it's their ideas and their vision of the show. Just like
it would be yours or mine if we were writing our ideas down on
paper. The only difference is, they are paid by the BBC which makes
their ideas legitimately part of the show.
It's fan fic if it's written in order to entertain fans instead of
the general audience
Is there really any such thing as 'the general audience"??
Sure, anybody could watch a program once or twice, three times even, but
if they keep coming back again and again and again and again, aren't
they, then, really, FANS??
or just one group of fans or one fan or fake fan alone as in the case
of Chibnall who utterly despised the show
"utterly despised the show"?? REALLY?? If someone 'utterly despised a
show', couldn't they just STOP watching it?? Or are they strapped into a chair with toothpicks keeping their eyes open??
On 24/04/2024 00:44, The Last Doctor wrote:
Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a
renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
It's stated in the Novelization.
Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth
Planet. He’s just been rescued from captivity in the
Cyberman ship.
DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all
over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's
far from being all over. BEN: What are you taking about?
DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
POLLY: All right, Doctor.
DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you
catching your death of cold.
(Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
(The Doctor leaves.)
Near the start of the episode he says everything else that
is said about his bodily condition:
POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside
influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit
thin. POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At
all.
It's in the Novelization of the story.
In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
the show. It was crafted that way.
It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
So be like Elsa, and let it go.
I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
the show. It was crafted that way.
It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
So be like Elsa, and let it go.
I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
Who lore.
YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <v09h5j$1th3u$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Chibnall's revisions must be retconned!
As shown above, Chibnall’s Timeless Child narrative can be
made to be completely consistent with the entire history of
the show. It was crafted that way.
It’s awfully convoluted and contrived, and completely
unnecessary. But it hasn’t harmed the show.
So be like Elsa, and let it go.
I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created and
written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and broadcast on
BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate. Therefore it can't
be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has become part of Doctor
Who lore.
YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 24/04/2024 00:44, The Last Doctor wrote:
Hartnell says nothing about his ability to perform a
renewal or whether he’d ever done it before.
It's stated in the Novelization.
Which was written years after the episodes were
written/broadcast and with hindsight. (i.e. after "Time Lords"
and "regeneration" had been added to Doctor Who lore.)
Here’s everything the Doctor says at the end of The Tenth
Planet. He’s just been rescued from captivity in the
Cyberman ship.
DOCTOR: What did you say, my boy? It's all over. It's all
over. That's what you said. No, but it isn't all over. It's
far from being all over. BEN: What are you taking about?
DOCTOR: I must get back to the Tardis immediately!
POLLY: All right, Doctor.
DOCTOR: Yes, I must go now.
BEN: Aren't we going to go back to say goodbye or anything?
DOCTOR: No. No, I must go at once.
BEN: Oh well, you better have this. We don't want you
catching your death of cold.
(Ben hands the Doctor his cloak.)
DOCTOR: Ah, yes. Thank you. It's good. Keep warm.
(The Doctor leaves.)
Near the start of the episode he says everything else that
is said about his bodily condition:
POLLY: What's happened to you, Doctor?
DOCTOR: Oh, I'm not sure, my dear. Comes from an outside
influence. Unless this old body of mine is wearing a bit
thin. POLLY: What do you mean, wearing a bit thin?
DOCTOR: Oh, don't worry child, don't worry, don't worry.
No mention of renewal or how many times it’s happened. At
all.
It's in the Novelization of the story.
Are you Jonathan Blum in disguise? IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE TV
EPISODE! Any additional material in novelisation might become
part of the Doctor Who expanded universe by being featured in a
novel, but a book doesn't supersede what people saw on-screen.
Not every person who watched Doctor Who read the Target books.
Doctor Who is a TV show first and foremost.
In article <xn0okyrzpi55cpz002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
I doubt anything in the Timeless Child is accurate!
How can it be inaccurate? The "Timeless Child" was created
and written by the Doctor Who Executive Producer and
broadcast on BBC1. You can't get anything more legitimate.
Therefore it can't be inaccurate and the Timeless Child has
become part of Doctor Who lore.
YOU may not like the idea. I may not like the idea. But it is
officially part of the show... and it's not likely to change
anytime soon. (Based on what we've seen from RTD so far.)
The Timeless Child is Anti-doctorWho!
On 2024-04-24 1:27 p.m., The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/04/2024 11:21, Daniel70 wrote:
Is there really any such thing as 'the general audience"??
Sure, anybody could watch a program once or twice, three
times even, but if they keep coming back again and again
and again and again, aren't they, then, really, FANS??
"utterly despised the show"?? REALLY?? If someone 'utterly
despised a show', couldn't they just STOP watching it?? Or
are they strapped into a chair with toothpicks keeping
their eyes open??
Chibnall hated Doctor Who so much that he destroyed it for
every. No one one can watch it at all.
Well except for those millions of viewers, don't forget about
them.
In article <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 07:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show
dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be >>>>>> earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is >>>>>> rewatched.
No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face >>>>> is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.
Contradiction is not an argument.
Yes it is. It's used all the time in mathematical proofs.
It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer >>>>> himself in his own novelization of his own script.
Aggie needs to make up his mind.
Does he want to include all off screen material by the writers directly
relating to the show? If not, then no elaboration or additional fan fic
added in novelisations counts. If it was in the scripts but cut or changed >>> on screen then it is also no longer relevant. And on screen it’s clear >>> those are pre-Hartnell Doctors and it’s so no matter how many times Aggie >>> screams “IS NOT!”
But if so, then the material excised from the original writer’s scripts >>> counts, and Whitaker’s take on renewal for the Power of the Daleks counts.
And as that is earlier than Morbius then it takes precedence according to >>> Aggie, and there are pre-Hartnell Doctors.
Absolute rubbish.
Terrance Dicks wrote the original script and wrote the novelization.
all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
Aggie thinks Morbius was Tom Baker and the faces are meant to be Tom Baker >>> in disguise? Is that in Terrance Dicks novelisation too (or attempted total >>> rewrite of the story, as it would seem)?
I said nothing of the kind.
You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make >>>>> me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read >>>>> a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he >>>>> doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand >>>>> social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
Sounds like Aggie thinks he and Chris Chibnall are soulmates! He certainly >>> seems to be describing himself (well, to be fair, Aggie does know a bit of >>> science. But as he’s rejected logic and rationality, it doesn’t do him any
good).
Sounds like a depiction of your own self.
Hear! Hear!! AGA!
The unTrue Doctor has no idea about truth:
To anyone watching the episode who has never watched Doctor Who before,
and doesn't recognize Pertwee let along Hartnell it's made obvious from
the start that when Tom Baker's face is not on the screen then he's
losing to Morbius and the intention of the director and original script
writer is that all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
If the faces are Morbius, why is he in Victorian/Edwardian clothes
of the sort associated with the Doctor? Why isn’t he in Time
Lord robes?
You say he’s ‘in disguise’ but that disguise would make him
stick out like a sore thumb (maybe even two or three sore thumbs)
on Gallifrey. Just who is he supposed to be disguised as, and why?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 127:22:27 |
| Calls: | 46 |
| Files: | 21,492 |
| Messages: | 64,837 |
