Doctor Who in the Star Trek universe

[Christopher]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

No, they really aren't part of Who canon. In those movies, Cushing plays a character actually named "Doctor Who" who is actually a human inventor.

I gather there's a theory in one of the tie-ins that the movies represent a fictionalized version of the Doctor's adventures written by, I think, Barbara after returning to the 1960s.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Christopher wrote:

---

I gather there's a theory in one of the tie-ins that the movies represent a fictionalized version of the Doctor's adventures written by, I think, Barbara after returning to the 1960s.

There's a bunch of different theories and explanations as to how the Cushing films may fit in.

The Human Nature novel (in bits given to Cornell by Steven Moffat) hints that someone who just might be the Cushing Doctor (although not exactly as the fictional story John Smith writes has him living in Victorian times) founded Gallifrey and might have been "the Other."

In recent years, there's been quite a few people who have suggested he's an older version of the human-aging Tenth Doctor in Pete's World after he's lost his memory and that Suzie Who's grandmother is actually Rose.

Or it may just been an universe slightly to the left of the regular one.

Besides, Doctor Who doesn't even have an official canon like Paramount and Lucasfilm has. The BBC couldn't give a fuck about things like that and the people who have made the show from 2005+ onwards have taken the same attitude about the Cushing films as they have about the classic series, the novels, the audios, everything; take what they want, ignore what they don't (hence the Cushing-esque ear-lamps on the RTD and New Paradigm Daleks and the looks brand new, St. John's sticker and all TARDIS of the Matt Smith era).

[Andrew_Kearley]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

No, they really aren't part of Who canon. In those movies, Cushing plays a character actually named "Doctor Who" who is actually a human inventor.

You mean, they're not in continuity with the tv series. Well, I wouldn't refute that. But they're part of the "canon", as in they're part of the body of work that resides under the title of "Doctor Who". Otherwise, as others have said, there is no concept of an officially sanctioned canon in Doctor Who - and in a show that actively embraces alternate timelines, parallel universes and rewrites history at the drop of a hat, there can't be really. The Cushing movies are as much a part of this huge story as anything else. Your arguments are spurious to say the least, especially since the tv series itself and many of the comic strips have named the character "Doctor Who" on occasion - it's just a pseudonym after all as is "the Doctor". And there's no point in either of the films where Doctor Who is expressly identified as a human being, rather than a human-seeming alien living on Earth, as was the tv Doctor. The tv series itself had barely established that the Doctor was alien at this point.

[Thete]

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

as others have said, there is no concept of an officially sanctioned canon in Doctor Who

I disagree, there was until the 2005 series - it seems to be an excuse Moffat is using to do what he wants.

[Pindar]

Christopher wrote:

---

I gather there's a theory in one of the tie-ins that the movies represent a fictionalized version of the Doctor's adventures written by, I think, Barbara after returning to the 1960s.

Wormhole Extreme!

[Andrew_Kearley]

Thete wrote:

---

I disagree, there was until the 2005 series

Indeed? Could you point me towards it please?

[The Wormhole]

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

The tv series itself had barely established that the Doctor was alien at this point.

Huh? The Doctor stated quite clearly in An Unearthly Child he was from another planet.

[Andrew_Kearley]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Huh? The Doctor stated quite clearly in An Unearthly Child he was from another planet.

That doesn't mean that he's not an advanced human from a future civilization or colony world. The Doctor refers to himself as a human being in "The Savages" for example, and in "The Evil of the Daleks", it's implied that the Doctor has become more than human only by virtue of his extensive time travelling. The whole Time Lord thing wasn't established until later.

[Captaindemotion]

By virtue of being a remake of a story or stories already told within the series proper - like, say the relationship between Never Say Never Again and Thunderball - I would say that the Cushing movies clearly fall outside the continuity and canon of DW proper.

They are, of course, an interesting addition to the DW universe or multiverse. A sort of apocryphal legend, I'd say.

[Redfern]

The OP made a point that the Daleks as they appeared in the Cushing films with their bold paint jobs might be well suited for Trek. Oddly enough, for some shots, I think the subdued hues of the earlier casings, like those in "The Dead Planet" and the "Dalek Invasion of Earth" work better.



Sincerely,

Bill

[Christopher]

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

That doesn't mean that he's not an advanced human from a future civilization or colony world. The Doctor refers to himself as a human being in "The Savages" for example, and in "The Evil of the Daleks", it's implied that the Doctor has become more than human only by virtue of his extensive time travelling. The whole Time Lord thing wasn't established until later.

That does seem to be true -- the Doctor also referenced "we humans" in "The Sensorites." And he was referred to as having a "special human brain" in "The War Machines." The Daleks in "The Chase" referred to "The Doctor and the three humans" at one point, not "the other three humans" -- but otherwise they lumped the Doctor together with "the humans" or "the four humans." As late as "The Faceless Ones," the Chameleons identify the Doctor as human, though that might just be an assumption because they found out the Doctor hadn't been substituted by one of them. And he doesn't protest being called human in "The Seeds of Death."

Then again, in "The Ice Warriors," the Second Doctor says, "What do you mean, I'm only human? As a matter of fact--" but then he's interrupted. And in "The Wheel in Space" he explains Cybermen to another character as having once been "human beings like yourself" -- implying he himself isn't one. He also refers to humans as "they" in "The Enemy of the World."

Still, how is it relevant? It may be true that the makers of the Cushing movies had no reason not to make the Doctor human at the time. But it is also true that the Doctor has been defined as an alien for the past 44 years at least, so there's still no way to reconcile the movies with the series continuity as it now stands.

And even at the time, the continuities were clearly different, since he wasn't a person who came from another world and another time and was known only as the Doctor, but was a present-day English inventor named Dr. Who.

And really, what's wrong with that? It's all make-believe anyway, so where's the harm in doing different, incompatible interpretations of a fictional premise?

[Klaus]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

By virtue of being a remake of a story or stories already told within the series proper - like, say the relationship between Never Say Never Again and Thunderball - I would say that the Cushing movies clearly fall outside the continuity and canon of DW proper.

They are, of course, an interesting addition to the DW universe or multiverse. A sort of apocryphal legend, I'd say.

Well if we're suggesting that Trek and TV Who are parallel universes, then perhaps the Cushing universe is also one, a much closer parallel?

[Thete]

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

Indeed? Could you point me towards it please?

Sure, just go and watch classic Who.

My point is far more evident when you take into account that Moffat has literally had events in his series erase prior timelines to support the theory that there is no canon.

Whether there's a canon or not, in this sense it's undeniably true that the Cushing films were not part of the same universe or time line as the television series, nor were they depicting the same character.

Also, in An Unearthly Child:
"We are not of this race. We are not of this earth. Susan and I are wanderers in the fourth dimension of time and space."

[Andrew_Kearley]

Christopher wrote:

---

Still, how is it relevant? It may be true that the makers of the Cushing movies had no reason not to make the Doctor human at the time. But it is also true that the Doctor has been defined as an alien for the past 44 years at least, so there's still no way to reconcile the movies with the series continuity as it now stands.

And even at the time, the continuities were clearly different, since he wasn't a person who came from another world and another time and was known only as the Doctor, but was a present-day English inventor named Dr. Who.

I've never denied that the continuities were different. I'm just opposed to this idea that there's some sort of defined "canon" and that things can be either in it or out of it. The films are as much a part of the body of work that constitutes "Doctor Who" as the hundreds of novels and audio plays and comic strips - and there were a few tv episodes as well.

I also maintain that the Cushing films don't make such a bold definitive statement that the character is an English inventor - it may just be that he appears to be one. It's an re-imagining (I believe that's the buzzword) of the original concept. I don't see how "alien exile living on Earth and building new time machine in the back garden" is fundamentally different from "alien exile living on Earth and trying to repair damaged time machine in a junkyard". Just as we didn't know at that time whether the tv Doctor was human or alien or what, we didn't know definitively that the movie Doctor was human or alien. If there's one message that should be apparent in Doctor Who, it's not to judge by appearances.

And really, what's wrong with that? It's all make-believe anyway, so where's the harm in doing different, incompatible interpretations of a fictional premise?

Absolutely no harm at all. That's always been my point. The very concept of Doctor Who allows us to accept multiple timelines and parallel realities as standard, so why's this different?

Thete wrote:

---

Sure, just go and watch classic Who.

My point is far more evident when you take into account that Moffat has literally had events in his series erase prior timelines to support the theory that there is no canon.

I've seen all of classic Who, thanks. I don't see how that supports your argument. It's a tv show full of contradictions. What about the novels, comics, audio plays, etc?

And it's not Moffat's theory. It's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint held by a great number of Who fans.

Whether there's a canon or not, in this sense it's undeniably true that the Cushing films were not part of the same universe or time line as the television series, nor were they depicting the same character.

Well, I deny it. Yes, not in the same timeline, where have I suggested they were? But there's only one Doctor Who - let's face it, he's been depicted with eleven different characters in the tv series alone. What's one more alternative version?

Also, in An Unearthly Child:
"We are not of this race. We are not of this earth. Susan and I are wanderers in the fourth dimension of time and space."

Bzzz! Incorrect! You're quoting the unscreened pilot version there. Naughty...

DOCTOR: Yes, my civilisation. I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it. Have you ever thought what it's like to be wanderers in the fourth dimension? Have you? To be exiles? Susan and I are cut off from our own planet, without friends or protection. But one day we shall get back. Yes, one day. One day.

[Captaindemotion]

I suppose it depends how you define 'canon.' Sherlock Holmes fans use it to mean novels written by Conan Doyle. The Bible means the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

If you apply the same sort of criteria to DW, I would argue that the likes of books, radio dramas, DW unbound and the Cushing movies fall outside the definition of canon, no matter how influential they have proven to be or how well they fit in within the continuity of the series.

But like Christopher says, it's all fantasy anyway, so does it really matter? Besides, IMHO, some 'non-canon' stuff from any series or franchise can be more entertaining than the canon stuff. Many of the Treklit novels for example.