"Terraphiles" observtions (SPOILERS!!!)

[Chaos Descending]

I just want to say, the next person that links to Paul Cornell's tired, single-minded op-ed piece during a discussion on continuity in Doctor Who will find their home country, province, or state under siege by my alien forces. That's all I'm going say...

But that's a non-canon opinion, so said alien siege might have to be covered in the spin-off novels.

 

[The]

Laveen, Arizona......you are spared. For now!

 

[Chaos Descending]

Woot! YES! :airpunch:

 

[captcalhoun]

as far as i'm concerned only TV broadcast Who, SJA and Torchwood count. aparat from Dimensions in Tme and A Fix With Sontarans. and COTFD which was a parody.

 

[Whofan]

Thing about spin-off continuity is that it eventually gets very bloated. For instance, Star Trek's a prime example as there are many versions in the novels and comics of events not seen on TV.

Star Wars is another example. The Clone Wars CGI toon ignores a lot about what was previously established in the earlier cartoons, novels, and comics.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

as far as i'm concerned only TV broadcast Who, SJA and Torchwood count.

Which means you cut yourself off from some of the best Doctor Who stories ever produced. Shame.

aparat from Dimensions in Tme and A Fix With Sontarans. and COTFD which was a parody.

Why bother making the distinction? Doctor Who's daft enough as it is...

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

Thing about spin-off continuity is that it eventually gets very bloated. For instance, Star Trek's a prime example as there are many versions in the novels and comics of events not seen on TV.

Star Wars is another example. The Clone Wars CGI toon ignores a lot about what was previously established in the earlier cartoons, novels, and comics.

In regards to Doctor Who though, it's already bloated even without the spin-off media. Those people who only want to count the tv series have got to face the fact that its continuity is convoluted and that the series has contradicted itself many times over. The great thing about Doctor Who is that it's specifically set in a multiverse that allows for all things to be possible. By which I don't mean necessarily the usual parallel universe stuff that tv sci-fi tends to do - but rather the sort of quantum theory ideas that all possible outcomes can occur. In Doctor Who, timelines can be rewritten and history changes at the drop of a hat. (Famously, there's the scene in "Pyramids of Mars" when the Doctor demonstrates how the future will be completely destroyed if they don't find a way of defeating Sutekh.) So, it's unrealistic to expect the universe to remain consistent. Every time the Doctor steps out of the Tardis, the whole fabric of space-time might have subtly altered from the last time we saw it. For the Doctor, a Time Lord, able to see beyond the simple web of cause and effect, these things must just seem completely normal - we the viewers might notice that things are different, but that's our own narrow perspective.

 

[captcalhoun]

apart from Dimensions in Tme and A Fix With Sontarans. and COTFD which was a parody.

Why bother making the distinction? Doctor Who's daft enough as it is...

1. because DiT is shite.
2. beccause it was a kid's wish-fulfillment fantasy
3. because it was clearly written as a parody.

 

[EJA]

Death Comes to Time, Scream of the Shalka and NuWho can't all "really" happen together in the same continuum though, if you catch my drift.

 

[EJA]

The agents of Chaos and Law could be agents of the Guardians, or they could be agents of those above the Guardians.

I find it difficult to imagine that there are beings higher than the Guardians in the Whoniverse; they seem pretty darn omnipotent and all-powerful to me. The fact that they both represent the principles of order (White Guardian) and anarchy and chaos (Black Guardian) also seems important to me regarding Moorcock's system. But then the novel also appears to imply that the Doctor is more of a Chaotic being, which makes it hard to understand why the White Guardian would employ him and the Black Guardian would want to destroy him....

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

apart from Dimensions in Tme and A Fix With Sontarans. and COTFD which was a parody.

Why bother making the distinction? Doctor Who's daft enough as it is...

1. because DiT is shite.

So is "The Time Monster", do you want to throw that out too?

2. beccause it was a kid's wish-fulfillment fantasy

Reagrdless of the behind-the-scenes circumstances of what it was written, in what way does it not function as a Doctor Who story though?

3. because it was clearly written as a parody.

I would say it was more written as an homage. Unlike other parodies by Emu, Lenny Henry, Victoria Wood, End of Part One, etc, this one sets out to be an actual Doctor Who story - it may have a bit of metatextual fun with the show's tropes, but it still functions as a story. And it was promoted at the time in Radio Times and so on, as a proper return for Doctor Who - Rowan Atkinson was trumpeted as the ninth Doctor.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Death Comes to Time, Scream of the Shalka and NuWho can't all "really" happen together in the same continuum though, if you catch my drift.

But now you're talking about something else entirely.

Canon refers to something that is authoritative, official, and sanctioned. Insofar as the BBC is concerned, all three stories bear the official BBC mark. Canonicity is presumed in absence of other evidence, and the BBC has never said that Death Comes to Time or Shalka are not canon. (Now, Paul Cornell has said that, in his opinion, Shalka is no longer canon. But, frankly, he's not in a position to make that determination.)

You're talking about continuity. Which pieces hang together. And of the three I cited and you've repeated, the only one that doesn't hang together with the rest is Death Comes to Time. I can fit it into continuity (it's an archetypal story about an archetypal Doctor and an archetypal companion, but the only way that we non-archetypes can understand it is if it uses characters in whom we have a connection), but that's a purely personal decision. There's no reason that Shalka doesn't fit into continuity; it's just a question of where Richard E. Grant goes in the Doctor's timeline. (I see no reason that he can't go in between McGann and Eccleston, frankly, in spite of dialogue in "The Lodger.")

Ultimately, canon is an objective descriptor (whether or not it's official), while continuity is more personal and, thus, more subjective.

 

[The]

Why bother making the distinction? Doctor Who's daft enough as it is...

1. because DiT is shite.

So is "The Time Monster", do you want to throw that out too?

No, because "The Time Monster" was part of the linear episodic format of the series itself. DiT is a one-off special that came on after the show was no longer airing. After that, the modern series has already contradicted the notion of the two shows sharing the same universe, as in Doomsday you can see Eastenders is just a television show. So, that categorically denies DiT ever happening within the realm of fact for the show.

2. beccause it was a kid's wish-fulfillment fantasy

Reagrdless of the behind-the-scenes circumstances of what it was written, in what way does it not function as a Doctor Who story though?

Because the actor playing The Doctor, the actress playing Tegan, and the host of show, all break the Fourth-Wall at the end by awarding the kid a medal for being on the show. Thus, it was a skit on a separate television show that has absolutely nothing to do with the series itself.

3. because it was clearly written as a parody.

I would say it was more written as an homage. Unlike other parodies by Emu, Lenny Henry, Victoria Wood, End of Part One, etc, this one sets out to be an actual Doctor Who story - it may have a bit of metatextual fun with the show's tropes, but it still functions as a story. And it was promoted at the time in Radio Times and so on, as a proper return for Doctor Who - Rowan Atkinson was trumpeted as the ninth Doctor.

Yet, Steven Moffat...the writer of said show, and current head of the actual Doctor Who television series...has stated, point-blank, that it is a parody. End of story.


I'm not trying to take away your fun by merging all this random minutia together in an attempt to create a cohesive universe. I fully support your right as a fan to do so. But, you can't simply argue that peripheral media like DiT or Jim'll Fix It is in any way part of the series history. They aren't, any more than SNL's Trek skits are part of Star Trek, or Conan O'Brien's roasting of Twilight means it's part of that movie.

Novels? Big Finish? Fun times. Go nuts. DiT? Not hardly...

 

[The]

(Now, Paul Cornell has said that, in his opinion, Shalka is no longer canon. But, frankly, he's not in a position to make that determination.)

Wait a sec....how can you say that when everytime there is a discussion on "canon" Paul Cornell denies there even IS such a thing?

There's no reason that Shalka doesn't fit into continuity; it's just a question of where Richard E. Grant goes in the Doctor's timeline. (I see no reason that he can't go in between McGann and Eccleston, frankly, in spite of dialogue in "The Lodger.")

Now, see, this is the only problem I have ever had with the way you put things together. It's one thing to find somewhere fun to stick Alternate Media, if it works. I get that, totally. But, you are purposefully ignoring a stated fact within the show to suit your personal fantasy. That's the part where I find you can no longer justify your position on the subject. It's one thing to "compliment" the show with these other stories. It's another entirely to "rewrite" fact to suit this purpose...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Now, see, this is the only problem I have ever had with the way you put things together. It's one thing to find somewhere fun to stick Alternate Media, if it works. I get that, totally. But, you are purposefully ignoring a stated fact within the show to suit your personal fantasy. That's the part where I find you can no longer justify your position on the subject. It's one thing to "compliment" the show with these other stories. It's another entirely to "rewrite" fact to suit this purpose...

Because the facts themselves as presented in the series are inconsistent. Doctor Who has told us that William Hartnell is the first. It has also said that Hartnell is the ninth Doctor. These facts contradict themselves. But both are true for Doctor Who. Likewise, "The Next Doctor" tells us that Eccleston follows from McGann, but Shalka also tells us that Grant follows from McGann. Again, contradictory facts in conflict. The facts themselves are not in argument, it's what the facts mean that is.

The facts themselves are objective. The interpretation of those facts is subjective. Canon. Continuity. Two entirely different things.

The problem, The, is that by stating "alternate media," you're assuming that some material is more important than others. More specifically, you presume a primacy of the filmed material, and more recent filmed material over older filmed material. But there's no basis for that presumption, because the BBC has never made that presumption.

 

[The]

Because the facts themselves as presented in the series are inconsistent. Doctor Who has told us that William Hartnell is the first. It has also said that Hartnell is the ninth Doctor. These facts contradict themselves.

Because only ONE of those is a fact. The other is FAN THEORY. It has no actual bearing or weight in reality. I am baffled that that isn't clear for you. William Hartnell was the 1st Doctor. Nothing before or after has ever "contradicted" or even challenged that.

But both are true for Doctor Who. Likewise, "The Next Doctor" tells us that Eccleston follows from McGann, but Shalka also tells us that Grant follows from McGann. Again, contradictory facts in conflict. The facts themselves are not in argument, it's what the facts mean that is.

The facts themselves are objective. The interpretation of those facts is subjective. Canon. Continuity. Two entirely different things.

No dude, they're not. You choose to see it that way because it suits your personal needs. Even when the BBC were saying "Oh yeah, he's going to be the 9th Doctor", it was only in the audio/flash format. It wasn't on the television show. So, that right there eliminates it from consideration in the actual history and timeline. And if you don't believe that, then you have to at least accept that they came behind it less than a year later and said "Nope, Eccleston will be the 9th Doctor". Either way, Shalka is irrelevant to Doctor Who.

The problem, The, is that by stating "alternate media," you're assuming that some material is more important than others. More specifically, you presume a primacy of the filmed material,

Yes I do, because it is more important. The television show is Doctor Who. Everything else around that is Alternate Media that is to be enjoyed but is simply irrelevant to the actual show itself. Ask anyone. I am positive that all but a few fans like yourself will tell you the exact same thing.

and more recent filmed material over older filmed material.

No, not at all. The Classic Era and the Modern era are all of equal importance to me, as it's the same show.

But there's no basis for that presumption, because the BBC has never made that presumption.

Yes they have. When they declare if something is "officially" the 9th Doctor (as they did briefly with Shalka and again with Eccles) or when RTD states that the television show does not consider any Alternate Media in relation to the series itself.....this is the BBC defining the rules of their show.

As I have said previously, you want to make-believe everything fits, I'm all for it man. I'll never give you crap for simply being a fan like that. But, when you start claiming that pieces of the actual televison show itself doesn't exist solely to perpetuate your own personal fantasy? That's the cart leading the horse, and it's wrong...

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

1. because DiT is shite.

So is "The Time Monster", do you want to throw that out too?

No, because "The Time Monster" was part of the linear episodic format of the series itself. DiT is a one-off special that came on after the show was no longer airing.

Like the Paul McGann movie in fact. Shall we ignore that too?

After that, the modern series has already contradicted the notion of the two shows sharing the same universe, as in Doomsday you can see Eastenders is just a television show. So, that categorically denies DiT ever happening within the realm of fact for the show.

I do love the way you think everything in the wonderfully self-contradictory mess that is Doctor Who can be taken as such absolute fact.

Because the actor playing The Doctor, the actress playing Tegan, and the host of show, all break the Fourth-Wall at the end by awarding the kid a medal for being on the show. Thus, it was a skit on a separate television show that has absolutely nothing to do with the series itself.

The first, fourth and sixth Doctors broke the fourth wall during episodes you consider part of proper Doctor Who. As for the story itself - it's not so different from The Celestial Toymaker. Jimmy Saville is an inter-dimensional being who can grant wishes, who has the power to stop the Tardis in flight, and in his realm, people get medals.

3. because it was clearly written as a parody.

I would say it was more written as an homage. Unlike other parodies by Emu, Lenny Henry, Victoria Wood, End of Part One, etc, this one sets out to be an actual Doctor Who story - it may have a bit of metatextual fun with the show's tropes, but it still functions as a story. And it was promoted at the time in Radio Times and so on, as a proper return for Doctor Who - Rowan Atkinson was trumpeted as the ninth Doctor.

Yet, Steven Moffat...the writer of said show, and current head of the actual Doctor Who television series...has stated, point-blank, that it is a parody. End of story.

Not the end at all. He can say what he likes. He's not the boss of me. Then again, he's said to my face that Doctor Who was rubbish, but I'm sure he doesn't really believe that either...

I'm not trying to take away your fun by merging all this random minutia together in an attempt to create a cohesive universe. I fully support your right as a fan to do so. But, you can't simply argue that peripheral media like DiT or Jim'll Fix It is in any way part of the series history.

Series history, maybe not. But Doctor Who is so much more than the series. (1200 odd adventures, only 200 or so have been on the telly.) I'm really not trying to wind you up or anything. But neither you nor captcalhoun have really said anything that would cause me to want to disqualify any of the adventures you've named. Perhaps there is a fundamental difference in approach here. You regard Doctor Who as a tv series with add-ons. I see it as a vast, mad, sprawling, contradictory story-telling universe, some of which was on the telly.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The, when have I ever said that the television series doesn't exist? All I've said is that the series says inconsistent things at different times. That I'm pointing to inconsistencies doesn't mean that something doesn't exist because of it. :???:

 

[The]

Okay, okay. I loathe back-and-forth quote-debates on message boards. They're exhausting. I've said my bit about it all. I'm not here to try and change your minds or sway you to my way of thinking. I still think outright ignoring pieces of the television show to fit your personal fan theories is a step too far in the fun-and-fantasy department of loving Doctor Who. But, I won't necessarily condemn you for it, either...

 

[captcalhoun]

well, don't upbraid me for not giving a rat's ass about the books, Andrew, you like, fine. more power to your elbow. to me, Who is the three TV shows and that's it.

toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.