How do you want the regeneration limit dealt with?
- Thread starter Bones2
- Start date
Ah somethings never change...
Sci will never accept the show is the same show (even if the BBC rebranded the DVDs he'd find some loophole, this is the guy who still thinks Amy was fighting the phychiatrists after all)
George W Bush will never accept he did anything wrong as president...
Bones will never accept that Russell T Davies isn't the anti-Christ
C'est la vie...
Sci will never accept the show is the same show (even if the BBC rebranded the DVDs he'd find some loophole, this is the guy who still thinks Amy was fighting the phychiatrists after all)
George W Bush will never accept he did anything wrong as president...
Bones will never accept that Russell T Davies isn't the anti-Christ
C'est la vie...
Well, it ended before and was revived. Personally I think that the show as it is now should continue for a good long while, barring a "gap year" such as the recent one. Even if the Doctor is killed off at the end, there is nothing to prevent the franchise returning to TV either as an outright reboot or a continuation. (For the latter, just have Captain Jack or somebody change the Doctor's final adventure as the Woman may have done in The End Of Time.)
Personally, I don't see what the fuss is re the numbering. (There have been three "first issues" of the Fantastic Four comic book, even though there was no break in publication and the characters are ostensibly the same ones from 1961. That series has now returned to the numbering that would have applied had there been no renumbering to start with.) I disagree mildly with the Moff's comment re the season 5 nomenclature; the 2005 seson brought the show back from the dead, so it makes perfect sense to begin counting from there.
Last edited:
It's a MegaLOL!
Please don't misrepresent me or Dubya.Ah somethings never change...
Sci will never accept the show is the same show (even if the BBC rebranded the DVDs he'd find some loophole, this is the guy who still thinks Amy was fighting the phychiatrists after all)
George W Bush will never accept he did anything wrong as president...
Bones will never accept that Russell T Davies isn't the anti-Christ
C'est la vie...
Well as someone who voted 13 and out I'd like to quantify my statement somewhat. The idea of the Doctor only having thirteen lives appeals to me for two reasons.
1. Every story needs an end, this is what I hate about needless sequels and soap operas....they just go on, and on, and on...I mean eventually it will get silly "Ruper Grint is the 21st actor to play the titular Time Lord..." Not that he wouldn't make a good Doctor of course (and fulfill the Doctor's deepest wish into the bargain.) I want the show to go out on a high, not limp along to eventual ignominity and death.
2. Like EMH,I am intrigued at what the mindset and character of the Doctor would be like once he was in his final incarnation. People go on about the man being brave and a hero, but lets put this in context, he might be brave but the likes of Amy, Rory, Donna, Peri, Tegan, Jamie, Ian etc are a lot braver, because they fight monsters without having the handy backup that, if worst comes to worst, they will die then regenerate. I just love the notion of an actor like David Hewlett or Michael Keating playing a very different Doctor. One facing, and scared of, his own mortality.
At the end of the day its not like I want the show to end, but it would be horrible to one day see the show cancelled with ratings in the hundreds of thousands and the 30th Doctor played by some sub par actor who got the part after winning I'm a celebrity and will go on to do nowt but panto!
Just checked Hewlett's wiki entry. Never knew he was English-born. (So is his fellow Canadian Kiefer Sutherland, btw.)
I like to think that once the Doctor runs out of regens he'll actually be averse to the prospect of more. As the last of his species (as far as he knows) and someone who's faced danger and seen death for hundreds of years, he'd probably be philosophical about his own mortality - What happens happens, and everything has its time etc. Alternatively, it might be interesting to see a potentially final Doctor realise that he really likes being alive.
I like to think that once the Doctor runs out of regens he'll actually be averse to the prospect of more. As the last of his species (as far as he knows) and someone who's faced danger and seen death for hundreds of years, he'd probably be philosophical about his own mortality - What happens happens, and everything has its time etc. Alternatively, it might be interesting to see a potentially final Doctor realise that he really likes being alive.
Yeah- something like:
13th Doctor: "Oh, DEAR!.... Seem to be a bit shy of girls now... oh, the problems of changing personas... so unpredictable!"
Yet, upon the Doctor's 'Fatal Death' and subsequent regeneration:
The Master: "It's impossible! Beyond all laws of the Universe!"
Emma: "Maybe even the Universe can't bear to be without the Doctor!"
(You know, I was assuming that everyone posting here knows what I am talking about, but if anyone hasn't seen "Curse of Fatal Death", do you yourself a favor and treat yourself to a good laugh by watching it on Youtube......")
Last edited:
Ohmigod I'd forgotten about that. Wow. I'm sure now that the season is coming out on disc, he'll be able to pull up the subtitles and verify his claim?George W Bush will never accept he did anything wrong as president...
Bones will never accept that Russell T Davies isn't the anti-Christ
The is a trouble-making twat...
C'est la vie...
And I did. The "whatever" was about whether or not that was a good thing, not whether or not it happened. Doctor Who does indeed seem to be three separate series now. You do understand the difference between acknowledging a fact and saying what we think of that fact?
?
This piques my curiosity. Tell me more?
Most people don't know or care about lawyerese. I assume you never use the name Brontosaurus either.
Neither. Unlike TNG, Doctor Who uses the same primary character and continues the same basic storyline. It would be more akin to Star Trek: Phase II.
Ok then, there's two (three now I guess) volumes of Doctor Who.
Seems reasonable to me. Moreso even than one unbroken one-volume series, and gives the second volume a nice bit of bookend-ish-ness. I think that's how I'll refer to Doctor Who now. What principles are you referring to?
^ I don't think that there is anyone here who does not accept/understand the fact that the original run of Doctor Who was cancelled after 26 seasons/years. It is a fact. And it is indeed a gap in production.
It does seem that there are a few individuals who are convinced that a change in the nomenclature used to number episodes (also 'season' vs. 'series') has a significance to the story line, and is not simply a choice of how to identify the episodes. I can't say that I personally can agree with that assumption. To me, any debate about this matter seems to be an argument over definitions of production terminology and not anything to do with the story line.
Some also seem to be proposing that the gap in production over the years may imply (as far as I can tell) that we have perhaps jumped universes or realities such that there is no direct connection between McCoy's (and perhaps McGann's Doctor) and Eccleston's Doctor. It is late here, and maybe I am just not getting it, but I don't understand this debate. I find some of the logic confusing. For me, while I do acknowledge the gaps in production and the differences in production styles and actors, we never 'jumped the tracks' to some'where/when' else. It is -for me- all one continuous story of the same guy who occasionally changes faces and personalities......
It does seem that there are a few individuals who are convinced that a change in the nomenclature used to number episodes (also 'season' vs. 'series') has a significance to the story line, and is not simply a choice of how to identify the episodes. I can't say that I personally can agree with that assumption. To me, any debate about this matter seems to be an argument over definitions of production terminology and not anything to do with the story line.
Some also seem to be proposing that the gap in production over the years may imply (as far as I can tell) that we have perhaps jumped universes or realities such that there is no direct connection between McCoy's (and perhaps McGann's Doctor) and Eccleston's Doctor. It is late here, and maybe I am just not getting it, but I don't understand this debate. I find some of the logic confusing. For me, while I do acknowledge the gaps in production and the differences in production styles and actors, we never 'jumped the tracks' to some'where/when' else. It is -for me- all one continuous story of the same guy who occasionally changes faces and personalities......
I for one never said any such thing. As I've said time and again, the issue of whether or not DW TOS and nuWho are the same series is a technical issue; it has nothing to do with story content or quality.
That's exactly what I've been saying. The issue of whether or not DW is one series or two -- or three -- is a technical issue of production terminology at the end of the day. It's a legal issue, it's lawyer-ese.
I haven't seen anyone say that. I for one have argued no such thing; I've argued that nuWho has no obligation to remain consistent with DW TOS, but that doesn't mean that it isn't. And even if nuWho introduces inconsistencies with DW TOS, that doesn't mean they're separate universes.
Whether or not it's all one continuous story is separate from whether it's all the same series. For a comparison, Doctor Who and Torchwood can both be seen as telling a continuous story about Captain Jack coming to terms with what the Doctor did to him in "The Parting of the Ways," but they're clearly separate series.
So? The question is a legal, lawyer-ese question, not a question of public opinion.
Nope.
Fair enough. But had it been produced, it's pretty clear that Star Trek: Phase II would have been a separate series from Star Trek, even if it was a continuation of the story of James T. Kirk and the starship Enterprise.
Ok then, there's two (three now I guess) volumes of Doctor Who.
What principles are you referring to?
Well, for one, an ongoing comic book publication is usually referred to as a "monthly" rather than a series per se. For another, I've never heard anyone use the term "volume" to refer to a television series before (except in Heroes, because they were trying desperately to be different from everybody else -- and there, they used "volume" where most series would use the term "season"). Television series have just never used the same classification schemes used by print publications -- in part, as I understand it, because tax laws tend to be different for a production that employs hundreds of people versus a print publication that employs a small handful, if that.
I guess I may have misread some earlier postings and exchanges between posters, including yours, Sci. Your statements that I have quoted above I do indeed agree with.
I find it intriguing as to what topics pique the interests of different fans. While some are obsessed with the nature, layout, and origin of the TARDIS, others view it as only a somewhat interesting taxi cab that is only important as a vehicle to get the Doctor where he is going. Some fans want to know everything there is to know about the Time Lords, their culture and physiology, and others would prefer to never hear any mention of Gallifrey and other Time Lords again. I confess that I had never put much thought into issues about the program that would involve use of the term "lawyer-ese", as this is a realm that -to me- is not nearly as interesting as discussions over whether or not a sonic screwdriver can toast bread!....
MURRAAAAY GOOOLLLDD music!!!!!!!!!!!
*Doctor Regenerates*
"oh look at that! I changed again. You best shut up now or I'LL HAVE YOU THROWN OUT OF THE TARDIS!!
*Doctor Regenerates*
"oh look at that! I changed again. You best shut up now or I'LL HAVE YOU THROWN OUT OF THE TARDIS!!