Discussion in 'Doctor Who' started by M.A.C.O., Dec 10, 2013.
Sounds like the Klingon forehead ridges explanation...something that no one asked for or wanted.
Well, Children of Earth did happen in the Doctor Who timeline otherwise why the hell is Jack on planet Zog in The End of Time?
I don't want to nitpick, but The End of Time doesn't really take place in the current Doctor Who timeline.
Oh no? Scenes from The End of Time were referenced and even shown as clips in the SJA episode Matt Smith guest starred in, making it clear that is in the "current" Doctor Who timeline, and by extension The End of Time is still considered part of the "current" timeline.
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't remember that.
I had no idea he'd been in any other episodes. I haven't seen torchwood, and I thought The Fires of Pompeii sucked, so I wasn't paying too much attention to any of the family members. It doesn't matter if this is addressed to me, but on the other hand I think it could be interesting.
Jesus. Did I inadvertently stumble into Gallifrey Base?
I'm interested in seeing this woven in to some sort of clever mystery for Series 8. Maybe the Doctor fractured himself or used a chameleon watch to become a human and got lost across time.
And someone who really loved Fires of Pompeii, I am pretty sure this is not a necessaty. Didn't Destiny of the Daleks, of all serials, set the precedent that a Time Lord can assume the face of whoever? Second Romana looked like Princess Astra, example given.
Oh, hell no. There are no ego-preening, ban-happy mods here.
Whatever about FOP, I'm somewhat wary of the idea of them referencing COE, with its grim (albeit brilliant plot) into Who, particularly given that Capaldi's character blew his own and his family's (including two children) brains out. I accept that COE took place within DW's timeline, I just think that story is a little heavy for the more family-friendly main programme.
Oh god not another Clara is everywhere type arc. Hopefully they can get more creative, but why bother. I can just see The Doctor being down in the dumps because of the whole Aliens taking children thing, even though it was a different character.
I agree. I find it as pointless as the Star Trek Enterprise books trying to explain why the stuff we saw on screen looked more futuristic than TOS.
Ignore it and move forward.
Or it's an interesting opportunity to explore a facet of the Doctor that we've previously taken for granted.
I already find it compelling that a month after the Doctor rewrote his own history (in viewer time), he'll be forced to look in the mirror everyday and see the face of a man he broke the laws of time to save... a man whose family didn't do so well in the long run, according to RTD. What does that say about the Doctor's decision to save Gallifrey?
I've always thought a story could be told about the Doctor's faces. Why did 2 have the face of Ramon Salamander? Why did 6 have the face of Maxil? Are the faces random or do they appear with a purpose? It probably isn't a necessary bit of the lore to dive into... but we also didn't really need the TARDIS to explain why she never takes the Doctor where he wants to go. And I thought that episode was marvelous.
Pure coincidence given he regenerated before meeting Salamander.
But that regeneration (or renewal) was described as being a function of the Tardis... which we know to be a living machine with a unique relationship with time. Did she give him a face that she for a reason? If so, could she do it again? Or perhaps he once glanced the face of Salamander in a history book in the far future and forgot about it. This Christmas will be the second time we've seen him take on the face of a person he has previously met, are all of the Doctor's faces generated randomly from somewhere in his memory?
Nice point Kelso. Perhaps the Tardis did help choose that face for him knowing it would allow him to do what he does in Enemy/World.
As long as it's entertaining i can't see a issue.
Are people these days unable to cope with an actor playing more than one role in a tv show without them being related in some way?
Of course they are, but it does open up some intriguing possibilities if done right.
Separate names with a comma.