Classic Who & NuWho - the same or separate?

[EJA]

I have been wondering a bit lately if, despite how the new series occasionally makes some references to the classic show, they might not actually occur in the same universe. Yes, I know we've had appearances by characters such as Sarah Jane Smith and the Brigadier, and brief cameos of the past Doctors, but at the end of the day, is all that really sufficient evidence to have them be the same continuity? Just because there are some similarities doesn't make them identical. Just look at Superman Returns; that had a cameo of Marlon Brando as Jor-El, but it wasn't the same universe as the original Chris Reeve movies. This is going to sound controversial, and I admit I still haven't fully decided yet, but I do sometimes wonder if the entirety of NuWho might actually take place inside an artificial bottle universe within the Classic universe, similar to those ideas in the Benny Summerfield novel Dead Romance by Lawrence Miles.

As I say, I'm not definite, it's just an idea.

 

[OmahaStar]

No, thanks. It's all one big happy multiverse.

 

[mappster]

What a strange notion. Consider:

-RTD confirmed in all the pre-series interviews it was a continuation

-Footage from the old series has actually appeared in the new series. Even audio clip memories (Yana's awakening, among other examples).

-Long-term story arcs are continued, like the Rutan and Sontaran War, the rivaly of the Doctor and the Master, Davros's madness.

-You use the world "similarities" inaccurately. The same actors appear playing the same characters. Sarah Jane explicitly mentions the fourth Doctor dropping her off in the wrong town, and directly references Genesis of the Daleks upon recognition of Davros ("I was there"). This is continuation.

Your logic is shocking. It would be like me arguing that, what if Best of Both Worlds part 1 was in a seperate continuity to Best of Both Worlds part 2? Sure they have the same characters who appear, and the same ship, and same plot, but what if its a bottle universe or something?

 

[FallOfFingolfin]

Superman Returns was in the same universe as the first two Christopher Reeve films, though.

 

[Captain Pike]

Same universe, despite a few annoying differences (like the new series adopting a few of the New Adventures ideas).

 

[The]

What a strange notion. Consider:

-RTD confirmed in all the pre-series interviews it was a continuation

-Footage from the old series has actually appeared in the new series. Even audio clip memories (Yana's awakening, among other examples).

-Long-term story arcs are continued, like the Rutan and Sontaran War, the rivaly of the Doctor and the Master, Davros's madness.

-You use the world "similarities" inaccurately. The same actors appear playing the same characters. Sarah Jane explicitly mentions the fourth Doctor dropping her off in the wrong town, and directly references Genesis of the Daleks upon recognition of Davros ("I was there"). This is continuation.

Your logic is shocking. It would be like me arguing that, what if Best of Both Worlds part 1 was in a seperate continuity to Best of Both Worlds part 2? Sure they have the same characters who appear, and the same ship, and same plot, but what if its a bottle universe or something?

 

[captcalhoun]

how can anyone think after seeing season 5, and The Next Doctor, that it's NOT a continuation?

 

[Saga]

not to mention the fact that the 10th Doctor met the 5th Doctor.

 

[Starkers]

The series have kind of merged now – the old and the new, in everyone’s view. It’s interesting that kids call him the Eleventh Doctor, not the Third Doctor. They absolutely know that this is a long, ancient series, and it’s all one show.

Steven Moffat...but what would he know eh?

 

[EJA]

Superman Returns was in the same universe as the first two Christopher Reeve films, though.

Except that the timeframe of the universe of Returns occurs roughly 20 years later than it does in the original Salkind movies.

 

[EJA]

The same actors appear playing the same characters.

True, but Judi Dench played M in both the Brosnan 007 movies, and in the Craig 007 movies, both of which occur in totally separate continuities. I just feel that this is an idea worth keeping in mind.

 

[DimesDan]

The same actors appear playing the same characters.

True, but Judi Dench played M in both the Brosnan 007 movies, and in the Craig 007 movies, both of which occur in totally separate continuities. I just feel that this is an idea worth keeping in mind.

And one possibly you should keep to yourself. If it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it sure ain't gonna be a moose is it?

 

[Sparky]

The same actors appear playing the same characters.

True, but Judi Dench played M in both the Brosnan 007 movies, and in the Craig 007 movies, both of which occur in totally separate continuities. I just feel that this is an idea worth keeping in mind.

And one possibly you should keep to yourself. If it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it sure ain't gonna be a moose is it?

What if it is an evolved super moose with holographic projectors and a duck call? Didn't think of that eh?



EJA I think you can push that idea out of your mind. The producers have gone out of their way to make it perfectly clear that it is indeed a continuation of the old series. Set in the same universe.

Referencing other franchises like 007 and Superman to support your idea is quite frankly absurd and has no relevance to Dr Who.

 

[The]

^Agreed, as none of the other referenced franchises have them directly explain and acknowledge the change in lead actors. Bond and Superman are constant one-off franchises that have no real connective continuity between their own movies. Doctor Who is, implicitly, an ongoing dramatic narrative. It started in 1963 and continues to this day...

 

[Chaos Descending]

Just look at Superman Returns; that had a cameo of Marlon Brando as Jor-El, but it wasn't the same universe as the original Chris Reeve movies.

You're half right.

It's in the same universe as Superman, and probably Superman II, but definitely not Superman III or Superman IV.

Except that the timeframe of the universe of Returns occurs roughly 20 years later than it does in the original Salkind movies.

Nah. The Salkind movies just actually happened 20 years later than we thought.

 

[captcalhoun]

^Agreed, as none of the other referenced franchises have them directly explain and acknowledge the change in lead actors. Bond and Superman are constant one-off franchises that have no real connective continuity between their own movies. Doctor Who is, implicitly, an ongoing dramatic narrative. It started in 1963 and continues to this day...

Bond did reference events between the Connery, Lazenby and Moore movies. LTK also references Lazenby losing Tracy.

only Brosnan and Craig really stand alone, although the presence of Desmond Llwellyn as Q and various old gadgets in DAD link them to the old movies.

so only Craig stands alone.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Initially, I was leaning towards the idea that they were truly separate shows, but only because of the 16-year timespan (not counting the TV-movie) between "Survival" and "Rose," and with everyone referring to the 2005 season as Series 1.

But these days, especially since the Smith era began, I do tend to regard them as the same show with "classic" used simply to describe the program's initial run from 1963 to 1989...

 

[FalTorPan]

Superman Returns was in the same universe as the first two Christopher Reeve films, though.

Except that the timeframe of the universe of Returns occurs roughly 20 years later than it does in the original Salkind movies.

Only in the real world. In comic books, and seemingly also in these movies, technology, society, styles and mannerisms progress with those of the real world, but the time between story events does not.

 

[Ubik]

I would say the new series is as much a continuation of the classic series as any era in the classic series is of any other era in the classic series. That is to say, there are both similarities and irreconcilable differences between ALL the eras in classic Who, not just between the old and the new series. If you try to make a continuity between even Hartnell's era and, say, Pertwee's, you'll find it impossible.

Doctor Who's continuity is rubbish, basically, in any era. Unlike in, say, Star Trek, the fun in Doctor Who does not lie in looking at the entire future history as one long connected narrative. There are way too many inconsistencies. The only continuity one can ask for, really, in the Doctor Who universe is probably just within each Doctor's reign. And even then, it makes no sense, because the Doctor always travels in time, not just space, so it doesn't even make any sense that the last time the Doctor met the Master, say, is also the last time the Master met the Doctor.

All of which to say, ignore inconsistencies. The show's continuity works on an episode, or maybe season by season, basis, and that's about it.

 

[Whofan]

Yeah, there's at least two Dalek origins/original names, three versions of Atlantis, two Loch ness monsters, multiple fates of Earth, different dates given for different serials, etc.

Plus the chronologies for UNIT, The Daleks, The Second Doctor and the Cybermen are all over the place.


The audios and novels confuse things even further, although to their credit they are more internally consistent than either TV series.


Lance Parkin has tried to reconcile it all in some of his AHISTORY books...