How do you want the regeneration limit dealt with?

[Starkers]

I don't think it really matters what we think, it ain't a democracy

Anyway, I voted 13 lives and he dies, because every story needs an ending, won't happen but I think it'd be interesting to see how a truly mortal 13th Doctor acts.

Given he will carry on, I hope we get something between the first two options, needs more than a glib line but I don't think it should be something that a story is built around. Maybe something the Doctor encounters during a story.

The annoying thing is that we've probably already had a golden opportunity with the Master/Dr Lazarus' work...in fact that's what I originally thought was the whole point of the Lazarus machine, that Saxon was funding it to give himself a new regeneration cycle. Now wouldn't that have made more sense than merely turning the Doctor into Dobby?

 

[captcalhoun]

i've been watching since Davison and i don't care about the limit.

 

[The]

Now wouldn't that have made more sense than merely turning the Doctor into Dobby?

Don't even get me started........................

 

[The]

Of course not. There are two separate shows named Doctor Who -- one that ran from 1963 to 1989, and one that started again in 2005. Just as I wouldn't call the various Twilight Zone revivals the same show as Rod Sterling's original, I wouldn't call modern DW the same series as the original Doctor Who.

That's rather a poor comparison, considering the Twilight Zone was an anthology show that (aside from the Narrator) don't share characters or storylines from within the show itself let alone its later incarnations.

The Doctor is clearly the same character as was on the show from the 60s to the 80s (and the TV Movie), which is more important for this discussion than whether they're actually the same show.

Man, don't waste your time. He created this personal delusion years ago when Eccleston started. Nothing you say will penetrate his private fantasy, so there's no point in trying. Some people just hold on to ignorance as a security blanket...

 

[Sci]

Of course not. There are two separate shows named Doctor Who -- one that ran from 1963 to 1989, and one that started again in 2005. Just as I wouldn't call the various Twilight Zone revivals the same show as Rod Sterling's original, I wouldn't call modern DW the same series as the original Doctor Who.

That's rather a poor comparison, considering the Twilight Zone was an anthology show that (aside from the Narrator) don't share characters or storylines from within the show itself let alone its later incarnations.

What characters or storylines a set of shows feature is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are the same program.

The Doctor is clearly the same character as was on the show from the 60s to the 80s (and the TV Movie), which is more important for this discussion than whether they're actually the same show.

Except that I was explicitly asked if I viewed DW TOS as being the same program as modern DW.

Of course not. There are two separate shows named Doctor Who -- one that ran from 1963 to 1989, and one that started again in 2005. Just as I wouldn't call the various Twilight Zone revivals the same show as Rod Sterling's original, I wouldn't call modern DW the same series as the original Doctor Who.

That's rather a poor comparison, considering the Twilight Zone was an anthology show that (aside from the Narrator) don't share characters or storylines from within the show itself let alone its later incarnations.

The Doctor is clearly the same character as was on the show from the 60s to the 80s (and the TV Movie), which is more important for this discussion than whether they're actually the same show.

Man, don't waste your time. He created this personal delusion years ago when Eccleston started.

Is that why the DVD box says "Series One" rather than "Season Twenty-Seven?"

They're two separate programs about the same character. Deal with it.

 

[RoJoHen]

They're two separate programs about the same character. Deal with it.

I would have to agree that they're different programs, but that doesn't mean this current series can ignore its predecessor.

It's like a novel series. Classic Who is Book 1. nuWho is Book 2. nuWho is a sequel to the original show, which means it has to exist in the same continuity and follow the same rules.

 

[Sci]

They're two separate programs about the same character. Deal with it.

I would have to agree that they're different programs, but that doesn't mean this current series can ignore its predecessor.

It's like a novel series. Classic Who is Book 1. nuWho is Book 2. nuWho is a sequel to the original show, which means it has to exist in the same continuity and follow the same rules.

Well, yes and no. The thing is, works set in shared continuities contradict one-another all the time. That's why the Star Trek original series episode "The Alternate Factor" gets to establish that if matter and anti-matter ever come into contact, they'll destroy the universe, but later entries in the Star Trek canon completely ignore that episode every time they talk about how warp drive works.

My opinion is that modern Who's only obligation to DW TOS is to use whatever was good and interesting from it. They can keep consistent with DW TOS or contradict it as they see fit; they have no obligations to it, even if they're in the same continuity.

 

[VDCNI]

Having watched since Davison (I only added that because of Bones sweeping and clearly incorrect statement about who cares about the limit earlier in this thread) I'd say it's clearly the same show and should stick to the same rules.

That said I don't find dealing with the regeneration limit particularly important because it wasn't that important in the original show. One line in a Tom Baker story and a handfull of references in the 80's (the only time the show obsessed over continuity and mostly for no good purpose) does not a fundamental building block of the show make. The Key To Time had as many references and who cares about that these days.

At the end of the day the Deadly Assassin introduced much of what we consider to be the history of the timelords these days but it wasn't written for that purpose - it was written to be a good story - all the other stuff is incidental. Telling a story to reveal things about the Doctor and his people isn't how good Doctor Who is made as far as I am concerned.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

....That's why the Star Trek original series episode "The Alternate Factor" gets to establish that if matter and anti-matter ever come into contact, they'll destroy the universe, but later entries in the Star Trek canon completely ignore that episode every time they talk about how warp drive works.

I see what you are trying to say, and understand where you want to be going with this analogy, but you've got the facts wrong- you are either misinterpreting or perhaps misremembering the concept that was presented in "The Alternate Factor".

From the start, matter and antimatter routinely come into contact on the Enterprise, providing the 'normal' release of energy sufficient to power the engines. The concept presented in "The Alternate Factor" dealt NOT with a routine, random antimatter particle meeting with a random particle of matter, but with reality being canceled out as a consequence of a unique situation where identical, but exact opposite particles (as contained within the bodies of the two 'exact opposite' matter/antimatter versions of Lazarus) might come into contact.

An incorrect assumption presented here, based on an incomplete memory, I assume.

This example may actually provide an explanation for the divergence of feelings here in this discussion. The folks who tend to be interested in (and remember) the details and specifics of story want to see the 13 regeneration limit addressed, because they took it as a detail that was important to them and contributing to the building of the background of the character and his culture/technology/physiology. Other folks who simply enjoy the overall adventure of an episode, but don't concern themselves with or remember specific story elements such as a concept or theory presented in a story line will not care about a factual detail such as the regeneration limit.

 

[RoJoHen]

Hell, I've never even seen any classic Who, but I still want the 13 regeneration limit addressed just because I think it could make for a really good story. Some people just want Doctor Who to ignore it and continue telling stories, but I don't understand why they're opposed to this being one of those stories!

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Shatnertage said something along the lines that Who tends to do the "small" stories better than the epics. In many cases, I agree. Maybe this could be the case here.

I would perhaps like to see the explanation/reveal come within the framework of one of those 'smaller', intimate stories. The entire episode could still be devoted to the whole concept in a very cool and poignant way; I would rather not see it addressed as part of an epic three episode arc involving Daleks and Cybermen and Rose and Donna and Sarah Jane and Omega combined with the End of the Universe (or at least the destruction of Earth), along with the Fifth Doctor's celery and the second Doctor's recorder.

... and have it happen a few to several episodes AFTER the regeneration to keep a little mystery going, as RoJoHen and others have suggested.

Just a thought....

 

[The]

This example may actually provide an explanation for the divergence of feelings here in this discussion. The folks who tend to be interested in (and remember) the details and specifics of story want to see the 13 regeneration limit addressed, because they took it as a detail that was important to them and contributing to the building of the background of the character and his culture/technology/physiology. Other folks who simply enjoy the overall adventure of a story, but don't remember or concern themselves with specific details of a concept or theory presented in a story line won't care about a detail such as the regeneration limit.

Very eloquent and accurate. Thus my point, if they don't care about such a detail, it harms no one to deal with the issue head-on. Otherwise, if they're opposed to it, then it must mean they do care one way or the other. Thus, they would be opposing it for various reasons, none of which are connected to whether it makes the show better or worse. I guess it's kind of like how there are atheists who just don't believe in a god. Then, there are atheists who adamantly oppose anyone who does believe in a god. One is rational based on personal preferences, the other is trying to project their personal perspective on the majority. Those are the people I disregard. Same with the ones who oppose concrete facts of Doctor Who in favor of some personal perspective they believe has a right to supersede reality...

 

[Sci]

....That's why the Star Trek original series episode "The Alternate Factor" gets to establish that if matter and anti-matter ever come into contact, they'll destroy the universe, but later entries in the Star Trek canon completely ignore that episode every time they talk about how warp drive works.

I see what you are trying to say, and understand where you want to be going with this analogy, but you've got the facts wrong- you are either misinterpreting or perhaps misremembering the concept that was presented in "The Alternate Factor".

From the start, matter and antimatter routinely come into contact on the Enterprise, providing the 'normal' release of energy sufficient to power the engines. The concept presented in "The Alternate Factor" dealt NOT with a routine, random antimatter particle meeting with a random particle of matter, but with reality being canceled out as a consequence of a unique situation where identical, but exact opposite particles (as contained within the bodies of the two 'exact opposite' matter/antimatter versions of Lazarus) might come into contact.

1. Saying that particles that originate from an entirely separate universe would have some sort of link that would destroy the universe is meaningless mumble-jumbo. A particle of deuterium and a particle of anti-deuterium are not going to be any more or less linked than any other type of matter and anti-matter from any universe. The concept is absurd, and there's a reason it was ignored later on. (And that's to say nothing of the absurdity of the idea that an anti-matter Lazarus could interact with particles from our universe without producing a localized explosive energy release that would kill him.)

2. "From the start, matter and antimatter routinely come into contact on the Enterprise, providing the 'normal' release of energy sufficient to power the engines." Well, fucking duh. But the idea that the Enterprise was powered by a matter/anti-matter reaction was not, as near as I can tell, developed until "The Immunity Syndrome," which aired the season after "The Alternative Factor." That's the point -- the evolution of ideas over the course of an ongoing series and the right of later writers to contradict what has previously been done if they think it makes for a better story.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^
1) I probably will not be able to will go along 100% with the expertise that you seem to claim to have on matter/antimatter physics and the nature of parallel universes, but I will agree with you that the concept of exact identical/opposite particles is a little silly, at least as presented in that episode. That's what we get, though, for watching science fiction on television.

2) Well, duh! right back at ya! About 6 months and 20 episodes earlier than "The Alternate Factor", "The Naked Time" featured Spock and Scotty working to get the matter and antimatter at the right mixture and temperature to restart Enterprise's engines. I'm 99% certain that matter/antimatter engines were described as the force powering the ship in the original Star Trek "Writer's Bible", even before the series premiered.

Scotty (and Spock) did not change the laws of physics, but he used knowledge of them to save everyone's lives. Perhaps there are facts out there about regeneration that even the Doctor does not currently know. The (hopefully!) interesting upcoming tale will address how the Doctor gets a better understanding of his own existence!

That's the point. There is no need to disregard or ignore the facts that lay a creative and interesting foundation if there is no fundamental problem with them.... work with the facts, build on them (and let them evolve, if needed). In some cases, some bad stuff will get tossed out if it is sufficiently awful. I am not convinced that a regeneration limit is something awful that needs to be forgotten and ignored. Find a creative and interesting way to work around the dilemma.

 

[Shatnertage]

Certainly the nature of the TARDIS is one of the biggest mysteries of the show, one that demands an explanation.

And how did they explain it? The classic example is the Doctor's thought experiment with the two boxes in the beginning of Robots of Death. You could call it glib if you wanted to be uncharitable, or say they just spared the viewers a bunch of technobabble.

I'm just saying there's a definite history of the show not dealing with pretty important stuff, at least on any deep level. Why should that change now?

Sure, if they tell an interesting story that results in an on-screen explanation for more regenerations, I'll watch it and enjoy it. But it's really not something that I'll be upset not to see.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

...if they don't care about such a detail, it harms no one to deal with the issue head-on. Otherwise, if they're opposed to it, then it must mean they do care one way or the other. Thus, they would be opposing it for various reasons, none of which are connected to whether it makes the show better or worse. I guess it's kind of like how there are atheists who just don't believe in a god. Then, there are atheists who adamantly oppose anyone who does believe in a god.

I would agree; I know of both atheists and of fans of science fiction that fall into each of the two categories that you describe (people who don't care and don't care if you care vs. people who don't care but do care if you care). Conversations can often get a bit rough with folks of either group who fall into the second category.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Of course not. There are two separate shows named Doctor Who -- one that ran from 1963 to 1989, and one that started again in 2005. Just as I wouldn't call the various Twilight Zone revivals the same show as Rod Sterling's original, I wouldn't call modern DW the same series as the original Doctor Who.

That's rather a poor comparison, considering the Twilight Zone was an anthology show that (aside from the Narrator) don't share characters or storylines from within the show itself let alone its later incarnations.

Minor trivia note: The 2002 version of The Twilight Zone did a sequel to an episode from the original 1959 version. Bill Mumy & Cloris Leachman came back for "It's Still a Good Life" (which was one of the few decent episodes that they did on the 2002 series).

 

[VDCNI]

Certainly the nature of the TARDIS is one of the biggest mysteries of the show, one that demands an explanation.

And how did they explain it? The classic example is the Doctor's thought experiment with the two boxes in the beginning of Robots of Death. You could call it glib if you wanted to be uncharitable, or say they just spared the viewers a bunch of technobabble.

I'm just saying there's a definite history of the show not dealing with pretty important stuff, at least on any deep level. Why should that change now?

Sure, if they tell an interesting story that results in an on-screen explanation for more regenerations, I'll watch it and enjoy it. But it's really not something that I'll be upset not to see.

Yeah - this is basically how I feel. If they did do a story then ok fine but as you say it's not how the show has dealt with stuff like this in the past so why now.

 

[Shazam!]

Certainly the nature of the TARDIS is one of the biggest mysteries of the show, one that demands an explanation.

No it doesn't.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ Although I really like the concept of the TARDIS and would really like to see a bit more of the interior from time to time, I am actually OK to not know too much more about the nature of the the Doctor's TARDIS.

.... and this is coming from someone who has all these Star Trek tech manuals and blueprints! The TARDIS -different from the Enterprise and most other scifi ships- exists in a realm somewhere between science and "magic" (sounds like the start of the original intro of the "Twilight Zone"!). Just HOW alive is 'the Old Girl'? How is a TARDIS "grown"?* My personal preference is to keep the a lot of the mystery alive about the TARDIS. Don't give too much away. But do show us a few more rooms. Maybe a mid-blowing scene that hints at just how big TARDIS actually is on the inside!

*I know there are books and literature out there that explore these questions, but until anything is depicted on the show, I consider those ideas very neat, yet unofficial, conjectures.