Been wanting this one for ages. Anyhoo, there's a certain scene which has divided the fandom which I'll spoiler code here just in case: Spoiler: Time Lord mind duel "A scene which caused, and continues to cause, controversy is the mind duel between Morbius and the Doctor, where they attempt to strip each others minds back to their beginnings. It was controversial amongst fans as it appeared to go completely against Who canon and suggest that the Doctor had had many more regenerations than had previously been stated. The pictures shown were of the production team dressed up and, as non actors, the show fell foul of equity for this. A nice idea regretted by all, I think." From http://www.sci-fi-online.com/2008_reviews/dvd/08-07-21_who-morbius.htm Thing is, I can't see anything about this scene which heavily implies that the Doctor had any pre-hartnell incarnations. The sequence goes through 4 (then current) Doctors, then they cut away to a shot of Sarah, then they cut back to the "screen" which shows the supposed "earlier" Doctors. There's nothing in that scene which says the other time lords can't be earlier incarnations of Morbius. I mean, we see all the Doctors, so it stands to reason that we should see earlier Morbiuses aswell, right? What say EMH? (and others) Also, apparently Terrance Dicks' original script didn't feature the Dr Frankenstein "homage" character, and instead had Morbius' spare parts body constructed by a faithful robot servant who understood form and function but not aesthetics or beauty. That idea is infinitely more interesting than the version we got. Then again, it's still cracking Who.
The purpose of the mind duel is pretty clearly to drive your opponent back through his previous incarnations. As his shouting during the scene with the eight unknown faces would suggest, Morbius wins, fatally injuring the Doctor, though the force of the victory also shatters his brain case. That being true, the final faces before Morbius' victory would have to be earlier Doctors. There isn't really another interpretation that makes a lot of sense, even though (horrors!) it means that "Morbius" contradicts other stories regarding the Doctor's history.
Point taken, but the on screen execution of the idea is so (in true who style) vague that I figure it's open to interpretation - or, at least mallable enough to fit the standard Hartnell First model. Ach, doesn't bother me. Doctor Who has never been particularly consistent, it's part of the charm.
Within the context of the story, it can only really be earlier incarnations of the Doctor; for the faces to be Morbius, we'd need a shot of current (globehead) & previous (statue-head) Morbius to precede them - which could happen during the cur-away to Sarah, I suppose, but doesn't time correctly with Morbius's triumphant dialogue, which continues over the mystery faces (if they were his, he'd be losing at that point). Withint he wider context of the series, you either have to assume that they are Morbius and ignore the contradiction to that onscreen, or accept the Cartmel masterplan idea of the Doctor being a reincarnation of The Other (so, those are his faces, and Morbius's 'How long, Doctor, how long have you lived?' is, despite the way it's delivered, an expression of surprise at finding these extra incarnations further back before the first Doctor).
I agree. I've always felt that way about that scene - in fact I wasn't even aware there was any controversy until the advent of the internet gave rise to fans discussing it online and came across this seemingly strange notion that they were in fact earlier versions of the Doctor. Back in the day I just always assumed they were Morbius' earlier selves.. Again, agreed.
Totally. I don't see how people say that it's so clear, and absolute, due to any dialogue on screen. Since when was the show ever edited that tightly? Even as a child, when I first saw this, I understood it was Morbius' timeline. Just because the sound is mismatched over the faces just meant it was normal, old Doctor Who style. To each their own, I guess. But, in the end, these things have a way of working themselves out over time...
Oh, dear, I wasn't going to say anything (to avoid yet another argument with Allyn that we both know won't go anywhere), but I've been called out. I agree with both Jim Steele and Captain Pike that faces are Morbius, and like Captain Pike, I didn't know there was any controversy until the rise of the internet. I still contend there's no absolute reason why those faces have to be The Doctor's. The presentation of the faces show each other's mental powers but doesn't necessarily mean that's the person with the upperhand at that moment. Incidentally, for those who want to refresh their memory (and don't have the DVD or VHS), here's a clip from YouTube.
Well, the controversy (God, that overstates it) comes from those of us who were old enough to watch it at the time, when it seemed self-evident that the other faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors (which was, of course, immensely exciting!), and were then a bit perplexed nine months later, when Deadly Assassin said '13 incarnations only'.
Well, the controversy (God, that overstates it) comes from those of us who were old enough to watch it at the time, when it seemed self-evident that the other faces were pre-Hartnell Doctors (which was, of course, immensely exciting!), and were then a bit perplexed nine months later, when Deadly Assassin said '13 incarnations only'.[/quote] Listening to the dialogue in context, Morbius shouting, "How long have you lived, back, back, etc" it does seem like those are Pre-Hartnell incarnations. Now. Does it matter? Only to those who try and keep chronological order of what story in Doctor Who happened in what year...and who go into shock about the whole half-human thing. The internet's main problem is it's long memory.
Lord knows, I am of the agegroup who watched this serial during it's first run on the ABC (Australia's version of the BBC) back in the 70's as a kid. And as I have said, it was self evident, to me at least, at the time that those faces were in fact Morbius'. There was never any question, in my mind at least, about it until many years later when I came across fan discussion on the internet.
Sure, it's possible to isolate BoM from the rest of Doctor Who, so on that view, these could be other Doctors. Thing is, BoM can't (and shouldn't be isolated from the rest of Doctor Who). In addition, we do, as a matter of fact see other statues/busts of Morbius in BoM. Watch episode one carefully. On the floor, where the most current bust of him rests, there are other busts. We simply don't see the faces. I see no reason why these can't reasonably be inferred to be the other faces of Morbius. The problem isn't the busts or the faces, it is Morbius' dialog. However, Morbius was insane. Who should we trust, an insane Time Lord with an ego twice the size of the Master's or the Doctor, who is probably smart enough to make Morbius think he's winning, even though the faces on the screen aren't those of the Doctor. The proof is in the faces, not the dialog of an insane, deluded Time Lord.
Sorry, the "Brain" faces are earlier incarnations of the Doctor. Hartnell is also the first Doctor. Those aren't incompatible statements. What you're seeing there is part of the ineffable mystery of Doctor Who. It doesn't always make sense, and nor should it.
If there were pre Hartnell incarnations then wouldn't the Three Doctors have been the 13 Doctors and the Five Doctors the 18 Doctors or something?
I too always thought thought those were Morbius' past faces not the Doctor's, Morbius always seemed to me to be older than the Doctor so it seemed right that the Doctor would have reach further back into his past to win the contest.
You're funny, too. Seriously, people's objection is your conclusive tone in your first post. It's all a matter of interpretation as this entire thread (and threads before it) have proven.
Well yeah, and that's my interpretation. It's also been explored in the novels. I'm not dismissing anyone's right to have a different opinion - I just was tickled how one of my assertions was quoted out of context.