There were no
incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. At best you could
assume that there might have been unseen and invisible
inter-regenerational projections between Hartnell and Troughton,
Troughton and Pertwee, and Pertwee and Tom Baker.
There were no
incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. At best you could assume that there might have been unseen and invisible
inter-regenerational projections between Hartnell and Troughton,
Troughton and Pertwee, and Pertwee and Tom Baker.
Agree. I still am not sure why Chibnall decided to screw with cannon
so
much. I thought that was one of the first rules of time travel...
don't do
anything to screw up the past.
Agree. I still am not sure why Chibnall decided to screw withcannon
so
much. I thought that was one of the first rules of time travel...
don't do
anything to screw up the past.
chibnall is pure evil!
Agree. I still am not sure why Chibnall decided to
screw with cannon so much. I thought that was one
of the first rules of time travel... don't do
anything to screw up the past.
chibnall is pure evil!
As far as the Dr. Who universe goes, that is certainly
my impression of him.
Verily, in article <753735577@darkrealms.ca>, did NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
I thought that was one of the first rules of time
travel... don't do anything to screw up the past.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor
makes massive timeline changes all the time.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <753735577@darkrealms.ca>, did NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
I thought that was one of the first rules of time
travel... don't do anything to screw up the past.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor
makes massive timeline changes all the time.
In-universe there are supposedly things called "fixed points"
that can't be changed... until they can.
In fact, contradictions on the Doctor changing the past go way
back to the First Doctor. In "The Aztecs" he said, not one line
of history could be changed, and in a later episode he then said
something like, we are changing history whenever we leave the
TARDIS.
So basically, if the writer needs to screw about with the past,
they do it... otherwise messing with the past brings destruction
to the universe!
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <753735577@darkrealms.ca>, did
NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
I thought that was one of the first rules of time
travel... don't do anything to screw up the past.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor
makes massive timeline changes all the time.
In-universe there are supposedly things called "fixed points"
that can't be changed... until they can.
In fact, contradictions on the Doctor changing the past go way
back to the First Doctor. In "The Aztecs" he said, not one line
of history could be changed, and in a later episode he then said
something like, we are changing history whenever we leave the
TARDIS.
So basically, if the writer needs to screw about with the past,
they do it... otherwise messing with the past brings destruction
to the universe!
Verily, in article <753735577@darkrealms.ca>, did NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us this message:
There were no
incarnations of the Doctor before William Hartnell. At best you could
assume that there might have been unseen and invisible
inter-regenerational projections between Hartnell and Troughton,
Troughton and Pertwee, and Pertwee and Tom Baker.
Agree. I still am not sure why Chibnall decided to screw with cannon
so
much. I thought that was one of the first rules of time travel...
don't do
anything to screw up the past.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor makes massive timeline changes all the time.
Verily, in article <xn0p8vqs9ribaz5004@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <753735577@darkrealms.ca>, did
NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
I thought that was one of the first rules of time
travel... don't do anything to screw up the past.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor
makes massive timeline changes all the time.
In-universe there are supposedly things called "fixed points"
that can't be changed... until they can.
Wasn't that only in "The Waters of Mars"? I don't recall any other
references to the so-called fixed points.
In fact, contradictions on the Doctor changing the past go way
back to the First Doctor. In "The Aztecs" he said, not one line
of history could be changed, and in a later episode he then said
something like, we are changing history whenever we leave the
TARDIS.
So basically, if the writer needs to screw about with the past,
they do it... otherwise messing with the past brings destruction
to the universe!
Yeah, pretty much. :) We shouldn't expect perfect continuity in a show that's been around since the 60s.
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor makes massive timeline changes all the time.
The first rule of fiction is that you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER change a character's origin story. Changing a character's origin creates a new character altogether which is not the one you started off with. If you
can't stick to a character's origin that makes you a bad writer. It's no wonder that AI can now write better stories and better songs than any of today's writers can, because AI follows the rules.
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in Father's
Day. Have you not seen it?
Verily, in article <106bkv8$2tqdb$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in Father's
Day. Have you not seen it?
I've seen it, but not in a long time. I'd forgotten it until you
mentioned it, but I looked it up and it's coming back.
I recall liking that one at the time. The fixed points were quite a
thing to toss so casually into canon, and I didn't love the implications
of Rose reaching into the Doctor's pocket, but overall I enjoyed it. The Doctor's "I'm the oldest thing in this church" speech was good.
One wonders how those points are fixed, and why. Is this natural law, or
were they fixed by someone--perhaps the Guardians? They might have such power.
Verily, in article <106bkom$2tqdb$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
In fairness, DW has never observed that rule. The Doctor
makes massive timeline changes all the time.
The first rule of fiction is that you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER
change a character's origin story. Changing a character's
origin creates a new character altogether which is not the
one you started off with. If you can't stick to a
character's origin that makes you a bad writer. It's no
wonder that AI can now write better stories and better songs
than any of today's writers can, because AI follows the
rules.
I agree. He makes changes to the timeline frequently, but they
don't (or shouldn't) affect his origin story.
Verily, in article <106bkv8$2tqdb$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in
Father's Day. Have you not seen it?
I've seen it, but not in a long time. I'd forgotten it until
you mentioned it, but I looked it up and it's coming back.
I recall liking that one at the time. The fixed points were
quite a thing to toss so casually into canon, and I didn't
love the implications of Rose reaching into the Doctor's
pocket, but overall I enjoyed it.
The Doctor's "I'm the oldest thing in this church" speech
was good.
One wonders how those points are fixed, and why. Is this
natural law, or were they fixed by someone--perhaps the
Guardians? They might have such power.
On 30/07/2025 02:54, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <106bkv8$2tqdb$3@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in Father's
Day. Have you not seen it?
I've seen it, but not in a long time. I'd forgotten it until you
mentioned it, but I looked it up and it's coming back.
Why? Mother's Day?
I recall liking that one at the time. The fixed points were quite a
thing to toss so casually into canon, and I didn't love the implications
of Rose reaching into the Doctor's pocket, but overall I enjoyed it. The Doctor's "I'm the oldest thing in this church" speech was good.
One wonders how those points are fixed, and why. Is this natural law, or
They are fixed by bad writing.
were they fixed by someone--perhaps the Guardians? They might have such power.
Bad writers is who have the power. If an AI came up with such inconstant nonsense it would be shouted down for it.
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was Rose able to
save her father? Everything should have conspire so that she never could.
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr. if Rosa
Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger isn't?
REcall Father's Day?
Verily, in article <106bvsn$2vmn8$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
if Rosa Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her
seat to a white passenger isn't?
Star Trek probably handled it better. Kirk could have saved
Edith, but chose the greater good/the timeline over her
happiness and his own.
Star Trek probably handled it better. Kirk *could* have saved Edith, but >chose the greater good/the timeline over her happiness and his own.
In which ST?
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <106bvsn$2vmn8$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
if Rosa Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her
seat to a white passenger isn't?
Star Trek probably handled it better. Kirk could have saved
Edith, but chose the greater good/the timeline over her
happiness and his own.
He was happy to go back in time to save a Whale! ;-)
In article <xn0p8wsxesgx68z001@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <106bkv8$2tqdb$3@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in
Father's Day. Have you not seen it?
I've seen it, but not in a long time. I'd forgotten it until
you mentioned it, but I looked it up and it's coming back.
I recall liking that one at the time. The fixed points were
quite a thing to toss so casually into canon, and I didn't
love the implications of Rose reaching into the Doctor's
pocket, but overall I enjoyed it.
Casually tossing things in to 'canon' seems to be something
the show has done quite a lot since it returned in 2005.
The Doctor's "I'm the oldest thing in this church" speech
was good.
The Ninth Doctor had some great lines!
One wonders how those points are fixed, and why. Is this
natural law, or were they fixed by someone--perhaps the
Guardians? They might have such power.
RTD brought in the idea of "fixed points" as a way to show the
limits of time travel... Steven Moffat then made fixed points
the main plot drivers behind some of his bigger storylines. So
basically, fixed points are just plot devices to be used as part
of a narrative... and ignored if/when a different narrative suits
the occasion!
What about the retconning of the Time Wars in Day of the Doctor?
On 30/07/2025 12:26 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Bad writers is who have the power. If an AI came up with such
inconstant nonsense it would be shouted down for it.
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was Rose able to
save her father? Everything should have conspire so that she never could.
Perhaps what 'they' should have said, way back when, was that if you
alter something NOW it COULD have SERIOUS implications for the future.
Saving some girl back in Viking times wouldn't have serious implications
for the future ..... as long as she keeps her head down.
"she go back"?? WHO? Do you, Aggy, mean The Doctor, i.e. JodieDoctor??
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr. if Rosa
Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white
passenger isn't?
Verily, in article <106bvsn$2vmn8$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 30/07/2025 02:54, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <106bkv8$2tqdb$3@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
This entire load of stupid nonsense was first introduced in Father's
Day. Have you not seen it?
I've seen it, but not in a long time. I'd forgotten it until you
mentioned it, but I looked it up and it's coming back.
Why? Mother's Day?
I recall liking that one at the time. The fixed points were quite a
thing to toss so casually into canon, and I didn't love the implications >>> of Rose reaching into the Doctor's pocket, but overall I enjoyed it. The >>> Doctor's "I'm the oldest thing in this church" speech was good.
One wonders how those points are fixed, and why. Is this natural law, or
They are fixed by bad writing.
were they fixed by someone--perhaps the Guardians? They might have such
power.
Bad writers is who have the power. If an AI came up with such inconstant
nonsense it would be shouted down for it.
All points in time should either be fixed points or none of them are.
A fixed point means you can't change it ever, so why was Rose able to
save her father? Everything should have conspire so that she never could.
Well, that's one way to handle it, but the dire consequences also works.
Why couldn't she go back and save Dr Martin Luther King Jr. if Rosa
Parks getting onto a bus and refusing to give up her seat to a white
passenger isn't?
Star Trek probably handled it better. Kirk *could* have saved Edith, but chose the greater good/the timeline over her happiness and his own.
The Doctor's origin story should have been treated as a "fixed
point" though. The Time Lords, Gallifrey, and his reasons for
running away are foundational to who he is. If those change too
drastically, as AGA said, it does stop him being the same
character.
Since the show returned though the trendy showrunners
have thought it a great idea to play around with those
foundations... just because they could. It either shows a lack
of original creative thinking on their part, or they have such a
big ego and want to stamp their name all over the show's history
by fucking it up.
Hey, Dumas, have you been travelling in time or something??
Your News Agent User Agent line shows you are using "VSoup v1.2.9.47
Beta" from back in Win95/NT times!!
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 11 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 50:52:42 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 77,738 |