Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Was about to say...

Can we have a section about the various mishaps in the time laws?

I know that the Face of Bo and that skin-faced lady both premiered in the start of the 2005 series at the end of earth as she dies off, yet a season later, they meet again on new earth. Yet no one knew eachother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Face of Bo and Cassandra didn't have any contact in New Earth. Cassandra's reappearance, however, has been explained, as while her 'body' was destroyed, her brain was preserved. No, there was no explanaition beyond that, but there usually isn't. Aside from that, on New Earth, Cassandra spent the majority of her time in other people's bodies. There's not really anything to be explained there as a breach of Time Law. -Leeson 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"In the year five billion and twenty-three, after the destruction of the Earth, the Doctor takes Rose to the New Earth. There, he meets an old friend (Face of Bo) in a mysterious hospital where the Sisters of Plenitude have a cure for everything. But who is lurking in the basement of the hospital? (Cassandra) And what has she done with Rose?" Yup, Cassandra reappears in New Earth, along with Bo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is denying they were both in that episode (Leeson was saying that Cassandra didn't meet the face of Boe whilst herself. That aside, I don't see any breach in time laws..."New Earth" was set later in time than "The End of the World". No problems with them meeting each other. Gwinva 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There was an explanation of how Cassandra came back beyond the preservation of the brain. Her new "body" was make from skin from her back. Prompting Rose to comment that she is talking out of her backside ask not!

1966 film-The Doctor was a human?

Wasn't this heavily implied by the little girl calling him grandfather and the discussion about him building TARDIS?Glennh70 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

During the first Doctor's tenure, the Doctor's race and ancestry weren't considered; the idea of Gallifrey and regenerations only came about when Hartnell's illness meant he could no longer play the role but the TV series was at the height of its popularity. Rather than trying to cast someone who looked similar and hoping nobody would notice (the James Bond school of recasting), the writers hit upon the clever idea of explaining a casting change through "regeneration."

However, the movies were made well before that ever became necessary, and in (I assume) an attempt to bring something new to the stories (which were otherwise just remakes of TV episodes), they came up with the idea of making it explicit that he was an affable grandfatherly human inventor who came up with a time machine, and expanding on that. After all, there wasn't anything at that point that said he wasn't.

If this is hard enough to discover through the articles that someone had to ask about it here, I suppose someone should write a section making it clearer. —Robotech_Master 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Making him a human in the movies also meant that they could do away with any background story and get on with the plot much quicker. It was made clear already in the TV-series that the Doctor and Susan weren't humans. The TV-movie added to the canon that the Doctor's half human, but it's never been touched upon later. Davhorn 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor Who: The Shooting Scripts"

They have made the series 1 scripts into a book and it says clearly on the side '2005' saying that there would be another one, but there isn't! Does anyone know why they haven't made series 2 into a script book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC) They made a series 2 scripts book and it is called Doctor Who: Inside Story

Is "Companion" an official designation, or a general term?

There's been some back-and-forth editing in the Companions section over whether Liz Shaw is an official "companion" because she didn't actually travel anywhere with the Doctor. But I'm not convinced that "companion" has any official meaning anyway... isn't this a term that fandom has placed on the "supporting actor/actress" role in the series? Can someone cite a reference as to whether it should even be said whether a character is an "official companion" or not? Any other thoughts? --Shubopshadangalang 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole subject is rediculous. A companion is someone who accompanies you. So as long as she follows the Dr for any amount of time. She qualifies as a companion. This whole section about who calls them what "companion", "assistant", etc... should be removed, so as this article doesn't sound so petty.--156.101.9.1 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She "follows the Doctor"? such a general term could then apply to pretty much any character that accompanies the Doctor.Mmm commentaries (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a whole separate article on the term "companion". One can easily link to it from this article to discover the meanings of the word. Otherwise, it's not relevant other than to label the "supporting characters". I've removed most of the verbage from the main article, and moved some of it to the "companion" article. -Shubopshadangalang (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Why was the doctor who logo page link deleted from this page? Mrmccollough 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted- it was moved to the "See also" section. I don't think the link deserves it's own section, and definately not level 2. --OZOO (What?) 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Radio Times covers

How about an Ext link to either or both of these?Zir 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Doctor Who Radio Times covers
• Doctor Who Radio Times covers on TV & Radio Bits

U.S. broadcasting

Any chance that this series will air on public broadcasting in the U.S.? I've never heard of this series before, but it sounds very interesting (like a British verision of Star Trek or something) and I don't have cable or satellite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

replied on Ip's talk page - please do not use Talk page as forum. StuartDD _{contributions} 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else has a similar question, this topic is covered in Doctor Who in America. 23skidoo (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Doctor Who logo

It has been suggested that the page be merged with The Doctor Who logo page, however due to thesize of the article, should it not be left separate???78.150.71.26 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think History of Doctor Who would be more appropriate to merge to. StuartDD _{contributions} 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Stuart. Pictures would help the article greatly. mattbuck (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, pictures can be found at the link in the artyicle, tough copyright would be needed...78.150.35.66 (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Huge blank space?

What is this huge blank space at the top of the History section? I click on "Last" in the most recent entry on the "Edit History" page and it doesn't show. Also, there is no hint of it in the edit window when I bring one up. Yet it stays there on the regular article page. What gives? Ted Watson (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The diamond logo image was causing it. The text would not start until the image was placed and the image was being pushed down by the infobox above. It didn't appear in the section edit window as it didn't have the infobox present. I've moved the image down one section for now to eliminate the whitespace. AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)