Talk:The Brain of Morbius

Mind bending game

Where does this idea come from that the images in the mind bending game are all unseen former Doctors? The first thing we see in the display is Morbius in his brain tank, followed Morbius as he was in the bust. Only then do we see Tom Baker, so why would no more Morbiuses appear?

The game is played by trying to push the image backwards past the first generation. "Back to the beginning" says Morbius. So when William Hartnell appears, The Doctor is close to loosing - or perhaps he is faking Morbius out, because next comes the unfamiliar faces, with Tom Baker between them. Here the Doctor has turned the tides, doing the same thing to Morbius. Quickly, he goes through all of Morbius's regenerations, and the game ends on an unfamiliar face.

I once read and interview (with Terrence Dicks??) about the BBC trouble caused by using production staff photos in this scene, and they were described as being "Morbiuses previous regenerations". So I'm certain that this isn't just fanon, but the original intent of the scene. Algr 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty well documented that the intention at the time was to imply that Hartnell wasn't the First Doctor. It's in Morbius's line, "How long have you lived?" as the images go flying past, which pretty much points to the images being the Doctor's previous incarnations rather than Morbius's. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As an additional note, I should point out that despite the production team's intention at the time, what we see on screen is still vague enough to support the idea that it could be Morbius's earlier incarnations that we see. Taken in light with the subsequent revelations of the 13 incarnation limit in The Deadly Assassin (and the assertions of the numbers of the various regenerations in The Three Doctors, Mawdryn Undead and The Five Doctors), the explanation that adheres most to Occam's Razor is that the faces are Morbius's. For those who prefer more mystery, or more complexity, there is always the Other. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• "it's pretty well documented that the intention at the time..." - Source? Also, why did Morbius loose if The Doctor couldn't turn the tables and bring any more of Morbius's regenerations up? Why show us the faces if they weren't an indicator of how the battle was going? Algr 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Source? Well, The Television Companion (Howe & Walker), 2nd Edition for one: "A number of other images, apparently intended to represent even earlier incarnations [of the Doctor]..." (p 394). About Time 4 (Miles & Wood) for another (explaining the various possibilities, after talking about the Morbius theory): "2. The Doctor is older than he claims, and older than the other Time Lords seem to know. This was clearly the idea Hinchcliffe was getting at, as the 'costume' found in the old console room in 'The Masque of Mandragora' (14.1) isn't recognisably like anything we've seen before." (p 83); "The faces we see... and then eight others, which don't seem to be Morbius' previous incarnations as Morbius shouts 'back to your beginning!' as they materialise." (p 84). AHistory (Parkin) for a third: "The production team at the time... definitely intended the faces to be those of earlier Doctors. Producer Philip Hinchcliffe said: 'We tried to get famous actors for faces of the Doctor... And it is true to say that I attempted to imply that William Hartnell was not the first Doctor.'" (p 279). Like I said, pretty well documented. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-early Doctors fan interpretation is that he lost because the goldfish bowl head couldn't take the pressure involved in the mindbending, and that the faces were shown because the Doctor was losing (and the production team were being mischievous). I'm stubbornly in the "incarnation of Morbius" camp, but it's right that the article notes the intentions of the production team and that fan opinion is divided. —Whouk (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if this was the intention, the production crew chose to be ambiguous, and then they contradicted it completely the next year, so why keep defending that interpretation? The Discontinuity Guide suggests that Morbius kept saying "back to your past" because he simply didn't realize that he was loosing. (Villains just never learn!) Everything makes perfect sense if those faces are Morbius. Algr 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's been sufficiently contentious in the past to be mentioned. Wikipedia shouldn't pick single interpretations and try to justify them. —Whouk (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd always thought the right answer was obvious. When I first saw BoM, The Doctor had already made it clear that Hartnell was his first incarnation. Morbius made it clear that he thought the images were of The Doctor's previous incarnations. My conclusion was and is that The Doctor survived being pushed past his first incarnation. The Doctor might have been the only Time Lord that could do that. The images were Lies. Whence the particular images came is another question. -- Michael Hennebry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:3004:2CE:0:0:0:BC11 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing sound effects

I didn't write that paragraph about a version of episode one with missing sound effects & music, but I possess a copy of the episode in question. Doesn't the show itself count as a reference? Perhaps I should post a copy of it? (The same thing happened to part of Resurrection of the Daleks.) Algr 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph, and the edit was inappropriate. I have restored the paragraph under "Production." Khaosworks can watch the episode if he needs confirmation. DegreeAbsolute 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Inacuracy in the plot description

"The face of the First Doctor fades into a series of eight other faces, with the current Doctor interspersed between them looking more defiant..."

I just watched this episode and i didnt see the face of the current doctor anywhere between the 8 unfamilure ones. it looks like it just fades through all 8 in quick succession. Mloren 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the second portion of the sentence. (Also, not sure if it's worth noting, but early on in the contest, it sounds like, and the subtitles seem to think that Sarah Jane says "Tom...".) umrguy42 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism by Mary Whitehouse?

So, I'm watching one of the special features on the R1 DVD release, and they're talking about criticism of the violence and whatnot by Mary Whitehouse... and I'm wondering if there's enough material about to make a section on? umrguy42 05:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Faces in the mind-bending sequence

I am not sure that the line at the end of the section "However, in "The Name of the Doctor", Clara, a companion of the Doctor, enters the Doctor's timestream and does not see any pre-Hartnell incarnations of the Doctor" should be here. Firstly this was 7 years before 2020's "The Timeless Children" and by having it at the end it could look like it was a later story which contradicted the 2020 story. Secondly "The Name of the Doctor" does not refer to the events of this story or the 8 images and there was no reason to think it would at the time. Finally I think this addition, and possible other parts of the article, are taking the focus away from the subject - ie "The Brain of Morbius" - and moving it on to issues surrounding the idea of Pre-Hartnell Doctors. It is also worth noting that there are other stories before "The Name of the Doctor", which would seem to rule out the Morbius Doctors fitting in to continuity, for instance "The Three Doctors" specifically indicates that Hartnell's incarnation was the earliest, but equally well the original script for "The Power of the Daleks" episode one would have suggested had gone through what we would come to know as regeneration several times before. Dunarc (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)