Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: From the Archives .....
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:49:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <v0djg5$30lfn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvtn5t$30593$1@dont-email.me>
 <v09tqp$2006$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>
 <v0a8mg$261sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0b09r$d50$6@gallifrey.nk.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:49:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a36ff8f59ef7b0c696b8778a8a56c98c";
	logging-data="3167735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VwWxcmckQGvCsrFEmN3PA"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zm/EfufGokjUsjBstDVXCE32B10=
	sha1:Preh0B4LOA6+6O1d5bFKuRTyBIU=
Bytes: 8461

The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> In article <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>,
> The False Doctor  <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 24/04/2024 07:26, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> The False Doctor  <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show
>>>>>> dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be
>>>>>> earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is
>>>>>> rewatched.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
>>>>> indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face
>>>>> is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.
>>> 
>>> Contradiction is not an argument.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes it is. It's used all the time in mathematical proofs.

As Aggie knows full well, there is a significant difference between a
rigorous mathematical proof and a fool yelling “No it isn’t!” over and over
again.

If someone says “2+2=4” and the response is “no it isn’t! I say 2+2=-7!”
there is no proof there, merely an asserted contradiction.

The Faces of Morbius is a much more nuanced case and the facts are there on
screen and in interviews with those responsible.

When the producer and writer say that they are faces of the Doctor, and
what we see on screen is :

The Doctor challenges Morbius to a mind-bending contest. He characterises
it as “Time Lord wrestling” but what it looks like is a sort of
visualisation of a tug of war of personal timelines.

The first image we see is Morbius as he is now. Then, as the Doctor
initially has the upper hand, the image “pushes back” to the previous face
of Morbius. Then Morbius pushes back and we see Tom’s face. Then Jon
Pertwee’s. Then Tom doubles down and we see his face again. But then
Morbius gleefully powers up and Tom becomes Pertwee again, then Troughton,
then Hartnell, then the eight mystery faces. And Morbius is crowing, as
this montage shows on screen:

“Is your mind, Doctor, going?” (As Tom’s face first changes to Jon’s).

(Then silence as they wrestle for a few moments and as Morbius gains the
upper hand and Tom’s face becomes Jon’s again:)

“How far, Doctor? How long have you lived?”

(Jon turns into Pat, then Bill)

And then he continues over the next sequence:

“Your puny mind is powerless against the strength of Morbius! … Back. To.
Your. Beginning!”

(Bill changes to another face, then another, and another … 8 more faces in
all, until Morbius’ Brian case overloads and the contest ends abruptly with
Morbius staggering away and Tom falling unconscious.)

If those were Morbius’s faces, why didn’t the Doctor’s faces roll forward
to Tom again? Or why didn’t the image switch back to show the current or
previous Morbius first before rolling back to show the earlier faces, as
the Doctor’s did?

Morbius says “How far, how long have you lived?” as the screen goes back
from Baker to Hartnell - and as the same sequence continues into the
unknown faces, he cries “Back to YOUR beginning!” …  although, of course,
as the contest is cut short, there could be many more lives still to go
that are not seen there …

The logic of what is seen on screen, and the accompanying dialogue, are
obvious. People can argue otherwise, or argue from Terrance Dicks’s retcon
in the novelisation of the script he hated so much he refused to be
associated with it … but they’re arguing from emotion and a desire for
later restrictions to be consistent and not contradictory to this scene.
Not from logic. And I hate to say it but squaring that circle without
denying the truth of one or more televised stories, requires a convoluted
twist in the history like the Timeless Child.

>> 
>>>>> It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer
>>>>> himself in his own novelization of his own script.
>>> 
>>> Aggie needs to make up his mind.
>>> 
>>> Does he want to include all off screen material by the writers directly
>>> relating to the show? If not, then no elaboration or additional fan fic
>>> added in novelisations counts. If it was in the scripts but cut or changed
>>> on screen then it is also no longer relevant. And on screen it’s clear
>>> those are pre-Hartnell Doctors and it’s so no matter how many times Aggie
>>> screams “IS NOT!”
>>> 
>>> But if so, then the material excised from the original writer’s scripts
>>> counts, and Whitaker’s take on renewal for the Power of the Daleks counts.
>>> And as that is earlier than Morbius then it takes precedence according to
>>> Aggie, and there are pre-Hartnell Doctors.
>>> 
>> 
>> Absolute rubbish.
>> 
>> Terrance Dicks wrote the original script and wrote the novelization. 

Terrance Dicks disowned the script - the story was saw was a compete
rewrite by Robert Holmes.

The novelization is irrelevant to what is on screen. And what is on screen
is a subset of prior incarnations of the Doctor.

>>>>> all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
>>>>> generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
>>>>> disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.
>>> 
>>> Aggie thinks Morbius was Tom Baker and the faces are meant to be Tom Baker
>>> in disguise? Is that in Terrance Dicks novelisation too (or attempted total
>>> rewrite of the story, as it would seem)?
>> 
>> I said nothing of the kind. 

Aggie wrote: “all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in disguise,
since it's clearly not Tom Baker.”

So he wrote that he thinks the faces are Morbius, in the past, and in
disguise: because it’s not Tom Baker. Logically, therefore, if Morbius
hadn’t been in disguise, Aggie thinks he WOULD have been Tom Baker. It’s
right there in what Aggie wrote, all in one unedited sentence. “Nothing of
the kind”, indeed. That’s EXACTLY what he wrote. And since he is such a
self-proclaimed master of good writing, what he wrote must be what he
meant.

>>>>> You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make
>>>>> me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read
>>>>> a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he
>>>>> doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand
>>>>> social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
>>>>> doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.
>>> 
>>> Sounds like Aggie thinks he and Chris Chibnall are soulmates! He certainly
>>> seems to be describing himself (well, to be fair, Aggie does know a bit of
>>> science. But as he’s rejected logic and rationality, it doesn’t do him any
>>> good).
>> 
>> Sounds like a depiction of your own self.
>> 
> 
> Hear! Hear!! AGA!

Correct Dave - it is a description of Aggie. 

-- 
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor