Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: From the Archives .....
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:26:16 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 271
Message-ID: <v0m4c9$16nip$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvtn5t$30593$1@dont-email.me> <v0b09r$d50$6@gallifrey.nk.ca>
 <v0djg5$30lfn$1@dont-email.me> <v0ehbd$37ds0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0ej7l$29l3$16@gallifrey.nk.ca> <v0g97i$3n622$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0h81i$3u3vn$2@dont-email.me>
 <xn0ol2do5lllsbh006@news.eternal-september.org> <v0kf8m$r9ud$2@dont-email.me>
 <xn0ol3qfb1a60li000@post.eweka.nl> <v0lp6v$141cf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 20:26:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6cc64c567408c1152f703dcf9ce7136d";
	logging-data="1269337"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cFcNVXvuZ2uZVA7/Ovg5KyxTJrimFCt0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Be+ZflimJe1CXYTXtGxFSiM/Uc=
In-Reply-To: <v0lp6v$141cf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 14153

On 28/04/2024 16:15, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/04/2024 08:57, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's Doctor Ruth among the faces of the Doctor? She's
>>>>> not there because there's no Doctor Ruth. The Doctor's
>>>>> regenerations begin at Hartnell. Where's Ruth's before his
>>>>> face? It's not there because all the faces after Hartnell
>>>>> are those of Morbius, and Hartnell is declared as the
>>>>> beginning of the Doctor, not Ruth.
>>>>
>>>> Ah c'mon Aggy at least try and be serious. How can the face
>>>> of a woman from a 2020 episode of Doctor Who be featured in
>>>> an episode of Doctor Who from 1976 when the idea hadn't even
>>>> been thought of?
>>>
>>> How can an abused child from another dimension that was turned
>>> into a monster possibly be the predecessor of Hartnell when
>>> the idea wasn't thought of until 2018?
>>
>> Fiction my boy, it's fiction about a time travelling alien... so
>> outside of the real world a writer can write any scenario he
>> wants to in retrospect if he thinks it's good for telling the
>> story he wants to tell. You don't have to like it, believe it,
>> or think it makes sense. Chris Chibnall doesn't care if his
>> ideas don't fit your idea of Doctor Who, or mine even. But it's
>> what he chose to do.
> 
> Insisting that an idea that wasn’t thought of fifty years earlier can’t
> change the course of the show is a bit bonkers anyway.

Any new idea added to any existing literature cannot change previous 
established facts, especially by requiring the reader/viewer to reject 
everything they already know. War of the Daleks was universally derided 
by this group for doing that, and The Timeless Children shares the same 
fate.

Human viewers and readers, even children, cannot not be presumed to be 
the same as stupid animals residing on Animal Farm that will believe 
anything Squealer tells them despite seeing and knowing that what 
Squealer claims is a lie.

> 
> Where was Aggie’s complaint when The Deadly Assassin made a lie of the
> Second Doctor’s statement that his people could live forever?
> 

The Deadly Assassin doesn't change that. In fact it fundamental plot was 
designed to illustrate that Time Lords could live forever, but at the 
expense of destroying the whole of Gallifrey in order to obtain 
unlimited amounts of power. The same goes for The Keeper of Traken.

> Where was Aggie’s complaint when Utopia made a lie  of the Deadly
> Assassin’s assertion that for Time Lords, twelve regenerations was “the
> end”? (Before that, the Master’s continuing existence was due to body

It was the end unless there was external intervention as in The Deadly 
Assassin and in The Five Doctor's where the Time Lords offered the 
Master a new cycle of 12 regenerations.

> stealing - but Yana was a reincarnation of the Master - with all the
> memories of his previous incarnations (once the watch was opened).
> 

And the Doctor states long before that that the Time Lords not only 
brought back the Master from the dead but also Rassilon from the dead, 
and this was all made possible by their memories being held in the 
Matrix as established in The Deadly Assassin and reinforced in Dark 
Water/Death in Heaven.

> Where was Aggie’s complaint when The Pyramids of Mars explicitly made a lie
> of the Doctor’s statement in the Aztecs that “you can't rewrite history!
> Not one line!”?

Inferno and Day of the Daleks already demonstrated the conception of 
parallel worlds with parallel histories long before Pyramids of Mars. 
Pyramids of Mars reinforces that conception and in fact every single 
episode of Doctor Who since the very first episode requires parallel 
histories to exist otherwise there would be no stake of life and death 
involved for any of the historical figures involved. What Hartnell says 
in the Aztecs is either out of ignorance or a lie, and lying is part of 
the Doctor's established character since he's not Superman. Hartnell 
doesn't even know what Daleks even are before The Daleks.

> 
> Seems to me that the show is allowed to retcon anything as long as Aggie
> approves of the change, but if he doesn’t he’ll resort to all sort of
> ridiculous nonsense to claim that the change is impossible.
> 
>> And guess what? RTD is going to write his own scenarios in the
>> next few years and he won't care if you don't like them either!
>>
>>>> It's quite simple, read slowly if it helps. In 1976 a Doctor
>>>> Who producer had an idea, forty plus years later another
>>>> Doctor Who producer had a different idea. It's all fiction
>>>> at the end of
>>>
>>> Fiction has to make sense in order to be believed. Where is
>>> the face of Doctor Ruth if she came directly before Hartnell
>>> according to Chibnall and Big Finish? The least Chibnall could
>>> have done is chosen a white male actor to play the Timeless
>>> Child monster if he claims it was one of the faces shown in
>>> The Brain of Morbius.
>>
>> I'm not sure she was 'directly' before Hartnell... the term
>> pre-Hartnell could mean anything if we assume there was a whole
>> cycle of regenerations that were wiped from the memory of the
>> First Doctor. I have no desire to re-watch those episodes at the
>> moment but I don't think it was ever stated that Ruth was the
>> incarnation just before Hartnell... and with a blue Police Box
>> being her TARDIS I'm not even sure how she could get that if she
>> was pre-Hartnell. (But that's a different discussion!)
> 
> There’s nothing except Aggie’s desire to make it so that says the Fugitive
> Doctor immediately precedes Hartnell. But even if there was - in the middle
> of the sequence where the Doctor’s faces are flashing up in Morbius,
> there’s a short cut away to show the Doctor’s concentration and Sarah
> Jane’s concern. Enough to add a face or two that we never saw at the time.
> 

There is no suggestion that any of the unrecognized faces we see in The 
Brain of Morbius are those of the Doctor. Everything we are shown and 
told in both the TV episodes and novelization makes it absolutely clear 
that those are the faces of Morbius. If they were the faces of the 
Doctor then why doesn't the Doctor look surprised since it has already 
been established since Power of the Daleks that he'd never regenerated 
before Hartnell.

Morbius asks the Doctor how long has he lived when he gets to Hartnell 
since he and the viewer both know from established continuity that's all 
the minds the Doctor can draw upon and then tells the Doctor that he 
can't resist the power of Morbius when his own faces start appearing on 
the screen. This indicates that the unrecognised faces are those of 
Morbius. Morbius wants the Doctor to go back to his beginning, basically 
a newly fertilized embryo, but the Doctor holds on until the apparatus 
blows up on the side of Morbius indicating he has lost the game and then 
he runs away.

Based on unchallengeable continuity and the like go back to your 
beginning the unknown faces could be the Doctors father, grand father, 
and other ancestors which he remembers. Maybe there could have been 
Gallifreyan primates, amphibians, fish, sharks, and single celled 
organisms shown if it continued.

> As to the police box TARDIS - there are at least two reasonable
> possibilities in the context of the narrative.
> 
> 1) the TARDIS wasn’t a Police Box when the Fugitive Doctor buried it. But
> the TARDIS recognised Jodie when she approached and chose to assume the
> form she would recognise so that she’d know this was HER TARDIS straight
> away. This does require a high degree of sapience on the part of the TARDIS
> but some stories have previously suggested that.
> 

Unless it is explicitly stated by the writer then it isn't valid if it 
attempts to negate existing canon. Don't you understand that Squealer?

> 2) the TARDIS has had a tendency to assume a Police Box form for a very
> long time, especially when visiting Earth. Maybe this is one of the issues
> that had it in a repair shop when Clara told Hartnell to steal it - knowing
> as she did that it was already very much HIS TARDIS. So the problem
> observed by Susan and her grandfather in The Cave of Skulls wasn’t a new
> one - it was a recurrence of an existing foible that the Doctor had
> forgotten about.

Yet another deranged conspiracy theory asking the viewer to reject 
existing canon. We are told that the TARDIS adopted the shape of a 
Police Box because that was a kind of camouflage to fit in with its 
surroundings. And then the Camelon Circuit broke. There is no evidence 
or explanation provided by the writer that the TARDIS had ever been a 
Police Box before.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========