Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Doctor Who Infinity Poll on the Timeless Child...
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 21:41:10 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vis009$1i8n7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vip4kp$ol24$1@dont-email.me> <xn0ou5qquar2ogm003@post.eweka.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 11:41:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="438b557fa47ec9a3610980fba13b750a";
	logging-data="1647335"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hqSSfKpdpCpp0etfT6D0+8Kj5vuhkQKM="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
Cancel-Lock: sha1:60aJEFgBXQfhElGFpEYUQE+uoGI=
In-Reply-To: <xn0ou5qquar2ogm003@post.eweka.nl>
Bytes: 3761

Blueshirt wrote on 4/12/24 9:37 pm:
> The Last Doctor wrote:
> 
>> Just to demonstrate that Dave was fishing in a small, selective
>> pond with his last poll, I set one up in another Facebook community
>> - but a more diverse one and one that has about 90,000 members. I
>> also allowed for a range of nuanced thoughts rather than Dave's
>> binary view of "you must retcon it or you're ant-Doctor Who".
>> Engagement was fairly low (this is, after all, very old news now)
>> but nevertheless ...
>> 
>> Two days on, here is the position:
>> 
>> What do you now feel about the Timeless Child narrative in Doctor
>> Who? (583 votes total)
>> 
>> It was a great addition to the lore, adding mystery and setting up
>> opportunities for a whole lot of new stories. 37% (214)
>> 
>> It could have been a great idea but it was presented poorly. 12%
>> (64)
>> 
>> We didn't need it but we've got it now so let's just move on. 23%
>> (136)
>> 
>> It was a bad idea. Let's try to forget it happened. 10%  (53)
>> 
>> It was an abomination and must be rewritten out of continuity 
>> (retconned). 15%  (91)
>> 
>> I don't care. 2% (9)
>> 
>> Timeless Child? What was that again? 1% (6)
>> 
>> 
>> Interestingly, almost 50% of voters LIKED at least the idea of the
>> Timeless Child. with 37% being very positive.
>> 
>> 25% were neutral.
>> 
>> 25% were negative about it, but only 15% went so far as to demand a
>> retcon.
>> 
>> Very different than what the very predominantly "old school white
>> male fan" pool of Ian Levine's followers believe to be the majority
>> case.
>> 
>> As an aside, in the comments, more people had negative things to
>> say about the "bi-generation" of RTD, than about the Timeless
>> Child, even though this poll never even mentioned it.
> 
> From the people I interact with in fandom, either personally via 
> e-mail or on forums, DM's etc, they all had a BIG problem with the
> bi-generation thing... it didn't go down well at all.

As we've previously (Classic Who) seen a bi-combination Regeneration, I
didn't see much of a problem with the Bi-generation thing!!

> The Timless Child arc, a female 13th Doctor - or Missy even - were 
> generally not big issues for them at all.

Nor should they have been.

> So we tend to get a warped viewpoint here of what the 'issues' with
> Doctor Who are because Dave and Agamemnon constantly bang on about
> retconning the Timeless Child... it's rammed down our throats so much
> on RADW that we are blinded by the other 'issues' some people in
> fandom have with the show... issues that hardly get discussed here.
> 
Yeap. Yeap. Yeap.
-- 
Daniel