EX
Mmm..
Plausable.
JCB posted:
Mmm..
Plausable.
SA
brotherton sands posted:
Re:
John Simm as a guest character (rather than the Doctor):
[In white text, for "Spoiler" reasons] Whether or not individual viewers like the 1966 TV Movie or not, it is surely an official part of the continuity? Here's some background as to why it would be a bit odd for the Master to turn up alive and well:
The first on-screen Master (played by Roger Delgado) was, IIRC, of an unspecified incarnation number. But, given that he and the Doctor are supposed to be about the same age (aren't they?) and that the Doctor had reached incarnation #3 by that age (when we viewers at home first see the Master), it seems that the Delgado incarnation must surely be at least #3?
We only other "proper incarnation" of the Master we ever met was the 13th (and therefore final natural incarnation), in two different Tom Baker stories. As he was hideously disfigured, it didn't didn't matter that he was played by different actors in each story (originally Peter Pratt, later Geoffrey Beevers).
Both subsequent Masters we've had, have been post-13th incarnation, and have come come about by the Master's mortal remains "taking over" other people's bodies. Firstly, the body of a Trakente man, in the 1981 story The Keeper of Traken (played by Anthony Ainley, who therefore then becomes the Master actor). And then, in the 1996 TV Movie, the body of an American Ambulance driver name Bruce (played by Eric Roberts).
The Bruce/Master was sucked into some big shiny thing called "the Eye of Harmony" in one of the rooms of the Doctor's TARDIS.
The only was that we could have a new Master now, would be for a guest character to enter the room of the Doctor's TARDIS that's got the "Eye of Harmony" in it, and whatever's left of the Master to jump out and take over that person. But, the idea that the remains of the Bruce/Master would still be "alive" after sitting inside the Eye of harmon for years (the Doctor has regenerated twice in the meantime) would really stretch credibility, surely?
[In white text, for "Spoiler" reasons] Whether or not individual viewers like the 1966 TV Movie or not, it is surely an official part of the continuity? Here's some background as to why it would be a bit odd for the Master to turn up alive and well:
The first on-screen Master (played by Roger Delgado) was, IIRC, of an unspecified incarnation number. But, given that he and the Doctor are supposed to be about the same age (aren't they?) and that the Doctor had reached incarnation #3 by that age (when we viewers at home first see the Master), it seems that the Delgado incarnation must surely be at least #3?
We only other "proper incarnation" of the Master we ever met was the 13th (and therefore final natural incarnation), in two different Tom Baker stories. As he was hideously disfigured, it didn't didn't matter that he was played by different actors in each story (originally Peter Pratt, later Geoffrey Beevers).
Both subsequent Masters we've had, have been post-13th incarnation, and have come come about by the Master's mortal remains "taking over" other people's bodies. Firstly, the body of a Trakente man, in the 1981 story The Keeper of Traken (played by Anthony Ainley, who therefore then becomes the Master actor). And then, in the 1996 TV Movie, the body of an American Ambulance driver name Bruce (played by Eric Roberts).
The Bruce/Master was sucked into some big shiny thing called "the Eye of Harmony" in one of the rooms of the Doctor's TARDIS.
The only was that we could have a new Master now, would be for a guest character to enter the room of the Doctor's TARDIS that's got the "Eye of Harmony" in it, and whatever's left of the Master to jump out and take over that person. But, the idea that the remains of the Bruce/Master would still be "alive" after sitting inside the Eye of harmon for years (the Doctor has regenerated twice in the meantime) would really stretch credibility, surely?
BS
Er, no it's NOT yours, mine or any other individual viewer's choice what does or doesn't count as continuity. It's an official BBC choice.
"New Who" on telly, I would imagine has to obey the same "official BBC Dr Who continuity" that other things (e.g. the novels of new adventures featuring old (1 - 8 ) Doctors, etc etc) have to obey.
saturdaymorning posted:
It's your choice whether you want to include it in continuity or not.I don't count anything in continuity if I don't like it.
Er, no it's NOT yours, mine or any other individual viewer's choice what does or doesn't count as continuity. It's an official BBC choice.
"New Who" on telly, I would imagine has to obey the same "official BBC Dr Who continuity" that other things (e.g. the novels of new adventures featuring old (1 - 8 ) Doctors, etc etc) have to obey.
JR
In the
Radio Times
Russell T Davies makes a remark about the Doctor coming up against his most fearful enemy yet, and says "...I wonder who that could be?"
CW
Charlie Wells
Moderator
Based on the appearance on tonight's Graham Norton show I think episode 9 could be an interesting one.
RE
I don't. 1996 was a very bad year, so my personal timeline goes straight from 1995 to 1997
Seriously, I think the spinoffs proceeded to bring the character back in two or three different ways. Although the most likely option is a big Reset Button - evil Time Lord, regeneration cycle included, and nothing else pre-Time War mentioned with respect to the character.
Alexia posted:
I consider 1996 canon...
I don't. 1996 was a very bad year, so my personal timeline goes straight from 1995 to 1997
Seriously, I think the spinoffs proceeded to bring the character back in two or three different ways. Although the most likely option is a big Reset Button - evil Time Lord, regeneration cycle included, and nothing else pre-Time War mentioned with respect to the character.
:-(
A former member
96: wasn't that when the Spice girls appeared?
