I still think it's odd that the DVD boxset has series one written on it when even digiguide had "series 27, episode 1".
I think the difference between stuff like the daleks, cybermen, k-9 and sarah-jane and mentioning the brig is that the formers are all main plot points in episodes. To mention the brig would require a mention to be clumsily shoe-horned into the dialogue. Nine mentioned he "used to work for them" so there probably will be a mnetion eventually.
But "have you got UNIT on the phone yet, you know, that lot from the olden days with Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart in it, wink wink - nudge nudge" will look and sound crap
with reference to the brigadier wouldn't he be retired by now, he's be in his 60s/70s.
At least - he was retired in Battlefield and I seem to recall that was set sometime in the 90s ("Remember, Ace, we are in the future!" CRINGE). What ever happened to those 5 pound pieces.
The only way i could see the Brigadier being brought in was if he was to be brought in as an expert on aliens. But lets face it, he never was an expert in the old series, he'd just shoot at them and when he didn't get anywhere he'd beg for help from the Doctor.
The episode that sticks in my mind was "Robot" when everything he did made the situation worse
with the spelling, it is my error - didn't fully check it before submitting, but with the apostrophe, all were used correctly
it's instead of it is
shouldn't instead of should not
both in their correct respective places
that is the teacher within me done!!!!!!
Anyway, the Brig!!! Why shouldn't he be mentioned, as he was a major character for all UNIT based stories within the whole series.
And if past characters are still talked about or even brough back (such as Daleks, Cybermen, Sarah, K9) why not mention the Brig ?
Go back and have another look, and see if you can spot your error. Clue: how many Prime Ministers were there?
While we're on the subject of your grammar, the use of ":-" is not recognized in formal use; a single colon is used instead. Similarly, multiple exclamation marks and question marks should be avoided. (Yes, I do know that I've spelt "recognized" with a z, not an s. You can look it up in the Oxford Dictionary when you're reflecting on how stupid you look, ranting about grammar, dumbing down, and slagging off ITV, when your own contribution is itself such a poor use of English.)
Because it's just fanw*nk. To be honest, i think there's been enough of that already. Bringing back the Daleks and the Cybermen is fine, but bringing back Sarah Jane and K-9 is a bit too much in my opinion. Of course i can't wait to watch it seeing as though i am a fan lol
I wonder if they would ever do a "Two Doctors" type episode, now that would be cool. Of course there would have to come up with some reason why the other Doctors had aged!
That would be great to see say Peter Davison back as the fifth doctor and maybe Tegan or Peri along with Tennant and Piper.
I agree, have Davison back in a guest role, mind you depending on the companion they'd pick, it would be a continuity nightmare.
The only times the Davison doctor could fit in would be IMO,inbetween 'Time Flight' & 'Arc Of Infinity'(Bring back Saran Sutton as Nyssa pre Terminus, as Janet Fielding(Tegan), AFAIK no longer acts, or inbetween 'Resurrection Of The Daleks' & 'Planet Of Fire', as Doctor Five was just travelling with Turlough, as played by Mark Strickson.
In fact which of the Davison era cast still acts, apart from Davison himself ?
Wasn't Nicola Bryant (Peri) ill a few years back?
Of course, there could be a chance to tie up the loose end re Doctors 8 & 9 too as well, or has that one been officially explained by the Beeb as a result of the Time War? (In fact how long between the end of the Time War & the 1st appeareance of Dr 9?)
I wouldn't be that bothered about which companion came back but it would be brilliant to see my fave doctor Peter Davison back. I believe Nicola Bryant had a bad back a while ago but as far as I know she is ok now. She was one of the hottest Who companions ever. I agree it probably would be a continuity nightmare. They could bring Davison and Bryant back say from right before the Caves Of Androzani?
1) The Dalek race has died out three times: in Season One 1967, In Season 26 1989 and now in Season 27/New Series 1 2005. How? Which thread of time is right?
2) What caused the Time War? Who started it? How did the mostly peaceful, politically-minded Time Lords become so involved in a war which obliterated (almost) two whole races?
3) What happened to make Paul McGann change into Chris Ecclestone? Where did Doctor 8 go after leaving Grace and Chang Lee on Earth in San Francisco / Vancouver on Jan 1st 2000? When does the Doctor return to San Fran to find out what "great things" Grace does - and how her "childish dream" to turn back death came about?
4) Similarly, why did the TARDIS change from being a futuristic, clean white time machine to being a 19th Century mansion cum monastery to a clapped out pseudo-organic industrial transporter which can't tell the difference between twelve hours and twelve months?
5) The heart of the TARDIS? The thing that powers it? Isn't that the Eye of Harmony? The last person to look into the eye of harmony died horribly (the Master) and Rose somehow gains mythical Dalek destroying re-incarnating powers? Convenient plot development anyone?
Sadlly, while you raise some interesting points, these are very much fan qustions, which almost certainly won't be answered, as Russell T Davies is charged with moving Who forward and producing good solid family entertainment for Saturday nights.
Pandering too much to the fans and to the past of Who were factors in the slow demise of Who the first time round. That won't be allowed to happen again, I'm sure.
Sadlly, while you raise some interesting points, these are very much fan qustions, which almost certainly won't be answered, as Russell T Davies is charged with moving Who forward and producing good solid family entertainment for Saturday nights.
Pandering too much to the fans and to the past of Who were factors in the slow demise of Who the first time round. That won't be allowed to happen again, I'm sure.
Agreed although some interesting plot points to be resolved someone like myself who never watched the series before Christopher Eccelstone wouldn't have a clue about these old plots lines, & I'm sure about a third of the current audience wont either.
BTW Like David Tennants new Doctor, great like Eccelstone & a very different character in a good way.
Having watched dr who from more or less the beginning I've always wondered why we assume the first dr we saw (william hartnell) hadn't regenerated yet.
Do time lords live for 60 odd years before regenerating into gradually younger bodies until they reach around 40 years old which if you consider the ages of the actors when they played him seems to be the case.
