Talk:Eighth Doctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] BBC 7 Series

Maybe it doesn't "heavily imply" the canonicity, but I think something less definate is worth putting in. --βjweþþ (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Nature confirms canonicity. But, of course, you didn't know that in 2005:) Type 40 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eighth Doctor Adventures (novels)

Josiah Rowe suggested in his last edit that "we shouldn't suggest that the books are different from other licensed media just because the BBC licensed the novels to a branch of itself", which seems odd to me because they are different. The 8DAs are made by (part of) the BBC and, thus, are different from licensed media. I'm not saying that difference has any implications for "canonicity", if that's what anyone is worrying about, but there is a difference in their production background. I don't see, for example, any contractual difference between the 8DAs and Scream of the Shalka (which was "licensed" to BBCi as much as the 8DAs were "licensed" to BBC Worldwide). Bondegezou 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I did think that a distinction of canonicity was being suggested, whether that was the intention or not. Bondegezou's wording was "...the Eighth Doctor's adventures continued in the BBC's Eighth Doctor Adventures novels and various licensed spin-off media, notably the Big Finish Productions audio plays and the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip." I changed that to "...the Eighth Doctor's adventures continued in various licensed spin-off media, notably BBC Books' Eighth Doctor Adventures novels, audio plays from Big Finish Productions, and the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip" because I thought that the separation of the EDAs from the other Eighth Doctor narratives suggested that the novels were the "real" story and the others merely commercial tie-ins. (Which may be a defensible position, but not one we should promote on Wikipedia.)
How integrated is BBC Books into the rest of the BBC? I suppose I had always assumed that there was some sort of editorial wall between BBC-TV and BBC Books, which meant that the day-to-day operations of the Eighth Doctor Adventures weren't much different from the Virgin New Adventures — but perhaps I was wrong. Is there a significant difference in the licensing of Doctor Who Magazine (published by Panini) and the new Doctor Who Adventures (published by BBC Magazines, I believe)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I would happily strip the word "canonicity" from every Wikipedia entry on Doctor Who. How fans interpret the stories fitting together seems barely encyclopaedic to me!
There were huge differences in the day-to-day operations of the Eighth Doctor Adventures and the Virgin New Adventures, but that's as much about other differences between Virgin Books and BBC Books as about the licensing arrangments. The internal workings of the BBC are strange and complicated: they have also changed hugely over the years that Doctor Who has existed. There is now an internal market in which one part of the BBC commissions another part of the BBC (BBC Wales) to make the television series, which would have been totally alien to Verity Lambert in 1963. The internal workings of the BBC with respect to Doctor Who have also changed considerably with the new television series: there is now a Who office in Cardiff overseeing the BBC Books' output and all spin-offs whereas previously what little central control there was consisted of Steve Cole overseeing both the books and video releases for BBC Worldwide.
I have no idea about Doctor Who Magazine and Doctor Who Adventures. As far as I can make out, the internal contractual arrangements (so to speak) for BBCi to make Scream of the Shalka and for BBC Books to make the 8th Doctor Adventures were the same. As far as I can make out, being internal to the BBC did/does mean that BBC Books' Who output was/is more integrated with (and subservient to) a broader strategy whereas Virgin or Big Finish have greater leeway on the details, but also stricter limits on some issues. (There were also key differences between the contracts Virgin and Big Finish got, e.g. one exclusive, the other not.) And none of that seems to have any implications for what Russell T. Davies, the other writers and the rest of the production team think of as 'canonical' when making the new series.
So I don't really know where that leaves us, but it still seems wrong to me to call books or whatever made by the BBC "licensed spin-offs". They are tie-ins. Something like Doctor Who Magazine is a licensed tie-in, Torchwood is a spin-off, and the New Adventures were either a licensed spin-off or licensed tie-ins. Bondegezou 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Doctors!?!?

So if McGann is counted as one of the Doctors because he appeared in ONE TV film why is Peter Cushing ignored as a doctor when he appeared in TWO Doctor Who Movies? I'd like someone to explain that please! Candy 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the TVM bent over backwards to point out it was canon - most obviously in having Sylv McCoy in to do a regeneration.
The Cushing movies were loose remakes of two Hartnell serials with huge changes taking it out of canon - the two that leap to mind was that Susan was a five year old, and most blatantly, Cushing played a HUMAN scientist called Dr. Who who invented "TARDIS" (no "the") himself. - SoM 00:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, the sophistication of marketing was certainly better in the mid-90s to the 1960s. There is a mileage in having better continuity with the TV programmes - especially as I consider TVMs to simply be extensions of the series. However, the movies had Terry Nation and several BBC series script writers working for them. The fact the Doctor claims to be human doesn't alter the fact he is essentially one of the Doctors. (I would even speculate here that he was telling lies. I mean the racist treatment that many human immigrants received in Britian in the 1960s was bad enough ... just imagine what they would have done to an alien - the doctor had probably seen Plan 9 from outer space.) Still, if that's the way it has been decided the so be it. I guess Larry Niven doesn't count as a Bond (Casino Royale) and by the same token the H2G2 movie shouldn't count as part of the The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(film) genre (mainly because it isn't funny). Candy 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the clearly human "Dr. Who" of the films is a major stumbling block to fitting him into Doctor Who continuity, the larger reason, as SoM points out, is that the films each tell the same story as a William Hartnell television story. You can't say that Hartnell and Cushing were part of the same narrative without really bending over backwards — or did the Daleks invade Earth twice with the same plan, only to get defeated twice in exactly the same way by people with the same names (who nonetheless looked different)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well put Josiah. I guess there is a point there. However, as is often said, "In an infinite universe anything is possible". Candy 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Cushing Doctor is definitely a reinterpretation of the Hartnell Doctor, not a different incarnation. Type 40 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, McGann's image appears in the sketchbook in Human Nature whilst Cushing's does not. Type 40 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the novels explains the presence of the Cushing Doctor, something to do with the Master of Fiction. That might not be canonical though. I reckon he's from a parallel universe! Digifiend (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Appearances 1 stories (1 episodes)

ugh. Morwen - Talk 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Function of the template, I'm afraid. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it can be fixed, with conditionals. Morwen - Talk 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There, done. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to hide from the developers. Morwen - Talk 12:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novel and Audios

I have moved (pending approval) the description of the 8th Doctor's audio adventures to the end of the Novel and Audio Biography. The idea that these adventures took place in the three-yar gap between novels is fanon at best, and to display the theory in an encyclopaedic article as if it were definite defies the notion of the argument that the audios take place at some other period (possibly after the novel series). However, the possibility of the three-year gap is retained in brackets, and left open for the individual to decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.127.33 (talk • contribs) 15:55, July 28, 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked closely at that section in a while, and upon investigation I think it needs a lot of work. We probably shouldn't be making any unequivocal statements about the placement of the novels and audios in relation to each other. (The Radio Times strip can probably be grandfathered in, thanks to Placebo Effect.) I think that rather than even attempting to narrate the One True Biography of the Eighth Doctor, we should give a biographical summary of each line (novels, audios, DWM comic), and then a brief explanation of the controversy about how they fit together. I don't know if I'll have time to do this myself any time soon, but if I can I'll try to fix it — if I can't, anyone else who feels adventurous, please, have a go. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have stated before that the section needs to be merged with Eighth Doctor Adventures and taken out entirely from this article (just haven't gotten around to it yet). The placement of the audios is right out, as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
There's also the element that the audios have, more recently, gone some lengths to distance themselves from the book continuity. It's becoming more common to just say "to hell with it" and classify the Eighth Doctor's era as three distinct continuities: comics, novels, and audios, each splitting from the TVM. (See DW Reference Guide.) There's even some fun speculation -- completely to the side of all of this -- that these separate continuities explain the existence of three different Ninth Doctors. I kind of like that, though it's mostly fanon. It is sort of hinted in The Gallifrey Chronicles, with revelations about alternate timelines and alternate Ninth incarnations, though is never made absolutely clear. --71.139.23.128 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me; that wasn't vandalism. Check out the notes, for one. Notice the improvement for another. Granted, it can use more work. Figure I might as well give it a start, though.--71.139.29.214 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is an improvement. Thanks for that — I don't know why AxyJo thought it was vandalism. If I have time later I'll try to whip something up for the comics. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt the 8th Doctor comic strips be given a mention?SMegatron 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. If anyone else wants to have a go at a summary of the comics' story arcs, please do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's This About The Doctor Destroying his planet?

Is this to do with the Time War And the 9th Doctor, if he destroyed Gallifrey did it come back for him to destroy it again? Sorry, i just don't get it, the article doesn't say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RETARDIS (talk • contribs) 04:46, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

Sort of: it's complicated. See Time War (Doctor Who), specifically Time War (Doctor Who)#Eighth Doctor Adventures. The official line of the TV series' production team is that the Time War referenced in the series is not the one described in the books, which does mean that Gallifrey gets destroyed twice. (The details of its restoration weren't explicitly given in the novels, but the possibility was hinted at in The Gallifrey Chronicles.) They're actually required to say this because of BBC guidelines which say that the content of free-to-the-public, license-fee-supported programmes can't depend on commercial material that you have to buy — you can't tell a viewer, "for the full story, buy this!". However, Russell T. Davies has also said that viewers are free to construct whatever elaborate theories of Doctor Who history they like, and in his book AHistory, Lance Parkin has put forth a theory explaining how the books' Time War could be the one mentioned in the TV series, and Gallifrey might have been destroyed only once.
Of course, since the BBC has no official position on what is and isn't Doctor Who canon, it's also perfectly acceptable to ignore the books altogether, and say that the War mentioned in the TV series is the only one, which also avoids the problem of Gallifrey going boom twice. (To destroy one's homeworld once may be regarded as a misfortune; to destroy it twice begins to look like carelessness.)
I'll try to find a place to link this article to the Time War one, so that other readers won't be confused. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Movies

There were rumours about a year ago that McGann might come back to star in an arc of tv movies that continue the 8th Doctors adventures (perhaps through the Time War?). With Tennant cutting back his schedule next year 2009 sounds like a perfect opportunity to do this. Has there been any more discussion of this possibility? Type 40 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longest serving Doctor?

The article states that "...some consider the Eighth Doctor one of the longest-serving of the Doctors. He is unarguably the longest-serving Doctor in the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip." Actually, isn't he tied with the Seventh Doctor, who reigned from 1986 to 2005? Lighthope (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, maybe that's 1987 to 1989? Gad, I can't remember. Lighthope (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)