Gallifrey was destroyed, the time lock just prevents time travel in or out of the events. The Visionary predicted Gallifrey's destruction and that happened. She said only the Doctor and the Master survive and the Doctor says he'd know if there were other Time Lords around. That's evidence enough IMO.
Well the Time Lords are alive inside the time tock, and presumably they also still exist before the time lock. Whats to say that if the Meddling Monk does appear in the show that he isn't from before the Time War.
Also Dalek Caan managed to get through the time lock into the Time War and rescue Davros and then both of them escaped out of the Time War to the present day Medusa Cascade. If a crazy insane Dalek can manage it then I am sure at least some of the Time Lords could too.
The Monk was the possessor of a stolen Mark IV TARDIS – superior to the Doctor's and with a fully functioning chameleon circuit – and said he left the Doctor's then-unnamed home planet some fifty years after the Doctor did -- which could indicate that he was a Time Lord, although it was never stated at the time since the concept of the Doctor's race had not yet been devised.
He liked to meddle in history and to change it for his own amusement and for what he considered to be the better — lending mechanical assistance to the builders of Stonehenge; giving Leonardo da Vinci tips on aircraft design; making money by using time travel to exploit compound interest; and, when the Doctor first encountered him, attempting to prevent the Norman Conquest as part of a plan to guide England into an early age of technological prosperity. On that occasion he wore the guise of a monk in order to gain the trust of the 11th-century locals of Northumbria, hence the name by which he is most often known. (His actual name was never revealed in the series.)
No. For the same reason its not Omega, The Rani, Susan, The Valeyard or the bloody Brigadier.
Most people that watch the show have no idea who they are, and they haven't been on TV for 30 years.
No, they won't use a character who (to the general viewing public at least) is fairly obscure as the big bad of a series.
Saying that I would love to see him back in an episode, I think his modus operandi is far more interesting than the Master's and far more fitting for a renegade Timelord - meddling with time as opposed to taking over the planet/universe, etc (which nearly every villain wants to do). Plus Peter Butterworth gave a lovely performance.
As for him being dead - it's more than likely that the Monk (if you watch the episodes he was in) is the type of character who would of done a runner and hid as soon as the Time War broke out. So with the handy old fob watch he could easily be about some where.
Just please don't let him be played by the dull and monotoned Patrick Stewart. Shame Toby Jones has already played the Dreamlord.
Also a shame that James Corden has appeared in the Lodger, he'd have been a very good Meddling Monk.
I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the point that the OP isn't just plucking the name of the Meddling Monk out of thin air and making up a theory around him, but is referring to the fact that the Monk said, on-screen in 'The Time Meddler', that he had helped the ancient Britons to construct Stonehenge using anti-gravity devices.
Now I don't believe for one moment that the Monk is anything to do with the current story, but nonetheless its an interesting continuity point that needs addressing. One way to explain it would be to say that the Alliance of Aliens constructed the vertical pillars that descend into the Underhenge, while the Monk just came along later and helped the Britons lift the horizontal blocks on top to create the full monument, unaware of what was underneath.
No. For the same reason its not Omega, The Rani, Susan, The Valeyard or the bloody Brigadier.
Most people that watch the show have no idea who they are, and they haven't been on TV for 30 years.
I don't know why people keep coming out with this silly argument.
The Autons were brought back after 33 years.
The Daleks after 17 years.
The Cybermen after 18 years.
The Sontarans after 23 years.
The Silurians after 26 years, etc, etc.
Like I said, I agree it's not going to be the Monk or anyone like that, but it's ridiculous the way that every time there's even a suggestion of something from the past returning we get this same knee-jerk paranoia that "youcantdothatbecauseitwillCONFUSEtheaudience!!" when they've been doing exactly that for the last five years and the audience has coped perfectly well with the clear, simple, straightforward explanations that they're given of these characters background and history with the Doctor.
I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the point that the OP isn't just plucking the name of the Meddling Monk out of thin air and making up a theory around him, but is referring to the fact that the Monk said, on-screen in 'The Time Meddler', that he had helped the ancient Britons to construct Stonehenge using anti-gravity devices.
Now I don't believe for one moment that the Monk is anything to do with the current story, but nonetheless its an interesting continuity point that needs addressing. One way to explain it would be to say that the Alliance of Aliens constructed the vertical pillars that descend into the Underhenge, while the Monk just came along later and helped the Britons lift the horizontal blocks on top to create the full monument, unaware of what was underneath.
I don't know whay people keep coming out with this silly argument.
The Autons were brought back after 33 years.
The Daleks after 17 years.
The Cybermen after 18 years.
The Sontarans after 23 years.
The Silurians after 26 years, etc, etc.
Like I said, I agree it's not going to be the Monk or anyone like that, but it's ridiculous the way that every time there's even a suggestion of something from the past returning we get this same knee-jerk paranoia that "youcantdothatbecauseitwillCONFUSEtheaudience!!" when they've been doing exactly that for the last five years and the audience has coped perfectly well with the clear, simple, straightforward explanations that they're given of these characters background and history with the Doctor.
Yes but they were not brought back as the central focus of an entire series without any prior introduction or forshadowing. When the Daleks and Cybermen were, they were both re-introduced in the main body of the series. It therefore ment something and makes a satisfying climax with some pay off to the viewer.
Its not about confiusing the audience, its about good story telling and decent narrative structure.
I've never heard of the Meddling Monk but going by what people have said about him designing Stonehenge etc I don't think it's a mad theory at all. I would be all for introducing an old villain in the finale - in fact I think I'd love it. Make a change from the usual Daleks and/or Cybermen or Master finales.
I don't know whay people keep coming out with this silly argument.
The Autons were brought back after 33 years.
The Daleks after 17 years.
The Cybermen after 18 years.
The Sontarans after 23 years.
The Silurians after 26 years, etc, etc.
Yes, but they all stood alone in the new series. No prior knowledge is needed to understand and enjoy them, and for the most part there is really very little mention of them previously being known to the Doctor.
When people speculate about The Rani and The Monk they do so in the context of a 'big reveal'. This would only work with prior knowledge and would therefore confuse 99% of the viewers.
Well, for a start because it's incorrect. The Brigadier was last seen on TV in the Sarah Jane Adventures in 2008, which is only two years ago. The Rani last appeared in 1987 (23 years ago), the Valeyard in 1985 (25 years ago) and Omega and Susan in 1983 (27 years ago). 1983 was also the last time Rassillon-who resurfaced last year-and K9-who resurfaced in 2006-were seen on TV, so I fail to see the problem. Particularly since Jo Grant is about to reappear after 37 years!
Yes but they were not brought back as the central focus of an entire series without any prior introduction or forshadowing. When the Daleks and Cybermen were, they were both re-introduced in the main body of the series. It therefore ment something and makes a satisfying climax with some pay off to the viewer.
Its not about confiusing the audience, its about good story telling and decent narrative structure.
Yes, but they all stood alone in the new series. No prior knowledge is needed to understand and enjoy them, and for the most part there is really very little mention of them previously being known to the Doctor.
When people speculate about The Rani and The Monk they do so in the context of a 'big reveal'. This would only work with prior knowledge and would therefore confuse 99% of the viewers.
Er...I think perhaps you're both forgetting how the Master was re-introduced in Utopia.
Big reveal, with no foreshadowing or prior mentions (the "Vote Saxon" stuff didn't actually say anything about who he was). If you weren't a long-term fan you'd have zero idea of who this character was supposed to be or what his significance was. And yet it worked perfectly well because it was all explained there and then within the episode.
It's all in the writing. There's no reason to think that such surprise re-introductions can't possibly work without "confusing" people, especially when they've shown once already that it can be done.
Er...I think perhaps you're both forgetting how the Master was re-introduced in Utopia.
Big reveal, with no foreshadowing or prior mentions (the "Vote Saxon" stuff didn't actually say anything about who he was). If you weren't a long-term fan you'd have zero idea of who this character was supposed to be or what his significance was. And yet it worked perfectly well because it was all explained there and then within the episode.
It's all in the writing. There's no reason to think that such surprise re-introductions can't possibly work without "confusing" people, especially when they've shown once already that it can be done.
Also, classic Who only ended 20 years ago, and regardless of what the younger generation might seemingly think, that isn't actually that long to the majority of the audience (we live in a rapidly aging society). I think more people remember classic Who than most twenty-somethings realise.
Well, for a start because it's incorrect. The Brigadier was last seen on TV in the Sarah Jane Adventures in 2008, which is only two years ago. The Rani last appeared in 1987 (23 years ago), the Valeyard in 1985 (25 years ago) and Omega and Susan in 1983 (27 years ago). 1983 was also the last time Rassillon-who resurfaced last year-and K9-who resurfaced in 2006-were seen on TV, so I fail to see the problem. Particularly since Jo Grant is about to reappear after 37 years!
Oh come on, the exact number of years makes no difference to the point i'm making. I've explained countless times that when a character from "classic who" has been brought back as a "big bad" they have always appeared on screen earlier in the series.
If this hasn't happened it would follow none of the rules of how to construct a satisfying narrative, moffat is a good writer, understands this and therefore it won't happen,
I had no idea the Brigadier was back, I assume though that he was not revealed as the mastermind behind a series long mystery with no prior on screen dramatic foreshadowing?
1983 was also the last time Rassillon-who resurfaced last year-
Haha, yes I'd forgotten about that one! The biggest 'reveal' of the lot! Funnily enough I don't recall his name being revealed as something from Classic DW causing mass confusion amongst millions of viewers...:D
Oh come on, the exact number of years makes no difference to the point i'm making. I've explained countless times that when a character from "classic who" has been brought back as a "big bad" they have always appeared on screen earlier in the series.
Apart from the Master. Oh, and Davros.
If this hasn't happened it would follow none of the rules of how to construct a satisfying narrative, moffat is a good writer, understands this and therefore it won't happen,
Despite the fact that it did with the Master and Davros...:)
I had no idea the Brigadier was back, I assume though that he was not revealed as the mastermind behind a series long mystery with no prior on screen dramatic foreshadowing?
No, but nor was the audience deemed too thick to understand that he was a recurring character with significant previous history. I thought everybody knew about the Brigadier's return, I'm rather surprised you missed it.
Er...I think perhaps you're both forgetting how the Master was re-introduced in Utopia.
Big reveal, with no foreshadowing or prior mentions (the "Vote Saxon" stuff didn't actually say anything about who he was). If you weren't a long-term fan you'd have zero idea of who this character was supposed to be or what his significance was. And yet it worked perfectly well because it was all explained there and then within the episode.
It's all in the writing. There's no reason to think that such surprise re-introductions can't possibly work without "confusing" people, especially when they've shown once already that it can be done.
Nope i've dealt with this directly before although possibly in a different thread, the Master, Davros ect are such big parts of Dr Who mythology that the general public beyond hardcore who fans know who they are.
The characters being mentioned so in connection with this series are not in the public conciousness to the extent of Daleks, Cybermen or the Master. Ask most people who the master is they will know "he's a baddie from doctor who" ask them who "the meddling monk" is they will likely reply "I think thats the name of a nearby pub"
As i've said, its nothing to do with people being confused its about not making the ending feel cheap.
I'd love these chaacters to come back, by the way, but look to the example of The Daleks/Cybermen in previous series, for an example of how it would be dealt with, if they were to be the major series villain.
but look to the example of The Daleks/Cybermen in previous series, for an example of how it would be dealt with, if they were to be the major series villain.
As written by RTD*, not SM.
*this is in no way an attack on RTD, i'm a big RTD fan.
Comparing The Master and Davros with The Meddling Monk is simply silly. Pretty much every parent watching with their kids would have known The Master and Davros from the classic series. Well loved enemies from the past. Can that be said of The Monk?
Also (and copy this for future pasting because I'm really done saying it), they were carefully introduced as new characters who stood alone in the new series with no prior knowledge required to enjoy them.
Comparing The Master and Davros with The Meddling Monk is simply silly. Pretty much every parent watching with their kids would have known The Master and Davros from the classic series. Well loved enemies from the past. Can that be said of The Monk?
Also (and copy this for future pasting because I'm really done saying it), they were carefully introduced as new characters who stood alone in the new series with no prior knowledge required to enjoy them.
The Meddling Monk... Sigh....
You're saying the Monk isn't a well loved character?
Comparing The Master and Davros with The Meddling Monk is simply silly. Pretty much every parent watching with their kids would have known The Master and Davros from the classic series. Well loved enemies from the past. Can that be said of The Monk?
Also (and copy this for future pasting because I'm really done saying it), they were carefully introduced as new characters who stood alone in the new series with no prior knowledge required to enjoy them.
The Meddling Monk... Sigh....
*nods*
I can't keep responding to the the same point over and over.
Are you guys (tingram and Mansun) not willing to accept that there is a significant difference in public awareness of Davros or the Master and the Meddling Monk? And that this may impact the way you can treat them in a narrative.
Also, the basic rules of how to tell a story have not changed between RTD and moffats tenures on the show. So the change in writer does not make a difference.
Finally using Rasilion as an example isn't really a good comparison. The significant thing there was the return of the timelords, new viewers would be well aware that the time lords existed. Rasilion being Rasilion was in no way significant to that story, I had no idea who Rasilion was at the time and just saw it as "big important time lord" as i'm sure did most viewers.
I can't keep responding to the the same point over and over.
Are you guys (tingram and Mansun) not willing to accept that there is a significant difference in public awareness of Davros or the Master and the Meddling Monk? And that this may impact the way you can treat them in a narrative.
Also, the basic rules of how to tell a story have not changed between RTD and moffats tenures on the show. So the change in writer does not make a difference.
Finally using Rasilion as an example isn't really a good comparison. The significant thing there was the return of the timelords, new viewers would be well aware that the time lords existed. Rasilion being Rasilion was in no way significant to that story, I had no idea who Rasilion was at the time and just saw it as "big important time lord" as i'm sure did most viewers.
You're assuming your personal experience corresponds with that of most viewers.
Comments
And if it's correct, next Sunday will be a world of gloating
Rather like my thread announcing the 3D cinema trailer a whole week before it was announced publicly before the start of the new series u mean
Theres more chance of it being Ace.
Well the Time Lords are alive inside the time tock, and presumably they also still exist before the time lock. Whats to say that if the Meddling Monk does appear in the show that he isn't from before the Time War.
Also Dalek Caan managed to get through the time lock into the Time War and rescue Davros and then both of them escaped out of the Time War to the present day Medusa Cascade. If a crazy insane Dalek can manage it then I am sure at least some of the Time Lords could too.
No. For the same reason its not Omega, The Rani, Susan, The Valeyard or the bloody Brigadier.
Most people that watch the show have no idea who they are, and they haven't been on TV for 30 years.
Also a shame that James Corden has appeared in the Lodger, he'd have been a very good Meddling Monk.
+1
I don't know why people can't see this!!
Now I don't believe for one moment that the Monk is anything to do with the current story, but nonetheless its an interesting continuity point that needs addressing. One way to explain it would be to say that the Alliance of Aliens constructed the vertical pillars that descend into the Underhenge, while the Monk just came along later and helped the Britons lift the horizontal blocks on top to create the full monument, unaware of what was underneath.
I don't know why people keep coming out with this silly argument.
The Autons were brought back after 33 years.
The Daleks after 17 years.
The Cybermen after 18 years.
The Sontarans after 23 years.
The Silurians after 26 years, etc, etc.
Like I said, I agree it's not going to be the Monk or anyone like that, but it's ridiculous the way that every time there's even a suggestion of something from the past returning we get this same knee-jerk paranoia that "youcantdothatbecauseitwillCONFUSEtheaudience!!" when they've been doing exactly that for the last five years and the audience has coped perfectly well with the clear, simple, straightforward explanations that they're given of these characters background and history with the Doctor.
Yes but they were not brought back as the central focus of an entire series without any prior introduction or forshadowing. When the Daleks and Cybermen were, they were both re-introduced in the main body of the series. It therefore ment something and makes a satisfying climax with some pay off to the viewer.
Its not about confiusing the audience, its about good story telling and decent narrative structure.
Yes, but they all stood alone in the new series. No prior knowledge is needed to understand and enjoy them, and for the most part there is really very little mention of them previously being known to the Doctor.
When people speculate about The Rani and The Monk they do so in the context of a 'big reveal'. This would only work with prior knowledge and would therefore confuse 99% of the viewers.
Well, for a start because it's incorrect. The Brigadier was last seen on TV in the Sarah Jane Adventures in 2008, which is only two years ago. The Rani last appeared in 1987 (23 years ago), the Valeyard in 1985 (25 years ago) and Omega and Susan in 1983 (27 years ago). 1983 was also the last time Rassillon-who resurfaced last year-and K9-who resurfaced in 2006-were seen on TV, so I fail to see the problem. Particularly since Jo Grant is about to reappear after 37 years!
Big reveal, with no foreshadowing or prior mentions (the "Vote Saxon" stuff didn't actually say anything about who he was). If you weren't a long-term fan you'd have zero idea of who this character was supposed to be or what his significance was. And yet it worked perfectly well because it was all explained there and then within the episode.
It's all in the writing. There's no reason to think that such surprise re-introductions can't possibly work without "confusing" people, especially when they've shown once already that it can be done.
Oh come on, the exact number of years makes no difference to the point i'm making. I've explained countless times that when a character from "classic who" has been brought back as a "big bad" they have always appeared on screen earlier in the series.
If this hasn't happened it would follow none of the rules of how to construct a satisfying narrative, moffat is a good writer, understands this and therefore it won't happen,
I had no idea the Brigadier was back, I assume though that he was not revealed as the mastermind behind a series long mystery with no prior on screen dramatic foreshadowing?
Nope i've dealt with this directly before although possibly in a different thread, the Master, Davros ect are such big parts of Dr Who mythology that the general public beyond hardcore who fans know who they are.
The characters being mentioned so in connection with this series are not in the public conciousness to the extent of Daleks, Cybermen or the Master. Ask most people who the master is they will know "he's a baddie from doctor who" ask them who "the meddling monk" is they will likely reply "I think thats the name of a nearby pub"
As i've said, its nothing to do with people being confused its about not making the ending feel cheap.
I'd love these chaacters to come back, by the way, but look to the example of The Daleks/Cybermen in previous series, for an example of how it would be dealt with, if they were to be the major series villain.
As written by RTD*, not SM.
*this is in no way an attack on RTD, i'm a big RTD fan.
Also (and copy this for future pasting because I'm really done saying it), they were carefully introduced as new characters who stood alone in the new series with no prior knowledge required to enjoy them.
The Meddling Monk... Sigh....
You're saying the Monk isn't a well loved character?
*nods*
I can't keep responding to the the same point over and over.
Are you guys (tingram and Mansun) not willing to accept that there is a significant difference in public awareness of Davros or the Master and the Meddling Monk? And that this may impact the way you can treat them in a narrative.
Also, the basic rules of how to tell a story have not changed between RTD and moffats tenures on the show. So the change in writer does not make a difference.
Finally using Rasilion as an example isn't really a good comparison. The significant thing there was the return of the timelords, new viewers would be well aware that the time lords existed. Rasilion being Rasilion was in no way significant to that story, I had no idea who Rasilion was at the time and just saw it as "big important time lord" as i'm sure did most viewers.
By hardcore Dr Who fans yes, the general public (most of the viewers) have no idea who he is.
You're assuming your personal experience corresponds with that of most viewers.