A serious question: does it REALLY matter what was said in a story fifty years ago?
Yes, it is does, to some of us. If it doesn't to you, fine. And I'm not sure what comment in particular you're referring to or why you're getting confrontational in what was a perfectly pleasant discussion thread, but Doctor Who hasn't yet been running for fifty years and the TARDIS' origins weren't really discussed until 1969, which is only 41 years ago.
Just ignore it and accept the current storyline as the correct one.
I don't know why people are so bogged down by TV show minutiae. It was decades ago and there have been hundreds of writers and very little consistency in stories.
What are you talking about? Ignore what? And why?
I let that stuff go over my head, sure, it's great to discuss old episodes, but really, not a lot of thought is given to the fact that there was no continuity back then and certainly no thought to the fact that the show would last a year, never mind 50!
They'd already been shown to be able to transport people without sending them in a TARDIS, when they returned Jamie and Zoe home.
They used the less advanced SIDRAT instead.
When Jamie and Zoe leave to return to their own times, they depart in the dark-colored SIDRAT the War Lord's guards arrived in, not one of the lighter coloured TARDISes.
A serious question: does it REALLY matter what was said in a story fifty years ago?
...(snipping for brevity)
No, of course it doesn't. Not really. But it's often fun. And not entirely off-topic for a Dr Who forum to discuss, you know, Dr Who. I like it when ting and others remind me how things played out over the years. Especially when I throw in what I thought was true and he pings right back with the correction or expansion. I haven't got the time to rewatch Who as much as I'd like, don't actually own all the DVDs or have a good enough memory. But I like these little reminders of the old stories. In fact hanging around here has rekindled my interest in watching them.
Haven't got much time for angry battles, but this thread has been good humoured and a bit of fun. We know that it wasn't all pre-invented, thought through and checked for inconsistencies back in '63, to be revealed bit by bit over 50 years. Sydney had a great idea, but wasn't tolkien.
I like the idea that Susan lied about naming the tardis. Presumably supporting grandfather in his lie/implication that he built and didn't steal it? I prefer it to, for example, Susan having been really involved in coming up with it on Gallifrey. The Doctor lies. Family trait.
Comments
No, of course it doesn't. Not really. But it's often fun. And not entirely off-topic for a Dr Who forum to discuss, you know, Dr Who. I like it when ting and others remind me how things played out over the years. Especially when I throw in what I thought was true and he pings right back with the correction or expansion. I haven't got the time to rewatch Who as much as I'd like, don't actually own all the DVDs or have a good enough memory. But I like these little reminders of the old stories. In fact hanging around here has rekindled my interest in watching them.
Haven't got much time for angry battles, but this thread has been good humoured and a bit of fun. We know that it wasn't all pre-invented, thought through and checked for inconsistencies back in '63, to be revealed bit by bit over 50 years. Sydney had a great idea, but wasn't tolkien.
I like the idea that Susan lied about naming the tardis. Presumably supporting grandfather in his lie/implication that he built and didn't steal it? I prefer it to, for example, Susan having been really involved in coming up with it on Gallifrey. The Doctor lies. Family trait.