I've often wondered if his half-humanity was almost a 'curse' inflicted by the High Council, who meddled with his regeneration .... designed to make his life more difficult, along the lines of 'Well, if he likes these humans so much, let's see how he gets on this time ...' (ducks and takes cover ...)
Just going by what happens on-screen in the TV Movie, it would be easy enough to say the blood transfusion meant that that the Doctor absorbed human DNA, forcing a regeneration into a half-human body. Journey's End did something similar with the meta-crisis.
Generally the books and audios aren't considered canon (obviously some people would disagree), although due to certain audio companions being referenced in Night of the Doctor, some of the Eighth Doctor audios are now considered canon, but as far as I'm aware, none of the generally books are.
Just because the companions' characters' names get mentioned it doesn't mean they're supposed to be exactly the same characters or that they did the same things as they did in the books and audios, or that the Eighth Doctor audios are part of the canon. I think those mentions were just a mark of respect for everything the Big Finish people are doing.
I know they like to say there is no Doctor Who canon, but there is - it's what's in the TV show and nothing else. The books and audios will invariably include characters, locations and plots from the TV stories, but apart from the occasional bit of inconsequential name-dropping it never has been and never will be the other way round.
Just because the companions' characters' names get mentioned it doesn't mean they're supposed to be exactly the same characters or that they did the same things as they did in the books and audios, or that the Eighth Doctor audios are part of the canon. I think those mentions were just a mark of respect for everything the Big Finish people are doing.
I know they like to say there is no Doctor Who canon, but there is - it's what's in the TV show and nothing else. The books and audios will invariably include characters, locations and plots from the TV stories, but apart from the occasional bit of inconsequential name-dropping it never has been and never will be the other way round.
Some good points. It was very good how the Eighth Doctor mentioned the companions' names. It is also interesting to see all your views on the canonicity debate, and I suppose they will be some contradictions in certain books/comic strips, like the Blake's 7 reference I mentioned.
The books I mentioned that TARDIS Wikia (can you always trust Wiki websites?) does not regard as part of the Doctor Who universe are called Charity Anthologies. But just because they weren't licenced by the BBC, why shouldn't they be considered part of the Doctor Who universe when they feature many of the regular companions and don't massively contradict anything in the TV series or other books?
It seems quite arrogant not to consider the books part of the Doctor Who universe just because of them not being licenced. And some of the stories were written by prominent Doctor Who writers.
TARDIS Wikia does, however, think of the Cadet Sweets card story "Doctor Who and the Daleks" (featuring the First Doctor not Peter Cushing) as part of the Doctor Who universe, though, as well as a storybook with the Second Doctor that was part of an iced lolly promotion.
Some good points. It was very good how the Eighth Doctor mentioned the companions' names. It is also interesting to see all your views on the canonicity debate, and I suppose they will be some contradictions in certain books/comic strips, like the Blake's 7 reference I mentioned.
The books I mentioned that TARDIS Wikia (can you always trust Wiki websites?) does not regard as part of the Doctor Who universe are called Charity Anthologies. But just because they weren't licenced by the BBC, why shouldn't they be considered part of the Doctor Who universe when they feature many of the regular companions and don't massively contradict anything in the TV series or other books?
It seems quite arrogant not to consider the books part of the Doctor Who universe just because of them not being licenced. And some of the stories were written by prominent Doctor Who writers.
TARDIS Wikia does, however, think of the Cadet Sweets card story "Doctor Who and the Daleks" (featuring the First Doctor not Peter Cushing) as part of the Doctor Who universe, though, as well as a storybook with the Second Doctor that was part of an iced lolly promotion.
It's not really arrogant to say that something explicitly unofficial is, well, unofficial. Unlicenced Doctor Who is fanfic, no matter who writes it.
By the same token, if I were to spraypaint a picture of a willy and two hairy gonads outside the Tate Modern, my work would not be an official exhibit. Even though Tate Modern patrons could look at it and enjoy it just as much as the authorised art.
It's not really arrogant to say that something explicitly unofficial is, well, unofficial. Unlicenced Doctor Who is fanfic, no matter who writes it.
By the same token, if I were to spraypaint a picture of a willy and two hairy gonads outside the Tate Modern, my work would not be an official exhibit. Even though Tate Modern patrons could look at it and enjoy it just as much as the authorised art.
I wasn't saying it was arrogant to say that the books were unofficial, rather than that it seemed arrogant for the people who run TARDIS Wikia not to consider the books to be part of the Doctor Who universe, even though some were by well-known Doctor Who writers.
I never realised that any unlicenced Doctor Who stories would be considered fanfic, even those that are published as books rather than online.
That's a good one. As I said up thread that my only personal canon is what has been shown on television, my instinct is to say neither. But wasn't McGann's Shada a sort of proto I-player red buttony thing? A bit like Night of the Doctor. But then again Hurt appearing obviously makes the latter canon. Ummmm..probably neither when it comes to Shada. I mean, whether they're canon.
The books I mentioned that TARDIS Wikia (can you always trust Wiki websites?) does not regard as part of the Doctor Who universe are called Charity Anthologies. But just because they weren't licenced by the BBC, why shouldn't they be considered part of the Doctor Who universe when they feature many of the regular companions and don't massively contradict anything in the TV series or other books?
What clinches it for me is that I know they'll never be part of the TV universe, and neither will comic strip stories, audio stories or stories from other books.
I wasn't saying it was arrogant to say that the books were unofficial, rather than that it seemed arrogant for the people who run TARDIS Wikia not to consider the books to be part of the Doctor Who universe, even though some were by well-known Doctor Who writers.
I never realised that any unlicenced Doctor Who stories would be considered fanfic, even those that are published as books rather than online.
These books were essentially fanzines, not "published" books in any real sense. They do not have ISBNs.
If a proper book publisher did attempt to do an unlicenced version (along the lines of Big Finish's licenced Short Trips series), they would be shut down by BBC Worldwide's lawyers. Even if it's a charity project. No question.
I agree that Canon (or Canonical) is purely up to the viewer/reader/listener.
Personally, I prefer to stick to the TV series (as I don't read any books anyway).
Admittedly, the TV series has MANY discontinuity errors, but it's not worth adding novels and audio-series to the confusion in my eyes!!
I agree that Canon (or Canonical) is purely up to the viewer/reader/listener.
Personally, I prefer to stick to the TV series (as I don't read any books anyway).
Admittedly, the TV series has MANY discontinuity errors, but it's not worth adding novels and audio-series to the confusion in my eyes!!
Ultimately, I think what is and what isn't canonical Doctor Who comes down solely to personal preference. There is no Who Bible, no definitive rules and regulations about what is and what isn't Doctor Who.
And that's brilliant.
Doctor Who is what you want it to be, it was whatever you decided it was, and it will be whatever your imagination wishes it to be. Doesn't get better than that surely?
These books were essentially fanzines, not "published" books in any real sense. They do not have ISBNs.
If a proper book publisher did attempt to do an unlicenced version (along the lines of Big Finish's licenced Short Trips series), they would be shut down by BBC Worldwide's lawyers. Even if it's a charity project. No question.
This is interesting as I had no idea that the books didn't have ISBN's.
I agree that Canon (or Canonical) is purely up to the viewer/reader/listener.
Personally, I prefer to stick to the TV series (as I don't read any books anyway).
Admittedly, the TV series has MANY discontinuity errors, but it's not worth adding novels and audio-series to the confusion in my eyes!!
A good point. I know there is the debate about The Brain of Morbius, which featured eight unknown faces before The First Doctor and many fans have wondered who those faces could have been.
Comments
http://youtu.be/qkg8yUDhW3E?t=1m59s
And we all know Russell T Davies own blunt opinion on this matter too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znGBU5oODz8
Just because the companions' characters' names get mentioned it doesn't mean they're supposed to be exactly the same characters or that they did the same things as they did in the books and audios, or that the Eighth Doctor audios are part of the canon. I think those mentions were just a mark of respect for everything the Big Finish people are doing.
I know they like to say there is no Doctor Who canon, but there is - it's what's in the TV show and nothing else. The books and audios will invariably include characters, locations and plots from the TV stories, but apart from the occasional bit of inconsequential name-dropping it never has been and never will be the other way round.
Some good points. It was very good how the Eighth Doctor mentioned the companions' names. It is also interesting to see all your views on the canonicity debate, and I suppose they will be some contradictions in certain books/comic strips, like the Blake's 7 reference I mentioned.
The books I mentioned that TARDIS Wikia (can you always trust Wiki websites?) does not regard as part of the Doctor Who universe are called Charity Anthologies. But just because they weren't licenced by the BBC, why shouldn't they be considered part of the Doctor Who universe when they feature many of the regular companions and don't massively contradict anything in the TV series or other books?
It seems quite arrogant not to consider the books part of the Doctor Who universe just because of them not being licenced. And some of the stories were written by prominent Doctor Who writers.
TARDIS Wikia does, however, think of the Cadet Sweets card story "Doctor Who and the Daleks" (featuring the First Doctor not Peter Cushing) as part of the Doctor Who universe, though, as well as a storybook with the Second Doctor that was part of an iced lolly promotion.
Good man.
By the same token, if I were to spraypaint a picture of a willy and two hairy gonads outside the Tate Modern, my work would not be an official exhibit. Even though Tate Modern patrons could look at it and enjoy it just as much as the authorised art.
I wasn't saying it was arrogant to say that the books were unofficial, rather than that it seemed arrogant for the people who run TARDIS Wikia not to consider the books to be part of the Doctor Who universe, even though some were by well-known Doctor Who writers.
I never realised that any unlicenced Doctor Who stories would be considered fanfic, even those that are published as books rather than online.
That's a good one. As I said up thread that my only personal canon is what has been shown on television, my instinct is to say neither. But wasn't McGann's Shada a sort of proto I-player red buttony thing? A bit like Night of the Doctor. But then again Hurt appearing obviously makes the latter canon. Ummmm..probably neither when it comes to Shada. I mean, whether they're canon.
This could confuse a stupid person. Clearly!
Anybody else?
What clinches it for me is that I know they'll never be part of the TV universe, and neither will comic strip stories, audio stories or stories from other books.
If a proper book publisher did attempt to do an unlicenced version (along the lines of Big Finish's licenced Short Trips series), they would be shut down by BBC Worldwide's lawyers. Even if it's a charity project. No question.
Personally, I prefer to stick to the TV series (as I don't read any books anyway).
Admittedly, the TV series has MANY discontinuity errors, but it's not worth adding novels and audio-series to the confusion in my eyes!!
Personally, I prefer to stick to the TV series (as I don't read any books anyway).
Admittedly, the TV series has MANY discontinuity errors, but it's not worth adding novels and audio-series to the confusion in my eyes!!
And that's brilliant.
Doctor Who is what you want it to be, it was whatever you decided it was, and it will be whatever your imagination wishes it to be. Doesn't get better than that surely?
This is interesting as I had no idea that the books didn't have ISBN's.
A good point. I know there is the debate about The Brain of Morbius, which featured eight unknown faces before The First Doctor and many fans have wondered who those faces could have been.