DS Forums

 
 

How many companions waited for the Doctor, and waited and waited?


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-09-2010, 12:43
Salford_Who
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,155
And Philip Oliver is not right-they're two different things entirely. But then, you still get actors working on the show referring to the lead character as 'Dr Who'. It doesn't mean we should.
It's Philip Olivier Ting - if you're going to make comments on people making mistakes......
Salford_Who is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-09-2010, 12:48
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
But are stories published in your head canon?

...
I hope not. I'm sure DT featured in quite a few stories in quite a few heads which were not suitable for family viewing
Granny McSmith is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 12:52
Talma
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,173
We don't actually know the Doctor didn't at some stage go back and see how Susan was getting on, possibly getting to know his grandchildren (assuming there were any) etc. That could be the family he was mourning as lost as well as any others. That's the problem with a Time and Space traveller, he could have done more or less anything at any point. Just because he's never mentioned it when we've been listening...
Talma is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 13:05
Eaglestriker
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,504
The Doctor bedded someone and started a family, get over it
I can't believe this was my 3000th post!
Eaglestriker is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 13:20
nebogipfel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,309
Yes. Of course. I suppose he would have had more reason to do that in an off screen visit than for any of the others. (we know that he didn't bother with SJS and I suspect are going to find he didn't visit Jo either.)

But it is funny to think of him locking her out and clearing off.
nebogipfel is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 14:17
nebogipfel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,309
I can't believe this was my 3000th post!
Peevish, argumentative, humorous and tawdry in one short sentence. A milestone post to be proud of.
nebogipfel is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 14:20
Webslark
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Posts: 18,918
Peevish, argumentative, humorous and tawdry in one short sentence. A milestone post to be proud of.
and a landmark for the rest of us to aspire to!
Webslark is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 14:34
Jakes_stuff
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 929
The TV show is canon. Fact. Therefore, if there are direct contradictions between the TV show and the audiobooks, you have to take the audiobooks as non-canon. Fact. For instance, I understand Jo Grant has appeared in these stories, and would expect that the upcoming SJA story - on TV - will completely ignore this fact. SJA is undoubtedly canon, therefore, the audiobooks cannot be. maybe you and Tingramento can play little games whereby you decide that there are alternative dimensions involved etc, and convince yourself that the audiobooks can be reeasonably taken as canon. I however, cannot. And I think tingramento even questioned whether NuWho was canon at one point, the most ludicrous and preposterous statement ever said on this forum (actually, he's done a few that may challenge that status...)
So, take the audiobooks as canon and try getting your head round the fact that they jar with the TV series, get all wound up because the TV show doesn't follow what you believe to be fact as shown in the audiobooks, etc. Knock yourself out. I, and the majority of the TV viewing public, will take the TV show, and only the TV show, as canon, and be very happy enjoying it.
HaHa! You accuse ME of getting wound up? Read back your post and see who seems the most wound up!!

Whether you like it or not, what i said in an earlier post STILL stands, canon is open to individuals personal opinion and until someone comes along from the BBC and says different thats the way it stands.

I'd understand your argument if the BBC had categorically stated 'The books and plays are not Canon' and the likes of me and Tings were still saying they were.

As for inconsistances between the tv series and the books/plays, its science fiction! Numourous explanations could be applied to most scenarios!

Some people think the books and audio plays are canon, some do not. I can accept people think differently to me, so why can't you?
Jakes_stuff is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 14:39
tingramretro
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shotley, Suffolk
Posts: 10,824
The TV show is canon. Fact. Therefore, if there are direct contradictions between the TV show and the audiobooks, you have to take the audiobooks as non-canon. Fact. For instance, I understand Jo Grant has appeared in these stories, and would expect that the upcoming SJA story - on TV - will completely ignore this fact. SJA is undoubtedly canon, therefore, the audiobooks cannot be. maybe you and Tingramento can play little games whereby you decide that there are alternative dimensions involved etc, and convince yourself that the audiobooks can be reeasonably taken as canon. I however, cannot. And I think tingramento even questioned whether NuWho was canon at one point, the most ludicrous and preposterous statement ever said on this forum (actually, he's done a few that may challenge that status...)
So, take the audiobooks as canon and try getting your head round the fact that they jar with the TV series, get all wound up because the TV show doesn't follow what you believe to be fact as shown in the audiobooks, etc. Knock yourself out. I, and the majority of the TV viewing public, will take the TV show, and only the TV show, as canon, and be very happy enjoying it.
Did you miss the part about them not being 'audiobooks'?
And you're still wrong.
tingramretro is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:18
Salford_Who
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,155
Did you miss the part about them not being 'audiobooks'?
And you're still wrong.
Did you miss the part where Philip Olivier said they were audio books.
And you're still wrong - they're not canon.
Salford_Who is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:22
Jakes_stuff
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 929
Did you miss the part where Philip Olivier said they were audio books.
And you're still wrong - they're not canon.
Says you, who has no authority to make such a sweeping statement.

However, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else
Jakes_stuff is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:42
tingramretro
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shotley, Suffolk
Posts: 10,824
Did you miss the part where Philip Olivier said they were audio books.
Olivier is wrong. An audiobook is a book being read aloud, usually by one person, sometimes (though not always) with minimal sound effects added later. An audioplay is a full cast drama with full sound effects and score, recorded in studio, as a play. This isn't really a debatable issue-they're two different things entirely. That is a fact. You may not have heard any Big finish stuff but I assume you have at some time heard a Radio 4 drama, or The Archers, or the radio version of Steptoe & Son? These are not audiobooks. They are audioplays. And that's what Big Finish make.
And you're still wrong - they're not canon.
Says you, who has no authority to make such a sweeping statement.

However, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else
Even if it is wrong...
tingramretro is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:44
smithers3162
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 726
HaHa! You accuse ME of getting wound up? Read back your post and see who seems the most wound up!!

Whether you like it or not, what i said in an earlier post STILL stands, canon is open to individuals personal opinion and until someone comes along from the BBC and says different thats the way it stands.

I'd understand your argument if the BBC had categorically stated 'The books and plays are not Canon' and the likes of me and Tings were still saying they were.

As for inconsistances between the tv series and the books/plays, its science fiction! Numourous explanations could be applied to most scenarios!

Some people think the books and audio plays are canon, some do not. I can accept people think differently to me, so why can't you?
Not wound up at all - it's all rather amusing. And you've proved my point by accepting that things can clash between audiobooks and TV because it's "science fiction". Assuming Jo Grant has met the Dr on numerous occassions on the audiobooks, and in SJA it's their first meeting since The Green Death - assuming that is the case, and if both are canon, how can this be? As I said before, you're welcome to postulate about alternative dimensions etc, but it won't wash with me. I don't need some pronouncement from he BBC - the audiobooks ain't canon, end of.
smithers3162 is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:45
smithers3162
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 726
Did you miss the part about them not being 'audiobooks'?
And you're still wrong.
Sorry - YOU'RE wrong
smithers3162 is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:51
outside
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,570
If Big Finish are happy to publish it in their own magazine then they don't seem to give a stuff what their audios are called.

An audiobook is a book being read aloud, usually by one person, sometimes (though not always) with minimal sound effects added later.
You mean like "The Companion Chronicles"?

An audioplay is a full cast drama with full sound effects and score, recorded in studio, as a play. This isn't really a debatable issue-they're two different things entirely. That is a fact. You may not have heard any Big finish stuff but I assume you have at some time heard a Radio 4 drama, or The Archers, or the radio version of Steptoe & Son? These are not audiobooks. They are audioplays. And that's what Big Finish make.
Apart from "The Companion Chronicles", for example?

Assuming Jo Grant has met the Dr on numerous occassions on the audiobooks, and in SJA it's their first meeting since The Green Death
Jo and the Doctor have appeared in "The Companion Chronicles" series, yes.
outside is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 15:55
tingramretro
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shotley, Suffolk
Posts: 10,824
Sorry - YOU'RE wrong
About which part? And no, I'm not. I can be just as stubborn as you, pal.
tingramretro is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:00
tingramretro
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shotley, Suffolk
Posts: 10,824
If Big Finish are happy to publish it in their own magazine then they don't seem to give a stuff what their audios are called.



You mean like "The Companion Chronicles"?



Apart from "The Companion Chronicles", for example?



Jo and the Doctor have appeared in "The Companion Chronicles" series, yes.
The Companion Chronicles are, effectively, audiobooks, despite not actually having started out as books, yes; however, the Companion Chronicles are not representative of the rest of the company's output, and are considered as separate from the main range of audioplays. The BBC produced Tom Baker audios are also audiobooks, but Big Finish's main range, the Gallifrey series, Dalek Empire Etc are not. They are two different things. Has this clarified things for you now, or do I need to draw a flip chart?
tingramretro is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:15
CoalHillJanitor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,572
The Companion Chronicles are, effectively, audiobooks, despite not actually having started out as books, yes; however, the Companion Chronicles are not representative of the rest of the company's output, and are considered as separate from the main range of audioplays. The BBC produced Tom Baker audios are also audiobooks, but Big Finish's main range, the Gallifrey series, Dalek Empire Etc are not. They are two different things. Has this clarified things for you now, or do I need to draw a flip chart?
A Venn diagram might help.
CoalHillJanitor is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:16
Jakes_stuff
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 929
Not wound up at all - it's all rather amusing. And you've proved my point by accepting that things can clash between audiobooks and TV because it's "science fiction". Assuming Jo Grant has met the Dr on numerous occassions on the audiobooks, and in SJA it's their first meeting since The Green Death - assuming that is the case, and if both are canon, how can this be? As I said before, you're welcome to postulate about alternative dimensions etc, but it won't wash with me. I don't need some pronouncement from he BBC - the audiobooks ain't canon, end of.
It IS rather amusing! Especially how you won't accept someone has a different opinion to you and there is no right or wrong answer in this matter!

And you may not need some annoucement from the BBC to have your OPINION, which is all well and good and totally upto you.

And you shouldn't say 'end of' in such an agressive fashion and proclaim you are right, because you are not, but you are not wrong either, it's just your OPINION. Are you such a control freak and a spoilt brat you can't allow others to have theirs?

And if we are to talk about inconsistancies, what about the ones within the TV series itself? not that for a minute that I am suggesting the TV series isn't canon.

But the upshot of it is, as I've said many times, canon within Doctor who is about personal opinion, and if you can't accept that people have different opinions to you, you are in for a lonely life my friend.
Jakes_stuff is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:17
outside
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,570
The Companion Chronicles are, effectively, audiobooks, despite not actually having started out as books, yes; however, the Companion Chronicles are not representative of the rest of the company's output, and are considered as separate from the main range of audioplays. The BBC produced Tom Baker audios are also audiobooks, but Big Finish's main range, the Gallifrey series, Dalek Empire Etc are not. They are two different things. Has this clarified things for you now, or do I need to draw a flip chart?
Audiobooks with, in your words, "audioplay" sections, of course.

I needed no clarification, thanks, but I would love to see your flip chart, yes, as I'm sure I could offer a few corrections.
outside is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:20
Salford_Who
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,155
Says you, who has no authority to make such a sweeping statement.

However, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else
I have as much authority as those saying that they are canon, and getting their knickers in a twist because something that has been said in an audiobook/play has been contradicted in the tv show.

When Doctor Who returned in 2005, it wasn't Doctor who returns to the tv screens, it was Doctor Who is back, which meant is was away, retired.

That's as much authority as I need to dismiss the audiobooks/ play/ books/ ideas scribbled on the back of cigarette packets/ fan fiction.
Salford_Who is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:22
Webslark
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Posts: 18,918
It IS rather amusing! Especially how you won't accept someone has a different opinion to you and there is no right or wrong answer in this matter!

And you may not need some annoucement from the BBC to have your OPINION, which is all well and good and totally upto you.

And you shouldn't say 'end of' in such an agressive fashion and proclaim you are right, because you are not, but you are not wrong either, it's just your OPINION. Are you such a control freak and a spoilt brat you can't allow others to have theirs?

And if we are to talk about inconsistancies, what about the ones within the TV series itself? not that for a minute that I am suggesting the TV series isn't canon.

But the upshot of it is, as I've said many times, canon within Doctor who is about personal opinion, and if you can't accept that people have different opinions to you, you are in for a lonely life my friend.
Nicely put. Good advice for the intractable on BOTH sides I think.
Webslark is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:24
Salford_Who
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,155

And if we are to talk about inconsistancies, what about the ones within the TV series itself? not that for a minute that I am suggesting the TV series isn't canon.

But the upshot of it is, as I've said many times, canon within Doctor who is about personal opinion, and if you can't accept that people have different opinions to you, you are in for a lonely life my friend.
But you've just contradicted yourself - you (quite rightly) refuse to suggest the the TV series isn't canon.

Canon cannot be about personal opinion, if the TV Series trumps anything else that is written, it makes the TV Series canon, and anything else may or may not be canon, but not until it is confirmed within the tv series.
Salford_Who is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:26
nebogipfel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,309
and a landmark for the rest of us to aspire to!

Indeed!
nebogipfel is offline  
Old 22-09-2010, 16:32
Jakes_stuff
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 929
I have as much authority as those saying that they are canon, and getting their knickers in a twist because something that has been said in an audiobook/play has been contradicted in the tv show.

When Doctor Who returned in 2005, it wasn't Doctor who returns to the tv screens, it was Doctor Who is back, which meant is was away, retired.

That's as much authority as I need to dismiss the audiobooks/ play/ books/ ideas scribbled on the back of cigarette packets/ fan fiction.
But the people who chose to think they are canon are just offering their opinion. There is no-one thumping the table saying they are definately canon. But you are not offering an opinion, you are saying it it fact - and it isn't

If you chose to dismiss all other Doctor Who media, that is totally upto you, and entitled to your point of view, but you don't get to say what everyone elses should be.
Jakes_stuff is offline  
 
Closed Thread




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:08.