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

4 of 14

Salford_Who

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“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......

Granny McSmith

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Salford_Who:
“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

Talma

22-09-2010

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...

Eaglestriker

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Eaglestriker:
“The Doctor bedded someone and started a family, get over it ”

I can't believe this was my 3000th post!

nebogipfel

22-09-2010

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

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Eaglestriker:
“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.

Webslark

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by nebogipfel:
“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!

Jakes_stuff

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by smithers3162:
“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?

tingramretro

22-09-2010

Did you miss the part about them not being 'audiobooks'?
And you're still wrong.

Salford_Who

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“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.

Jakes_stuff

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Salford_Who:
“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

tingramretro

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Salford_Who:
“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.

Quote:
“And you're still wrong - they're not canon.”

Originally Posted by Jakes_stuff:
“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...

smithers3162

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Jakes_stuff:
“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

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“Did you miss the part about them not being 'audiobooks'?
And you're still wrong.”

Sorry - YOU'RE wrong

outside

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“Olivier is wrong.”

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.

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“ 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"?

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“ 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?

Originally Posted by smithers3162:
“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.

tingramretro

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by smithers3162:
“Sorry - YOU'RE wrong ”

About which part? And no, I'm not. I can be just as stubborn as you, pal.

tingramretro

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by outside:
“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?

CoalHillJanitor

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“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.

Jakes_stuff

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by smithers3162:
“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.

outside

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by tingramretro:
“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.

Salford_Who

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Jakes_stuff:
“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.

Webslark

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Jakes_stuff:
“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.

Salford_Who

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Jakes_stuff:
“
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.

nebogipfel

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Webslark:
“and a landmark for the rest of us to aspire to! ”

Indeed!

Jakes_stuff

22-09-2010

Originally Posted by Salford_Who:
“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.

4 of 14