DS Forums

 
 

Capaldi's Past Apperances


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-04-2014, 16:15
Thamwet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Moo
Posts: 1,148

Do they really NEED explaining? Apparently they're going to explain it, but I don't understand why personally. It's been done before with Colin Baker, and Patty T actually met a character who looked like him. I don't get why it needs explaining.

Take a look at this.

http://media.comicbook.com/wp-conten...er-capaldi.jpg

Also, look at this.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/pho...03-624-352.jpg

And now this.

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...-7-2959340.jpg


It's amazing what a few years, a different hair style and and a pair of glasses can do. In actual fact, Capaldi looks very different in his three roles in the Whoniverse. The 12th Doctor, unless you look closely, only shares a resemblance to Frobisher and the Roman guy who's name I know but can't spell.

So why are they bothering? It's only going to confuse the casual viewers. If Capaldi had played a major character in Doctor Who, then fair enough. But he didn't. Who, apart from us fans, do you think even remembers the Roman character? He did play quite a major role in COE, but really, I don't think they'll be able to revisit a Torchwood character in much detail, let alone one that had such a dark and disturbing storyline.

There's just no point, it's not as if the majority of casual viewers (the majority of the audience) will be all that bothered that he's been in WHO before, assuming they even know at all.
Thamwet is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 05-04-2014, 16:29
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
Most arguments for and against this are already covered at some point in this thread

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1944262

What it basically boils down too is some people think there isn't a need, and others are happy that it is being addressed, and no matter how many times both sides go over their arguments, your either happy that it's going to be addressed or your not and probably won't change your mind either way.
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 16:30
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
No need to explain it at all and any attempt will, imo, be insulting our intelligence!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 16:40
November_Rain
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,506
I have no strong opinion either way. If they decide to explain it then that's cool with me. If they decide to ignore it then I'm ok with that too.
November_Rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 16:45
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
No need to explain it at all and any attempt will, imo, be insulting our intelligence!
As I say there has already been an extensive thread on this, but in response to your post I feel the need to say that in my opinion it is more of an insult to an intelligence to hope that avid viewers will just forget they have seen Capaldi's face before (and before you say it classic who was a different time - no constant internet anaylsis, and freema in doomsday was explained.).

Besides if your hoping there is a chance they will ignore it, I must say, through quoting a post I did in the other thread that I think you'll be disappointed.

For those of you who are convinced it won't be addressed at all:

"We are aware that Peter Capaldi’s played a part in Doctor Who before and we’re not going to ignore the fact," Moffat told Nerd3".

Just found this on a radio times article. sound's pretty clear cut to me. how can anyone argue with moffat actually stating in an article that it won't be ignored

link to article
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-...er-appearances
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 16:47
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
I have no strong opinion either way. If they decide to explain it then that's cool with me. If they decide to ignore it then I'm ok with that too.
Sadly, this sort of thing niggles me a lot! I suspect that if they do explain it in some downright silly timey wimey way, I will just regard it as not canon and ignore it like the 'half human' fiasco.
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 16:49
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
Besides if your hoping there is a chance they will ignore it, I must say, through quoting a post I did in the other thread that I think you'll be disappointed.
Yes it was a different time indeed, a lot less spoon feeding went on!

Considering it is very unlikely to be a plot device, I will just disregard it as canon and move on! Others can regard it how they like but that's how I will deal with it!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:02
The_Judge_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Harrow, Middlesex
Posts: 2,445
OMG I never realied he'd been in Who before




I don't expect an explanation. It just opens up a can of worms, we'd need to explain colin baker, martha, perter purves etc etc etc etc
The_Judge_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:03
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
Yes it was a different time indeed, a lot less spoon feeding went on!

Considering it is very unlikely to be a plot device, I will just disregard it as canon and move on! Others can regard it how they like but that's how I will deal with it!
If you want to blank something that actually happens in an episode then that's your choice. To be fair, I think that's what most people seem to do most of the time.

To be honest, I kind of think your comment shows why an explanation would be okay for both parties. Those who want the explanation will be happy and for those who don't, it will probably be such a small thing that they could easily ignore or disregard it anyway.
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:17
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
If you want to blank something that actually happens in an episode then that's your choice. To be fair, I think that's what most people seem to do most of the time.

To be honest, I kind of think your comment shows why an explanation would be okay for both parties. Those who want the explanation will be happy and for those who don't, it will probably be such a small thing that they could easily ignore or disregard it anyway.
Maybe you're right but I'd prefer that they didn't at all! Ce Sera!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:19
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
OMG I never realied he'd been in Who before




I don't expect an explanation. It just opens up a can of worms, we'd need to explain colin baker, martha, perter purves etc etc etc etc
To be fair, they did explain Martha!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:20
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
OMG I never realied he'd been in Who before




I don't expect an explanation. It just opens up a can of worms, we'd need to explain colin baker, martha, perter purves etc etc etc etc
To be fair, martha /adeola was explained as them being cousins. As for not expecting an explanation, you'll see a few posts up a quote I posted from moffat specifically saying they are not going to ignore the fact he's been in it before and a link to the article which it came from.

The other point which people seem to miss when they cite the fact that previous reoccuring faces haven't been explained is that we are constantly reminded that the show is about change and reinvention, so the fact they haven't bothered to explain faces in the past dosen't mean they can't choose to do so this time.

In fact the gwendolene from unquiet dead/gwen from torchwood link was explained and as I said the martha/adeola connection was also explained so in fact you could almost say it is actually the rule that they usually do explain a reoccuring face in new who.
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:37
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
To be fair, martha /adeola was explained as them being cousins. As for not expecting an explanation, you'll see a few posts up a quote I posted from moffat specifically saying they are not going to ignore the fact he's been in it before and a link to the article which it came from.

The other point which people seem to miss when they cite the fact that previous reoccuring faces haven't been explained is that we are constantly reminded that the show is about change and reinvention, so the fact they haven't bothered to explain faces in the past dosen't mean they can't choose to do so this time.

In fact the gwendolene from unquiet dead/gwen from torchwood link was explained and as I said the martha/adeola connection was also explained so in fact you could almost say it is actually the rule that they usually do explain a reoccuring face in new who.
For me, the Martha and Gwen explanations were more palatable because you can stretch the artistic license to accept family resemblance, a bit like when popular characters/actors play their own fathers or mothers in flashback sequences/stories!

Explanations for why the Doctor looks like someone else doesn't sit quite as well. Although, the Romana - Astra link didn't seem too ridiculous but that was me with the mind of a teenager.
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 17:58
tiggerpooh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 4,110
Yes it was a different time indeed, a lot less spoon feeding went on!

Considering it is very unlikely to be a plot device, I will just disregard it as canon and move on! Others can regard it how they like but that's how I will deal with it!
Oh! Canons again!

You can explain the things you see as canon in this:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1952580
tiggerpooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 18:07
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
For me, the Martha and Gwen explanations were more palatable because you can stretch the artistic license to accept family resemblance, a bit like when popular characters/actors play their own fathers or mothers in flashback sequences/stories!

Explanations for why the Doctor looks like someone else doesn't sit quite as well. Although, the Romana - Astra link didn't seem too ridiculous but that was me with the mind of a teenager.
With Romana, the most non sensical thing that really dosen't sit well was the whole 'trying on different bodies thing'. Still not sure what that was all about. Even if female timelords can choose their bodies, surely for her to have one body then change it like that she'd have had to be killing herself every time she went out of the room?

Does anyone actually get that scene?
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 18:42
Abomination
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London or Valencia
Posts: 5,732
They did it with Gwen looking like Gwyneth as well - spacial genetic transferrence, or somewhat.

It made me think... Caecillius lived in Pompeii where there was a rift created in space and time. It's a shame John Frobisher never appeared when Torchwood was still based in Cardiff...or I'd give some credence to rifts having some kind of involvement. Borrowed faces throughout all of history.
Abomination is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 18:44
JDEsseintes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mid Wales
Posts: 547
Does anyone actually get that scene?
What's to get? It was a funny: continuity is often ignored in the sake of a joke.
JDEsseintes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 19:05
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
What's to get? It was a funny: continuity is often ignored in the sake of a joke.
That seems like a big deal to mess with the whole concept of regeneration for a joke. If it was in a comic relief sketch or something I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but it was in the main show, and involved someone who was not only a timelord but a companion at the time also. Can't imagine them dreaming of doing anything like it now.
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 19:19
JDEsseintes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mid Wales
Posts: 547
That seems like a big deal to mess with the whole concept of regeneration for a joke. If it was in a comic relief sketch or something I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but it was in the main show, and involved someone who was not only a timelord but a companion at the time also. Can't imagine them dreaming of doing anything like it now.
The current writers are fans of the mythos, ingrained into the imagination since childhood, and probably wouldn't do a scene like that.

Douglas Adams, while obviously a fan, was just doing his job and didn't have those boundaries. Didn't the Daleks suddenly become robots as part of the plot?
JDEsseintes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 19:34
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
The current writers are fans of the mythos, ingrained into the imagination since childhood, and probably wouldn't do a scene like that.

Douglas Adams, while obviously a fan, was just doing his job and didn't have those boundaries. Didn't the Daleks suddenly become robots as part of the plot?
suppose it was a silly episode all round really, can't really take the bad wig humanoids seriously either, although with the regeneration thing, being that it seems to set such a precedent, it's annoying that the episode seems to show that is possible, and yet there dosen't seem to be any way of explaining it away like people do with other anomaly type thing's.

I know at the time, they didn't really expect that people would be rewatching the episodes, but now I'm suprised that some older fans were saying they would stop watching if they ignored the regeneration rule because it was mentioned in a episode once, long ago, yet with things like this people seem to have no trouble ignoring the fact that it dosen't make sense
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 19:49
Pull2Open
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Id
Posts: 12,241
suppose it was a silly episode all round really, can't really take the bad wig humanoids seriously either, although with the regeneration thing, being that it seems to set such a precedent, it's annoying that the episode seems to show that is possible, and yet there dosen't seem to be any way of explaining it away like people do with other anomaly type thing's.

I know at the time, they didn't really expect that people would be rewatching the episodes, but now I'm suprised that some older fans were saying they would stop watching if they ignored the regeneration rule because it was mentioned in a episode once, long ago, yet with things like this people seem to have no trouble ignoring the fact that it dosen't make sense
I think JD has a point. The writing back then was carefree and the production bods were making it up as they went. Canonicity and continuity was an afterthought. Pretty much all the stories were stand alone with only the characters being common themes. Today, the fan base is so refined and 'fanatical' and basically, calling the shots (Moff) that lore is backbone stuff!

The Romana scene was classic 'suck it and see', no one gave a crap about one line in one scene of one story two seasons before, Regeneration lore was still in its infancy.

I think regeneration lore was set in stone from Mawdryn Undead, where it was blatantly spelled out!
Pull2Open is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 20:03
JackMShep
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Surrey
Posts: 256
I doubt it'll much more than "oh, that looks familiar" really- i can't see how they can make it a major plot point or why the Moff would like to recycle RTD's failed ideas
JackMShep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 20:24
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
I doubt it'll much more than "oh, that looks familiar" really- i can't see how they can make it a major plot point or why the Moff would like to recycle RTD's failed ideas
If there's an explantion, then that or something similar is all it needs to be, although, i'd say to make it worth mentioning at all it would have to be "oh, that looks familiar, must be...." just a quick two sentence thing as he's looking in the mirror mumbling to himself or something. No -one's expecting it to be a major point, just a subtle nod in this way would suit. That way it's acknowledgement but not in an in your face type way.
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 20:29
Corwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,601
With Romana, the most non sensical thing that really dosen't sit well was the whole 'trying on different bodies thing'. Still not sure what that was all about. Even if female timelords can choose their bodies, surely for her to have one body then change it like that she'd have had to be killing herself every time she went out of the room?

Does anyone actually get that scene?

Male Time Lords can choose their bodies as well. The 2nd Doctor was offered a number of specific bodies that he could choose from.


The Doctor himself is just not good with regeneration so usually ends up with something random.


As for Romana trying on different bodies you can either explain them as Future Projections in the same way the Watcher and Cho Je were or you can use the new series "lore" that a Time Lord body is malleable for 12 hours after regeneration and thus can grow new limbs, repair bullet wounds or change it's appearance.



Or if you want a third explanation IIRC there was an explanation in one of the novels that it was the TARDIS appearing to the Doctor (the real Romana was locked up).
Corwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 20:48
doctor blue box
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,355
Male Time Lords can choose their bodies as well. The 2nd Doctor was offered a number of specific bodies that he could choose from.


The Doctor himself is just not good with regeneration so usually ends up with something random.


As for Romana trying on different bodies you can either explain them as Future Projections in the same way the Watcher and Cho Je were or you can use the new series "lore" that a Time Lord body is malleable for 12 hours after regeneration and thus can grow new limbs, repair bullet wounds or change it's appearance.



Or if you want a third explanation IIRC there was an explanation in one of the novels that it was the TARDIS appearing to the Doctor (the real Romana was locked up).
That I like, seems to be the most logical in fitting in with the rest of the show. I appreciate your efforts in helping this previously confused poster make some sense of the scene
doctor blue box is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:17.