Howling:What's the connection between the Big Bads?: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Howling:What's the connection between the Big Bads? (view source)

Revision as of 18:49, 21 June 2017

21,914 bytes added , 21 June 2017

m

-spoilers_cat

CzechBot

Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators

765,429

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{forumheader|The Howling}}{{cat|contains spoilers}}
+{{Archive|The Howling archives}}<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ -->
-<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ -->
 So, in [[Series 6 (Doctor Who)]], it was [[The Silence]] going to great lengths (maybe even causing the TARDIS to explode in [[Series 5 (Doctor Who)]] ) to prevent [[The Doctor]] from being "on the fields of [[Trenzalore]] at the fall of The Eleventh". Nevermind that it didn't look like there were any fields there, in [[The Name of the Doctor (TV story)]], [[Steven Moffat]] put together some kind of alliance between [[The Great Intelligence]] and The Whispermen...I suppose that snowmen were no longer available on a planet that looks volcanic? I'm guessing that that The Whispermen have nothing against The Doctor and are just agents of the Great Intelligence like The Silence had creatures/people working on its behalf.
@@ Line 43: / Line 42: @@
 ::::I still think that, that allowance still only increases his encounters to three. The Silence seem shrewder than the Doctor gives them credit for. They seem prepared to let him kill members of heir order in an attempt to slim Amy-Avatar into his mix.[[User:DCT|DCT]] [[User talk:DCT|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:04, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
+::::: Since people do not recall the Silence as soon as they take their eyes off of them, we have no way of knowing how many times The Doctor has viewed them in his earlier incarnations. We only know the incidents that have been included in the Series 6 narrative. I'm sure that the novels and comics will have additional encounters. [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:34, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
+:::::: That's actually true of a lot of enemies in Doctor Who because we know he has adventures that aren't shared with us. The Silence's particular characteristic doesn't mean we can treat them differently from other characters we talk about.[[Special:Contributions/81.109.164.2|81.109.164.2]]<sup>[[User talk:81.109.164.2#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
 == Thus far ==
@@ Line 56: / Line 58: @@
 What do you think? Of course, we have SIX months to think about this! [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:09, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
-The Trickster isn't from the classic series. If you want to see him, you need to watch ''The Sarah Jane Adventures''. (He was meant to reappear in the second half of SJA Series 5, as well, but that couldn't happen after Elisabeth Sladen died.) The [[Trickster's Brigade]] has been mentioned in ''Torchwood'' (''[[Immortal Sins (TV story)|Miracle Day: Immortal Sins]]'') & a couple of its members (the [[Fortune Teller]] & the [[Time Beetle]]) appeared in DW ''[[Turn Left (TV story)|Turn Left]]''. In SJA ''[[The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith (TV story)|The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith]]'' we got what the Doctor explicitly said was his first direct encounter with the Trickster.
+The Trickster isn't from the classic series. If you want to see him, you need to watch ''The Sarah Jane Adventures''. (He was meant to reappear in the second half of SJA Series 5, as well, but that couldn't happen after Elisabeth Sladen died.) The [[Trickster's Brigade]] has been mentioned in ''Torchwood'' (''[[Immortal Sins (TV story)|Miracle Day: Immortal Sins]]'') & a couple of its members (the [[fortune teller (Turn Left)|fortune teller]] & the [[Time Beetle]]) appeared in DW ''[[Turn Left (TV story)|Turn Left]]''. In SJA ''[[The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith (TV story)|The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith]]'' we got what the Doctor explicitly said was his first direct encounter with the Trickster.
 Moffat being Moffat, there's no guarantee that the resemblance between the [[Whisper Man|Whisper Men]] & the Trickster isn't a red herring but, to me, it seems an odd one to choose, if it is. The Trickster just isn't well enough known to make a good red herring.
@@ Line 99: / Line 101: @@
 And I don't think anyone's said this yet but I saw the Whisper Men as being (possibly like the Snowmen) artificial constructs created by the Great Intelligence for the purpose of Trenzalore. After all, one transforms into another Dr. Simeon shape after the GI tears his then-current one off like wrapping paper, and the GI then presumably moves into and "possesses" it. I only see that happening if the Whisper Men were empty shells to start with. —[[User:BioniclesaurKing4t2|BioniclesaurKing4t2]] - [[User talk:BioniclesaurKing4t2|"Hello, I'm the Doctor.]] [[Special:Contributions/BioniclesaurKing4t2|Basically, . . . ''run''."]] 23:54, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
+: That's certainly the impression that I got; I agree. [[User:Ensephylon|Ensephylon]] [[User talk:Ensephylon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:27, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
+:: That makes a lot of sense, BioniclesaurKing4t2, especially because their physical form seems awfully conditional...without their outside shell, they are insubstantial (no innards).
+:: I wanted to add that I've since seen an interview with [[Steven Moffat]] where he said that any thought that the 50th Anniversary episode was the second part of a two parter was ridiculous. Soooo, either Moffat is lying or, which is more likely, we are wrong about this. Maybe this really is the last we'll see of the Great Intelligence and the mystery of Hurt's Doctor will last over Series 8. [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:44, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
+::"[Moffat]... said that any thought that the 50th Anniversary episode was the second part of a two parter was ridiculous": '''When''' did Moffat give the interview?
+::If it was before "The Name of the Doctor" aired, he was almost certainly lying to avoid giving away the fact that the finalé wasn't going to complete its story.
+::If it was after "The Name of the Doctor" aired, then no matter what he said, the on-screen caption at the end of "The Name of the Doctor" very clearly stated, "To be continued... November 23rd". "The Name of the Doctor" was, therefore, the first part of something & the November 23rd episode is the next (that is, the second) part of that something. The only ways Moffat can be telling the truth are: (a) there will be '''more than two''' parts or (b) the November 23rd continuation '''isn't''' the 50th Anniversary episode, which would mean 2 episodes on the same day -- the continuation of "The Name of the Doctor" and a '''separate''' 50th Anniversary episode.
+::Much as I'd welcome such a "bonus" episode, I don't think at all likely. The possibility that we'll have to wait beyond the November 23rd episode for the conclusion of the story is rather more likely & rather less welcome. Most likely of all is that Moffat '''is''' lying -- again! It's hardly "ridiculous" to think that "To be continued..." means that the next episode is the next part of the same story. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.242.61|89.240.242.61]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.242.61#top|talk to me]]</sup> 21:12, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
+::: Yeah, I don't know any more than I just said there. I did a Google search to track down the URL for the interview but haven't found it yet. Given the options you offer, I'm thinking that perhaps John Hurt's Doctor character isn't resolved in the 50th Anniversary show and the mystery continues into Series 8.
+::: But it could be that [[Steven Moffat]] has a distinctive idea of what a two-parter entails and this sequence of episodes doesn't match that definition. For example, in the new DW series, two-parters usually have both parts occurring in the same place and same time frame...the two episodes could be aired back-to-back as a two hour special and there would be no significant break in the action.
+::: Perhaps this statement means that while the storyline continues into the 50th Anniversary episode, that the action leaves Trenzalor, the TARDIS tomb and the Doctor's timestream and the story goes in a different direction, to a different location while, at the same time, working towards resolving some loose threads. Of course, even in the two-parter, [[The Impossible Astronaut (TV story)]] and [[Day of the Moon (TV story)]] there were 3 months between events in the first part and the second part. But they were both set in the U.S. [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:51, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
+:::: I hope it's not like The Impossible Astronaut. Stephen Moffat seems to be expecting us to fill out a lot of holes in that three months which we don't really have the authority or information to do. The Name Of The Doctor ended with Clara unconscious and both her and the Doctor stuck in a collapsing timestream. Imagine how much of an anticlimax it would be if getting out turned out to be as easy as walking through a door marked "exit".[[Special:Contributions/81.109.164.2|81.109.164.2]]<sup>[[User talk:81.109.164.2#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+BioniclesaurKing4t2, "if the Whisper Men were empty shells to start with": In ''[[Clarence and the Whispermen]]'', which is available online [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvZMSrktskw here], they say, "We are not men, we are the Intelligence." That strongly suggests they're not even empty shells but projections -- albeit tangible ones -- & have no existence at all except what the GI gives them. Whether they were solely for "the purpose of Trenzalore" or not is another question. The GI might have used them for other purposes that we've not seen -- not that it matters much, unless we eventually do see them used for something else. Since the GI has supposedly now been destroyed in the process of corrupting the Doctor's timestream, we may not see them again, except maybe in flashback. (That'd be a pity, because they're rather effective monsters.) --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.75.103|89.241.75.103]]<sup>[[User talk:89.241.75.103#top|talk to me]]</sup> 10:54, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
+: So, @89, they are just like the Snowmen but in a different form? [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:49, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
+:The Snowmen seemed to be made of snow that had a real material existence. The Wisper Men (or Whispermen) seem not to be made of any actual material. To me, it just seems as if the Great Intelligence has got better at it & no longer needs to use pre-existing material. Apart from that, though, I'd say they are the same. --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.75.178|89.241.75.178]]<sup>[[User talk:89.241.75.178#top|talk to me]]</sup> 22:26, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
+::The Whisper Men were let down by the fact they turned out to be merely manifestations of the G.I. They were introduced very like classic ghosts from a Victoria era ghost story then lost all theeir menace when they were defeated simply by the G.I. ending its self. They can come back of course because now they're in people's heads as an idea. They could also turn out to be real beings that couldn't fight the Great Intelligence or even real beings the Great Intelligence copied. Many explanations are possible if Moffat wishes to revive them.[[Special:Contributions/81.109.164.2|81.109.164.2]]<sup>[[User talk:81.109.164.2#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+@[[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]], if the seires ended on a cliffhanger, then '''technically''' there were no two-parters ''in'' the series.  Call it semantics, call it a play on words, call it misleading even, but it was technically accurate.  06:24, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
+That seems to have been [[User:Whosethebestwho|Whosethebestwho]]. -- Yea, that was me..sorry, not sure why the date/time posted and the name did not. [[User:Whosethebestwho|Whosethebestwho]] [[User talk:Whosethebestwho|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
+Even if that's the case, Moffat was ostensibly talking about the 50th Anniversary episode. The technicality might save his '''earlier''' statement, "No 2-parters in Series 7" from being an outright lie but it can't save his reported comments about the 50th. Of course, without getting his exact words, we can't tell if there's some other technicality that makes '''them''' true on the surface (but only on the surface). Anyway, it's not defamatory to say, "Moffat lies," when Moffat has said exactly that himself. In the end, the only way we're going to know the truth about the 50th is to see the thing. In November. After waiting 6 months. Unless someone happens to have a time machine handy. (I was 89 earlier.) --[[Special:Contributions/78.146.187.63|78.146.187.63]]<sup>[[User talk:78.146.187.63#top|talk to me]]</sup> 08:44, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
+Oh yea...I started a thread called Moffat Lies :)  He has flat out admitted as much.  It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.  [[User:Whosethebestwho|Whosethebestwho]] [[User talk:Whosethebestwho|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
+Whosethebestwho (& anyone else interested): If you type an extra tilde (<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, instead of <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), you get the date/time only. If you miss one out (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>, instead of <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), you get only the IP address (or, presumably, the username if you're logged in).
+Back to the discussion (sort of): I don't mind Moffat being willing to lie when it's necessary to avoid giving away spoilers. What I dislike is his propensity for doing so when it would serve the purpose equally well if he said, "I'm not telling you. Wait for the episode." --[[Special:Contributions/89.242.72.152|89.242.72.152]]<sup>[[User talk:89.242.72.152#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
+I guess it's just a way to give people an answer so they stop asking. The "Moffat lies" idea is very convenient for Moffat as a person, because it means he can say anything to stop people from bugging him, yet nobody can complain when it's proven the answer they got was wrong.  [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] ([[User talk:Imamadmad|Contact me]]) 11:20, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
+The problem with that, which must be '''in'''convenient for him (at least sometimes), is that he now can't stop speculation by making a statement. People simply say, "Moffat lies, so we can't rely on that," & speculate about what he's concealing. Anytime he '''needs''' to be believed, he's snookered himself. (I was 89 earlier.) --[[Special:Contributions/78.146.179.140|78.146.179.140]]<sup>[[User talk:78.146.179.140#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:01, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
+: As far as what Stephen Moffat said, I also read in an interview that I can't remember how to find him say he wanted the 50th Anniversary to be the beginning of a new story. I can't find the interview but I suspect hat was a lie too.[[Special:Contributions/81.109.164.2|81.109.164.2]]<sup>[[User talk:81.109.164.2#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+:Even if it wasn't, it doesn't mean much. That's what happens when someone makes a habit of lying: their words become mere noise. In this case, it could be that Moffat will make the 50th both the end of one story & the beginning of another. It could equally be that he won't. We can't tell until we see the thing.
+:If we're going to speculate (which we are), we can only do it on the basis of what we've seen in episodes so far. Anything that Moffat says has to be treated as a "jamming signal", emitted only to obscure matters, & has to be filtered out. --[[Special:Contributions/2.96.24.42|2.96.24.42]]<sup>[[User talk:2.96.24.42#top|talk to me]]</sup> 13:57, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+::81.109.164.2 was me but I forgot to log in.[[User:DCT|DCT]] [[User talk:DCT|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:12, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+::: I seem to have found the original quote though I couldn't find the one I saw. http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/6854-doctor-who-finale-is-quite-a-dark-episode-says-moffat [[User:DCT|DCT]] [[User talk:DCT|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:14, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+:::DCT: I took the liberty of repairing the link. It had "http://" twice -- presumably because some software insists on being "helpful" & adding it automatically, '''even if it's already there'''. Artificial Intelligence? More like Artificial Stupidity!
+:::The Moffat quote says almost nothing. (Not a surprise.) The Anniversary episode won't be "the second part of a story, that would be insane." OK, so it won't be the second part, it'll just take up where the series finalé left off. To quote Victorian Clara in ''[[The Snowmen (TV story)|The Snowmen]]'', "Words!" (I'm back to being 89 again.) --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.74.205|89.241.74.205]]<sup>[[User talk:89.241.74.205#top|talk to me]]</sup> 20:20, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
+:::::Thanks, for the fix. I will agree it was certainly a "correction" in-correction.[[User:DCT|DCT]] [[User talk:DCT|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:56, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
+Another quote which might be interesting in this discussion, from a little while back, from [http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/steven-moffat-on-50th.html here]:
+:'In an interview in the latest issue [of ''Entertainment Weekly''] he says that it [the 50th Anniversary Special] should be a way to attract new viewers in addition to pleasing die-hard fans; Moffat states:
+:"It is important you don't turn it into a fanfest.
+:We can't make this all about looking backwards.
+:It's actually got to be the start of a new story."'
+So it seems Moffat is keeping his stance that the 50th is going to be something new and stand-alone, however continue the themes set up by the past series. Hopefully the kind of thing I can drag my friends along to and that we will all enjoy, hard-core whovians and non-whovians alike.  [[User:Imamadmad|Imamadmad]] ([[User talk:Imamadmad|Contact me]]) 01:55, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
+: Thanks for find that article, @DCT...I kept searching for it on Google with nothing turning up. I was beginning to think I had imagined it! But I was looking for articles on the 50th Annivesary, not for articles on The Name of the Doctor. [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:21, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
+:: Welcome, I was actually looking for the one I'd seen at least as much which was eventually found by Imamadmad above (thanks). Not sure why it didn't come up when I searched Google I think I could quote Clara on that too. I found the one I did post off a page with links to loads of quotes, but not that one.[[User:DCT|DCT]] [[User talk:DCT|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:56, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
+Well, one thing that all of Moffat's quotes on the 50th might mean is that he is going to start another spinoff series based on the events of the 50th. He could very well start an "early years" spinoff while still finishing the main series progression to the grand and final end of the Doctor's timeline. Or, then again, he might just put the main progression on hiatus while he explores those early years in Series 8, or as I had suggested in another discussion, he might just press the universal reset button and start the whole series over again, relegating everything thus far to alternate timeline. The man is an evil mad genius, and could theoretically do whatever he wants. I've been enjoying it thus far, so I'll let him rewrite the universe as many times as he wants. ;) [[User:Doram baramour|Doram baramour]] [[User talk:Doram baramour|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:05, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
+: That would annoy a lot of people if he doesn't finish the stories he's on first. However I can totally see him doing something like that and trying to use it to resolve loads of problems. Except it might defeat the point of the BBC not rebooting the show when they had the most logical chance.[[User:DCT|DCT]] [[User talk:DCT|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:55, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
+I grew up reading comic books, and so the JSA/JLA crossovers became part of the calender. I remember when they started, and grew accustomed to parallel earths and alternate timelines and such. And I realize that this approach has become an almost common feature in comic books (and comic book based films.) But it would greatly offend me if done with The Doctor because his history is so robust, his characterizations much more than "2 dimensional", and because he was designed to not need to do a "Year One" style redo. He can travel to alternate universes, and experiance alternate time lines. AND his portrayer can change completely in appearance and manner. And while many comic book fans are also fans of the Doctor, most of the people I know who watch the Doctor do not read comic books, and so would not accept it so easily as comic fans might.
+The Time Lords once offered The Master a new full set of regenerations. Who knows what they did during the Time War  when their survival was at stake. We have already seen the Doctor killed in ways that prevent regeneration. There doesn't have to be a "Final Regeneration Possible" to create drama around the Doctor's survival. As far as I am concerned, the Doctor can have as many regenerations as he needs.[[User:Phil Stone|Phil Stone]] [[User talk:Phil Stone|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:40, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
+The Time Lords not only offered The Master a new full set of regenerations (in ''[[The Five Doctors (TV story)|The Five Doctors]]'') but also, as revealed in ''[[Utopia (TV story)|Utopia]]'' &c, they resurrected him during the Time War '''with''' a new set of regenerations. The ''[[The Five Doctors (TV story)|The Five Doctors]]'' also established that Rassilon had gained immortality via "perpetual bodily regeneration". The classic series did establish the 12-regeneration limit but never said where that limit came from & it also established that the limit '''wasn't absolute'''. There's enough in the show's past to provide a way around the limit, without any need to scrap anything. --[[Special:Contributions/2.96.16.231|2.96.16.231]]<sup>[[User talk:2.96.16.231#top|talk to me]]</sup> 15:36, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
+: And there is also the matter of River Song "giving" the Doctor her remaining regenerations (10?11?) to heal him after he was poisoned. Did these regenerations just serve to cure him? Or did she actually pass along her regenerations? Moffat could have easily created a simple antidote to her poison (her lipstick never killed people in other episodes) but he specifically had her heal him by giving him her regenerations. This serves two purposes: It explains why we would only see one incarnation of an adult River and it might explain why the Doctor has additional regenerations. [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:05, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
+:: The Doctor said that those regenerations were "used up," so he most likely did not get to keep them, Besides, they were used to ''bring the Doctor back to life''; that's not something that should come as cheap as kissing him and giving him your remaining regens all wrapped up in a bow. What River did was basically what the Doctor did in ''The Angels Take Manhattan'' where he used some of his regen energy in order to heal River's wrist, and if you'll remember, she got mad at him for that, saying that he was "wasting" regeneration energy. Frankly, I'm more interested to see if they'll factor in the half-regeneration from ''Journey's End'' when it comes time to deal with the limit. Logically, they should, as he still used up a whole regen's worth. [[User:Ensephylon|Ensephylon]] [[User talk:Ensephylon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:08, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
+:::Unless, of course, it's not how much regeneration energy a Time Lord has that determines how many times they can regenerate, but how they use it. Put better: maybe Time Lords can only physically survive regeneration energy shooting through them 12 times, and since 10 shot the regeneration energy into something else, it took a "side route" and didn't fully affect him. (That made more sense in my head.) Or maybe its ''changing'' 12 times that takes the toll. 10 didn't physically change, so it didn't count. And Romana could "try out" so many forms because she was doing so during a certain "buffer" period of time. And the Time Lords gained the power to regenerate from the Untempered Schism, which the High Council might somehow be able to control the effects of, so they gave the Master new sets of regenerations and/or the ability to survive more. Or, it was by High Council decree that Time Lords were limited to 12 regenerations, and since the Council is gone, the rule no longer applies (we haven't heard otherwise, I don't think). (And this is getting off topic from the original post.) —[[User:BioniclesaurKing4t2|BioniclesaurKing4t2]] - [[User talk:BioniclesaurKing4t2|"Hello, I'm the Doctor.]] [[Special:Contributions/BioniclesaurKing4t2|Basically, . . . ''run''."]] 00:28, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
+:::: Yeah, @BioniclesaurKing4t2, I never quite understood that regenerating-with-severed-hand-and-meta-crisis-Tenth-Doctor storyline but I just saw it as a convenient storytelling device and a way to make Rose fans happy. I think of that whole bit as an asterisk (*) on the list of Doctor incarnations and, along with it, how The Doctor was able to be "killed" by radiation and yet...have the time, energy, life and wherewithal to go make a farewell trip and go see his old Companions. I think Moffat learned from that prolonged regeneration and will have the Eleventh depart more like the Ninth than the Tenth. [[User:Badwolff|Badwolff]] [[User talk:Badwolff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:46, June 12, 2013 (UTC)