Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time: Difference between revisions

Forum:Inclusion debate: Death Comes to Time (edit)

Revision as of 20:07, 2 June 2012

5,413 bytes added , 2 June 2012

no edit summary

Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator

85,404

edits

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :Does the simple fact that they killed of what was, even at the time, a '''''past''''' Doctor turn it automatically into a "what if" story?  I think if they could have made it with McGann, they probably would've, right?  Isn't the behind-the-scenes reality of ''not'' using McGann what marginalises this story?  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">16:49: Sat&nbsp;02 Jun 2012&nbsp;</span>
+== Switching to a more negative stance ==
+After doing some research of my own, I'm now strongly leaning towards outright disqualification.
+:::The DWM review — something which satisfies our rules as a legitimate [[tardis:resources|resource]] — couldn't put the issue more clearly:
+:::*"[In DCTT] the Doctor does and says the right sorts of things, and has the right sorts of adventures, but has as much in common with his televised predecessor as does Peter Cushing's movie Dr Who.  Instead of being an outsider, the boy who ran away from the passive non-interfering Gallifreyans, he is one of the Time Lords, or Gods of the Fourth, a homeless order of wandering interventionists who work for good or evil, using the same mystical powers . . . It does feel like a pilot for a new series, but not a new series of ''Doctor Who''." ([[Dave Owen]], DWM review, [[DWM 319]])
+:::[[Dan Freedman]], talked in [[DWM 314]] about McGann, which I think gives some insight into why he went with the Seventh instead of Eighth Doctor. While the story of how he got Sylvester to join him on the project is one of happenstance, I think his statements about the TVM reflect a belief that the TVM wasn't "real" ''Doctor Who'', and didn't need to be considered when producing DCTT.  This puts Freedman at odds with the inclusionary goals of this wiki.
+:::*"You can explain it away however you like, but [the TVM] still bombed.  Well, everyone watched it, but only because it was ''Doctor Who''.  They didn't know what it was going to be like.  Now they know what it's like, not many people are buying it."
+:::*"The moment I get [the commission to produce DW on television], I think people will stop whining: 'Oh it's got to be McGann' — wel, it's ''not'' going to be McGann, right?  No way!  It might be McGann in the future, you know, a future regeneration or something.  That would be a nice way to have him in it, but the next Doctor will not be McGann."
+:::Granted, none of that is conclusive evidence as to Freedman's stance on the Eighth Doctor.  But it does prove he ''absolutely'' knew who McGann was and that he ''chose'' not to consider him the current Doctor.
+:::[[Nev Fountain]], script editor of DCTT, also from [[DWM 314]]:
+:::*"I think [the darker Doctor idea] can be a dead-end, but you can do a lot of things with the Doctor, especially with an online or radio format — and if you want to accept it as canon , you can.  or not.  Whatever you prefer."
+:::This kind of ambiguity from a paid [[script editor]] of ''Doctor Who'' '''about the thing he or she personally worked on''' is just weird.  I think he's not even trying to argue that this is "real" DW.  Can you imagine Steven Moffat saying about ''The Wedding of River Song'', "Eh, maybe it's canon?"  I can see him saying, cause I think he actually ''has'', "Eh, there's no such thing as canon".  But to admit there ''is'' a canon and then to say that his work might not be in it — that's ''strange''.
+:::Fountain is more declarative later in the piece when he says:
+:::*"I think ''Death Comes to Time'' is very much a one-off project as far as I'm concerned, but perhaps this online thing will prove to be a stepping stone."
+:::To me, this is a bit of a clincher.  It proves that they weren't in any way attempting to carry out a legitimate continuation with these narrative elements.  But if ''that's'' not proof enough, here's Freedman again, talking about what he would do with if his bid to produce televised ''DW'' were accepted:
+:::*"No regeneration scene, no continuity references, no nothing.  You've got to get to know this character and his companions again."
+:::Freedman also says he already had someone cast "theoretically" as the "next Doctor" for his proposal of a new series.  This means, as far as I can make out, that the death  in DCTT simply wouldn't have been narratively respected.
+:::Had his proposal, instead of RTD's, been the one that carried the day, ''he'' wouldn't have even used DCTT as a part of the backstory.  Ya gotta wonder, too, whether there would have been ''any'' effort at making the Freedman Doctor number nine or number eight, given the earlier dismissal of "McGann as Eight". Hell, ya gotta wonder if Freedman's first Doctor might not have been a new ''first'' Doctor.  He ''does'' seem to be talking in absolutes when he says "no continuity references, no nothing".  On the other hand, it could be fairly said that this was RTD's approach — for series 1.
+:::In any event, it seems clear to me that Freedman/Fountain took a number of decisions that disqualify the piece:
+:::* They actively chose ''not'' to involve McGann when it was clear that they had no qualms about asking other, arguably "bigger", actors to participate.
+:::* They weren't looking to continue this continuity at all, so I think they felt liberated to do whatever they wanted with it.
+:::* They ''were'' looking to produce DW on television at the time, and Freedman seems to be saying he wouldn't have continued this continuity on television.
+:::* Fountain publicly backed away from definitively calling DCTT "canon" before the whole thing had actually come out.
+:::We should be running like hell from something that has these kind of lukewarm statements from key members of its production team. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">20:07: Sat&nbsp;02 Jun 2012&nbsp;</span>