Howling:Eye of Harmony in the Doctor's TARDIS: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Howling:Eye of Harmony in the Doctor's TARDIS (view source)
Revision as of 18:10, 2 September 2011
, 2 September 2011no edit summary
Icecreamdif (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
Well, except that that would be a bit inconvenient for the Doctor. He didn't have his own TARDIS until he stole one, and he had to run away from Gallifrey after that. Then, of course, the one time he went back to Gallifrey he was put on trial and exiled back to Earth, and then the next time he went there he actually did end up finding the prime eye. Still, you would think that somebody would have found it even before the Doctor's time if every TARDIS had a mini-eye.[[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] 17:53, September 2, 2011 (UTC) | Well, except that that would be a bit inconvenient for the Doctor. He didn't have his own TARDIS until he stole one, and he had to run away from Gallifrey after that. Then, of course, the one time he went back to Gallifrey he was put on trial and exiled back to Earth, and then the next time he went there he actually did end up finding the prime eye. Still, you would think that somebody would have found it even before the Doctor's time if every TARDIS had a mini-eye.[[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] 17:53, September 2, 2011 (UTC) | ||
<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">Nobody's saying that anything is automatically canon. As I've said multiple times already, you can reject his DWA story if you want, because it wasn't on TV, and likewise for the EDAs and the various writers' off-camera discussions. But once you do that, nobody has ever mentioned the link, so why are you trying to explain how the link works in the first place?</p> | |||
<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">"As for your theory that the Time Lords don't know where their power was coming from…" Since that's exactly the opposite of the theory, I'm not entirely sure how to respond. Let me try an analogy and see if you can get it.</p> | |||
<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">In the real world, the Greeks navigated by the Evening Star for centuries. Then Pythagoras rediscovered what the Babylonians had known 1000 years earlier: it was the same thing as the Morning Star. This wasn't just learning a new name for it, it was learning new properties. For example, this gave him and his followers understanding of how the "anomalous" heavenly bodies moved (which is what ultimately led to Ptolemy, Avicenna, and Copernicus).</p> | |||
<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">On Gallifrey, the Time Lords powered their civilization (and their TARDISes) off a great power source under the Panopticon for centuries. Then the Master rediscovered what Rassilon had known 5000 years earlier: it was the same thing as the legendary Eye of Harmony. This wasn't just learning a new name for it, it was learning new properties. For example, this is how he realized that the power source under the Panopticon was connected with the Rod and Sash, and could give himself a new cycle of regenerations.</p> | |||
<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">This is just one of multiple fan explanations from the 70s that was invented to resolve a problem between TDA and TIoT. When someone (apparently Gary Russell or Lance Parkin, according to the other guy above) invented the link idea to explain the new problem in the TV movie, they obviously knew about that 70s problem, and the various fanon solutions, because they were obsessive fans, so it's no surprise that the same 70s theories work for the links as well.</p> | |||
<p style="margin-left: 40px; ">And, since I know you're going to misinterpret this if I don't state it clearly: None of this means that the "the Master discovered they were the same thing" theory is automatically canon. Even if you accept the EDAs and the DWA story, they don't mention the events of TDA at all, and therefore don't retroactively canonize any explanation of them. All I'm saying is, just by virtue of being one possible explanation for all of the facts, it proves that it's not impossible to explain all of the facts. --[[Special:Contributions/173.228.85.35|173.228.85.35]] 18:10, September 2, 2011 (UTC)</p> | |||
