|
Post by sherlock on Apr 7, 2020 15:38:57 GMT
Honestly i think the thread has gone a bit off topic from the whole Return of the cybermen tom baker lost story Not necessarily - the Time War could be the explanation for the two parallel versions of Revenge/return of the Cybermen! And that early period of the Fourth Doctor’s life has already been messed around with once in the War, in Anti-Genesis, so certainly makes sense that it’d be in a bit of flux. Am looking forward to this story, regardless of whether or not it truly fits in continuity.
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,187
|
Post by dorney on Apr 7, 2020 16:11:07 GMT
Honestly i think the thread has gone a bit off topic from the whole Return of the cybermen tom baker lost story Not necessarily - the Time War could be the explanation for the two parallel versions of Revenge/return of the Cybermen! I literally wrote a scene like that. It got cut.
|
|
mbt66
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 3,100
|
Post by mbt66 on Apr 7, 2020 16:59:21 GMT
Not necessarily - the Time War could be the explanation for the two parallel versions of Revenge/return of the Cybermen! I literally wrote a scene like that. It got cut. Well get it put back in! There’s plenty of time it’s not coming out any time soon! Plus we have just been asking for more cross range integration
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,187
|
Post by dorney on Apr 7, 2020 19:08:49 GMT
It also covered two Mary Shelleys and most other continuity conundrums. I’m not kidding.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 6,008
|
Post by lidar2 on Apr 7, 2020 23:29:54 GMT
The one big obvious interconnection missing from the various Time War ranges is the 8th Dr's initial refusal to participate in the Time War when asked by the Time Lords, which happens off-screen and is taken as read in the releases we have got so far. I can't understand why BF have steered clear of this. Well, certainly my personal take is that Starship is his first encounter with the war and that it isn’t happening... and then suddenly it is happening and has been happening for ages. I don’t think it should necessarily have that clear a chronology. (Detail to add - the intention of that story is that you can, if you want, have it as his first story in the war, or in the middle, but my personal preference is first as I think it serves the story better). I get what you're saying and it's perfectly valid ... but I'm an ocd dr who fan who likes all i's dotted, t's crossed and loose ends tied up, so I'd prefer to hear the missing link. And a proper intro story for Sheena/Emma would be nice too
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Apr 8, 2020 11:44:24 GMT
It also covered two Mary Shelleys and most other continuity conundrums. I’m not kidding. Damn, now I really want hear it, but sadly I never shall. AAAAA!
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 6,008
|
Post by lidar2 on Apr 8, 2020 12:44:34 GMT
It also covered two Mary Shelleys and most other continuity conundrums. I’m not kidding. I think we need a co-ordinated email campaign to the podcast ...
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Apr 8, 2020 14:38:47 GMT
Not necessarily - the Time War could be the explanation for the two parallel versions of Revenge/return of the Cybermen! And that early period of the Fourth Doctor’s life has already been messed around with once in the War, in Anti-Genesis, so certainly makes sense that it’d be in a bit of flux. Am looking forward to this story, regardless of whether or not it truly fits in continuity. Agreed. Continuity is overrated and I don’t get fans who would have today’s writers being slaves to the past. Give me a good story first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 8, 2020 15:29:07 GMT
And that early period of the Fourth Doctor’s life has already been messed around with once in the War, in Anti-Genesis, so certainly makes sense that it’d be in a bit of flux. Am looking forward to this story, regardless of whether or not it truly fits in continuity. Agreed. Continuity is overrated and I don’t get fans who would have today’s writers being slaves to the past. Give me a good story first and foremost.
Consistency is very important in storytelling and on a personal note its nice to see it slot easily into place
Honestly i don't see why the scene should have been rejected a lot of the lost stories have added in elements that were not part of the original outline Season 27's Lost Stories (as an example) had many creative liberties especially
Ice Time/Thin Ice, Location Change, Ending changed)
Ah well nothing to do about the scene now maybe John Dorney could rewrite the scene to fit into another story maybe for a potential 8th Doctor Time War Vol 5 or something
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Apr 8, 2020 16:14:49 GMT
Agreed. Continuity is overrated and I don’t get fans who would have today’s writers being slaves to the past. Give me a good story first and foremost.
Consistency is very important in storytelling and on a personal note its nice to see it slot easily into place So a writer in 2020 is supposed to keep their story in line with stories written 30, 40 or 50 years ago? Rather than having creators push the franchise forward by trying new things or breaking with parts of continuity to tell stories in fresh ways you would rather see them chained to the continuity tree? So what? That all the stories slot into their spots? Don't you see how limiting that is?
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 9, 2020 1:08:45 GMT
Consistency is very important in storytelling and on a personal note its nice to see it slot easily into place So a writer in 2020 is supposed to keep their story in line with stories written 30, 40 or 50 years ago? Rather than having creators push the franchise forward by trying new things or breaking with parts of continuity to tell stories in fresh ways you would rather see them chained to the continuity tree? So what? That all the stories slot into their spots? Don't you see how limiting that is? Funny given that Big Finish has already done a decent job slotting stories into other stories and gaps for the past 20 years
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 1:26:55 GMT
Continuity only lasts as long as it doesn't need to be contradicted or the head writer finds it limiting. "The plays the thing", after all. I understand a lot of people are very into the lore and like the timelines and whatnot. To me in a timetravel show where the universe has been rebooted, the main character doesn't even know how old they really are and there are so many adventures we don't see...timelines and continuity don't matter very much. The stories as they sit on our shelves or hard drives are still there. Changing things in retrospect for whatever reason - to expand the storytelling potential or just to retrofit something or any one of hundreds of ways the universe of Who can change - is perfectly fine. We can handle Ace dying in 20 different ways. I'm almost viewing this not so much as a Lost Story as an "Alternate Story" - not in the way the Unbound range is but in the behind-the-scenes history. I think this is a good development as if BF are open to making stories that were pitched instead of other monumental ones that could open the door to some big, exciting releases wheras sticking to just the original M.O. of the range was limiting and much more finite. This way we could get, say, John Flanagan & Andrew McCulloch's Project Zeta Sigma which was originally the Fifth Doctors first story. Or John Lucarotti's Ark In Space which was by all accounts very, very different to the Season 12 story we ended up getting.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Apr 9, 2020 2:19:18 GMT
So a writer in 2020 is supposed to keep their story in line with stories written 30, 40 or 50 years ago? Rather than having creators push the franchise forward by trying new things or breaking with parts of continuity to tell stories in fresh ways you would rather see them chained to the continuity tree? So what? That all the stories slot into their spots? Don't you see how limiting that is? Funny given that Big Finish has already done a decent job slotting stories into other stories and gaps for the past 20 years
That isn’t really an answer though. Yes in the early of Big Finish they made a concerted effort to place their new in with the televised ones but they dropped that practice several years ago as their output grew for the obvious reasons. As David rightly notes, this is a series that ended and started up the universe again. This is a series that through the Time War features realities, planets and characters that have been wiped out of existence. The idea that a writer should be trying to fit things in so they slot between serials is, to my mind, an absurd waste of time. Surely we come to Doctor Who for great storytelling, big ideas, grand adventures and characters to cheer for & hiss at. That is the thing right? Worrying about previous continuity and forcing stories to fit an open space on the shelf just strikes as making everything much smaller. Others mileage may vary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 3:22:47 GMT
Funny given that Big Finish has already done a decent job slotting stories into other stories and gaps for the past 20 years
That isn’t really an answer though. Yes in the early of Big Finish they made a concerted effort to place their new in with the televised ones but they dropped that practice several years ago as their output grew for the obvious reasons. As David rightly notes, this is a series that ended and started up the universe again. This is a series that through the Time War features realities, planets and characters that have been wiped out of existence. The idea that a writer should be trying to fit things in so they slot between serials is, to my mind, an absurd waste of time. Surely we come to Doctor Who for great storytelling, big ideas, grand adventures and characters to cheer for & hiss at. That is the thing right? Worrying about previous continuity and forcing stories to fit an open space on the shelf just strikes as making everything much smaller. Others mileage may vary. I'd say it depends on the story. Continuity, for me, is something guided less by dates and more by character. That's where I think the focus is. The character of people. It's taking every relevant account that brought joy and wonder to an audience and having it click together to build a world of substance. Showing that the actions of each character do contribute in one way or another. Big or small. We'd have never gotten the Sixth Doctor's completed arc without continuity. He would have remained the same static character from the days of 1985/6. Despite the decades of contributions that have been made in the meantime, we can still point to a particular story -- mythological triumph or garden-variety romp -- and say where he is on that journey. Even without a recognisable companion. Evelyn's own tragic reasons for leaving the Doctor, her character arc, wouldn't have worked without that continuity either. The character of places. Another example is The Dalek Invasion of Earth. It's not just an occupation of 1964 by any other name, it's a gruesome seven-year trial by ordeal of an Earth that should have stood a good chance of repelling them. They had fleets of rockets, T-mat, Moonbases, Seabases, Sync-ops, sprawling megacities and a public transit system that spanned the Solar System. A planet that had already repelled two Cyber-invasions and twice gone to war with their Martian cousins. All of that existed, but meant nothing to the Daleks, who just rolled over them anyway. Reducing Earth to as it was in the 20th century. That's an astonishingly powerful image and it pushes the Daleks' own villainous character upward. Not every story is going (or is necessarily meant) to do that, but the ones that are, that interconnectivity is part of the storytelling. Continuity, at its best, is reconciling all that disparate history into something that looks like a life well-travelled. Particularly important in an age as serialised as this current one. If the journey didn't matter, if the characters have no story to tell, why are we watching anyway? That's my take on it, at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 3:45:36 GMT
That isn’t really an answer though. Yes in the early of Big Finish they made a concerted effort to place their new in with the televised ones but they dropped that practice several years ago as their output grew for the obvious reasons. As David rightly notes, this is a series that ended and started up the universe again. This is a series that through the Time War features realities, planets and characters that have been wiped out of existence. The idea that a writer should be trying to fit things in so they slot between serials is, to my mind, an absurd waste of time. Surely we come to Doctor Who for great storytelling, big ideas, grand adventures and characters to cheer for & hiss at. That is the thing right? Worrying about previous continuity and forcing stories to fit an open space on the shelf just strikes as making everything much smaller. Others mileage may vary. I'd say it depends on the story. Continuity, for me, is something guided less by dates and more by character. That's where I think the focus is. The character of people. It's taking every relevant account that brought joy and wonder to an audience and having it click together to build a world of substance. Showing that the actions of each character do contribute in one way or another. Big or small. We'd have never gotten the Sixth Doctor's completed arc without continuity. He would have remained the same static character from the days of 1985/6. Despite the decades of contributions that have been made in the meantime, we can still point to a particular story -- mythological triumph or garden-variety romp -- and say where he is on that journey. Even without a recognisable companion. Evelyn's own tragic reasons for leaving the Doctor, her character arc, wouldn't have worked without that continuity either. The character of places. Another example is The Dalek Invasion of Earth. It's not just an occupation of 1964 by any other name, it's a gruesome seven-year trial by ordeal of an Earth that should have stood a good chance of repelling them. They had fleets of rockets, T-mat, Moonbases, Seabases, Sync-ops, sprawling megacities and a public transit system that spanned the Solar System. A planet that had already repelled two Cyber-invasions and twice gone to war with their Martian cousins. All of that existed, but meant nothing to the Daleks, who just rolled over them anyway. Reducing Earth to as it was in the 20th century. That's an astonishingly powerful image and it pushes the Daleks' own villainous character upward. Not every story is going (or is necessarily meant) to do that, but the ones that are, that interconnectivity is part of the storytelling. Continuity, at its best, is reconciling all that disparate history into something that looks like a life well-travelled. Particularly important in an age as serialised as this current one. If the journey didn't matter, if the characters have no story to tell, why are we watching anyway? That's my take on it, at least. It would be a lovely post and a hard agree from me if Audio were advocating no continuity - but he isn't. He's only saying - correctly - it shouldn't be the be all and end all and is not reason enough for a story to exist. He isn't advocating, even remotely, that stories should revert to status quo by the end. The opposite in fact, far from being that restrictive he's advocating being able to take the story in different places that some won't care for. No-one here, I believe, is in favour of zero continuity whatsoever so that's a bit of an answer to a point that isn't being made. We've just seen perhaps the supreme example of this on TV with The Timeless Children. Some see it as an insult and an abomination to the show's canon, others see it as massively exciting to open up what we think we knew. To insert the "Who?" back in "Doctor Who" as I like to say about the ep.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Apr 9, 2020 3:59:46 GMT
It would be a lovely post and a hard agree from me if Audio were advocating no continuity - but he isn't. He's only saying - correctly - it shouldn't be the be all and end all and is not reason enough for a story to exist. He isn't advocating, even remotely, that stories should revert to status quo by the end. The opposite in fact, far from being that restrictive he's advocating being able to take the story in different places that some won't care for. We've just seen perhaps the supreme example of this on TV with The Timeless Children. Some see it as an insult and an abomination to the show's canon, others see it as massively exciting to open up what we think we knew. To insert the "Who?" back in "Doctor Who" as I like to say about the ep. Exactly. Where precisely do you see me advocating for a total disregard for in-show continuity? What I am saying, is I don't understand that subsection of fandom who has to have everything fit. Has to have everything being able to slot in some open spot on a shelf. Continuity can be a good tool. Continuity can give you context. What I do object to is well we can't do this with Doctor Y because 25 years ago the cliffhanger for episode three showed that Doctor Z doing that, so this great story idea should be thrown out. Continuity should never stand in the way of the writer telling their story. It has to be story first, because that is the writer's brief. Tell the best story they can. The Timeless Children is a perfect example. It changes nothing of what happened before but it also changes everything. I want Doctor Who to be as big, bold & expansive a show as possible. I want Doctor Who to take chances and to see it moved forward, not pulled back because certain fans object when something new contradicts something old. Anyway, others mileage may vary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 3:59:57 GMT
I'd say it depends on the story. Continuity, for me, is something guided less by dates and more by character. That's where I think the focus is. The character of people. It's taking every relevant account that brought joy and wonder to an audience and having it click together to build a world of substance. Showing that the actions of each character do contribute in one way or another. Big or small. We'd have never gotten the Sixth Doctor's completed arc without continuity. He would have remained the same static character from the days of 1985/6. Despite the decades of contributions that have been made in the meantime, we can still point to a particular story -- mythological triumph or garden-variety romp -- and say where he is on that journey. Even without a recognisable companion. Evelyn's own tragic reasons for leaving the Doctor, her character arc, wouldn't have worked without that continuity either. The character of places. Another example is The Dalek Invasion of Earth. It's not just an occupation of 1964 by any other name, it's a gruesome seven-year trial by ordeal of an Earth that should have stood a good chance of repelling them. They had fleets of rockets, T-mat, Moonbases, Seabases, Sync-ops, sprawling megacities and a public transit system that spanned the Solar System. A planet that had already repelled two Cyber-invasions and twice gone to war with their Martian cousins. All of that existed, but meant nothing to the Daleks, who just rolled over them anyway. Reducing Earth to as it was in the 20th century. That's an astonishingly powerful image and it pushes the Daleks' own villainous character upward. Not every story is going (or is necessarily meant) to do that, but the ones that are, that interconnectivity is part of the storytelling. Continuity, at its best, is reconciling all that disparate history into something that looks like a life well-travelled. Particularly important in an age as serialised as this current one. If the journey didn't matter, if the characters have no story to tell, why are we watching anyway? That's my take on it, at least. It would be a lovely post and a hard agree from me if Audio were advocating no continuity - but he isn't. He's only saying - correctly - it shouldn't be the be all and end all and is not reason enough for a story to exist. He isn't advocating, even remotely, that stories should revert to status quo by the end. The opposite in fact, far from being that restrictive he's advocating being able to take the story in different places that some won't care for. No-one here, I believe, is in favour of zero continuity whatsoever so that's a bit of an answer to a point that isn't being made. We've just seen perhaps the supreme example of this on TV with The Timeless Children. Some see it as an insult and an abomination to the show's canon, others see it as massively exciting to open up what we think we knew. To insert the "Who?" back in "Doctor Who" as I like to say about the ep. Good thing too, because that's not what I'm saying. *thumbs up* First words of the post were: "it depends on the story", followed someway down by: "Not every story is going (or is necessarily meant) to do that [...]" Time travel always makes it complicated. There's a fourth dimension there that needs to be reconciled with everything else. I think the ur-example for how to wrangle with it is the phrase: "Time can be rewritten." "Time can be rewritten." "Time can be re-written." Someone had to write it in the first place for someone else (or themselves, sometimes) to come along and rewrite it. "Always" is a very dangerous word in Doctor Who because what was always true for one character, isn't necessarily true for another. Day of the Daleks is prime example of that. For the guerillas, their future is the prime version and the truth. For the Doctor, their future is an abnormality and an alternate time. Both are correct depending on the point-of-view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 4:08:59 GMT
It would be a lovely post and a hard agree from me if Audio were advocating no continuity - but he isn't. He's only saying - correctly - it shouldn't be the be all and end all and is not reason enough for a story to exist. He isn't advocating, even remotely, that stories should revert to status quo by the end. The opposite in fact, far from being that restrictive he's advocating being able to take the story in different places that some won't care for. We've just seen perhaps the supreme example of this on TV with The Timeless Children. Some see it as an insult and an abomination to the show's canon, others see it as massively exciting to open up what we think we knew. To insert the "Who?" back in "Doctor Who" as I like to say about the ep. Exactly. Where precisely do you see me advocating for a total disregard for in-show continuity? What I am saying, is I don't understand that subsection of fandom who has to have everything fit. Has to have everything being able to slot in some open spot on a shelf. Continuity can be a good tool. Continuity can give you context. What I do object to is well we can't do this with Doctor Y because 25 years ago the cliffhanger for episode three showed that Doctor Z doing that, so this great story idea should be thrown out. Continuity should never stand in the way of the writer telling their story. It has to be story first, because that is the writer's brief. Tell the best story they can. The Timeless Children is a perfect example. It changes nothing of what happened before but it also changes everything. I want Doctor Who to be as big, bold & expansive a show as possible. I want Doctor Who to take chances and to see it moved forward, not pulled back because certain fans object when something new contradicts something old. Anyway, others mileage may vary. The clarification isn't necessary, don't worry. I understood what you meant and, as I said above, it depends on the story. Continuity is a handy tool, but it's not the end all, be all of storytelling. I'm now in a very odd position where I've agreed... and have been called out for not agreeing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 4:09:45 GMT
It would be a lovely post and a hard agree from me if Audio were advocating no continuity - but he isn't. He's only saying - correctly - it shouldn't be the be all and end all and is not reason enough for a story to exist. He isn't advocating, even remotely, that stories should revert to status quo by the end. The opposite in fact, far from being that restrictive he's advocating being able to take the story in different places that some won't care for. No-one here, I believe, is in favour of zero continuity whatsoever so that's a bit of an answer to a point that isn't being made. We've just seen perhaps the supreme example of this on TV with The Timeless Children. Some see it as an insult and an abomination to the show's canon, others see it as massively exciting to open up what we think we knew. To insert the "Who?" back in "Doctor Who" as I like to say about the ep. Good thing too, because that's not what I'm saying. *thumbs up* First words of the post were: "it depends on the story", followed someway down by: "Not every story is going (or is necessarily meant) to do that [...]" Time travel always makes it complicated. There's a fourth dimension there that needs to be reconciled with everything else. I think the ur-example for how to wrangle with it is the phrase: "Time can be rewritten." "Time can be rewritten." "Time can be re-written." Someone had to write it in the first place for someone else (or themselves, sometimes) to come along and rewrite it. "Always" is a very dangerous word in Doctor Who because what was always true for one character, isn't necessarily true for another. Day of the Daleks is prime example of that. For the guerillas, their future is the prime version and the truth. For the Doctor, their future is an abnormality and an alternate time. Both are correct depending on the point-of-view. Again...no-one - me, Audio or anyone else is talking about a universal approach or saying anything should "always" happen. Quite the opposite. I'm really not sure where you're getting these points from but it's not from the discussion we're having unless something is coming off completely wrong from our end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 4:13:15 GMT
Good thing too, because that's not what I'm saying. *thumbs up* First words of the post were: "it depends on the story", followed someway down by: "Not every story is going (or is necessarily meant) to do that [...]" Time travel always makes it complicated. There's a fourth dimension there that needs to be reconciled with everything else. I think the ur-example for how to wrangle with it is the phrase: "Time can be rewritten." "Time can be rewritten." "Time can be re-written." Someone had to write it in the first place for someone else (or themselves, sometimes) to come along and rewrite it. "Always" is a very dangerous word in Doctor Who because what was always true for one character, isn't necessarily true for another. Day of the Daleks is prime example of that. For the guerillas, their future is the prime version and the truth. For the Doctor, their future is an abnormality and an alternate time. Both are correct depending on the point-of-view. Again...no-one - me, Audio or anyone else is talking about a universal approach or saying anything should "always" happen. Quite the opposite. I'm really not sure where you're getting these points from but it's not from the discussion we're having unless something is coming off completely wrong from our end. I don't know what to tell you, Davy. That's not the intent of either post. This is an increasingly odd conversation where I'm being forced into a role that I don't agree with. You need to stop, it's actually get a bit uncomfortable.
|
|