The Day of the Doctor: 50th Anniversary special *spoilers*

[SiHart]

Conversely there are also plenty of stories you can tell without it...

[Rob McCow]

I think the main issue is that the Time War could be fabulous in the imagination, but to actually realise it on screen would surely be a disappointment. I think having a few glimpses of it is far better than seeing the whole thing.

For example, the thousands of crashed Dalek ships around the shattered Capitol was incredibly evocative, but as for actually seeing them all crash?

And as RTD said, the Time War would be too horrible for BBC One primetime anyway.

For the 50th Anniversary however - how about a cinematic movie? A movie on the big screen with Matt Smith and the Daleks.

[Perry Vale]

Get my point?

Yes. My point is that it would be incredibly boring. As your first paragraph shows.

I'm certainly not aiming this at anyone in particular here, but I do think that many people missed the main point of 'The End Of Time', and were simply 'wooed' by colourful mentions and prose of specific battles.

The Doctor had to "destroy" and condemn his entire race, including his mother, because they had become the most deadliest and dangerous race in the universe. Really, what more important story is there to tell from the Time War? I really can't think of one, and am yet to hear any realistic suggestions. For a lot of people I'm quite sure it's just so they can have a McGann to Eccleston regeneration.

[Si Hunt]

As your first paragraph shows.

Oh! I thought that was quite a good idea.

I don't get why they've described this huge epic battle and everyone thinks it would be boring. Just don't understand that. Surely it would be good if it was written to be good?! Likewise everyone seems to think you couldn't do it justice with a screen realisation. Bit defeatist isn't it? Doctor Who has a history of trying to do things well beyond its budget, I know a lot of things fail but surely it's better to try? Or back in 1964 perhaps when someone suggested they stage the Dalek Invasion of Earth using a handful of actors and a couple of sets, or when ten years later they tried to do "Dinosaurs take over London", or the entire planet burning up in "Inferno", they should have just not bothered?

Si.

[Ian Lethbridge-Stewart]

I don't mind admitting that I never really understood the whole Time War story. I certainly didn't understand much of TEoT. It was all a bit quick for me - in my old age I can only cope with slow moving 'classic series' speed type stories!!!
It probably doesn't help that I've not deliberatly re-watched a new series episode since the first episode of the series 4 finale either!

Was it ever confirmed that the stange lady in TEoT was the Doctor's mother? If so, I must have missed that bit!

[Perry Vale]

Was it ever confirmed that the stange lady in TEoT was the Doctor's mother? If so, I must have missed that bit!

Not with dialogue, but I found it very obvious from the way it was directed. It has since been 'confirmed' in RTD's 'The Writer's Tale' (IIRC), and been noted elsewhere that the part she was cast for, and her script, all said 'The Doctor's Mother'.

[Anthony Williams]

Not with dialogue, but I found it very obvious from the way it was directed. It has since been 'confirmed' in RTD's 'The Writer's Tale' (IIRC), and been noted elsewhere that the part she was cast for, and her script, all said 'The Doctor's Mother'.

Blah. It doesn't count unless mentioned onscreen!

Ant x

[Perry Vale]

If that's what makes you happy.

The intention though is quite clear.

[Anthony Williams]

If that's what makes you happy.

The intention though is quite clear.

Maybe. I don't particularly want to get into yet another "canon" debate, but I think that despite all of that, it was deliberately left to the fans to make up their own minds who she was.

Ant x

[Perry Vale]

Perhaps. I suspect though it may well have been more to do with detracting from the main story. If they had gone ahead and named her, you can imagine all the silly tabloid stories that would have sprung up.

[Rob McCow]

She should have said 'Could you do this to your own m.... ARRGHHH!' as she was cast into the void!

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I think the main reason to just forget about the Time War is that it's 2011 now and it was first mentioned in 2005. Obviously there's a trend in modern television to have long meandering continuity-heavy stories that drag on for years and years and never go anywhere, but for me that's the complete opposite of what Doctor Who has always been - i.e. going somewhere completely new and different every few weeks and having a new story. If you want that sort of stuff then go and watch Heroes or Lost, or read the New Adventures or something, but don't ruin Doctor Who with it.

[Jason Thompson]

Or back in 1964 perhaps when someone suggested they stage the Dalek Invasion of Earth using a handful of actors and a couple of sets, or when ten years later they tried to do "Dinosaurs take over London", or the entire planet burning up in "Inferno", they should have just not bothered?

Si.

But they didn't stage those things, did they? The Invasion had already happened, the dinosaurs weren't in it much, and we only saw the destruction of the local area in Inferno. All we heard of the 'big' events was recounted tales. We never saw the plague missiles, we never saw fleets of Dalek saucers attacking, we never saw millions of people fleeing London as dinosaurs appeared, and we never saw anyone outside the drilling station. We heard about it.

The Time War is just in the same vein. We see little bits of it, and we hear about the rest. We see the shattered Citadel dome, and Gallifrey come back. We only hear about the rest. We hear about ten million Dalek ships on fire, we hear about the Nightmare Child, the Could-Have-Been-King, and so on. Do we need to see those things?

The Time War business seemed to reach a conclusion in The End of Time, when the Doctor had to wipe Gallifrey out again. Time to move on.

[Rob McCow]

It's like the Time War War all over again

So, if no time war, then what else could they do?

[Jon Masters]

Would I be wildly out of order to suggest that we don't need a special story ?

I'd rather they did a whole season of documentaries about the development of the programme over the 50 years, with behind the scenes stuff and interviews from key players, than try to construct some huge story to fit in as many fan pleasers as possible, and which will probably disappoint. The problem is that the new series does massive stories at the end of each season, the sort which would qualify as specials. And while we all love the 5 Doctors, I can't see a good marriage between old who stars and new who.

And we'd probably have to have Rose back as well

[Anthony Williams]

And we'd probably have to have Rose back as well

My reaction to that... (clicky)

Ant x

[Dino]

Christopher Eccelston just said on a Graham Norton radio interview "Never bathe in the same river twice".
So there goes the 9th Doctor appearing in a 50th Anniversary story!
Unless they throw a shedload of money to a charity of his choice.
He didn't say anything about that last sentence, but that's how I'd try and get around it. But we're kidding ourselves aren't we?
So long, and thanks for all then, Chris!

[J.R. Southall]

I suspect that if we get a multi-Doctor knees up for the fiftieth, it'll probably just be The Three Doctors again in number: Tennant, Smith and whoever replaces him. (I can't honestly see a young actor with a massive career in front of him sticking around for four or more years on the one show, particularly as the production now seems to have jumped from nine months of the year to ten or more.)

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I'd imagine people who bathe in rivers will more than likely bathe in the same one most of the time. What a stupid thing to say. Still, you know what they say, never use the same toilet twice.

[brandynigma]

How will this make it a money spinner exactly? The BBC would have to pay 2|entertain for the dvd prints, so that would make it even more expensive...?

BBC Worldwide own the entirety of 2 Entertain now. It would just be a matter of shifting money from one arm to the other.

The money spinner aspect comes from, after each episode, announcing "This story is available, with a collection of exclusive Special Features, from the BBC Shop and all good DVD retailers."

Are the BBC allowed to advertise their own DVDs? The ABC are...

[Perry Vale]

BBC Worldwide own the entirety of 2 Entertain now. It would just be a matter of shifting money from one arm to the other.

That makes no difference, the BBC would still have to pay (BBCWW, 2e etc.) to use those masters. The BBC do not own them. And the BBC can't be seen to be wasting license fee money on something "we" have already paid for once.

Are the BBC allowed to advertise their own DVDs? The ABC are...

Not sure on the exact answer to this, but at the very least there must be some very strict guidelines on this - otherwise you'd be seeing it all the time.

[Captain Tancredi]

I think specifically advertising DVDs after a broadcast of the same programme seems to have died a death- possibly at the time 2entertain was set up and it was no longer a case of the BBC releasing and distributing its own product, or simply because the audience now knows that most high profile dramas and documentaries make it on to DVD within a few weeks anyway. On the other hand, the Radio Times is quite happy to promote DVDs and books-there's usually at least one in the listings for any given day.

As regards the transmission part of the BBC paying for use of the DVD prints, presumably if any of the BBC channels wanted some cleaned-up prints suitable for broadcast in 2011-13 (bearing in mind that the broadcast quality threshold in two years' time might be rather higher than it is now) they'd have to outsource that restoration anyway. And given that the DVD restoration was presumably costed on the basis that the expense would be recovered from DVD sales alone, any income for use of the prints would be a bonus which would eventually be recycled back into the production side of the BBC. It's just taking a long way round.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Not sure on the exact answer to this, but at the very least there must be some very strict guidelines on this - otherwise you'd be seeing it all the time.

They always used to advertise Doctor Who (and Red Dwarf) videos after the Doctor Who repeats in the early 90s

[FlyingBeastie]

It wasn't his mom. In fact, it doesn't matter who she is. That wasn't the point.


Also, I'm one who would love to see The Time War- it'd be epic, cinematic, and, like aforementioned, we'd see McGann regenerate into Eccelston.

THING IS

It goes back to the Star Wars prequels question: Is this a story that needs to be told?

[FlyingBeastie]

Christopher Eccelston just said on a Graham Norton radio interview "Never bathe in the same river twice".

Wasn't that RTD?