Doctor Who Club of Australia

[charlie]

I've now seen Doctor Who and not much made sense but it was still fun to watch.

How many people accept that the Doctor is half human? I don't

[dave]

Personally, I hated the idea of the Doctor being half-human. That, above all else, stands out as what appalled me the most about the tele-movie when I first saw it.

I still dislike the idea, and I do my best to forget about that odd blip in Who lore, although I guess it is regarded as canonical. I've been rather happy that the new series has, thus far, made no mention of this 'fact'. Considering the numerous comments about his people being wiped out in the Time War, I think the Doctor has had ample opportunity to divulge this info to Rose...so I'm hoping that the current production team don't regard that particular piece of info as being canonical themselves. Maybe not having McGann regenerate into Eccleston was also an attempt to divulge themselves from what was laid down in the movie, as well as giving the series a 'new start' as it were.

I hope so.

[kangamac]

Whilst I never considered the possibility before it became fact, the more I think about the Doctor's Human side, the more sense it makes to me. It provides a relatively logical explanation to much of what has passed before in Doctor Who - and continues to - and does not change things one iota.

The fact that he is - and has always been - half-Human does not change anything about him and what he does. It simply helps to make the rest of it seem to make a little better sense...

I look forward to seeing future references to this in new stories - and even if they aren't made, it won't change anything. There are many things about the Doctor that have only been mentioned once in the series and that we accept as fact. This is just one more of those facts - and it was actually mentioned twice...

[dave]

[Greg]

The thing with Doctor Who in the past, and I suspect also in the future, is that it isn't all plotted out beforehand. When the series was created, the production team left the Doctor's background deliberately blank. Original planned information on the origins of the Doctor and Susan were deleted from scripts, and other unplanned information (such as Susan being the Doctor's granddaughter) were added as the scripting progressed.

The show constantly contradicys itself, and what we take as facts now are sometimes contradictions of earlier comments. The Doctor once said that Time Lords 'live forever, barring accidents', but we're later told that they only have thirteen lives and, in fact, Rassilon has devised a trap for those seeking to live forever. Which is right? (And can the High Council of the Time Lords really grant a new regenerative cycle?)

Assuming that a particular statement made is going to be true forever is unwise. Is the Doctor half-human? Does it matter? Unless someone wants to write a story about the Doctor's childhood, it probably doesn't. And there's no reason to think the current production team will - they are ignoring the past unless it is relevant to the current stories. Otherwise naughty-naughty of them to have the Doctor claim to be 900 when the 3rd Doctor indicated he was thousands of years old - although how he managed that after only being 450 in The Tomb of the Cybermen is a bit of a mystery!

I'm with dave in that whether the Doctor is half-human or not doesn't explain anything. Most of the things people say it explains (like why the Doctor is so fond of humans and has been on Earth so many times) don't make as much sense as they are claimed. I'm fond of Irises, but I'm not half-iris (unless my parents are keeping something from me!). The Doctor's been on Skaro the third most often of all planets in the series, but no one claims he's part Dalek.

In the end, it's a comment that was made by the Doctor and the Master in the same story, so there's some verification of the half-human claim, but it's not that important.

(It's so unimportant, I didn't bother to vote!)

[charlie]

[dave]

Beautiful. Thanks for that piece of info Charlie, I prefer to hold to that than accept what was laid down in the movie. But hey, at the end of the day, it's a bit ridiculous to argue over what's canonical regarding a fictional series, really. I'm with Greg on that one, although I did bother to vote, as it was something that really annoyed me when I first saw the movie.

It's not like we're debating God's inspired Word here, or anything. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread...

I'll just continue with my ignoring that bit of lore, as I said above, and try to ignore certain people taunting me on MSN that otherwise is the case...(yes, ant, that means you!)

[Sulp Niar]

[charlie]

[Seamus]

Yeah, all that "Goua'uld" (sp?) stuff is a bit freaky. I ended up wondering if all "full-blood" Timelords had those green snake eyes like the Master had. This was not the case in the classic series. They all appeared "Human" on the outside.

And why the hell would the Daleks grant a last request to anyone, let alone the Master who was a Timelord - an enemy? Daleks sentimental?

The half-human thing I could reluctantly come to grips with if this was explained as one reason for the Doctor's ongoing interest in the Human species. The Doctor does have the outward appearance of a human being after all.

TV producers of Sci-Fi must think we need a human quality in our TV aliens. Spok was half-human and Worf was raised by humans.

EDIT: I voted "No" because I want to Doctor to be fully alien, which is what I had always been lead to believe over the years.

[Davros]

[Seamus]

[Seamus]

I suppose the Doctor's "half-human" comment does not have to be interpretted as literal.

Maybe he "feels" half-human in spirit?

(Unless he demonstrated his "humanity" in a physical sense. A scene I may have forgotten about.)

[Greg]

[charlie]