 |
Doctor Who Club of Australia
45
Celebrating the 45th anniversary of Doctor Who
Sunday Nov 23rd at Drummoyne RSL Victoria Rd Drummoyne
11 am to 6 pm
|
|
|
| Trial of a Time Lord (Parts 9-12): Terror of the Vervoids |
| Excellent |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Very Good |
|
30% |
[ 4 ] |
| Good |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| Fair |
|
38% |
[ 5 ] |
| Turkey |
|
23% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ADAMK
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 219
Location: Canberra
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
charlie
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Currarong (never heard of it?! Its near Nowra. What?! Nowra's below The Gong!)
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Missed the first half but from what I did see it looked alright. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genlock
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looking back 20 years with 20/20 hindsight, and pharaphasing from many sources. (including DW-The Television Companion).
What I find most disappointing about this story and the show in general during the late 70s and 80s was that it seemed to have setlled into a pattern of story telling that was just becoming boring and prediictable.
The same sort of stories were being written by the same sort of writers over and over. For DW that meant that one too many stories involved an evil mastermind of nasty bunch of aliens wanting to (1.) marry the doctors current companion ((no sex with the legalities)), (2.) take over the ENTIRE universe, or (3.) take over/destroy the earth.
It all got a bit boring. It lacked imagination, which is what you need in a show like DW. It's audience was growing up, while the show stayed locked in the past.
Take Trail for example. The production team had the longest runup ever to produce a 14 episode season. They decided to do a single 14 part story. And what did we end up with? Four seperate stories with some of the dullest linking material ever. (The Doctor sits down for 14 weeks to watch and comment on Doctor Who). Not only that, but it's confusing, points are unresolved, and subplots are just plain silly.
"Terror Of The Vervoids" is probably the best of the Trial stories simply because it's not interrupted as much as the others. beyond that it's a pretty straight forward "them vs us" in an isolated house story. It does raise questions about the Timelords legal system though. Putting someone on trial for something they haven't done yet, and assuming it does happen, doesn't that mean the out come of the trial is that the Doctor isn't guilty? If he's found guilty the evidence you just saw then doesn't exist ....
The saddest thing about Trial was that Robert Holmes died during production. He was meant to have written the opening and closing stories but was unable to do so. As a result "Ultimate Foe" just seems a mess, and the Trial itself just seems pointless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlie
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Currarong (never heard of it?! Its near Nowra. What?! Nowra's below The Gong!)
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Genlock wrote: |
The same sort of stories were being written by the same sort of writers over and over. For DW that meant that one too many stories involved an evil mastermind of nasty bunch of aliens wanting to (1.) marry the doctors current companion ((no sex with the legalities)), (2.) take over the ENTIRE universe, or (3.) take over/destroy the earth.
It does raise questions about the Timelords legal system though. Putting someone on trial for something they haven't done yet, and assuming it does happen, doesn't that mean the out come of the trial is that the Doctor isn't guilty? If he's found guilty the evidence you just saw then doesn't exist ....
|
What happened to the stories when the Doctor would land somewhere, the TARDIS would be rendered inopperable or unreachable and then they spent the story trying to get to it, all the while accidently getting into trouble with the local populace?
With the not happening yet thing, it obviously hasnt happened in Gallifrey time but it may still have happened in regular time. For, since time is unchangeable, all the people that have been there, are there and will be there must already be there in the matrixes record. Like in a book, you can read the first chapter and then read the last. The story, in your mind, hasnt happened yet but the record of it is still there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genlock
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| charlie wrote: | | For, since time is unchangeable, all the people that have been there, are there and will be there must already be there in the matrixes record. Like in a book, you can read the first chapter and then read the last. The story, in your mind, hasnt happened yet but the record of it is still there. |
This is not real. It's just a tv show, so here we go ....
"Time is unchangeable". Is it? Who/when was that decided within the Who-universe. (I must have missed that meeting).
In "Pyramids" the Doctor demonstrated to Sarah that time is not unchangeable when he returns her to the 1980's without defeating Sutekh and the world has been destroyed.
In the "The Unquiet Dead" the Doctor says something along the line that "Everything is in flux" or "Time is in flux", ie; constantly changing. If the Gelth come through the rift in1869 and destroy the world of 1869, then Roses world of 2005(?) won't exist. The Grandfather paradox.
I think what your saying is that "every past/present & future event" is already recorded in the Timelords matrix. Doesn't that mean that when they switched it on for the first time, it was so. (Diiificult to accept). If it's not so, you have to accept that the matrix contains information only up to a certain point in time.
And why have every "Tardis" set up to record "within it's range" the experiences of those who travel in it if all the information is already in the matrix?
However, if as you say "time is unchangeable", everything that has ever happened or will happen has already happened etc, like a book or a film, that means putting the Doctor on Trial is pointless as the matrix shows him out and about and interferring as usual, AFTER the point in his personal timeline where he's on trial.
Honestly, you can argue this kind of stuff for ever and ever and ever ...
"Time travel gives me a headache" I think is the quote.
BTW: In Mindwarp if the Tardis and the Doctor have both left the planet where the adventure takes place, how was a recording of later events, Peri's death etc. made? Surely Peri's 'contact" with the Tardis must have been broken? Do we assume the Timelords were watching directly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlie
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Currarong (never heard of it?! Its near Nowra. What?! Nowra's below The Gong!)
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genlock wrote: | | charlie wrote: | | For, since time is unchangeable, all the people that have been there, are there and will be there must already be there in the matrixes record. Like in a book, you can read the first chapter and then read the last. The story, in your mind, hasnt happened yet but the record of it is still there. |
"Time is unchangeable". Is it? Who/when was that decided within the Who-universe. (I must have missed that meeting).
I think what your saying is that "every past/present & future event" is already recorded in the Timelords matrix. Doesn't that mean that when they switched it on for the first time, it was so. (Diiificult to accept). If it's not so, you have to accept that the matrix contains information only up to a certain point in time.
However, if as you say "time is unchangeable", everything that has ever happened or will happen has already happened etc, like a book or a film, that means putting the Doctor on Trial is pointless as the matrix shows him out and about and interferring as usual, AFTER the point in his personal timeline where he's on trial.
Honestly, you can argue this kind of stuff for ever and ever and ever ...
"Time travel gives me a headache" I think is the quote.
BTW: In Mindwarp if the Tardis and the Doctor have both left the planet where the adventure takes place, how was a recording of later events, Peri's death etc. made? Surely Peri's 'contact" with the Tardis must have been broken? Do we assume the Timelords were watching directly. |
Ok. I think that the Doctor was raving on about unchangable time in The Aztecs however, what I was referring to was todays foremost time travel experts (such as Steven Hawking) who say things like you cant travel back in time before the time machine was made and you can make time machines by propelling blackholes into each other and such. I think I also heard them say once that you cannot change the past or future but Im not sure.
I dont think the matrix would have all time recorded on it when it was first turned on, it would have to be programmed into it. However if the timelords had already broken away into timelord time then they could have programmed all of regular time the very first time the matrix was on. However they would not be able to program future timelord time.
I agree with the headache statement.
In mindwarp maybe they used the time scoop 
All in all I stand by what I said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genlock
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| charlie wrote: | | Genlock wrote: | | charlie wrote: | | For, since time is unchangeable, all the people that have been there, are there and will be there must already be there in the matrixes record. Like in a book, you can read the first chapter and then read the last. The story, in your mind, hasnt happened yet but the record of it is still there. |
"Time is unchangeable". Is it? Who/when was that decided within the Who-universe. (I must have missed that meeting).
I think what your saying is that "every past/present & future event" is already recorded in the Timelords matrix. Doesn't that mean that when they switched it on for the first time, it was so. (Diiificult to accept). If it's not so, you have to accept that the matrix contains information only up to a certain point in time.
However, if as you say "time is unchangeable", everything that has ever happened or will happen has already happened etc, like a book or a film, that means putting the Doctor on Trial is pointless as the matrix shows him out and about and interferring as usual, AFTER the point in his personal timeline where he's on trial.
Honestly, you can argue this kind of stuff for ever and ever and ever ...
"Time travel gives me a headache" I think is the quote.
BTW: In Mindwarp if the Tardis and the Doctor have both left the planet where the adventure takes place, how was a recording of later events, Peri's death etc. made? Surely Peri's 'contact" with the Tardis must have been broken? Do we assume the Timelords were watching directly. |
Ok. I think that the Doctor was raving on about unchangable time in The Aztecs however, what I was referring to was todays foremost time travel experts (such as Steven Hawking) who say things like you cant travel back in time before the time machine was made and you can make time machines by propelling blackholes into each other and such. I think I also heard them say once that you cannot change the past or future but Im not sure.
I dont think the matrix would have all time recorded on it when it was first turned on, it would have to be programmed into it. However if the timelords had already broken away into timelord time then they could have programmed all of regular time the very first time the matrix was on. However they would not be able to program future timelord time.
I agree with the headache statement.
In mindwarp maybe they used the time scoop
All in all I stand by what I said. |
I've read Hawkings book, "A Brief History Of Time".
I saw the documentary "Time Trip" shown on SBS recently.
SBS also showed a doco called (if I recall correctly) "Lords Of Time" (?) a few years back on the same topic. (It's in the archives, I'll have to go and find it). And there was also the short series "Reality On The Rocks" which covered Hawkings universe. And then there was the series "Hawkings Universe". (Must have another look at that).
I've read other books on the topic. Both fiction and non-fiction. (Stephen Baxter has made good use of a number of time travel theories in a number of his short stories and books).
You have to remember that Doctor Who is JUST a tv series. If a writer does their research properly they can write a good story based on a scienitic theory. That's about it. That doesn't make DW cutting edge science. And it doesn't make any thing said on the show either true or correct. So much science and terminology used in the show is just plain wrong. (As with much SF television).
You can either discuss the topic using current real scientific theory or you can make up a bunch of psuedo-sciencific "timelord" science. In the latter everything and anything is both possible and acceptable because it's fiction. It's not real. So anything you say or believe in that universe is true and correct.
So which is it?
I prefer to base my discussions in both reality and logic.
Otherwide there is little point.
I'll go back to the original point:
"Putting someone on trial for something they haven't done yet, and assuming it does happen, doesn't that mean the out come of the trial is that the Doctor isn't guilty? If he's found guilty the evidence you just saw then doesn't exist .... "
Within the framework of the fictional story, if the Doctor is found to be guilty the punishment is DEATH. He will no longer exist. Within the context of the show this means his "future" can therefore no longer exist.
"Terror Of The Vervoids" therefore becomes a logical paradox. By seeing the Doctors "future" the whole trial becomes a moot point. He MUST have been found innocent. If this is not correct, (within the context of the show), it means that the matrix is full of both actual and potential past/present/futures. You can both be alive and dead at anytime. Nothing in the matrix can be assumed to be a real or actual event. (And it appears the "reality" of the matrix can be edited/altered).
And shouldn't the Timelords be putting themselves on trial for interferring when they sent the Doctor on various missions ......
And so on ......
As I said you can argue this from forever to infinity and get nowhere. (Which I think is where we are going). You are perfectly entitled to stand by what you said. It's just that if you use 'timelord science" it's pointless as anything is acceptable.
Nuff said from me.
BTW: "I dont think the matrix would have all time recorded on it when it was first turned on, it would have to be programmed into it."
To program the matrix with "all time" you'd have to have "all time" first. What's the difference between that and turning on the matrix and it already having ever event recorded into it except for the process of programming? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amano07
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Doctor wasnt on trial for the vervoids part, it was his evidence to try and clear his name, the point is still valid about the paradox but the Time Lords were not putting him on trial for the future events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlie
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Currarong (never heard of it?! Its near Nowra. What?! Nowra's below The Gong!)
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genlock wrote: |
So which is it?
I prefer to base my discussions in both reality and logic.
Otherwide there is little point.
To program the matrix with "all time" you'd have to have "all time" first. What's the difference between that and turning on the matrix and it already having ever event recorded into it except for the process of programming? |
I like both because I find it tends to lead to having a great laugh. Which I enjoy.
When programming the matrix they would have had to be separated into Timelord time so that they had access to all time. I think they probably were. Espessially with Rassilons Super Technology and Omegas time experiments and such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 902
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| charlie wrote: | What happened to the stories when the Doctor would land somewhere, the TARDIS would be rendered inopperable or unreachable and then they spent the story trying to get to it, all the while accidently getting into trouble with the local populace?
|
Sounds like you need to listen to 'The Natural History of Fear'.
hehe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's face it....regardless of how you slice it, having a story from the Doctors future when he's currently on trial is just sloppy writing.
As for the story, it's Doctor Who at it's most mediocre...rubbish costumes, rubbish monsters, a cliched story, etc. Doesn't help that it features the awful trial scenes and Mel. Michael Craig didn't think much of it either. I was flicking through his autobiography a few months back and he described the show as crap. He's right. It's not only poor Doctor Who but it's poor television as well which is worse.
Of course the most distracting thing in the story is Colin's Doctor looking as though he's wearing an albino fright wig and wearing an even worse variation of that appalling costume that no doubt alienated many a viewer when the show was first broadcast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 1822
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean wrote: | | Let's face it....regardless of how you slice it, having a story from the Doctors future when he's currently on trial is just sloppy writing. |
To be fair, having a story from the Doctor's future fits with the underlying idea for this season: Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. We have an adventure from the past, an adventure from the present and an adventure from the future - presumably with the intention that the Doctor would mend his ways at the end. Of course, it didn't quite go according to plan... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I know that was the intention but it didn't make any sense when utilised this way. I'm sure there could have been plenty of other imaginative ways to pay homage to A Christmas Carol but the way it was done here was shoddy. Fans can justify the inclusion of the future story in this season all they like but the show was made to appeal to a general audience and if it leaves many fans scratching their heads, you can't help but wonder what the average viewer thought of it. Not much, according to the ratings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SharazJek
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 902
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean wrote: | | there could have been plenty of other imaginative ways to pay homage to A Christmas Carol but the way it was done here was shoddy. |
How many shows from the mid 80's (and from Britain) weren't shoddy? If we scrutinized a show like Metal Mickey as much as we do Doctor Who, we'd think Who was wonderful compared to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amano07
Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| My god i forgot about Metal Mickey... i use to love that show hehe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeYates
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: Passing Judgement |
|
|
Yes this is most confusing.
Isn't the only way The Doctor can have a future is if he is exonerated by Lagafferty and the Valeyard? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odnet
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 61
Location: Mudgee
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: Re: Passing Judgement |
|
|
| MikeYates wrote: | Yes this is most confusing.
Isn't the only way The Doctor can have a future is if he is exonerated by Lagafferty and the Valeyard? |
That's right! Why didn't The Doctor think of that? The whole thing is a complete mess. I hate the constant interruptions of the Court Case. They should have just had the stories as separate episodes. It's just another example of the mess the show was in during The Sixth Doctors Reign. And the Hypocrisy of the BBC in Sacking Colin Baker as if the show's problems were his doing. That's why I defend Colin Baker. Not because he was brilliant or without fault, but because so many things were wrong with Doctor Who during this period and poor Colin seems to get an unfair portion of the blame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
