Preface: fans are bloody nuts, are sad, should have better things to do than pausing through television and then debating about it.
I'm just very sensitive to anything diminishing Colin Baker's marvellous Sixth Doctor - it happens a lot, and always raises my hackles like hairs prickling on a cat's back.
In The Next Doctor, they had their first proper past-Doctor montage - One, Two, Three, Four - and then they cut back to the Doctor and Jackson Lake talking, and I felt this little catch in my throat, because cinematic language and sense informed me that while they talked the 80s were being screened on the wall behind us. But, joy of joys, even if it didn't make sense, they faithfully returned to the wall and did all ten. Even Paul McGann, who no one was expecting to see but were happy to get.
But there was a moment when I thought "they are about to omit the 80s!" I still refuse to have a favourite Doctor, but if I had to pick an era over the others it would be an easy choice. The most challenging, the most creative, and the most bravely, gloriously flawed decade of Doctor Who. Of course, it can only be creative because it is building on a solid and familiar foundation. Just as 5, 6 and 7 are only fascinating deconstructions of the Doctor because we are so aware of the journey represented by 1, 2, 3 and 4.
So when The Lodger showed a past-doctor montage, I knew at once who was definitely missing. And pausing through I discovered that actually, there were three Doctors missing. My era.
The gremlins on Gallifrey Base have worked out exactly the sequence of shots:
- Nine from Parting of the Ways
- with cybermen
- Ten from Family of Blood
- with the Racnoss
- Eight
- with ten and rose from the Impossible Planet
- Four with Ood
- Three
- with A Weeping Angel from Blink
- Two
- Hartnell is with a dalek that fades off to his right
- Eleven with Amy
So, why? I'm going to ultimately explain why this isn't an overreaction, so bear with me.
It's prejudice.
Everyone thinks the 80s are shit. A reasonable theory except: Peter Davison is Steve Moffat's favourite doctor, and this is very much on record - a beautiful essay he wrote for a fanzine, Time Crash, and his recent gushing in The Eleventh Doctor confidential. And if you were going to take a canon hammer to Doctor Who, surely Paul McGann would be first to go.
"That's Not Prejudice It's Racism"
Academics use racism and prejudice as two seperate terms. Prejudice is hating one group, but racism = prejudice + power - rather closer how you might use the phrase "institutional racism". It's a useful and interesting distinction.
So maybe it's not just disliking a set of Doctors, but part of a move to remove them from canon - prejudice, and the power to act on it. Flesh and Stone already hinted that the crack is responsible for deleting bits of RTD's world, such as the CyberKing in The Next Doctor.
I don't think this can be true. The fandom would explode and become nasty, and it seems like a rather mean and mad bridge-burning thing to do. Like it or not, Peter Davison, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy are the three most dedicated living ex-Doctors (arguably, McGann as well). They regularly work with Big Finish to record new audio plays.
It's weird:
There has never been an old-doctor appearance like this before. To start with, it's out of order (Nine then Ten). Other references have always been strictly fair to all, and uneven appearances have been in context. A good example is in Vincent, where the printout shows One, then Two - and then the story finds more interesting things to do, but we can assume the rest would have followed.
Even in this very season, we started with a perfectly even montage. And it's not like they didn't have time to make it six seconds longer, or replace some of the Ood and Racnoss.
Amateur day at the office?
In Resurrection of the Daleks, there is a montage counting back every single Doctor and companion. It omits Leela, because someone forgot. A spin-off novel has been written to explain the mistake. All the same, I think it's unrealistic that someone would accidentally forget three.
It's plot
Moff has said everything in this season has a purpose, no matter how small. "We" have already identified several "continuity errors" which, "We" are certain, are not errors at all but hints at a Blinklike master plan weaving through the season. Because you are not a super-geek, and have better things to do with your time, you probably haven't noticed them yet. It's just part of Our campaign to make Ourselves feel superior to you. The finale is going to unravel beautifully, changing what we already know about many of the episodes we have already seen.
A crack which removes things from time: why could it not affect the Doctor, not just as prejudice level but as a brilliant story twist? It's been done before, in Interferance - and that's the key to my disbelief here. Interfereance is a dense spin-off novel, written by and for fans. Why would they tie the season arc to such heavy continuity? And if they did want to, then why target three doctors nobody likes anyway?
If it was truly part of a season arc, it would make better sense if the missing Doctor was:
- Tom Baker. Everyone would notice and care.
- Peter Davison. If you wanted to go with an old Doctor, then pick one who the "not-We" know about.
- Patrick Troughton. Almost as popular as Tom Baker, and then the crack could explain his missing episodes.
- Nine/Ten. Everyone - and I mean absolutely everyone - would notice and care.
Neither of those ideas satisfy me; but the lack of any other reason bothers me deeply.
It's a red herring.
Moff knows what fans are like, and knows the controversy it'd cause, and is laughing at me from on high, for writing this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment