Howling:Doctor Who 50th Anniversary

On recent interviews, Moffat has been talking about the Doctor Who 50th anniversary more and more. What do you think he is intending to do? Last anniversary was The Five Doctors. Could Moffat be planning on a multi-doctor story for the 50th anniversary special, and which doctors do you think are most likely to return? 178.78.81.210talk to me 23:08, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

we did have a similar conversation previously but i think it got deleted for being based on opinion too much. just warning you now.

i would like to see all doctors return; original actors for all that are alive and maybe relatives of the ones that are dead. i would also like to see a good amount of old companions return with their doctors. if there are a lot of doctors returning, i think it would be nice if they state where in their timelines they are from, if for no other reason bu tto have some context of what each doctor has already faced. oh, and of course a reasonable explanation for a memory wipe at the end. Imamadmad talk to me 03:25, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion? Anyway, I'd like to see as many past Doctors, enemies, and companions as possible, but the story really has to be more important than the nostalgia tour. Moffat should probably try to avoid doing what The Five Doctors did, where they basically had a story that wasn't great, but brought back every Doctor (including recastings and time eddies which were unneccessary), and as many companions and enemies as they could.Icecreamdif talk to me 09:13, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know the Ninth Doctor is very unlikely to return. Christopher Eccllestone likes moving on to other things and I doubt he'd return to Doctor Who. I don't think the Fifth Doctor (peter davidson) is interested either. David Tennant could probably be persuaded, but spme of themdoctors are either deceased or getting old, so if there is a multidoctor story it would possibly have Sylvester Mccoy, Paul Macgann, David Tennant and Matt Smith. Which is convinient because the title "the four doctors" is still up for grabs. 178.78.81.210talk to me 11:07, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

the doctor's i would most like to see are christopher eccllestone and paul mcgann, mostly because i believe they both deserved more time as the doctor. chris was a fantastic doctor and i think it was a shame he stayed for only one year. and even if he wants to move on to other things, im sure he could be persuaded for an episode or few. paul was a good doctor and could easily been brilliant if given more time and better writing to work with.

i would still like to see all the doctors though. the older actors could wear wigs and have a bit of technobabble explain their change of apearance like in time crash and the deceased actors could have their sons/grandsons/nefews/any other living male relative (by that i mean direct relative. no in-laws) play the part. this would mean the actors would look similar to the originals and it would mean bringing them back wouldn't be as pointless as if another random actor played the part as it would be honouring the family of the original actor. also, a bit more technobable could explain away any other differences in looks between the relatives.

how to get a mega-multi-doctor story to work without having useless people just standing round doing nothing? i think the doctor's can kind of go into groups to figgure out problems from different angles all leading to one main goal. this is where an aniversary season instead of episode would be useful. each episode from a different group of doctor's perspective and the final episode bringing everything together. Imamadmad talk to me 11:44, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

A whole season? I don't like the idea of that. What I think would be good is to make it into a serial. Just like classic who. Four 25 minute parts spread over four days I think would be very good. 178.78.81.210talk to me 13:14, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

nah, that's only the equivalent of a normal two parter nowadays. it needs to at least be a three parter or be a two parter with extra long episodes like end of time. Imamadmad talk to me 01:29, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing an anniversary season, but I'm sure that Moffat will want to focus on other stories. Unlike in fiction, real people are not identicle to their parents or grandparents, and even if they were, it would be a bit pointless to have Patrick Troughton's son, for example, come to play the Second Doctor. The rest of them though should come back if they are willing, even if they are too old. In The Two Doctors, they just flat out ignored the fact that Patrick Troughton had clearly aged, and in Time Crash they explained it away with technobabble. Still, while I would like to see as many past Doctors, planets, companions, enemies, aliens, robots, and whatever else as possible, the most important thing is that it has a good story.Icecreamdif talk to me 07:55, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

i know that real people don't look identical to their parents. that's where the technobabble comes in. they would just look more like their parents than another random actor (although david troughton seems to be an exeption to this rule. does patric troughton have any other male relatives that look similar to him?) and it would also be a nice tribute to the families of the original actor. Imamadmad talk to me 08:31, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about the actor's families, but I still don't think that that would work. Jon Pertwee, for example, wasn't a great Third Doctor because he was a Pertwee. He was a great Third Doctor because he helped to define the role, and because he was a skilled actor. Even if Pertwee had a relative who is currently the same age that Pertwee was in Planet of the Spiders, and is identical to him in every conceivable way, that doesn't neccessarily mean that he would do a good job portraying the Third Doctor. Apart from Troughton's son, I'm not sure if any of the other Doctor-actors have similar-looking relatives who also happen to be actors. I doubt that William Hartnell, for example, had a relative who looked as similar to him as Richard Hurmdall did. Anyway, since there are already probably going to be more characters than they know what to do with, I wouldn't want to see any past Doctor unless they were portrayed by the same actor, which sadly means that 1, 2 & 3 can't return.Icecreamdif talk to me 23:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I still think a serial would be the best bet. It always worked for the classic series and the only problem with it was the length between the broadcast of each part. However with the Anniversary they could just broadcast them daily. That would work. 87.102.117.106talk to me 16:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, even more recently, that kind of format worked for Children of Earth, so doing it as a serial could probably work. However, I doubt that they are going to do that since that isn't the format of the show anymore. According to the Series 7 page, Moffat seems to be against doing 2-parters for some reason. Personally, I think quite a few of the single-part episodes this season could have worked better as 2-parters. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if he made an exception for the anniversary special.Icecreamdif talk to me 04:20, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

"quite a few of the single-part episodes this season could have worked better as 2-parters": Yes. Like the finalé. The 20th anniversary story worked as a single episode but it was 90 minutes long (100 minutes in its Special Edition). --89.241.77.143talk to me 05:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we might not have Chris, but we got Tom, which means it should be all around fun. 

Also, I think people always forget Dimensions in Time, which I was, despite the confusing plot, still a pretty cool special. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 12:28, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Wait? Are you telling me that Dimensions in Time had a plot? I would like to see Tom Baker come back, but he didn't really seem particularly positive that he would be willing to return in that interview. Besides, he doesn't quite look the part anymore, but I suppose that they could always give him a wig.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:52, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time did have a plot of sorts -- but only just! I don't want to be unkind to Tom Baker but he didn't look the part in Dimensions in Time, almost 20 years ago, let alone now. He wasn't the only one to be showing the effects of the passing years, either. --89.241.73.161talk to me 03:15, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

His role in Dimensions in Time always seemed to make even less sense than the other Doctors to me. All well. Patrick Troughton had clearly aged by The Two Doctors, and they were able to use technobabble to explain Peter Davison's aging in Time Crash. I'm sure they can find some way to make it work, but they should probably give Tom Baker some kind of wig if he does come back. His giant curly hair is almost as iconic as his scarf.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:38, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well, he only SOUNDS not enthusiastic at first, because he misunderstands the question. (He thinks he's being asked if he would like to be the 12th Doctor) Oh, and shave you guys ever seen DIT Witt the deleted scenes put back in? It makes just a bit more since that way... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 11:40, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

DIT doesn't need to make "a bit more sense", it needs to make a lot more sense! --89.242.64.17talk to me 15:16, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Colin Baker is the one who I think appears to have shown his age a lot more than the others. I don't really think Sylvester Mccoy looks any different. 87.102.117.106talk to me 17:40, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Colin Baker definetly doesn't look very much like the Sixth Doctor anymore. Still, if they use a bit of technobabble to explain the aging, put him back in his original costume, and give him plenty of rude dialogue, then I'm sure that everyone will accept him, once again, as the Sixth Doctor. Sylvester McCoy already appeared pretty old by the time the Seventh Doctor regenerated, so I'm sure that people won't mind an old Seventh Doctor. As long as he has more lines than he had in The TV Movie.Icecreamdif talk to me 21:33, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems they had with The Five Doctors (20th anniversary) was finding enough things for all the characters to do. That's mentioned a few times in the DVD commentary. Tom Baker's decision not to participate eased the problem somewhat, in respect of the incarnations of the Doctor. Nevertheless, many of the companions spent quite a lot of time just hovering in the background. If the 50th anniversary is celebrated in a single episode and they include as many past Doctors and companions as they can, they'll have the same problem again. It's not an insuperable problem -- The Five Doctors did quite well -- but more characters will mean fewer lines and less action for each. --2.101.54.163talk to me 02:33, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the last anniversary wasn't The Five Doctors, as the paragraph at the top puts it. Leaving aside Dimensions in Time, the last anniversary was Silver Nemesis -- "silver" because it was the 25th anniversary. However, that season began with Remembrance of the Daleks, which was more of an anniversary story than Silver Nemesis, in everything except the title. It was set in the same place as An Unearthly Child, very shortly after the (1st) Doctor, Susan, Barbara and Ian had left and there were several references back to that first episode. Ace got to pick up the book (on the French Revolution) lent to Susan by Barbara and left in Ian's classroom. It was also a considerably better story. --2.101.54.163talk to me 02:55, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I personally think they should have Doctors 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and of coarse 11, and as few companions as possible... And I think the more classic the better. Why? Well, think of it like this, what if they only brought new Series companions back? Well, that'd be 50 years of Telivision being respected by an actor who was on for no more then 5 years ago. I think I'd enjoy Ian Chesterton, and also Steven Taylor (who is one of my personal favourites), but the first seems more likely. I agree with the above, the more chareactors the harder to assign actions... Like I said, it might just be better to just have the 7 willing Doctors... Well, we'll see in 682 days, 1 hour, 52 minets and 40 seconds... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 03:07, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you look to a more recent episode, The Stolen Earth and Journey's End seemed to find enough for most of the characters to do, although they got the spin-off characters out of the way as early as possible. If the episode is long enough, and is well written, then I'm sure that they can find enough for a few classic companions to do. They should definetly bring Ian and Susan back, since they are the two surviving members of the original cast, and I would also like to see Jamie, Zoe, Jo, Romana, and Ace. It's sort of a random selection, but those are probably my favorite surviving companions from the classic show. From the new series, I don't care who they bring back as long as they include Jack, River, and, obviously, 2013's current companions. I also wouln't mind seeing the Ninth Doctor again if Eccleston was willing to do it.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:29, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth / Journey's End is a good example. The 2 episodes together were about the same length as The Five Doctors and did have quite a few companions. They had significantly fewer companions than The Five Doctors, though, and (except near the end) only 1 Doctor, making it much easier to give everyone enough to do. The comparative brevity of the cameos by spin-off characters wasn't a problem; they were spin-off characters, not companions. More importantly, the way the story was written gave the impression that the companions were there because they had something to do, not that they were being found things to do because they were there.

I can sympathise with Icecreamdif wanting all those characters back but, although the actors have survived, the characters of Susan and Romana almost certainly have not. Romana was certainly a Time Lord. Susan was a Gallifreyan who could operate the TARDIS, which very probably means Time Lord, and has anyway been clearly implied to be dead. If they were brought back, the explanations needed would (if they were to be convincing) take up too much time. Unless... The one way I can think of to avoid losing story time to the explanation of how Susan and Romana could come back would be if the story was the explanation. That needn't mean the Doctor sets out to get them back, only that the events of the main story create the conditions that bring them back. (I don't have an idea in mind for this, unfortunately -- if I did, I'd try to sell it to the BBC!) --2.96.26.43talk to me 12:22, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

i think the way to solve the dead companion issue (not dead companion actor issue) is to bring the companion along with the doctor from a certain episode with some technobabble to explain aged appearances. for example of what i mean, lets say the 9th doctor was taken out just before boom town, bringing rose and jack with him. we wouldn't have to worry about rose being trapped or jacks immortality because that hasn't happened to the characters yet. the same could work for companions who have died in the main show. also, for the problem of not enough to do, if you have 5-6 episodes focusing on several groups of doctors meaning there were groups of 2-3 doctor's and their companions working on seperate parts of the problem and showing a group each episode with the last episode tying everything together, there would be fewer people at once allowing more people do do things in each part. Imamadmad talk to me 13:08, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

That way to solve the dead companion issue works well enough for most but not for Susan and Romana. For that one story, it would be OK but it would create problems for the show thereafter. If one pre-Time-War Time Lord (Romana, say) could be brought back, why not others? You could set it up as an accident that couldn't be repeated intentionally (like Time Crash). Bring in a second such character (Susan) and you make the accidents seem far too probable. Why wouldn't they keep happening? It would be better, if Time Lords are wanted, to keep them in flashback scenes, not interacting with current characters. The age thing needn't be a great problem even in flashbacks because we don't have a chronology of the Time War and it's extremely plausible that its chronology would depend on whose timeline you were following -- lots of scope for technobabble. The flashbacks could include an older 8th Doctor interacting with the older Susan and Romana, so their ages would be reasonably consistent. --89.241.65.36talk to me 16:26, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Or, a la Moffat: ganger Doctors, ganger companions, ganger everything....disposable, no threat to continuity errors, your no. 1 choice for cheap plot device. --222.166.181.21talk to me 20:10, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it wouldn't be enough. Plus, The Hexford Invasion already did it... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:30, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, but that's pretty much the only way to be both canon and reasonable unless they go the reverse everything/memory wipe/chaotic state route which is way overused. I'm actually less interested in seeing old characters than having some sort of epic scale plotline and scenes, like Mondasian vs Cybus Cybermen or some sort of glimpse into the Last Great Time War. I certainly hope characters like Omega would not be back, since the new series has done quite a good job at rebooting the image of Doctor Who without any intentional retcon, characters like Omega have no place in the new series and will only make the series look and feel old and silly again.

What would be really cool and doesn't have to be canon would be to refilm one or two arcs from the classic seasons in a condensed format with current casts (or even characters) and updated set and CG, like how Blink was adapted from print to TV. --222.166.181.155talk to me 00:22, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Season 5's Silurian two-parter was basically a remake. Boblipton talk to me 00:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC)