Doctor Who: Surely it can't be true...
Nov. 27th, 2007 12:06 pmRose is coming back.
Yup, there it is, in black and white and whatever colour my monitor comes up with. (BBC red.)
They wrote her out with total definitiveness and the Doctor spent a season mourning her and tormenting Martha because of her, and she's coming back.
They said they'd never do it. Just like they said they'd never bring back the Master, or the Daleks, or cross Martha over into Torchwood, or any number of things they said they wouldn't, ever, do till they changed their mind.
I can't even imagine the complications this brings to continuity. Yup, dimensions are colliding. (Will the Fifth Doctor turn up, too?)
Of course, it might be a flashback situation. Or Ten might meet Rose before Nine met her. Rose had a hitherto-unrevealed identical twin, or a clone, or a dream, or a hoax, or an imaginary story. (Heh. Wrong universe for a minute there.)1 Or... any number of explanations that leave Rose's future after "Doomsday" untouched.
Worst case scenario: Rose saves the day, decides that she doesn't particularly want to hang out with the Doctor forever any more, thanks all the same, and goes back to live happily ever after with Mickey.
Best case:
...?
I don't know. I just don't know. This news has me so astounded that I can't even imagine scenarios.
No, wait, I know the best case scenario. The best case scenario is that Steven Moffat will write the story.
Yeah. I like that.
If fate is kind....
Now I'll wander away and ponder the implications.
1 For readers who are not, or never were, DC comics fans, let me explain. Back in the wild and wonderful days of early 1960s DC comics, when my formative comic-reading years occurred, there was a tradition of putting something utterly outrageous and improbable on the cover of a comic, and there or on the splash page they would say, "Not a dream, not a hoax, not an imaginary story!" And believe me, those guys in the Mort Weisinger era knew all about improbability and outrageousness.
The phrase fills fans like me with nostalgic delight.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:32 pm (UTC)I'm putting my money on hiding behind the sofa.
ETA: Even, or especially, in the best case scenario...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:45 pm (UTC)Me too.
And she was gone, and they convinced me she was gone.
I'm putting my money on hiding behind the sofa.
That covers "first instinct" and "voice of experience".
What are they thinking?
Well, we know what they're thinking. "Rose is popular. Rose brings in viewers. Billie Piper's willing to give it another go."
But... creatively?
Yeesh!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:38 pm (UTC)If it was one episode, this might work, but according to the press release she's back for *three* episodes!
This is going to be pure madness; their will be three female companions in Series 4 at various times and JB has said Jack will make a return appearance as well. So, I take it Series 4 is going to be subitled "The Soap Opera Eps" -- as I can't see them being able to write plot while juggling that many relationships. ::shakes head::
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:47 pm (UTC)Like Jack and Martha, and there's Donna hanging around. That's going to be one crowded TARDIS.
pure madness
Yup.
Depending on how they handle this, it's either inspired insanity - seomthing they've occasionally managed to pull of well - or absolute disaster.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:42 pm (UTC)It's incredible. Is there nothing they will not do? After saying they won't?
Nope. Not a thing.
I don't think anything could top this.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:56 pm (UTC)And then she's back???
What are they going to do with that?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 06:06 pm (UTC)And. Billie is filming now. John isn't yet. I don't know what that says, though probably not much given that it's just about a week off.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 07:25 pm (UTC)It probably means that she has scenes he's not in. But if he's starting next week... it probably means they're in scenes together, too.
When I first considered that, Rose and Jack and the TARDIS, I thought, "I wonder if they've lured back Christopher Eccleston, too? What is he doing this week and next?"
But that era is over, dammit.
I don't know what to think.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 06:09 pm (UTC)If I'm gonna shoot for the stars... :D
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 07:27 pm (UTC)Are they filming the final climactic three episodes of series 4 Doctor Who yet?
David Tennant might be leaving. That would call for a regeneration.
I hesitate to continue the paragraph I was going to write there.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 07:29 pm (UTC)It's as if she was a stop-gap measure while the other actresses (and actors) were busy.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 08:25 pm (UTC)What do they think they are doing?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 07:44 pm (UTC)But that's just me. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 07:58 pm (UTC)I agree. I certainly agree in this case.
But I agree with a few dozen caveats. First, since I first learned to read (almost) I have been reading Marvel comics, in which there have been amazing and moving and incredible character deaths, where the writers and editors have sworn on the Holy Hosts of Hoggoth that he/she/it-who-was-dead was never ever coming back; and then they came back; and against all expectations, their return story was good and we were reluctantly, in the end, really happy to see them back and it heralded a new and improved era in the comic's history.
Jean Grey after the Phoenix Saga is a case in point. There are many. And not just Marvel, DC too, though I'm less familiar with those examples.
So I've seen it done successfully in popular media. (I've also seen it done with no success whatsoever, and cringlingly awful results. The return of Gwen Stacey is an era in Spider-Man history that I'd rather forget forever.)
Another caveat: the brains currently behind Doctor Who is a clever and diabolical man named Russell T. Davies. Russell T. Davies has been known to make blandly absolute statements to the press like we'll never, ever do this and then he turns around and does this, whatever this might be, a few months later.
So even if you assume Davies and the show ever had any credibility in this regard, they lost it long ago.
Third caveat: The only real rule in writing is, do whatever works. Maybe Davies et al can make this work. Maybe they can't. They've screwed up before, goodness knows. But they've also pulled off some unexpectedly amazing stories.
At least you have to give them credit for ... I'm not sure what. A complete and total lack of shame, perhaps.
Otherwise it makes every other move you make in the story open to doubt.
The most shameless thing of all: they don't care.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:copy and pasted from rave's journal
Date: 2007-11-27 07:48 pm (UTC)Firstly: Gay midget dwarf?!
secondly: WTF ROSE?!
how can they-
what about the-
what are they gonna do about-
not the-
but the-
WHAT?!
p.s: I couldn't bring myself to get more than half way through the comment thread. I'm just so - flabbergasted.
Chav-tastic.
Re: copy and pasted from rave's journal
Date: 2007-11-27 07:49 pm (UTC)http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1376423.php/Tom_Cruises_Doctor_role
Re: copy and pasted from rave's journal
From:Re: copy and pasted from rave's journal
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 08:10 pm (UTC)And yet it might be made to work and work well.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 08:15 pm (UTC)Oh, I hope so! If the can pull it off, it would be briliant.
The odds are against them, but they've beaten the odds before.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 09:41 pm (UTC)I would like that. I love the Skrulls. There's a whole cross-title plotline going on right now about Skrulls infiltrating Earth, and the could look like anyone. Chilling idea.
Thers's also a character in Young Avengers, Hulkling, a sweet young gay teenager named Teddy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulkling), who turned out to be a Skrull prince in disguise. Made me happy, I tell you.
So. Yes. A Skrull-by-any-other-name variation on Rose would be quite a way to mess with the Doctor's head by whatever enemy was clever enough to do it.
I like that idea a lot.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 11:44 pm (UTC)I'd like to think it was a flashback, or meeting her before 9, but the clothes she's wearing in the spoiler pics aren't very Series 1.
I'm tuning in, anyways. Whatever happens, it's bound to be interesting.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 02:26 am (UTC)Was she? If that's the case, it might be incredibly cool. I would personally love a return to the Bad Wolf theme.
the clothes she's wearing in the spoiler pics aren't very Series 1.
I haven't seen those, because I've been avoiding spoilers. Until now.
Whatever happens, it's bound to be interesting.
Yes. It may make me squee and it may make me scream but it's bound to be quite something.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 03:01 am (UTC)Oh, that would be FABULOUS!
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 03:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 10:50 pm (UTC)http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/11/27/51031.shtml
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 03:41 am (UTC)Which phrase (of yours) reminds me that I've found a little remote-control Dalek robot in a catalog. I know better than to get it for you for the holidays, knwoing your anti-clutter attitude (which I also admire, fyi), but I thought you'd smile to hear of it, anyway!
no subject
Date: 2007-11-29 03:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 07:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-30 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 12:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-02 05:33 pm (UTC)