What [Mister Saxon] an anagram of? Taxes Minors? Smear Toxins?
"Master N
o Six".
Which fits in with some of the canon, although by actor appearances (unless you assert that some adjacent actors are actually supposed to be portraying the same Regeneration) isn't actually correct at all.
- Roger Delgado
- Peter Pratt (supposedly 13th and last regeneration, prior to some Time Lord jiggery pokery)
- Geoffrey Beavers
- Anthony Ainley
- Gordon Tipple
- Eric roberts
- Derek Jacobi
- John Simm
(And we've also seen him portrayed as a child. Might have been a "Young Roger Delgado", but probably not. I'm sure a proper Whovian would actually know more, or at least which bits of Extended Canon count or do not count.
)
Doctor Who uses whatever method of time travel is appropriate for the plot to make sense.
Yeah, was just giving my aesthetic preference. (Me, not Ultravalican, mis-step on the quote editing, there, but ne'er mind.)
I'd have actually said that Turn Left
wasn't an STL, because it was more "branch and recover", while Pompeii
was an STL, because he
could have 'let it be different' but took part in making it adhere to History, as opposed to not stop it like in Genesis of the Daleks. But that's a fine and infinitely arguable point. As is the nature of GotD, given his main issue was not paradox but "having the right to wipe out an entire race", that apparently he delayed their initial expansion, that his presence may have
aided the project in some ways... Also, differences between original TV episodes and dead-tree-format accounts.
Also don't forget the 'crack in time' thing that accompanied Amy Pond's introductory series. And the fact that original-Rory was 'forgotten', as were loads of others, never to have been. (Except that we still have Rory, thanks to the Roman Legion thing. Though after the whole Melody thing gets revealed, sorted out, etc., I've lost track of whether he's as he was when a Roman or not.)
With so many writers around, over the time that DW has been produced, most of the 'consistency' comes from retcons, when a later writer justifies their
own direction (or allows them to meld two apparently contradictory previous developments in the Whoniverse).
I don't know if anyone knows which one was the one where an us-contemporaneous companion said how the ?Martian? invaders must not have defeated Earth of historic times, because they hadn't before they went back, so the Doctor took here back to 'now' to show her the desolation, before going back (interestingly precise control of the Tardis, on that occasion[1]) and preventing the whole mess like they needed to.
Anyway, computer games based on Doctor Who may also have to take this into account. Or hand-wave them. Haven't played the recent things on/from the BBC web-site, all fancy graphics and so, but I still have, somewhere, the BBC
Microcomputer game, on cassette tape, which while some elements were pretty much merely 'branded' versions of other game concepts (e.g. the Frogger-clone element), had a nod to the Doctor Who mythos in other areas. But it's been a while since I've played it (I don't even know if the tape still works, actually).
So, a Doctor Who game of today would probably have an element of... darnit... time travel video game, roughly contemperaneous with Sam & Max, but visit Geoge Washington. Forgotten the name. But by working in different time-periods with different characters you basically did a Bill And Ted in getting things to happen in one period by getting someone to do something in the earlier period.
The biggest problem with that is getting the game design. And ideally (back to the idea of "games I would like") in a more sandbox-looking environment, rather than an On Rails adventure. But does that mean many more points of game-failure and
not even knowing that you're stuck after doing the wrong thing until far later than your initial error.
[1] But we now know that the Tardis is probably the one in control, anyway. Most of the time.
edit: Whoops, somehow inserted a completely different reply in there, somehow. Also, adding a comment.