# Doctor Who "The Time of the Doctor" 12/25/13



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Comparable to the Day of the Doctor for me. A great episode but not one of my favorites ever. I was really glad they had the real Amy at the end, would have seemed weird without her. 

At one point I thought that Smith was just going to age into Capaldi without a regen. I don't think this resolves the Galifrey thing but I thought it might for a while. Smith looked like Gordon Ramsey as he aged then like William Hartnell for a while


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Yeah it was just alright for me. Not one of the best eps. I'm always skeptical with a new regeneration but will give Peter Capaldi a fair chance.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I liked the few moments we saw of him.


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

It was good, not great. For me, Day of The Doctor was great.

I definitely got something in my eye when The Doctor was walking off to his death


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I thought it was a fairly sizable letdown compared to Day of the Doctor. I mean, I expected some, but really, that was a pretty major step back from that. Really, that was a long bit of absolutely nothing going on. Baddies attack, they repel, attack, repel, Doctor regenerates. That's really the sum total of the plot. I could've gotten all of that from the previews.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

It had to find the Christmas show balance and mostly failed because it was too 'inside' for the casual viewer.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The best thing about it is they seem to have cleared the decks of a lot of the stuff that's been going on for years, and more and more been dragging things down. They seem to be set for a nice clean slate with Capaldi.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

My only concern is how Jenna will factor in at this point. Sometimes it works surprisingly well when they keep a companion on during a Doctor regeneration - Billie Piper, for example, worked well with both Eccleston and Tennant. Here? I'm not as sure. 

No knock on Jenna is implied by any means, but no matter what you think of Smith's Doctor, one of the true joys of the past few years was when you had some really good moments between him and Jenna. Her appearance in "The Snowmen" was absolutely cracking, for instance. I'm just not sure that the same chemistry will hold true with her and Capaldi.

I am telling myself that they must have considered that, had some sort of screen test with the two of them, and that it will work out just fine, but I remain unsure.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I was sure Clara was going to be Daleked at some point to tie that up also.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

I thought it was just plain awful.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

They made a big deal about how he would never forget one bit of himself. Then he apparently forgot how to fly the TARDIS. I wonder if they will (at least temporarily) allow the new set of regens to block his old memories completely.... I hope not.

My kids immediately noticed the change in music in the interestingly fast regen and thought it sounded to be a great new theme.

I think living for what 300? 600? 1000? years on Trenzalor will enable a more believable change in demeanor. I read he will likely be a bit more growly--- more like Hartnel or Collin Baker. Unlike with Baker, I could see him being a bit growly again and having to soften as the season progresses due to his past N years of fighting on Trenzalor.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cstelter said:


> They made a big deal about how he would never forget one bit of himself. Then he apparently forgot how to fly the TARDIS. I wonder if they will (at least temporarily) allow the new set of regens to block his old memories completely.... I hope not.


He's always a bit loopy coming out of the regeneration. I see no reason to believe this is anything different.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I thought this ep was a bit of a letdown.

The first 300 years he was there aged him way too much


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The one thing that seemed off to me is at the end of Day of the Doctor he seemed to have a direction, finding Gallifrey. At the beginning of this episode, it didn't seem to be a concern at all. It was almost like, except for a passing reference, there was no link between the two episodes at all.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Any episode where the only way to move the plot forward is with expository narration is not a good episode.

Did I miss something about Clara's family? I thought her parents were dead.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Shakhari said:


> Did I miss something about Clara's family? I thought her parents were dead.


Only her mother. I'd assume that the lady next to her dad was possibly a step-mom.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I assume the new Capaldi episodes start around March-April time frame?


----------



## TiVaholic (Nov 29, 2000)

I may have forgotten something from Day of the Doctor, but where did the Cyberman head ("Handles") come from?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TiVaholic said:


> I may have forgotten something from Day of the Doctor, but where did the Cyberman head ("Handles") come from?


Something that happened off screen. We never got an explanation. Nor an explanation as to where the Doctor got the Dalek eyestalk he was carrying at the beginning either.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

Awful for the most part. Any time there is an alien planet called Christmas, I loose all suspension of disbelief. The changeover was great though, was never a big fan of Smith, so hopefully new guy will be better. And I really hope sure runners find a better use for Jenna. The actress is great, but the character doesn't really develop much.

I would say though that at least they did take care of The Silence. And I really liked Tasha Lem character, hope she will show up again.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Something that happened off screen. We never got an explanation. Nor an explanation as to where the Doctor got the Dalek eyestalk he was carrying at the beginning either.


 This was a problem for many episodes this past season. They start off in the middle of a story. I was confused for most of the beginning.

There really was no storytelling.

Much of the going somewhere and the mystery of the place being revealed has been lost lately.

I did like the new Doctor in the short time we saw him. Matt Smith I think overstayed his welcome, IMHO. Him and Clara did not have the same spark that they had in the Snowmen or the previous episode Clara was in (can't remember the name). The Day of the Doctor was great, but this episode just felt empty.

I liked Capaldi's expressions after he insta-regenerated.

So the timelords were able to open up a giant rift in the sky but couldn't come through? Isn't that what they wanted? HUH?????


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Not to be a contrarian, but I actually rather liked and enjoyed the episode, start to finish. I felt like it tied up just about every loose end Moffat had left dangling from the start of Smith's run, and the deck is now properly cleared for Capaldi.

We got the return of the crack, the Silents, weeping angels, an Amy cameo, some Sontaran ridiculousness, daleks, cybermen, an explanation for the exploding TARDIS, an explanation for how to properly count the regenerations to date and a new set given to continue onward, the battle of Trenzalore, and more, all crammed into a Christmas wrapper. That's a pretty admirable feat and my hat's off to Moffat.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

danterner said:


> We got [...] an explanation for the exploding TARDIS


We got the who and the why; did we get the how?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

danterner said:


> Not to be a contrarian, but I actually rather liked and enjoyed the episode, start to finish. I felt like it tied up just about every loose end Moffat had left dangling from the start of Smith's run, and the deck is now properly cleared for Capaldi.
> 
> We got the return of the crack, the Silents, weeping angels, an Amy cameo, some Sontaran ridiculousness, daleks, cybermen, an explanation for the exploding TARDIS, an explanation for how to properly count the regenerations to date and a new set given to continue onward, the battle of Trenzalore, and more, all crammed into a Christmas wrapper. That's a pretty admirable feat and my hat's off to Moffat.


+1 I enjoyed it. I think people have some pretty lofty expectations


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I would call the episode slightly below average. There were just too many plotholes and poor writing for my liking. All in all, the bad outweighed the good, which is disappointing as Day Of the Doctor was very good. 

The good:
1. Amy's "return" - it makes sense since this doctor and Amy were linked from the get go. She was the first person he saw after regenerating and she knew him her entire life. 
2. An explanation for the Silence creatures, albeit one that doesn't make a lot of sense. 
3. Tying most things from the 11th Doctor episodes, though there were a few major retcons.

The bad:
1. The Daleks' attack the Papal Mainframe and slaughter everyone, yet in the next scene the Papal Mainframe fighters are fighting the Daleks on the planet?
2. The Daleks might know the Time Lord rules for regeneration, but how could they know how many regenerations The Doctor had used? The whole Dalek speech about knowing the rule at the end was just silly.
3. The Doctor and the Time Lords didn't part on the best of terms when they last met (Rassilon was trying to kill the Doctor before being stopped by the Master), so it highly unlikely that the Time Lords would give up returning to the universe and gift the Doctor extra regenerations simply because Clara asked them to. The whole thing felt like a cop out just to get around the regeneration limit. 
4. If the whole reason to not release the Time Lords was to prevent war, it seems like once the war started, the Doctor might as well release them. Actually they didn't really even need to be released. The Time Lords just wanted to confirm that the reality they were broadcasting to was the correct one before coming through the crack. With the Doctor living next to the crack all that time, you'd think the Time Lords would be able to confirm it was him without him having to say his name.

The ugly: 
1. Regenerating apparently can now wipe out a Dalek mothership.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Kamakzie said:


> I assume the new Capaldi episodes start around March-April time frame?


I believe they don't start until fall.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

It was a mistake to watch the 50th show and this one back-to-back. 

It felt like after writing the 50th, Moffatt just ran out of gas and was writing on fumes.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> It was a mistake to watch the 50th show and this one back-to-back.
> 
> It felt like after writing the 50th, Moffatt just ran out of gas and was writing on fumes.


I have re-watched The Day of the Doctor several times since it aired, including last night, and enjoyed it every time.

It was a tough act to follow. It would be spectacularly difficult to live up to the expectations it set. And it looks like it didn't even try.

It had it's moments. But otherwise kinda went over a cliff of Meh combined with trying to figure out why anyone was acting the way they were. Clara seemed like the only character there that made any sense...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I think the fact that I never think about 'the writing' when watching a TV show really makes it easier to enjoy them.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JohnB1000 said:


> I think the fact that I never think about 'the writing' when watching a TV show really makes it easier to enjoy them.


Then why not reduce the experience to its essence? Just sit and stare at a blank screen, don't think about whether the "show" makes any sense at all, and just enjoy it!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought it was pretty good. Not great but enjoyable. I'll probably rewatch it over the weekend. 

I'd grown so tired of Amy's *****iness that I was NOT happy with her cameo. Young Amelia was just fine. Amy, not so much. It should have been River Song who appeared to him.

Did the Doctor get just one bonus regeneration or a number of them? I hope we don't have to go through these type of shenanigans every two or three years.

I really like Clara but she needs to change to a black stockings-less outfit every once in a while.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

scandia101 said:


> I believe they don't start until fall.


I would expect at least one new episode at Easter.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> I believe they don't start until fall.


That's the bad news. The good news is, the next season will be uninterrupted.


TonyTheTiger said:


> I would expect at least one new episode at Easter.


Why?

(Serious question. They've never done anything like that, except during the mini-season that was entirely specials.)


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I was really put off by the Naked!Doctor scene. This 1100-year-old man who's been surrounding by nubile young Earth girls for centuries would know better than to act that way, and Jenna played the scene with a palpable discomfort that didn't help a bit. (If it had been Amy or Donna, it would've felt way different.)

I was singing the praises of Moffatt after the anniversary special; this one, by and large, reminded me that he's still Moffatt and still pretty much sucks at running this show. But I though the battle's final victory and the regeneration sequences were lovely.

Interested to see how Capaldi decides to play the character once his brain is sorted out. I think I'd give him full reign to channel Tom Baker, if he so chooses, given his longtime fandom of the show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lambertman said:


> I was singing the praises of Moffatt after the anniversary special; this one, by and large, reminded me that he's still Moffatt and still pretty much sucks at running this show.


Although again, I think the main point of the show (aside from the regeneration) was clearing the decks of all the Moffat detritus that has accumulated over the years. He really has given himself a clean slate, and it will be interesting to see if he handles it better this time (rather then just letting it all keep piling up).

It almost felt like Moffat himself was leaving the show.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

danterner said:


> We got the return of the crack, the Silents, weeping angels, an Amy cameo, some Sontaran ridiculousness, daleks, cybermen, an explanation for the exploding TARDIS, an explanation for how to properly count the regenerations to date and a new set given to continue onward, the battle of Trenzalore, and more, all crammed into a Christmas wrapper. That's a pretty admirable feat and my hat's off to Moffat.


The problem was that most if not all of that seemed just dropped in, like callbacks to previous episodes, whose only reason for appearing were to make you go "oh, yeah, that happened." As others have said, there was perilously little actual, coherent storyline here.


----------



## Linnemir (Apr 7, 2009)

I admit that I was watching after a great deal of Christmas cheer, and may have missed a few things, but I had the idea that at the very end the ships that appeared out of space and attacked the Daleks just before the regeneration were the Time Lords. If they weren't the Time Lords, who the heck were they??

Other than the beautifully done regeneration and farewell speech, I'd have to rate it as a C - just average.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Then why not reduce the experience to its essence? Just sit and stare at a blank screen, don't think about whether the "show" makes any sense at all, and just enjoy it!


Of course that makes perfect sense 



TonyTheTiger said:


> I would expect at least one new episode at Easter.


They've said the next series will run uninterrupted and there is no history of Easter specific episodes.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Linnemir said:


> I admit that I was watching after a great deal of Christmas cheer, and may have missed a few things, but I had the idea that at the very end the ships that appeared out of space and attacked the Daleks just before the regeneration were the Time Lords. If they weren't the Time Lords, who the heck were they??


 What ships? The ones flying around while the Doctor was giving his speech? Those were from the Dalek ship attacking the town and surprisingly unable to shoot at the doctor..


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Linnemir said:


> I admit that I was watching after a great deal of Christmas cheer, and may have missed a few things, but I had the idea that at the very end the ships that appeared out of space and attacked the Daleks just before the regeneration were the Time Lords. If they weren't the Time Lords, who the heck were they??


Dalek "fighter jets".


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

secondclaw said:


> Awful for the most part. Any time there is an alien *planet called Christmas*, I loose all suspension of disbelief.


Well then it's probably a good thing that it doesn't apply to this episode of Doctor Who because the planet is Trenzalore. The people living on the planet in this settlement town are human and these humans are known for giving odd names to the towns in which they live. So I guess there is no reason for you to suspend your beliefs.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> Did the Doctor get just one bonus regeneration or a number of them? I hope we don't have to go through these type of shenanigans every two or three years.


If I heard correctly, I believe at the end he said he had a new *set* of regenerations.. So they can keep Gallifrey plot on ice for a few more years for another 12 doctors.


----------



## Raisltin Majere (Mar 13, 2004)

robojerk said:


> If I heard correctly, I believe at the end he said he had a new *set* of regenerations.. So they can keep Gallifrey plot on ice for a few more years for another 12 doctors.


He did. I don't think there's a precedent for a single extra regeneration being given, so I guess they come in sets of 12


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Next question: 

The Doctor breathed in the new set of regenerations, and then shortly thereafter shot out a lot of regeneration energy at the various Dalek ships in the outdoor fireworks display. Later, aboard the TARDIS, he regenerated.

Was all that one single regeneration, or did he use one of the gifted regenerations in the attack and the effort killed Smith, causing the Capaldi regeneration to trigger? In other words, is Capaldi #1 of the new set, or did Smith use up #1 in the attack?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I'd say Smith used up the first of the new set of regens changing into Capaldi (which also had a side effect of killing all the Daleks) but in reality the writers don't really have to decide one way or the other until they get to Doctor v2.10 or v2.11.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Did anyone else catch how it seemed Clara's Grandma had met the Doctor? I'm wondering if that was a setup toward a future plot.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I would expect at least one new episode at Easter.


No need to wait until Easter - we got to see Smith resurrect as Capaldi last night. Seriously: I know it was the Christmas episode, but I thought the "Doctor-as-Christ Figure" symbolism was particularly heavy in this episode -- we had the Doctor sacrificing himself for humanity, throwing his arms out to the sides (as with crucifixion), only to be resurrected (regenerated) a short time later.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

cstelter said:


> Did anyone else catch how it seemed Clara's Grandma had met the Doctor? I'm wondering if that was a setup toward a future plot.


No that was your standard horny old lady joke. Keep in mind that the Doctor was naked in that scene.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

danterner said:


> Not to be a contrarian, but I actually rather liked and enjoyed the episode, start to finish. I felt like it tied up just about every loose end Moffat had left dangling from the start of Smith's run, and the deck is now properly cleared for Capaldi.
> 
> We got the return of the crack, the Silents, weeping angels, an Amy cameo, some Sontaran ridiculousness, daleks, cybermen, an explanation for the exploding TARDIS, an explanation for how to properly count the regenerations to date and a new set given to continue onward, the battle of Trenzalore, and more, all crammed into a Christmas wrapper. That's a pretty admirable feat and my hat's off to Moffat.


To me, it felt like they ran through a checklist of what needed to be touched upon, and forgot the actual story. This episode didn't do much at all.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

morac said:


> 2. An explanation for the Silence creatures, albeit one that doesn't make a lot of sense.


Actually made a lot of sense. It works. We were told the Silence were not a race, it was a religion quite some time ago. 


morac said:


> 3. Tying most things from the 11th Doctor episodes, though there were a few major retcons.


Really? Examples, please.



morac said:


> 1. The Daleks' attack the Papal Mainframe and slaughter everyone, yet in the next scene the Papal Mainframe fighters are fighting the Daleks on the planet?


Everyone? A slaughter doesn't mean everyone is dead and that they can't get more soldiers from elsewhere.



morac said:


> 2. The Daleks might know the Time Lord rules for regeneration, but how could they know how many regenerations The Doctor had used? The whole Dalek speech about knowing the rule at the end was just silly.


Covered. The Doctor asked how they even knew who he was. They said the information was mined from the carcass. Not a stretch to know she knew about the Doctor's regens. They were obviously quite close.



morac said:


> 3. The Doctor and the Time Lords didn't part on the best of terms when they last met (Rassilon was trying to kill the Doctor before being stopped by the Master), so it highly unlikely that the Time Lords would give up returning to the universe and gift the Doctor extra regenerations simply because Clara asked them to. The whole thing felt like a cop out just to get around the regeneration limit.


The Rassilon group seemed to be a splinter of the Time Lords as referenced in the Day of the Doctor. The actual command was in line with him.



morac said:


> 4. If the whole reason to not release the Time Lords was to prevent war, it seems like once the war started, the Doctor might as well release them. Actually they didn't really even need to be released. The Time Lords just wanted to confirm that the reality they were broadcasting to was the correct one before coming through the crack. With the Doctor living next to the crack all that time, you'd think the Time Lords would be able to confirm it was him without him having to say his name.


There is war and there is war. The war that occurred was limited to Trenzalore. The war they were talking about unleashing was the Time War. The one that ends the universe. Yup, we are exchange gunfire, let's just jump to Armageddon.



morac said:


> The ugly:
> 1. Regenerating apparently can now wipe out a Dalek mothership.


[/quote]
We've seen regeneration energy change entire time lines. (Bad Wolf.) This is not really new.


----------



## Linnemir (Apr 7, 2009)

Raisltin Majere said:


> He did. I don't think there's a precedent for a single extra regeneration being given, so I guess they come in sets of 12


I believe that the Master was given a single 'freebie'. I know he stole a life from Nyssa's father, but I think the Time Lords also gave him a freebie, though I can't recall the details.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

danterner said:


> Next question:
> 
> The Doctor breathed in the new set of regenerations, and then shortly thereafter shot out a lot of regeneration energy at the various Dalek ships in the outdoor fireworks display. Later, aboard the TARDIS, he regenerated.
> 
> Was all that one single regeneration, or did he use one of the gifted regenerations in the attack and the effort killed Smith, causing the Capaldi regeneration to trigger? In other words, is Capaldi #1 of the new set, or did Smith use up #1 in the attack?


All one regeneration. The Doctor had a line of dialogue to Clara that said it had already started (the big light show that took out the Daleks), but it was just taking longer than usual.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Actually made a lot of sense. It works. We were told the Silence were not a race, it was a religion quite some time ago.


I don't have a problem with them being genetically engineered, but a race of those creatures designed to be priests so the confessors don't remember confessing doesn't make a lot of sense from a religious standpoint. Confession isn't designed to be forgotten.



TonyD79 said:


> Really? Examples, please.


. The Tardis exploding being caused by the splinter Church group. I'm fairly certain that explanation wasn't thought until after that season aired.



TonyD79 said:


> Everyone? A slaughter doesn't mean everyone is dead and that they can't get more soldiers from elsewhere.


It was specifically said everyone was slaughtered (some multiple times) or turned into a Dalak. Everyone in the main sanctuary was a Dalek. Then they got better somehow.



TonyD79 said:


> Covered. The Doctor asked how they even knew who he was. They said the information was mined from the carcass. Not a stretch to know she knew about the Doctor's regens. They were obviously quite close.


I still don't think it's likely the carcass new how many regenerations were used! especially with the 2 off ones, but I'll grant this.



TonyD79 said:


> The Rassilon group seemed to be a splinter of the Time Lords as referenced in the Day of the Doctor. The actual command was in line with him.


Rassilon was president and led the high council. He wasn't a splinter group, he was the ruling class. The military command was in line with the Doctor in Day of the Doctor.



TonyD79 said:


> There is war and there is war. The war that occurred was limited to Trenzalore. The war they were talking about unleashing was the Time War. The one that ends the universe. Yup, we are exchange gunfire, let's just jump to Armageddon.


I still don't get the whole it would bring back the time war. Once all the races gave up or left, that wouldn't be much of an issue. The Daleks were already on the offensive to destroy the Time Lords, albeit doing a very bad job at it.



TonyD79 said:


> We've seen regeneration energy change entire time lines. (Bad Wolf.) This is not really new.


That wasn't regeneration energy, that was raw time vortex energy. It was powerful enough to change all of time and space, adding Bad Wolf references everywhere.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

morac said:


> The ugly:
> 1. Regenerating apparently can now wipe out a Dalek mothership.


Regenerating nearly wiped out the TARDIS (when 10 did it). It completely destroyed the control room and caused it to crash to Earth.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Unrelated to the episode, but does anyone know if we'll see River Song again?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> Unrelated to the episode, but does anyone know if we'll see River Song again?


That would be a spoiler.



Spoiler



Possibly.



Greg


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> Unrelated to the episode, but does anyone know if we'll see River Song again?


Her "Goodbye Sweetie" pretty much sounded like a final line to me.

But never say never...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

17 Signs The Pope Is A Time Lord


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

morac said:


> Rassilon was president and led the high council. He wasn't a splinter group, he was the ruling class. The military command was in line with the Doctor in Day of the Doctor.


Won't be the first time the high council wasn't really in charge. Has happened before. The war made the military command the real power. The reference was to the high council trying its own thing and they did not make the decision to freeze Gallifrey. So, it is not the high council that put Gallifrey in the position it is today. They are not in charge. That is why they are a splinter.



morac said:


> I still don't get the whole it would bring back the time war. Once all the races gave up or left, that wouldn't be much of an issue. The Daleks were already on the offensive to destroy the Time Lords, albeit doing a very bad job at it. .


Because they wouldn't jump back in? Besides, it was the thought of the characters. They don't have to be right, they just have to believe it. It is believable even if wrong. But the war was the end of the universe and even if there was a chance, they feared it. That is all that was necessary.



morac said:


> That wasn't regeneration energy, that was raw time vortex energy. It was powerful enough to change all of time and space, adding Bad Wolf references everywhere.


I think they are establishing that there is no difference. The aura is the same. Many of the affects are the same. It is the amount used. The vortex energy is the source of all time lord "power"


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Regenerating nearly wiped out the TARDIS (when 10 did it). It completely destroyed the control room and caused it to crash to Earth.


He regenerated standing next to the console and it didn't completely destroy the console. It shorted it out (think Star Trek's exploding consoles). There's no precedence for being able to shoot out regeneration energy as a weapon at space ships (the size of a small city).


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

morac said:


> He regenerated standing next to the console and it didn't completely destroy the console.


What?!? The entire room --nay, the entire TARDIS -- was IN FLAMES. Giant support columns collapsed. It DESTROYED the room. I don't think you remember the scene as well as you may think you do.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

morac said:


> I don't have a problem with them being genetically engineered, but a race of those creatures designed to be priests so the confessors don't remember confessing doesn't make a lot of sense from a religious standpoint. Confession isn't designed to be forgotten.


I thought that was an interesting little throw-away there. In the Bible it refers to confessing and repenting of your sins making them as if they had never happened. After God forgives you, it's as if you are perfectly clean. On the other hand, even after forgiveness, you often have some results of your sin that you still have to deal with. I don't see how wiping them from your mind could work.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

stellie93 said:


> I thought that was an interesting little throw-away there. In the Bible it refers to confessing and repenting of your sins making them as if they had never happened. After God forgives you, it's as if you are perfectly clean. On the other hand, even after forgiveness, you often have some results of your sin that you still have to deal with. I don't see how wiping them from your mind could work.


You say "In the Bible" as if it's some sort of universally accepted basis of religious beliefs when 2/3 of even just this planet have nothing to do with "The Bible."

And besides that, if you confessed to the Silence, you'd forget the act of confessing, not everything about what you confessed.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I was just giving my reaction to the way I took the confessors. I assumed you forgot what you confessed like it never happened. Not sure what good it would do to forget that you confessed it. Anyway, not insinuating that my opinion was 100% universal or anything. Just expressing an opinion like we usually do on this forum. Sorry if you were offended.


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

morac said:


> The ugly:
> 1. Regenerating apparently can now wipe out a Dalek mothership.


The Master used some of his regenerating power to do battle in the end of time. I even remember Tennant's Doctor telling him to stop or we wouldn't be able to regenerate again.



Spoiler



It wonder if it might be possible that Matt's Doctor used a large part of his new cycle to destroy the mother ship and only had enough left for one regeneration and we will need another intervention for the next one.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

stellie93 said:


> I was just giving my reaction to the way I took the confessors. I assumed you forgot what you confessed like it never happened. Not sure what good it would do to forget that you confessed it. Anyway, not insinuating that my opinion was 100% universal or anything. Just expressing an opinion like we usually do on this forum. Sorry if you were offended.


I didn't say your opinion was universal. I said the Bible is not only not universally (meant literally) believed (as you were implying), the majority of people on Earth don't even believe in it. So your thoughts on what confessing is all about is not really relevant to the Doctor Who universe.

and you also seem to be under the impression that religion is about altruism when it's more about power. Using The Silence to gain information from people w/o them knowing it is a great way to gain power.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I stopped reading the posts in this thread after about the 15th one. Some of you need to lighten up and stop trying to analyze the show so much. I've lost track of how many episodes over the life of the series had storylines that simply cropped up out of nowhere that were part of some event that took place outside of the timeline we're all involved in.

The wife and I watched it and we both enjoyed it. The Christmas episodes tend to go off the beaten path just so they can have a Christmas theme. The last couple have really captured the Christmas spirit, IMHO. I found it entertaining, so what else really matters? If you start analyzing Doctor Who episodes looking for cracks in the plot then you really need to find a different hobby. 

FYI, there are several towns in the U.S. named Christmas:

Christmas, Gila County, Arizona
Christmas, Orange County, Florida
Christmas, Lawrence County, Kentucky
Christmas, Alger County, Michigan
Christmas, Bolivar County, Mississippi
Christmas City, Utah County, Utah
Christmas Cove, Lincoln County, Maine
Christmas Mountain, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin
Christmas Valley, Lake County, Oregon 

So how is it farfetched to have a planet named Christmas on Doctor Who?

The transformation sequences at the end of every Doctor Who actor's tenure are all different. I don't ever recall seeing two of them treated the exact same way on screen. He got the extra regeneration from the Gallifreans so who's to say they didn't give him a little extra jolt of energy that allowed him to zap the Dalek ship and everything around him? 

Spoiler Alert! This is total fiction so anything goes.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> If you start analyzing Doctor Who episodes looking for cracks in the plot then you really need to find a different hobby.


It is our duty to help the Doctor find the cracks in the plot 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=D...m%2F2010%2F11%2Fcracks-in-time.html;1600;1200

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qrjTXNhwdM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4qrjTXNhwdM&app=desktop[/media]


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> So how is it farfetched to have a planet named Christmas on Doctor Who?


It's certainly farfetched for a planet called Trenzalore to be called Christmas.


----------



## JolDC (Dec 21, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> I stopped reading the posts in this thread after about the 15th one. Some of you need to lighten up and stop trying to analyze the show so much.


Got the intranets for Christmas did ya? Welcome!

(Just kidding, just thought it was funny that someone thought a 50 year old science fiction tv show was being overanalyzed on the net and needed it pointed out)


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

busyba said:


> It's certainly farfetched for a planet called Trenzalore to be called Christmas.


How do you know that Christmas isn't the translation for Trenzalore in some ancient language from a galaxy far, far away? 



JolDC said:


> Got the intranets for Christmas did ya?


Uh, intranet is what I have at work.  You know, the one that wasn't invented by Al Gore.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

TiVaholic said:


> I may have forgotten something from Day of the Doctor, but where did the Cyberman head ("Handles") come from?





LoadStar said:


> Something that happened off screen. We never got an explanation.


He quite clearly tells Clara he "Found it at the Maldovar market."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> He quite clearly tells Clara he "Found it at the Maldovar market."


Which makes sense, when you think about it.

Where else are you going to find a working Cyberman head?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> So how is it farfetched to have a planet named Christmas on Doctor Who?


It's not, but the planet is not named Christmas so there's really no basis for the question.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

I apparently missed the explanation regarding how he can regenerate more than the previously stated 12 times. Can someone please bring me up to date? Thanks.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ADG said:


> I apparently missed the explanation regarding how he can regenerate more than the previously stated 12 times. Can someone please bring me up to date? Thanks.


The Time Lords (on the other side of the crack in the universe) gave him an additional set of regenerations.

(They did that before for the Master, in the old series.)


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Time Lords (on the other side of the crack in the universe) gave him an additional set of regenerations.
> 
> (They did that before for the Master, in the old series.)


So far as we know, he only got one extra regeneration cycle. There's no way of knowing at this time if he has the ability to regenerate further. OTOH, nothing is set in stone so The Doctor will likely be able to regenerate as many times as they can find actors to play him. They'll come up with some way to give more.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> So far as we know, he only got one extra regeneration cycle. There's no way of knowing at this time if he has the ability to regenerate further. OTOH, nothing is set in stone so The Doctor will likely be able to regenerate as many times as they can find actors to play him. They'll come up with some way to give more.


By "one extra regeneration cycle" do you mean a cycle consisting of 1 regeneration, which was expended turning into Capaldi, or a cycle of 12? Because it was pretty clear to me that he was given 12.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Agreed with Dan, dialogue made it pretty clear that they were "starting over" with a whole new set of 12 regenerations.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Behind the Lens, for this episode: 




ETA: and for the 50th Anniversary episode:


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

busyba said:


> It's certainly farfetched for a planet called Trenzalore to be called Christmas.


What do the inhabitants of Bundesrepublik Deutschland call Christmas Island or the Christmas Island High School?

It is not very far fetched for town to be called by the same name as a country or for the name to vary according to politics, language, colonialist or indigenous etc. etc..


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

For those of us who watched the show (), Trenzalore is the planet; Christmas is the town.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

danterner said:


> Behind the Lens, for this episode:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. I've missed Confidential, and this is a little taste of it again.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For those of us who watched the show (), Trenzalore is the planet; Christmas is the town.


Is that the Trenzalore with the big battlefield graveyard including the Doctor or is it a different one 

A town called Hell or a town called Christmas?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For those of us who watched the show (), Trenzalore is the planet; Christmas is the town.


Glad someone finally pointed that out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For those of us who watched the show (), Trenzalore is the planet; Christmas is the town.


Thank you. That was driving me crazy.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

Come on, don't make a big deal out of this ... It was a typo - I knew planet's name was Trenzalore. I did not presume that the inhabitants were humans from Earth, thought they were just some random humanoids. If they indeed were Earth humans, then I have no problem with the town's name. 
Incidentally is that the only link to 'Christmas' special? Town name? Or was there anything else to the theme? I suppose Doctor's regeneration could be considered part of it.
Also - can't rewatch since I don't have the episode saved anymore - how did he tell Clara that he won't send her back, if there was the Truth field blanketing the town? Or was it just a technicality that the Tardis was what sent her back, not him?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

secondclaw said:


> Also - can't rewatch since I don't have the episode saved anymore


Not even in "Recently Deleted"?



secondclaw said:


> - how did he tell Clara that he won't send her back, if there was the Truth field blanketing the town? Or was it just a technicality that the Tardis was what sent her back, not him?



They're inside the T.A.R.D.I.S. Truth field doesn't work.
The T.A.R.D.I.S was still on the Papal Mainframe and had not yet returned to Trenzalore.
Truth field was never fully effective on The Doctor. Otherwise, he would have been forced to answer as soon as he knew what the question was.
He says "I will never send you away" pause "again." IOW, this is the last time since I will never see you again (which is what he thought).


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The Time Lords (on the other side of the crack in the universe) gave him an additional set of regenerations.
> 
> (They did that before for the Master, in the old series.)


Thanks


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Is Tranzalore an anagram of Learnt Zero?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

pgogborn said:


> Is Tranzalore an anagram of Learnt Zero?


No, but Trenzalore is.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

danterner said:


> No, but Trenzalore is.


Something Learnt.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Wife has returned home after being in Florida for the week. Now she wants to watch the episode.

Trying to decide whether I want to sit and watch it again, or pluck my own eyes out! 

The latter is more appealing right now.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

At the end when Clara was back on Trenzalore (in the Tardis with the head papal mainframe lady) and asks "What do I do?" what does the lady say? 

"_____. Go to him." 

I thought she said "He's your Doctor. Go to him." But I replayed and it didn't sound like that but I couldn't make it out.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

"He shouldn't die alone. Go to him."


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Thank you!


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> cstelter said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone else catch how it seemed Clara's Grandma had met the Doctor? I'm wondering if that was a setup toward a future plot.
> ...


Hmm, I was referring to later-- I just rewatched it and she was talking about her husband (mostly). She said 'I saw him on a pier, on a rainy day'. I thought she said 'I saw him appear... On a rainy day'. That's what had me thinking it was the Doctor. But Gran thought Clara was distraught about her boyfriend skipping out on Christmas. She was pointing out to her that we want things to stay the same when we love something, but things always change. I guess she *was* probably speaking to the fans about the Doctor, but it was in context of her husband.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Ironically, the actress who played the grandma DID meet the Doctor before - she had a part in Classic Who. The Behind the Lens episode I linked above mentions it.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

danterner said:


> Ironically, the actress who played the grandma DID meet the Doctor before - she had a part in Classic Who. The Behind the Lens episode I linked above mentions it.


As did the (step?)mother. Kind of.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

Okay, I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to be one of "those people". I usually don't care about stuff like this, but this seems to be a plot hole big enough to drive 3 seasons of the show through. I'm hoping I missed something (I've only watched the ep once).

If Smith's Doctor has always been the 13th regeneration, then what happened at Lake Silencio the first time the Doctor died at River's hand? We clearly saw regeneration energy before he was shot the final time and killed, and we now know that he had no regenerations remaining.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

It wasn't the Doctor, it was a Teselecta [robot that looked like the Doctor] a minitarised Doctor was inside it, River Song could see him through the Teselecta's pupils and knew she was not really killing the Doctor.

But speaking of River Song and regenerations how many did she have. Her tombstone was also meant to be in Trenzalore but I do not recall its absence being explained.

(personally I would not trust Mother Superious and we have only had her word the Doctor was in Trenzalore - however, I would enjoy seeing another appearance of the Mother Superious character, but I hope she does not turn out to be a regenerated River Song)


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

How does this work actually? We saw regeneration start, so is the Doctor able to start it at will from inside the Teselecta? I never saw the original series, so maybe it was covered there.

Or was there something timey-wimey going on? I.e. first time it was actual Doctor being shot so regeneration energy was real, and second time it was him in the Teselecta ...



pgogborn said:


> It wasn't the Doctor, it was a Teselecta [robot that looked like the Doctor] a minitarised Doctor was inside it, River Song could see him through the Teselecta's pupils and knew she was not really killing the Doctor.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's the bad news. The good news is, the next season will be uninterrupted.
> 
> Why?
> 
> (Serious question. They've never done anything like that, except during the mini-season that was entirely specials.)


Actually, every other season up until S7 began on or around Easter Weekend. (in the UK)


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (Serious question. They've never done anything like that, except during the mini-season that was entirely specials.)


Series 5 and Series 6 both started in April.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> But speaking of River Song and regenerations how many did she have. Her tombstone was also meant to be in Trenzalore but I do not recall its absence being explained.


It was in the episode where we saw it on Trenzalore. Why would her tombstone be there, when she died in the Library? It wouldn't. It's a secret entrance to The Doctor's tomb. If his tomb isn't there, her tombstone wouldn't be there.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

secondclaw said:


> How does this work actually? We saw regeneration start, so is the Doctor able to start it at will from inside the Teselecta? I never saw the original series, so maybe it was covered there.
> 
> Or was there something timey-wimey going on? I.e. first time it was actual Doctor being shot so regeneration energy was real, and second time it was him in the Teselecta ...


There was lot of timey-wimey going on.

Also the show runner breaks the rules / cheats / lies / misdirects or whatever you want to call it,


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> Series 5 and Series 6 both started in April.


How does that make it an 'Easter Special'?

Once again I am reminded how thankful I am that I enjoy my TV on such a surface level. I enjoyed it and thought it was a great send off. I will enjoy watching it again.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I never said anything about a special. The first post in the discussion about Easter was "I would expect at least one episode at Easter." The reply, to which I replied, said "They've never done anything like that except during the mini-season...."

When Easter is on April 4th, and the season starts on April 10th, I'd consider that "at Easter", which provides the counter-example that disproves "They've never done anything like that except during the mini-season."


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

secondclaw said:


> How does this work actually? We saw regeneration start, so is the Doctor able to start it at will from inside the Teselecta? I never saw the original series, so maybe it was covered there.


What we saw was a fake lightshow designed to look like a regeneration.



> Or was there something timey-wimey going on? I.e. first time it was actual Doctor being shot so regeneration energy was real, and second time it was him in the Teselecta ...


No, it was him in the Teselecta every time.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

busyba said:


> No, it was him in the Teselecta every time.


And every time was really once.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

It should also be noted that the BBC have explicitly refered to episodes as "Easter specials" >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/misc/media/


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> And every time was really once.


Twice.

One of the times, River didn't shoot him and broke time.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

The Holy Roman Emperor Winston Chrchill returned to the Buckingham Senate riding his personal mammoth.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JETarpon said:


> I never said anything about a special. The first post in the discussion about Easter was "I would expect at least one episode at Easter." The reply, to which I replied, said "They've never done anything like that except during the mini-season...."
> 
> When Easter is on April 4th, and the season starts on April 10th, I'd consider that "at Easter", which provides the counter-example that disproves "They've never done anything like that except during the mini-season."


But that post was in response to a post about the new season starting in the fall, so I assumed you knew about that and thus were talking about a special.

Unless you were expecting them to have Episode 1 at Easter and Episode 2 in the fall?


pgogborn said:


> It should also be noted that the BBC have explicitly refered to episodes as "Easter specials" >
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/misc/media/


That was the one I was referring to.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Apropos of nothing, but I thought this was interesting:

"The Doctor's name is 'The Doctor' and not 'Doctor Who' and the show is 'Doctor Who' and not 'Dr Who'" always seem to be arguing points when Whovians are talking to those less in the know. However, watching the Behind the Lens for this episode, you can clearly see "Dr Who" written on the scripts at the table reading. If the show can refer to itself with the abbreviation, why can't its fans? And, on the second point, I watched the last episode of Eccleston's season this week, and in the credits it says "and introducing David Tennant as Doctor Who."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, I agree that they are fairly petty points...but the fans are right. The show IS called "Doctor Who" (just look at the titles, the DVD boxes, the listings, the publicity, etc.), and the character IS "The Doctor" (that's all he's ever been called, although Moffat poked some fun at it this season). But as this forum proves over and over again, you can make an argument for anything; being right isn't necessary.


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I agree that they are fairly petty points...but the fans are right. The show IS called "Doctor Who" (just look at the titles, the DVD boxes, the listings, the publicity, etc.), and the character IS "The Doctor" (that's all he's ever been called, although Moffat poked some fun at it this season). But as this forum proves over and over again, you can make an argument for anything; being right isn't necessary.


Coincidentally I've been watching some of the early Hartnell episodes, and not only do the credits refer to him specifically as "Doctor Who", but during the episode "The War Machines" the Wotan computer referred to him repeatedly as "Doctor Who". Whenever it would try to get one of its minions to bring The Doctor to it the machine would declare "Doctor Who is required!"


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He's always a bit loopy coming out of the regeneration. I see no reason to believe this is anything different.


yes, always goofy at restart. At least he didn't try to choke Clara as he tried with a past companion.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> I never said anything about a special. The first post in the discussion about Easter was "I would expect at least one episode at Easter." The reply, to which I replied, said "They've never done anything like that except during the mini-season...."
> 
> When Easter is on April 4th, and the season starts on April 10th, I'd consider that "at Easter", which provides the counter-example that disproves "They've never done anything like that except during the mini-season."


Man 

Quite clearly the discussion was about an Easter special.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Obviously not clearly enough. I took it as the time of year when new episodes have aired in numerous years.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But that post was in response to a post about the new season starting in the fall, so I assumed you knew about that and thus were talking about a special.


It was in response to someone *believing * they started in the fall. The response believed they would start at easter. I was supporting the belief that they would start at easter, as they have done in numerous seasons.

If there is something definitive that has been announced that they don't start until the fall, that is news to me.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I have a question this thread brought up. Going back to River's first episodes, how come everyone else who was saved in the library came back, but River can't?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> I have a question this thread brought up. Going back to River's first episodes, how come everyone else who was saved in the library came back, but River can't?


It's been awhile since I've watched it, but I believe it was because the others actually had their bodies digitized, so they could be restored. River's body was killed, so only her mind was digitized. Basically she didn't have a body to restore.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Everyone else who was saved in the library came back??


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I agree that they are fairly petty points...but the fans are right. The show IS called "Doctor Who" (just look at the titles, the DVD boxes, the listings, the publicity, etc.), and the character IS "The Doctor" (that's all he's ever been called, although Moffat poked some fun at it this season). But as this forum proves over and over again, you can make an argument for anything; being right isn't necessary.


Being right is easy if all you do is to make assertions and do not provide evidence. In the 50th anniversary the Doctor met Doctor Who.

A couple of screen shots of closing credits. The have not been photo chopped, the Doctor lies, River Song lies, Moffat lies (or misdirects or whatever you want to call it).


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

busyba said:


> Everyone else who was saved in the library came back??


Didn't they? And Donna just missed connecting with her lover when they came back, because he had a stutter and couldn't call her name in time and got lost in the crowd, or something like that, right? I remember him (maybe everyone?) wearing all black. It's been a while, I could be confusing parts of various episodes.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

busyba said:


> Everyone else who was saved in the library came back??


Everyone except the ones that were eaten.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Doesn't Clara know the doctors name? Didn't she read it in a book in the Tardis library in one of her first eps? Because when she was at the crack, I was thinking "Oh no! She's going to say his name!"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> Doesn't Clara know the doctors name? Didn't she read it in a book in the Tardis library in one of her first eps? Because when she was at the crack, I was thinking "Oh no! She's going to say his name!"


That version of events was erased. That was in "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS," and the Doctor erased those events when he sent the Big Friendly Button back to himself.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

danterner said:


> Didn't they? And Donna just missed connecting with her lover when they came back, because he had a stutter and couldn't call her name in time and got lost in the crowd, or something like that, right? I remember him (maybe everyone?) wearing all black. It's been a while, I could be confusing parts of various episodes.


Ah, I forgot about all those people. I thought you were talking about the other 5 or so who ended up in the mainframe with River.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

The closing credits read "The Doctor" starting with Peter Davison through the movie, and then again starting with David Tennant's first full episode (allegedly by his request, as he was a big PD fan [and still admires some of his work every day {wink wink nudge nudge say no more}]).


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

JohnB1000 said:


> Man
> 
> Quite clearly the discussion was about an Easter special.


Nope, some of us who remember that the new series for this show have almost always been around Easter knew what he meant.

It wasn't a big leap.

You're the one that didn't get it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Langree said:


> Nope, some of us who remember that the new series for this show have almost always been around Easter knew what he meant.
> 
> It wasn't a big leap.
> 
> You're the one that didn't get it.


You, along with a few others, don't get it either.
What was said was


TonyTheTiger said:


> I would expect at least one new episode at Easter.


If there were just one episode, it would be a special.
It was not just about the new season starting at that time of year.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

scandia101 said:


> You, along with a few others, don't get it either.
> What was said was
> 
> If there were just one episode, it would be a special.
> It was not just about the new season starting at that time of year.


"at least one" opens it for series and special, and history shows it has predominantly been when the new series has started.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Before I read any of this post I just want to state that I *HATE, HATE, HATE* the new Doctor. I have feeling that I will not be the only one. Will predict that the Doctor will undergo another re-generation *BEFORE* the end of the new season.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Johncv said:


> Before I read any of this post I just want to state that I *HATE, HATE, HATE* the new Doctor. I have feeling that I will not be the only one. Will predict that the Doctor will undergo another re-generation *BEFORE* the end of the new season.


Curious about this. Hate him based on his 15 seconds as the Doctor so far? Or based upon his appearance/age? Or based upon the actor's other performances?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Langree said:


> "at least one" opens it for series and special,


and that's what I just said.
The problem most people here are having is that they are choosing one over the other to debate w/o regard to the other possibility including you because your response to JohnB1000 neglects the possibility of a special by saying that the "at least one new episode" comment is about when the new season traditionally begins.



> and history shows it has predominantly been when the new series has started.


and that's just neglecting the "special" possibility again.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Johncv said:


> Before I read any of this post I just want to state that I HATE, HATE, HATE the new Doctor. I have feeling that I will not be the only one. Will predict that the Doctor will undergo another re-generation BEFORE the end of the new season.


And there we have it. Some people have hated new doctors who later became their favorites.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

danterner said:


> Curious about this. Hate him based on his 15 seconds as the Doctor so far? Or based upon his appearance/age? Or based upon the actor's other performances?


Based on his appearance/age. I think the majority of viewer prefer a younger actor playing the part of the Doctor. When BBC see the rating drop worldwide he will be replace. Now, if they change his appearance to a "James Bond" look with some sex appeal, he may work, but if they keep him as an old crazy looking man, redo re-generation now. In fact while viewing the interview with the actor during the live broadcast of "Day of the Doctor", I was thinking at the time they are going for a "James Bond" looking Doctor. Just my 2¢. Would like to hear from female viewer of this show. Is the crazy old man look working for you?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> And there we have it. Some people have hated new doctors who later became their favorites.


Time will tell, he is a Time Lord.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

I guess I liked this episode better than most, while not liking the 50th anniversary special as much as those same people because I didn't think it was that much worse. I enjoyed this special almost as much as the 50th anniversary, but the problem I had with this one was the same as the other: I thought it fell short in its attempt at being something truly epic.

And even though I didn't mention it specifically in my post in the 50th anniversary thread, I think the core issue I have is that both episodes boiled down to being solved by Clara giving a motivational pep talk.

While I support Clara having an influence, I would have preferred that she be the catalyst for the events rather than the center point around which those events revolved. That's why I preferred my alternate 50th anniversary ending of the Doctor deliberately deciding to erase his memory. In that case, it wouldn't be the Doctor deciding to rewrite history simply because Clara gave him the "remember who you are" pep talk, but rather him deciding to take action because of it. It might seem like a subtle difference, but to me it's the difference between the Doctor doing something completely different absent Clara's uplifting speech and his mind simply being opened to a new possibility.

Similarly, in this episode the Time Lords are sitting around doing nothing until Clara tells them, "You know who the Doctor is." And then they suddenly decide to give the Doctor a whole new set of regenerations and close the rift. Really? That's all they needed to hear? Some random alien telling them to believe in the Doctor?

I would have preferred something else to have been the primary factor in their change of heart. My alternate ending would have had the question "Doctor Who?" being repeated in the room with Clara and the rift. Then Clara would have walked over to the rift and said, "You want to know who the Doctor is? This is who the Doctor is." And with that, she would have shoved her hand in the crack, and flashes from her various incarnations would have been shown, letting us know that the Time Lords were seeing the Doctor's life from her perspective while she had been split across his timeline. (Something that Clara herself would not have been capable of doing, but would have been made possible via Time Lord technology/abilities and the effects of the rift unraveling events in space-time.)

Seeing the Doctor's life would not only let them see what the Doctor was capable of, but also the effects of the Time War from his perspective. This would allow them not only to understand why they couldn't return now, but also to realize that they could put their hope in the Doctor to find a way. And that would be their ultimate motivation for giving the Doctor a new set of regenerations and closing the rift.

Of course, we would also need an explanation for why Clara didn't die or get erased from history after touching the rift, so instead of the regeneration energy coming straight from the rift and going to the Doctor, perhaps it would instead go into Clara, reviving her. Then she would walk up to the Doctor and transfer it to him. After that, the rift could open in space and swallow the Dalek mothership, which would not only remove their threat, but cause the rift to collapse.

With this ending, Clara would still be important because she would need to be willing to sacrifice herself for the Doctor. But at the same time, it wouldn't just be about what she said, but who she was. She wouldn't be just some random alien, but someone whose history with the Doctor would play a vital role in making her case to the Time Lords.

All of that buildup of Clara being the Impossible Girl could have paid off in a big way in this episode, and I feel that it fell short by ignoring that aspect of her. Instead, we are left with the last reference to that aspect being a bunch of flashbacks of her saving the Doctor throughout time, which was nice, but not something we really got to experience.

Any of the Doctor's companions could have made the same speech that Clara did. Heck, a lot of the townspeople could have as well. It would have been nice if Clara had offered something that only she could have given in order to save the Doctor.


----------



## secondclaw (Oct 3, 2004)

BitbyBlit - I prefer your version to the one that actually transpired ...


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Back in the day, there was there was a lot of initial skepticism about the Peter Davison Doctor, for the opposite reason Johncv doesn't like Peter Capaldi. IIRC, there was even a filk song about it - "Doctor Who is Going Preppy".


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> That version of events was erased. That was in "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS," and the Doctor erased those events when he sent the Big Friendly Button back to himself.


Thanks. I should have known I didn't remember correctly. (It's a rarity these days.)


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

One part of this episode that I appreciated - the score. Did anyone notice that just before the Doctor regenerates, the music changes to the melody from the "Long Song" from the Rings of Akhatan episode? Remember how the lyrics of that song went? "Rest now, my warrior, Lay down, your hardship is over, Live, Wake up, Wake up, And let the cloak of life cling to your bones."


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

There's music?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Johncv said:


> Before I read any of this post I just want to state that I *HATE, HATE, HATE* the new Doctor. I have feeling that I will not be the only one. Will predict that the Doctor will undergo another re-generation *BEFORE* the end of the new season.


Could you BE more wrong?

Hate is such a strong word. I disliked Matt Smith when he first became the Doctor and my opinion of him didn't change much through his run. However, that was as much to do with Moffat's writing as his persona.

I gave him a chance, though, and I wasn't stupid enough to say I hated him from 15 seconds of screen time!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Johncv said:


> Before I read any of this post I just want to state that I *HATE, HATE, HATE* the new Doctor. I have feeling that I will not be the only one. Will predict that the Doctor will undergo another re-generation *BEFORE* the end of the new season.





TonyTheTiger said:


> Could you BE more wrong?


I thought he was being satirical, until his subsequent post where he doubled down on his reasons for hating a performance he hasn't even seen yet.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> And there we have it. Some people have hated new doctors who later became their favorites.


Yep.

I've only watched since the reboot, but I've hated every new doctor at first.....then I quickly grew to love them. Hope it can happen a third time!


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

See, I think I'm going to really enjoy this more mature Doctor, I like the actor and am a fan of the classic show.

Of the new ones, Smith was my least favorite, but I blame that more on the writing, he had flashes of brilliance, but they were few and far between.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Johncv said:


> Before I read any of this post I just want to state that I *HATE, HATE, HATE* the new Doctor. I have feeling that I will not be the only one. Will predict that the Doctor will undergo another re-generation *BEFORE* the end of the new season.





danterner said:


> Curious about this. Hate him based on his 15 seconds as the Doctor so far? Or based upon his appearance/age? Or based upon the actor's other performances?





TonyD79 said:


> And there we have it. Some people have hated new doctors who later became their favorites.





Johncv said:


> Based on his appearance/age.


Here's where I strongly disagree.

I've been a Doctor Who fan since 1986, and have seen plenty of episodes of the classic series (still not all, of course). I have, however, seen every episode of the new series.

In the short 15 seconds of introduction probably 20 times now, I can say that THIS is what Doctor Who is supposed to be. I loved Matt Smith, David Tennant, and Christopher Eccleston, but Peter Capaldi is a move in the right direction. I can't wait for full episodes.

Greg


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Based on his appearance/age. I think the majority of viewer prefer a younger actor playing the part of the Doctor. When BBC see the rating drop worldwide he will be replace. Now, if they change his appearance to a "James Bond" look with some sex appeal, he may work, but if they keep him as an old crazy looking man, redo re-generation now. In fact while viewing the interview with the actor during the live broadcast of "Day of the Doctor", I was thinking at the time they are going for a "James Bond" looking Doctor. Just my 2¢. Would like to hear from female viewer of this show. Is the crazy old man look working for you?


Are you new to the show?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Johncv said:


> Based on his appearance/age. I think the majority of viewer prefer a younger actor playing the part of the Doctor. When BBC see the rating drop worldwide he will be replace. Now, if they change his appearance to a "James Bond" look with some sex appeal, he may work, but if they keep him as an old crazy looking man, redo re-generation now. In fact while viewing the interview with the actor during the live broadcast of "Day of the Doctor", I was thinking at the time they are going for a "James Bond" looking Doctor. Just my 2¢. Would like to hear from female viewer of this show. Is the crazy old man look working for you?


Yeah, there's your target audience for Doctor Who - horny teenage girls. They should've cast Justin Beiber. 

Actors who have been The Doctor and age at which they first assumed the role (In regen order):

1. William Henry Hartnell 55 (actually played him older)
2. Patrick Troughton 46
3. John Pertwee 51
4. Tom Baker 40
5. Peter Davison 30 (much wailing and gnashing of teeth about it at the time)
6. Colin Baker 40
7. Sylvester McCoy 44
8. Paul McGann 37
9. John Hurt 73
10. Christopher Eccleston 41
11. David Tennant 34 
12. Matt Smith 27
13. Peter Capaldi 55 (Interesting. They're starting a whole new regen cycle with an actor who is the same age as the original).

Average age 44. Throwing out the admitted anomaly John Hurt, average age 41+. Median age 41, 40.5 w/o John Hurt.

This list does not include Richard Hurndall (73), who filled in for the deceased William Hartnell in "The Five Doctors", nor Peter Cushing (52) who assayed the role in two theatrical movies.

I guess I'm wrong about the Justin Beiber thing, At 21, he's too old to continue with the 7-year reduction of the last two regens.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

For me, I expect that I will like Capaldi fine. Just as I liked Eccleston fine, and I liked Smith fine.

Each of them suffers from not being Tennant, whom I might take a bullet for.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)




----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

busyba said:


> YouTube Link


Awww..,


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

I know exactly how she feels. 

I miss my skinny-suit doctor.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

gchance said:


> I've been a Doctor Who fan since 1986, and have seen plenty of episodes of the classic series (still not all, of course). I have, however, seen every episode of the new series.
> 
> In the short 15 seconds of introduction probably 20 times now, I can say that THIS is what Doctor Who is supposed to be. I loved Matt Smith, David Tennant, and Christopher Eccleston, but Peter Capaldi is a move in the right direction. I can't wait for full episodes.
> 
> Greg


I disagree.
Capaldi will be a perfectly adequate Doctor whom many will love and many will dislike.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Lori said:


> For me, I expect that I will like Capaldi fine. Just as I liked Eccleston fine, and I liked Smith fine. Each of them suffers from not being Tennant, whom I might take a bullet for.


Heh. This.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's funny, to me Tennant is the least of the modern Doctors.

And that's a great group to be the least of, but although he had the advantage of a copacetic writer-producer, I think Eccleston and Smith both out-performed him. And I have little doubt that Capaldi will out-perform them all (now if only he's given great material to work with!).


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I haven't watched any Eccleston eps for years but I found him to be quite wooden at the time (I always find him to be wooden even though I quite like him). I liked Tennant and never expected Smith to best him but I found Smith to be way better. I think it's partly because the stories were, overall, much better with a longer thread to them. There was some real crap in amongst the great Tennant eps.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And I think Tennant was a bit of a lightweight, although he was helped by the material.

I suspect if Tennant had had Smith's material to work with and vice versa, people's opinions of them would be very different (to Smith's benefit and Tennant's detriment). Then again, I get the impression that the people who love Tennant's performance aren't entirely thinking about his acting. 

Eccleston was fine, and had a lot of potential. But the show hadn't really gelled yet...I think if he'd stayed, and gotten along better with Davies, he could have turned into the best of the first three. But, of course, he didn't.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And I think Tennant was a bit of a lightweight, although he was helped by the material.
> 
> I suspect if Tennant had had Smith's material to work with and vice versa, people's opinions of them would be very different (to Smith's benefit and Tennant's detriment). Then again, I get the impression that the people who love Tennant's performance aren't entirely thinking about his acting.
> 
> Eccleston was fine, and had a lot of potential. But the show hadn't really gelled yet...I think if he'd stayed, and gotten along better with Davies, he could have turned into the best of the first three. But, of course, he didn't.


I liked Eccleston very much, and was apprehensive about this goofy guy in the tight suit. But he won me over. By "New Earth", I was hooked.

For me, it was obvious that Tennant loved every minute of what he was doing. The joy that accompanied his performance was palpable, and more than a little intoxicating. I was just dragged along on the joy train, as it were.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And I think Tennant was a bit of a lightweight, although he was helped by the material.
> 
> I suspect if Tennant had had Smith's material to work with and vice versa, people's opinions of them would be very different (to Smith's benefit and Tennant's detriment). Then again, I get the impression that the people who love Tennant's performance aren't entirely thinking about his acting.
> 
> Eccleston was fine, and had a lot of potential. But the show hadn't really gelled yet...I think if he'd stayed, and gotten along better with Davies, he could have turned into the best of the first three. But, of course, he didn't.


I wonder if your issues with Tennant couldn't be the result of his having had a much longer tenure than the other two, and with such a larger body of work it's easier to find specific items with which to find fault.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Lori said:


> For me, I expect that I will like Capaldi fine. Just as I liked Eccleston fine, and I liked Smith fine.
> 
> Each of them suffers from not being Tennant, whom I might take a bullet for.


I enjoy seeing Matt Smith and David Tennant together, wish they done this more often. As for Capaldi I will take a wait and see what happen.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Langree said:


> Are you new to the show?


No


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> I disagree.
> Capaldi will be a perfectly adequate Doctor whom many will love and many will dislike.


That my point "adequate" will not retain rating. Still think that the majority of viewer will be on the "dislike" side and not "warm up" to him as they did with the other Doctors. Will take a wait and see what happen.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> I wonder if your issues with Tennant couldn't be the result of his having had a much longer tenure than the other two, and with such a larger body of work it's easier to find specific items with which to find fault.


No, not really. For one thing, he wasn't the Doctor that much longer than Smith (3 season plus the Year of Specials, as opposed to three seasons). For another, I always felt that way about him.

I think he was just lucky to A) have a very engaging personality, and B) have a very good relationship to his producer, who was very good at shaping the show around him. Smith and Moffat didn't seem to have that same kind of chemistry.

E.g., I never really bought Tennant as a 900-year-old. But Smith really sold it. And there were times when Tennant was supposed to be a godlike wrathful creature, but he just seemed like, well, David Tennant putting on a hissy fit. I always thought Smith was better at conveying the breadth of the character.

And don't get me wrong, Tennant was very good...I never said to myself, "Well, this guy is ruining the show." He did a perfectly fine job. I just think Smith did a lot more with a lot less. And although I preferred both Eccleston and Smith to Tennant in terms of their performances, I think Tennant had overall the best run. Although the Moffat-Smith years at their best were superior (there were flashes of brilliance that Davies & Tennant could only dream of), there were also some pretty deep structural flaws that revealed themselves more and more over time.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Johncv said:


> That my point "adequate" will not retain rating.


If he doesn't retain ratings, he wouldn't be adequate for the job, so I guess you're just wrong on that point.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

For me the best combo was Tennant as Doctor, Moffat as writer, and Davies as show runner. (Eg episodes like The Girl in the Fireplace, Silence in the Library, Forest of the Dead, Blink (though that last wasn't really much of a Tennant episode)).


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

It wasn't, but I can't really picture that same episode with Smith on the DVDs.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I generally find myself pretty well aligned with Rob in the Now Playing threads, but I couldn't disagree more with his assessment of Tennant vs. Smith. 

Like Rob, I enjoyed them both. But it seems almost laughable to me that anyone would feel that Smith "sold" the 900-year old aspect better than Tennant. For me, Smith did little more than clown his way through his tenure. I'll grant that Tennant was not exactly weighty in the part, but Smith was positively bubbly pretty much throughout. 

I do totally agree about Eccleston, however. If he'd stuck it out for another series or two, I imagine he would have been my favorite of the three. 

Can't wait to see what Capaldi has to offer.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

See what I thought was that Smith was amazing at appearing to clown around but at the same time showing a really deep pain and longing. Then when pain and longing was required it was all the more powerful because we were used to him clowning around.

Seeing them together really confirmed for me that Tennant didn't seem to have the gravitas that, in a weird and backward way, I feel like Smith did.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I really like Clara but she needs to change to a black stockings-less outfit every once in a while.


I so agree with this...she is absolutely adorable but those black leggings are awful...they have got to go!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dawghows said:


> I generally find myself pretty well aligned with Rob in the Now Playing threads, but I couldn't disagree more with his assessment of Tennant vs. Smith. Like Rob, I enjoyed them both. But it seems almost laughable to me that anyone would feel that Smith "sold" the 900-year old aspect better than Tennant. For me, Smith did little more than clown his way through his tenure. I'll grant that Tennant was not exactly weighty in the part, but Smith was positively bubbly pretty much throughout. I do totally agree about Eccleston, however. If he'd stuck it out for another series or two, I imagine he would have been my favorite of the three. Can't wait to see what Capaldi has to offer.


It is the consensus of people I talk to (in person) about Doctor Who is exactly that Matt Smith played him with an old man inside. Perhaps you are not actually watching but watching how a lot of us watch tv these days. Distracted. It is in the looks and side glances. Often very subtle but also well done. That is acting. Smith always seemed otherworldly to me as well. More than Tennant but less than eccleston, who was the most alien of the three. Tennant was good but he seemed the most "normal" guy.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, not really. For one thing, he wasn't the Doctor that much longer than Smith (3 season plus the Year of Specials, as opposed to three seasons). For another, I always felt that way about him.
> 
> I think he was just lucky to A) have a very engaging personality, and B) have a very good relationship to his producer, who was very good at shaping the show around him. Smith and Moffat didn't seem to have that same kind of chemistry.
> 
> ...


I don't know why, but all I could think about reading this post is the movie airplane! (2)

Simon: Gentlemen, I'd like you to meet your captain, Captain Oveur.
Clarence Oveur: Gentlemen, welcome aboard.
Simon: Captain, your navigator, Mr. Unger, and your first officer, Mr. Dunn.
Clarence Oveur: Unger.
Unger: Oveur.
Dunn: Oveur.
Clarence Oveur: Dunn. Gentlemen, let's get to work.
Simon: Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in the Air Force?
Unger: Not directly. Technically, Dunn was under Oveur and I was under Dunn.
Dunn: Yep.
Simon: So, Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger.
Unger: Yep.
Clarence Oveur: That's right. Dunn was over Unger and I was over Dunn.
Unger: So, you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn.
Clarence Oveur: Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> It is the consensus of people I talk to (in person) about Doctor Who is exactly that Matt Smith played him with an old man inside. Perhaps you are not actually watching but watching how a lot of us watch tv these days. Distracted. It is in the looks and side glances. Often very subtle but also well done. That is acting. Smith always seemed otherworldly to me as well. More than Tennant but less than eccleston, who was the most alien of the three. Tennant was good but he seemed the most "normal" guy.


I'm not distracted. I just disagree.

Edited to clarify: I don't disagree that Smith is a good actor. He may even be a better actor than Tennant, for all I know. I just simply never felt any real weight in his performance as the Doctor. I think he was fun, unique, and enjoyable. I just didn't find him to be...rich, or deep.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> Edited to clarify: I don't disagree that Smith is a good actor. He may even be a better actor than Tennant, for all I know. I just simply never felt any real weight in his performance as the Doctor. I think he was fun, unique, and enjoyable. I just didn't find him to be...rich, or deep.


Funny, that's more how I felt about Tennant. But definitely not Smith.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Sometimes it seems like other people think completely differently than me....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> Sometimes it seems like other people think completely differently than me....


Yeah, it's weird. Sometimes, I know what's what, and everybody else is just plain wrong.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Yeah, right?


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

I've lost track of who I agree with, but I agree that Matt Smith has conveyed the best sense of pain / despair / regret of all the recent Doctors. Eccleston was mainly lonely. Tennant was, in turns, manic, vengeful, egomaniacal, churlish, and resigned to dying before finally realizing he wanted to keep living. Smith played it as if he regretted that decision but knew he had to persevere anyway. But the difference I see with Smith's Doctor is that he actively tried to atone for some of his past wrongs and to make things better, for himself and his companions.

By the time of the Smith Doctor, he's had 900-some years to understand all of the baggage that comes with being the Doctor or one of his associates. When something goes sideways despite his best attempts to avoid it, he expresses the anguish that you'd expect from someone who truly understands the impact -- good, bad, or ugly -- that he's had on those he considers loved ones.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dawghows said:


> I'm not distracted. I just disagree. Edited to clarify: I don't disagree that Smith is a good actor. He may even be a better actor than Tennant, for all I know. I just simply never felt any real weight in his performance as the Doctor. I think he was fun, unique, and enjoyable. I just didn't find him to be...rich, or deep.


We can disagree. Since we do, we can.

Look for the subtle stuff. The change in his eyes showing weariness and concern even when he is saying something stupid or smiling. But the eyes also show joy and delight. They are both good actors. Tennant is Shakespearean. So his technique plays broader to me. I've seen him in other roles. He was quite good as Casanova and held his own in hamlet opposite Patrick Stewart. But his Doctor was flatter. Less texture. I can feel that Smith is 900 or 1200 years old. It is the face behind the face. Side by side really showed the difference to me. Both good. But Smith felt deeper. The conventional wisdom is the Smith Doctor is goofy and Tennant's Doctor was strong. That wisdom is wrong. Smith's Doctor is energetic but shows wear and tear. It is more subtly written and more subtly played.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

+ a lot with the last post


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Well, again, I've enjoyed all the "NuWho" Doctors, and I don't mean to complain about Smith in any way. I missed Eccleston after he left, Tennant after he left, and I'm quite sure I will miss Smith as well. They all brought something different to the show, and for my money that transition from one Doctor to the next is not only what makes the show unique, but is also what keeps the show fresh.

Of course I am also not trying to change anyone's mind here; we all have our preferences and perspectives. I'm just one more Joe giving his opinion.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I'd say Tennant's Doctor was more emotional, the bits with Rose, the conversation with Sarah Jane. He was able to convey the inner sadness in a very real way.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Tenant conveyed sadness: Smith conveyed weariness.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Tennant Sadness conveyed.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

They needed the rain because his acting couldn't pull it off !!!!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Tennant sadness conveyed with no rain:


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Just thinking about these scenes is making me sad.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Lori said:


> Just thinking about these scenes is making me sad.


Agreed.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

danterner said:


> Tennant sadness conveyed with no rain:


That was a scene where he was required to be sad. Easy for almost anyone. Conveying sadness while goofing around is the trick


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Lori said:


> Just thinking about these scenes is making me sad.


Our household was awakened at about 1:00 AM last night by my daughter, shrieking with delight over something Tennant said. She's a recent fan of Doctor Who and has been doing a marathon while on winter break. Currently, her three favorite things in the world* are Doctor Who, Shakespeare, and the Harry Potter book series. All three came together in "The Shakespeare Code," which she watched for the first time last night.

*subject to change at any moment...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

danterner said:


> Tennant sadness conveyed with no rain:


He does sad very well, with or without rain. And giddy joy. But to me, his wrath always seemed more like petulance.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He does sad very well, with or without rain. And giddy joy. But to me, his wrath always seemed more like petulance.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

danterner said:


>


I can see the sadness in his eyes there :up:


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

This will always be Tennant to me


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

danterner said:


> Tennant sadness conveyed with no rain:


"He always says that."


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

danterner said:


> Tennant sadness conveyed with no rain:


He did do sadness in the scene but the frame looks more like fear.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

BitbyBlit said:


> I would have preferred something else to have been the primary factor in their change of heart. My alternate ending would have had the question "Doctor Who?" being repeated in the room with Clara and the rift. Then Clara would have walked over to the rift and said, "You want to know who the Doctor is? This is who the Doctor is." And with that, she would have shoved her hand in the crack, and flashes from her various incarnations would have been shown, letting us know that the Time Lords were seeing the Doctor's life from her perspective while she had been split across his timeline. (Something that Clara herself would not have been capable of doing, but would have been made possible via Time Lord technology/abilities and the effects of the rift unraveling events in space-time.)
> 
> Seeing the Doctor's life would not only let them see what the Doctor was capable of, but also the effects of the Time War from his perspective. This would allow them not only to understand why they couldn't return now, but also to realize that they could put their hope in the Doctor to find a way. And that would be their ultimate motivation for giving the Doctor a new set of regenerations and closing the rift.
> 
> ...


Wow, I really like this :up:


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Wow, I really like this :up:


Yes, me too.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

So over the past couple months, I've watched the last 7 series, from scratch, without any prior knowledge of Doctor Who.

I just caught up two nights ago.

"Favorite Doctor" is probably one of the most popular and impossible arguments on the Internet.

All three of them were great for different reasons, but I think Smith kind of got the shaft because some of the writing in 7 was abysmal. They reeled it in for the last 3 episodes at least, they were all three excellent and made me forgive the rest of series 7.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

We actually JUST finished the second half of season 7 this week, and I couldn't agree more. That was a weak series of episodes. The end was fine, but those 6 or so leading up were just...meh.


----------

