Doctor Who The Name of the Doctor Review with Spoilers

[The Doctor]

8/10 .


So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.

All right We even See some past Doctors in action.

So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)

So this seance of a conference call , doable?

Maybe , maybe not.

Still River is back and so are the dangers.
With River back all hell is bound to break loose.

Tranzelore? Does the Doctor really need to end
at Tranzelore? White Guardian are you still around?
The Key to Time os needed before the Tranzelore Chaos happens.

So the Great Intelligance wants vengenace on Transelore.
That set offs a chance of Turn left or Turn Right the one with Donna
altering the time lines.

Carrying on maybe a great battle is looming.

Only Clara can save the day and that explains her interventinos.

River is mentally linked, so how does the Doctor see her?

So into the Doctor's timeline to rescue Clara.

We finally see potentially the Last Doctor.

Part 1 finished.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
The false churches will conform themselves to this world's demands, seeing as they do not fear and thus do not obey God. - anon

[T987654321]

OoooK, is anyone honestly not completely confused?

Is Hurt supposed to be the last regen, or the before the first, or the not a regen?????

[rochrist]

"The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

>
>8/10 .
>So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>
>All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>
>So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>
>So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>
>Maybe , maybe not.
>
>Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>With River back all hell is bound to break loose.

I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.

[Hand-of-Omega]

On May 18, 9:51 pm, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OoooK, is anyone honestly not completely confused?
>

Compared to the last couple of series finales? This one was
practically clear as glass!^^

Dex

[The Doctor]

Await. She was needed at some point.

[The Doctor]

In article <0ffc8a82-6413-4706...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Hand-of-Omega <dext...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is just PArt 1.

[David Johnston]

On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <kn9f0e$sbl$1...@dont-email.me>, rochrist <roch...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>
>>> 8/10 .
>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>
>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>
>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>
>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>
>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>
>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>
>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>>
>>
>
> Await. She was needed at some point.
>

Since they're moving on to a new Doctor, River's probably history.

[Wouter Valentijn]

rochrist wrote:
> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>
>> 8/10 .
>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>
>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.

In a Gumpian way. Cool.

>>
>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>
>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?

An interesting way of communicating.

>>
>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>
>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>
> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for
> good.

I'm not sure.
Would be a shame to never see Alex Kingston in that role again.
I would like to see River back.
Or maybe in some other form than we currently know her.
She hinted there would be more.

"Spoilers...." :-)

--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net

Kirk: "My God, Bones... what have I done?"
McCoy: "What you had to do. What you always do: turn death into a fighting
chance to live."

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

liam=mail

[The Doctor]

In article <kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me>,

She is somewhere between last regen and death.

[Wouter Valentijn]

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <kn9f0e$sbl$1...@dont-email.me>, rochrist
>>> <roch...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>
>>>>> 8/10 .
>>>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>>>
>>>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for
>>>> good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Await. She was needed at some point.
>>>
>>
>> Since they're moving on to a new Doctor, River's probably history.
>
> She is somewhere between last regen and death.

Maybe.
Otoh, if her 'information' remains intact, she might be really immortal.
Albeit she might turn up in a different manner.
BTW...
Some other thoughts:

Was this really a cop out concerning the Doctor's (birth) name, or did this
episode /reaffirm/ his actual *chosen* name. Which is, of course, The
Doctor?

Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an actual
truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become that matrix?
Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
Come to think of it, if that Gaiman episode is literary true, than I won't
abandon my theories just yet! :-)

[The Doctor]

In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

Well I never thought about a time stream of the Doctor to explain
Clara. Still White guardian and Key to Time to rescue us from this
Time War debacle.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an actual
> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become that matrix?
> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.

Ooo, good call ...

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Stephen Wilson]

"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in message
news:kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me...

Nope, Matt Smith has confirmed he will be staying on for the next series.
John Hurt is only playing the Doctor for the Anniversary Special, alongside
both David Tennant and Matt Smith.

[The Doctor]

In article <kF3mt.8894$MQ7....@newsfe18.iad>,

So far to date.

[Monsieur Tabernac]

My guess would be that he's a much older Paul McGann (i.e. 8th
Doctor). We know No.8 pushed the button at the end of the Time War
("I had no choice. What I did, I did for peace and sanity.") Also,
McGann is the only Doctor who's missing from the Clara flashbacks
(he's the "disgraced Doctor" and is removed from the Doctor "canon").
Perhaps somewhere along the line, No.8 lost his way and became someone
else.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Monsieur Tabernac" <mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:416ip8tt8abgij1em...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT), T987654321
> <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>OoooK, is anyone honestly not completely confused?
>>
>>Is Hurt supposed to be the last regen, or the before the first, or the not
>>a regen?????
>
> My guess would be that he's a much older Paul McGann (i.e. 8th
> Doctor). We know No.8 pushed the button at the end of the Time War

No we don't. We know the Doctor pushed the button. But not which one.

> ("I had no choice. What I did, I did for peace and sanity.") Also,
> McGann is the only Doctor who's missing from the Clara flashbacks

Nope, he appeared for about 1 second. Or at least someone dressed in his
clothes!

[Monsieur Tabernac]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:08:29 +0100, "Stephen Wilson"
<stephen.w...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Monsieur Tabernac" <mtab...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:416ip8tt8abgij1em...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT), T987654321
>> <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>OoooK, is anyone honestly not completely confused?
>>>
>>>Is Hurt supposed to be the last regen, or the before the first, or the not
>>>a regen?????
>>
>> My guess would be that he's a much older Paul McGann (i.e. 8th
>> Doctor). We know No.8 pushed the button at the end of the Time War
>
>No we don't. We know the Doctor pushed the button. But not which one.

Two possibilities: No.8 and No.9. In "Rose", the Doctor appears to
have never seen himself in the mirror before. This seems to be pretty
strong evidence that he'd only just regenerated.

But you're right -- we don't know this for sure (though my bet's still
on No.8).

>
>> ("I had no choice. What I did, I did for peace and sanity.") Also,
>> McGann is the only Doctor who's missing from the Clara flashbacks
>
>Nope, he appeared for about 1 second. Or at least someone dressed in his
>clothes!

I must have blinked during that bit.

[The Doctor]

In article <416ip8tt8abgij1em...@4ax.com>,

Interesting possilbility.

[~consul]

'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an actual
>> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become that matrix?
>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
> Ooo, good call ...

Well, it still reads to me as the TARDIS letting him take her, like she said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconcious decision to steal and escape in a TARDIS.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[The Doctor]

In article <knd574$l84$2...@dont-email.me>,

~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
>>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an actual
>>> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become that matrix?
>>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
>> Ooo, good call ...
>
>Well, it still reads to me as the TARDIS letting him take her, like she said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconcious decision to steal and escape in a TARDIS.
>--

Hmm... What about Clara convincing The First Doctor to steal
another TARDIS.

[Ross]

On May 20, 10:43 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <knd574$l8...@dont-email.me>,

>
> ~consul  <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
> >'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:

> >> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

> >>   "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
> >>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an actual
> >>> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become that matrix?
> >>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
> >> Ooo, good call ...
>
> >Well, it still reads to me as the TARDIS letting him take her, like she said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconcious decision to steal and escape in a TARDIS.
> >--
>
> Hmm... What about Clara convincing The First Doctor to steal
> another TARDIS.

Given that Clara is EXPLICITLY fixing the things which the Great
Intelligence broke, Clara's pointing him back at the TARDIS who
"wanted" him after the Great Intelligence manipulated things such that
he nearly stole the next one over instead.

[The Doctor]

In article <9904a523-aa8f-4d2c...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 10:43=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <knd574$l8...@dont-email.me>,
>>

>> ~consul =A0<con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>> >'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
>> >> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

>> >> =A0 "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> >>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the=
> TARDIS
>> >>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an ac=
>tual
>> >>> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become that m=

>atrix?
>> >>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
>> >> Ooo, good call ...
>>

>> >Well, it still reads to me as the TARDIS letting him take her, like she =
>said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconcious dec=

>ision to steal and escape in a TARDIS.
>> >--
>>
>> Hmm... What about Clara convincing The First Doctor to steal
>> another TARDIS.
>
>Given that Clara is EXPLICITLY fixing the things which the Great
>Intelligence broke, Clara's pointing him back at the TARDIS who
>"wanted" him after the Great Intelligence manipulated things such that
>he nearly stole the next one over instead.
>

Still that overrides The Doctor's Wife.

[David Johnston]

Which couldn't be taken all that seriously anyway. It was always the
Doctor went down to the repair shop, walked into a busted TARDIS and
woke her up. The TARDIS only "stole" the Doctor in that she determined
(repeatedly) where he went in her.

[Jim G.]

rochrist sent the following on 5/18/2013 9:59 PM:

Yep. And I'm pretty sure that she's moving to D.C., where she will be
hanging around with Agent Gibbs and the gang. :)

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Can you and your stupid hair let us in?" -- Carlton Lassiter, PSYCH

[Ross]

On May 20, 12:40 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 9:44 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <9904a523-aa8f-4d2c-b891-3e7d723a8...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

I think it should be taken seriously. I think the setup that they
describe is, basically, "The Doctor goes down to the repair shop, sees
a TARDIS, feels inexplicably drawn to steal it, runs off and grabs his
granddaughter. Meanwhile, the Intelligence shows up, swaps around the
TARDISes in the bay in order to send him off in one that will give him
mercury poisoning or something. The Doctor comes back with Susan, is
about to step into a TARDIS, when this girl he's never seen before
steps out and advises him to steal the one in the next bay over
instead."

[The Doctor]

In article <kndjdc$aej$3...@dont-email.me>,

Did he steal one or did the TARDIS accept him?

[The Doctor]

In article <kndlfr$o3m$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>rochrist sent the following on 5/18/2013 9:59 PM:
>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>
>>> 8/10 .
>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>
>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>
>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>
>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>
>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>
>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>
>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>
>Yep. And I'm pretty sure that she's moving to D.C., where she will be
>hanging around with Agent Gibbs and the gang. :)
>

And then she might come back like Tennant.

[The Doctor]

In article <c85f7f23-98d9-400c...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 12:40=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 9:44 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > In article <9904a523-aa8f-4d2c-b891-3e7d723a8...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > Ross =A0<rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

>> >> On May 20, 10:43=3DA0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >>> In article <knd574$l8...@dont-email.me>,
>>

>> >>> ~consul =3DA0<con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
>> >>>> 'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
>> >>>>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

>> >>>>> =3DA0 "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which =
>the=3D
>> >> TARDIS
>> >>>>>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an=
> ac=3D
>> >> tual
>> >>>>>> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become tha=
>t m=3D

>> >> atrix?
>> >>>>>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
>> >>>>> Ooo, good call ...
>>

>> >>>> Well, it still reads to me as the TARDIS letting him take her, like =
>she =3D
>> >> said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconciou=
>s dec=3D

>> >> ision to steal and escape in a TARDIS.
>> >>>> --
>>
>> >>> Hmm... What about Clara convincing The First Doctor to steal
>> >>> another TARDIS.
>>
>> >> Given that Clara is EXPLICITLY fixing the things which the Great
>> >> Intelligence broke, Clara's pointing him back at the TARDIS who
>> >> "wanted" him after the Great Intelligence manipulated things such that
>> >> he nearly stole the next one over instead.
>>
>> > Still that overrides The Doctor's Wife.
>>

>> Which couldn't be taken all that seriously anyway. =A0It was always the

>> Doctor went down to the repair shop, walked into a busted TARDIS and

>> woke her up. =A0The TARDIS only "stole" the Doctor in that she determined

>> (repeatedly) where he went in her.
>
>I think it should be taken seriously. I think the setup that they
>describe is, basically, "The Doctor goes down to the repair shop, sees
>a TARDIS, feels inexplicably drawn to steal it, runs off and grabs his
>granddaughter. Meanwhile, the Intelligence shows up, swaps around the
>TARDISes in the bay in order to send him off in one that will give him
>mercury poisoning or something. The Doctor comes back with Susan, is
>about to step into a TARDIS, when this girl he's never seen before
>steps out and advises him to steal the one in the next bay over
>instead."

Him and Susan according to Clara.

[Dave Arnold]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:25:27 +0000 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons I find the whole sentient TARDIS bit very
baffling. Are all TARDIS's sentient? If not why would just one of them
be? If so, who created them as the Time Lord's didn't seem to notice
prior to New Who since they only ever referred to them as machines -
only the Doctor refers to it like that and I'd always taken it to be
like people do to their cars and ships.

> >I think it should be taken seriously. I think the setup that they
> >describe is, basically, "The Doctor goes down to the repair shop,
> >sees a TARDIS, feels inexplicably drawn to steal it, runs off and
> >grabs his granddaughter. Meanwhile, the Intelligence shows up, swaps
> >around the TARDISes in the bay in order to send him off in one that
> >will give him mercury poisoning or something. The Doctor comes back
> >with Susan, is about to step into a TARDIS, when this girl he's
> >never seen before steps out and advises him to steal the one in the
> >next bay over instead."

Except it's been established he ran away because he was bored with Time
Lord life, not because he was drawn to a TARDIS. And if he was drawn to
it why would he not be drawn to the same one when he came back?
And why would he be in the repair shop if he wasn't going to steal one
already, in which case Susan would already be with him.

[Ken Arromdee]

>>I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.

River can appear an unlimited number of times since every time she appears
it can be from before her death.

Making her appear as an image after her death seemed to be a plot device--if
she appeared for real instead of as an image, everyone would be wondering
why she didn't jump in instead of Clara,
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Some fanfic writers really like listening to Evanescence, so they decide to
make all the characters fans of it. Slash fiction is the same, but with
penises instead of Evanescence.

[Ken Arromdee]

In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

>Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
>matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?

Of course there is. You can stretch the meaning of words to make it true, but
taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.

Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not
writing for the long term. It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn't
bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
part of continuity.

[The Doctor]

In article <kne7f3$8l5$2...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>
>River can appear an unlimited number of times since every time she appears
>it can be from before her death.
>
>Making her appear as an image after her death seemed to be a plot device--if
>she appeared for real instead of as an image, everyone would be wondering
>why she didn't jump in instead of Clara,
>--

Similar to the Hartnell projection.

[The Doctor]

In article <kne7l1$8l5$3...@blue-new.rahul.net>,

Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
>>matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>
>Of course there is. You can stretch the meaning of words to make it true, but
>taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>
>Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not
>writing for the long term. It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn't
>bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
>part of continuity.
>--

Mind you Moffatt should have spotted this.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:kne7l1$8l5$3...@blue-new.rahul.net...

> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the
>>TARDIS
>>matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>
> Of course there is. You can stretch the meaning of words to make it true,
> but
> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>
> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not
> writing for the long term. It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn't
> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
> part of continuity.

You could argue that it wasn't Gaiman's job to worry about such things. It
was only his job to write a script, and then up to the show's producer and
script editor to make sure there were no obvious conflicts with past or
future stories and rewrite/edit as necessary...

[Stephen Wilson]

"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:knebd7$g2b$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

> In article <kne7f3$8l5$2...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>>
>>River can appear an unlimited number of times since every time she appears
>>it can be from before her death.
>>
>>Making her appear as an image after her death seemed to be a plot
>>device--if
>>she appeared for real instead of as an image, everyone would be wondering
>>why she didn't jump in instead of Clara,
>>--
>
> Similar to the Hartnell projection.

No, not similar at all.

[Ross]

On May 20, 5:18 pm, Dave Arnold <usenetY...@HATcaledfwlch.me.uk>
wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:25:27 +0000 (UTC)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> > In article

> > <c85f7f23-98d9-400c-a57c-eee732976...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

TARDISes are eleven-dimensional beings. Their experience of the
universe is so completely different from even a Time Lord's that under
normal circumstances, it wouldn't even make sense to ask whether or
not they could be considered "sentient", any more than it makes sense
to ask whether one frame out of a movie is "animated", but from
certain perspectives they could appear to be so. For example, a TARDIS
doesn't have to use reason and thinking to make decisions, it can just
look ahead in time to see what the outcome is.

>
> Except it's been established he ran away because he was bored with Time
> Lord life, not because he was drawn to a TARDIS. And if he was drawn to
> it why would he not be drawn to the same one when he came back?
> And why would he be in the repair shop if he wasn't going to steal one
> already, in which case Susan would already be with him.

There are several conflicing "established" reasons why the Doctor
left. The first Doctor ABSOLUTELY implies that he was forced to leave
for reasons he doesn't specify, the fifth doctor implies that he was
running away from something he was goingto be forced to do, and the
Tenth Doctor says he was running away from what he saw in the
Untempered Schism.

[The Doctor]

In article <PcNmt.8598$kF....@newsfe30.iad>,

Mawdryn Undead comes to mind.

[Stephen Wilson]

"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message

news:kngj7l$k3a$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

> In article <PcNmt.8598$kF....@newsfe30.iad>,
> Stephen Wilson <stephen.w...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@rahul.net> wrote in message
>>news:kne7l1$8l5$3...@blue-new.rahul.net...
>>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>>> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>>Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the
>>>>TARDIS
>>>>matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>>
>>> Of course there is. You can stretch the meaning of words to make it
>>> true,
>>> but
>>> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>>>
>>> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not
>>> writing for the long term. It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn't
>>> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
>>> part of continuity.
>>
>>You could argue that it wasn't Gaiman's job to worry about such things. It
>>was only his job to write a script, and then up to the show's producer and
>>script editor to make sure there were no obvious conflicts with past or
>>future stories and rewrite/edit as necessary...
>>
>>
>
> Mawdryn Undead comes to mind.

Because...?

[The Doctor]

In article <r6Tmt.39088$v32....@fx11.am4>,

Of the UNIT Time Line mix up.

glad you asked.

[The Doctor]

In article <chine.bleu-8A4AC...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <d32dc2f0-4d17-4615...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

> Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> TARDISes are eleven-dimensional beings. Their experience of the
>> universe is so completely different from even a Time Lord's that under
>> normal circumstances, it wouldn't even make sense to ask whether or
>> not they could be considered "sentient", any more than it makes sense
>> to ask whether one frame out of a movie is "animated", but from
>> certain perspectives they could appear to be so. For example, a TARDIS
>> doesn't have to use reason and thinking to make decisions, it can just
>> look ahead in time to see what the outcome is.
>

>That sounds vaguely like my argument for evolution by design: all possible
>mutations were super imposed; those mutations that would result in intelligent
>life and a state collapse were selected. So intelligence designs its own
>evolution.
>--

TARDISes are powerful living machines.

[Wouter Valentijn]

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <kne7l1$8l5$3...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which
>>> the TARDIS matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>
>> Of course there is. You can stretch the meaning of words to make it
>> true, but taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.

In a literal linear sense yes.
But the TARDIS matrix has a mind that is far from linear. She has
difficulties keeping past, present en future apart.

>>
>> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of
>> not writing for the long term. It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman
>> didn't
>> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a
>> permanent
>> part of continuity.
>> --
>
> Mind you Moffatt should have spotted this.

Could be.
But I think he was okay with it.....

--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net

Kirk: "My God, Bones... what have I done?"
McCoy: "What you had to do. What you always do: turn death into a fighting
chance to live."

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

liam=mail

[Wouter Valentijn]

Stephen Wilson wrote:
> "David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in message
> news:kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <kn9f0e$sbl$1...@dont-email.me>, rochrist

>>> <roch...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>
>>>>> 8/10 .
>>>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>>>
>>>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>>>

>>>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for
>>>> good.
>>>

>>> Await. She was needed at some point.
>>>
>>
>> Since they're moving on to a new Doctor, River's probably history.
>
> Nope, Matt Smith has confirmed he will be staying on for the next
> series. John Hurt is only playing the Doctor for the Anniversary
> Special, alongside both David Tennant and Matt Smith.

I think David Tennant won't be playing the actual Doctor he played back
when.
He might be the clone version of him that lives with Rose in that parallel
universe.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey%27s_End_(Doctor_Who)

[Ross]

On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> Stephen Wilson wrote:

> > "David Johnston" <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote in message

> >news:kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:

> >>> In article <kn9f0e$sb...@dont-email.me>, rochrist
> >>> <rochr...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>> "The Doctor"  wrote in messagenews:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

> Wouter Valentijnhttp://www.j3v.net

>
> Kirk:  "My God, Bones... what have I done?"
> McCoy:  "What you had to do. What you always do: turn death into a fighting
> chance to live."
>
> Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
>
> liam=mail

It's been noted several times that the pictures of Tennant from the
set of the special show him wearing the the suit that the Proper
Doctor wore, not the one that the Handy Doctor wore.

And of course, a man can only own one suit.

But anyway. given that the cliffhanger left the Doctor and Clara lost
in the Doctor's own timestream, it seems likely that any returning
cast they show will be "a bit of the Doctor's past that Clara and the
(present) Doctor have to interact with in order to extricate
themselves from being lost inside the Doctor's timestream"

[Monsieur Tabernac]

The pics also show the old TARDIS (i.e. pre-Eleventh Hour version), so
unless the alt-Doctor grew a new TARDIS, it's the "real" TennantDoc.

[Wouter Valentijn]

Ross wrote:
> On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Stephen Wilson wrote:

<snip>

>>
>>> Nope, Matt Smith has confirmed he will be staying on for the next
>>> series. John Hurt is only playing the Doctor for the Anniversary
>>> Special, alongside both David Tennant and Matt Smith.
>>
>> I think David Tennant won't be playing the actual Doctor he played
>> back when.
>> He might be the clone version of him that lives with Rose in that
>> parallel universe.
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey%27s_End_(Doctor_Who)
>>

<snip>

> It's been noted several times that the pictures of Tennant from the
> set of the special show him wearing the the suit that the Proper
> Doctor wore, not the one that the Handy Doctor wore.
>
> And of course, a man can only own one suit.
>
> But anyway. given that the cliffhanger left the Doctor and Clara lost
> in the Doctor's own timestream, it seems likely that any returning
> cast they show will be "a bit of the Doctor's past that Clara and the
> (present) Doctor have to interact with in order to extricate
> themselves from being lost inside the Doctor's timestream"

Could be...
I was thinking of Clone Doctor because of the involvement of Rose. And Rose
specifically.
No other companions are mentioned. Nothing about Jack, Martha, Donna or Amy
and Rory.

--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net

[anim8rFSK]

In article <519fbb27$0$15952$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

I'll forfeit all the others just for those lovely words, "No Donna"

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Wouter Valentijn]

anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <519fbb27$0$15952$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

<snip>

>> Ross wrote:
>>> On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
<snip>

>> I was thinking of Clone Doctor because of the involvement of Rose.
>> And Rose specifically.
>> No other companions are mentioned. Nothing about Jack, Martha, Donna
>> or Amy and Rory.
>
> I'll forfeit all the others just for those lovely words, "No Donna"

Donna made me like David Tennant's Doctor, for the first time. She was the
strongest, the best companion he ever had.

[The Doctor]

In article <519f9cb2$0$15895$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <kne7l1$8l5$3...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
>> Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>>> Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which
>>>> the TARDIS matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>>
>>> Of course there is. You can stretch the meaning of words to make it
>>> true, but taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>
>In a literal linear sense yes.
>But the TARDIS matrix has a mind that is far from linear. She has
>difficulties keeping past, present en future apart.
>
>>>
>>> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of
>>> not writing for the long term. It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman
>>> didn't
>>> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a
>>> permanent
>>> part of continuity.
>>> --
>>
>> Mind you Moffatt should have spotted this.
>
>Could be.
>But I think he was okay with it.....
>

He is now minister of continuity.

[The Doctor]

In article <anim8rfsk-725BB...@news.easynews.com>,

No Rose would be nicer.

[The Doctor]

In article <519fcee8$0$15961$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

10x better than ROse.

[Stephen Wilson]

"Ross" <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote in message
news:d80d64c0-d0b7-4e3c...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>
>> I think David Tennant won't be playing the actual Doctor he played back
>> when.
>> He might be the clone version of him that lives with Rose in that
>> parallel
>> universe.
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey%27s_End_(Doctor_Who)
>>
>

>It's been noted several times that the pictures of Tennant from the
>set of the special show him wearing the the suit that the Proper
>Doctor wore, not the one that the Handy Doctor wore.
>
>And of course, a man can only own one suit.
>
>But anyway. given that the cliffhanger left the Doctor and Clara lost
>in the Doctor's own timestream, it seems likely that any returning
>cast they show will be "a bit of the Doctor's past that Clara and the
>(present) Doctor have to interact with in order to extricate
>themselves from being lost inside the Doctor's timestream"

I'm guessing that Moffat will skip all that and begin the special with the
Doctor and Clara already restored and roaming the universe once more.

[Stephen Wilson]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:anim8rfsk-725BB...@news.easynews.com...

>>
>> Could be...
>> I was thinking of Clone Doctor because of the involvement of Rose. And
>> Rose
>> specifically.
>> No other companions are mentioned. Nothing about Jack, Martha, Donna or
>> Amy
>> and Rory.
>
> I'll forfeit all the others just for those lovely words, "No Donna"

I think the story would get messy if he tried to include too many Doctors
and companions. And expensive...

[The Doctor]

In article <ZSRnt.68336$9y3....@fx17.am4>,

At the end.

[The Doctor]

In article <_URnt.29513$ru.1...@fx32.am4>,

5 doctors being a good example.

[Wouter Valentijn]

The Doctor wrote:
> In article 519fcee8$0$15961$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl,

<snip>

>>
>> Donna made me like David Tennant's Doctor, for the first time. She
>> was the strongest, the best companion he ever had.
>>
>>
>

> 10x better than ROse.

I concur.

[The Doctor]

In article <51a8fb6d$0$16001$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article 519fcee8$0$15961$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl,
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>> Donna made me like David Tennant's Doctor, for the first time. She
>>> was the strongest, the best companion he ever had.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 10x better than ROse.
>
>I concur.
>

Thank you.

[Ross]

On May 20, 6:21 pm, arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,

>
> Wouter Valentijn <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TARDIS
> >matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>
> Of course there is.  You can stretch the meaning of words to make it true, but
> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>

> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not
> writing for the long term.  It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn't
> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
> part of continuity.

You know that one of the things that The Doctor's Wife made
absolutely, perfectly clear is that the Doctor *thought* that he was
the one who stole the TARDIS.

Which means that however things played out, it would have to be *in
such a way that from the Doctor's perspective, he was the one making
the choice*.

And what we saw was the Doctor making the choice to steal the TARDIS
-- his decision perhaps informed by Clara's input.

There's no stretching or twisting here: if they had shown the TARDIS
stealing the Doctor, *that would have contradicted The Doctor's Wife*
because The Doctor's Wife stated that the Doctor *THINKS* he was the
one who made the choice.

[David Johnston]

That's the TARDIS's point of view, which is no more authoritative than
the Doctor's.

[The Doctor]

In article <56e6c34f-21b8-4f7d...@y5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 6:21=A0pm, arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>>
>> Wouter Valentijn <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

>> >Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the TA=

>RDIS
>> >matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>

>> Of course there is. =A0You can stretch the meaning of words to make it tr=

>ue, but
>> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>>
>> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not

>> writing for the long term. =A0It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn't

>> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
>> part of continuity.
>
>You know that one of the things that The Doctor's Wife made
>absolutely, perfectly clear is that the Doctor *thought* that he was
>the one who stole the TARDIS.
>
>Which means that however things played out, it would have to be *in
>such a way that from the Doctor's perspective, he was the one making
>the choice*.
>
>And what we saw was the Doctor making the choice to steal the TARDIS
>-- his decision perhaps informed by Clara's input.
>
>There's no stretching or twisting here: if they had shown the TARDIS
>stealing the Doctor, *that would have contradicted The Doctor's Wife*
>because The Doctor's Wife stated that the Doctor *THINKS* he was the
>one who made the choice.

Got to love Gaiman.

[The Doctor]

In article <koc0j6$qog$1...@dont-email.me>,

Love the debate!

[Ross]

Yes, but it means that what happened only looks like the TARDIS is
doing the stealing *if you look at it from the TARDIS's point of
view*. It has to happen in such a way that the Doctor can walk away
not realizing that he's been kidnapped by the TARDIS.

[The Doctor]

In article <1e0884ee-542b-4f76...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 1:29=A0am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2013 9:51 PM, Ross wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 20, 6:21 pm, arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>>
>> >> Wouter Valentijn <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

>> >>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which the=

> TARDIS
>> >>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>

>> >> Of course there is. =A0You can stretch the meaning of words to make it=

> true, but
>> >> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>>

>> >> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of no=
>t
>> >> writing for the long term. =A0It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn=

>'t
>> >> bother considering whether it was a good idea to make that a permanent
>> >> part of continuity.
>>
>> > You know that one of the things that The Doctor's Wife made
>> > absolutely, perfectly clear is that the Doctor *thought* that he was
>> > the one who stole the TARDIS.
>>
>> > Which means that however things played out, it would have to be *in
>> > such a way that from the Doctor's perspective, he was the one making
>> > the choice*.
>>
>> > And what we saw was the Doctor making the choice to steal the TARDIS
>> > -- his decision perhaps informed by Clara's input.
>>
>> > There's no stretching or twisting here: if they had shown the TARDIS
>> > stealing the Doctor, *that would have contradicted The Doctor's Wife*
>> > because The Doctor's Wife stated that the Doctor *THINKS* he was the
>> > one who made the choice.
>>
>> That's the TARDIS's point of view, which is no more authoritative than
>> the Doctor's.
>
>Yes, but it means that what happened only looks like the TARDIS is
>doing the stealing *if you look at it from the TARDIS's point of
>view*. It has to happen in such a way that the Doctor can walk away
>not realizing that he's been kidnapped by the TARDIS.

Him and Susan.