Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Doctor Who The Name of the Doctor Review with Spoilers
6 views
Skip to first unread message
The Doctor
May 18, 2013, 10:09:56 PM5/18/13
to
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
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
rochrist
May 18, 2013, 10:59:49 PM5/18/13
to
"The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>
>8/10 .
>So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>
>All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>
>So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>
>So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>
>Maybe , maybe not.
>
>Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>8/10 .
>So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>
>All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>
>So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>
>So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>
>Maybe , maybe not.
>
>Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
The Doctor
May 19, 2013, 1:41:05 AM5/19/13
to
David Johnston
May 19, 2013, 1:58:10 AM5/19/13
to
On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <kn9f0e$sbl$1...@dont-email.me>, rochrist <roch...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>
>>> 8/10 .
>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>
>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>
>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>
>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>
>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>
>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>
>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>>
>>
>
> Await. She was needed at some point.
>
Since they're moving on to a new Doctor, River's probably history.
> In article <kn9f0e$sbl$1...@dont-email.me>, rochrist <roch...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>
>>> 8/10 .
>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>
>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>
>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>
>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>
>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>
>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>
>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>>
>>
>
> Await. She was needed at some point.
>
Wouter Valentijn
May 19, 2013, 2:04:11 AM5/19/13
to
rochrist wrote:
> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>
>> 8/10 .
>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>
>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
In a Gumpian way. Cool.
> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>
>> 8/10 .
>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>
>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>
>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>
>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>
>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>
>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>
> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for
> good.
Would be a shame to never see Alex Kingston in that role again.
I would like to see River back.
Or maybe in some other form than we currently know her.
She hinted there would be more.
"Spoilers...." :-)
--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net
Kirk: "My God, Bones... what have I done?"
McCoy: "What you had to do. What you always do: turn death into a fighting
chance to live."
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
liam=mail
The Doctor
May 19, 2013, 2:05:12 AM5/19/13
to
Wouter Valentijn
May 19, 2013, 2:29:08 AM5/19/13
to
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <kn9pdn$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$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>
>>>>> 8/10 .
>>>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>>>
>>>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for
>>>> good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Await. She was needed at some point.
>>>
>>
>> Since they're moving on to a new Doctor, River's probably history.
>
> She is somewhere between last regen and death.
Maybe.
> In article <kn9pdn$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.
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
May 19, 2013, 8:26:53 AM5/19/13
to
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.
Clara. Still White guardian and Key to Time to rescue us from this
Time War debacle.
anim8rFSK
May 19, 2013, 8:27:26 AM5/19/13
to
In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
"Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
"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 ...
> 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.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Stephen Wilson
May 19, 2013, 8:34:19 AM5/19/13
to
"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in message
news:kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me...
John Hurt is only playing the Doctor for the Anniversary Special, alongside
both David Tennant and Matt Smith.
The Doctor
May 19, 2013, 8:46:50 AM5/19/13
to
In article <kF3mt.8894$MQ7....@newsfe18.iad>,
So far to date.
~consul
May 20, 2013, 8:37:36 AM5/20/13
to
'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.
> 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 ...
--
"... 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
May 20, 2013, 10:43:41 AM5/20/13
to
In article <knd574$l84$2...@dont-email.me>,
another TARDIS.
~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
>'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.
>--
another TARDIS.
Ross
May 20, 2013, 11:41:47 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 10:43 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <knd574$l8...@dont-email.me>,
Intelligence broke, Clara's pointing him back at the TARDIS who
"wanted" him after the Great Intelligence manipulated things such that
he nearly stole the next one over instead.
> In article <knd574$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>,
> ~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:
> >'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
> >> "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
> >>> 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.
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
May 20, 2013, 11:44:02 AM5/20/13
to
In article <9904a523-aa8f-4d2c...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> 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=
>said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconcious dec=
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 10:43=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <knd574$l8...@dont-email.me>,
>>
>> In article <knd574$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:
>> >'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
>> >> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>> >>> 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 =
>> >>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
>> >> Ooo, good call ...
>>
>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.
>> >--
>>
>> 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.
>
David Johnston
May 20, 2013, 12:40:01 PM5/20/13
to
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.
May 20, 2013, 1:09:40 PM5/20/13
to
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
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
May 20, 2013, 2:41:21 PM5/20/13
to
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>,
> On 5/20/2013 9:44 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
May 20, 2013, 4:23:56 PM5/20/13
to
The Doctor
May 20, 2013, 4:24:52 PM5/20/13
to
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$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>
>>> 8/10 .
>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>
>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>
>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>
>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>
>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>
>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>
>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>
>Yep. And I'm pretty sure that she's moving to D.C., where she will be
>hanging around with Agent Gibbs and the gang. :)
>
And then she might come back like Tennant.
>rochrist sent the following on 5/18/2013 9:59 PM:
>> "The Doctor" wrote in message news:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>
>>> 8/10 .
>>> So now we know How Clara come to be on Alaska
>>> in the Asylum of the Daleks and in Victorian London.
>>>
>>> All right We even See some past Doctors in action.
>>>
>>> So this is really triggered in 1893 by the Great
>>> Intelligence. This time I hope he is dead for good.
>>> That means the Yeti revival is off:-( ;-)
>>>
>>> So this seance of a conference call , doable?
>>>
>>> Maybe , maybe not.
>>>
>>> Still River is back and so are the dangers.
>>> With River back all hell is bound to break loose.
>>
>> I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>
>Yep. And I'm pretty sure that she's moving to D.C., where she will be
>hanging around with Agent Gibbs and the gang. :)
>
The Doctor
May 20, 2013, 4:25:27 PM5/20/13
to
In article <c85f7f23-98d9-400c...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>s.com>,
>> > Ross =A0<rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Is there really a contradiction with 'The Doctor's Wife' in which =
>the=3D
>> >> TARDIS
>> >>>>>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor? If this still is an=
> ac=3D
>> >> tual
>> >>>>>> truth, could that still mean that Clara eventually will become tha=
>t m=3D
>she =3D
>> >> said in the Doctor's Wife, not so much that she implanted a subconciou=
>s dec=3D
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 12:40=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 9:44 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <9904a523-aa8f-4d2c-b891-3e7d723a8...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroup=
>> On 5/20/2013 9:44 AM, The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>s.com>,
>> > Ross =A0<rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 20, 10:43=3DA0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >>> In article <knd574$l8...@dont-email.me>,
>>
>> >>> 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:
>> >>>> 'tis on this 5/19/2013 8:27 AM, wrote anim8rFSK thus to say:
>> >>>>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>> >>>>>> 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 =
>> >>>>>> Clara pointed out to what would be become /his/ TARDIS.
>> >>>>> Ooo, good call ...
>>
>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
>> >>>> --
>>
>> >>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>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."
Ken Arromdee
May 20, 2013, 6:18:11 PM5/20/13
to
>>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
May 20, 2013, 6:21:21 PM5/20/13
to
In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
Wouter Valentijn <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
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
>matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
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
May 20, 2013, 7:25:27 PM5/20/13
to
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.
>>>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,
>--
The Doctor
May 20, 2013, 7:26:32 PM5/20/13
to
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.
>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.
>--
Stephen Wilson
May 21, 2013, 12:24:13 PM5/21/13
to
"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
> 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.
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
May 21, 2013, 12:24:58 PM5/21/13
to
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:knebd7$g2b$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <kne7f3$8l5$2...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>>
>>River can appear an unlimited number of times since every time she appears
>>it can be from before her death.
>>
>>Making her appear as an image after her death seemed to be a plot
>>device--if
>>she appeared for real instead of as an image, everyone would be wondering
>>why she didn't jump in instead of Clara,
>>--
>
> Similar to the Hartnell projection.
No, not similar at all.
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>I don't think River is back. I actually think she's gone now, for good.
>>
>>River can appear an unlimited number of times since every time she appears
>>it can be from before her death.
>>
>>Making her appear as an image after her death seemed to be a plot
>>device--if
>>she appeared for real instead of as an image, everyone would be wondering
>>why she didn't jump in instead of Clara,
>>--
>
> Similar to the Hartnell projection.
The Doctor
May 21, 2013, 3:51:17 PM5/21/13
to
In article <PcNmt.8598$kF....@newsfe30.iad>,
Mawdryn Undead comes to mind.
Stephen Wilson
May 21, 2013, 7:07:01 PM5/21/13
to
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...?
> 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.
The Doctor
May 21, 2013, 7:32:04 PM5/21/13
to
In article <r6Tmt.39088$v32....@fx11.am4>,
Of the UNIT Time Line mix up.
glad you asked.
glad you asked.
Wouter Valentijn
May 24, 2013, 1:00:30 PM5/24/13
to
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.
> 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.
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.
But I think he was okay with it.....
Wouter Valentijn
May 24, 2013, 1:20:18 PM5/24/13
to
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
May 24, 2013, 2:07:23 PM5/24/13
to
> > "David Johnston" <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote in message
> >>> <rochr...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>> "The Doctor" wrote in messagenews:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> Wouter Valentijnhttp://www.j3v.net
set of the special show him wearing the the suit that the Proper
Doctor wore, not the one that the Handy Doctor wore.
And of course, a man can only own one suit.
But anyway. given that the cliffhanger left the Doctor and Clara lost
in the Doctor's own timestream, it seems likely that any returning
cast they show will be "a bit of the Doctor's past that Clara and the
(present) Doctor have to interact with in order to extricate
themselves from being lost inside the Doctor's timestream"
> >news:kn9pdn$vj2$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> >>> In article <kn9f0e$sb...@dont-email.me>, rochrist
> >> On 5/18/2013 11:41 PM, The Doctor wrote:
> >>> <rochr...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>> "The Doctor" wrote in messagenews:kn9c9k$b7v$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>
> 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
> 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
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"
Wouter Valentijn
May 24, 2013, 3:10:26 PM5/24/13
to
Ross wrote:
> On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Stephen Wilson wrote:
<snip>
> On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> 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)
>>
> 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 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
May 24, 2013, 4:12:55 PM5/24/13
to
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."
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Wouter Valentijn
May 24, 2013, 4:34:42 PM5/24/13
to
anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <519fbb27$0$15952$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
<snip>
> In article <519fbb27$0$15952$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
> "Wouter Valentijn" <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Ross wrote:
>>> On May 24, 1:20 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>> 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
>> 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"
strongest, the best companion he ever had.
The Doctor
May 24, 2013, 4:58:59 PM5/24/13
to
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 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.....
>
The Doctor
May 24, 2013, 5:02:54 PM5/24/13
to
The Doctor
May 24, 2013, 5:03:18 PM5/24/13
to
Stephen Wilson
May 24, 2013, 6:31:18 PM5/24/13
to
"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)
>>
>
>>
>> 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
>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"
Doctor and Clara already restored and roaming the universe once more.
Stephen Wilson
May 24, 2013, 6:33:27 PM5/24/13
to
"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
>> 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"
and companions. And expensive...
The Doctor
May 24, 2013, 7:36:12 PM5/24/13
to
In article <ZSRnt.68336$9y3....@fx17.am4>,
At the end.
The Doctor
May 24, 2013, 7:36:35 PM5/24/13
to
In article <_URnt.29513$ru.1...@fx32.am4>,
5 doctors being a good example.
Wouter Valentijn
May 31, 2013, 3:35:06 PM5/31/13
to
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.
> 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.
>>
>>
>
I concur.
The Doctor
May 31, 2013, 5:11:36 PM5/31/13
to
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.
>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.
>
Ross
May 31, 2013, 11:51:17 PM5/31/13
to
On May 20, 6:21 pm, arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
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.
> 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
> 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.
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
Jun 1, 2013, 1:29:03 AM6/1/13
to
the Doctor's.
The Doctor
Jun 1, 2013, 8:48:32 AM6/1/13
to
In article <56e6c34f-21b8-4f7d...@y5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
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=
>> In article <51987136$0$15982$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
>>
>> Wouter Valentijn <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>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=
>> >matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>
>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
>> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>>
>> Superstar writers brought in on long-running series have a habit of not
>> 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.
>> 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.
The Doctor
Jun 1, 2013, 8:49:21 AM6/1/13
to
Ross
Jun 1, 2013, 10:57:47 AM6/1/13
to
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
Jun 1, 2013, 3:29:32 PM6/1/13
to
In article <1e0884ee-542b-4f76...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Ross <rras...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
>t
>> >> writing for the long term. =A0It's pretty safe to say that Gaiman didn=
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=
>> 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:
> TARDIS
>> >>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>
>> >> Of course there is. =A0You can stretch the meaning of words to make it=
>> >>> matrix stated it was she who stole The Doctor?
>>
> 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=
>> >> taken the normal way one would take it, it's false.
>>
>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.
>> >> 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.
0 new messages