Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Scream of the Shalka

Is the Scream of the Shalka doctor counted as the ninth doctor or is it Christopher Eccleston?

The producers have made it clear that Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor. The REG Doctor has been relegated to non-canonical status. -khaosworks 21:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lots of tweaking

Sorry about the string of edits... I was trying to make the article look better and kept coming up with more changes. -khaosworks 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of "nth" Doctor

I noticed that throughout Wikipedia Dr. Who articles, the numerical adjective used to describe the various regenerations of the Doctor is capitalized (e.g. "Jon Pertwee played the Third Doctor"). This seems a bit odd, as it implies that the number is part of the character's name, when it isn't. One has never heard the character referred to in the program using this scheme (in "The Five Doctors", I don't recall anyone greeting the various Doctors by number). Furthermore, at least on television, I don't believe that it has been made clear whether William Hartnell portrayed the Doctor's first regeneration or not. So the first actor to potray the character may not, in fact, be portraying the Doctor's first regeneration. I'm not a scholar of the post-1989 books, so I perhaps there is more information about the Doctor that justifies the numbering scheme. We also have problems with Richard E. Grant. Maybe we could term him an "Anti-Doctor" (analogous to the Anti-Popes of the Middle Ages). We could use Roman numerals ("Patrick Troughton played the Doctor II"... doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). In any case, I would advocate using lower case, reserving capitals for the name of the character. The same goes for other Time Lords, such as Romana or the Master. However, I won't go willy-nilly making changes until I see some response here. Gwimpey 22:09, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I confess I'm the one who has been using it (and changing it) consistently to Nth Doctor instead of nth Doctor, since that's the way it's most used by fans and in the magazines when distinguishing the various Doctors. It's not something that comes from on-screen usage. For me, using "sixth Doctor" instead of "Sixth Doctor" (for example) is less aesthetically pleasing, as it does not carry the idea that these are not just different actors playing the Doctor but distinct personalities as well. Colin Baker isn't just the sixth person to play the Doctor, or the sixth Doctor on screen, but he is the Sixth Doctor, if you get what I'm trying to say here.
Richard E. Grant has been referred to by general convention now as the REG Doctor or the Shalka Doctor. But I think as long as we note that he was intended to be the Ninth Doctor but is now relegated to non-canonical status, we're fine. Romana I and Romana II are also fan conventions that have been almost universaly used. The Master has never been distinguished by Master I and Master II, just the Ainley or the Delgado Master as the case may be. I know it's not consistent, but I feel we should reflect the consensus usage instead of imposing something artificial. -khaosworks 22:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for Hartnell and whether he was the First Doctor, although The Brain of Morbius implied there were incarnations before him, it was settled once and for all during the Fifth Doctor's era. Since in The Deadly Assassin it was firmly established that Time Lords are limited to twelve generations, in Mawdryn Undead the Doctor has to give up his remaining regenerations to cure Mawdryn's group, and we count eight of them. In The Five Doctors the First Doctor meets the Fifth and asks: "Regeneration?" The Fifth replies, "Fourth." The First exclaims: "Goodness me, so there are five of me now!" So that clinches it. -khaosworks 22:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aha. If that's the consensus, I have no problem with that. And you make a good point re: number of regenerations; I even remember the Hurdnall comment (First Doctor 2.0? :). Gwimpey 04:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Other Doctors

I notice khaosworks has updated this page to point readers to the main Doctor Who and Doctor Who spin-offs articles for information on other Doctors, but neither of those contains all other Doctors from other media.

Wouldn't it make sense to have a section here listing, at least briefly, all the actors to have portrayed the part, so they can be found all together? The list needn't contain much detail; each could be linked to the most appropriate article for more information (e.g. Peter Cushing's and Rowan Atkinson's personal entries, Big Finish Productions for the various Unbound Doctors, etc). Thoughts? - Guybrush 04:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you do up a draft here first? -khaosworks 07:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This proposed revision seems to have fallen by the wayside. Unless anyone objects or wants to see a sandboxed version first, over the weekend I may transfer a large chunk of information from Doctor Who (in particular the Appearances portion) about other Doctors into a new section of this article, along with stuff from Doctor Who spin-offs. --khaosworks 17:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regenerations

So far, we've been linking the word regenerations to The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Changing faces. I think that since now that the information on regenerations in the Time Lord article (Physical characteristics) has been beefed up, we should link non-Doctor regenerations over to that article - specifically Time Lord#Physical characteristics instead. If it's the Doctor's regenerations, of course, the link is still accurate. Unless there are any objections, I'll be doing that for the Master and Romana, and later on as and when I encounter them. --khaosworks 13:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has changed the description of the Hartnell-Troughton regeneration from "rejuvenation" to "renewal". I was actually positive that rejuvenation was the correct term, but a quick Googlesearch, while failing to turn up the exact language used onscreen, reveals that renewal was used several times in production documents but doesn't find any mention of rejuvenation. Anyone know for sure what was said in Tenth Planet or Power of the Daleks?Binabik80 05:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I checked, and the term "renewed" and "renewal" is used in dialogue in Power of the Daleks. -khaosworks 05:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Since the regeneration from Troughton to Pertwee Pertwee to Baker, it has become common for the Doctor to experience a period of instability and partial amnesia following regeneration." Troughton's Doctor complained of not being able to remember crucial information throughout Power of the Daleks. Pertwee's Doctor in Spearhead from Space tells the Brig, "I've lost my memory, you see." So, the instability has been around since the first regeneration. proteus71 15:15, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What if we just say, "The Doctor frequently experiences a period of instability and partial amnesia following regeneration."? That would avoid the problem entirely. —Josiah Rowe 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That works for me. -proteus71 19:08 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Done. —Josiah Rowe 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Eccleston quits

It's official: [1] That didn't take long, however the press release suggests that we'll at least see the regeneration this time, most likely during the announced Christmas special. Maybe the Tenth Doctor will be Santa Claus? 23skidoo 04:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The" vs "the"

Is there any "official" source to confirm whether it is proper to refer to the character as "The Doctor" or "the Doctor"? I have seen it capitalized on many fan sites and in reference books, and in fact I believe capitalizing The to be proper based upon several statements made in the series over the years, in particular a comment from the Tom Baker era (I forget which episode) in which he says something like "I and THE Doctor. The definite article." I believe, as spoken, it implies a capital T. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grammatically, "The Doctor" is incorrect since the article is not a part of his proper name - when he says "the definite article" to Harry Sullivan in Robot, he is refering simply to "the" as a means of distinguishing himself from "a" doctor. The context was that Harry was trying to get the Doctor to rest by saying he was the doctor, and the Doctor retorts, "You may be a doctor, but I am THE Doctor, the definite article, you might say." That's not saying that it's a part of his name. It's not as if the people around him say, "Hello, The Doctor," - it's "Hello, Doctor." The Television Companion, the novels, Big Finish, Doctor Who Magazine, the Discontinuity Guide, the Handbooks, the DVD releases (and those are just the ones I have handy) all use "the Doctor". I have not seen a non-fan reference book that uses "The Doctor" (although there might be typographical errors). Ditto for the Master, the Rani, et al.--khaosworks 14:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen some official publicity material from the BBC using The Doctor. Then again, the BBC also has a habit (recently reacquired, I see) of referring to the character as "Doctor Who", too. 23skidoo 15:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to throw another two cents into the discussion. There is no question that you are right about the grammer of the situation, khaosworks, but doesn't some of the confusion stem from the change in the end credits instituted by John Nathan-Turner, wherein they went from Doctor Who to The Doctor (with the T in 'The' capitalized). My understanding is that emphasizing the use of the term 'the Doctor' (I mean as a concept, not just as the character's title) was a pet project of his anyway. I also feel (without the requisite evidence) that it was one of the changes to the format of the show that he made that was embraced by the fans. It doesn't surprise me that it has been abandoned, 23skidoo, as the history of the show is replete with each production regime wanting to put there own stamp on the series. Often this has meant oblitering what the fans had become used to. The success, or lack of it, is one of the fun things that fans are left to debate over. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
In the pre-Season 18 era, when the Doctor was credited as Doctor Who, it was a proper name. If you look at the credits in those stories, you'll notice Roger Delgado credited as "Master", not "The Master". When we switch to the JNT era, "Doctor Who" becomes "The Doctor" and "Master" becomes "The Master", switching from a proper name to a title. For what it's worth, JNT was at least consistent when it came to denoting how the characters were going to be credited. --khaosworks 17:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't anybody have a grammar & usage book handy? I'm at work now, but I'm pretty sure I have one at home. But if I'm not mistaken, it's "the Doctor", similar to "the Batman". When people speak to him they call him "Doctor", implying that "the" is not part of his name. In contrast, the Homestar Runner character "The Cheat" has "The" as part of it's name, as people say "The Cheat" even when addressing it directly.

Returning to this issue for a moment: Apostrophe recently changed the opening sentence from "The Doctor is the only known name..." to "The Doctor is the only known name..." I suppose that's more consistent with the article's title (and the valid point made by someone who didn't sign above me), but for some reason it seems less accurate. I suppose it's because the article begins in the nominative case, and whenever the character's name is used as the subject of a sentence the article is included ("The Doctor will save the day"). It's only in address (the vocative case, although English doesn't really have one) that the article is dropped ("Doctor, save me!"). I'm not sure if that's a valid argument or not, but my preference would be for the article to begin "The Doctor is...". Anyone have another opinion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to change it back. My thinking is that whether you write "the Doctor" or "The Doctor" depends on rules of punctuation. Ultimately, his full title/name is "the Doctor", and that's how he was credited for 8 years, not as "Doctor". This doesn't mean his name is "The Doctor", I hasten to add. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree both with your interpretation of "the" vs. "The" and your edit to the page. I wasn't actually questioning the capitalization, but the bolding — I just put the comment here because it was (tangentially) related. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Age

I just added a section discussing the Doctor's age. I'm pretty certain his age is never mentioned on screen until the Tom Baker era when its said he's about 450 years old. Does anyone recall if the Hartnell-Troughton-Pertwee Doctors ever mentioned ages? I'm pretty certain the only other references to his age were 900 in "Revelation of the Daleks" and 937 in "Time and the Rani." And the BBC seems to have goofed by stating the Ninth Doctor is only 900 years old (unless the guy is lying about his age). Thoughts? 23skidoo 16:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Troughton said he was about 450 years old. Pertwee implied that he had a life that covered several thousand years (he may have been speaking of a time span he had seen rather than lived through). In the Baker era he was about 750 years old (Pyramids of Mars). By Time and the Rani he is 953 (not 937). In the books, he passed his 1000th birthday during his seventh incarnation and is about thirty years or so past that in the Eighth Doctor books - and in that one, he also physically lives through most of the 20th Century, bringing him to at least about 1,100. Publicity material has said 900 - the Doctor is going to say he's 900. Although the production designer for the TARDIS has said that the Doctor has "900 years experience" piloting the TARDIS, so take that for what it's worth. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who for some style guidelines. We'd like to keep the pages consistent in look so I don't want to seem like I'm always correcting the formating of your entries... it just seems rude. :) -khaosworks 16:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No worries. And I knew some of my numbers were shaky which is why I made sure to draw attention to the additions here and in the edit summary. Good fixes. Cheers. 23skidoo 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is one of those fun Dr Who debates, due to the fact that the continuity of it is so scrambled anyway. The spanner that I always like to throw in to the discussion is that there is no reason to suspect that the Doctor is referring to earth years of 365 days (at least I don't remember a story where he ties his age to this). Sci-Fi is replete with tales meant to break us out of our earthcentric view of life and I like to use the Doctor as one of them. I mention this only in the spirit of fun (i.e. does time spent in a chronic historesus (sp?) count towards a Time Lords overall age?). I'ld like to add that both of you, 23skidoo and khaosworks, do superb work on these pages. MarnetteD | Talk 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
It might be added that in The Mind of Evil Pertwee began to say that he'd been a scientist for "thousands of...", although the unit of measurement is never stated. There really isn't much continuity in this aspect of the story, but it is a fun thing to try to nail down. -RSClark

Ka Faraq Gatri

What is the source of the Daleks' referral to the Doctor by this name? Ravenswood 00:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The novelisation of Remembrance of the Daleks by the scriptwriter Ben Aaronovitch, and taken up in the novels and comic strips (and I believe mentioned in the Big Finish audios). I'll source it. --khaosworks 01:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Time Lord Lifespan

I've just realised, through the latest edit of this page that the Doctor says in the War Games that Time Lord can Live Forever. However, I am sure I have heard Time Lords can only regenerate 12/13 times. What's going on? --bjwebb 14:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Immortality is not the same as invulnerability. "Time Lords can live forever, barring accidents." The longer you live, the chances of you dying in a mishap increase, unless you lock yourself up forever. There is no contradiction. --khaosworks 15:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
So is regeneration always instigated my an accident?
The First Doctor regenerated due to old age, his body had worn out. The Second Doctor was force to regenerate as a punishment from the Time Lords. The rest have been accidents/diseases/radiation etc. so far--TimPope 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
And we don't know for certain why the First Doctor "wore out" either. Perhaps his body was simply weaker to start with and his subsequent regenerations were hardier. 23skidoo 19:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was intended by Gerry Davis in The Tenth Planet that it was the energy drain from Mondas that was the problem, but it didn't come across clearly. --khaosworks 19:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget he'd also - probably by coincidence as far as the production team was concerned, but it's a nice little tie-in for us fans - been aged several decades, possibly centuries, by the Time Destructor on Kembel at the end of The Daleks' Master Plan. Angmering 11:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I seem to remember Romana regenerated out of her own free choice (and having some control over her regenerated appearance). Although it has been a very long time since I've watched any of those old episodes. Rje 01:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Changing Fashion and the Titanic reference

Hi, in your excellent article, you cite the photo of the Daniels Family of Southampton as evidence that the Ninth Doctor may occasionally change costume to 'blend in'. However, given the similarity of his garb in that photo to that of the Eighth Doctor, is it not quite possible that this was intended to show the point at which he 'regenerated' - especially as the 'Titanic' reference is then followed up in Episode 2 as well ("It wasn't half cold") ? User:Jamie B 22:36, 13 June 2005

It is possible, but there is no evidence to say that he went on the Titanic, especially since the Daniels didn't go on board. No evidence to say he didn't either, admittedly, so it's speculative. In addition, the photograph was taken before the Titanic's sailing. --khaosworks 21:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

End of Ninth Doctor Era

Do we know whether the Ninth Doctor will be in the Christmas special or not for certain. I am refering to the edit by an annonymous user who changed end of 2005 to 18th June 2005. --bjwebb 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't. The only thing we know for certain is that Tennant will be in the Christmas Special. I'm reverting until we have a confirmation one way or the other. --khaosworks 20:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as the season finale airs this weekend we should know soon, although I'm actually going to remove this article from my watchlist for the next couple weeks as we Canadian viewers won't see the finale for a couple weeks yet and I don't want to be spoiled (likewise regarding the resolution of the "bad wolf" storyline). 23skidoo 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images of Doctor regenerations

Maybe the images in the Brain of Morbius are incarnations of The Other as the Doctor was created from his genetic material by the looms. (Of course you have to count Lungbarrow as canon.) Any thoughts? --bjwebb 18:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think they're the Doctor. But could they all be the First Doctor? DavidFarmbrough 22 Jul 2005

  • Those images are not The Doctor. The first thing we see in the display is Morbius in his brain tank, followed Morbius as he was in the bust. Only then do we see Tom Baker, so why would no more Morbiuses appear? See more here

The Doctor's CV

Must be interesting filling out the details.

Title: Doctor

Name: (None)

Age: (several hundred years - of which x spent in present incarnation)

etc.

Affiliated with: None?

Isn't the Doctor "Affiliated with" the Humans? DavidFarmbrough 22 Jul 2005

Debatable. Ditto the Time Lords. Or anybody else. Actually, he's probably affiliated with the Universe, if anything. :) --khaosworks 13:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor's parents (maybe)?

The novels, most recently The Gallifrey Chronicles, have given us glimpses of the Doctor's possible parents: the Englishwoman Penelope Gate (first seen in The Room With No Doors) and the Time Lord Ulysses (who may be Daniel Joyce from Vampire Science). Should they be included here, or somewhere (with the usual caveats about canonicity, of course)? --Josiah Rowe 18:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Joyce turns out to be Professor Chronotis in Unnatural History, not that rules him out I suppose. Let's not forget brother Irving either… --TimPope 19:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Does he? I'd forgotten that. Perhaps I should re-read it... —Josiah Rowe 20:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd more-or-less forgotten this conversation from about a month ago when I posted at Talk:Professor Chronotis#Daniel Joyce?. The same question stands: should Ulysses and Penelope (isn't that just too clever?) be included in this article, or somewhere else? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor and romance

I've added this section since the idea of the Doctor as a sexless creature is, IMO, quite notable. I've even worked in a very vague allusion to Ulysses and Penelope. I now unleash the hordes of Wikipedia editors on it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What number Doctor are we REALLY at (and how many more to go)?

Supposedly David Tennent is the Tenth doctor, but is it likely that he went 900 years without a regeneration, and then NINE regenerations in forty years? What was he doing for the first 900 years of his life to allow himself to stay so trouble-free - twiddling his thumbs?

In which case, maybe the Doc has now reached the end of his regenerations? Which brings me to my next point - why exactly are the Timelords limited to 12 regenerations? If that was a 'law' passed for population control, then presumably the deaths of the rest of them negates that ruling. Or perhaps its like in Highlander, and timelords absorb the power of their dead relatives (in which case the Doctor would have millions of regenerations left). Just seems a shame to have the Doc run out anytime soon.

There are several things to note here. One is that the last 40 years (or 27 years) are what we have seen of the Doctor, but they are not the only adventures he has had. See Doctor (Doctor Who)#The Doctor's age for that. Secondly, yes, it is firmly established that William Hartnell was the First Doctor, the original, and David Tennant is the Tenth; but see also Doctor (Doctor Who)#The Doctor's regenerations for more on that. Thirdly, the 12 regeneration limit was first stated in The Deadly Assassin as a hard limit, not a law. The exact quote goes something like, "After 12 regenerations, nothing can prevent death," but see also Time Lord#Physical characteristics for possible exceptions. In any case, any writer worth his salt can get around the 12 regeneration limit. I myself can think of at least four (or five) distinct ways around it given the facts as established. I wouldn't worry too much. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Do we actually have evidence that there were no Doctors between McGann and Eccleston? Algr 08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, only Russell T. Davies' assertion that Christopher Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor and romance reversions

I reverted the expansion - and I believe we've gone through this before - because I cannot think it can honestly be said that Sarah, Peri or Tegan were "openly shown" to be attracted to the Doctor. At best, there were only very, very subtle hints and even then I would hesitate tremendously to characterise it that way. Peri was only with the Fifth Doctor on screen for two stories, there was nothing with the Sixth Doctor, Tegan and the Fifth Doctor bickered all the time, and even Elisabeth Sladen is on record as saying that Sarah and the Doctor were "best friends" and never goes beyond that. In the commentary for the DVD of The Ark in Space Sladen goes to far as to comment about how they managed to make the chemistry non-sexual. Romana, yes (the most blatant example being in State of Decay where the Doctor tells her how wonderful she is), but the others, no.

I hasten to add that my objection here is not from a standpoint of a person who sees the Doctor as sexless (I have no problems with the various kisses, for example). I simply don't see it being strong enough in these cases to warrant such a phrasing. I would like very specific examples to be cited if this is to be argued. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I can't say I've ever seen Sarah in particular having an attraction to the Doctor, but neither Tegan nor Peri show any sign. Grace does (although she's not a companion IMO), Romana may do and Rose and Jack possibly do, but that's it. --Whouk (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the argument for Doctor-companion romance in "classic" Who (excepting Romana) is tenuous. I added the comment about the production team playing up the characters' sexiness though, because it wasn't just the press that was responsible for that. JN-T in particular tried to have it both ways, putting the companions in skimpy costumes but forbidding Peter Davison to touch them onscreen. I suppose his thought was that it was OK to sexualize the companions as long as the Doctor never showed an interest in them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, because, as the cliché goes, they weren't for the Doctor to oogle, but for the Dads to keep watching after the sports results. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I happen to disagree and could probably come up with some examples if I had time. I remember there being some fan chatter over Timelash in which Peri appears to almost say "I love you" at one point to The Doctor (I was skeptical about that till I finally saw the episode and, yes it could be interpreted that way). The Romana relationship is defintely one up for debate, but I recall reading somewhere that Tom Baker stated there was something going on between the two characters; granted, he could be referring to his real-life relationship with Lalla Ward though I thought his comments dated back to Mary Tamm's tenure as Romana. The fact the Doctor had feelings for Jo Grant is explicitly indicated at the end of The Green Death when she departs to "marry some bloke she just met" (to borrow a phrase from the BBC retrospectives). That, and Romana, are the only examples I can think of in TOS where the Doctor seemed to display the attraction; in the other cases I saw it as being more or less just on behalf of the companions since the Doctor's character prevented anything else from occurring. 23skidoo 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Regenerating standing up?

Minor point - it's mentioned that Parting of the Ways was the first time the Doctor regenerated standing up. Are you sure he wasn't standing when the Time Lords regenerated him at the end of War Games? I haven't seen that episode in more than 10 years so I can't recall if he was sitting or standing at the time. 23skidoo 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We never did see him regenerate at all in The War Games, just Troughton receding into darkness as the faces swirled around him, and saying he was getting giddy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I also recall him starting to make faces, as if his face was being altered. However that might also have been Troughton mugging. Of course if one subscribes to the Season 6B theory, this wasn't a lead-up to regeneration at all... 23skidoo 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

When regenerations meet

I'm going to be not-bold and make my suggestions here :-)

This has occurred three times to date on the television series (The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors and The Two Doctors), and numerous other times in various literary and audio spin-offs.

Should we list, canon or otherwise, The EastEnders Play here?

It has has been suggested in fanon that the Time Lords erased the Doctor's memory after such encounters, however in The Five Doctors, the Third Doctor accurately describes the appearance of his fourth incarnation (suggesting the two may have met in an unchronicled adventure).

I hadn't heard the theory that the Time Lords erased their memories. I always assumed the lesser effect of the BLE as applied to Time Lords in different incarnations was that the earlier incarnation lost his memory - rather than there being a big explosion. A much bigger problem is the predestination paradox in The Two Doctors because the Sixth Doctor rescues his earlier incarnation.

I thought the implication of that line in The Five Doctors was that Pertwee is interpreting what Sarah Jane is trying to describe, but I'd have to watch it again to check. —Whouk (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time doesn't really count, because the different incarnations of the Doctor do not actually cross paths, although the Fourth Doctor is able to send them a message. The erasure theory is just one that I remember being kicked around back in the day (I'd be surprised if a novel or Big Finish audio hasn't tried to address it but I'm less familiar with them), and the Third Doctor's exchange with Sarah Jane: "But, you changed." "All teeth and curls? Well, it hasn't happened ... yet." is a pretty explicit reference to the Fourth Doctor. I agree the predestination paradox should be noted as well. 23skidoo 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair point about DiT. I'll try to have a look at The Five Doctors later (I wanted to check a quote too). I vaguely remember Sarah Jane doing "teeth and curls" hand signals. —Whouk (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've just checked - Sarah makes "teeth and curls" hands gestures, which the Doctor interprets. At least, that's the simplest explanation. —Whouk (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm...guess someone beat me to the discussion page...anywho, Sarah clear makes pantomine motions to her teeth and hair, prompting the 3rd Doctor to make the "teeth and curls" comment. Anything else--i.e. positing that the 4th and 3rd Doctors have met some time before--is fan speculation and when weighed against the onscreen evidence just doesn't belong in this article. DonQuixote 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
What I'd like to know is how someone supposedly as intelligent as the Doctor would interpret someone pointing at her head as meaning "curls". For all we know, she might have meant "brunette" or "bald" for that matter. That said, the novelization does have Sarah, not the Doctor, saying the "teeth and curls" line which supports the rumor that Pertwee asked to be able to speak the line (though I'd like to know the source of that -- I'd never heard that trivia item before). In any event, it still needs to be acknowledged otherwise someone will just add it back later. I'm going to put back a modified version. 23skidoo 20:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Her actions are more demonstrative than just pointing at her head. And when it comes to interpreting it, it's not as if the Doctor hasn't at times shown a propensity for telepathy :-) —Whouk (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Dicks says it on the DVD commentary, which is appropriately sourced in note 15 of The Five Doctors. I don't want to mention this in the main article, but in the Virgin New Adventures, particularly Christmas on a Rational Planet by Lawrence Miles, reference is made to a dangerous and disapproved of game called "Eighth Man Bound" that was played by young Time Lords on Gallifrey, where the player tries to see his possible future incarnations and running the risk of regeneration, death or random genetic rearrangement. The name "Eighth Man Bound" comes from the fact that the maximum number of incarnations any player has been able to see is eight (a record rumoured to have been equalled by a member of the Prydonian Academy, but the Doctor denies he'd have ever played such a reckless and irresponsible game, oh definitely not). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If nothing else, it's a self-referential joke. Sarah pointing to her teeth and hair with the Doctor then commenting "teeth and bald", or whatever, isn't as funny as "teeth and curls". Besides, "teeth and curls" is a common English phrase, much more so than "teeth and bald", etc. DonQuixote 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors

Just a observation. (And spoiler alert for Christmas Invasion). I think it's unlikely the Doctor wouldn't have had access to a mirror inside the TARDIS because The Christmas Invasion has him checking out his "new look" in one. The idea of the Doctor checking himself out in a mirror while changing his outfits is something of a tradition in the series. One bit of fun speculation (which actually works) is that the Doctor could have recently had a haircut! ("Could have been worse -- look at the ears!") ;) 23skidoo 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Or spent some time in a monastic order that forbade objects of vanity like mirrors... in Lancashire. ;) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My assumption is that this isn't the first time he's seen himself - it's just that he's unsatisfied with how he looks, and keeps checking himself to see if he's getting used to it, or to find something good about it. (Just like you'd do after a bad haircut.) How's that? --Brian Olsen 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Renewal

Much of the specifics for the new "renewal" paragraph come from the Tomb of the Cybermen DVD -- in particular the running note feature present on most (if not all) classic-series DVDs. If someone wants to cite specifics (for instance the First Doctor's intended age versus the Second Doctor's revealed age), go right ahead.

As for the two exceptions to the general trend -- well. Both the Troughton-Pertwee and the Davison-Baker regenerations were kind of unusual. In all other cases, the pattern has been true. Also perhaps incidentally, Davies recently went on record about how he didn't think older Doctors were viable anymore -- though he framed it more as a demographics issue. --Aderack 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)