Talk:Regeneration (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Edits of 1 December 2006

Just to clarify a few things: as the article says, and this is stated in the "Brief History of Time (Travel)" cite, the idea that the First Doctor rejuvenates, i.e. becomes younger, was in Innes Lloyd's head, so this is not mere opinion. The way The Power of the Daleks uses "rejuvenation" and "renewal" is a very different concept, in context, than "regeneration" was used in The Planet of the Spiders on. In addition, the TARDIS aiding in the renewal is not ambiguous. The exact line of dialogue is: "Renewed? Have I? That's it, I've been renewed. It's part of the TARDIS. Without it I couldn't survive." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that regeneration/renewal/rejuvenation is named differently at different points of the series's history does not mean these are different things (initially, there was only supposed to be one TARDIS; does this now mean that other Gallifreyan time-travel capsules are not TARDISes?). The website [1] says that "Davis posited that, since the Doctor was an alien, he could die and come back to life in a new body; Lloyd expanded on this idea, suggesting that this “renewal” could be a regular ability of the Doctor's, to transform himself from an elderly man to a younger one." So it says he could die, then return in a younger form. This does not say that the younger and older Doctor are the same body. The site's use of 'transform' and 'younger one' suggest this. The site also shows that the two Doctors were envisaged as different, as you have noted in a recent edit: "Hartnell was cheered by the possibility of Troughton being his replacement, and also by the notion that the new Doctor would be characterised much differently from his own version." Besides, it obviously is a regeneration: Troughton looks nothing like a young William Hartnell. Jsteph 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the line is ambiguous. If anything your extended quote more strongly suggests that 'it' refers to regeneration/renewal. Jsteph 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is that what we now call regeneration only solidified into the concept we know it today with The Planet of the Spiders. This is the out-of-universe perspective, not the in-universe one. The way it was envisaged wasn't as a replacement, but as a renewal, a rejuvenation, and that was the way it was presented and taken by the viewing public. In-universe, of course, we can come up with any number of justifications we want to say it's the same concept (which, for fictional consistency, it has to be), but from a out-of-universe perspective its a whole other matter.
And as for the line, by any sensible rule of grammar, the "it" should refer to the last object mentioned, which is the TARDIS, not the renewal. In fact, referring to the TARDIS is more consistent with the in-universe explanation, if one considers the Zero Room. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert anything as I think it's enough to have my objections on this talk page: aside from a claim in Doctor Who Monthly, where are you getting this 'replacement' stuff from? There's no evidence for it on the page you cite - see above - (and 'renewal' is used in The Twin Dilemma too [2], clearly a synonym for regeneration). As for 'it', there is no rule of English that says that a pronoun must refer to the previous noun in the sentence. Consider: 'Bill phoned Fred. He was upset.' (Could be either). Or: "...it's been in the TARDIS ever since I built it..." Jsteph 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of terminology, and again I point out the difference between what was perceived at the time and post facto justifications (hence in-universe as opposed to out-of-universe perspectives). Of course it would be said that a renewal equals regeneration in The Twin Dilemma since this was when regeneration lore was more firmly fixed. However, at the time of The Tenth Planet, the "renewal" was not presented or perceived in the same as the way we understand "regeneration" to mean today. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to agree here. My interpretation is there's little or no evidence from the time that the first change was presented and perceived as something different from what went later. Jsteph 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The table at the bottom

I don't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. Shouldn't the template for "television stories dealing with regeneration" also include Destiny Of The Daleks and Utopia? After all, it doesn't specify the Doctor's regeneration, but regeneration in general. Ed zeppelin 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regeneration Optional

The Master's refusal may have brought up a slight continuity problem. The Seventh Doctor wasn't exactly 'alive' when he regenerated into the Eighth, so if regeneration is a conscious choice, how could the Seventh make it? Of course, easily explained away by saying the body automatically regenerates if the mind is unable to make the choice, just something of note to bring up in the article perhaps?

It could easily be explained as rather than regeneration being optional, not regenerating being an option, that is, the body automatically regenerates on being fatally damaged, but the Time Lord can consciously prevent this process if they want to. Much as Davison's Doctor held back his regeneration for a time in Caves of Androzani. MartinMcCann 11:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
When you are conscious, you can choose to not breathe. Same deal.--Jeffro77 00:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... Only for a time.Theplanetsaturn 01:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That is inherent to the statement. For the time that you are conscious, you can choose not to breathe. If you do that for too long, you will become unconscious, and then you will begin breathing again (so long as there is no other impediment to your breathing other than by choice). Once you are unconscious, the statement is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, "once you are [dead], the statement is irrelevant," i.e., when the Master died his refusal to regenerate should have stopped and he then regenerated from "true" death, as the 7th Doctor did, if that is indeed possible at all. I submit that this part of the 1996 telefilm is the "slight continuity problem" here, as throughout the original (1963-1989) series, there was the repeated and very strong implication that if the Doctor---and by logical extension, any Time Lord---is killed, he or she is dead. Indeed, the implication was applied to the Master (Delgado version, and he was said to have been a classmate of the Doctor's, and therefore supposed to be about the same age, no thought in anybody's mind until well after the actor's death that the character was already in his 13th and final life then) and Romana on occasions. So what the Master does--or refuses to do--in "Last of the Time Lords" is consistent with almost all that came before. Ted Watson 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatal Death

What about the (non-canonical) regenerations in "The Curse of Fatal Death"?--Jeffro77 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What about them? I'm not sure what kind of answer you're after here. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Regen1.gif

Image:Regen1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regeneration control

Regarding this bit:

"The change of appearance forced on the Second Doctor at the end of The War Games suggests that some degree of control over the process can be asserted. The Rani's comment in The Mark of the Rani about being able to choose her forms suggests that the ability may be exclusive to female Time Lords. Doctor Who television writer and script editor Eric Saward suggests in his 1985 novelisation of The Twin Dilemma (1984) that Time Lords can control the appearance of their next body if they trigger the regeneration voluntarily, but not if the regeneration is caused by death or injury."

While I'm not going to much go into how much of this may or may not be OR (Eric Saward is cited, but the other comments seem speculative, based on inferences from episodes and using some weasel words like 'suggests that' and so on), I wanted to point something out...

In the end of Utopia, right before The Master regenerated, he said something about how the Doctor was young and handsome or something to the effect, and how he could also be young and handsome, whereupon he proceeded to become a younger-looking Master than his previous incarnation and, arguably, younger-looking than all his previous incarnations.

Now, saying this MAY have just been co-incidence. He might have been expressing hope or the assumption that with how old his current incarnation was, younger-looking was pretty likely. However, it certainly *seemed* like he decided to do the younger thing quite deliberately. That would contraindicate the idea that controlled regeneration is limited to females, and indicate that it's probably available to all time lords, but the degree of control is limited. Maybe they teach this in time-lord school, and since Romona got a trouple perfect score on her finals (as opposed to the doctor's barely passing 51%), she's so good at it she can use regeneration energy to change the look before the energy 'settles' (the same latent energy sticking around that let David Tennant grow a new hand). The Master and the Rani might just both be better than the Doctor at this, or perhaps he's limited because of his human mitochondrial DNA. 65.87.20.98 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Master's Regenerations?

I can't remember where I read it or heard it (I've only seen bits and pieces of the last three episodes of the new series' 3rd season so it may be in there), but wasn't there something about Time Lords getting sort of "topped up" on regenerations due to them all being recalled for the Time War? That is to say, wouldn't the Master have been given a new cycle of regenerations since he, too, was recalled for the war? Then again, wouldn't this also mean that the Doctor would get another nine regenerations? (Then again, didn't his eighth regeneration occur as a result of the Time War? That would mean he would have received another seven instead...unless they gave a full set of regenerations.)98.161.52.33 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Ged UK (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is, and I believe it might be misleading as it is now. The article says: "In "The Sound of Drums" (2007) the Master is revealed to have been granted a new body by the Time Lords during the Time War with at least one new regeneration." Should that be at least two? If I understand it right, it's saying that he was given the new body of...er, the older guy from the end of the universe, which then had the ability to regenerate once, into the guy that went by Saxon. But that guy had another regeneration, which he chose not to use, for a total of two. Correct? --SoloGecko (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny

Zythe you shouldn't have removed the Jenny subsection. It would be original research to declare either way at this point that she did or did not regenerate. Until we have information from the production team or the program we cannot say either way. The paragraph that was there was open enough to interpretation not to be OR. --GracieLizzie (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Regeneration in the series has always been used to describe Time Lords' change of appearence. The various times when they've recovered from serious injury with such a change (the 3rd Doctor in "Planet of the Daleks" for example) have never been described as such. MartinMcCann (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
While I was last to edit the section, I agree. Granted she's a Time Lord (at least biologically), but she was returned to life in the same personality and appearance; it seems we might as well have Jack on here if we're to include her. While not a Time Lord, he was brought back by the aid of the TARDIS, like Jenny fulfilling a couple conditions for regeneration but passing on others. --Kiarboz (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, this a point of contention in the fandom at the moment (something I sadly can't cite, because the evidence is all on fora) so I think it might be best to include Jenny's "return to life" at least for the time being. Avoiding it is just inviting more OR riddled sections to be added by others. --GracieLizzie (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the problem is that even putting it in here in the first place is OR. On the other hand, if one can find a decent source calling it a regeneration, we could at least include it and perhaps observe something to the effect of "While some sources have called it a regeneration, its exact nature remains unexplained on screen." --Kiarboz (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Main Article?

The section on the [[Doctor (Doctor Who)}Doctor's]] regenerations here links to his main wiki page as the main article on that section, but that section itself links back to here as the main article. Can we decide which one is going to be the primary on that subject and link to the other page in an "additional reading" manner? Personally I say that this one be listed as the main article, and have it link to the other one for additional reading. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)