Doctor Who!!~

[Dana Scully]

There's a difference between letting a city die and letting an entire species die.

Agreed, but there's now no reason he can't go back and save Pompeii by pocket-universing it. Or pocket-universe every town/planet/solar system that according to history was 'destroyed'.

But... the entire plan in EoT literally wouldn't work if the big boom were inescapable. At all. If it's really an inescapable, fixed point in time, then the Time Lords being defeated is a foregone conclusion and there is no dramatic tension in EoT whatsoever. If Rassilon's plan has even the remotest chance of succeeding then it's actually a case where time can still be rewritten, in which case the boom isn't inescapable. So as far as I can tell, either this is a plot hole in RTD's writing or it's just an example of him retconning himself. Either way it's a case where the show has been inconsistent and it's not surprising Moffat went with the later and more detailed established chronology of events.

But even with this 'retcon' the end result was the same: Gallifrey burned and all the Time Lords with it. It's similar to Waters of Mars, where the events of the fixed point change but all the important aspects remain (namely...Adeline? the captain lady dying) and therefore the conclusion (the granddaughter exploring space) is still the same. The plots in both cases are sort of retconned, but the character development (Doctor destroying Gallifrey/captain lady sacrificing herself) is not.

With DotD, a similar plot-retcon happens where events change but end result is the same (Time War ends, as far as the Doctor's concerned he destroyed Gallifrey). The problem is that it also retcons the character - the Doctor no longer pushed the button, which is a Big Deal in terms of his character. In-universe it doesn't matter because he still thinks he killed all his people, but out-of-universe it completely undermines any emotional response I as a viewer have to his guilt in S1-7. I appreciate that this doesn't bother everyone, but for me it really does ruin pretty much all of Nine and Ten's arcs.

Take a third option, as he's always done. Again, the idea that the character wouldn't find another way, especially after he's had an additional four hundred years to think about it and revisit his own actions, always rang false.

...

I agree that sometimes there isn't always a third option in real life. But on the other hand DW isn't real life, and it's also pretty unbelievable that after four hundred years of thinking a character as resourceful as the Doctor wouldn't come up with one for the action he believes he's committed that he has come to loathe himself for more than any other in his entire life.

ngl "science fiction isn't real life" is one of my pet peeves. You're right, of course, it's not real life, which is why it's as entertaining as it is, but it still needs to be relatable. Like you said, in life there isn't always a third option, and it was nice to see that reflected in the narrative.

As I said before, if the Doctor had spent 400 years coming up with a plan to save Gallifrey I would've been fine with it - it's that he apparently never destroyed it at all I have an issue with.

since the plot of the sixth series centred around the idea that the Doctor was going to die at the end of it, and the only reason he didn't die at the end is because no one had ever seen what they thought they had.

off-topic sorta but did they ever explain how the Teselecta!Doctor mimicked regeneration energy? I've always wondered about that.

Did you seriously just ignore LITERALLY the next thing I wrote after that, where I explain that the intent is different - which is addressed in DotD, but the immediate consequences are the same, and the long-term potential is different? Sure it seems like I'm being unreasonable if you're cherry picking quotes and cutting them off to make it look like I'm saying something different than I really am.

He's still the same person, who made the same decision, suffered the same consequences, and is now dealing with a different version of those same consequences, where failing to find them is equivalent to him killing them again (Schrödinger's Gallifrey).

I still had this on my mind It wasn't clear to me in your later post that you were agreeing that it's not the same thing, but with the way you worded it here I see what you're getting at.

*sigh*

See, this is why I explained how Time Travel works in Doctor Who previously...

Believe it or not I do understand how time travel works on the show. :/

The Moment says, "Do you want to see who you become if you burn Gallifrey?" (paraphrase) If you're a trans-temporal entity - it's not an IDEA, it's a reality. She brought him to see the reality of who he became as a result of that action.

Yes, she brings him to see Ten and Eleven, both of whom the War Doctor calls great men. But she never brings him to any sort of reality where Gallifrey burns. All she ever shows him are projections of the children of Gallifrey dying in the Dalek assault (currently happening at the time, so basically a live newscast) or the children emerging into the sun (whatwill happen if the Doctor saves Gallifrey, as there will no longer be any Daleks blasting people with lasers).

Up until he actually rewrites his timeline by passing through his own timestream, Gallifrey burned by his hand. His timeline doesn't have a burned Gallifrey in it anymore, because he changed those events with his future selves, BECAUSE of who he became by burning it. Again, "no more" NOT "never."

He's not rewriting his timeline. Gallifrey never burned. Moffat himself says as much in that interview. His future selves changed events because they think they burned it. (Which is all very stupid, imo, but that's neither here nor there.) "No more" was the Doctor being 100% done with the Time War/chosen for its word play value in conjunction with Gallifrey Falls, not some reference to Gallifrey burning once upon a time.

Yes, because 1) This is what he would have knowledge of because in DotD he's not moving parallel to his own timestream, and thus only the latest version of himself retains the knowledge of altering his own past and 2) depending on if you're looking at the progression of the events in the NuWho Series as being the Doctor's timestream, rather than his timeline - it's still true.

Example: In Clara's timestream, she entered the Heart of the TARDIS. In Clara's timeline, she never entered the Heart of the TARDIS. Saying Gallifrey never burned because of DotD is like saying that Clara never died in the Heart of the TARDIS, because she prevented it with her intervention.

Both events happened.

1) As explained above, no, Gallifrey did not burn. Nothing in the episode suggests it did. Moffat himself says it didn't.
2) I'm not sure where you're getting all this timestream stuff? From what I recall, it's just essentially another word for timeline, except that the speed at which it moves is different (ie, Girl Who Waited). Anyways, Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS was based entirely upon a giant reset button, which...was not a thing in DoTD? so I don't think the analogy works.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

"Doctor Who": The relatable, heartfelt journey of a man who spent seven seasons/400+ years making up for something he never did in the first place. Riveting.

My point is that if Rassilon can come up with a plan to escape the time lock and the destruction of Gallifrey then that makes it clear that the destruction of Gallifrey already wasn't inescapable. So because of this Moffat's retcon... isn't as big of a retcon as people are acting like it is.

If the notion of whether the capability to avoid destruction were at all the issue, you'd be right. Unfortunately for all of us, whether the show has anything valuable to mirror from real life was the question.

The answer, sadly, is now "no."

 

[Ⓐaron]

Agreed, but there's now no reason he can't go back and save Pompeii by pocket-universing it. Or pocket-universe every town/planet/solar system that according to history was 'destroyed'.

I thought it was pretty apparent from the episode that the only reason he was able to pocket-universe Gallifrey was because of the Moment's intervention. Other time-locked events won't have that. Not to mention that if he goes back and visits other events he's already been to he runs the risk of unravelling the fabric of time.

But even with this 'retcon' the end result was the same: Gallifrey burned and all the Time Lords with it.

That's... not really plainly established. If the Time Lords could escape once then it is clear from the events of that episode that the conclusion of Gallifrey burning is not set in stone, while The End of the World made it seem like it was.

It's similar to Waters of Mars, where the events of the fixed point change but all the important aspects remain (namely...Adeline? the captain lady dying) and therefore the conclusion (the granddaughter exploring space) is still the same. The plots in both cases are sort of retconned, but the character development (Doctor destroying Gallifrey/captain lady sacrificing herself) is not.

With DotD, a similar plot-retcon happens where events change but end result is the same (Time War ends, as far as the Doctor's concerned he destroyed Gallifrey). The problem is that it also retcons the character - the Doctor no longer pushed the button, which is a Big Deal in terms of his character. In-universe it doesn't matter because he still thinks he killed all his people, but out-of-universe it completely undermines any emotional response I as a viewer have to his guilt in S1-7. I appreciate that this doesn't bother everyone, but for me it really does ruin pretty much all of Nine and Ten's arcs.

What prevents this from bothering me at all is that, as I mentioned above, the episode makes it very plain that without Clara and the Moment's intervention, he still would have pushed the button and burned Gallifrey. He can't absolve himself of guilt because if he had been left to his own device, he would still have done what he always blamed himself most for. This is not something he is just going to get over in a week.

ngl "science fiction isn't real life" is one of my pet peeves. You're right, of course, it's not real life, which is why it's as entertaining as it is, but it still needs to be relatable. Like you said, in life there isn't always a third option, and it was nice to see that reflected in the narrative.

As I said before, if the Doctor had spent 400 years coming up with a plan to save Gallifrey I would've been fine with it - it's that he apparently never destroyed it at all I have an issue with.

But the only reason he never destroyed it at all is because he spent 400 years angsting about what he thought he did and realised he needed to find a better way (plus Clara and the Moment's intervention). It's a stable time loop. His actions as Eleven are the direct consequence of the guilt he felt over what he thought he did as the War Doctor. In other words, his belief still results in exactly the same character development, but after hundreds of years of suffering over it he finally came to the conclusion that he couldn't live with what he thought his actions were and finally went back and did it again.

Of course that's not realistic, but Doctor Who is a show about time travel and it's not like we have time travel in the real world. And it's not as if this means that every single instance where there is a tough choice the Doctor will always be able to find a third option. As I mentioned above, the only reason he was able to do so in this case was due to the interference of the Moment.

off-topic sorta but did they ever explain how the Teselecta!Doctor mimicked regeneration energy? I've always wondered about that.

I always just assumed that the Teselecta just took on the characteristics of whichever species it mimicked, but I could be wrong. According to the Tardis wiki it can resemble anyone whose likeness it scans and it "barely got singed" after being burnt on a pyre at Lake Silencio.

If the notion of whether the capability to avoid destruction were at all the issue, you'd be right. Unfortunately for all of us, whether the show has anything valuable to mirror from real life was the question.

The answer, sadly, is now "no."

Don't be dramatic. Just because the Doctor was able to find an alternate course of action that averts any severe harm in this specific case (after four hundred years of loathing himself for it and only after input from his companions) doesn't mean he'll always be able to. That would be boring storytelling, and if there's one thing Doctor Who hasn't been lately it's boring.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

You're right, I am being dramatic. Perhaps overly so. But unless a future scenario where The Doctor has no third option somehow rivals the inner turmoil he felt over this, we're never going to see something else that had as much value.

And Moffat made it clear in that interview that he isn't going to let The Doctor make a hard choice like that anyway.

Some of us have had to make tough, unfair calls that stick with us every day, that make us question whether we deserve to be happy years after the fact, that make us doubt whether we can be classified as good people. For people like us, The Doctor was somewhere to turn to believe in the answer to those questions still being "yes" no matter how much our hearts told us "no."

So, yeah, I'm probably being dramatic, but Steven Moffat took away my fucking hero. My Doctor was the one who made me believe it was okay to be me.

 

[Ⓐaron]

And Moffat made it clear in that interview that he isn't going to let The Doctor make a hard choice like that anyway.

Only if you take an article on freaking Buzzfeed at face value which doesn't even print the interviewer's questions. There's no telling how out of context those remarks are. Look at the rest of Moffat's run. Has there been any shortage of hard choices the Doctor's been forced to make throughout the last four years? Because if you think there has been I have to wonder whether we've even been watching the same show.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Buzzfeed is hardly the only source quoting him saying that. Here's more context to his comments:

http://m.digitalspy.com/british-tv/...s-50th-gallifrey-zygons-and-billie-piper.html

I also have to seriously question a couple of other comments from him:

It was fascinating when Doctor Who first came back that he was this war survivor dealing with guilt and rage - that was his story. Of course, he slowly gets over that and then there's a danger that he just becomes about... farting about a bit, which starts to take some of the baseline out of the show somehow. So we've given him something to pitch for.

Hasn't the baseline of the show always been The Doctor farting around?

How does anyone think this guy gets it? How did he end up in charge?

I thought that the story of Rose - which is beautiful - was done. I didn't want to add to it and I didn't feel qualified to - that was always Russell's story. But we did want Billie.

But Stevie did feel qualifed to take a big steamin' one all over Russell's biggest contribution to the mythos.

 

[Ⓐaron]

The baseline of the show has always been the Doctor going where the TARDIS takes him and saving the day from whatever alien threat happens to be looming over innocent people. That really doesn't qualify as "farting around" by my definition. Maybe you have a different one that incorporates a lot more danger, but if so, all I can say is your life must be a lot more exciting than mine.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of episodes of the classic show had overriding structure to them - Trial of a Time Lord was about the threat faced by the Valeyard, The Key to Time was a search for the eponymous artefact, and so on. The politics of Time Lord society had a lot to do with many of them as well. I always thought the Doctor worked really well as a foil to the rather stodgy, generally hands-off Time Lord society (granted there was that one time they started the whole Time War... but that's another story) and it looks to me like the "last survivor of a missing race" angle, which has been done thousands of times before in science fiction, had been carried out about as far as it could be. There's a lot to be said for not letting a long-running show rest on its laurels and carry the same angle too far.

And ok, he's been asked why he brought back Gallifrey. Moffat is pretty clearly referring to the idea of the Doctor destroying his own people, and I have to say his assessment that he wouldn't do that doesn't strike me as an inaccurate reading of the character at all. Because, again, think back to when he had the opportunity to destroy the Daleks by just touching a couple of pieces of copper wire together and, after much navel-contemplation, refused to do so. The idea that he would refuse to destroy a race of omnicidal maniacs and yet somehow kill literally every other living member of his species is indefensible no matter what the Time Lord Council was doing - especially because, as the episode itself makes plain (and The End of Time already implied), so many of them were innocents.


I also want to respond to this:

Some of us have had to make tough, unfair calls that stick with us every day, that make us question whether we deserve to be happy years after the fact, that make us doubt whether we can be classified as good people. For people like us, The Doctor was somewhere to turn to believe in the answer to those questions still being "yes" no matter how much our hearts told us "no."

Nothing in this episode changes that. If the Doctor had been left to his own devices, even after four hundred years with a chance to redo his greatest regret, the episode makes it plain that he still would have done it again. It was only because of the intervention of Clara and the Moment that he was persuaded to look at the situation from another perspective. If Clara hadn't reminded him of who he'd promised to be, he would have let go of that promise.

The only way I can square Moffat's comments in the interview with the events in the episode itself are that Moffat must be referring to the fact that the Doctor deliberately surrounds himself with people who keep him grounded, as Donna recommended in "The Runaway Bride", because otherwise his comments directly contradict with what he wrote in the episode itself, or else he was just simply misquoted. Again, we've seen what happened in "The Waters of Mars" when he didn't have a companion and it wasn't pretty.

Also it's pretty obvious that the Doctor won't have the most powerful weapon (which happens to be sentient and be gifted with a conscience) advising him on his actions in future episodes so the idea that he'll be this omnipotent going forward seems unlikely.

 

[Ⓐaron]

I also have to confess I really don't get why you two are obsessing so much over what Moffat says in interviews when he is utterly notorious for lying about the show (to the point where the fandom has "Rule one: Moffat lies" as one of its mottos). What's in the show itself is a lot more important than interviews in which he very well might not be telling the truth in the first place.

And for that matter Moffat is almost as notorious for trolling as he is for lying.

 

[Ⓐaron]

 

[Dana Scully]

I thought it was pretty apparent from the episode that the only reason he was able to pocket-universe Gallifrey was because of the Moment's intervention. Other time-locked events won't have that. Not to mention that if he goes back and visits other events he's already been to he runs the risk of unravelling the fabric of time.

He didn't actually use the Moment at all though - it allowed Ten/Eleven to enter the time-lock, but otherwise all it did in the episode was project scenes of the war and take the War Doctor on a bit of a tour. The pocket-universe solution came about via the Zygon translator, his sonic screwdriver, and the fact that there were multiple Doctors (who all somehow knew to come to Gallifrey? Wish that had been explained). All things that could, conceivably, be used again.

Besides, Pompeii and the like aren't time-locked, just fixed points. And while there's well-established risks to visiting places he's already been, he has a history of doing it occasionally anyways. Besides, it could have been that he saved Pompeii all along and had just forgotten about it

That's... not really plainly established. If the Time Lords could escape once then it is clear from the events of that episode that the conclusion of Gallifrey burning is not set in stone, while The End of the World made it seem like it was.

Hm, I see where you're coming from, but I think due to the nature of fixed points the Doctor stopping them was an inevitability. For example, Pompeii: a fixed point that turned out the be a direct result of the Doctor interfering. Meanwhile, in Waters of Mars, the Mars base blew up regardless of the Doctor's intervention.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is if the Time Lords attempt to escape was just another point along the path to Gallifrey burning it doesn't matter. What matters with fixed points is the conclusion, not the events leading up to it.

I hope that all makes sense, lol, I feel like it was worded terribly.

What prevents this from bothering me at all is that, as I mentioned above, the episode makes it very plain that without Clara and the Moment's intervention, he still would have pushed the button and burned Gallifrey. He can't absolve himself of guilt because if he had been left to his own device, he would still have done what he always blamed himself most for. This is not something he is just going to get over in a week.

I will be genuinely shocked if Moffat pays any acknowledgement to his feelings regarding almost pushing the button.

But the time loop isn't the thing I or Tres have an issue with. It's the fact that all that character development is based upon his guilt for something he...never did, lol jk doctor you saved the day after all! Yes I realize this is subjective. I realize you and X feel differently, and I envy you that because I literally had to spend days coming up with a headcanon that would allow me to continue watching the show (and more importantly watch S1-4 without them being ruined for me).

Only if you take an article on freaking Buzzfeed at face value which doesn't even print the interviewer's questions. There's no telling how out of context those remarks are. Look at the rest of Moffat's run. Has there been any shortage of hard choices the Doctor's been forced to make throughout the last four years? Because if you think there has been I have to wonder whether we've even been watching the same show.

Nothing even comes close to the hard choice that was Gallifrey, though. Or even Pompeii.

And in regards to "Doctor Who hasn't been boring lately" - idk man every time I hear IT'S THE DOCTOR'S DARKEST HOUR now I just roll my eyes, it's been his darkest hour every finale since S5. Like there's this constant OMG THE DOCTOR COULD DIE in all of them when everyone knows he won't? Trenzalore for this Xmas special is the case in point, really: 'the place where I die' um except we already saw Twelve plus random future Tom Baker Doctor. All of Series 6 was that too, trying to ramp up tension about the Doctor dying, but all I felt was mild curiousity as to how they'd write it so that he'd inevitably survive.

All personal taste, of course.

The baseline of the show has always been the Doctor going where the TARDIS takes him and saving the day from whatever alien threat happens to be looming over innocent people. That really doesn't qualify as "farting around" by my definition.

This is actually exactly how I'd define "farting around" in regards to the Doctor.

and it looks to me like the "last survivor of a missing race" angle, which has been done thousands of times before in science fiction, had been carried out about as far as it could be. There's a lot to be said for not letting a long-running show rest on its laurels and carry the same angle too far.

I think the Time Lords could make for interesting villains and allies going forward, as they have in the past. I also think there are tons of ways they could've allowed the Time Lords to return without retconning the Doctor's decision to destroy them in the first place.

And ok, he's been asked why he brought back Gallifrey. Moffat is pretty clearly referring to the idea of the Doctor destroying his own people, and I have to say his assessment that he wouldn't do that doesn't strike me as an inaccurate reading of the character at all. Because, again, think back to when he had the opportunity to destroy the Daleks by just touching a couple of pieces of copper wire together and, after much navel-contemplation, refused to do so.

He refused to do it in PotW because he had already done it once before, and it cost him terribly and he knew he couldn't do it again, even to save the world.

The idea that he would refuse to destroy a race of omnicidal maniacs and yet somehow kill literally every other living member of his species is indefensible no matter what the Time Lord Council was doing - especially because, as the episode itself makes plain (and The End of Time already implied), so many of them were innocents.

For an action that was so "indefensible" it's a bit odd you (or others) have never brought it up as an issue before DotD I mean if I thought the hero of the show had committed unjustifiable genocide against his own people I feel like I would've brought that up when it first happened, not seven years later? Or maybe stopped watching all together?

I also have to confess I really don't get why you two are obsessing so much over what Moffat says in interviews when he is utterly notorious for lying about the show (to the point where the fandom has "Rule one: Moffat lies" as one of its mottos). What's in the show itself is a lot more important than interviews in which he very well might not be telling the truth in the first place.

And for that matter Moffat is almost as notorious for trolling as he is for lying.

Moffat lying about upcoming episodes to protect plot points is one thing. He has absolutely no reason, however, to lie about things that have already aired, especially in regards to characters whom he essentially owns (for the moment).

 

[Ⓐaron]

He didn't actually use the Moment at all though - it allowed Ten/Eleven to enter the time-lock, but otherwise all it did in the episode was project scenes of the war and take the War Doctor on a bit of a tour. The pocket-universe solution came about via the Zygon translator, his sonic screwdriver, and the fact that there were multiple Doctors (who all somehow knew to come to Gallifrey? Wish that had been explained). All things that could, conceivably, be used again.

Right, but none of these altered the "fixed point in history" status of the Time War. And presumably the Moment is what contacted the other Doctors.

Besides, Pompeii and the like aren't time-locked, just fixed points. And while there's well-established risks to visiting places he's already been, he has a history of doing it occasionally anyways. Besides, it could have been that he saved Pompeii all along and had just forgotten about it

Yes, but as I already said, Moffat has also been quite consistent that fixed points in history can't be changed. This was the primary source of tension for the entire sixth series.

I will be genuinely shocked if Moffat pays any acknowledgement to his feelings regarding almost pushing the button.

Really? After all the Doctor's self-loathing for the last several seasons you really think he's just going to get over the fact that he almost destroyed his own people? He might appear to get over it on the surface but the Doctor has always been a Stepford Smiler. But I don't really expect him to just magically suddenly absolve himself of responsibility.

But the time loop isn't the thing I or Tres have an issue with. It's the fact that all that character development is based upon his guilt for something he...never did, lol jk doctor you saved the day after all! Yes I realize this is subjective. I realize you and X feel differently, and I envy you that because I literally had to spend days coming up with a headcanon that would allow me to continue watching the show (and more importantly watch S1-4 without them being ruined for me).

As I said, the fact that he would have done it without outside intervention is what to me makes it an acceptable retcon. He still has to live with the fact that he would have betrayed the promise if Clara hadn't been there to steady him.

Nothing even comes close to the hard choice that was Gallifrey, though. Or even Pompeii.

Really? Leaving his companions stuck in the past wasn't a hard choice? Blowing up an entire freaking planet wasn't a hard choice? Maybe not as hard as destroying his own species, but to me leaving people he's developed a personal attachment to over literally years is probably just as hard as leaving people he has no attachment to whatsoever to an event that is a fixed point in time.

Besides, as I said above, RTD made it pretty apparent that the Time Lords weren't permanently dead.

I think the Time Lords could make for interesting villains and allies going forward, as they have in the past. I also think there are tons of ways they could've allowed the Time Lords to return without retconning the Doctor's decision to destroy them in the first place.

I'm... not really sure how they could be brought back on a permanent basis without exactly such a retcon.

He refused to do it in PotW because he had already done it once before, and it cost him terribly and he knew he couldn't do it again, even to save the world.

He certainly didn't seem to give that thought much consideration in The Runaway Bride when he killed the Racnoss and all her young. So... inconsistent characterisation from Davies?

For an action that was so "indefensible" it's a bit odd you (or others) have never brought it up as an issue before DotD I mean if I thought the hero of the show had committed unjustifiable genocide against his own people I feel like I would've brought that up when it first happened, not seven years later? Or maybe stopped watching all together?

I figured there would turn out to be a more complicated explanation for what happened than "The Doctor killed his entire race". And I was right. I also figured the Time Lords wouldn't be written out of the story forever. And, again, I was right.

And in regards to "Doctor Who hasn't been boring lately" - idk man every time I hear IT'S THE DOCTOR'S DARKEST HOUR now I just roll my eyes, it's been his darkest hour every finale since S5. Like there's this constant OMG THE DOCTOR COULD DIE in all of them when everyone knows he won't? Trenzalore for this Xmas special is the case in point, really: 'the place where I die' um except we already saw Twelve plus random future Tom Baker Doctor. All of Series 6 was that too, trying to ramp up tension about the Doctor dying, but all I felt was mild curiousity as to how they'd write it so that he'd inevitably survive.

All personal taste, of course.

First of all it is/was obvious to everyone the Doctor isn't/wasn't going to die in both those cases. It's right in the name of the show. If you think they were honestly trying to make people think they'd kill off their main character I'm not sure what to tell you. If you read interviews with the production team at all it's pretty obvious the tension is supposed to be over how the Doctor will survive, rather than whether he will survive.

And... escalating up the confrontation is something they've been doing for a long time. Pretty much every RTD finale did the same thing. "How many Daleks can we bring in this time?" seems to have been a pretty frequent question.

Moffat lying about upcoming episodes to protect plot points is one thing. He has absolutely no reason, however, to lie about things that have already aired, especially in regards to characters whom he essentially owns (for the moment).

Yes, except that you're forgetting what a troll Moffat is. He's notorious for finding ways to piss off people just because he can. This is what TV Tropes has to say about it:

He's also fandom-savvy enough (he's been at it long enough, after all) to know exactly the right things to say and do to whip his substantial Hate Dumb up into a lather, which he does with some regularity. Predicting what he'll be bashed for this week makes for an entertaining spectator sport.

Remember how he announced an episode entitled "The Doctor's Wife", knowing how much some parts of the fandom hated River? And completely neglected to mention that River didn't appear in the episode? Remember how he completely neglected to mention anything about whether there would be a series three of Sherlock until after the gut-wrenching season two finale aired? Remember how his "three words" about Sherlock "may be misleading, are not titles, are only teases or possibly clues, but might be deliberately designed to get you into a lather"? Moffat lives for this kind of stuff, and admits it.

And for all we know there are things future episodes address that would've been given away by answering that question honestly. We honestly have no idea what he has planned for the Time Lords' return and an honest answer to "Why did you bring back Gallifrey" would probably reveal that.

You should give less than zero credence to basically anything Moffat says in an interview.

 

[Ⓐaron]

I should also point out that I learnt long ago never to take anything said in this show at face value, because (1) Rule One: the Doctor lies, and (2) unless something's depicted on screen, there's no telling what actually happened, and (3) even if it's depicted on screen, we may not be seeing what we think we saw (see: The Impossible Astronaut).

Also too, regarding the question about continuing to watch the show, I didn't see "Genesis of the Daleks" until I'd seen most of the modern episodes, so the inconsistency in the Doctor's characterisation wasn't even something I thought about at the time. I think series seven had yet to air when I saw it.

 

[Dana Scully]

Right, but none of these altered the "fixed point in history" status of the Time War. And presumably the Moment is what contacted the other Doctors.

Yes, but as I already said, Moffat has also been quite consistent that fixed points in history can't be changed. This was the primary source of tension for the entire sixth series.

Right...that's my entire point? Like if you pocket-universed Pompeii the fixed point wouldn't be changed as far as everyone who's not Pompeii is concerned, which is exactly the same scenario presented with Gallifrey in the Time War.

Really? After all the Doctor's self-loathing for the last several seasons you really think he's just going to get over the fact that he almost destroyed his own people? He might appear to get over it on the surface but the Doctor has always been a Stepford Smiler. But I don't really expect him to just magically suddenly absolve himself of responsibility.

I never said you were wrong or that he wouldn't feel guilty, just that I doubt Moffat will ever acknowledge it.

Really? Leaving his companions stuck in the past wasn't a hard choice? Blowing up an entire freaking planet wasn't a hard choice? Maybe not as hard as destroying his own species, but to me leaving people he's developed a personal attachment to over literally years is probably just as hard as leaving people he has no attachment to whatsoever to an event that is a fixed point in time.

With Amy and Rory it was a choice between blowing up all of New York or leaving them to live out a long and happy life together. Sure it sucks but it doesn't even come close to having to kill of your entire people.

And what planet are we talking about, the one in Nightmare in Silver? Which was abandoned other than the army of Cybermen? That doesn't compare either, plus it wasn't even the Doctor who set off the bomb in that case.

I'm... not really sure how they could be brought back on a permanent basis without exactly such a retcon.

Rassilon has a backup plan that allows him and however many Time Lords you like to escape to another dimension or universe, where they build or terraform a new Gallifrey - god knows the Daleks have done it enough with Skaro. The whole idea with Bad Wolf!Rose giving him a second chance. It's sci-fi, there are all sorts of handwaves they could have pulled to bring the Time Lords back without changing the fact the Doctor pushed the button.

He certainly didn't seem to give that thought much consideration in The Runaway Bride when he killed the Racnoss and all her young. So... inconsistent characterisation from Davies?

First off, Ten's characterization since The Christmas Invasion was established to be "no second chances". He gave the Racnoss a chance to run, they didn't take it, so he drowned them. Additionally, Runaway Bride Doctor was literally suicidal after losing Rose, which I think makes it safe to say he wasn't in his typical mindset.

I figured there would turn out to be a more complicated explanation for what happened than "The Doctor killed his entire race".

It just seems a remarkable coincidence that people started questioning/condemning the Doctor's decision to kill the Time Lords after DotD and not at any point during the seven years previous. Surely if people are as distraught by this characterization as they now claim they would have brought it up before.

Plus I thought "The Doctor killed his entire race because they (or at least the ones who had any power) had turned into monsters as terrible as the Daleks and were intending to destroy all of creation just to save themselves" was a pretty good explanation.

Remember how he announced an episode entitled "The Doctor's Wife", knowing how much some parts of the fandom hated River? And completely neglected to mention that River didn't appear in the episode? Remember how he completely neglected to mention anything about whether there would be a series three of Sherlock until after the gut-wrenching season two finale aired? Remember how his "three words" about Sherlock "may be misleading, are not titles, are only teases or possibly clues, but might be deliberately designed to get you into a lather"? Moffat lives for this kind of stuff, and admits it.

Which are all examples of him saying stuff before an episode airs, and all related to plot/character appearances. There is absolutely no reason for him to lie about character development after the fact. Unless he intends to say "haha jk Gallifrey really DID burn all along!" at some point, which I think we can safely say isn't going to happen.

Regardless, there's still zero suggestion in the episode itself that Gallifrey ever burned. Trust me, I would love it if there had been.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Right...that's my entire point? Like if you pocket-universed Pompeii the fixed point wouldn't be changed as far as everyone who's not Pompeii is concerned, which is exactly the same scenario presented with Gallifrey in the Time War.

Not really, since Gallifrey was time-locked while Pompeii was a fixed point in time. People died at Pompeii. That is a matter of historical record, and the Doctor and Donna saw it happen. Unless the Zygon technology also provides a way to fake corpses, there's no chance that it can provide a way to retcon everyone's deaths. I suppose we could find out that the Teselecta took on the form of everyone at Pompeii, but that's highly unlikely.

There's also the fact that using the same plot device to resolve multiple conflicts would just be boring storytelling, which alone is a reason this probably won't be used again. I didn't see people complain when the Teselecta was used to give the Doctor a get-out-of-death-free card either.

I never said you were wrong or that he wouldn't feel guilty, just that I doubt Moffat will ever acknowledge it.

Fair enough but I still think you're wrong.

With Amy and Rory it was a choice between blowing up all of New York or leaving them to live out a long and happy life together. Sure it sucks but it doesn't even come close to having to kill of your entire people.

I wasn't comparing to Gallifrey, I was comparing to Pompeii.

And what planet are we talking about, the one in Nightmare in Silver? Which was abandoned other than the army of Cybermen? That doesn't compare either, plus it wasn't even the Doctor who set off the bomb in that case.

oh right, I forgot he didn't push the button, but the point remains that he was trying for the entire episode to come up with a plan that didn't end with destroying the entire planet.

A Town Called Mercy had him facing some pretty tough choices as well.

Rassilon has a backup plan that allows him and however many Time Lords you like to escape to another dimension or universe, where they build or terraform a new Gallifrey - god knows the Daleks have done it enough with Skaro. The whole idea with Bad Wolf!Rose giving him a second chance. It's sci-fi, there are all sorts of handwaves they could have pulled to bring the Time Lords back without changing the fact the Doctor pushed the button.

Yes except that if the Doctor had pushed the button then the Time Lords would have died. That's the whole point. You can't bring the Time Lords back if he killed them.

First off, Ten's characterization since The Christmas Invasion was established to be "no second chances". He gave the Racnoss a chance to run, they didn't take it, so he drowned them. Additionally, Runaway Bride Doctor was literally suicidal after losing Rose, which I think makes it safe to say he wasn't in his typical mindset.

And how many chances have the Daleks gotten, exactly? Yet he's still refused to commit genocide against them on multiple occasions.

It just seems a remarkable coincidence that people started questioning/condemning the Doctor's decision to kill the Time Lords after DotD and not at any point during the seven years previous. Surely if people are as distraught by this characterization as they now claim they would have brought it up before.

It wasn't clearly established that he killed the Time Lords at any point in the past, because The End of Time made it look like he had put them in stasis lock and it wasn't clear before then that he was responsible for what happened to them. Yes, he said "Fear me; I've killed all of them" in "The Doctor's Wife" but from the events in The End of Time there was every reason to believe he was just being hyperbolic.

Plus I thought "The Doctor killed his entire race because they (or at least the ones who had any power) had turned into monsters as terrible as the Daleks and were intending to destroy all of creation just to save themselves" was a pretty good explanation.

Killing an entire species because their leaders are evil. Where have we heard that before, exactly? It was a terrible explanation and I have to seriously question the judgement of anyone who is satisfied with it.

Which are all examples of him saying stuff before an episode airs, and all related to plot/character appearances. There is absolutely no reason for him to lie about character development after the fact.

Really? You don't think that the huge number of upcoming plot lines about Gallifrey and the Time Lords is a reason to lie about why he is bringing Gallifrey and the Time Lords back?

Plus Moffat has been known to troll about past episodes as well.

Plus he admitted to taking glee in making Rory the chew toy, deliberately kept his actors out of the loop about River Song, etc.

 

[Novus]

"Doctor Who": The relatable, heartfelt journey of a man who spent seven seasons/400+ years making up for something he never did in the first place. Riveting.

It is a shaggy dog story. No doubt about it.

I wonder what Moffat thinks of the Dallas dream season.

 

[Ⓐaron]

It's not really comparable. Doctor Who has always had as a theme that things are not always what they seem, going back at least to the Key to Time arc where

Spoiler

the White Guardian is revealed to be the Black Guardian in the final serial

. There are all kinds of elaborate science-fiction justifications for plot lines that would be completely incongruous in other shows, but due to the nature of the Whoniverse they're just expected in DW, and this is not the first time an event that is clearly depicted onscreen turns out to be something completely different than what it appeared to be (not to mention, the destruction of Gallifrey wasn't even depicted before DotD in the first place). Finding out that what a character thought he did turned out to be inaccurate is nowhere near as much a shock as "It was all just a dream, lol" in the midst of a show that had shown no signs before then of having any out-of-the-ordinary explanations for its events.

A few more remarks on why the Zygon pocket universe solution won't be reusable: It only worked in Gallifrey's case because everyone thought the planet was disintegrated by the Daleks. In most cases, a solution won't be that tidy. It's rare that something just vanishes, and the Zygon pocket universe thing can only work to hide something that everyone thinks has vanished - it can't be used to hide people, for example, because they leave corpses. The Teselecta solution I mentioned isn't really a good solution for large groups of people, either, because as far as the show knows, there's only one Teselecta, and it's already been established that repeated use of time travel to the same place causes damage to the space-time continuum and causes Very Bad Things to happen (see Father's Day). So yes, this could be a source for a very limited number of dei ex machina, but it's not exactly a Get Out of Plot Free card, and I don't see it being repeatedly used (or, probably, being used again in at least the next decade).

 

[Ⓐaron]

On a less serious note:

Spoiler

 

[Tennyo]

I'm... not really sure how they could be brought back on a permanent basis without exactly such a retcon.

I actually had an idea for this. A bit of a sloppy fanfic(ish) type plot idea.

It actually kind of left me feeling a tad bit sad when I thought about it after the 50th. I actually have imagined my own original Doctor, and his companions, and an overarching plot for these characters, and the very basis for that revolved around The Doctor having destroyed Gallifrey.

Now my ideas don't work anymore.

But that's kind of a shitty reason to be sad, though. It's only my on fanfic that I keep in my head. Never even wrote any of it down.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Out of curiosity, what was your idea?

 

[Tennyo]

Well, not to go into too much detail,

Spoiler

but I kind of had this idea where a group of Time Lords had somehow managed to escape to E-Space. I was working off the idea that perhaps with Gallifrey gone it would have been harder to travel between E-Space and N-Space, which is why The Doctor never found them. Kind of like how traveling to Pete's world is so difficult. Without the rest of the Time Lords to restore the tears in reality traveling between universes would cause, it would be neigh improbable.

GRANTED, I don't know if that same logic applies to E-Space as it does to Pete's world. As I said, it was a very rough idea that I never fleshed out much.

But either way, this group would have been led by Romana. Since she helped out citizens of E-Space in the past (can't remember what they are called) they would have offered to give her and the other Time Lords shelter.

Eventually, these Time Lords find a way to travel back to N-Space. Only a few of them, including Romana, knew of The Doctor's plan to use The Moment. They did not tell the rest, because of how awful of a prospect is was. Considering they all took refuge in E-space before the end of the Time War, they aren't aware of how it ended.

Well, a lot of other not-fleshed out and very complicated things that maybe could still fit in the mythos happens, but eventually I would have had these characters make it back to Gallifrey. Except, Gallifrey is now a burnt, barren rock with all the cities in absolute ruin. The survivors decide to start rebuilding.

More stuff happens, two of the companions die and eventually The Doctor regenerates in a very heroic, badass, epic fashion saving the day from my two main villains of this arch, and eventually all the Time Lord survivors learn about what The Doctor did to Gallifrey. Romana and the small handful of others who knew about it try to stand at The Doctor's side, because they would have also known about the Final Sanction that the High Council was planning.

One thing I would also do is have Romana be the leader of the Time Lord survivors. I've always liked the idea of her being President of Gallifrey. I don't know if RTD or Moffat follow that idea and consider it canon, but I think it's rather cool. She would have been illegally deposed by the High Council because of her stance against the Final Sanction. They revived Rassilon and put him in power because he would be for it. And considering that it was Rassilon who replaced her of all people, perhaps not many on Gallifrey would have stood up and spoken out about Romana being ousted from power.

Either way, everything becomes political now. Romana is made president of whomever is left, and as much as she wants to defend The Doctor because of how important she knows his decision was, she has to remain neutral and fair, allowing both sides to speak.

The Time Lord survivors pretty much want The Doctor's head on a plate, but Romana and the others manage to convince them to spare his life. However, after much trial and debate, they decide to have him banished. Romana really has no choice but to go along with this, as it is all through a legal trial. This would be my effective way of being able to cut The Doctor's ties to this plot point and move the story onward so he can get back to beboppin' around the universe saving lives again.

Aaaaaaaand I went into too much detail. Meh... lol

Keep in mind this is all in my head. I know it isn't perfect, and I'm sure if I actually wrote any of this out as fanfic it would go through major editing and certain plot points would probably change.

I also know that I may not be as well versed on overall Whoniverse lore as some or the rest of you are.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Sounds interesting regardless. I'm sure with some editing you can still make some of it apply to the post-DotD timeline. You could also just do an AU fic, I guess.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Btw, series 8 is confirmed to be a continuous run and will apparently start in August.

 

[Claymore]

Btw, series 8 is confirmed to be a continuous run and will apparently start in August.

This has me super excited ... then I realise that we have to wait til August. But seriously though, great news, especially since I don't think that I could take another split series again. It's just such a shame that we'll get a glimpse of a new Doctor then have to wait so long to see his adventures begin.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I'll accept that we may not have to rely upon Moffat's remarks as definitive since, as you say, Aaron, Moffat is a certifiable asshole (we wouldn't be having this conversation if he wasn't) and since his description of what happened in "The Day of the Doctor" doesn't match what was shown on-screen (The Doctors ready to kill Gallifrey and its people, which would undoubtedly have happened without intervention), but I do have to take issue with this excuse for the development:

It wasn't clearly established that he killed the Time Lords at any point in the past, because The End of Time made it look like he had put them in stasis lock and it wasn't clear before then that he was responsible for what happened to them. Yes, he said "Fear me; I've killed all of them" in "The Doctor's Wife" but from the events in The End of Time there was every reason to believe he was just being hyperbolic.

It was clearly established long before "The End of Time" that The Doctor killed the Time Lords. For an obvious example, in "The Satan Pit," The Devil refers to The Doctor as "killer of his own kind."

Stasis was never a suggested possibility.

 

[Rassilon]

We are aware that Peter Capaldi’s played a big old part in Doctor Who and Torchwood before and we are not going to ignore the fact. We’ll play that one out over time. It’s actually quite neat.

WAT?