I think if Russell T Davies wanted a regeneration scene from McGann to Eccelston, he would have done so.  McGann has said several times he would have been happy to do one.



Personally, I think the Tennant Dr that is on now, is the 2nd doctor of a new regenerational cycle.



I bet that Davies confirms this at some point as an end of series cliffhanger - that would shock many fans Im sure!!



And if we're talking about where Peter Cushing fits in, do we also mention that guy who played him in the Dr Who stage play in 1974.....where there was an actual regeneration scene displayed from the Pertwee Dr to his?????



The mind boggles where this would end!!

Well, I'd like to see how Tennant will be summarised as The Doctor in the future.

A new regenerational cycle theory is a bit of a cop-out.

Though I am sure that the writers could make it work and be convincing, it is rather stretching the established framework a bit.

How many regenerations is a Time Lord allowed?

I seem to remember it being stated as 13 or 15 times?

The pivotal point of the McGann movie plot was that the Master wanted to circumvent this. The Doctor was mortified at the thought. So for the Doctor to by-pass these same rules it  would have to fall upon him, perhaps by accident or someone elses design.

    Sorry; I can`t see this as the way forward.

But then again I may be wrong. I hope I am as it would be a novelty for me.

It'd be a lot of a cop out!



Initially refered to as renewal (Power of the Daleks), then change (The War Games) it was finally termed  regeneration in Spearhead from Space, but it wasn't until The Deadly Assassin that a number of twelve was placed upon it, meaning thirteen incarnations. The same production team indicated in Brain of Morbuis that Tom wasn't the fourth, but twelth Doctor. This has been contadicted in every story since which goes into regenerations and the Doctor's history. In particular Mawdryn Undead has the peril of the fifth Doctor giving up seven regenerations, making him the last incarnation.



Without breaking with all this (and the current production team have an ambiguous relationship with continuity) leaves at most three more incarnations. With the possibility that the last one is quite naughty! It seems quite the impass. We do know from the Master's example that an incarnation can be bought with the possesion of another's body (Keeper of Traken and the telemovie) or the use of various power sources (Keeper again and The Deadly Assassin). The High Council offered him an entire new regeneration cycle for aiding them in The Five Doctors.



Perhaps one of these could be the way forward, perhaps none, perhaps the BBC will let him simply die--it'd be a great cliffhanger!

Martin, you sure know your stuff, man!!!!!!



BUT......I think you are mistaken when it comes to The Brain of Morbius. I'm very sure that all those other faces after the Doctor shows his previously televised incarnations (i.e. the production team!) were MORBIUS' previous incarnations, NOT The Doctor's!

They showed Morbius'  long lineage, and that his powers/personal history were much stronger than The Doctor's - it was MORBIUS who was going back further and further, NOT The Doctor.



If I'm wrong (and I'll be very surprised if I am!), can you provide the source (provide the evidence) that clearly explains that the other faces are in fact The Doctor.



Oh, and by the way, how would YOU summarise the 10th Doctor's persona?????

OK, this is an old argument. The easiest rationalisation of the other faces is that they are Morbius' incarnations, the evidence against this is that the Doctor is the one loosing the fight (and showing his regression visually) and the production team's intention.



As I posted, Ross says he's basicly doing Bob Monkhouse, which is fine by me! The Actor's Studio documentary on The Simpsons showed Harry Shearer doing Reagan when he performs the Burns voice.



Beyond this what is there to mention? He quite cold bloodedly  said he's the sort of Doctor who you only get one chance with in The Christmas Invasion, seems to have softened towards Mickey, has shown less tendancy to act like a clown than the Eccelston model and is more asexual. This all seems bound by Troughton/Tom/Davision so far, but to be fair I've only seen the ones up to Rise of the Cybermen.

A great proposition has been put forward for the 11th Doctor and I`m talking about serious considerations here. Let`s face it, it`s like talking about the stone age/bronze age/industrial age/age of steel ?

The swinging sixties/the roaring twenties etc,...

They never were summarised until history had a chance to do so in perspective with what came before AND after. So only time will tell how Tennant will be summarised (but I bet it`s good)

      So who would you like to be his successor ?

Personally, I think Stephen Fry would be excellent.

I have a feeling he could combine elements of both the new and old style of the Doctor.

I don`t know if you are familiar with the guys` work  but if you are, just think about it for a while.

Fry is somewhat like salt at the moment--in everything! His script for this year was pushed back to the next series, and is now abandoned. I have no idea how they decide on these things, but assume his name must have been shortlisted at least once by now!

Had no idea he`d submitted a script.

God, how DO you know so much. It must be a full time job. It never occurred to me personally, I saw it on another site (sorry) but it immediately appealed to me as a great idea. I think he would be a great replacement and let`s face it, the show is bringing out the best in  it`s cast/crew. Even the supporting characters look like Hollywood material. I bet every agent has been ringing RTD

Hmmm, an interesting question. That little gem was off Outpost Gallifrey, I use forums and usenet to communicate with the creators who are willing to make themselves available and I've actually stopped reading Doctor Who Magazine as I find the information that's worthwhile within its covers is brought to my attention. Beyond these there's something in what you say about it being a job; there's a certain level of staying informed which The Wall of Lies requires and beyond that it's all down to my own interests (history, astronomy, fandom, our club archives). I haven't listed a single piece of merchandise since July 2003; there's just too much going on! Broadcasting and ratings data are straight from the show's scheduler and publicist, and news like hunting down the Nation estate for their story should be the norm not an exception.



The main thing which comes to mind about Stephen Fry is whether he'd be interested in committing to the show for nine months.

Never mind nine months; I would like to see a Doctor commit for at least four years. But of course that would have to be a three way concensus; The actor himself. the production crew and the viewers. Not an easy formulation !

On a personal note; you mention astronomy as an interest. Do you not think Astrology has any value in the scheme of things?

Also, I have to say; Britain can be a lousy place to be but, there is rarely a night goes by when there is not a Dr Who episode on-screen. Tonight, for instance, I watched Bad Wolf.

Do you also get the Dr Who Confidential programmes after each episode ?

My inclination is towards scepticism; if there's a case to be made for astrology I'm not familiar with I'm interested in hearing it. Astrology was picked out by the former federal  minister for education as something universities shouldn't be researching; a PhD thesis where the author was determining Jesus' star sign (!) as part of the work. Which seems a pretty poor thing to do out of context.



No, we don't get Confidential, Tardisodes, Totally and there's no guarantee we'll get Torchwood! We've only just gotten the reproduction Tenth Anniversary Radio Times special which has never been on sale here before, although we did get the Twentieth Anniversary special, albeit both have any reference to the Radio Times stripped. On the other hand though we have had record repeat seasons of Who; anyone over thirty would probably associate it with a year round dinner time slot and younger Australians with an earlier afternoon slot, a morning slot and finally back to dinner in the 2003--2006 repeats!

Sorry to hear you don`t get confidential but it`s no great loss I suppose. It only deals with the episode previously screened and is of a technical and background nature. Perhaps the only thing, which I expect you are personally aware of, with some interest is that the absorbalov in Love and Monsters was based on a picture and description from a youngish (about ten year old) boy who was actually disappointed that they were not true to his vision. The Absorbalov, to his mind, was bigger than a double decker bus.

      To the Astrology bit, and please don`t think I am a devotee or adherent of this; It`s a bit like Market Research. In the same way that Market Research cannot tell what an individual would purchase or be attracted to, neither can astrology. But as a generalisation it tends to be quite accurate, otherwise there would not be billions spent by advertising companies each year. The advertisers know this because it enables them to reap huge profits. Scientists, on the other hand, are loathe to acknowledge even the possibility of something if conventional scientific wisdom dictates that it is not possible. The history of science is littered with denunciations of ideas and theories that we now accept as fact; a round Earth, Earth circling the sun, the moon affecting the tides. As I say, I am no great believer but neither am I sceptical. If an object as far away as the moon can have such a dramatic impact on our planet then it is not inconceivable that another star or even galaxy can have an, admittedly, subtler effect. In fact, I would think it inconceivable not to have some effect.

Anyway, I expect you`ve thought more deeply about this before today. I`d just like to say thanks for taking the trouble to reply and for your input to the site.

It's really no problem that Confidential isn't on TV here; pretty much everything's available online. The big one for us is Doctor Who being on free to air at all and being successful.

Science is a useful but limited tool; for instance it does recognise that theoretically all matter should influence all other matter through the ellusive gravity wave. But there's plenty it's not good at dealing with. A couple of philosophers in the club were amused to see the media turn to thier field to explain Intelligent Design.

Love and Monsters? Sixteenth of September for us. Sigh.

I agree with you on the free channel aspect. We get plenty of repeats but some have been on a commercial channel; commercials can spoil a programme sometimes but on the other hand it gives a chance to make a cup of tea.

I didn`t realise you were still waiting for Love & Monsters! Indeed I thought the whole series had been screened by now. I hope I haven`t written anything on any page that spoils an episode for anyone. I`ll be conscious of that from now on.

    To digress; there are a couple of scientists working on the theory that gravity `leaks` from our dimension into others. (yes, it sounds very sci-fi but it sometimes seems that sci-fi postulates an absurd idea which turns out to be not so absurd or even quite likely.)

Apparently, the numbers involved such as mass and whatever else is concerned say that gravity should be more powerful than is actually the case. I don`t pretend to understand it but it is still a cause for interest.

    As for intelligent design; I think that`s the closest description of my religion after Intelligent Physics.

UKTV have announced they will have the new episodes from October; and on past experience they'll be advertising it up. Brr.

Tonight we get Age of Steel, and about time too! Poor old Queensland has a state election on the ninth of September, it's sure to interfere with The Satan Pit!

Gravity is the major problem with a unified field theory; it doesn't seem to fit the the other three forces. When scientist start talking about other dimensions they're way out on a limb, the maths of choice points towards this but that's about all such theorys have in their favour. The model of science for the last sixty years has been of falsifiability, if a proposition can be disproved it may be scientific. Dimensional theories are lacking in this department and it's been suggested more than once that this is an area where the maths has proceeded the science.

Why won't wider society apply this logic and the Socratic Method to intelligent design so we can move on from this silly use of pseudo science to justify the existence of a supreme being?????????



(It's blatantly obvious to anyone who has seriously studied Politics, Philosophy and/or Sociology - and Physics - that the radical right is doing its best to invade the culture of science to twist their ideas to suit their poiltical ends - just like the pentecostals have also invaded popular culture with their 'Rapture' series of DVDs and Guy Sebastian)