Howling:Who is Hurt's Who?

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → Who is Hurt's Who?

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on The Howling if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

So The Name of the Doctor has now aired and the biggest question on most Whovians lips is “Who is Hurts incarnation of the Doctor?” Recent rumours aside, I don’t think it is that hard to make a judgement call and a educated guess, something I am sure all you Who fans are and have been doing since last night.

Now, thanks to last night episode and The Lodger I think it is clear to state there has only been, so far, eleven incarnations of The Doctor. That is to say, nobody came before Hartnell, he in my mind is the definitive First Doctor – this to me shows Hurt cannot come before William. He can’t come in-between either – basically because we saw Hartnell regenerate all the way up to McGann, with the only real space coming between Troughton and Pertwee. The age of Hurts doctor could well suggest he came between these two (after all the doctor seems to be getting “younger” with each regeneration) however, I don’t think the story allows for this. After McGann, we got a fresh a Doctor, Eccleston and how great he was – suffering clear survivors guilt due to something that happened between the Movie and Rose, what that was we shall get to later – however we saw 9 regenerate all the way up to 11 with no space for Hurts Doctor in-between. This suggest to me he came between 8 and 9, after all, he cannot come after Smith as he Eleventh Doctor clear remembers him.

With the facts so far it is clear Hurt must come between incarnations – I have read somewhere, recently that he could be an older version of 8. However I don’t think the evidence from last nights episode allows this. Clara, after all, states she helped all 11 incarnations and did not see his one – being an older version of 8 makes him incarnation 8 none the less and Clara should have encountered him. No, he is someone different.

Now, The Name of the Doctor made it clear at the end of the episode that that the name the Doctor chosen was a promise and important. Lets travel all the way back to The Sound of Drums and something the master said. “The Doctor, the man who makes people better.” While not a very important line at the time, I think it has become very significant now! Don’t doctors promise to try and make people better?

The Doctor states that while not an incarnation of the Doctor, hurt is an actual incarnation of himself, the one that broke the promise. So what would a Doctor breaking a promise of being a doctor actually do? Simple, instead of making people better, make people sicker, make people die. Let us go back to Eccleston’s Doctor, The Doctor that has clearly come from a traumatic experience, a doctor as I mentioned suffering survivors guilt.

It has been established that The Doctor did end the Time War in a traumatic way, how we are not sure. But we do know it was thanks to something called the moment. Regardless of how the Time War ended. I would argue that the sides of the war could be considered sick after all war is not healthy, the war clearly needed a Doctor. Hurt’s Doctor said something a little cryptic no choice" and that he did what he did "in the name of peace and sanity.” The Eleventhe responded by say “but not in the name of the Doctor!” As I mentioned before the job of the doctor is to make people better, to save people from death. To me Hurt has done something, that all though was needed to be done. It goes against everything The Doctor Stands for.

So based on all the facts so far. Hurt has to come between Doctors and he has to have done something that goes against the name of The Doctor – this for me places him between 8 and 9. Hurts Doctor is the Doctor that fought in the Time War, not McGanns as we first though. Hurt was the one who possessed the moment and ended the war, killing all the Time Lords. Going against everything the Doctor stands for. Why he regenerated into Ecceston remains to be seen. But the actions he could have done are clearly remembered and felt by Chris, even if he doesn’t remember the incarnation.

We, also, perhaps see remnants of Hurts Doctor in the10th, we all know The Doctor despises guns and would never use one. But in The End of Time, the return of The Time Lords caused him to abandon the creed.

Regardless, the question of who Hurts Doctor is actually is or where he places in the list isn’t what we need to be asking – Its just what did he do to go against the name of the Doctor and what did he do to make the last three incarnations to forget him. Whatever the case, Moffat’s statement of the secret being a game changer for Who wasn’t an underestimate in the slightest. This is going to change Who forever!--90.220.11.198^{talk to me} 14:36, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most boring way to resolve this is as follows:

• Standing in front of the Untempered Schism, the young boy on Gallifrey experiences a nightmarish vision of his future. He promises himself that will never come to pass, and sometime after his graduation renames himself 'The Doctor' as a constant reminder.
• Despite this, the Doctor always feels that this future is out there, waiting for him. A future where he breaks his promise to himself.
• Whatever horrible event occurred, it wasn't the ending of the Time War. As seen in the End of Time, the Time Lords were beyond redemption and thus there was no one to save, just two insane armies destroying the universe.

However, this is Moffat's story we're talking about. The only time travel story he wants to write always includes a bootstrap paradox. (Most of the RTD paradoxes being grandfather paradoxes). Psicraft ☎ 15:58, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

"That is to say, nobody came before Hartnell, he in my mind is the definitive First Doctor" <--As you said, in your mind. There's not much basis for that assumption. 184.166.6.102^{talk to me} 16:02, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I think 90's right, or at least, those were the same conclusions I reached on my own. I don't think that 9-11 actually forgot him, although they might have tried really hard. But we don't see the Doctor referring back to previous incarnations often, so it's not much of a surprise that we haven't heard of him before from the Doctor's perspective. One of the reasons I think Hurt comes between 8 and 9 is because you can see a darkness around him; a darkness not present in 8 yet obviously present in 9, although it seems 9 is trying to get away from it, trying to escape the horror he caused. There is residual darkness that can be see in 10 and then, to a lesser extent, 11, which I think helps date Hurt's incarnation to before 9 as the darkness is going away, or at least being buried, by his later incarnations. This, along with all the other evidence stated above convinces me of his placement in the Doctor's time line, as well as the fact that this is the first time any Doctor has outright said they are incarnation such-and-such of the Doctor (in The Lodger it was implied, and the audience interpreted based on already known information, however it wasn't stated outright), coupled with the statement that Hurt isn't the Doctor, but he is the same Time Lord as 11. The only other option I can see is that he's a future Doctor which 11 had seen earlier or as a result of entering his own time line. Imamadmad (Contact me) 23:58, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the Doctor's timeline, somewhere between 8 & 9 is about the only place that fits & ending the Time War by using the Moment is the only event we know of that is terrible enough. We were, though, given yet another clear indication that 11 really is 11, not 12 pretending a predecessor hadn't happened. That raises the possibility that the "Hurt Doctor" is a side-step or "branch line" in the Doctor's timeline.

We've also seen (with 9, 10 & 11) that, although ending the Time War by destroying Gallifrey & the Time Lords was terrible, the Doctor has been willing to admit to doing it. As Psicraft says, above, by that stage "the Time Lords were beyond redemption". Whatever the "Hurt Doctor" did appears to be something the Doctor regards as even worse than ending the Time War.

That needn't mean it's unconnected. Perhaps (& I emphasise perhaps) the "Hurt Doctor" did something "without choice", "in the name of peace and sanity" -- but something wrongful in itself -- that created the situation in which using the Moment to end the Time War was the only way out. In other words, he did something we don't yet know about & the most terrible thing we do know about was the remedy for what he'd done. --89.241.65.242^{talk to me} 03:44, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I do think he's associated with the Time War. Making-out this character to have committed something so terrible he can't be called "The Doctor" any more has to be that event. This is just me hoping, but I doubt even Moffat would dare invent something more terrible than the Time War. Gallifrey102 ☎ 00:19, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Gallifrey102: You misunderstand. I didn't mean that whatever the "Hurt Doctor" did was separate from or worse than the Time War. I meant that it was something in the Time War that contributed to making it as bad as it was & that not only meant that the war had to be ended but also meant that it had to be ended in the way it was ended: by destroying the Time Lords & Gallifrey. Not something worse than the war but something worse than the ending of the war. --89.240.249.124^{talk to me} 07:00, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

The fiftieth anniversary surely has to go back and deal with the origin of The Doctor and the Time War is not the origin. Why did The Doctor run away in the first place? This clip was specifically chosen to remind viewers that The Doctor stole a TARDIS and ran off with his granddaughter. What happened before this event. Why run away with your granddaughter; where are her parents? What had he done prior to this and was he called The Doctor when he did it. Was their an incarnation not called The Doctor prior to this event and what did he do that started the whole story off in the first place? 86.159.247.237^{talk to me} 09:28, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the 'terrible' thing isn't something terrible on a universe changing scale. It's something personal, something that he did that destroyed his family and broke him. You've seen how loss affects him. Imagine if he had to make a choice that made his let his son/daughter die in order to do a greater good. He breaks his promise to his family and it breaks his hearts. He regenerates; becomes the first Doctor and runs away from it all. Now he spends the rest of his lives trying to make it better by saving those he can. 86.159.247.237^{talk to me} 09:40, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

"The fiftieth anniversary surely has to go back and deal with the origin of The Doctor": As, I think, Terry Pratchett in one of his Discworld novels has pointed out, the word "surely" in a statement like that almost always means "there's nothing solid supporting this statement but I'm hoping you won't notice that". You (& plenty of others) may want the anniversary episode to deal with the Doctor's origin, you (& plenty of others) may hope it'll do that -- but it doesn't have to.

"Why did The Doctor run away in the first place?" has been addressed quite a few times. If you think it was because of some terrible personal loss and/or guilt, watch the closing moments of The Five Doctors, when Tegan asks, "You mean you're deliberately choosing to go on the run from your own people in a rackety old TARDIS?" & the Fifth Doctor cheerfully replies, "Why not? After all, that's how all this began." The Fifth Doctor is the nicest & most sensitive of all his incarnations so far & he shows not the slightest hint of guilt or sadness or shame when he speaks of his original departure from Gallifrey. What's more, earlier in that story, he'd met Susan. Seeing his granddaughter again, in the TARDIS, for the first time since he was in his 1st incarnation obviously didn't remind him -- or her -- of anything terrible from the past. There's no sign anywhere in the classic series of such a burden & your idea doesn't fit what we saw of the Doctor in that time. The Five Doctors is the clearest example I can think of but none of the classic series is compatible with a burden like that.

There is a burden now but there was no sign of it then. Right up until the Eighth Doctor left San Francisco at the end of the TV movie, there was no sign of it. When we saw the Ninth Doctor in the revived series, there clearly was a burden. It dates from the interval between the last time we saw the Eighth Doctor & the first time we saw the Ninth -- the interval that contains (& probably ended with) the Time War. --89.240.249.124^{talk to me} 11:11, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right but the time war has grown old; he tried to wipe out his own species and crimes don't really get much larger than genocide. The only real revelation that's bigger would be that he could have done something to stop the war from happening (or using timey-wimey to undo it all) but chose not to because he wanted the Time Lords and daleks dead. Can't really see it.

I still guess that it's a more personal thing but that's really just based on the 'family' feeling that Moffat's developed. There are a few ways to retcon out the Doctors lack of burden/guilt in the original series. His timeline was just rewritten twice, the universe has rebooted (twice?) and so it's not a big ask to say that the memory was deeply hidden even from himself until 'recently'. After all his big secret was only just made up. Only time will tell. [Unsigned but appears to be Jack Chilli 12:30, May 21, 2013 (UTC)]

My main point was that the timing doesn't really fit unless whatever he did happened between the TV movie & Rose. The timing doesn't tell us what he did, only (roughly) when he did it. Since the Time War is in the same timeframe, I'd be surprised if what he did wasn't connected with it. The line about "in the name of peace and sanity" strongly suggests a connection with a war of some kind & another war in the same timeframe strikes me as pushing the bounds of plausibility a bit far.

What we already know about the Time War "has grown old" -- but whatever the "Hurt Doctor" did is clearly something we don't already know about. The Time War was, from what we know about it, a huge conflict that lasted for several years in the Doctor's timeline. There's ample room there -- not just for other stories but for other kinds of stories. When you say "the only real revelation ..." &c, you mean the only one you can think of. I agree that the "he wanted the Time Lords and daleks dead" idea wouldn't work. I don't agree that Moffat can't possibly have thought of something you (& the rest of us) haven't.

Where you might very well be right is that it could be "a more personal thing ... based on the 'family' feeling that Moffat's developed." That doesn't exclude the possibility of a Time War setting. As I said, that war was big. WWII was tiny by comparison, yet it's been the setting for all kinds of stories from Pearl Harbor to The Longest Day to The Dambusters to The Man Who Never Was to Mrs. Minniver to Operation Petticoat to Casablanca & countless others on every scale from the very personal to the vastly epic. If Moffat has the imagination (& that, basically, is his job), he could tell almost any kind of story he wants, using the Time War as the setting. This one obviously won't be a comedy, as Operation Petticoat was, but I'm quite sure it'd be possible to make a comedy that was set in the Time War & a good comedy, at that. (I have to admit that I couldn't do it -- but then I'm not a top-flight television writer-producer.)

"There are a few ways to retcon out the Doctors lack of burden/guilt in the original series." Probably there are. Any attempt to "retcon out" the classic series would alienate large numbers of long-term fans. The question isn't "could it be done?" but "should it be done?" The effect would be to say, "The Doctors you saw in the classic series aren't really the earlier incarnations of the Doctor you're watching now," & it'd be an unutterably stupid thing to do at any time, let alone on the 50th anniversary. Anyway, it's the exact opposite of the message of the "past Doctor" scenes in The Name of the Doctor, so it's not what Moffat's doing. (I was 89 earlier.) --2.99.197.152^{talk to me} 17:06, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Final Scene

Just thought I'd add the dialogue that was posted in the online transcript, if that helps:

(The Doctor looks forward to where a man is standing with his back to them.)

CLARA: Who's that?

DOCTOR: Never mind. Let's go back.

CLARA: But who is he?

DOCTOR: He's me. There's only me here, that's the point. Now let's get back.

CLARA: But I never saw that one. I saw all of you. Eleven faces, all of them you. You're the eleventh Doctor.

DOCTOR: I said he was me. I never said he was the Doctor.

CLARA: I don't understand.

DOCTOR: Look, my name, my real name, that is not the point. The name I chose is the Doctor. The name you choose, it's like, it's like a promise you make. He's the one who broke the promise.

(Clara faints.)

DOCTOR: Clara? Clara? Clara!

(The Doctor picks up Clara in his arms.)

DOCTOR: He is my secret.

NOT DOCTOR: What I did, I did without choice.

DOCTOR: I know.

NOT DOCTOR: In the name of peace and sanity.

DOCTOR: But not in the name of the Doctor.

(The Doctor turns and carries Clara away. The figure turns around to introduce John Hurt as the Doctor.)

I think that the pivotal line to me is "There's only me here, that's the point." I realize that "The Doctor lies" but I think Hurt is part of him but not a regeneration, more on par with the Dream Lord. Maybe he is an embodiment of the Doctor's conscience?

The puzzling part to me is that it ISN'T just The Doctor "here", there is also Clara and the Great Intelligence. Hmmmm.... Badwolff ☎ 19:46, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Again, you speak as if you haven't actually watched the episode; there's nothing puzzling about the matter at all. The only one in the Doctor's timestream is the Doctor, but Clara and the GI were also in it because they invaded it in the one point possible: Trenzalore. The fact that Trenzalore is the one place that contains the Doctor's total personal timestream is the reason that it is the one place that he is never supposed to go. In the episode, the Great Intelligence is specifically shown to invade the Doctor's timestream via his tomb on Trenzalore. After the GI invades the Doctor's timestream, Clara follows him, overwriting the GI's presence. Because the Doctor was able to give Clara a lifeline, she survived, while the GI didn't. --Bold Clone 20:09, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Bold Clone, "... but Clara and the GI were also in it": That's just a way of saying the Doctor isn't "the only one in the Doctor's timestream". On the basis of having "actually watched the episode", if the Doctor's line, "There's only me here, that's the point," is taken absolutely literally at its face value, it's simply false & he knows it's false & Clara also knows it's false -- because she's there. The only thing it can mean, in the context of the Doctor saying it to Clara, is "the only one you can encounter here is me".

Clara entered the Doctor's timestream to counteract the GI's actions &, judging from the results, she did counteract them -- but she did so via the Doctor. She encountered him & helped him. She did not (as far as we saw) at any point encounter the GI.

By the time Clara entered the Doctor's timestream, the GI was gone. What remained was the corruption of the timestream caused by the GI. She'd no need to encounter the GI. She only needed to remedy the corruption.

To use an analogy: If a vandal messed up pages of this wiki, I'd not need to meet the vandal to put things right. I'd only need to find the damage & correct it. The vandal interacts with the wiki, then I interact with the wiki. I never interact with the vandal. --89.242.69.88^{talk to me} 23:24, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

the whole time war theory doesnt make sense if you think about it because Hurts doctor is the doctors biggest secret ...that he ended the time war by comiting mass genocide isnt a secret really its mentioned by many characters in the new series

if he is the valeyard then he would in theory be an amalgamation of all of the doctors bad things from every regeneration (this ios actually said by the master i belive)

i he is another regeneration maybe he is future 11TH (the fields of trenzalor at the fall of the 11th) maybe 11s fall isnt his death it is figurative like the title of the episode, he falls from grace..

biut to be honest i dont think anybody actually knows what they think at the minute because there are some many hints that we have been give (which may or may not be red herrings) and pure educated speculation that we cant make a real theory untill we get somemore information al we can really do for now ids try to interperet the conversation at the end of the episode and try not to take anything the doctor says literaly......we really are walking in the dark here 87.83.10.218^{talk to me} 08:39, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

also we cant forget the line from the start of the episode vastra says 'he will take his secret to his grave' and he did he has carreid this secret for so long potenially his whole life and he said as a time traveller you must never go to our own grave...... he literally did take the secret to his grave....is this the orgin of the Hurt doctor 87.83.10.218^{talk to me} 08:53, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

87, "the whole time war theory doesnt make sense ...": That's true of a theory that the secret is about the ending of the war. It's also true about the Doctor having fought in the war. It's not necessarily true, though, if there's something else about the war that we don't know yet.

However, when you say, "i dont think anybody actually knows what they think at the minute because..." etc., you're quite right. I've also said (in another thread) that we can't offer anything worthy of being called a theory, because we've far too little information to go on. All we can do is put forward guesses about what the secret might be.

We have very little information but not quite none. We do know that the classic series Doctors (& Eight in the TV movie) didn't show the burden of guilt & so on that's associated with the "Hurt Doctor". The revived series Doctors did show a burden of guilt. Until now, we've put that down to "survivor guilt" & the fact that the Doctor ended the war by destroying Gallifrey & the Time Lords. From what we learned at the close of The Name of the Doctor, we now have reason to believe that there's something more behind the Doctor's burden of guilt. That "something more" is a secret associated with the "Hurt Doctor".

The difference between the classic series Doctors & the revived series Doctors strongly suggests that the Doctor's burden of guilt is because of something that happened in the interval between the TV movie & the episode Rose. The Time War is in that interval.

The "Hurt Doctor" said that what he did was "without choice" (not much of a clue) & "In the name of peace and sanity", which does suggest that it had something to do with a war (or a threatened war) of some kind. It might not be the Time War, of course, but that's the only one we so far know about.

One problem is that, with time travel as a factor, we can't assume that the "something that happened" between the TV movie & Rose was the "Hurt Doctor" doing whatever it was that he did. It could be that between the TV movie & Rose was just when the Doctor found out about it. The "Hurt Doctor" may not himself date from the interval between the TV movie & Rose but it looks as if the Doctor's knowledge of him does. (I was 89 earlier.) --2.96.29.191^{talk to me} 10:17, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Here is a theory for you all to tear apart: The time war is theorized to have started with Genesis of the Daleks (TV story), but the 4th Doctor was unable to commit genocide by destroying the mutated daleks. What if Hurt's Doctor went back sometime after the events of that story and completed the task? It is somethign that could have been done "in the name of peace and stability" AND something that would be the exact opposite of the promise of the name "The Doctor." It could also be the direct cause of the tiem war. The Doctor tries to prevent the time war and causes it instead, being responsible for the most horrific war the universe has ever known. That sure would be some cause for guilt, no? Whosethebestwho ☎ 08:05, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

i put this in another thread but thought i deserved to be here aswel

maybe next series we will see 'the fall of the 11th ' at trenzalore he will fight in a batttle and loose the prophecy will be fullfilled and he will die...this causes the emergence of the Hurt doctor and the Change in doctor who that moffat has been talking about 87.83.10.218^{talk to me} 09:49, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

@Whosethebestwho The only way I can think to tear apart your theory is by pointing out that you at one point wrote "tiem war". —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 02:58, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "Hurt Doctor" said that what he did was "In the name of peace and sanity", not "stability". The difference is important, especially when it relates to someone's motivations. --89.241.75.103^{talk to me} 10:02, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

The idea that what the "Hurt Doctor" did either resulted in the Time War or made it worse than it otherwise would have been is at least possible. If, intending to prevent or to ameliorate the war, he did something wrongful in itself ("not in the name of the Doctor") that actually made matters worse, it would fit what we know. However, from his own words, it would fit better if the Time War were at least forseeably about to begin than if he triggered a war that otherwise wouldn't have happened. (I was 89 earlier.) --92.16.6.84^{talk to me} 16:30, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Just to create a break in this block text

@87, I understand that some Doctor Who fans don't care for Matt Smith's Doctor. But the fact is is that he is signed on to doing Series 8. He is not going to die in November and turn into John Hurt! Hurt is a guest star, he is not taking over the role. He'll appear in the 50th Anniversary and who knows if he will be making future appearances on the program.

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "the Change in doctor who that moffat has been talking about" but I imagine it's a change in the Doctor's personality as a result of this encounter, not a change in his physical form.

It's amusing to me when I look at chatter way back in Series 6 and there were people thinking there'd be a regeneration at the end of that series, too. I'm happy with the Eleventh Doctor but there are apparently lots of folks chomping at the bit for him to regenerate.

It's too bad some people can't enjoy the show for what it offers and instead wish it were different. I think they have some idealized "perfect Doctor Who" in their minds from when they first discovered the show and I doubt many new episodes could meet these expectations. For me, there are some episodes that are better than others but I'm content to see what Moffat comes up with next. I may not like it but I'm sure he will surprise me! And for television programming, that's a novel experience. Badwolff ☎ 19:43, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

87 & Badwolff: From hearing & reading some of Moffat's comments about changes, I understood him to be referring to a change in the Doctor's situation (& in our understanding thereof), not a change of Doctor.

Badwolff: In very much (though not all) of the chatter about regeneration, I detect an air of "if we talk about this enough, maybe we can make it happen". There are some "fans" who simply can't forgive Matt Smith for not being David Tennant. I have no doubt whatever that, when he eventually does leave, there will then be "fans" who can't forgive the new actor for not being Matt Smith. If John Hurt did take over (& the manner of his introduction -- "not the Doctor" -- says he won't), in very short order we'd be reading "he's too old & it's time he regenerated". That sort of "not as good as the last one" carping has been going on since 1966, when Patrick Troughton took over from William Hartnell. I can remember it happening then & the only real change is that it now happens online. --89.241.75.178^{talk to me} 22:15, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

89, I gained the same understanding from Moffat's comments. I also agree that with each regeneration, some fans have trouble letting go of the previous. Tom Baker was my all time favorite...nobody will match his version of the Doctor, IMHO, but I do enjoy getting aquainted with each new version. It usually takes a complete series for a new actor to fully fall into the role and I think Matt Smith, did that very well (though he is no Tom Baker...hehe). Whosethebestwho ☎ 06:29, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

It took me a while to get used to Patrick Troughton -- but at least I'd the excuse that I'd not known in advance about the possibility of regeneration. Nobody did, the first time it happened.

By and large, each of them has brought something good to the role that neither his predecessors nor his successors has. It's difficult to tell with Paul McGann, because he wasn't given the chance to get properly into the role -- not on TV, anyway. With Colin Baker, it seemed to me at the time (& I've had no reason to change my mind since) that the problems with his performance came from what he was required to do, not from him. And Nicola Bryant frequently seemed very uncomfortable as Peri -- mainly, I think, because she was made to show more flesh than she wanted to (& more than made sense for what the character was doing). That didn't help CB, either.

It's certainly true that I enjoy some of the Doctors more than others. That, however, is mainly down to personal tastes -- the kinds of story-telling that appeal to me. I'd be astonished (& a bit worried) if everyone else seemed to have exactly the same tastes. Also, my feelings about some of the performances have changed over the years. With some of Tom Baker's stuff (especially from later in his tenure), I no longer enjoy the stories as much as I did when I first saw them. With others of his stories, I enjoy them more. I expect that the same thing will happen with the revived series -- assuming I survive long enough for it to happen, that is. (I was 89 earlier.) --78.146.187.63^{talk to me} 09:17, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I don't thing expecting or wanting the Doctor to regenerate necessarily has to do with disliking that particular incarnation of the Doctor. Personally, I'm hoping for a refresh sometime near the end of series 8, despite quite liking Matt Smith. With Doctor Who being a show about change, things need to be altered every once in a while to keep things fresh. I disagree with the idea of somebody trying to break Tom Baker's record as longest Doctor. If anything, T. Baker stayed on a bit too long, and I was really looking forward to seeing the 5th Doctor by the time I started watching Baker's 7th season. 3-4 series is probably a good timing for each actor in my opinion. If anything, Hurt and the Fall of the 11 (if it is indeed something still yet to come) would present a really good opportunity to regenerate the Doctor and give Matt a good exit. Yet again, this is nothing against the actor or the character he is playing; it's just that everything has its time, and everything dies, or has a change of actor in order to refresh things again. Imamadmad (Contact me) 12:13, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Troughton gave pretty much that advice to Peter Davison. However, Troughton was talking of series that had 40-odd episodes a year. Even allowing for the shorter episode length, that's still well over twice the screen-time of a full series nowadays. I agree, though, that Tom Baker stayed too long. (I was 89 & 78 earlier.) --92.23.91.111^{talk to me} 15:46, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

I've only ever disliked one Doctor, but I always look forward to a new Doctor. As much as I liked Tom Baker, I was more than ready for him to move on.

78, I'm so jealous that you got to see all of Patrick Troughton. Your comments about Nicola Bryant make sense to me. I noticed that something about her performance was a little off, and if she was uncomfortable in the role, that would explain it. Shambala108 ☎ 16:45, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

@89, @78, @92: I appreciate your comments about fans holding tight to their favorite Doctor. That's a kinder way of saying what I was trying to say. I think in the new series, things get more complicated because Russell T. Davies/David Tennant and Steven Moffat/Matt Smith are inseparable. It's taken me hanging out here for me to learn to distinguish what I liked about Series 2-4 were due to the Tenth Doctor and what aspects were due to Davies. Similarly, I think negative feelings about Moffat's storyline decisions get mixed up with ambivalence towards Matt Smith.

I came in late to Doctor Who so I've watched Series 1-4 in reruns on BBCAmerica and while Tennant's Tenth is quite handsome and has more bravado than Smith's Eleventh, he also is a narcissist and has a problem with his ego. The Eleventh Doctor is more of a goofball and has more vulnerability. While the Tenth had fondness towards his Companions, the Eleventh actually seems emotionally dependent on them and really loves them, body and soul (which isn't always good, just different). But it's hard to find honest criticism of the Tenth online because of the respect and affection fans have towards Tennant.

Back to Hurt, the question that remains for me is is he a creature that only exists in the Doctor's timestream? Or was he an actual, living, breathing person that they can travel to interact with? I think it could be that he only exists in the timestream. We didn't actually see Clara and the Doctor leave his timestream at the end of the episode so we could pick up in November with them still finding a way out. Badwolff ☎ 19:06, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Badwolff: On David Tennant, I think he did what Tom Baker failed to do -- recognise in advance when another series would be one too many, instead of having others realise afterwards that the previous series had been one too many & that they needed to do something to get him out.

On Hurt, I agree with you about the question(s) & we'll not find out until Moffat wants us to. My suspicion is that he was an actual, living, breathing person but that they may only be able to travel to interact with him via the timestream. That, admittedly, is a guess (not a "theory", because I've too little evidence for that) & is probably influenced by thinking he is somehow associated with the Time War. I emphasise that "somehow" because I've no very clear idea how. I've ideas of what might be possible but not of which possibility Moffat might have chosen. I'm also well aware that Moffat might have thought of something I haven't. He's done it before! --92.23.88.49^{talk to me} 20:48, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Just saw http://www.digitalspy.com/british-tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a479841/john-hurt-teases-doctor-who-50th-anniversary-special-role.html#article_continue which says, "Hurt has told Eastern Daily Press that he plays 'part of the Doctor' in a 'kind of trinity'." Now, "part of the Doctor" to me does not equal "incarnation". This is what I've been thinking all along. That he is some aspect of the Doctor, but not a previously unknown incarnation. Of course, it would've helped if he had said either "A part of the Doctor" or "THE part of the Doctor"...maybe he purposely left the article out. :( Badwolff ☎ 21:00, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Shambala108: Nicola Bryant was certainly uncomfortable in the costumes. One of the things that (I suspect) may give rise to your feeling that "her performance was a little off" is the conflict between the messages: The clothes were saying (very loudly), "Look at me!" & her body-language was saying, "Don't look at me!" Conflicting nonverbal messages will make people think there's something wrong, even if they're not sure why they think there's something wrong.

Badwolff: Maybe Hurt didn't leave the article out. The journalist may have done that. Beware the selective quotation! --92.23.88.49^{talk to me} 21:22, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

@92, you know, it was only when I pasted the quote in that I realized that you could take that statement either way. Personally, I'm going to take it as him saying that he is playing a part of the Doctor. ; ) I was just looking at The Watcher page and am surprised with all of the Valeyard talk that has gone on that no one has mentioned The Watcher who is also "a part of the Doctor". I think this would be more seamless with the current storyline than creating a twelfth, previously unknown Doctor. Badwolff ☎ 22:03, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Badwolff: That could be. However, any of his incarnations could be termed "a part of" the Doctor. In the same article, Hurt is quoted as referring to a "kind of trinity". If that refers to Ten & Eleven, as well as Hurt's "part of the Doctor", he could still be playing a previously-unknown full incarnation. --92.23.88.49^{talk to me} 22:45, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll just be an outlier with my point of view. My judgment has nothing to do with the whole idea of regeneration and the past Doctors. It's based solely on what I've seen Moffat deliver, looking at how he works out storyline arcs (River Song being Amy & Rory's daughter? Amy being a Ganger? Clara being splintered into millions of pieces? Big Bang II? The Doctor being a Teleselecta? etc.). He doesn't take the road most well-traveled, he makes new paths. He doesn't repeat history, he creates it.

I think having Hurt be an incarnation of the Doctor is just too obvious. Personally, I'd love to know what happened with the Time Wars and the period between the Eighth Doctor and when we meet the Ninth Doctor. I just think Moffat's only pattern is to be unpredictable, at least as far as fan expectations go. He always seems to deliver something different than what viewers are expecting...sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But if you look at Moffat, as a writer, I think he is always about storyline twists. Badwolff ☎ 22:55, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. Don't want to, either. --92.23.88.49^{talk to me} 23:00, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

...And creating a never-heard-of "lost" Doctor is completely predictable? No. Introducing a never-seen-before form of the Doctor who was deliberately forgotten is a plot twist that no fan was expecting when they first watched The Name of the Doctor. --Bold Clone 01:24, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Bold Clone: That seems to me to be a serious case of missing the point. Yes, the appearance of the "Hurt Doctor" was a surprise in itself. Following up that surprise with a predictable, conventional explanation of the character would be, shall we say, uncharacteristic of Moffat. If you think the twists will have ended with revealing the existence of the "Hurt Doctor", you're seriously underestimating Moffat's chuzpah. (I was 89, 78 & 92 at various times earlier.) --2.96.24.42^{talk to me} 10:31, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, @2. That's what I was trying to get at. 20:24, June 2, 2013 (UTC) [That seems to have been Badwolff typing an extra tilde again, so only the timestamp shows. :) --89.241.77.88^{talk to me} 21:17, June 2, 2013 (UTC)]

Yep, 'tis me. Badwolff ☎ 22:09, June 2, 2013 (UTC)