Talk:The End of Time (TV story)/Archive 1

	This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

For Reference

Sources for everyone are here, I may copy them over later when I have time if no one else does. --Golden Monkey 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Episodes, One Title

While multiple episodes of the old series often carried a single title, the new series has provided a separate title for each episode. Over at Life, Doctor Who & Combom he posted a rumor that the episode title for 4.17 will be Nightmares Reign and that 4.18 will be The End of Time. [Source]

The End of Time

The End of Time is not necessarily the title, it is just a tag line, the title in unconfirmed. Remember the end of Journey's End - trailer for The Next Doctor, which had a tag line "The Return of the Cybermen", this is exactly the same. Whoniverse93 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Since information is now available regarding the specials, we need an article, so giving it a title is as good as any, but it needs some sort of disclaimer that this may not be the official title. I will add one. 23skidoo 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Title

DWM 412 has confirmed The End of Time as the title of the final episode, at least. 23skidoo 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the title, would anyone object If I link Part 1 to this page? Bigshowbower 07:38, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, since we don't yet have confirmation what the title of Part 1 is, but we do know it's going to be a "Part 1" so the whole discussion should be kept to one article, at least until we know enough to split things up. 23skidoo 23:52, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

The Brigadier?

It says on the page about the Brigadier that it has been "confirmed" he is appearing in this episode. If this is true then his name needs adding to the characters list.

There was no citation/source regarding his appearance so its highly unlikely if it was true and remember to sign your posts as well Bigshowbower 00:40, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Suggest move to The End of Time

I know that, generally speaking, the first episode/book/comic, etc to use a title gets the undisambiguated version of the title. In this case, The End of Time takes us to the Darksmith Legacy novella which was published just today. However, The End of Time is a major milestone in the franchise, and will be getting a lot of attention. As a result a lot of people will be looking for it, and end up sidetracked by the book article. And lots of people will be linking to "The End of Time" in various articles, without knowing or thinking to add "(TV story)". I foresee a mess. For this reason, I would like to recommend that the two articles switch places, that the TV episode article become the main, undisambiguated The End of Time, while the novella be moved to The End of Time (book) or The End of Time (novel). Thoughts? 23skidoo 13:48, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any issues with in going ahead with this. (Though probably novel rather than book or novella for the Darksmith novel). --Tangerineduel 15:40, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I've created a disambig page at The End of Time which links off to The End of Time (novel) and The End of Time (TV story).

Harriet Jones?

how can she be still alive after being extermionated by the daleks? Sclera1 22:39, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

It could be a flashback of her before she was exterminated. Dalig Ulv Stranden 11:23, October 10, 2009 (GMT)

• Also, there's been plenty of speculation as to whether she actually died since she didn't die on camera. And besides, if a certain villain can come back after being cremated by the Doctor... 23skidoo 21:51, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

• Also no one knows she died because the Daleks where told to destroy the Subwave network and if Harriet Jones got shot how did the screen go blank at the same time, It can't have because the Daleks obviously destroyed the subwave network and then we don't know what happened to Harriet Jones therefore she could still be alive. Michael Downey 23:49, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

• We didn't actually see her die did we, considering the fact that she has had such a big role in Doctor Who if she really was killed I think they would have shown it. That would have been quite an iconic moment.

Source needed for Matt Smith

I just got a note on my talk page from a newbie who is convinced Smith won't appear in End of Time and the regeneration will happen in season 5. Although I'm taking that with a grain of salt, we should have a source cited for Matt Smith appearing in the episode as the Eleventh Doctor. Has this actually been confirmed by anyone, or is it just supposition. If it's just supposition then technically we can't list him yet, because we don't know that he'll actually appear. For all we know it could end the way Stolen Earth ended, mid-regeneration, with Smith appearing on camera for the first time in the following episode. Odds are one of the sources already used for this will suffice, but if one user is of the opinion he doesn't appear, there will be others. 23skidoo 21:51, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

I've said this for the airdate, but David Tennant did an interview for the Graham Norton Show which was broadcast 9th November 2009. Basically when questioned iwhat it was like been on set with Smith, Tennant acted very uneasy, saying more or less, 'If I say I was on set with Matt, it could give alot of the story away, and I'm not aloud to do that.' From here Graham Norton presumed they had been on set together and said 'So we see you and Matt together?' To which Tennant replied 'Not together on screen.' I'm sorry for any misquotes. I've slept since the interview was broadcast. I'm sure the interview will be available either on BBC Iplayer or Youtube. But this seems to strongly suggest that Matt Smith will atleast appear in the End of Time. Sezfaz 10:34, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Ood Sphere

LIzo Mzimba has seen The Waters of Mars and tweeted about the End of Time trailer: "[1] First scene of next special will be shown at Children In Need. Which is 3 minutes of the Doctor arriving on the Ood sphere."

The Gate

Something interesting, perhaps.

There have now been two references to an object or place called 'The Gate'; both suggest that it has some importance to the final story. In ‘The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith (part 2)’, The Trickster mentions that the Gate is waiting for the Doctor. It was also referenced in an interview that Russell T. Davies did with the Radio Times for the release of The Next Doctor. His exact wording was:

“After that, we’ll be heading towards the momentous day when the key to that blue box is passed on, and the 11th Doctor storms into your lives. Just think of the adventures to come. Though, you’ll still have David at the helm of the Tardis this time next year. But oh, what a Christmas that’s going to be. Let’s just say that dark forces are gathering already. The Gate is waiting and life will never be the same again…”

I still have the orginal Radio Times document, if needed. Slartibarto 18:21, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

The gate refers to death and death refers to regeneration and regeneration refers to Time Lords and Time Lords refer to Daleks and the Daleks refer to the Doctor and the Doctor brings with him the gate. Or regeneration can refer to Capt. Jack, but that's off subject. Lordandmaster 08:48, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

As of the 10th of November, there has been a third reference. In another Radio Times interview (this time for the release of 'The Waters of Mars') Russell T Davies said: "The Master's return is just the start of our biggest, most heart-breaking story yet. The Immortality Gate is waiting." Slartibarto 16:35, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Should it be noted...

...that this is probaly another children of time episode? I hated the previous one! Lordandmaster 16:36, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

No because this is a Doctor Who episode not a Torchwood episode, and keep those comments to the forum as well. Bigshowbower 09:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean children of earth, I said children of time! Time is what Caan used to descibe the Doctor's companians! Lordandmaster 20:23, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

No we do not know what role the companions will play in the story, and again keep it the forums. Bigshowbower 02:59, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Okay. But I thought that the idea was done already, as all the new series companians meeting up. So I thought it was worth noting, but if you tell me not to then I won't. However if the Master even mutters children of time, it will be up there in a flash. Lordandmaster 09:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think I came off as a bit rude in those posts Im sorry, but yes you should if he does mutter Children of Time. And thank you for thinking I was an admin, I wish I were though, Oh just remeber to sign your posts as well. Bigshowbower 10:33, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Okay and thanks. Lordandmaster 09:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Airdate

It says it will air on the 1st of Jan how do we know this I think it is just speculation. --Catkind121 15:54, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

On November 9th on the Graham Norton Show, Tennant confirmed that part 1 would be shown on Christmas day, and confirmed to the best of his knowledge that part 2 will be broadcast very early in 2010, he even specifically mentions New Years Day. Sezfaz 10:18, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

NEW PAGE

It has been confirmed that the end of time is part one and part two has a title of 6 words so therefore we should now make two different pages. Michael Downey 17:11, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

And call it what?. We shouldnt make two different pages just yet, we should wait until we know what it will be called. I dont see why we have to jump the gun, when we can be preparing for the mass edits of the Waters of Mars page. Bigshowbower 06:03, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

True but little things need editing to pin point out that their going to be called different titles. Michael Downey 10:37, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're not editing the pages and pointing towards a redundant title as that will probably make life somewhat more complicated having to find all the edits that have been changed to link (or not link) away from The End of Time or whatever. --Tangerineduel 13:10, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Filming Locations

Kardomah Cafe Swansea and Tredegar House are confirmed- along with Nant Fawr Road where Donna's house is- anybody know anymore?

Well I know they were filming in Cardiff city centre - thats the bit on the trailer with the explosion and the doctor falling over! - and Barry Docks. Saxon 3 19:34, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Also St.Augustine's church in penarth, Caerphilly castle, Tiger Tiger bar in cardiff (With John Barrowman outside as Jack Harkness), Marshfield church (donna's new wedding), The Powell estate (rose), a bank, Penarth (outside sarah janes house - not sarah jane adventures - with sjs and luke). Saxon 3 20:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Where it says the voiceover for the trailer will be provided by a famous Hollywood actor, listening to the trailer again it sounds to me very much like Brian Cox (Troy and X-Men amongst others).

Title confirmed!

Here! The old style of naming is back! The End of Time, Part One and presumably The End of Time, Part Two. --Golden Monkey 12:43, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

• I've updated the article accordingly. 23skidoo 13:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Airdate, continued

We can't say Jan. 1 for Part 2 as it has not been announced by the BBC. It doesn't matter what individuals have said on chat shows. RTD at one point said Waters of Mars would air at Christmas- and in fact the special itself includes references to the holiday, suggesting this was the original plan. For all we know Part 2 could just as easily air on Boxing Day in the UK. In fact considering the success of Sarah Jane on consecutive nights (not to mention Torchwood Children of Earth), I believe this scenario to be more likely than a New Years Day (or Eve) broadcast. We'll know within a few weeks, but for now we can't put a date for Part 2. 23skidoo 14:52, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

on drwhoonline.co.uk it states that The End of Time Part 2 is on 1st January 2010 (CONFIRMED!!) Shall we edit it?

Yes, as we can cite that website as the source. The same info can be added to Wikipedia as well. Digifiend 19:15, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so hasty, as several blogs are saying Dec. 31. DrWhoOnline can NOT be used as a source because it is a commercial website - it's a shop, for heaven's sake. Wikipedia will reject it outright for that reason alone. We do know it'll be after Dec. 29 as that's the date of the radio special promoting it. But it could still be Dec. 31 or Jan. 1 and until the BBC (not anyone else) announces it, we cannot confirm anything. There's a blog (I had the link but lost it) saying the BBC will announce Dec. 31 as the airdate this week. I'll believe it when I see it, though I would expect the official airdate confirmation for Parts 1 and 2 will come very soon (yes, Part 1 hasn't been officially confirmed, either, but there's enough BBC sources stating "Christmas" to suggest it'll actually air Dec. 25, not Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, as well as precedent, so we're safe giving Dec. 25 as the airdate for Part 1). 23skidoo 22:46, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Then why did somebody add the date anyway? 94.72.196.209 01:36, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

The airdate was confirmed last week on Digital Spy and by the BBC.Saxon 3 17:05, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Actually the BBC just confirmed the airdates for both parts today (1st December). The Christmas airdate was never in doubt, but there were websites indicating a 31 December broadcast was going to be announced for part 2, so now they eat crow. Next up (hopefully soon) will be confirmed airdates for the US (aside from part 1), plus Canada and elsewhere. 23skidoo 19:03, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Whoniverse Timeline: The End of Time, Christmas 2009?

First The Waters of Mars says the Dalek invasion happened in 2008, and therefore in the year it aired; I shrugged that off as a typo, until... The End of Time is set on Christmas 2009, the year it airs (once again). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it the Whoniverse not always a year ahead of us when it comes to modern-day Earth stories?

Adding to this: Children of Earth was also seen to be set in the same year as it aired, not a year ahead. This would all mean Planet of the Dead was Easter 2009, which would put the Dalek invasion in 2008 (as seen in the Waters of Mars), and mean all of Torchwood series 2 happened in 2008 and Doctor Who series 4 would also have happened in 2008. Now it all adds up to the only 2009 stories being Planet of the Dead (April), Children of Earth (September), Forever Autum (October), and The End of Time (Christmas 2009). Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 would most likely come between Planet of the Dead and Children of Earth, and in 2009 between April and September. I think the show is basically screaming out that the Whoniverse timeline is back in sync with ours. Apparantly, the producers may have stated so themselves-- they're showing it, the least. Delton Menace 04:52, November 25, 2009 (UCT)

I've been thinking about this, and one solution to this is that maybe the series was set to start in 2004 in the Whoniverse? That would be one solution. What do you all think of this idea? Adlerj

Didn't Series 3 only happen over about a week on Earth - from Smith and Jones to The Sound of Drums? But The Runaway Bride is set at Christmas so....It's a mess!

I don't understand either I thought that all the stories where a year ahead of themselves due to the Doctor bringing Rose back a year later in the series 1 episode Aliens of London. So I thought Season 4's stories where set in 2009 if they where set in present day. Michael Downey 17:44, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there posters and/or calanders scattered through random places and locations in Torchwood series 2 that seem to say it is 2008- bearing in mind, Torhcwood series 2 takes place some months before Doctor Who series 4 finale, making it - yet again - take place in 2008? Everything we're shown says the Whoniverse is in sync with ours. I'm going to go with what Adler said and assume the beginging of series 1 was set a year behind us when it aried (making it 2004), and then the year skip caused it to be set in sync with us.

I mean, if the End of Time is really Christmas 2009, we can't class Planet of the Dead as April 2010, but April 2009, and then that puts the Dalek invasion in mid-2008, which is exactly where the Waters of Mars says it takes place: 2008. Torchwood series 2 - base don calanders - furhter confirms that it has to be in 2008, and by default the rest of present day earth stories in series 4 of Doctor Who. Sarah Jane Advetnures series 2 should be later 2008 following the Dalek Invasion, and then Planet of the Dead, then Sarah Jane series 3 between April and September 2009 (under personal assumtion), and then Chilren of Earth in September 2009, following by the End oif Time in Christmas 2009.

We can't really deny that it's in sync with ours anymore because there is too much on-screen evidence, and the fact that Children of Earth also takes place in the year it aired. Delton Menace 18:04, November 2th, 2009 (UCT)

But those are all writers mistakes, and appernetly in the End of Timne part 2 the doc travels to 2004 new year in March 2005 Rose is set. When New Year comes The Doctor asks Rose what year it is she says it is 2005 he picks her up up in march 2005 then goes to march 2006 in aliens of London. So looks like this could be like the UNIT dating crisis. --Catkind121 21:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

It is a mess, it's all that stupid Aliens of London thing where he brings her home a year later and the poster says she went missing in March 2005, and the 2008 Dalek invasion taking place after three christmas's. If it wasnt for the christmas specials all being set in present day one after the other it would be fine and dandy. 81.132.89.87 16:17, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Right, heres what the production team supposedly stated (don't quote me on this) But Aliens of London was a year ahead, but series 3 took place over just a few days so the whoinverse is in synch with ours, capische? Excalibur-117 18:44, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

So series 1 was generally in 2005, then skipped to 2006, causing series 2 to be 2007 and series 3 to be 2008.. Series 3 was around May 2008 due to this. But then then Voyage of the Damned jumped to Christmas 2008, causing series 4 to happen in 2009. With series 4 happening in 2009, the Easter specail, which referened the series 4 finale, would be in 2010. Then the Waters of Mars said the Dalek Invasion happened in 2008... Must be a typos! Oh wait- the End of Time, Christmas 2009, causing the Eatser special to be Easter 2009, and then causing the Dalek Invasion and in turn series 4 to happen in 2008, which was also shown in the previous special. This pushes the specials to be 2009, series 4 to be 2008, series 3 to be 2007, series 2 to be 2006, and series 1 to be 2005, and before th Aliens of London, 2004. However, the End of Time also reveals that series 1 had to take place begining in 2005, not 2004.

Huge problem: leaked quotes from a scene where the Doctor travels back to before he meets Rose seems to reveal that Rose met the Ninth Doctor following Chrismtas 2005, causing series 1 beging to be 2006, series 1 later to be 2007, series 2 to be 2008, series 3 to be 2009, series 4 to be 2010, and the specaisl to be 2011.

If that leaed quote is true, not only has the End of Time shoved the Whoniverse timeline back one year, but it has also shoved the Whoniverse time FORWARD two years ahead of us. What the hell have the producers done? Put the whoniverse timeline a year ahead of us, then put it back in sync with us, and then put it toward years ahead us. Delton Menace

At the moment, we know Series 4 was 2009, and all the 3rd Series Sarah Jane Adventures are apparently set in 2010, along with Torchwood:Children of Earth so if the Doctor's doing it logically it SHOULD be set in 2010-Excalibur-117 19:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

wait, thats wrong hold on let's see how the other Xmas Specials worked out: Christmas Invasion was 2006, Runaway Bride was 2007 Voyage of the Damned would then be 2008 and End of Time should then be 2009

• • See I'm confused because the battle of canary wharf took place in July 2006 so that means that half of series 1 and 2 took place in 2006 which means the first and second Christmas special took place the same Christmas but we know didn't because the Doctor asks Donna of the events of the previous Christmas so I have identified the where the typo has occurred because I know for a fact that the doctor catches up on time and series 3 happens in 2007 which means the dalek invasion happened in 2008. Right so I think I have worked it out with a previous quote from a writer. Series 1 begins in 2005 and until Aliens of London then goes to 2006. 1st Christmas special date in unknown. Series 2 in 2006, 2nd Christmas special in 2006. Series 3 and 3rd Christmas special in 2007. Series 4 and 4th Christmas Special in 2008 (Dalek Invasion 2008). Planet of the dead 2009 and the end of time set at Christmas 2009. So the typo is clearly the first 2 Christmas specials. Hope This Helps. Michael Downey 22:37, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Hows about we just wait for the episode to air, then go from there? we all know that if we start trying to do this without knowing whats actually gonna happen then its gonna go sideway- Excalibur-117 23:01, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Christmas special will air in less than a month now, so the timeline suspence (for us who care about the timeline deeply) is building. I mean, when the episode airs, and a big 'HAPPY CHRISTMAS' sign directly states that it is Christmas 2009 - or Wilf or some character says it is 2009, ect. - can we really ignore that? That indeed puts the Easter special April 2009, and in turn the Dalek invasion is indeed 2008 (which has already been shown in the Waters of Mars). We will need to put the timeline back a year (for the modern day earth stories in the revived series, Torchwood, and the Sarah Jane Adventures). But when that is done, what do we make of the Aliens of London/World War Three and how it put everything forward a year? There has to be an explanation. I don't understand this whole series-three-put-everything-back talk, as the Aliens of London caused series 3 to be 2008 by default, and then Voyage the Damned, coming after, ended up being Christmas 2008, causing series 4 to be 2009. The Next Doctor would have been Christmas 2009 if it wasn't in the past, so it is assumed Earth had a normal Christmas that year, but the End of Time says otherwise.

But the important thing is, is there an official source that says when the End of Time skaes place? Delton Menace 21:12, November 28, 2009(UCT)

At the moment, I don't think there is. And we've also got to remember that somes of it's gonna be set on the Ood Sphere, 100 years after Planet of the Ood which if my memory and maths are any decent should make it about 4226.-Excalibur-117 13:29, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Taking in the fact that, as I looked through the Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 and the setting for the first half of the series said 2010, whereas the second half of the series said 2009 (talk about backwards storytelling, or typos), there is obviousaly a large (well, not that large) confusion on TARDIS wiki about timeline setting, with some saying 2009 and others saying 2010. I would prefer that the timeline is indeed in sync to make life in Who easier, and because the large gap that would be between April 2009 and Sepember 2009 would make room for the Sarah Jane Adventures series 3, while explaing Sarah Jane's lack of involvment or even knowledge of the 456 invasion suring the third series (it was taking place in London, and Sarah Jane has had many missions where she come into some form of contact with younger children, you'd think there would be a refernece by her about possesed children). I personally think the timeline looks much cleaner for 2009 that way, so I am hoping the End of Time's setting is true.

I'm thinking, if it is and 2009 is the specials era: April, Planet of the Dead happens; post-April and pre-September, Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 happens; September, TorchwoodL Children of Earth happens; December, the End of Time happens. Nice, clean timeline.

I always thought that Jack's dissapearance in September 2009 and reappearance in early 2010 would indicate that his invovlment in the finale specials took place after he left Gwen and Rhys in September 2009 and before he went back to them in 2010. I mean, what DID he do in that time span? I reckon his involvemtn in the End of Time is the answer, and that was Russel T. Davies (since he wrote both) putting it together like a jigsaw puzzle. Delton Menace

You guys do realize the Doctor is a time traveller, do you? For all we know, he could have spent any year he wanted twice. For example, we don't know how much time passes between series. What we know, though, is that time does not necessarily work in the "right" order for him, as he himself suggests in Blink. 90.134.63.105 16:57, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Lets not forget though that in Planet of the Dead a character refers to when the planets moved. I thinl all storyies a year a head of there time.

Yes, well considering that journeys end occured june or from that point, you would have thought that they remember it in easter the next year, not everyone has the memory of a goldifsh.Saxon 3 17:43, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think The End of Time should be Christmas 2010... Putting it in 2009 will set it BEFORE Planet of the Dead; that doesn't make sense. To think this all could have been averted if that little '5' of Rose's MISSING poster was changed to a '4'. Bttsstewart 00:28, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

There is no source for the 2009 date. I removed it but someone put it back. I decided to just leave it because articles are usually full of unsourced speculation (like Berserkers in Waters of Mars) before the episode in question airs, and then there's a crackdown. About Jack, I'm betting his appearance in The End of Time will be set after he's returned to Earth and experienced Series 4, despite Series 4 not having been aired yet, but who knows? The writers are aware of the one-year skip thing, though they sometimes forget, the skip is backed up by statements of the year in novels and Martha's myspace blog. Though, as said above, it is possible for The End of Time to be set before Planet of the Dead because of time travel. But there's no source. -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:52, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

But it The End of Time was set before Planet of the Dead (time travel-wise), there would be errors, errors, errors: Joshuha Naismith is obvious in bsuiness during the events of Planet of the Dead, but no doubt The End of Time will see his downfall, arrested, killed, whatever happens to him. But he is doing well and in business during planet of the Dead. Planet of the Dead said something about the recsission (a 2009 thing, no less!), and I keep hearing that a character in The End of Time will announce the end of the recsission. In Planet of the Dead, the rescission is going on (this is a 2009 event, too), and it presumably ends at Christmas 2009 in The End of Time. The fact that the rescission is even mentioned in both episodes really gives them both 20009 placments. The event was not around in, 2008, I believe, and series 4 never mentioned it (which would indicate a 2008 placment). Then there was the article in The Waters of Mars: 2008 Dalek Invasion of Earth. which would make Planet of the Dead April 2009 and The End of Time, then Children of Earth September 2009, and then The End of Time Christmas 2009 (explaining the mention of the rescission, too). It would also explain why Jack in on Earth and not with Torchwood during The End of Time - he left them in September 2009 and returned March 2010, explaining that his involvement in the specials takes place during his dissapearance from Torchwood and before he returned to Gwen and Rhys to leave Earth. Delton Menace 10:20, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Naismith reference in Planet of the Dead. That indicates The End of Time must be Christmas 2010 (which is what I thought) unless he survives it or his company is still in business under someone else. The timing of the recession doesn't really matter because the Whoniverse isn't our universe - we didn't have Christmas invasions, either. "2008 Dalek Invasion" was a mistake. It also conflicts with Adelaide's May 1999 birthdate given in Waters of Mars, which would have made her nine during the invasion if it was 2008. She was stated to be ten during it, just as she would be in 2009. "2008" was just a production error. The novel Beautiful Chaos is clear about Donna's time being 2009 in Doctor Who Series 4. Martha's myspace blog is clear about her time being 2008 in Series 3 (with having travelled to 2007 in Blink and the prologue of Human Nature, and Martha wondering if that's because it's when the Doctor last saw Rose). Rose states that it's the beginning of 2005 when the Doctor meets her at the end of The End of Time, before she meets the Ninth Doctor. That bit of filming has been recorded. So it's clear where the bulk of the evidence lies. The occasional slip is because the writers' memories aren't perfect. If they're wise, they'll set two upcoming series in the same year and spare themselves the headache in the future. -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:27, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

With what I have seen happening in The End of Time, none of it will survive. Desturction from left to right. One instance involves an explosion in his mansion. The picture for The End of Time looks as if London has been completely destroyed: house debrise as far as the eye can see, a car tire among the rubble, fire in the background. The summary mentions something about the wastlands of London, and the picture shows complete destruction. If London is destroyed, that completely stops Planet of the Dead happening after The End of Time (the events of that episode can't just be cancaled out because then it erases Carmen's prophecy, which is important for The End of Time). Plus, if Planet of the Dead is after The End of Time, the the entire of Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 is, too (despite featuring the Tenth Doctor). The events of the End of Time were foreshadowed in Planet of the Dead and the Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith, so why would they be set after the events? For a start, "it is returning through the dark". By The End of Time, it has already returned thought the dark, but half a year later, it is is suddenly "reutnring" when it already returned? Plus, there are some huge events that will happen in The End of Time that should leave a mark on the human face for years to come. Planet of the Dead, a few months later, makes absolutely no mention of it, but references the series 4 finale. How odd, really. I mean, a trap closing around the Earth and all of this destrucdtion going off isn't going to be forgeten by April. Let's face it: Planet of the Dead cannot be after The End of Time, there is so much confusion. And like I said, the rescission is still happening in Planet of the Dead, but apparantly it's finished in The End of Time by December.

Anyway, should we change it to 'Christmas 2010' for The End of Time? The current date is causing huge confusion for people because that sets it before Planet of the Dea dna d Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3. And this says it all: Luke meets the Doctor for the first time in the Wedding of Sarah Jane, which is set after Planet of the Dead, which you are saying could be set after The End of Time... problem is, Luke and the Doctor are seen on-screen together in The End of Time. Therefore, it has to be after they met in SJA series 3, which places it after Planet of the Dead (Mona's Lisa's Revenge refenreces Planet of the Dead). Delton Menace 16:12, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I know this might sound ignorant but where does it state that planet of the dead takes place in 2010? and End of time airs tomorrow so can't we just leave it till then? Excalibur-117 14:55, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful Chaos (which has been vaugely referneced in The End of Time, giving the nice little 'canon' stamp) confirmed that modern day Earth stories in sereis 4 Doctor Who took place in 2009, and the finale took place around June 2009. That would mean that Planet of the Dead took place before the Stolen Earth/Journey's End, but them events are referneced in Planet of the Dead, placing it the next year... in 2010. Series 3 Sarah Jane Advetnures by fault occurs in 2010 before of this. Luke meets the Doctor for the first time in series 3 (set in 2010), which stops The End of Time taking place in 2009- Luke meets the Doctor again in The End of Time, placing it after the Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith (Earth timelime-wise), and by fault placing it after Planet of the Dead. Therefore, The End of Time HAS to be 2010, it simply cannot happen before SJA series 3, and by fault Planet of the Dead (both set in 2010). Delton Menace 16:40, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the only way around this is to assume that Rose WAS set in 2004 and the poster seen in Aliens of London was a typo (made by Jackie, lol). Thats the only way to solve it, what a mess!81.131.107.180 23:48, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

The End of Time being set in 2010 stops all of this time problem. Besides, it is made clear in the end of Time that Rose met the Ninth Doctor in 2005. He goes back in time to shortly before he met her, and apparantly the date is January 2005, making the year skip be 2006 (half of series 1), series 2 be 2007, series 3 be 2008, series 4 be 2009, and Planet of the Dead and The End of Time and SJA series 3 be 2010. And as I said, the Doctor meets Luke for a second time in The End of Time, so placing it in 2009 would place the Wedding of Sarah Jane in 2009, and that would make Plabet of the Dead bhe 2009, which would make it take place before the series 4 finale of Doctor Who. xD

One thing: the End of Time being 2010 = nice and squeaky clean timeline, no huge errors. :) Delton Menace 00:39, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we agree. Other evidence in favor of this timeline: Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia states that the Battle of Canary Wharf happened in 2007. The Series 2 Torchwood novels Trace Memory and The Twilight Streets are set in roughly the same time frame as each other. One states that it is set in 2008 and the other states that Boom Town was twenty three months ago. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:57, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

I've been wondering, if Rose sees the Tenth Doctor the year before she met him, why didn't she recognise him in the TARDIS after he regenerated? That's a little confusing, unless he wiped her mind of the meeting or it has something to do with time travel? Jezza88 11:13, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

I know I don't remember everyone I've seen, especially briefly in a minor encounter. -- Noneofyourbusiness 02:51, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Noneofyourbusiness, I'm glad we have it all settled. Torchwood is always a little confusing because the first half of the series tends to be set at the end of one year, and the second half at the begining of the next. It's like series 1 Torchwood begining took place not long after the Battle of Canary Wharf in 2007, and by the events of Out of Time (which took place almost at the exact same time as The Runaway Bride, 2007), it was Christmas, making the following series 1 episodes take place in early 2008. Then Jack's dissapearance from Torchwood and skip to May 2008, then the first few Torchwood series 2 stories should be 2008, then a small skip, then the rest of the series in early 2009, followed by series 4 Doctor Who mid-2009, and then Children of Earth late 2009, then the five month skip, and Jack returns in March 2010, then Planet of the Dead happening one month later. Then a big skip from April 2010 to Christmas 2010, Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 being aloud to happen during that skip between April and December 2010. Absolutely no shown dates were given in SJA series 3, but fortunately, Planet of the Dead was referenced, making the series after April and before December. Heh, the timeline is much cleaner than we fought now that we look at it :) Delton Menace 02:06, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

And if Jack is on Earth when he shows up in Part Two, I'm going with the theory that at least part of Torchwood Series 4 will be set in 2010. -- Noneofyourbusiness 19:38, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Well, a full series of Torchwood is generally part set near the end of one year, and the other part set in the early part of the following year, though The End of Time could just as easily explain how Jack came back to Earth, and then the Doctor telling him to rebuild Torchwood, setting up for series 4. Delton Menace 20:19, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Luke Smith and The Doctor see each other the first time in The Stolen Earth and seeing how bedazzled Luke seems on meeting The Doctor here, this may still very well be set before The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith. Meeting The Doctor "after" his death is not a huge problem here, you can still meet him a few trillion years after his chronological death after all... Also, what exactly implies that a whole year passed between the Season 4 finale and Planet of the Death? It might as well just have been a few days (or weeks, or months) So, yeah, both options work. That's "time travel" for you. 90.136.28.175 20:37, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Not working, it takes place in 2010, and that is fact. Type in 2010 on the wiki and you'll see what happens when, and it's neat as it is. I meant Luke meets the Doctor in person for the first time in The Wedding of Sarah Jane, and that you could even aknowledge at all that The Stolen Earth could be after The Wedding of Sarah Jane disturbs me. The events of The Stolen Earth/Journey's End are mentioned in the wedding episode, the Doctor mentions how Luke and K9 helped him save the world, and that it was good to meet him for the first time in the flesh.

I'm sick and tired of this. The End of Time happens in 2010: fact. The series 4 finale is set in May/June 2009, meaning Planet of the Dead is set in April 2010. Unfortunately for you there, the events of The Stolen Earth/Journey's End are mentioned in Planet of the Dead, so it happens in 2010. The recsession is still happening in Planet of the Dead, and ends in The End of Time, making the last special 2010. Sarah's Jane's wedding and the whole of series 3 Sarah Jane Advetnures is set after Planet of the Dead, in 2010.

Timeline:

Series 4 - The Stolen Earth/Journey's End (May/June 2009) - Children of Earth (September 2009) - Jack leaves Earth to recover from his loss (March 2010) - Planet of the Dead (April 2010) - SJA series 3 (October/November 2010) - Luke meets to Doctor in person for the first time (November 2010) - The End of Time (December 2010) - Luke meets the Doctor in person for a second time (January 1st 2011) - Jack in space recovering from his loss (January 1st 2011).

or, have a really crappy error, and...

Series 4 - The Stolen Earth/Journey's End (May/June 2009) - Children of Earth (September 2009) - The End of Time (December 2009) - Luke meets the Doctor in person for a second time (1st January 2010) Jack in space recovering from his loss (January st 2010) - Jack leaves Earth to recover from his loss (March 2010) - The End of Time (December 2010) - Planet of the Dead (April 2010) - SJA series 3 (October/November 2010) - Luke meets the Doctor in person for the first time (November 2010)

Placing The End of Time in 2009:

• Jack left Earth (March 2010) before he left Earth (January 1st 2010)
• Luke meets the Doctor in person for the second time (January 1st 2010) before they meet for the first time (November 2010)
• The recission ends (December 2009), and then it suddenly comes back (April 2010)
• Naismith arrested (December 2009) and then suddenly back (April 2010)

Placing The End of Time in 2010:

• Jack left Earth (March 2010) and is still recovering in an alien bar (January 1st 2011)
• Luke meets the Doctor in person for the first time (November 2010) and then a second time (December 2010)
• The recsission is going on (April 2010), and then ends (December 2010)
• Naismith in business (April 2010), and then arrested (December 2010)

Fun fact: as of Aliens of London the Whoniverse is always one year ahead of its airdate. Stop trying to find excuses to place The End of Time in 2009, because trying to do that will end time itself when you destroy theearlt 21st century timeline. Delton Menace 02:34, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Right, in Doctor Who Annual 2010 it has two pages called Earth Invaders, here's the timeline: AD 79 - The Pyrovilles

1599 - The Carrionites

1851 - Cybermen

1930's - The Cult of Skaro

Christmas day 2006 - Sycorax

2007 - Krillitanes

2007 - The Battle of Canary Wharf

2008 to 2009 - Toclafane

2009 - Sontarans

2009 - New Daslek Empire (EARLY MAY)

So say we put planet of the dead in late May or early april 2009, that would suit the rest and set the timeline back in synch with ours for series 5 (gives it a clean slate for the new production team). Now The End of Time takes place in 2009, when Russel and Julie were doing the commentary for part 2, when it came to the bit on Donna's wedding day he said " and theres Donna getting married in april 2010". As for Torchwood, that takes place in around about June or July, placing the month where Jack left roughly around December or late November just before the events of The End of Time. Saxon 3 15:57, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jack left Earth in March 2010. Children of Earth is September 2009, and says five months later, making his leave is MARCH 2010. The End of Time is set after he leaves, making is December 2010. Sorry, but everyone on the wiki basically agrees., Stop trying to set the timeline in sync with ours, it's not going to work without disaster.

What you are doing is trying to put both SJA series 2 and three in the same year. Planet of the Dead is a known fact to be either April 11th or 12th, and the Dalek invasion is a known fact to be May. This places Planet of the Dead over a year later, in 2010, which places SJA series 3 in 2010, and they both (the recsession ending and Luke meeting the Doctor in person for a second time) place The End of Time in 2010. Jack leaving Earth in March 2010 (fact, too) places The End of Time in 2010. No one in London is bothered about an alien invasion in The End of Time, which would be explained by one thing: Christmas 2009 had no invasion, and so they're not as worried now. Delton Menace 23:23, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Where has it been confirmed when each series of SJA occurs? If the Dalek invasion happened in may 2009 that would mean that was the first Luke met the Doctor, thwe second time in September/Ocotober and then the third we don't know because The Doctor had been Time Travelling so it could have been before the end of time when he went to see luke and sarah. As for Torchwood that is in the same year as us, there is no reason Children of Earth couldn't have happened in July or June (especially considering the episodes aired in July). What I am saying is that everything is a year aheah up until 2009, which is perfectly logical. Russel T Davies confirmed in the commentary for part 2 that Donna's wedding was happening in 2010, Wilf had said that Donna was getting married in the spring did he not? It gives the new production team a clean slate so everything is not mucked up, otherweise they would have to clean up after the previous era. Saxon 3 20:56, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

This has become so confusing. This is how I believe it is:

• Doctor Who Series 1 - set in 2005 (as with Rose's appearance)
  • Then jumps forward a year to 2006
• Doctor Who Series 2 and Torchwood Series 1 are set in 2007 (airing 2006)
• Doctor Who Series 3 and Sarah Jane Adventures Series 1 are set in early-May 2008 (airing 2007)
• Doctor Who Series 4, Torchwood Series 2 and STA Series 2 set in early-mid 2009 (airing 2008)
• Torchwood Series 3 set in September 2009, with scenes in 2010 (airing 2009)
• Planet of the Dead set in April 2010 (airing 2009)
• SJA Series 3 set in either 2010 or late 2009 (airing 2009)
• The End of Time set in either late 2009-early 2010, or late 2010-early 2011 (airing 2009-2010)

It seems very unlikely there would be enough time from May 2009 to December 2009 for Donna to find the 'love of her life' and everything else to happen. So I think it's set in 2010. I just thought this might help make a few things clearer, even if it is repeating the above. Whoniverse93 21:16, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Luke met the Doctor IN PERSON for the first time in The Wedding of Sarah Jane and met the Doctor IN PERSON for the SECOND TIME in The End of Time. Planet of the Dead and SJA series 3 both take place in 2010, The End of Time CANNOT come before them.

Children of Earth clearly states that it is SEPTEMBER 2009, and Jack left Earth in MARCH 2010, then Planet of the Dead happened, then SJA series 3 happening. All in 2010. The End of Time CANNOT come before Luke met the Doctor in-person for the FIRST TIME in 2010 (The Wedding of Sarah) and before Jack left Earth in 2010.

If you're stupid enough to place The End of Time in 2009, SJA series 4 ends up in 2009, Planet of the Dead ends up in 2009, series 4 Doctor Who ends up in 2008, series 3 Doctor Who ends up in 2007, series 3 Doctor Who ends up in 2006, most of series 1 Doctor Who ends up in 2005, and Rose ends up meeting the Doctor in 2004.

Or you could pull huge stretch and place Torchwood series 2 in January, Febuary, March, April, series 4 Doctor April, May, Planet of the Dead in either late May or early June, SJA series 2 June-July-August, Children of Earth September, SJA series 3 October, November, The End of Time December, all in 2009. Delton Menace 00:30, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

The first episode of Torchwood takes place in January 2008 we know this because of the video of the fish on the website Torchwood Missions with the date overhead, What is the matter with SJA taking place in 2007, series 2 2008 and 3 2009? Donna's wedding is in 2010, Russel Davies has stated this himself on the commentary for part 2, It is possible for Donna to have met the love of her life within 6/5 monts, bcause she had only known Lance for six months before there wedding day. Serries 4 of doctor who, series 3 of torchwood, and series 3 of sarah jane all takes place in 2009 along with the specials, that all makes 2010 nice and clean for the new production team otherwise they are left cleaning up the last teams mess. It has been confirmed that dONNA'S WEDDING TAKES PLACE IN 2010 russel t davies has said it which places end of time in 2009.Saxon 3 09:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Few to no one on the wiki cares what Russel T. Davies had said there- he ***ed up when he decided to only make Doctor who skip one year ahead in series one, placing everything a year ahead. You're arguing ridiculously. He fucked up, face it. He forgot that he made everything one year ahead, making what he said very invalid to what in-universe event happened.

Rose met the Doctor in 2005, she returned a year later to 2006, causing The Christmas Invasion to take place at the end of 2006, series 2 to take place in 2007, The Runaway Bride to take place at the end of 2007, series 3 to take place in 2008, series 4 to take place in 2009 with the finale being late May (this has been confirmed in-universe), Planet of the Dead April 11th or 12 (FACT), making it take place in 2010, causing the final two specials and SJA series 3 to take place in 2005.

THE DOCTOR SKIPPED AN ENTIRE YEAR, CAUSING EVERYTHING TO BE AHEAD. Unfortunately, Russell T. Davies forgot what he did. I is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be in sync with us these last few series. Three words: Aliens of London. That episode jumped the timeline ahead. And Beautiful Chaos confirms that series 4 is all in 2009 and the finale is in late May. Planet of the Dead is in early April, get over it. You can't move easter to fit the timeline you want. Delton Menace 21:38, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying the last few series are all in synch, I am saying that series FOUR is set in 2009, along with all of the following episodes including Torchwood and SJA. There is no need for language,m anyway you have been wrong on more than one occasion, so it is very likely that YOU are wrong. There is nio reason my timeline can't be right, it is reasonable plus it gives the new production team a clean slte for 2010, that way they can do their own things for 2010 and onwards.Saxon 3 10:03, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

That's stupid. You can't say someone is likely to be wrong because they weren't right about a completely different subject. And in fact, that subject hasn't even been fufiled yet, so don't call me wrong. Let's just say I know we haven't heard the last from some people, and they could return any time from next year to in five years.

I was wrong on one occasion, the other I believed would return either in the final special of a future series. And he is. *spoilers* I knew the Time Lords were going to return in some sense before I even saw Planet of the Dead, thank you. I have contacts who have contacts, things leak.

And tell me, what month is Easter in? Early April. What month is The Stolen Earth/Journey's End? Late May. Therefore, nothing is left but a 2010 placment. Delton Menace 21:07, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually Journey's end and the stolen earth take place in late june if Beautiful chaos was set six weeks before it, which means children of earth could have happened a month later than then. What's wrong with the Doctor visiting a time previous to the events in stolen earth since time is in Flux and he is a TIME TRAVELLER, wheras the gap might not have been there before it could have appeared there in 2009 asfter the Doctor had left Donna. Obviously we haven't heard the last of some people! Russel T Davies stated in Confidential that he wrote the bit where Obama announces the end of the recession, and then later worriesd that the recession mightr have ended by the time the episode aired, plus with The Next Doctor set in 1885 or whatever it was we miss out on xmas 2009. Why would he be worrying that the recession had ended by the time the episode aired if it was set in 2010 when it is quite possible it could have ended???Saxon 3 22:10, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Check the 2009 article on here now, Torchwood series 2 and 3, SJA series 2 and 3, Doctor Who series 4 and two of the specials are all set as being in 2009 now. A thread contains info by bigredrabit on their chronological order. But keep in mind, with The End of Time being in 2009, nothing (absolutely nothing) exacept the five month later skip to March 2010 in Children of Earth can be set in 2009. I have explained why a billion times.

But Now it goes for 2009:

• Torchwood series 2 (January-Febuary-March-April)
• Doctor Who series 4 (April-May-early June)
• The Sarah Jane Advetnures series 2 (late June-July-August)
• Children of Earth (September)
• The Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 (October-November)
• The End of Time (December)

But where does Planet of the Dead go in there? It has to be after early June somewhere, but it can't be too far into the year, either. Planet of the Dead can't happen before The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. "Oh, it's like when there were those planets in the sky!" - Passanger on the 200 bus. There should be a Doctor Who annual thing or whatever that reveals the offical dating of various stories and answers timeline questions. Delton Menace 14:26, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

• • Answering this point, there's nothing in Planet of the Dead to indicate when it takes place, except it occurred around Eastertime at some point for the Doctor after Journey's End. Or it could take place after End of Time because the comment about planets appearing in the sky could easily refer to Gallifrey appearing (remember EoT would have been written by this point so RTD might have been intentionally ambiguous). There's no rule that the Tenth Doctor couldn't have arrived in 2011 or 2012 either, just because he regenerated in 2009 or 2010 or whenever. 23skidoo 14:49, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so I was right??Saxon 3 21:43, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

23skiddo, the recession is mentioned in Planet of the Dead as causing problems and blah, and the recession is over and solved in The End of Time, which is December 2009. The Sarah Jane series 3, which fits at some point between Children of Earth and The End of Time in October and November 2009 references the events of Planet of the Dead, placing it prior to October and November of 2009. Delton Menace 15:24, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Queenie

Just readin the reference in regards to QE1 and her "supposed" relations with te Doctor, firstly, someone may want to mention that this could be the reason she wanted him dead in "The Shakespeare Code" and secondly, i believe that hte nickname he was referring to, since the way he phrase the sentence to ood sigma, was in fact "good queen elizabeth" not "virgin queen"

It's pretty obvious he did mean 'the virgin queen' - as he didn't say it - that's the joke! If they got married and slept together then she could no longer have that nickname...

The Doctor said "good queen bess" when he was talkiing about her, it refers to "virgin queen" as he would not have said "good queen bess" otherwise.Saxon 3 17:34, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Saxon, Ood Sigma, and the Beast

She is down in the 'aliens and enemies' for the End of Time, but how do we know she's an enemy, espcailly after she turned against the Master at the end of Last of the Time Lords? Many people overlook that. She, in a sense, turned good. She helped the Doctor defeat the Master, and then shot him. This seems to contradict people assuming she is an enemy in the End of Time before they even see it. I personally highly doubt she will be an enemy, but more, just, there. Heck, I reckon she sacrafice herself to help the Doctor in the end... Davies said it's a sad story for Lucy in an interview. Very sad story for her. in the End of Time.

Sure, we know the Master is an alien and enemy in the episode, so it's fine putting that down. But we don't know about Lucy, and it is very debatable based on her previous actions whether she will be an enemyat all. Currently known is that she was sent to prison and there is an explosion, the prison is called Broadfell. She's more a human criminal than anything, but should we expect her as an enemy of the Doctor in the finale?

As for Ood Sigma, who might be possesing him? I bet my money it's the Beast, and he will probably be the one exelerating the Ood species and giving them their advanced psychic abilities. In fact, I believe the Beast is the true bad guy in the finale, and the one who has cast a shadow over creation, possesed Ood Sigma, excelerated the Ood, and he may be the 'vast thing stirring in the dark'. He did call himself the darkness, after all, mentioned war, and say he was beyond time itself. Sound familair? Delton Menace 20:21 November 30, 2009 (UCT)

See Lucy could be an enemy. I have a theory that the reason she shot him was part of the plan. I reckon the Master told Lucy to kill him so he wouldn't regenerate if he ever lost or got beat by the Doctor. Then the Master will store his self somehow in his ring so then someone can bring him back secretly. That's my theory so Lucy could be helping him. Michael Downey 00:28, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

It was noted in the Last of the Time Lords commentery that the Master was physically abusing Lucy, and that fueld her desire to kill him for what he did to her. In the Last of the Time Lords, she has a faded black eye, too. And she looks emotionally abused, at that. If you exaimine her behaviour, you can see her questioning whether or not to help the Doctor. When everyone starts chanting, she simply joins them; when she shot him, you could see the relief in her. All evidence and even commententery say she shot him simply because her activly abused her. She wouldn't want him to come back, seeing as she wanted him dead badly. Therefore, that makes it unlikely she will even be an enemy in the End of Time.Delton Menace 07:25, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatley im in doubt that Lucy will even have a chance to be a villain, she is seen witnessing the master's ressurection and if they didnt plan to kill him if things went badly, the masters not going to let her off easily is he, and come to think of it the only time we have seen lucy on the trailers is while she is in prison. R.T.D has stated that it is a sad story for lucy, come to think of it her name is in the cast list for part 2. It could be that the master might find it more fun to keep her alive, torture her, there has been an explosion at her prison. Hmmm, maybe she dies helping the doctor...again. What would you do if you were the master, youve just been ressurected and the wife that killed you is there at your feet?Saxon 3 17:35, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Regeneration

I've been thinking, from what I know, for all but two past regenerations there has been a companion(s) there with him at the time. Does anyone think that someone will be there for him this time? Adlerj

That sort of thing should be in the forums. --Bigshowbower 10:49, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

i think that the eleventh doctor (matt smith)will be the last as you remember that the timelords have 12 regenerations and in Journeys End the doctor regenerated from his hand but that still counts as regeneration

They don't have twelve regenerationsm they have 13, besides the Master is only supposed to 13 regenerations but he still keeps coming back, The Doctor will probably regain another thirteen regenerations by some sort of power source - possibly the heart of the tardis.

Time Lords have 12 regenerations, i.e. they can regenerate 12 times. As birth doesn't count as regeneration, they can have up to 13 different personas. Tardis1963 23:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

There is technology on Gallifrey to extend the number of regenerations a time lord has; and the council can force a time lord to regenerate against his will. I dont know the source, but its around somewhere. --Jedman67 04:53, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I believe Russell T Davies stated that the Time Lords were given extra regenerations in the Time War. This probably won't be stated on the screen though... 86.7.94.35 17:18, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ood and Time

The Ood became highly advanced in just 100 years and the Doc said it was way too quick. The writers said they wanted to bring back the time lords. Could it be possible that the Ood might somehow become the time lords?

No, the Ood are simply the Ood. The Immortality gate is the key to the time lords return, what is a gate for? coming through and goinf through. The door to the other side. Except Naismith doesnt realise what the master wants to use it for. Tthe time lords are back but at what cost. Wilf and donna unfortunately. Videos from filming witness the characters (sylvia mainly) SCREAMING ABOUT a great ball of fire in the sky, now Gallifrey could be mistaken for just that, what if when Gallifrey enters the earths atmosphere it causes powerful sound waves to ensue, causing the destruction of much of the planet, including London, wich would explain why London is a wasteland.Saxon 3 17:40, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Miss Trefusis

I'm not in the UK and have been a bit out of touch on some of the new developments, but could the Miss Trefusis mentioned in this episode be the same person as Cessair of Diplos? (After all, Miss Trefusis was one of her names...) 98.71.128.214 21:43, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Not the same person, as it was Mrs Trefusis in The Stones of Blood, not Miss. Probably just a reference/homage, the common inspiration for the name probably being Violet Trefusis. Maccy69 00:12, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth I

The speculation regarding what the Doctor meant in his reference to Elizabeth I was unacceptable so I removed it. Unless there's a further reference to her in the broadcast or a later episode, we can't state more than the facts. Neither the "Virgin Queen" or "Good Queen Bess" speculation is possible or feasible at this point. 23skidoo 17:26, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

It is not too much speculation to assume that the doctor was reffering to "Virgin Queen." The Doctor did say that he married her, and she tried to have him executed in The Shakespeare Code. Although not directly stated, it was implied that he meant "Virgin Queen." Icecreamdif 23:47, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

"Queen Bess" is a nickname for Elizabeth I, who's more famous nickname was the "Virgin Queen" as she never wed - except for her brief marriage to the Doctor, as referenced in his statement to Ood Sigma about her "nickname" being no longer appropriate. Also explains why she wanted to kill him in the Shakespeare episode. --Jedman67 01:31, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was in keeping with the Doctor's recent arrogant and rebellious attitude that he got up to no good with Queen Elizabeth. He was painting the universe red. But I wouldn't mind betting that nothing definite is implied. After all, there were lots of kiddies watching.But we do know that the Doctor had children. And we also know of the mysterious woman the Doctor met in the library, whom he didn't know yet. On the other hand, the 'marriage' to Queen Liz might have been nothing more than a joke, a mockery, ruse or deception. That would explain why Elizabeth wanted his head. So the Doctor's children might be heirs to the English throne? No wonder the Doc and Queen LIz 2 are on such good terms. Sorry, Charles, you'll have to move over.

Page protection?

Should we carry the semi-protect (no IP edits) through to January or it can expire on the 25th December? --Tangerineduel 14:20, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Carry it through to January. It has been releaved in DWM 416 that the cliffhanger will be 'very big' at then end of part One, so over the week till Part Two, the page could get filled with lots of rumours about what will happen in Part Two.JM 17:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

More Info

Found this on io9 Someone posting over at the IMDB forums claims to have seen "The End Of Time Part 1," and says Bernard Cribbins and the Doctor travel to "the vast wastelands of London" as well as visiting the Time War. Wilf wants to save his granddaughter, Donna, who's once again struggling with her own mind. The villains are Joshua Naismith and his wife, who resurrect the Master as part of a plan to bring back the Time Lords, but this is just part of a larger scheme. At the end of the first part, the Time Lords materialize through the Immortality Gate and arrest the Master. And meanwhile, Donna's eyes are on fire. Take of all this with an immense grain of salt. [Gallifrey Base]

Meanwhile, Russell T. Davies explains more about what's going on in this episode:

The Doctor went through hell, on Mars. I think its important to note the angry, vengeful Doctor glimpsed in that climax is gone-that was the point of Adelaide's death; she saved the future, and saved the Doctor from himself. He was brought back to his senses. And as you've seen from the Children in Need clip, a lot of the old, chipper Doctor has been restored. Which is only right and proper, because that's the Doctor we want to see in his final story - the classic hero, the good man, the lovely funny, skinny fellow in the suit and trainers... and as ever, there's a melancholy beneath the smile - he's still aware that he's facing the end of his song, and the ominous four knocks. He can't know whether this means regeneration or actual death - and neither can you, cos we might have some tricks up our sleeves!

And he adds, in reference to the Master:

In 'The Sound of Drums" and 'Last of the Time Lords', he mirrored the Doctor by being powerful, suave and megalomaniac. Now, it's a new opposite - lost and raw and savage. Something's gone very wrong with his return - you'll have to watch to find out what! - but that x-ray effect see in the trailer, where he's all skull and bones, is the just the start of the trouble....imagine all the pent up forces of a Time Lord body - artron energy, regeneration energy, all the stuff - ripping open and broken loose. A dying timelord is a terrifying thing! So with the Master dying, the Doctor's end approaching, and both determined to survive, they're hurtling along an almighty collision course. And that's just part one!

Also, Minnie Hooper is helping Wilf track the Doctor down because people have had bad dreams, and Wilf is hiding out at a church. And there's a mystery involving a silver cloak, which Wilf knows about. And the Doctor gets strapped down to a table at one point.

Meanwhile, RTD tells Time Out Magazine that this episode includes the homeless in London getting burgers from a charity van, and Donna's middle-class family sitting down for turkey dinner, and then the obscenely rich Naismith family, with a mansion and servants. And then of course there are monsters and a chase, and all of these elements are leading in one directionSaxon 3 20:49, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Spilt the Cast list?

After both part hav been broadcast should the cast lis be split up into Both Parts, Part One and Part Two? I think this would help clean up the mess i think the cast list is in and it will help it look better, but no other episodes that carry the same title do this. JM 17:13, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

We did not do that for classic series stories. --Catkind121 12:17, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Besides, if you really want to, we can just put part 2 only in brackets after thier name, although i don't really see the point, as it's one episode in 2 parts. Excalibur-117 15:45, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Are the Time Lords returning?

are the time lords returning? in the end of time christmas special i think that the time lords are returning because in the children in need special for doctor who the elder odd says that it is returning he is returning which we know is the master and they are returning which it could mean the time lords and other information i know is that in the cast list (not there real names) THE GOVERNER,THE NARRATOR,THE WOMAN, THE SECOND,THE PARTIASN,THE VISONARY and my other speculation is that it says that timmothy dalton will be starring as the TIME LORD COUNCIL LEADER it looks like the time lords will come back from the time war and start the war against the daleks arrest the master and sentence him 04:40 December 13, 2009 (UTC) The mysterious)

Probably, but they will be new Time Lords that haven't been featured before. There will be at least 8 of them as a whole in the finale, three of which are the Doctor, the Master, and the Narrator (Timothy Dalton, voice heard in ther first End of Time trailer... narrating it). Delton Menace 06:40, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Don't put them down as Time Lords yet, it's not uncommon for credited actors with small roles to simple be given a title as opposed to a proper name.Excalibur-117 17:46, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I stand corrected. Excalibur-117 12:33, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Roger Bailey

I have noticed upon the cast list that it says Roger Bailey will be playing the character of a timelord/council leader but on his personal website it says he's playing a character called Mr Fetch. http://www.rogerbailey.co.uk/CurriculumVitae.html

What shall we do? / Any suggestions? Michael Downey 21:43, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Where did the information that he is plating a Time Lord/Council Leader come from? I would believe what his personal website says as opposed to any other source. Delton Menace 21:13, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Roger Bailey's CV is not talking about The End of Time. He played a character called Mr Fetch in The Next Doctor. He is still playing a Time Lord in The End of Time. Tardis1963 23:02, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

The Sound of Drums

Extract from the new EOT Trailer - "None of them of them survived(the doctor), Never dying, the never ending drums, can't you hear it? The noise, the drum beat, louder than ever before(the master).Saxon 3 22:08, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting, finding out what the sound of drums is and what it means. Delton Menace 22:55, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

The sound of drums is the sound of something coming through the dark like a signal like bad wolf or a heartbeat of a time lord--The mysterious 18:00, December 19, 2009 (UTC)by the mysterious

It IS the hartbeat of a Time Lord. I saw it in one of the trillion previews the BBC released. (Seriously, there are an awful lot of previews.) --CGW

Maybe the Time Lords implanted the sound of drums into the Master's head and let him run away so that in case they would have been defeated he could (involuntary) bring them back, led to do something by the drumming itself.--Alexandros86 19:43, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

The Ood

Who do you think is controlling the Ood the Beast-original controller of the Ood and most scariest of all Davros and the Daleks-it could be davros he never may have died Time lords-maybe trying to contact the doctor to warn him from the master Trickster(Sarah Jane adventures)-maybe the Trickster, alone, frequently manifested on Earth, making bargains with the beast alter history in his attempts to draw power from the chaos he creates and thus enter the world in his full power. --By the Mysterious --The mysterious 13:43, December 19, 2009 (UTC)the mysterious

The Ood aren't being controled, it appears. The Ood Elder's eyes turn red when he warns the Doctorof impending doom and time bleeding, as reaveled in two trailers. It the Ood do come under possesion, it will most likely be the Beast. The Daleks aren't returning until series 5, and they aren't capable or possesing. Time Lords aren't capable of posessing, to my knowledge. The Trickester isn't capable of possesion, either.

Really, think, please. Out of all, it the Ood really are being posessed again, it'll probably be the Beast, considering how the Doctor said 'something' was excelerating their species psyic abilities. Delton Menace 15:15, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Richardson has been credited to play President Romana in the End of Time part 2. Not sure how this all fits into the finale but here is a clear link of Miranda Richardson's credentials:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001669/

Sorry but I think we don't except that website as definitive proof. Excalibur-117 17:47, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Jones

Not only is IMDb nothing close to a reliable source, but The End of Time isn't even listed in Penelope Wilton's filmography. Unless someone can find something reputable stating that she is in it, her listing should be removed. 82.3.100.89 18:51, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

They said Sharron Duncan Brewster was going to play the Rani in the Waters of Mars, too. Delton Menace 20:52, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Since someone just re-added Harriet Jones, I've removed her again. She's dead, for crying out loud, so we can safely assume she won't be appearing. Digifiend 17:39, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

I wrote Harriet Jones have you got a problem with that she might come back you have no evidence that she is dead the daleks could have shot the computer and taken her hostage because how could they have killed her and the computer came off or she could appear as a flashback with many other people--The mysterious 14:30, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

You can't put her down on the premise that she might return, you need definitive proof, sorry. Excalibur-117 14:56, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

HARRIET JONES WILL RETURN NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE HER FROM THE CAST LIST IT MIGHT BE IN PERSON OR FLASHBACK--The mysterious 21:23, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

MIGHT is the key word here. we don't use might's in the Cast List, keep it in the Behind the Scenes/ Rumors sections. If she does return then fine, put her in, but not before it airs. Excalibur-117 21:25, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

All the other recurring characters are known from valid set reports. Harriet Jones only has one IMDB entry that since has been removed. --Golden Monkey 22:35, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

YOUR ALWAYS WRONG EXCALIBUR --The mysterious 12:00, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

wow..that's childish, even for a 12 year old. Excalibur-117 17:00, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Judoon

Where or when does it day that the Judoon are in the End of Time. anyone?--Catkind121 11:50, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

in the cast list dumbo--The mysterious 19:41, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference to support that the Judoon are in The End of Time, but there are apparently listed in Radio Times, and its is also on Wikipedia, with a reference to Radio Times. This should be checked and if they are appearing, put a reference on it, and if not deleted. Mini-mitch 19:48, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

The Mysterious I am not a dumbo I just could not find a reference. Please be civil.--Catkind121 12:16, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

when donna remembers shes sees the juddon The Judoon appear in the background of the bar when The Doctor visits Jack.

The mysterious lady

Who do you think is the red nailed woman who picked up the masters ring ?

Lucy Saxon cheif suspect Nerys (Donna's freind) Bev (jackie's freind) Harriet jones Jackie Tyler Rose tyler Just remember it could be any mysterious female hands what was seen to take his discarded ring at the end series 3. Here we finally get to see whose hand that was – and it’s no one you were expecting!

--The mysterious 19:39, December 21, 2009 (UTC)by the mysterious

The mysterious is keeping a mysterious mystery from us, is he? I hope that's something Russel T. Davies said about it being someone unexpected. All I know is that it is of someone older (or appears older) than Lucy Saxon, as he said s himself in an interview. Not her. :)

I reckon it is Miss Trefusis, the woman who says 'he returns' in the trailer. Delton Menace 20:14, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

It is Miss Trefusis, she was one of Saxon's minions. It said on digital spy that it was one of saxons minions, it would explain how she knew about the ring and the master. Unfortunately The Master's ressurection did not go according to plan and Saxon punished his minions. Thus the end of her. Possibly last bit is false..

It still could be any of his minions, maybe someone we haven't seen yet. Interviews seem to talk about who it is as being someone really unexpected, like someone we have seen before. With plot twists, anyone could be working for him. Delton Menace 19:05, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

First 20 minutes of Part 1

Found this on virgin media: Virgin Media has posted a "Viewmaster" type slide show of the first 20 minutes or so of "The End Of Time Part 1." The pictures are mostly old, but the spoilers are pretty intense. As the story begins, everyone on Earth is having nightmares, but only Wilf can remember what they're about — and he realizes he needs the Doctor's help. Meanwhile, the Doctor visits the Ood and they say that they, too, are having nightmares — about the Master.

The Master's widow, Lucy Saxon, gets brought to visit the new governor of her prison, only to find out he's an imposter, one of her ex-husband's acolytes. Using that fateful ring, they resurrect the Master, but he comes back damaged and more insane than ever. He roams a junkyard, scaring the residents. The Doctor, meanwhile, rushes to Earth and uses his super-power of smell to "sniff" out the Master. (No, really. He smells him.) They talk, and the Doctor insists he just wants to help, but the Master is too deranged. And finally he runs away.

Wilf enlists the aid of a bunch of senior citizens, called the Silver Curtain, to track the Doctor down. They talk, and the Doctor realizes that Wilf must be special, since he keeps connecting with the Doctor. The Doctor tells Wilf to tell him anything he knows, and Wilf mentions Donna brought home a strange book by Joseph Naismith. They decide to track this Naismith down, in the TARDIS.

But Naismith, with his paramilitary army, have already captured the Master, who's in bondage. It turns out that Naismith has something called the Immortality Gate, which can heal whole worlds, and he wants the Master to fix it. The Doctor appears in Naismith's basement, and meets two members of the Vinvocci species, Rossiter and Addams, who brought the Immortality Gate there. The Doctor runs upstairs, just in time to see the Master step into the Gate. And then everyone cries out, shouting that the Master is in their heads...

Enjoyt!!!Saxon 3 18:55, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I bet Naismith intends to 'heal' the Earth using the Immoirtality Gate. Judging by the name of his book - 'Fighting the Future' - it may be that he wants to 'heal' Earth from the events involving the constant invasions and how it has changed/wrecoedk society and caused an increase in suicide, as revealed in Children of Earth. But as we know, something will go very wrong... Delton Menace 19:14, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

And judging by the fact that it heals worlds, that may be how a certain planet comes back. And The Master walking through the gate sounds interesting aswell...Saxon 3 20:10, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Weird how he has something to heal worlds and the pictures show complete destruction in the background! I mean, house debris, car wheels, fire in the bacground... My goodness. Talk about healing, I think Naismith is bringing more destruction to the Earth than anything! I keep hearing that the Master gets completely screwed over, too... As in, his return is messed up- his DNA, or whatever... Might explain the meltic-looking skull thing and how he can gather electricity. It seems the Doctor wants to help the Master from this unfortunate problem going on...

I'm also wonder why Donna is reacting weirdly to Naismith's book? Why did she know to get it for Wilf? I could have also SWORE in that clip that she heard the Master's laughter in her head very briefly. Weird. But everyone is having nightmares, too. It is all very, very intriguing. It is said to be a very big story and it is in two parts (one of which is an hour, ther other nearly two hours), so lots will be happening. And the sound of drums is getting louder... This is not a good sign, in my opinion. :)

Naismith has kidnapped the master (thinking he is Harold Saxon) so he can fix the gate, the vinvocci brought it with them to earth i think theey might be trying to heal their world. When The Master walks into the gate it is obvious that he isnt going to do what Naismith tells him to do, he's going to want revenge. He probably reverse enginneered it so it destroys worlds instead. Later then he uses the original function to return gallifrey. Yes something does go wrong with the masters ressurection, but we dont know what, and we have seen the effects. I think the laughing we heard when Donna gave Wilf the book was someone in the screening because they were interviewing Catherine. Now, R.T.D has said that there is more to Wilf than meets the eye, what if he is a Time Lord in human disguise, but obviously he doesnt know it because of the chameleon arch. Maybe he lost the watch in the war? WWII now not the time war. Maybe the sub-conscious time lord Donna knows what is going to happen in the future and brought it for Wilf to prepare him.Saxon 3 20:31, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

You know what? If you rearrange Wilfred Mott = 'Time Lord' can be made out of his name with three extra letter (ftw, which is short for the win, so technically Wilfred Mott is like 'Time Lord for the win'). If Wilf turned out to be a Time Lord, that really supports the Donna theory of her being a Time Lady. Both of them have been theorized to be a Time Lord and Time Lady, and they just so happenen to be related. Though, I don't know what that says about Slyvia.

Slvia said that Donna was important because she was her daughter, but then the Doctor breifly said, "Then maybe you should tell her that once ina while." It is almost as if they're trying to hint that Donna is not, in fact, Slyiva's daughter. Delton Menace 20:46, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that they are all related, but the bit of Time Lord left in Wilf has probably skipped a generation, or considering the fact that Wilf was brought up in a time lords society, Sylvia is so different becuase she was brought up on earth. Because Donna is closer to Wilf in a way she is more likely to be like him. But, you know how the plot summary's and interviews always refer to wilf as an old soldier,maybe he thinks he was a soldier in A war, but not one on earth.... Saxon 3 20:56, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

There was an unsual war in the Fires of Pompiie when Donna was refered to as the 'Daughter of London'. It went like 'Daughter of ...[long pause]... London'. I found it a bit odd that she wasn't just straight called that, but there being a pause before 'London' instead, almost as if he couldn't quite tell where she was from. Like, 'Daughter of Gallifrey'. I kept expecting him to say that.

Following what Donna was called, there was a "she is returning"' Because there were it, he, and they returning mentioned in The End of Time, the only thing missing in "she is returning" from the Fires of Popmiie. It was also said that Donna "calls herself Noble" as if it wasn't her real name. Noble itself means royalty in one language I read a while ago. I'm not sure what 'Donna' means, though.

Didn't Rose also say they were detecting stange energies coming from Donna even without the Time Bettle? And it is odd how she is acting stange right around the time that the Time Lords are theorized to be returning. They return, and suddenly Donna is acting weird.

Delton Menace 14:04, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Donna is Italian for "Lady." She's a Lady Noble. And, after being married to Mr. Temple, she'll be (as Wilf says) Donna Temple-Noble, or Lady Time Lord.

That's clearly intentional. But the question is whether that's a hint about her ancestry, a hint about her returning to her half-Time-Lord status as Doctor-Donna, or just a throwaway joke for the geekier fans.

In fact, all of the other stuff you're talking about here was already used as premonitions of Doctor-Donna, so I don't think there's any reason they also have to be hints that she's part Gallifreyan by ancestry.

Except for the bit about Wilfred's name--but we all know that he's not a Time Lord; he's just a police constable who traveled with Dr. Who in an alternate universe. :) --99.170.146.147 01:31, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

The Italian translation for Temple (TEMPIO) is not Time (TEMPO)...--Alexandros86 14:47, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

"Sacrafices must be made."

We all know what that means. Sacrafices. In The End of Time part 2, for reasons currently unknown, sacrfaices must be made. The question is: who? what? when? where? why?

Sounds like someone has got to die. Actually, more than one individual. Not the 's'. So who do you all think is going to die in The End of Time? Well, who is going to be sacraficed, and for what reasons will they be sacfaiced? To save the Earth? Something else? And don't go telling me no one is going to die because you're proven wrong by the plot summary- and it could be anyone, from a major character to a secondary one. It could be Minnie the Menace, Trinity Wells, Wilf, Donna, anyone!

There is a character that I see dying in The End of Time, but I can't imagine it will be a sacrafice. I'm sure you can all guess what will kill this female (take a guess) because of her little... problem. But that aside, who will the sacrafices be? And why? What's going to happen? Ruusel T. Davies did say it would be very dramatic and sad, so that is drama for you.

Heh, let's have a vote for the sacrafices that 'must be made' out of the following characters...

The sacrafices:

Donna?

Delton Menace 19:51, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Wilf?

Delton Menace 19:51, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Minnie the Manace?

Trinity Wells (based on an interview)?

Delton Menace 19:51, December 22, 2009 (UTC) (maybe)

Other?

Just sign your username under the character who you reckon is most likely going to be sacraficed for whatever reason to probably save humanity from something. Sign under 'Other' if it is none of the above, and then say who you believe the sacraficed will be. Feel free to sign more than one because it doesn't say a single sacfaice, it hints at there being two or more. No wonder the episode has been called heartbreaking if there will be some death in the end. But it is a finale and drama. Drama finale = someone tends to die. :/ Delton Menace 19:51, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Are the time lords bad or good

As if you saw the end of time the timelords looked kind of bad Tell me what you thinkI told you that the time lords are returning a month ago--81.154.183.76 10:43, December 26, 2009 (UTC) by the mysterious

I think that like humans, they are neutral. There are good and bad Time lords. e.g. The doctor and the Master ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Merry Christmas)}☆

I think that tne Narrator is a bad Time Lord, considering how ruthless that he seems in both the next time trailer and the preview clip for part 2. Because he has high authority, the others simply have to listen to him. But I do think the others are good, however. Delton Menace 11:14, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say right now. They are at least flawed enough to elect a megalomaniac as Lord President at least twice (Borusa and this guy). I'd speculate that he was elected because they were at war and he was seen as a strong leader. -- Noneofyourbusiness 05:11, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Chameleon Circuit fixed?

The doctor effectively hides the TARDIS by the means of the chameleon circuit in this episode, making it invisible, does this means he fixed it? --Gridcube 16:56, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

No, he clearly states he's hid it a second out of synch with realtime.Excalibur-117 20:30, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

That system could have been made as an upgrade to his chameleon circuit.

--Jedman67 01:24, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

The Chamellion Circuit is supposed to alter the outer plasmic shell of the TARDIS, nothing to do with time maniupulation.Excalibur-117 14:02, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

He seemed surprised when the Daleks did that to the Medusa Cascade in The Stolen Earth. Did he get the idea of them, or is this something that's been done elsewhere? --99.170.146.147 01:33, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Most likely thats where he got the idea from, and he most likely implented the system after Waters of Mars as an excuse to not meet Ood Sigma.Excalibur-117 13:27, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

The Glove

Doesn't the glove used by The Narrator at the end of this preview remind you of Torchwood?

--87.6.155.203 18:16, December 26, 2009 (UTC)Alexandros

Not really... I mean, the gloves looks similar, but they serve different purposes. I would love it if there turned out to be a connection, though. Delton Menace 18:20, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Well, it just felt strange that The Narrator/Lord President had to use an object so similar to the one used in TW, when it could have been anything else (a ring, etc...) or nothing at all (like the Master in this special). --Alexandros86 18:43, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

It is debatable. I mean, the glove came from the Rift, which reaches all throughout time and space. Until see see a good look at the Narrator's glove, we will have to speculate. Perhaps when Gallifrey was destroy, the glove had been lost, and captured by the Rift? It gets things from all over the place. Plus, its origins were never explained. Delton Menace 20:18, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just got a good view of both gloves... they're identical from what I can see. Delton Menace 21:04, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

I think it's some sort of De-Mat Weapon, although it could be a Resurection Gauntlet.Excalibur-117 13:28, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Excalibur, when I say I looked at them, I meant looked at them the same time as each other. I tried to exaimine the detail of both gloves, but I can't find any differences in their appears: they appear to be the same size, same colour, both metalic. both have those screw things in the same place, ect.. All in all, from what I can see now, they look to be the exact same glove. The light that shows when The Narrator uses it to kill the Time Lady appears to be the same light that showed when the Life Knife was transfering energy from Gwen to Suzie using the glove, too.

Plus, there was always the question: how did the Time Lords resurrect other Time Lords? And the glove clearly didn't come from Earth, but at the same time, had been created by a humanoied race. The knife connected to it, too, had a very unusual design, something Time Lord-y.

Delton Menace 14:48, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the same prop as used for the Resurecttion Gauntlet?Excalibur-117 12:21, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on... that would be a really cheap (literally) solution...--Alexandros86 13:14, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

One: It's just a theory and Two:it wouldn't be the first time its happened, they reused the Torchwood Hub for the Next Doctor and the girder thing from Journey's End in Waters of Mars. Although I'm willing to except that it's a Resurrection Gauntlet of some form. Excalibur-117 13:23, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing your theory, nor the fact that you have one... I just meant that putting so much emphasis on such an object (the Narrator KILLS a fellow TimeLady with it) and then having it not be related to the one in TW would be quite disappointing...--Alexandros86 13:32, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the glove aint that important. It could just be a weapon. Not everything has to be important.--Theguy444 21:32, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If we see the Resurrection Gauntlet, then question answered. If we don't, too bad. But if we get a nice clear looks at and and see if it is or isn't the glove, the questioned answered. I don't see no reason for it not to be. If this was Torchwood, and a mysterious metalic glove could birefly be seen, everyone would be like, "The resurrection gauntlet!" This is the Whoniverse, so crossovers can happen. The Doctor's hand was in Torchwood, and the Resurrection Gauntlet can be in Doctor Who if Russel T. Davies wants it to be a a suprsied little origin story to viewers.

The Doctor hand was in Torchwood, a piece of TARDIS coral was in Torchwood... But everyone seems to have a big problem with something from Torchwood being in Doctor Who. I mean, what the hell is the problem? Delton Menace 23:49, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, lets just wait for Part 2 and see whether or not it's a RG. I don't even see what the big deal is, if it's a RG, then it's an Rg, if it's not, then it's not.--Excalibur-117 14:03, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

If it is a Resurrection Gauntlet, then maybe it has a reverse setting to kill people? 86.7.93.61 16:59, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

It does very much appear to be the resurrection gauntlet. I'm putting it in the article. 124.122.145.164 02:48, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

An outside source (and dang me for not remembering what one) did confirm that the gauntlet used by Rassilon is the resurrection gauntlet from 'Torchwood'Startrekandmore 02:57, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

• • Allow me to rephrase that; that yet still unremembered source said that the same prop was used for the Resurrection Gauntlet as well as Rassilon's glove, as per what Excalibur wrote previously.76.241.147.212 14:48, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Question about the cast

What is the difference between 'the Narrator' and 'the Leader of Council'? --CGW 20:48, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

• The leader of the council is a separate role. The Narrator is the lord president. --Golden Monkey 05:09, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
  • Have we even seen the Leader of Council? I though he was the one who says "For Gallifrey, for victory, for the end of time itself!" at the end of Part One, but that man is also the Narrator. -- CGW
    • I think he was one of the people who spoke during the part 2 preview clip. --Golden Monkey 20:17, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

When something is refused, it is changed. They literally tore the Hub apart and it now looked like a factory, I didn't even know it was the same set until I read. Okay, so Torchwood has this alien glove that was created by alien humanoieds. It resurrects people. Its origins are unknown. It was captured by a time rift.

During the Time War, what appears to be the exact same glove is being worn by an alien humanoied. It does the exact opposite of what the other identical glove did: it kills. But at the same time, these humanoid aliens with a glove identical to the resurrection Gauntlet somehow have the ability to resurrect their own kind. While topping it off, the glove glows with the same energy that was seen to trasfer through the life knife, which is connected to the glve.

We don't know how The Narrator made it glow, but it could be using his life force when he used it to kill the Time Lady for all we know. And most of all, gloves come in pairs. One kills, one brings back to life. How exactly did the Time Lords do the odd resurrection here and there?

If when The End of Time part 2 airs, I see that glove is the Resurrection Gauntlet by seeing it a tad bit close and a tad bit clearer, I will jump for joy. But from what I have seen, there is no difference between the two gloves. They're exactly the same. Russel created both, too.

They mentioned some odd suprsies to be expected, and this could be one. The Resurrection Gauntlet turning out to have been made by the Time Lords before it ended up on Earth via a space-time rift. And yeah, they were very powerful gloves, and didn't anyone ever ask themself, "Who could have created them?" Delton Menace 16:21, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

The Woman ?

Dont you think the woman could be the doctor's mother after all when the narrator/lord president was talking in the last few minutes of the end of time there was two people a man and a woman with there hands on there eyes and one of them looked like the woman.Maybe they are the doctors parents and the narrator was kepping them like that because he knew that the doctor was going to stop the timewar and kill the time lords and the daleks.--The mysterious 09:36, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, but people are right about how she is very similar to the White Guardian. Apparantly, she this really says it all, Russel T. Davies said a clue as to her identity is her costume: all white, white earings and neklace, and even a white background when she appeared on the TV. Then there is how extremely similar she is to the White Guardian, who wore all white. In fact, the jacket she wears is very similar the the White Guardian's jacket.

But what really makes me support it: Russel saying the clue is her all-white costume costume, then that combined with her being very similar to the White Guardian. Delton Menace 22:28, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

With all the Christ parallels it would make sense for a Madonna figure to turn up. I'd also like to see the White Guardian again. We'll see. -- Noneofyourbusiness 02:51, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Could it be Donna? You know, like the Watcher before the 4th Doctor regenerates. Since Donna's half-Time Lord, this could be her future incarnation. I know, unsourced speculation, we'll have to wait until this weekend. Cheers. --Ebyabe 04:57, December 29, 2009 (UTC) Donna is physiologically incapable of regenerating, as she is not a Time Lord. She is fully human, with a touch of Time Lord in her brain. --Jedman67 01:32, December 30, 2009 (UTC) I was thinking this as well, although I find it unlikely, because the Doctor does look right at her when Wilfred asks who this was at the end. --ShiningInShadows 03:33, January 01, 2009 (UTC)

I would reckon that the Woman in White is an Eternal at the very least, if not the White Guardian. Excalibur-117 14:14, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is not yet officialy confirmed but I think the woman is the Doctor's mother. Also, the other 'weeping' person... could that be the Doctor's father? (For the record, I don't know much of the classic series). --CGW

Donny might be full Time Lord now, after the Master's scheme made every human Time Lord, he may have removed the human half of Donna making her biologically 100% Time Lord. Her TL half could then have prevented the human half from re-emerging when the link to The Master was destroyed. Given the way The Doctor looks at Donna when asked about the woman, I go with it being Donna. Would also explain her connection to Wilf. 90.136.28.175 20:53, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Since when asked who she was, the doctor looked at Donna newly-bride, the Woman might be his wife!--Alexandros86 23:32, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Is she is one of the two members of the Time Lord Council that Rassilon refers to as having opposed him and must now cover their eyes as 'monuments to their shame, as the Weeping Angels of old'. Rassilon insists on them to along with him to Earth (possibly to keep them where they can be watched so they don't start a rebellion in his absence). During the climatic tableaux on Earth, one drops her hands to make eye contact with Wilf, looking a lot like Claire Bloom. Has she been manipulating events to bring Wilf and the Doctor together---a la Dalek Caan last series? Looking at it from a dramatic deconstruction perspective, the old theatre adage states "if you see a .38 introduced in the first act, someone will surely be shot by the curtain." If RTD takes the time to explain why two Time Lords must conceal their faces, then lets them reveal their faces with no explanation with a tight-in shot during the climax, there must be a reason. Further, if RTD suggested her being in white was a clue, could she be an older Ramona---it was already established that she was a member of the Council and she would certainly have opposed Rassilon's mad schemes? TRH ([email protected]) --173.49.144.218 15:27, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, the mysterious woman makes eye contact with the Doctor and there is a flash of recognition. Hence it makes more sense that she is actually Romana. As pointed out, she becomes President of the High Counsil Of Time Lords (at least in the canon of the novels, not established for televised series) and could have be deposed or stepped aside for the resurrected version of Rassilon to take over. More to the point, IMdb actually identified the woman as Romana albeit somewhat briefly. RTD and JD do not help out in the podcast interview where JD says she wishes it was the Doctor's mother and later RTD says that the woman is who you want it to be. Given the methodology employed during the RTD era, this is not so far fetched and has some evidence to support it.Startrekandmore 15:36, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Lord President as Antagonist

I think the Narrator/Lord President of the Time Lords should be listed as one of the Antagonists- possibly even replacing the Governor (who's role, while memorable, is all too brief). Either way, the end of Part One, and the available teaser content from the BBC site (the Next Time trailer, the TV advert, and the 2-minute clip) all point to the Lord President as leading the Time Lords in the charge to end Time and destroy the Universe. This would make him an even greater threat than the Master.

The Master's insanity has left him unable to make control of of himself or even realise what threat is coming, so The Narrator is by default a much bigger threat, as he is in control. Delton Menace 10:57, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

• I think he was even called a "evil Time Lord" in Confidential. According to GB, anyway. --Golden Monkey 20:20, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Why get rid of the Govenor she is an enemy she revived the master along with trefusis so they sould be enemies. Plus I think the Narrator is definailty a villi9an after all see what he does to a female time lord on the concil. --Catkind121 20:25, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be the Master, the Naismiths and The Narrator(Time Lords).Excalibur-117 14:51, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have been the only one to see that Rassilon/the Time Lords were going to be the real villians. I don't believe the Naismiths should be thought of as the villians. And to tell the truth, the Master is actually credited as a companion for this episode(s). Remeber the prophecy "They are returning, it is returning"Startrekandmore 15:43, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the cast list

Where has the idea that all the old companions are coming back come from? There hasn't been any indication in Part 1, and the Part 2 sypnosis says the Doctor and Wilf must fight alone so where does it come from? Excalibur-117 13:34, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Most of them appear to have valid references. So it does seem like they're be appearing in what already seems like it's going to be a pretty packed episode.

Maybe they're going to the classic regeneration scene of old where all the companions turn up and say "You can't die Doctor"-like the Fifth Doctor's regeneration sequence. --Tangerineduel 15:57, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

• They're cited from verified production reports, and are brief cameos with the details of what they do known. Except for Captain Jack, we just know he is in it, but his role also appears to be a bit more substantial. What we don't know is how all these cameos happen, since it'd be a bit odd for the Doctor to duck out of the whole master race thing and take a farewell tour wouldn't it? --Golden Monkey 20:19, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

If you looked around, you will see that they have all been seen filming For The End of Time. The Doctor and Jack were seen together on set filming for The End of Time along with a few familarier aliens and what appeared to be Shadow Proclamation members, The Doctor was seen filming outside Sarah Jane's house and saving Luke from being hit by a car, and him then running home, and Luke and Sarah Jane running out of the house while they watch the Doctor walk away and wave before leaving. The TARDIS was parked somewhere down Bannerman Road. The Doctor was seen filming with Rose, and the scene reavealed that it was January 2005. She didn't recognise him and he asked her what year it was. Ood Sigma was seen filming around there, too. Around the Powell Eastate...

The End of Time part 1 was setting up for part 2, part 2 will include lots of characters and ect.. Delton Menace 21:55, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Coolio, thanks for clearing that up. Part 2s gonna be paaackkkedd.Excalibur-117 12:19, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins in "The End of Time" !?

the group name the "Silver Cloak" has one men who look like Anthony Hopkins ? or this is real Anthony Hopkins ! source: http://blogtorwho.blogspot.com/2009/12/end-of-time-anthony-hopkins-involved.html

• Haha. :D That was a rumor some people, including that blog's creator and yours truly on GB tried to kick up. It's just a extra with a passing resemblance. --Golden Monkey 20:19, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

End of Time Part 1

Can people please stop putting in refernces End of Time part one we did not do that for the old stories which had two or more episodes for example...

• Liz shaw from fasist Earth died as the Lava seeped through. (TV:Inferno - part 7)

It should be...

• Liz shaw from fasist Earth died as the Lava seeped through. (TV:Inferno)

not Inferno - part 7. So please can it just be (TV: The End of Time) --Catkind121 20:37, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

• Are there any cites for TEoT, Part One? I only added "The End of Time" when I created the guest cast pages I did. IF so, they really should just go to "The End of Time". --Golden Monkey 21:11, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Heman

The Doctor called the master skeltor its a refrance to Heman and the masters of the universe that should be mentioned on the artcle

Wilfred Mott

I'm having suspicions that Wilfred, at one stage was a Timelord - as Wilfred Mott is an anagram for Timelord (letters wtf remaining).--Inundated 23:49, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Well... the Woman in white states that Wilf hasn't killed anyone in the War... and since in DW you can expect anything, she might have meant the Time War...--Alexandros86 13:36, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

From a humerous point of view it might be a reveal, with the WTF left over standing for the actions of viewers at home sitting up on thier sofa's and exclaiming said phrase. - Anon, 13:43, December 28, 2009. (GMT)

I was suprsied when I noticed the anogram, but I couldn't stop laughing at Time Lord WTF, which is, ironically, how I might react if Wilf turned out to be a Time Lord. But on another note, it can be Time Lord FTW, and 'FTW' is exactly how the Time Lords are behaving in the special. Delton Menace 13:54, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Wilfred isnt a time lord didnt you remember in the End of time that wifred was seeing the master in his head and only humans could fell it and wilfred had it too but the doctor saved him so how can you say he is a timelord only if he has a chameleon arch and have a watch wich is out of the blue BY THE MYSTERIOUS --The mysterious 16:23, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

humans were not the only ones to have visions of the master (the ood!)--Inundated 00:22, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle something. Unless you have seen it already, don't state that as fact. Wilfred was the only one ho remembered the Master, he keeps running into the Doctor, the only one being contacted by a mysterious woman, and The Narrator was talking about Wilf to the entire Time Lord council at the start! Then there is when Russel T. Davies said there is more to Wilf than meets the eye, and why he is stated as standing at the heart of coincidence. Delton Menace 16:26, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

maybe he has a fob watch

I looked for it in every scene in which Wilf appears... but couldn't find anything... maybe he has lost it!--Alexandros86 18:55, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Heh, someone on another site pointed out that there is a painting in Wilf's room that looks like it's of Time Lord design. I will see for myself. But it is getting weirder about Wilf. Delton Menace 23:50, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

The only connection that I can think of about Wilf and the Timelords is the fact that his hobby is stargazing with the telescope... and he has stellar maps in his room...--Alexandros86 00:06, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

this is probably a pretty radical, and an unsustained theory...but i'm thinking that wilf + the silver cloak seniors are in fact timelords that have been made human through use of the charmeleon arch and have run from the time war --Inundated 00:41, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

I think its too convoluted to be part of the episode plot, but who knows? It could make for a great novel tho. --Jedman67 01:10, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it turnes out that Wilf isn't a Time Lord, and the war that passed him by was Word War 2, but now he has to take up the fight in The End of Time. His gun is very important to the story and his role, don't ignore it. That has all been confirmed. Russel even expected people to think the war refered to the Time War, and he expected people to think Wilfred was Rassilion and turned human. Well, we know he is human now. Delton Menace 03:30, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Wilfred = Meddling Monk?

He is not a timelord he is human --The mysterious 11:21, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

WILFRED MOTT ISN'T A TIMELORD HE IS A HUMAN --The mysterious 16:08, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to think he is human because he was supposedly saved by the radiation chamber, but that could be a red herring. It doesn't prove he's human. The Master tricked the humans by being allowed to be restrained. Your stating a fact as if you know, I'm posing a question could Wilf be the Meddling Monk or maybe even Timothy Daulton.

It has been confirmed that he's human, guys. Russel T. Davies commented that people will be thinking he is Time Lord or something because of the war comment, but then said that Wilf is, indeed, human. And confirmed that the war he missed was world was 2. Delton Menace 19:12, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the obvious explanation? Wilfred "missed" fighting in world war 2, but he still keeps his trusty revolver, just in case. To think that hes a time lord in disguise is cute, but completely unrealistic. --Jedman67 01:28, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

And then we learn that Wilf is the one who knocks four times... --CGW

The Time Lords Return

Timothy Dalton: "This day was the day upon which the whole of creation would change forever. This was the day the Time Lords returned. For Gallifrey! For the End Of Time!" So - How did they return if they were dead? Was the Master's tampering with Earth enough of a "shock" to "history" to allow them to emerge from the Time War; did they hide Gallifrey to prevent its destruction in the time war? Or are they bringing the End of Time as their last victory? The Doctor notes that by himself, he cannot change certain pivotal moments in time. But perhaps the Time Lords can?

@Discuss. --Jedman67 01:18, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

...i was thinking that perhaps the gates ability to "mend whole planets" would have something to do with it --Inundated 04:47, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

The answer will be revealed this coming Friday, I'm certain of that. I also believe that the Master's tampering with humanity has nothing to do with the survival of the Time Lords. In fact, it is said in the episode that "the Master's removal of humanity was only a tiny part of the approaching conflict" or something on those lines. If the Master caused the return of the Time Lords, then it would be quite large part in the coming conflict. The evil dude. 20:32, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Dalek Caan's breaking through the timelock had something to do with it? 86.7.93.61 17:06, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

well if the gate has the ability to mend whole planets, wouldn't gallifrey be restored if a timelord (i.e. the master) entered it?

To Add To 'Continuity':

Donna also remembers the Suit Creature

The 11th Doctor is manic after regeneration in the same manner as the 10th Doctor as well as the Master after his most recent regeneration.

The Doctor was resisting this regeneration (where other regenerations were almost immediate he resisted this regeneration long enough to visit former companions. The resistance may be one reason why the regeneration was so violent when it occured - energy being bottled up until it explodes.

The damage done to the Tardis during this regeneration may be why the exterior of the eleventh doctor's Tardis appears slightly different - the Tardis' systems needed to repair the exterior and in the process the chameleon circuit defaulted to an earlier template for the police box. It will be interesting to see whether the interior of the Tardis will also require a redesign to repair the damage done during the Doctor's regeneration.

To Be Added to 'Plot Holes etc.'

if you play the trailer for part 2 in slow motion/frame by frame, after wilfred hands him a gun, the doctor swings round and fires. the doctor claims to never use a gun

^^IT'S CALLED STORY-TELLING! Sheesh, use common sense. This is the story of a man on the verge of death, seeing the human race be corrupted by his enemy, his friends all turn into his enemy, his race return. This is the story of a man who is going to die, the story of how the last thing he can do now is help save humanity and everything. And to do this, this man, who has always dispised guns, must do what will truly kill his soul: use a gun, and use it to kill.

Doctor Who is a drama, and in drama, characters have to make scarafices, do the things thet they truly hate. Delton Menace 13:18, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor has killed before. After David Tennant's regeneration, he killed the sycorax guy he was dueling with an orange. Frankly, i find the Doctors obsession with pacifism absurd. Its much preferable to avoid killing at all, weather youre a soldier or a police officer. But if your life, and the lives of others are at stake, then you have no choice. If only the Doctor understood that not everyone can be saved. (Journeys End - why would he attempt to save Davros? Davros was responsible for the deaths of billions; and was on the verge of wiping out the universe!!!) --Jedman67 16:32, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I much prefer a Doctor that realizes that sometimes you have to kill, which is one of the reasons why I love the Fourth so much, he despised guns and violence but could be quite dangerous himself when the situation called for it. The Tenth Doctor was characterized like that as well in his first two seasons but started getting ridiculously passive in the third season. I kind of like, however, that they turned that into something of a negative quality in The Waters of Mars when he decides to save people he knows he shouldn't. Hopefully the 11th Doctor will have a little more willingness to do what needs to be done.

Personally, I think this should be in the forums, but I think The Doctor has a pathological need to do the right thing, thats why he always gives the baddies a choice. .Excalibur-117 15:16, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Doctor used a gun on an uncased Dalek in "Resurrection of the Daleks". Shot him dead. A claim that he never uses one is an exaggeration. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:38, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

How did Rose not recognise the 10th doctor after the 9th one regenerating from meeting him on new years day 2005?

Too minor an incident to stick in her memory? We do tend to hold fictional characers to standards of recall that real people don't have. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:38, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor recognised that the person that was aiming a gun at Wilf was a Vinvocci for being 1 inch taller, suggesting that all the Masters were the same height, but when Joshua Naismith and his daughter changed, it is clear that the Joshua Mater is taller than his Master Daughter.

The Date

Who the hell keeps changing it to Christmas 2009? We all know the Doctor Who universe is a year ahead of us when it comes to modern day Earth stories (except for Blink) all because one three words: Aliens of London. The Doctor skipped a full year (episode aired in 2005), making all following modern day Earth stories be be a year ahead.

It was around March 2005 when she began met him, then he brought her back around March 2006. Following this, the rest of series 1 Doctor Who was set in 2006. By the Christmas Invasion (the end of series 1), it was Christmas 2006, making series 2 be the first half of 2007 (around June). Then most of Torchwood series 1 was all set in the rest of 2007, then Torchwood: Out of Time and Doctor Who: The Runaway Bride (set practially on the same day) were Christmas 2007. The remaining dew episodes of Torchwood series 1 was all early 2008. The Doctor came to Cardif near the date with Martha and Jack joined. They came back to Earth set a few months later around the begining of May 2008. I'm not sure what date Jack went back to Cardif, though. Then, after these 2008 events, it skipped to Voyage of the Damned, Christmas 2008, and then (tad confusing), at least the later half of Torchwood series 2 occurs in early 2009 (January-Febuary-March-April of 2009, the first few stories may be later 2008, but forget that), then series 4 Doctor Who spans a few mid-months of 2009 (April-May-June of 2009), then the series for finale of Doctor Who occurs either May or June 2009 (Beautiful Chaos is a good timeline source for series 4 Doctor Who), then Saraj Jane Adventures series 2 (set after the finale) is idealy late June-July-Auguest of 2009.

Children of Earth then follows in September 2009, the events happen, and five months later - March 2010 - Jack leaves Earth. Planet of the Dead then April 2010, Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 around October-November 2010. Luke meets the Tenth Doctor for the first time around November 2010. Then The End of Time around one month after the end of SJA series 2, Christmas 2010, and you'll never believe it... Luke (who met the Doctor for the first time around November 2010) meets the the Doctor for a second time and Jack (who left Earth in March 2010) is back.

Stop putting The End of Time in 2009! Either you want it to be set before the events of the End of Time are foreshadow and want Luke to meet the Doctor who a second time before they even met for the first time (which was in later 2010) and Jack to to have come back with the Shadow Proclamation before he even left Earth (March 2010) to possible establish any contact with unearthly beings, or you want Sarah Jane Advetnures series 3 to be set in 2009, which will place Planet of the Dead in 2009, which will place series 4 in 2008, which will place series 3 in 2007, which will place series 2 in 2006, which will place the later half of series 1 in 2005, which will place the Doctor and Rose meeting (before he skip year) in 2004, only to learn that Rose does indeed meet the Doctor in 2005, making the year skip pushing everything a year ahead of us.

And further about it being aheadby one year: the writers have noted it, Beautiful Chaos directly stated it (it placed series 4 in 2009 and the Dalek nvasion after April, making the specials and SJA series 3 be 2010), and Abdelaide, who was living in the year 2059, said the Dalek invasion happened 50 years ago, meaning 2009 of series four (yeat again). The news articlke was a known mis-print (typos happen) and contradicted what Abdelaide said herself about how long ago it happened.

Now answer the question, whoever you are, are you trying to make the timeline rip apart by placing The End of Time before the Doctor met Luke the first time, before the events were foreshadowed, and before Jack left Earth (Jack comes back with a bunch of aliens from what I'm hearing, with an off-world colony that arrive on Earth, meaning he had left already), or are you attempting to put the whole time back a year and sync it with ours? Not going to work because of Aliens of London. The only way for it to be in sync now is if both series 5 and 6 are set in the same year (one could be the first half of the year, the other the second half).

I'm guessing whoever it is wants the year all in syn with ours. The recsession is over in The End of Time and still happening in Planet of the Dead, too. Or you like to think Luke meets the Doctor a second time before he has met him the first time, Jack has come back before he left, the rescession is happening when it ended half a year ago, the list goes on and on. Because The Next Doctor wasn't set modern day Earth one year ahead and set in the past instead, Christmas 2009 was left unseen. People forget that. Delton Menace 18:47, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

i agree it happened in 2010 someone keeps changing it and messing around with the time line. --Catkind121 21:29, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

The date has come under strong discussion, and it seems that Russell T. Davies has cleared up the year-ahead thing by having both this and last year's stories in set in the same year, allowing Moffat to have a clean slate for the timeline to be in sync for him. Would explain why series 5 dalouge is saying its around mid-2010 when series 5 is happens, and just so happens to reference the final two specials as being already having happen "last year".

As Saxon3 finally noted to me, the 'next year' sequeneces of The End of Time at the end (Donna's wedding, Jack, ect..) are confirmed to be early 2010. Donna's second wedding was Spring 2010, and series 5 is 2010. I think we just have to come to terms with RTD's choice. He wanted a cleaner slate for Moffat, and syncing the year (having 2008 and 2009 stories both take place in the same year: 2009) would allow Moffat to have that clean slate. Delton Menace 04:28, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing someone pointed out concerning Planet of the Dead's placment conflicting with the Doctor Who series 4 finale placment vaugely is that the Doctor states he has trouble finding Easter, opening the possibility that Planet of the Dead may be set some time (not long) after Easter, and that helps with how the whole series 4 finale May placment is if-y with Planet of the Dead's placment when putting them in the same year. The Doctor may just think it is Easter (it could be a week or so later), judging by how, "That's the thing about Eatser, I can never find it." Not all is gloom with placing it in sync there, and that may be exactly why Russell put that quote in. As he said, Easter is always in a different place of the year. Delton Menace 05:58, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Bus Driver said the month was April though.

Sign your name, above one. It doesn't change what producers are saying, however. It's called discontinuity, but nothing can really change that series 5 is set in the mid2--10 era, and this year and last year's stories both in the same year, Davies wanting to clear up his year skip for Moffat. We simply can't trust the date that Beautiful Chaos dates the series 4 finale, then, as it contradict the TV series somewhat. Delton Menace 18:00, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

But Journeys End would have to take place at least a year after the events of Last of the time lords otherwise the earth in the year that never was would have been taken by the daleks. And Last of the Time Lords was said to take place 18 months after The Christmas Invasion. Also Adelaide Brooke was born on the 12 May 1999 and was said to be 10 during the dalek invasion that took place in Journey's End, so it would have to take place later than the 12 May 2009.

Time war,timelords,daleks

How is it the time lords survived maybe dalek caan saved the timelords as well as davros because he betrayed davros --The mysterious 14:38, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Daleks save ythe Time Lords maybe to find the secret of Regeneration. --Catkind121 16:50, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

The Elder Ood indirectly explained it: because time is bleeding. With time bleeding, the events of the war are, in his own words, happening again, and could be alterered if they become aware of the "current" events happening on Earth. The question is, why is time bleeeding? SSurely it has unlocked the war, but we don't know what caused the bleeding. Delton Menace 16:54, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

makes sense, actually. --Jedman67 18:59, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Sonic Screwdriver??

The Doctor's sonic screwdriver can be used to manipulate virtually any mechanical or electronic device. Yet, in his showdown with the master, and the Immortality Gate, he didnt even bother attempting to shut down the machine with his screwdriver, or doing anything to slow or stop the master with it. Plot demands that it would be largely unsuccessful, of course, but he couldn't he have used it to open the radiation doors? --Jedman67 18:59, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

No because one person had to be in there at all times. Plus he was protecting Wilf.Saxon 3 20:19, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

It does raise a conundrum, but most likely it never occured to him, he is a bit stupid that way. It's been mentioned before that he lacks the human "gut instinct" to do the obvious course of action (which is a shame 'cause he could save a lot more people that way). Excalibur-117 20:58, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

When the Doctor took the gun from Wilf, his intention was to kill the Master in order to stop the return of the Time Lords and all the horrors that the return of Gallifrey would bring. I would surmise that it was not until he was in the moment that he decided to shoot the diamond. He continues turning the gun on the Lord President and the Master, giving the Master time to drop the hint about disrupting the signal in the only non-killing way possible. As to the radiation chamber, the Doctor's own dialogue says the sonic screwdriver would cause the booth to flood with radiation and kill Wilf. That's why the Doctor freaks out about dying, it is inevitable that he will go into the chamber and suffer the radiation, in order to save Wilf. AED

Silurian

Here is a screencap of what looks very much like a Silurian], between the Hath. And again [2]! No third eye, but otherwise very similar. --Golden Monkey 21:58, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

error

The Master reveals the Narrator to be Rassilon.

it was the dr who reveals it

Then correct it. Also, I thought it was the Master. Then again, I was watching it on a blurry Justin TV channel with bad sound, so what do I know? --Golden Monkey 23:47, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

i cant edit the page or i would

The Doctor shouts something like "Rassilion!" when he realises the truth. Delton Menace 23:57, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

IS THE MASTER DEAD

I NEVER WANTED THE MASTER TO GO --The mysterious 00:01, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, after Russel T Davis's one beautiful chance to resurrect the doctor's greatest nemesis, he blew it, why does he want to kill off everything that makes doctor who doctor who

Please use the Forums for discussion like this please --Bigshowbower 03:38, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Rassilon kill the Doctor?

Why doesn't Rassilon just kill the Doctor with his glove when he's threatening to shoot him?My doctor 03:25, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Please use the Forums for discussion like this please --Bigshowbower 03:38, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of it as a plot hole to mention. My doctor 03:56, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well you can discuss it in the Forums, The Howling section or if you feel it is a genuine plot hole you can add it.

The Doctor's Reward

The Lord President says that The Doctor's final act in this regeneration is murder, and he believes he is going to die, but after dropping off Wilfred he says he is going to collect his reward. I'm torn on whether this was actually doing something for them (saving Martha, Mickey, and Luke, fixing Jack up with Alonso, confirming to Verity Newman that her grandmother's journal was real, and Donna's lottery ticket) or just seeing the people he cares about given that he goes to see Rose in a time before she knew him.

Please use the Forums for discussion like this please --Bigshowbower 03:38, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Weird Textboxes

What's going on with this page? A lot of it is in weird scrollable text boxes. How can this be fixed? Anthrcer 10:24, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it, it's a simple spacing error. --Bigshowbower 10:40, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it again it appears some noob user did the same in the afternoon. --Catkind121 11:16, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon

• I am removing all content that point the lord president to be Rassilon. We have no sources to suggest the doctor could be merely referencing him to be like rassilon or be in his time etc. Even the credits say that he was still the narrator and the president not rassilon. Michael Downey 11:48, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Russell T Davies refers to him as Rassilon in Doctor Who Confidential

Similarities to the Original Third Doctor Finale

Is it worth noting that the Master's fate in this episode is similar to what was to happen in the Third Doctor's finale had Roger Delgado not died, the Master dying in a way that it was possible he was sacrificing himeself to save the Doctor.

Could be a Coincedence, but I think it's worth noting. TemporalSpleen 12:20, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Please use the Forums to discuss this --Bigshowbower 12:27, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

no use here cos it relates to the artcle

The Visionary

Why do the Time Lords need the Visionary? Can't they already predict the future with the Matrix?

Thats already raised in the plot holes section, if you want you can talk about it in the Forums --Bigshowbower 12:30, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Plot Part Two - the Time Lock

Re http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_End_of_Time_%28TV_story%29#Part_2_2

"The President is adamant he will not allow himself or his race to die. An opportunity exists to prevent this, which involves placing Gallifrey and many other terrors in a Time Lock"

This is totally incorrect.

The Lord President did not place Gallifrey in a Time Lock. The whole Time War itself was already in a Time Lock, as established by various previous episodes of New Who.

Furthermore, why on Earth would the Lord President himself place Gallifrey in a Time Lock, only to then come up with a convoluted means of escaping said same Time Lock? If there were no Time Lock initially, the Time Lords would simply have escaped already, avoiding their death at the hands of the Doctor, rather than put themselves in a lock and then try & find a way out of it. It is utterly illogical that the Lord President would trap them all & then have to find a way out of the trap that he himself made.

The whole point was that they (in fact the whole Time War) were already trapped within a Time Lock, and needed a way to escape it (after the Visionary said that it was the last day of the war & the Doctor would burn them all) and escape their destruction at the hands of the Doctor. Hence sending the drum-beat signal back to the Master as a child, & then sending the diamond through to create a more physical link.

Also, in addition to this, the scenes with the Time Lord council are not flashbacks - they are what could be called "meanwhiles". The scenes with the Lord President are occurring at the same time as the scenes on Earth. This is a time travel show afterall, plus as mentioned the Time War exists out of time in a Time Lock. The only flashback was, IIRC, when the Master was remembering staring into the Vortex as a child.

I would edit the Time Lock mention myself, but the article is protected and I'm a new user. I did however make the change to the Wikipedia article on The End of Time, which did get accepted.

ShatteredPlastic 14:46, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who has the power to edit the main article please correct the part which says that the President / Time Lords planned to prevent their destruction by placing Gallifrey & many other terrors in a Time Lock?

The Time Lock was already there. The Time Lords were trying to *escape* the Time Lock, and so escape their coming destruction by the Doctor. They did not place themselves in a Time Lock to prevent the Doctor destroying them, they and the entire Time War were *already* in a Time Lock (which is why they needed to escape it). If there were no Time Lock, they would not put themselves in one & then try and escape it, they would simply escape the coming destruction by normal means. The whole point was that they were already trapped in a Time Lock, and so needed to escape it to escape their coming destruction.

ShatteredPlastic 16:43, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Screwed Up

Ok, someone's gone and screwed up the page to the point where it was unreadable. I reverted some of the damage, but there's still lots more that will take a long time to fix. I think the page should be protected against anyone but the admins. Seriously, I don't know who did it but it's just getting ridiculous. The evil dude. 15:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. It went like this last night as well and is truly unreadable Rhysy54 16:07, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I personally find it more unbearable that someone keeps changing The End of Time's events from 1010 to 2009. I keep having to change it back. We know the Whoniverse is always a year ahead of us until two series are set in the same year! ****.

Error regarding River Song

River Song not appearing in this episode could be regarded as a continuity error because she clearly knew him in his 10th incarnation, recognizing him and referring to his face as the "Early Days", yet assuming that he already knew her. She was quite shocked to find out he didn't. 90.136.28.175 20:17, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

It might possibly be just she only met the 11th Doctor and thought the 10th doctor was a future incarnation instead of a past one.

River Song recognizes pretty quickly that this is a younger version of the Doctor than the one she knew and since she knows about regeneration she is clearly not surprised that he has a different appearance. There is also that fact that in the episode River Song refers to The Doctor as young by looking into his eyes not at the rest of him.--Doorofnight 20:59, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

There was a large time span between The Waters of Mars and the The End of Time, and we will find out the true nature of his relationship with River in series 5; it doesn't need to be an error simply because there was a time span and it hasn't been answered yet. Delton Menace 21:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Continuity Error

In the episode Smith and Jones, the Doctor absorbs a (lethal?) amount of radiation and expels it into his left shoe, then disgards it into a medical waste container, could he not simply pull off the same trick to save himself from the Radiation poisoning? -Anon 00:44, January 03, 2010 (GMT)

he got tired of wasting converse after converse or they were two different types and levels of radiation--Inundated 01:32, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

The amount of radiation from the x-ray was probably far less than what he got hit with in the box. And given everything else that happened to him throughout the episode (including falling through a glass skylight onto a hard stone floor), he was probably injured enough that he would have regenerated anyway. -- Dark T Zeratul 23:52, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

HaHa regarding the converse joke - different type of radiation, see continuity errors for an explanation lottie01 00:36, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are many, many different types of radiation in the universe. We're being exposed to varieties of radiation that have no visible effect on us even as we speak. -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:08, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Enjoyed the converse joke, but yes, not all radiation is the same, take, for instance, "Steg" radiation that destroys all flesh, as seen in Utopia. 92.233.233.142 18:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Missed error

In The End of Time Part 1, Wilf asks the Doctor whether he could just go back to yesterday, and the Doctor replies that he can't interfere his own time-line, but he appeared in his own time-line on Father's Day, Time Crash, etc. --Dark3000light 15:34, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor cannot intefere in his own timeline or it creates a Paradox, as shown in Father's Day when the Doctor (Rose, technically) intefered with events and caused the Reapers to appear and start cleansing "the wound". The Doctor's intention there was merely to observe, not to intefere. In Time Crash the two Doctor's meet in a neutral time in a "safe" location (The Tardis). Neither of them intended the meeting and the events that transpired had no bearing or relation to future events of either's timeline, thus no paradox was created and the events could occur without penalty or paradox.

- Anon 16:02, January 3rd, 2010. (GMT)

Rassilon continuity error and response

Q: Isn't Rassilon dead? A: If the Time War made the Time Lords desperate enough to go to the Matrix and extract the Master then it's logical for them to also recreate the greats Time Lords of history such as Rassilon (and the Woman who may be the Doctor's mother)

No Rassilon found the key to Immortallity. He suspended himself in time. So technically not dead. But the master was dead and they brought him back. So anything is possible.

While Rassilon could have pulled a King Arthur or else been brought back due to the Dalek's dicking with Gallifrey's timeline during the War, there's also the simple possibility that Dalton's character deposed/murdured/replaced Romana and simply took Rassilon's name for his own in the manner of Caeser when he ascended to power in order to bignote himself.Koschei

His mother?

Was the woman the Doctors mother and if she is, shouldn't she be younger because as the doctor regenerates he becomes much younger. --Dark3000light 14:09, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, she is intended to be, and how old she appears has nothing to do with it. She simply hasn't regenerated in some time. Delton Menace 20:35, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

It has also has not been ever stated that a Time Lord always gets younger with each regeneration. After all the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Doctors all appear to be the same age just after regenerating. In addition the Third Doctor looks a bit older than the Second Doctor as does the Ninth in comparison to the newly regenerated Eighth. Just because the last two regeneration have had the Doctor appear younger and younger does not mean that is the rule for regeneration, the only thing regeneration is said to do is rejuvenate(which is not the same thing as make younger, although presumably if a Time Lord were at the end of his regeneration when dying that would also be the case but the Doctor has always regenerated in rather violent manners.) Also in support of this is the fact that President Borusa in the Five Doctors is described as having recently regenerated and he appears to be quite old.--Doorofnight 20:59, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Reams and reams of speculation abound about who the woman is from the Doctor's granddaughter Susan to the Doctor's mother. The mother theory was mentioned in a podcast where Julie Davis said that she would like the woman to be the Doctor's mother while in that same podcast RTD said " ...It's whomever you want it to be." The most intruiging speculation is that she was Romana. In fact when posting the cast for the episode, IMdb listed the character as Romana before pulling it sown and changing it. Plus with the comment the character makes about haviing been lost and the gleam of recognition in the Doctor's eye when she uncovers her face also lend creedence to the theory. But for now this is OR and the mystery is still a mystery.Startrekandmore 03:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Power Rangers?

This is the second Doctor Who series finale to share its name with an episode of Power Rangers, the other being Journey's End. Presumably Russel T. Davies is a fan of Power Rangers.

Really? Two episodes out of 60+ Doctor Who episodes while RTD has been around that happen to share names with Power Rangers episodes means that "Presumably" he's a fan? Especially when both episode titles are generic enough to be applied many places (Journey's End is also an episode of Star Trek TNG, a play, and two movies based on the play). I don't think this comment has any place here. --Maelwys 18:29, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure about it either but I only moved it 'cos I wasn't sure about what is considered good on this wiki Drophyd 18:35, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think there are certainly similarities between Doctor Who and Power Rangers since RTD has taken over. For instance the death of The Master in Last of the Time Lords is very similar to the death of Astronema in Power Rangers in Space. --Lucifuge Rofacale 20:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Teenager and Ginger

Teenager and Ginger are two separate roles credited to two different actors. Nonetheless, teenager has inexplicably been made into a redirect to Ginger...though they aren't the same character. Can anyone explain this a bit better? Should it be undone? --Golden Monkey 19:46, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

They're quite clearly the same person. The older man refers to the teenager as Ginger multiple times, and the older man is probably called Tommo. I believe the credits is just made an error, it happens. Delton Menace 20:37, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Um no. The credits listed Teenager played by Max Benjamin. There is a teenager who has lines while they're becoming the Master race. Credits wouldn't list two different actors playing two different roles mistakenly. --Golden Monkey 13:53, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed! The script lists a emo teenager as a role instead of ginger. Now admit you're wrong. --Golden Monkey 15:06, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation in References

This one seems a bit dubious: "During a scene with the UNIT Master, the locations "Adelaide" and "Perth" can be briefly seen on background monitors; a reference to two previous companions." (the two being Adelaide Brooke and Astrid Peth, apparently). Is there an actual source to back this one up (ie. a commentary or article?). I think it's a stretch, especially involving Perth and Peth. I mean, Toronto, Ontario is also clearly visible in one scene as well. I just don't see it being an actual reference. If it is, then let's say where this comes from. If not, then we should remove it. (There may be other items of similar dubious quality, but this one seemed to stand out). 23skidoo 20:08, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Song playing in the bar.

Did anyone else catch the song that was playing in the bar that Captain Jack was in? "You put the devil in me" -daleks of manhattan.

Discontinuity item removed

I took out the following item from the Discontinuity section: Wilf does not react to The Woman saying 'This is the tenth Doctor's final adventure.', Wilf never knew about regeneration or the fact that The Doctor had previous forms. I don't believe The Woman ever used the phrase "Tenth Doctor" in this scene. I believe she just said "The Doctor". I need to track down my recording of the episode to confirm. Perhaps someone who has it more handy can double-check? As I understand it, using a term like "Tenth Doctor" in dialogue is as taboo has calling him "Doctor Who". 23skidoo 19:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I just checked on youtube, Part 3 of Part Two, she does not say Tenth. --Dalek036 12:52, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a note I removed an item regarding Series 5. There should be nothing regarding Series 5 in the Discontinuity section. --Bigshowbower 09:52, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discontinuity on the Doctor Falling

On the continuity note concerning The Doctor falling through the skylight and it not killing him, unlike what happened to its Fourth Incarnation three things should be noted. 1)It is rather unclear exactly how far The Doctor has fallen, he seems to be falling through the air for a few second but that might well be a bit of dramatic license. 2)There is no way of predicting how a fall will effect someone, there have been a few lucky people who have fallen thousands of feet and lived through it(although granted not ever, to my knowledge, through glass and/or onto a hard stone floor) whereas others have fallen only a few feet and been seriously injured. It also looks like the window breaks his fall a bit before it breaks which might just have slowed him enough to live through it, although it is also obvious The Doctor has been hurt pretty badly. 3)The Fourth Doctor was at the end of his regeneration anyway hence the presence of The Watcher, there are numerous references and hints throughout season 18 that the Fourth Doctor is getting on in years. This is also evident in the fact that The Doctor isn't pushed off the Radio Telescope, nor does he jump, he loses his grip and considering that in a previous shot he seems to have a good grip and hold on the tower that would seem to indicate, at least to me, that he is quite weak to begin with. In edition the Fourth Doctor has accepting his impending regeneration, unlike the Tenth, and doesn't fight it off.--Doorofnight 20:56, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

You are overlooking the simplest explanation, namely that the fall does kill him, and that it's a combination of his shenanigans with the hand the year before and his proximity to the the energies released via the Gate that delay the physical onset of the regeneration process. This would also be what allows him to string out the process to give all his friends one last, ahem, helping hand.Koschei 20:38, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

While I don't deny that would be a simple explanation for things, it doesn't make sense given what happens in the episode. After the Gate explodes and the Time Lords and Gallifrey are gone the Doctor is surprised that he is still alive and thinks that he has cheated death once again. After he hears Wilfred knocking the way he is moving around and talking would indicate that he is not severely hurt, and certainly not fatally injured, by his fall.--Doorofnight 20:56, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor mentions in Castrovalva that the fall came at the wrong time. his synapsies were weakened hence his regeneration and overall weakness. maybe the effect of Gallifrey being pulled through a time lock caused time to bleed and effect the Doctor and his landing, just look at the Ood and what happens when time bleeds around them. The Doctor falling is a minor point that im sure we can over look. Lets say the glass some did stop his fall which was only about 20 feet (so he survived that) and then the fall through the dome was also only 20 feet (so he survived that as well, although alittle winded and shocked) be perfectly plausable then. Qui Quae Quod

It should be noted that the eighth Doctor survived a sixty foot fall from a sky-scraper in Trading Futures. Revanvolatrelundar 16:04, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ginger controversy

This one is just plain weird. However the fact the BBC had to issue an official statement on the issue makes this a legitimate point to be included in the article. Given we've seen people mishearing dialogue (i.e. The Woman's non-existent reference to "the Tenth Doctor" discussed above), it's probably worth having this controversy here in case someone reading the article is one of the 143 who evidently never saw The Christmas Invasion. 23skidoo 20:26, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

is this fictional or for real? --Inundated 02:44, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

The BBC did have complaints over the ginger thing, yes. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 07:36, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that my integrity was questioned on this. I'm an admin here. I don't make stuff up. And certainly I only added this because it's received media coverage. Take 30 seconds on Google. 23skidoo 20:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor's Age error

In the 2nd part, The Doctor Stated he was 906. How can he be 906 if he stated in Time and the Rani that he was 953?

He said he was 900 in series 1, 903 in Voyage of the Damned, ect.. Who gives a crap about what he says about his age anymore? He doesn't know his true age, he just throws out random guesses around the age 900, because he simply doesn't know his true age. Delton Menace 02:27, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

He guess's his age but I think he does know it. --Catkind121 14:19, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

If he knew his age, he wouldn't need to guess it. ;) Delton Menace 21:10, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor's a tad vain and doesn't want to admit he's hit the big 1000.

Killing The Master

Rassilon seemed about to kill The Master with his glove, and is stopped by The Doctor.

When The Doctor points his gun at the master, he notes the link is in his head and killing him would send the Time Lords back...

Why would Rassilon have wanted to kill The Master if that would happen? Add1989 23:54, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

The Master speculates that his death would break the link but Rassilon knows otherwise.

continuity: regeneration

After regenerating the new Doctor is manic and exuberant much like the Master after his regeneration in Utopia and the newly regenerated Tenth Doctor in the Children in Need special.

Also as with the Master's regeneration but unlike any of his prior regeneration - the Doctor let's out a scream during the transformation.

Breaking the Laws of Time

Perhaps this is what the Doctor's "reward" was. Both when he saved Martha and Luke, he was interfering with fixed events in time. Meeting with Rose was messing around with his own timeline, and giving the lottery ticket was certainly something he was not supposed to be doing. With what little life he had left, he broke the laws of time to help the people he cared about.

There is no reason to believe that Martha or Luke's deaths were fixed points in time. Meeting Rose in 2005 hardly changed the timeline at all since Rose met the Ninth Doctor first and would have forgotten her meeeting with the Tenth Doctor by the time he regererated. He already used time travel to cheat in the lottery in School Reunion. The Doctor would not break the laws of time again so soon after the events of Waters of Mars.Gowron8472 00:28, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Error in article about the Master's "death"

From the "The End of Time (TV Story)" article:

"There is a bright flash of light, and the Time Lords, the Master (as he used up the last of his life force), and (somewhat slower) Gallifrey, are gone."

I'd like to point out that this part:

"(as he used up the last of his life force)"

is pure supposition. After watching it I was under the impression that the Master ended up caught inside the Time Lock along with the Time Lords. Perhaps that is supposition as well, but I believe the article should be corrected to reflect the fact that the Master may or may not be dead.

--208.123.182.84 14:31, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference made to the master following his 'fight' with rassilon, he could have been taken to gallifrey and into the time-lock, he could have used up his life-force or disintegrated - who knows, it is just speculation there is no confirmation of what happened which i think is so the doorway is left open for the master to return, although giving john simm an ending as the master.

The End of Time (TV Story)

Why is the page called The End of Time (TV story)? There's no page called The End of Time, and you'd think that a TV story would take priority over a novel. Why not move it to The End of Time? Jim393 12:19, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

• It's the way stories of same name are handled here. There is a page called The End of Time - it's a disambiguation page which is what we are supposed to use for stories of identical title. The novel doesn't take priority. The disambiguation is a level playing field for everything. 23skidoo 02:25, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

20 Things we learned ... citations

Once the new edition of The Writers Tale is out, these citations should be replaced with actual citations from the book. 23skidoo 02:26, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Teenager and Ginger are different characters

Even though this was already pretty obvious, the script makes this clear: CUT TO GROUND LEVEL. They're all blinking. One or two staggering. One 18 y/o EMO TEENAGER - calls out, scared - TEENAGER There's a face... In my head... See? Different characters. Script says so. --Golden Monkey 15:09, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Add to continuity about "last of the time lords"

The Master's mysterious accusation to the Doctor in Last of the Time Lords, that the eventual heat death of the universe and desperation of the Utopians was "all your fault", was probably a foreshadowing reference to the Doctor's choice to destroy the Time Lords and save the physical universe, rather than allowing the Time Lords to destroy it and "ascend". The Master could easily have attained that information from the Doctor during his year of captivity. Whether the Master has forgotten some, or all of that year (as suggested by his initial greeting of Lucy as his "ever faithful") or whether he remembers and this is considered a blooper, is not yet known. Date Doctor 07:43, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

• The accusation didn't seem very mysterious to me. The Master was referring to the Doctor being the one that sent the humans to Utopia in the preceding story. His greeting to Lucy as "ever faithful" appears to have been intended as sarcastic. Spreee 20:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC)Spreee

Slitheen speaking its own language

I removed a Story Note item about the Slitheen in the bar scene (I'm too tired to try and remember how to spell Rax...etc). It said he can he heard muttering in his own language. I just watched the scene twice and there is no such thing. You hear voices but it's impossible to tell who is speaking; it clearly isn't coming from the Slitheen. The only aliens we clearly hear speaking are the Judoon and the Adipose. 23skidoo 18:21, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

If it's wrong, delete it

In the Story Notes, someone placed an incorrect piece of information saying the Tenth Doctor's regeneration was similar to the Fifth's. Instead of deleting this error, another user just added a rebuttal. The only place where this is allowed is in the Discontinuity section and, sometimes, in the Myths section. If you see an error, delete it or correct it (just make sure to explain yourself in the Edit Summary or on this talk page so people understand why it's being changed/removed). As for the original story note, it might be more correct to compare to the Third Doctor's regeneration, but I think it's a stretch. 23skidoo 14:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

So much for consensus

I really like how consensus was reached before this article was moved. 23skidoo 05:33, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, very confused over how this was handled. First it was The End of Time (TV story), then it was just The End of Time. Now it's back to The End of TIme (TV story). And without discussion, much less consensus. At least the person who moved it to The End of Time had a reasonable point: if there are only two things with the same name, then you don't create a disambiguation. That's the way it's been here forever. And, oddly, the weirdest things get preferenced by this seeming rule. Frontios and Midnight mean the planet, not the story. Those don't take you to a disambig page. So I really fail to see the consistency of having this double-entried name take you to a disambig page. Seriously, most people will think of TEOT as the TV episode. If they want the book, there's a lil link right at the top of the page. I don't see what's wrong with that page flow, especially if we're going to continue to enforce this odd "planets get preferenced over TV story titles" rule. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Heavy edit to Discontinuity section

The discontinuity, plot holes and errors section is getting out of hand so I hope no one minds but I have edited it to one make it easier to read by placing the points under each bit according to definitions - Discontinuity is something which goes against the norm for the characters/plot/objects/places etc we see as the viewer such as a personality change. A plot hole is when there is an inconsistency or gap in the logic of the plot and an error is a mistake.

I have also pulled these ones off as they are more general questions in my opinion regarding the plot and theories not anything to do with this section. I may have put some points in the wrong sections so please correct, but please be aware that it is not a forum for questions.

• Why did the TARDIS explode during the regeneration scene? This hasn't happened before. (Regeneration is unpredictable, and some are more violent than others. This one was different in that he held back the regeneration for a long time, possibly causing a more violent reaction when it finally did happen. Further more, the Doctor was very resistant to regenerate, it could be he was just lashing out during Regeneration.)
• If the regeneration was violent enough to destroy the TARDIS, why did it not at least rip his clothes? Because the energy wasn’t protruding from his torso but his extremities.
• Why did the Doctor choose to meet Verity Newman, a descendant of Joan Redfern, and not Redfern herself? The Doctor has already caused Redfern a great deal of heartache and he likely does not wish to reopen old wounds
• What was accelerating the Ood's evolution? The Ood Elder stated that "Time is bleeding," presumably, this affected certain points in time, including the Ood's evolution cycle
• Why is a piece of music from 1930s Earth playing in a space cantina? Some aliens are interested in Earth culture. It may have been broadcast and intercepted
• When Wilfred is trapped in the radiation chamber, why couldn't the Doctor leave and come back with a teleportation device, some other means to repair the chamber, or even a radiation suit of some kind? Perhaps even replicate the TARDIS effect he used in TV: The Doctor Dances to rescue Jack Harkness from his exploding ship? (By the time the Doctor did any of those things, Wilf would have died, and the Doctor has accepted the fact that he has to save Wilf at the cost of his own life. the doctor said that touch one control and it would flood, even use of a sonic screwdriver - its possible any other device would have a similar effect).
• Why did Sarah Jane Smith create a cover story for Gallifrey heading towards Earth when everyone is very aware of the existence of alien life by these events? Luke says "How else are you gonna explain everyone with a different face?" meaning that the cover story is for the "Master Race" incident, not Gallifrey's appearance. She was not aware of what happened, too, while Luke (non-human) was aware, which would be because she became one of the Master Race.
• The Doctor said "even then, it feels like dying" when he tells wilfred about the prophecy and regeneration, yet he should feel like he is being revitalized when he renegerates. So, why would it feel like dying?Because the process involves a great amount of pain and they become someone else. That previous incarnations life is over, resulting in that incarnation dying, with another emerging.
• The Doctor has gone through 10 regenerations (if you do not count the meta crisis one.) Some Time Lords had control over the process. If the Doctor has gone through this many, why has he not gained any control over the process? (Some Time Lords can control it better, just as different people have different strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, the Doctor usually regenerates under extreme circumstances, giving him less control over the process. In this case, he also held off regenerating for a significant period of time after being healed, which one would expect took much of his focus and control.)
• Luke (and by extension Sarah Jane and the rest of her team) are aware of the "Master Race" transformation, despite the fact that it occured simultaneously for everyone involved, making outside observation of the effect impossible. (Everyone changed all at once, and then changed back, so nobody could have observed it.) (Luke may have been immune due to his unique nature. There was also recorded visual evidence from news cameras, security footage, etc.)
• If the woman who speaks to wilfred is a time lady, which we know because she is seen with rassilon, indicating she was in the time war, and the doctor was said to have destroyed every time lord and dalek in the war, how could she meet wilfred? and if she is dead, exactly how could she return and come to see wilfred? (How she managed to contact Wilfred is intentionally left unexplained for the time being.)

lottie01 00:20, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Plot Holes section is incredibly bloated, filled with supposed "holes" that are explained within the episodes themselves. I mean, honestly:

"When Wilfred is trapped in the radiation chamber, why couldn't the Doctor leave and come back with a teleportation device, some other means to repair the chamber, or even a radiation suit of some kind? Perhaps even replicate the TARDIS effect he used in DW: The Doctor Dances to rescue Jack Harkness from his exploding ship?"

Come on. The bloody thing's overloading. That's not a "Wait right here, I'll be back in an hour" scenario. Who bloody put that in?

"Why did Sarah Jane Smith create a cover story for Gallifrey heading towards Earth when everyone is very aware of the existence of alien life by these events?"

Luke says why. In the episode. Immediately after he says what Mr. Smith has done. Immediately after he says what Mr. Smith has done.

"The Doctor said "even then, it feels like dying" when he tells wilfred about the prophecy and regeneration, yet he should feel like he is being revitalized when he renegerates. So, why would it feel like dying?"

Someone wasn't listening to the Doctor's lines here, I think.

"The Doctor knew he was going to regenerate from the minute he saved Wilfred from the radiation. He had seemed to accept this. But the minute before he actually did regenerate, he was starting to cry and said "I don't wanna go." Why would he say this if he had accepted his fate? "

In what parallel universe is this a continuity error?

I won't go on, but the stuff that's been left in as "Discontinuity, Plot Holes, Errors" is of shockingly poor quality and is in dire need of an overhaul. --Ben Paddon 11:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Stillnotginger 17:15, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I've done a few edits to rationales and the like, but in this article (and others) quite often the so-called "errors" are either cases of people not paying attention to the story, looking for an excuse to bash the writer (usually those with the initials RTD it seems), are perhaps unfamiliar with backstory, or who might be bringing "fanon" into the proceedings. Fanon for those who don't know is a term that started to get some cachet during the waning years of the Trek franchise when people were condemning the writers of shows like Voyager and Enterprise for violating canon, only to find their assertions were based upon fan assumptions not actually supported by anything on screen. An example of such assumptions is the one about Wilf knowing about regeneration; it's stated that the Doctor usually doesn't speak about it. Name me one episode in which he states that it's a topic he doesn't discuss. We definitely do need an overhaul of all these sections so that they have legitimate errors, rather than perceived errors, which is not the same thing. 23skidoo 17:20, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

russel t davies build up

i dont get it timelords can regenerate (change face) but the doctor said to wilf that when timelords regenerate a new man goes sauntering away but i dont get it that changes everything its like saying the doctor isnt the doctor he just has the same brain still with the woman he should have indicated who she really was we all know its the doctors mother and when the master vanished at least show if hes dead but i think that the master is alive but he probaly went with the time trap because with the lightning bolt it was still connected to rassilion so he could have still gone with him The master said when the doctor was aiming at rassilion kill him and gallifrey could be yours so that is so confusing.The mysterious 12:46, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

• I think that if the Doctor killed the Lord President he would have become the Lord President like a political coup. The Master said something like "he's the Lord President!" so I think that's the case, as to the thing with the Doctor dyin with his regeneration, the person he became "dies", when he regenerated into the Tenth Doctor he became a new man with a new personality and face which seems to happen with each new regeneration and with the Master, they may have purposfully left that ambiguos in order to bring him back later.--WarGrowlmon18 12:53, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Woah!

Blimey there's loads of Tempaltes. Trikster87

Story numbers off by one

Somehow, all the story numbers from the 1996 movie onward were off by one number ('The Movie' and 'Rose' had the same story number). This has been corrected up to 'Waters of Mars', but stories beyond that are locked for editing, and therefore off by one number.

Just an FYI...

how does the master get all that lightning power

how someone please tell me The mysterious 14:01, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

It probably had something to do with the ressurection ritual that was used to bring him back; we don't know the true nature of those potion things. 211.31.116.46 21:18, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Undead master

It is important to note that in a previous incarnation, he was left in a different sort of semi-undead state Sclera1 13:41, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Why is this only one story?

All other New Series two-parters have been given seperate pages per episode, the same goes for TToA and FaS, and henceforth. So, just because this is a Part One, why does it have t be a seperate article?

I vote for this to be renamed to The End of Time Part One and The End of Time Part Two. Thsi would also clear up some of the 'at the close of Part One' and the 'Part-way through Part Two, though three-quarters through the whole thing' nonsense. Anybody else? -BlueDalek 17:39, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Church

The Church that wilf enters at the beginning is the same as the one in the Runaway Bride. Should we make a page for it? The Thirteenth Doctor 21:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Are there articles for Rassilon's items?

Are there articles for Rassilon's staff and/or his glove. Both seem quite important. I wasn't sure if the Rod of Rassilon was the same as the staff he has, though unless these are confirmed to be the same, should these items not have their own articles? As for the glove, it's important enough to have it's own article, isn't it? The Thirteenth Doctor 20:05, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Song ID

What's the creepy music that plays during the Master's "hilarious" speech? Is it on the Specials CD?

• I'm pretty sure it's "This is Gallifrey-Our Childhood, Our Home"... Hope it helps! 71.22.135.209 03:17, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline note needs better sourcing

When I encountered it, "story notes" section included this:

• According to production team comments, this episode takes place in late 2009, ending the practice established in 2005 of having "modern day" stories taking place a year in the future and bringing the show's narrative into line with that of the real world. The default timeline explanation is that modern day Earth stories aired in 2009 and 2008 both take place in the same year; due the TV: The Next Doctor not having a "modern day" placement, it allowed The End of Time to take place on the date it aired, and set this year's stories in the same year as last year's stories.

I've removed it and placed it here because I've never heard anything like this from the production team. Can someone provide the source of the "production team comments" mentioned. And not just a general publication, but a page number and/or time code, depending on medium. Also where's this "default timeline explanation" coming from? Whose "default" is this? The editor's? Or an actual, reference-able comment from the production team. This whole think smells like something from The Howling seeping into the main article space. We need hard proof before it goes back in, please. The only thing I've seen, narratively, which breaks the 'one year later thing" on television is Flesh and Stone/The Big Bang. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Actually in The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 4 dates can clearly be seen on screen indicating that it takes place late 2010. In Death of the Doctor a reference is given to the Doctor's meeting with Sarah Jane in The End of Time. This would place The End of Time at Christmas 2009. Itcouldbelupus 06:30, January 16, 2011 (UTC)