Howling:The End of Doctor Who?

The Howling → The End of Doctor Who?

There be spoilers about un-released stories here.
Run back to the forums if you're scared.

There has been a lot of speculation, and many rumors, related to the next Doctor after Matt Smith.

But today I find myself wondering whether there will be another Doctor. I wonder whether the BBC is not planning on ending the show’s run.

Trenzalore, we have learned, is the place where the Doctor DIES and is entombed, the place of “the fall of the Eleventh.” The latter could be a clever misdirection, referring to an eleventh legion, his moral fall, or even to the literal “fall” from space in “The Name of the Doctor.”

But think of what Clara said in “The Name of the Doctor”:

Clara: Who’s that?

The Doctor: Never mind. Let’s go back

Clara: But who is he?

The Doctor: He’s me. There’s only me here. That’s the point. Now let’s get back.

Clara: But I never saw that one. I saw all of you. ELEVEN faces, all of them you! You’re the ELEVENTH Doctor!

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

Clara: I don’t understand.

The Doctor: My name, my real name – that is not the point. The name I chose is the Doctor. The name you choose, is like… it’s like a promise you make. He’s the one who broke the promise.

The Doctor: He’s my secret.

The Man: What I did, I did without choice.

The Doctor: I know.

The Man: In the name of peace and sanity.

The Doctor: But not in the name of the Doctor!

Eleven faces. Why would Clara, scattered throughout the Doctor’s entire timeline, have seen only Eleven faces? This makes it sound as though the individual who is the same person as the Doctor, but not one who accepted and acted in accordance with the name of the Doctor, is a version of the Doctor from the future. The Valeyard, the Storm, the Beast. The one that was refereed to in “The Wedding of River Song” when he said, “You’re a man with a long and dangerous past. But your future is infinitely more terrifying. The Silence believe it must be averted.”

And so the Doctor’s future is terrifying, there is a war against the Doctor which is being fought, and which ends at Trenzalore with his death. And there is a person the Doctor becomes who is not worthy of that name.

If that future is not prevented.

But the fact that Clara only saw Eleven Doctors along the Doctor’s timeline – does that imply that he will be the last? [Unsigned but appears to be 92.15.135.24 15:22, June 11, 2013 (UTC)]

Please sign your contributions.

Your alarmist idea makes no commercial sense. It would be quite possible for the BBC to stop production of the show without killing the Doctor. It's been done before.

The BBC is, of course, capable of stupidity. However, the show has been revived once & made money (rather a lot of it). That could happen again. The only reason to kill the Doctor off would be to make it harder to mount another revival. It wouldn't even make it impossible, because an ingenious writer (i.e., almost any writer) could find a timey-wimey way to make it so that the death was undone or never really happened.

Furthermore, the BBC has had its fingers burned before when it let the public know it wanted to stop production of the show. If it did want to stop, it'd do it deceptively, like last time. It wouldn't advertise the fact that that's what it was trying to do.

It would be asking for additional trouble to announce the confirmation of Series 8 & then to retract that confirmation. Since Matt Smith is leaving before Series 8 even begins, making him the last would force the BBC into cancelling an already confirmed series. If the show is to be ended, it'll be revealed by what the Beeb doesn't say, not by what it does say. It'd be something like: "We are unable to confirm our future plans at this time..."

A big difference between now & the 1980s is the Internet. The fans could generate far more trouble for the Beeb now than they could then. And Doctor Who fans are activists. They not only could create an enormous fuss but also would do so. --89.240.242.238^{talk to me} 17:48, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a tendency for fans who joined the show during the Smith era to think that the show will tank without him.

There's also the fact that Moffat "killed" the Doctor at the beginning of series 6 and the show didn't end. Moffat's writing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the future status of the show. Shambala108 ☎ 20:33, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

One characteristic of Moffat's writing that has caused unfavourable comment is his habit of frequently "killing" characters only to bring them back. Any apparent or threatened death of a recurring character, even one far less central than the Doctor, in a Moffat script needs be taken with a very large sackful of salt. --89.241.64.207^{talk to me} 21:13, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Really, @89? I haven't seen this behavior from fans of Matt Smith's Eleventh. It's nothing like some (not all!) die-hard Tennant fans who say they stopped watching the show when he left but they still find the time to go to Doctor Who fan sites to complain how the show, as they knew it, died 3 years ago. Tennant has successfully moved on but I've seen some of his fans argue that he should be brought back! Now, how would that be explained?! It was decent enough for him to stick around for the 2008-2010 specials and is putting in an appearance on the 50th Anniversary busht his long-time work for the show is over. But for some of his fans, the show ended in 2010!

I don't think this is the end of the show for all of the practical reasons you mention. Series 7 episodes might not have had the viewing audience in the UK that earlier Series had received but the audience in other areas, like the U.S., is only growing and distributing DW episodes globally and selling merchandise probably brings in more money to the BBC than any other series. I even think Torchwood was successful and is only on hiatus until RTD wants to return as its showrunner. Badwolff ☎ 20:18, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Badwolff: It was Shambala108 who made the comment about "fans who joined the show during the Smith era", not me. I responded to Shambala108's final paragraph (about Moffat's writing) only. Please point your guns at the right target. (I was 89 earlier.) --2.101.53.202^{talk to me} 22:30, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, @89, for the misidentification. By the way, I consider this to be a discussion board, not that I have guns loaded and aimed at any DW fans. I don't want to misinterpret or miscredit anyone's remarks but I think we can all agree to disagree without it erupting into metaphorical gunfire. Badwolff ☎ 19:48, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

@ Badwolff, I know there are sites like you've described; one of the people I watch Doctor Who with has been on a lot of sites like that. Mostly I've seen the opposite: people who think that Matt Smith is the Doctor and what came before him is pretty much worthless, especially Tennant and RTD.

As for Tennant fans saying the show ended with him, that happened with many Tom Baker fans too, and I expect it will happen when Smith leaves. There is one type of Doctor Who fan that likes their first Doctor, and no other Doctor that follows can ever be good enough. There is another type of fan who likes all/nearly all of the Doctors, while still having favorites. I think the first type of fan is sometimes the most vocal. Shambala108 ☎ 23:17, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't run into diehard Smith fans online (yet) but I'm definitely in your second group. Badwolff ☎ 19:50, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Contented babies don't howl. It's the ones with a belly ache that make the noise. --2.101.53.202^{talk to me} 00:31, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is not time to hang the crepe for the Doctor. But sorting out what Clara's statement could mean might be useful in understanding what is happening.

Going into the Doctor's timeline means going into his future as well as his past. If River Song came out saying "Spoilers", or just acting dumb regarding his future, we would not be surprised because knowing the future could change the future. But Clara is not acting like River might. She doesn't seem to be saying what she does concious of revealing to the Doctor his own mortality. She could keep quiet about what she saw without saying what she did. So why does she recall seeing no further Doctors, and not the Hurt Doctor?

Perhaps it has something to do with the Doctor going in to try to save her. That is presumed to be how she survived at all, when the GI was supposedly killed. Somehow after she was splintered she was apparently recombined, bringing the memories back to her. So either the splinters from the future did not return to her, or somehow their memories were wiped. Or the Doctor's interference only allowed her splinters to go into the past, and not the future. And the Doctor will have to deal with GI's interference himself.Phil Stone ☎ 04:02, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Also, remember that his timeline is collapsing in on itself, which could be why she only saw the previous 11 faces. She and the GI might have only been able to go backwards and forwards to the point they entered the timestream themselves. Vohn exel ☎ 06:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the "tomb TARDIS" looked like the current TARDIS, it may be that, as matters now stand, the Doctor does finally die in his current incarnation at Trenzalore & the Anniversary Special will be about how, with the help of Clara, the Tenth Doctor, Rose and the "Hurt Doctor", time gets rewritten so that that doesn't happen. Moffat keeps saying that the Anniversary Special "is about the future, not the past". Undoing the Doctor's death would certainly fit that description. It'd also fit Moffat's inclinations if the "Hurt Doctor" had been introduced so that he can somehow redeem himself &, by doing so, give the Doctor a future he'd not otherwise have had. The Name... had Clara repeatedly saying, "I was born to save the Doctor," & she's not yet finished doing that; they're still in the Doctor's timestream & changes can still be made. --89.241.67.154^{talk to me} 11:43, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think, if I've followed the thread correctly, and I think this has been mentioned before, that Vohn exel may be closest though 89 is implying similarly.

Clara's action was heroic suicide; she jumped into the Doctor's time stream believing it would kill her but save him. If was a causal response to what to GI did and she wouldn't have done it otherwise.

I turn what the GI did must have also elicited a causal response which we saw and so did Clara, the Doctor dying both in the past and before her eyes on Trenzalore and that's what she responded to, to save him.

When the GI entered the Doctor's time stream to do his unpicking that was the end for him, whatever future he may have had before was circumvented by the GI's action. This would qualify Vohn's statement that the GI and Clara couldn't go any further, the GI's deed meant that there was nowhere to go.DCT ☎ 15:24, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

So what the Doctor means by a collapsing Time stream is that by dying presently at Trenzalor due to the actions of the GI in his past, all of his future from now on is destroyed, and his past is messed up as well as GI hastens the need to regenerate in the past. Except that Clara is presumed to have fixed all that. That is why the Doctor seemed to recover after Clara went in after the GI. So is it still collapsing, and if so why? Or because she and the GI only had access to the part which was not collapsed? She followed the GI so it was already collapsed, and splintered accordingly, to only those parts of the timestream still available. But the splintering was a discrete event. And so as she repaired the timestream, she could not generate new splinters to fix the parts which had collapsed. But perhaps in collapsing, the influence of the GI there is also cancelled? Phil Stone ☎ 17:40, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

This conflicted with Phil Stone's edit & doesn't take account of it:

DCT: What I meant (when I was 89) isn't what I take Vohn exel to have meant, although the two may be compatible. That compatibility seems even more likely in the light of what you say -- you've thought it a bit further through than I had. If the timestream Clara entered is the result of the Doctor dying at Trenzalore in his current (Matt Smith) incarnation, then there wouldn't be any future incarnations for Clara to see. There also wouldn't be any future incarnations for the GI to interfere with. The reason Clara & the GI would (as Vohn exel said) "have only been able to go backwards and forwards to the point they entered the timestream" wouldn't be because they entered it then. The reason would be that the timestream was only there to be entered because that was as far as it reached.

If you think about the premiss that the timestream can only be enered via the tomb, that effectively means it can only be entered at its end point. The consequence of that is that, if (say) the Fifth Doctor had gone to Trenzalore & Tegan had done what Clara did, Tegan would have seen the same (11 + 1) Doctors. To her & to the Fifth Doctor when he went in to rescue her, some of those Doctors would have been future ones.

As I've already said in another discussion, Moffat has a strong reason to have the death at Trenzalore undone. As long as it remains in place, no threat to the Doctor's life will work unless it includes a battle at Trenzalore. If Moffat leaves it in place, he's tying his own hands. We'll all think, "That can't happen, because we already know he'll die at Trenzalore." If there's one thing Moffat will avoid like the plague it's putting his audience in the position of already knowing the outcome! (I was 89 earlier.) --2.101.58.225^{talk to me} 18:19, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're entirely in agreement. Certainly there seem to be points that match but then you say things that I'm not sure is what I'm saying. I should remnd you though, as i said I'm not sure this is my thinking I may have seen it written by someone else I can't remember who. I'll reiterate my thinking so we can try to see again if it agrees or not.

The episode had certain details that seemed to suggest that it was the future of the Doctor to die on Trenzalore in the process of some great battle when the planet probably looked rather nicer than it does now. It gave no clue as to which incarnation he was in but his TARDIS remained on Trenzalore and become his tomb. I'll return to this theme later.

Now I accept that when the Doctor can to Trenzalore he had all that to look forward to, however when the GI entered his timestream that was circumvented and instead of dying in battle on Trenzalore he's going to die at the hands (so to speak) of the GI unpicking his past. It's this paradox is preventing anyone going past that point (@Phil, following from this the episode implied because the Doctor said that it was him actually entering his own timestream that was causing it to collapse because that's too big of a paradox. Him entering his own timestream is like taking the end of the string and threading it though the middle of its self back to the beginning of the string, turning it inside out as you go).

I agree that Steven Moffat has either undo the Doctor's death on Trenzalore or realize it (so unlikely) very quickly and for very big reasons indeed. When he entered his timestream to rescue Clara the Doctor told Vastra that if he didn't return she was to take the TARDIS and use it to return herself, Strax and Jenny home. Obviously if she does that then earth will become the Doctor's tomb and not

Trenzalore because that will be where the TARDIS is left. By the same token that would suggest that anyone who comes with the Doctor to his last battle on Trenzalore will die too or else the same circumstances would apply. The TARDIS only remains on Trenzalore because there's no reason for it to leave.

You suggested that the timestream can only be entered at it's end point because it's found in the Doctor's tomb. But the title "tomb" is just a name for something that seems like part of the TARDIS. There's definitely some technological elements involved and we don't absolutely know if it comes into life at his death or, indeed as the Doctor himself suggested, it's simply a record of his time travel and grows and he lives.DCT ☎ 15:57, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Since Clara and the GI entered the Doctor's time stream at the end (ie, after his death), they should have seen every incarnation of the doctor. Clara specified that she saw all eleven faces. She should have seen 12+. One could imply that Hurt would be 12, but the 11th knew what he did, so therefore Hurt has to be a prior incarnation. My guess is that the events of trenzelore will somehow be changed in the 50th anniversary special, but will still lead to the 11th's regeneration in the Chrsitmas special. Maybe, instead of a permanent death, he will be able to regenerate? Further speculation allows that the regeneration may occur in such away as to invalidate the limit on umber of regenerations. Whosethebestwho ☎ 05:54, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

If (repeat, if) my idea is right, they did see every incarnation of the Doctor, as matters currently stand. I don't think that what limited the number of incarnations they could see was when they entered the timestream. I think what limited the number of incarnations they could see was that those were the only ones in the timestream.

The way the Doctor spoke of Trenzalore in the early part of the episode, when he was explaining to Clara that he shouldn't go there, implied that the reason he shouldn't go there was because that was the only place his timestream would be vulnerable to being entered & rewritten.

When DCT says, 'the title "tomb" is just a name for something that seems like part of the TARDIS,' that is both technically true & completely wrong. What makes it wrong is the phrase 'just a name for'. It's not 'just a name for' anything. It's a description of a function. The fact that it's part of the TARDIS probably is significant but what's most important is that it's the Doctor's tomb. It's where his timestream ends -- where it has been completed. That's why it can be entered there & that, in turn, is why he should not have gone there. Without the tomb function, the TARDIS wouldn't allow access to the Doctor's timestream -- otherwise, he'd have to avoid the TARDIS, which he does not. It most certainly isn't 'simply a record'; 'simply a record' wouldn't allow the events themselves to be changed. The GI wouldn't have been able to get revenge by using 'simply a record'. Clara wouldn't have been able to interact with the First Doctor by using 'simply a record'. Basically, if it had been 'simply a record', there'd have been no story for the episode to tell.

The TARDIS-as-tomb looked like the current "desktop theme". Clara saw only 11 faces, plus one (the John Hurt incarnation) whom the Doctor knew & spoke of as part of his past: "the one who broke the promise", not "the one who will break the promise". The Doctor knew what the John Hurt incarnation had done. He spoke of it as something done, not as something impending. There was no element of "this is what I'll be unless I find a way to prevent it". It was too late for prevention because it had already happened.

Whosethebestwho is right. Moffat has set up a situation in which the current (Matt Smith) incarnation is the one who dies at Trenzalore & the TARDIS in her current "desktop theme" becomes his tomb. That's not something Moffat's going to leave unchanged. My guess is that the Anniversary Special will show how it's changed & (probably) the Christmas Special will show the consequences of the change: regeneration into an incarnation that wasn't in the timestream at Trenzalore.

I'd further guess that the John Hurt incarnation either will redeem himself by making the change or will make the change by redeeming himself, possibly writing himself out of the Doctor's past in the process. --2.96.27.7^{talk to me} 19:16, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that by use of terms in describing what the timestream is and isn't is not particularly logical. The reason for that is that is that is what explained in any great detail in this episode. It was clear that it has some sort of mechanical component and isn't something that happens naturally as far as could be identified. At the same time the Doctor said it was something to do with the fact he was a time traveler at the same time the Doctor has had many companions who would also become time travelers but I Doctor think they get time streams and "tombs" like this. They get normal tombs like Amy and Rory did.

And yes it's not just a record as it can be used to access the points in history it records - the Doctor whole life - but nevertheless it has that history held for posterity, it seems. So it is a record which means if the Doctor's history changes it can theoretically change too.DCT ☎ 13:50, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

It is a record, but it's not 'simply a record'. It's that word 'simply' that's badly misleading. A record that really is 'simply a record' can't be used to change what happened. It might, of course, be used to change what others thought had happened. That's been attempted quite a few times in the real world, especially (but not solely) by totalitarian governments. They've rewritten history books in the hope that they could deceive their own people. In that case, it tends to fail because they can't get at all the records & some remain unchanged. The Doctor's timestream, in contrast, could be used to change what had actually happened. That was why, for example, Jenny Flint vanished. --89.242.67.102^{talk to me} 19:34, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, of course. It's never actually going to be "simply" anything. At the time I was trying to create a distinction between something that is inherently part of how time works and something that is the product of some piece of technology. One has much stronger implications than the other.DCT ☎ 13:00, June 18, 2013 (UTC)