Talk:Regeneration

Regeneration posture

I'm not sure why this was removed. This is a significant aspect of regeneration. While it was not seen in the "original" series, it has been seen as part of the standard process in the revival, and Davies has stated that according to the current "rules" the series follows, this is how TimeLords regenerate normally - and there really is nothing in the original series to contradict this given the Doctor has usually been incapacitated and Romana regenerated off screen. Perhaps a reference to Davies' comments could be added, but we should try to keep things in-universe as much as possible. 23skidoo 04:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of the reason it was removed, as I wasn't the one to do it. However, having read the section, it does feel "removable". Too much certainty is attached to the explanation. There are at least three regenerations — 1-2, 3-4. and 5-6 — which shouldn't have more greatly inhibited the Doctor from standing than the ones we've seen in the BBC Wales production. You can't argue you want to "keep things in-universe as much as possible", then cite RTD as a major rationale. In-universe, there's not a satisfactory reason why absorbing the time vortex would have allowed the Doctor to stand, but simple old age wouldn't. The Ninth Doctor had the most traumatic cause of regeneration of the lot, and yet he stood when others didn't. There is no narrative logic; it's just an artistic choice. It can only be explained in an out-of-universe way. It is interesting to note, however, that all but the Tenth Doctor and Romana II have ended up flat on their backs immediately after the initial act of regeneration, though. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 14:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because there didn't seem to be any in-universe evidence that the posture was important. They never actually said the whether the Doctor was standing up mattered at all. -<Azes13 02:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)