38
edits
Howling:Theories on John Hurt: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Readded contributions that 89.240.243.203 removed
No edit summary |
Milar Kayne (talk | contribs) (Readded contributions that 89.240.243.203 removed) |
||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
::::Something of that kind is indeed what I have in mind. Moffat is keen on the tricks that can be played by manipulating time. One example that may (or may not) be relevant is Amy's question in ''[[Good Night (TV story)|Good Night]]'': How can she remember two very different versions of her own life? Another example is Amy's reaction to having killed Kovarian in the collapsing timeline of ''[[The Wedding of River Song (TV story)|The Wedding of River Song]]'': When River tries to dismiss that action because it happened in an aborted timeline, Amy says it still bothers her -- she can remember doing it, so it's still part of her. I wouldn't expect exactly the same thing but some other variation on the theme is a distinct possibility. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.243.203|89.240.243.203]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.243.203#top|talk to me]]</sup> 00:40, May 24, 2013 (UTC) | ::::Something of that kind is indeed what I have in mind. Moffat is keen on the tricks that can be played by manipulating time. One example that may (or may not) be relevant is Amy's question in ''[[Good Night (TV story)|Good Night]]'': How can she remember two very different versions of her own life? Another example is Amy's reaction to having killed Kovarian in the collapsing timeline of ''[[The Wedding of River Song (TV story)|The Wedding of River Song]]'': When River tries to dismiss that action because it happened in an aborted timeline, Amy says it still bothers her -- she can remember doing it, so it's still part of her. I wouldn't expect exactly the same thing but some other variation on the theme is a distinct possibility. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.243.203|89.240.243.203]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.243.203#top|talk to me]]</sup> 00:40, May 24, 2013 (UTC) | ||
Let us also examine some of the facts that we do know for sure. Eccleston was asked to do the 50th show and declined. McGann hasn't made it public that he was asked, but did say his role in the special probably had a lot to do with Eccleston's response. There was intent to include the "9th", but not a necessity as we now know. Last fact before conjecture - John Hurt is, to put it blunt, old. This is why I think he will not be cast (as interesting as it would be) as a future doctor and carry the show himself. The fact that the TARIDS interior was the same suggests that Moffat will end the show with Smith. We know from season six that the Smith Doctor is not the 13th, because we saw him start to regenerate - this is why I feel meta-crisis doctor isn't a regen. That episode also confirmed that the Doctor can be killed before regen, allowing Smith to still be the last Doctor if the BBC thinks the show will tank if they replace Smith. | |||
This is why I subscribe to the "missing" doctor theory. A mystery Doctor born from/in war and only existing in a time locked time war, sounds like a pretty big secret, especially if he committed war crimes. In fact....the only people who would have ever known about his existence....died. The Doctor was imprisoned for a duration of time during the war. Could maybe he have regenerated in jail and became the Doctor who stole the key to the Moment and used it? He may have been a brutal horrific one track minded warrior bent on escape and ending the war without giving anyone a choice in the matter, something that both 9, 10, and 11 all severely swore by. | |||
I also think that the "you're the eleventh Doctor.." line by Clara is hugely significant. It confirms and yet completely brings into question what we all assumed was the Doctor's history. -- High Five City | |||
'''Note to 108.35.12.252: If you want to make a contribution, please do it without deleting the contributions of others. You removed contributions by both me & Bold Clone, which is why I reverted your edit. It is an extreme breach of discussion-page etiquette to do delete what others have said. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.243.203|89.240.243.203]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.243.203#top|talk to me]]</sup> 00:51, May 24, 2013 (UTC)''' | '''Note to 108.35.12.252: If you want to make a contribution, please do it without deleting the contributions of others. You removed contributions by both me & Bold Clone, which is why I reverted your edit. It is an extreme breach of discussion-page etiquette to do delete what others have said. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.243.203|89.240.243.203]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.243.203#top|talk to me]]</sup> 00:51, May 24, 2013 (UTC)''' | ||
'''Note to 89.240.243.203: Be fair. For one thing, that was probably an error on 108's part. Second, you deleted his contribution as well. So not only have you also breached discussion-page etiquette, you have also committed the same fault of which you accuse another. [[User:Milar Kayne|Milar Kayne]] [[User talk:Milar Kayne|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:58, May 24, 2013 (UTC)''' | |||
