"I made a Jigsaw of your history. Did you like it?" - I smiled when I first heard that line as it's a simple way to explain every inconsistency in the entire history of the show.
@@ZOLTAR436 It still did. Everything is canon and nothing is canon if you wish it to be or don't wish it to be. RTD2's mission statement is that now every unbound Doctor and origin story of The Doctor can be canon or non canon. The older looking past Doctors are now versions of the Doctor where the incarnations lived longer enough to visibly age ( as stated in Tales of the TARDIS). Big finish can be considered canon now too. Basically everything happened at the same time and at the same it did not. Something for future writers.
@@ZOLTAR436 and it still could because The Toy Maker is essentially saying that he we-wrote the Doctor's history, which was one of the biggest problems people had with that story. That simple line means that now anything is possible.
11:23 The Weeping Angels are usually fast, yes, but an important detail in this video that was neglected was that the angels in the labyrinth had been starved for millenia, and were just now waking up and beginning to receive more energy. This is why they moved so slowly and didn't go quickly like a strong angel would. This was also covered to some extent in the episode.
I agree but they still shouldn't have been shown, since we the audience were still looking at them. They could've played the grinding sounds while keeping the cameras on Amy on the ground the whole time.
@@JoeThornhill yeah, that's a good point but as a kid I appreciated how this scene let you see at least a little bit into the angels' inner workings though
@@JoeThornhillOne way to explain why they still moved while we as the audience were still looking at them was the fact of the lights blinking erratically. When the lights are blinking erratically we can see the angels momentarily in the instances when the lights are blinking on them, but in the very quick instances that are dark that’s when the angels are moving. That’s my interpretation of it at least.
Regarding No. 3 (the nature of regeneration) -- this is not a plothole. This the 10th Doctor continuing his basic character trait of not wanting to let go. It started way back when he channeled his regeneration energy into his severed hand in "Journey's End" (as the 11th Doctor said, "I had vanity issues back then" -- or words to that effect). And the precise words that he used in "The End of Time" are "It *feels* like dying". This is the 10th Doctor expressing his personal, subjective take on regeneration
You pointing that out makes the Tenth Doctor’s regeneration bit more sense. He doesn’t like to let go of friends, family or life (his incarnation) itself. When Tenth Doctor became human in the form of John Smith, when it came time to become The Doctor that could’ve been The Doctor’s “issues” bleeding out while with John Smith not wanting to go.
It is also possible that to all other Timelords and incarnations of the Doctor regeneration does feel like dying in a sense because all the cells in their body change and give them a different appearance, but they just decide not to voice it. The Tenth Doctor could very well be telling a tragic truth about regeneration that his other incarnations just ignored or chose not to make a big deal out of it. Or, from a different approach, saying that everything about him dies and a new man goes sauntering is the Tenth Doctor's bleak and dramatic way of saying that each of his incarnations are different from each other (personality, style, age, etc)
Absolutely. Canon is that every Doctor has his own personality. Ten was particularly self-centred - more so as time wore on. His attachment to Rose itself was a form of narcissm which not even nine would have followed (remember Lynda with a Y ?) . This was how it would feel to 'him" . Other versions embraced it more or less (see 12). But the "true" Doctor did not have that view. Eleven was anything but depressed when he woke up - and he still had all of Ten's memories. To him it was no more than an offhand "He always says that" type of moment
Or it's just a lot harder to do, so he saves it for when he actually needs to make a silent landing. Most of the time, it doesn't matter if anyone hears a TARDIS landing, what with the perception filter and all, but on those rare occasions when a silent landing is really needed, you can put in the effort to get one.
Human blood is actually blue inside of our bodies. Once it hits the air it loses oxygen and becomes red. That's why people who are overly oxygenated can Bleed Blue.
Doctor Who has enough respect for its audience to include things like continuity, even within the confines of a single episode? That's hard to believe considering how nationalist the BBC is.
Okay, comment on #3, the Weeping Angels are actually moving between the still frames of the out-of-universe film that "Flesh and Stone" itself is recorded on (hence them moving about the exact pace as post-it-drawn animation). Basically, it's really a clever way of saying that your viewing the Angels via your screen won't stop them from moving and menacing the cast, albeit in a limited capacity. It does look contrived at first glance, but it's still technically consistent with the rules (in a smart-arsed way).
I've commented similarly -- here on YT and on fan sites like Gallifrey Base/Outpost Gallifrey -- since the episode aired 14 years ago. It is actually a clever bit of meta-interaction and premised/foreshadowed earlier during the gunfire scene when/where they move/adjust, albeit very slowly, between the micro-instances of flashes from the ricochets, showing that they were moving but at a greatly reduced rate. Similar end result later in the frames-per-second slow movement.
Possibly him saying he hasn’t had kids yet could be a hint to the fact that although chronologically for him he has had kids. That technically him having them takes place in the future when you count the time of the actual in universe year.
Is it possible that Susan never was the Doctor's granddaughter and they were both lying about that to cover up some other goings-on? Perhaps they were both on-the-run Time Lords and just pretending to be family so that they wouldn't look suspicious travelling together?
@@gobblinal Perhpas -- but that doesn't explain why the 15th Doctor would still refer to her as his granddaughter, or why the 12th Doctor kept a framed photo of her on his desk at the university. Perhaps she was his adopted granddaughter? And that he had some reason to believe that her birth-parents might be the offspring of one his future incarnations? But I think RTD added an unnecessary complication with this whole "I don't have children yet" line. And also with Kate apparently not knowing about Susan -- when a picture of Susan was pinned to the Doctor's companions' board in the Black Archive in Day of the Doctor
@@ugolomb I didn't say I was right, just wildly speculating. I prefer to think of the idea of an "adopted" granddaughter. Even if she wasn't connected by birth/marriage, no reason not to still like her enough to keep a picture. Although with so many companions, it's a wonder there's not a whole album somewhere. As always, I think we have to go to the one truth we do know about the Doctor: The Doctor Lies.
I think the best way to explain ALL of these contradictions in canon, as well as a lot of other things, is to say that The Toymaker has played around and mixed alternate universes, even alternate Doctors, to "make a jigsaw" of his/her life. That way, you can pretty much dismiss the "Timeless Child" mess, and say that these heretofore non-canon or unknown Doctors are just alternate versions of The Doctor from alternate realities. This would even beautifully explain the Peter Cushing Doctor. The various discrepansies are the result of alternate versions of The Doctor's life bleeding into each other. Actually, this explanation, if it were introduced into the show, would be a great addition to the mythos of Doctor Who, as well as explaining life, the universe, and everything (couldn't resist that one, Douglas).
"Blame the Toymaker's meddling" is admittedly a much easier solution than most others, but it's a bit _too_ easy. I'd rather something more medium-difficulty. Not nightmarishly complex, but also not so simple as to just blame a powerful entity, either.
Roxor......I know what you're saying, but things are SO messed up at this point (thanks largely, but not exclusively, to Chibnal) that it's going to take something like the intervention of an "all powerful being" to reasonably explain everything. Sad, but true.
Dicks has the best explanation of Doctor Who canon and most television canon. He said canon is everything I remember and when I leave it is everything the next script everything remembers.
For the "I haven't had kids yet" one, I think the Doctor changed from talking about his personal timeline to talking about the universal timeline. He, personally, has experienced having kids and raising them. But that could still be hundreds, thousands, or millions of years in the future for the rest of the universe.
I like to believe that the Doctor looked into what properly makes the iconic wheezing groaning noise. He Found out that River was indeed trolling him, and in true Timey Wimey fashion she taught him a way of turning that noise off that he will one day teach her to show off and she uses the knowledge to wind up her younger Doctor. Love your videos, Ellie. Enjoy WhoCulture so much. Really appreciate your hard work and passion.
That works. I'd wager that silent landing is part of the Advanced TARDIS Piloting course at the Time Lord Academy, and the Doctor never took it, so it took that bit with River to get the Doctor to actually learn how to do it.
I feel like the "everything I am dies and a new face goes sauntering away" is more of a sentimental/figurative sense, because we know almost everything about the doctor does change, which we see a lot in the 10/11/12 regens, with 10 getting a "FIGHTIN HAND!" and 11 not knowing what food he liked, 12 not liking his kidney color, etc, even if they are the same person
I’m inclined to agree, when the doctor “dies” it feels more metaphorical, in so much that while the doctor is technically the same person with the same memories, the doctor does fundamentally change, both in form and personality. When we complain about the doctors death I think we are taking it far to literally.
I love doctor who but it will break its own rules an episode after it sets them. I don’t really expect a solid continuity and I just sorta enjoy the vibes
The fourth Doctor told Sarah Jane in Planet of Evil that he had met Shakespeare when the Bard was a young actor. The Shakespeare Code with 10 seems to be the first time the two meet.
I always assumed that the TARDIS taught River how to land silently, and she was simply teasing the Doctor in the moment. Probably having him thinking “there aren’t brakes” but covering it up to not look silly. It’s the kind of wind up I’d give my friends 😆
@@Lukecash2 Might be one of those things covered in a single subject at the Academy and by the time the Doctor stole the TARDIS, he'd completely forgotten all about it because he hadn't been paying that much attention at the time because the subject wasn't that interesting to him.
I personally felt like the 15th Doctor's statement about kids had some open-endedness to it. Like, he was SPECIFICALLY talking about the child he would have that would go on to be Susan's parent, and he was vague enough that it doesn't necessarily remove or conflict with the idea that he may have had kids with a different partner or partners before.
I was thinking that the Doctor’s mentions that he built the TARDIS was him unconsciously talking about his forgotten past from subconscious memories, as we know from Remembrance of the Daleks that the Doctor helped Rassilon and Omega (likely Tecteun too) with the construction of the Hand of Omega, so it makes sense that they also helped with the construction of the TARDIS, so I think that explains those moments. Same with how the First Doctor says in The Daleks that he was a pioneer amongst his own people, I think that was a memory slipping through.
@@FloweredUp-n4t but when in time was he Susan’s granddaughter?! Perhaps he meant he had travelled in time to a period where his family hadn’t been born (yet)
Re The Doctor Bleed Blue Blood. The Doctor regenerates into different people, who's to say the 4th Doctor didn't have blue blood, but the others decided to have red blood. Remember the 12 th Doctor. "KIDNEYS!" "I don't like the colour!"
Concerning The Doctor not having kids "yet", I had a wacky theory way back in 2014 that 11 and River conceived a child at some point (a son) and that this child would somehow meet Clara, they'd fall in love, and Susan would be born. I started coming up with this theory when I saw a character who looked suspiciously like the 11th doctor at the beginning of "Day of the Doctor". I assumed that there was gonna be a romance between him and Clara and that he'd pop up during the 12th Doctor's era to continue this thread. My theory also had 12 bringing baby Susan to the 1st Doctor on Gallifrey and leaving her as a foundling. Who would've played the 1st Doctor? David Bradley! Funny how things worked out in the end. My crazy, wacky, unbelievable theory never came to pass but *who* knows? 12 and River were on Darillium for 24 years! Many things could've happened, including a child we don't know about... I just find it funny how the Doctor not having kids "yet" reminds me so much of that unrealistic theory I had (which sounded a lot like the Amy giving birth to River arc). Good times...
If I may interject about the blood, he regenerates and in one says “still human”. I would suggest that even the blood changes with each generation. Tom Baker for example, may look human but may be an alien with alien blood. I mean the numbers of human like aliens in the Whoverse could have different types of blood.
For the kids thing (#8), I like the idea that the children of important Gallifreyans (like Presidents or Teachers) who don't have the time to care for their own are taken care of by 'lesser' Gallifreyans, so Susan ends up being more akin to an adopted daughter to The Doctor, with Grandfather being an affectionate nickname that initially was taking the mick out of the Hartnell Doctor's aged mannerisms. As such, they've not had biological children, but they *have* been a parental figure.
The 3 different Atlantis stories could be explained that Atlantis actually had 3 eras. The early Atlantis era , mid era , and last era , from which we get stories like Gilgamesh and the explosion in Sumeria , etc.
3. YASSSS!!! This always bugged me. It's so piviotol to the resolution. Heck, it's the reason for half of their entire name. They're weeping to avoid making eye-contact. I mean, the Daleks were using static electricity in their first episode. Sometimes you have to tweak a monster to make it evergreen. But the Angels never struck me as a great recurring villain, despite efforts to push them to the status of the Daleks and Cybermen. They just don't work if the freezing isn't involuntary. The image of Angels becoming an Angel... I find kinda neat. Even if logistically it's nonsense, it was probably just a way for Moffat to mess with kids who had drawn fan art of them. Though I did like Village tweaking it to, an image of an Angel becomes a portal for an Angel to manifest from.
regarding the "blue blood" how about this for an "explanation" - before he became Lord-President, the Doctor had red blood, but at his ascension, the taking of the vows has an effect on the Time-Lord , transforming the body into a "higher" state so to speak, once the Title is renounced, the vows are broken, meaning a similar transformation takes place, giving him the red blood
Number 10 shouldn't even be on this list, really. I always figured Nardole was just "telling tales". Even just the way the picts are all sitting around him, just like you'd sit around a campfire listening to someone telling you spooky stories
My head canon for “leaving the brakes on” is that the “brakes” are a form of inertial dampener that keeps the tardis from “over shooting” the landing spot. Like gently applying the breaks to a car so that it stops where you want. Of course the tardis will sometimes fight back and just go where ever she wants
Even 12 thought about regenerating as him dying and the next one taking his place. He was more cynical about the personality being replaced with a new one. Because each doctor has a slightly different personality and moral code. He sees himself as dying and being replaced by something "new". It's just metaphorical I think
It's more that, by that point, he was tired of going through the cycle of finding out who he is, accepting and finding happiness in it, and then losing it all over again.
Continuity errors in Doctor Who can easily be explained by the fact the show is about time travel. The timeline is always changing, apart from fixed points, and every time a time traveller goes to the past they alter history and the timeline.
I feel like 10’s take on Regeneration was somewhat intentional. Ten resisted his regeneration as much as he could, with him even wasting it with that arm of his. So him saying that he’ll die is less of a literal thing and more of the fact that he’s become more attached to his body than the others. Both 11 and 12 confirm this, with them saying that 10 was “Prideful” and saying that he had “attachment issues.”
For #8, putting my feelings about the Timeless Child away it does explain the whole kids thing. His child/grandchild could have been from a forgotten regeneration, the timelords telling him Susan was a future regenerations child and giving him custody in an attempt to keep him out of trouble
My person retcon about the Brigadier "retiring" in 1976 is that there was a time skip. When Pertwee arrived on Earth it was in the year as presented but prior to Sarah Jane there was a time skip of four or five years. During this time the brigadier did go into early retirement, offered to him for Services Rendered, but was "Kept Around" and rolled back out when the doctor returned. The events of Sarah Jane's era take place during his retirement. After all, old soldiers rarely fully retire. (also re: the tearing sound is meant to be the sound of the Time Rotor. I wonder if turning off the Time Rotor when just travelling through space would turn off that tearing sound. Doing so would mean the Tardis was only travelling in space, and not also time when doing this...)
Regarding kids, it's not only the first and 10th doctor. In ""The Rings of Akhaten" , the 11th Doctor (Matt Smith) said that he visited Akhaten "with his granddaughter".
So maybe the Doctor hasn't had a child yet, and they will have one in the future, and that child goes back in time to Gallifrey, where _they_ have a child and leaves them with the First Doctor? Susan is in the past, and her parent hasn't been born yet.
In regards to the Brigadier - As happens sometimes in the military, a person can be forced to resign or forced to resign retire and usually they are the person who is going to be the scape goat for something that went wrong but then the powers that be soon realize that they don’t have anybody better and they asked for forced the person to recommission and that does happen at least in America. It’s happened at least twice. I don’t know about England, but that’s how it could make sense. If you’re reading this, please understand I use voice to text. My eyes are currently not working well so I can’t tell if there’s a mistake or not and it spells and does things as it wants not always as I wish it as for punctuation, just don’t go there.
In Dalek Universe, The Doctor and The Monk both agree that the Time Lord Academy was boring. Perhaps it was so boring that none of them ever bothered to read a TARDIS manual and River's the first character we've encountered who has.
I think that last one is explained by the Time Lords not actually knowing everything about piloting a TARDIS, whereas River Song was literally taught by the TARDIS herself. Being distracted by the Time War certainly didn't help the Time Lords in their TARDIS studies. And, further, the controls do seem to change a bit when the TARDIS changes her (actually, does the TARDIS actually think of itself as a "her"? Or was that due to inhabiting a womans body in The Doctor's Wife?) interior.
Did the 10th Doctor’s regeneration speech really change anything? The next incarnation looks different, has a different personality, a different style, and different tastebuds with a love for different foods. From the viewers perspective the former incarnation is essentially dead and that was always the case until they decided they would bring back former regenerations. The Doctor is in essence immortal and they remain the same at their core(normally anyway) yet still for a long time a key part of the show was the finality of those incarnations being over which is easily translated as those versions being dead.
Here's my own head canon for discrepancies in the history of Doctor Who There are multiple characters time travelling, which means time is always in flux with the exception of fixed events. Its possible that two versions of a historical event could be true, thanks to some butterfly effect going on. A historical fact can be true in one episode but could have changed by another episode This is of course, not confirmed or explained anywhere. It is purely my own head canon
Here's a biggie... The War Games: "We [Time Lords] *_can live forever,_* barring accidents" (2nd Doctor) The Deadly Assassin: Regenerations are apparently limited to 12
An interesting point. The 2nd Doctor of course was the first known regeneration. What is the lifespan of a typical incarnation of a Time Lord? As the Doctor has regenerated into maturity, middle age, and (depending on how you look at it) late middle age or early old age, how long would they stay at that state prior to being killed? The only Doctor we've seen live long enough to actually age is Matt Smith. Hmm.
In "The Pirate Planet" the Doctor says that he was in the tree that Isaac Newton was sitting under, threw the apple at his head, and then explained mavity over dinner. But in "The Wild Blue Yonder" Newton thinks up mativy by himself.
As for the last one, the Doctor does say that he *likes* the wheezing sound...so it could be that everyone does it deliberately because they *all* like the sound.
I think the whole outlook of the regeneration depends on the Doctor. As he says 'a new man goes sauntering away' which, as we all know, means it's a new person with new ideas, beliefs etc. Some Doctors see it in a way that they ARE dying and some see it that they're NOT. Tennant's Doctor says that he's the same man at the very beginning and says it's a new man. To me, this can be explained two ways. He either said that he was the same man to try and comfort Rose and still believed it's like death OR by the end of his life, he saw it that everything that he is, is going to be washed away by someone else and he feels disheartened by that, thus changing his opinion.
Russell T. Davies has stated repeatedly that there's no such thing as canon. Canon "is a word which has never been used in the production office, not once, not ever" and ""usually happy for old and new fans to invent the Complete History of the Doctor in their heads, completely free of the production team's hot and heavy hands." = RTD (DWM #356). "I'm just the writer [...] I've got no more authority over the text than you!" - RTD (DWM #356). "It is impossible for a show about a dimension-hopping time traveller to have a canon." - Steven Moffat, San Diego, 2008. Right down to it being stated in the show - "I made a Jigsaw of your history. Did you like it?" The Celestial Toymaker.
For #8, I could explain it as possibly that in his personal past, he has had kids, but thanks to wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, they were born in the future, as in a later year than 2024. So his kids haven't been born yet because they'll be born in a later year. So he's technically not a father yet if you take that into account. And Susan with the 1st Doctor could technically have been Susan coming back in time to meet his father. For #5, I'd say that when he says it's like death, he means that his personality changes, which is evident. Regeneration is a way to cheat LITERAL death. But it does act as a FIGURATIVE death. That and 10 was being a bit melodramatic. In #4, I think the Peter Kushing movies are a different continuity, where the Doctor really is just a human rather than Gallifreyan, and the TARDIS really is just a time machine that the Doctor built rather then grown and mass produced and stolen. #1, Maybe the Doctor doesn't specifically leave the breaks on, but there's a "stealth mode" so something similar that allows you to silence the grinding noise.
The Doctor's children is something I happily accept to be the case of timey wimey. Timelords or at the very least the Doctor have a different perception of time (look no further than Heaven Sent). They could become a parent in the future which might overlap with their past, for example. And the 15th Doctor sees himself at a point where his children are yet to be born. And I honestly believe that's something the Showrunners were actually going for when giving two conflicting answers.
Something I stick by is not believing a word the doctor says unless proved otherwise. With context obviously. Rule number 1, the doctor lies; like number 4 for example or when Paul McGann says he’s half human on his mother’s side. I love how Moffat explores this with the whole stealing the presidents wife joke.
I always saw regeneration is like the teleporter theory. If you assemble all your atoms somewhere else, with your memories. It's not you, it's a new person who thinks they're you. to them they're you, but the original you dies. A few times doctors explained regeneration as being completely remade on a cellular level. Almost literally being recreated as a new person, just with all his memories. Some people would say "That's still the same person" Others would argue, the original is dead and that's a new version of them. or like the ship of Theseus dilemma. So I could see most timelords (or young ones) be reborn and say "hey look it's me" but a more cynical timelord might end up thinking "the real me is dead, I am just a recreation of my old self with his memories and a continuation of his consciousness." I could see timelords being ok with this fact, because they as a being continue, even if the original body dies. And they would have died anyway, at least a "clone/regeneration" of them is reborn to take their place after that "death"
A lot would make sense if Susan was just a human that the Doctor had picked up on his travels who was a bit of a fantasist and who the Doctor who was lonely at the time just indulged. It makes a lot more sense of her departure as well.
10 was just being metaphorical. Obviously the doctor doesn’t die but 10 goes away and is gone so to him he dies. I’ve always seen regeneration like dying then coming back to life
I think the 15th Doctor saying he hasn't had children yet is more about "Empire of Death" taking place in the year 2024. The Doctor's life on Gallifrey is still in Kate's relative future, meaning in Earth year 2024 he hasn't had his children yet. At least, that's my interpretation.
The 3rd doctor's time on earth showcases a variety of fully earth produced futuristic technology that hasn't seen before or since. It's not impossible that was a timeline of 1970-80s earth that since been upset. The level of advanced technology was fairly consistent throughout the third doctors time. An advanced space programme, nearly drilling into the core of the earth (they could do it but they would have made the world uninhabitable), significantly more advanced robotics science, UNIT had access to at least two kinds of energy weapons fabricated without any alien interference (The doctor wasn't about to tell the brigadier how to make energy weapons) all in what's meant to be the 1970-80s. When river song that mentioned the tardis brakes are on I assumed it meant some kind of stabiliser. You can turn it off but it doesn't affect anything outside materialising and dematerialising or just makes it smoother. River song does seem like the kind of person to fly a tardis in cobra mode.
10:45 -- relative to the Angels' "moving". It's not that we, the viewing audience, are "properly" seeing them move; rather, we are seeing the end result of their having moved when we *didn't* see them : they were, in fact, moving quite swiftly but only in the space/time between frames-per-second that we, the viewing audience, were perceiving them, which in-effect "slowed them down" as they approached Amy. (That is, their moving from one micro-position to another is no different than when we don't see them for "x" time within a scene and when we cut back to them they'll have moved/changed position -- same thing here, except that it's occurring super-fast in the frames-per-second as they move in-between those frames, even in digital feeds, and we see them then "still" for an equal fraction of a second, but simply too fast for us to note that they're not actually moving as we observe them; if we were physically present within the narrative of the story and observing them directly, then they wouldn't have been able to move at all as there'd be no micro-seconds of time for them to exploit.) In that context, we can understand that the Doctor saying x, y and z as he does in the control room about the Angels' movement-relative-to-their-instincts is just his trying to assuage Amy and River and get Amy moving... but he isn't actually correct, in context, as we the audience can figure out from the then-current and past instances to compare with.
Easy explanation for the blueness of the Doctor's bloodstained fingers in State Of Decay. These particular vampire bats have an anticoagulant in their bite which stains the excised blood blue and also helps digest the proteins.
Who is to say that the 1971 and 1972 versions of the city of Atlantis are referring to the same city, especially since they are located thousands of kilometres apart?
"Ten times it broke it's own cannon" First one is immedietly something that can hardly be called breaking cannon when it involves history in a story with timetravel.... daleks are justy *one* possible way for the Marry celest crew to go missing.
10th Doctor just didn't want to go. He could do so much more. As well as the 12th didn't want to pass the role to some new face. This is death for the personality, but not death for the Doctor.
I suspect the sarcasm aimed at RTD might soon be replaced with 'I didn't mean it!' but that's simply because we're always thinking in straightforward terms. I think it's a mistake to consider things in the past as locked and the evolution of the show's attitude to how cause and effect works has been ongoing for nearly twenty years now - partially inspired by a writer briefly associated with the series at the end of the 1970s. The term 'What If?' should always apply in speculative fiction.
The Susan paradox can be explained by a pre-Hartnell Doctor bi-generating, but it's complicated. One of the two got kids, while the other one (a predecessor of Hartnell and Tennant) did not. But Hartnell still looked after Susan, considering her to be his granddaughter, since that other Doctor branch is still him in a way. Same with Tennant. He, too, considered that branch of the family his own children. I mean, does it matter if they're the kids of his side of the bi-generation split or the other side? It's not like the Tenth Doctor himself had any kids (not counting Jenny), so he was always speaking of some other version of him anyway. As for why Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor doesn't consider those children and grandchildren his own? Either memory loss, or the Toymaker's jigsaw, or his bi-generation created another layer between him and that mysterious great-grand-uncle who was also himself but wasn't? Or maybe he just uses a different meaning of "his children", not counting adopting Susan or whatever Hartnell and Tennant used to justify speaking of "their children".
The blueblood can be part of that particular regeneration. Like how the doctor checks number of ears nose and color of kidneys after regeneration, he might have had blue blood in that particular regeneration
Any contradictions between Classic and New Who can easily be waived away by saying it was the Time War. Which I think is great excuse. So if they ever go to Atlantis again in New Who just say it was the Time War.
I am quite convinced that in the beginning of the show, the Doctor was supposed to be a scientist who invented the Tardis, just like the Time Traveller in H.G. Wells' novel. This changed by the end of Season 2, when the Meddling Monk was introduced to the canon in The Time Meddler. However, that the Doctor nicked the Tardis was only revealed in The War Games at the end of Season 6.
The doctor dying on regen may not be as clear cut as you suggest. The 10 statement WAS hyperbole of a sort, but regen seems to be something between life extension and death, since EVERY new incarnation of the Doctor is VERY different from the one before them or the one after. There is continuity of SOME traits, but to suggest, for eg, #11 and #12 are "the same person with a new face" is a stretch since there are VERY few personality similarities from 11 to 12. Capaldi and Smith were both "The Doctor" but they played VERY different versions of that character ...
In regards to the Angels, Amy being the “magical girl” may have held them at bay at the time, only for her luck to run out years later in that cemetery. As for the “parking brake”, maybe the TARDIS has a switch that silences the mechanism and no one thinks to ever use it?
I could see the 4th Doctor deciding he wanted blue blood during his 4th regeneration. He was such an eccentric incarnation, that's probably not even close to all the little things he changed about his body.
The 10th doctor was fairly egotistical and young compared to other doctors. It’s not inconsistent, it’s very consistent with that incarnation of the doctor
In my head cannon, in the absence of the time lords, continuity is lost to the probabilistic chaos of the multiverse every time one traverses the time vortex... this seemed to be hinted at recently
"I made a Jigsaw of your history. Did you like it?" - I smiled when I first heard that line as it's a simple way to explain every inconsistency in the entire history of the show.
I liked it, too. :)
I like it cause it could have been used to retcon 'The timeless child' but that did not happen 😢
@@ZOLTAR436 It still did. Everything is canon and nothing is canon if you wish it to be or don't wish it to be. RTD2's mission statement is that now every unbound Doctor and origin story of The Doctor can be canon or non canon. The older looking past Doctors are now versions of the Doctor where the incarnations lived longer enough to visibly age ( as stated in Tales of the TARDIS). Big finish can be considered canon now too. Basically everything happened at the same time and at the same it did not. Something for future writers.
@@ZOLTAR436 and it still could because The Toy Maker is essentially saying that he we-wrote the Doctor's history, which was one of the biggest problems people had with that story. That simple line means that now anything is possible.
It's lazy, but it works. 😃
11:23 The Weeping Angels are usually fast, yes, but an important detail in this video that was neglected was that the angels in the labyrinth had been starved for millenia, and were just now waking up and beginning to receive more energy. This is why they moved so slowly and didn't go quickly like a strong angel would. This was also covered to some extent in the episode.
I agree but they still shouldn't have been shown, since we the audience were still looking at them. They could've played the grinding sounds while keeping the cameras on Amy on the ground the whole time.
@@JoeThornhill yeah, that's a good point but as a kid I appreciated how this scene let you see at least a little bit into the angels' inner workings though
Thank you, I was wondering if anyone else would remember that those angels were a lot weaker due to not feeding for so long
@@JoeThornhillOne way to explain why they still moved while we as the audience were still looking at them was the fact of the lights blinking erratically. When the lights are blinking erratically we can see the angels momentarily in the instances when the lights are blinking on them, but in the very quick instances that are dark that’s when the angels are moving. That’s my interpretation of it at least.
But they moved super fast in 'time of the angles' while they were weaker.
Regarding No. 3 (the nature of regeneration) -- this is not a plothole. This the 10th Doctor continuing his basic character trait of not wanting to let go. It started way back when he channeled his regeneration energy into his severed hand in "Journey's End" (as the 11th Doctor said, "I had vanity issues back then" -- or words to that effect). And the precise words that he used in "The End of Time" are "It *feels* like dying". This is the 10th Doctor expressing his personal, subjective take on regeneration
You pointing that out makes the Tenth Doctor’s regeneration bit more sense.
He doesn’t like to let go of friends, family or life (his incarnation) itself.
When Tenth Doctor became human in the form of John Smith, when it came time to become The Doctor that could’ve been The Doctor’s “issues” bleeding out while with John Smith not wanting to go.
It is also possible that to all other Timelords and incarnations of the Doctor regeneration does feel like dying in a sense because all the cells in their body change and give them a different appearance, but they just decide not to voice it. The Tenth Doctor could very well be telling a tragic truth about regeneration that his other incarnations just ignored or chose not to make a big deal out of it. Or, from a different approach, saying that everything about him dies and a new man goes sauntering is the Tenth Doctor's bleak and dramatic way of saying that each of his incarnations are different from each other (personality, style, age, etc)
I like to imagine this is part of him becoming the Time Lord victorious
@@sanddagger36 Yes, makes sense
Absolutely. Canon is that every Doctor has his own personality. Ten was particularly self-centred - more so as time wore on. His attachment to Rose itself was a form of narcissm which not even nine would have followed (remember Lynda with a Y ?) . This was how it would feel to 'him" . Other versions embraced it more or less (see 12). But the "true" Doctor did not have that view. Eleven was anything but depressed when he woke up - and he still had all of Ten's memories. To him it was no more than an offhand "He always says that" type of moment
Doctor has a bilateral vascular system, one heart is blue blood and one is red maybe ...Wibbily?
The doctor has landed the tardis silently many times, and he knows how to do it
He just likes the noise
Or it's just a lot harder to do, so he saves it for when he actually needs to make a silent landing. Most of the time, it doesn't matter if anyone hears a TARDIS landing, what with the perception filter and all, but on those rare occasions when a silent landing is really needed, you can put in the effort to get one.
@@Roxor128 I like my answer better😋
Yep, we even see river do it twice
Isn't it only noisy because he always forgets to disengage the parking brake?
So Tom Baker bleeds blue. That regeneration. So most of them bleed red, but he doesn't. Makes sense to me.
The blue blood could be retconned as an aspect of the bats’ venom
We came up with virtually the same solution to that one! 👍👍
I like this idea, especially as the Dr. looks sort of confused as he looks at his wound, then up at the bats flying off
Human blood is actually blue inside of our bodies. Once it hits the air it loses oxygen and becomes red.
That's why people who are overly oxygenated can Bleed Blue.
Doctor who has Canon?
Kaboooom
Doctor Who has enough respect for its audience to include things like continuity, even within the confines of a single episode? That's hard to believe considering how nationalist the BBC is.
My brain exploded harder than the TARDIS in the big bang when I learned this. Luckily I regenerated. And then turned into the timeless child.
Yeah I think the Dr has a canon in the tardis
WHONIVERSE ASSEMBLE
We really need a video ranking the TARDIS exteriors.
Yes good idea
Must have “the round things “
They said exteriors
@@FloweredUp-n4t oh I miss read that
1) Police box
2) Pipe Organ
3) Floral clothes dresser
4) Ornamental iron gate
There. Now there’s no need for a video.
@@stephenf8816misread*
Okay, comment on #3, the Weeping Angels are actually moving between the still frames of the out-of-universe film that "Flesh and Stone" itself is recorded on (hence them moving about the exact pace as post-it-drawn animation). Basically, it's really a clever way of saying that your viewing the Angels via your screen won't stop them from moving and menacing the cast, albeit in a limited capacity. It does look contrived at first glance, but it's still technically consistent with the rules (in a smart-arsed way).
I've commented similarly -- here on YT and on fan sites like Gallifrey Base/Outpost Gallifrey -- since the episode aired 14 years ago. It is actually a clever bit of meta-interaction and premised/foreshadowed earlier during the gunfire scene when/where they move/adjust, albeit very slowly, between the micro-instances of flashes from the ricochets, showing that they were moving but at a greatly reduced rate. Similar end result later in the frames-per-second slow movement.
Possibly him saying he hasn’t had kids yet could be a hint to the fact that although chronologically for him he has had kids. That technically him having them takes place in the future when you count the time of the actual in universe year.
I think that's what I thought when the episode came out I never thought of it again tho so mabey your just hpnotizng me or something
Is it possible that Susan never was the Doctor's granddaughter and they were both lying about that to cover up some other goings-on? Perhaps they were both on-the-run Time Lords and just pretending to be family so that they wouldn't look suspicious travelling together?
@gobblinal how would that be suspicious
@@gobblinal
Perhpas -- but that doesn't explain why the 15th Doctor would still refer to her as his granddaughter, or why the 12th Doctor kept a framed photo of her on his desk at the university. Perhaps she was his adopted granddaughter? And that he had some reason to believe that her birth-parents might be the offspring of one his future incarnations? But I think RTD added an unnecessary complication with this whole "I don't have children yet" line. And also with Kate apparently not knowing about Susan -- when a picture of Susan was pinned to the Doctor's companions' board in the Black Archive in Day of the Doctor
@@ugolomb I didn't say I was right, just wildly speculating. I prefer to think of the idea of an "adopted" granddaughter. Even if she wasn't connected by birth/marriage, no reason not to still like her enough to keep a picture. Although with so many companions, it's a wonder there's not a whole album somewhere. As always, I think we have to go to the one truth we do know about the Doctor: The Doctor Lies.
I think the best way to explain ALL of these contradictions in canon, as well as a lot of other things, is to say that The Toymaker has played around and mixed alternate universes, even alternate Doctors, to "make a jigsaw" of his/her life. That way, you can pretty much dismiss the "Timeless Child" mess, and say that these heretofore non-canon or unknown Doctors are just alternate versions of The Doctor from alternate realities. This would even beautifully explain the Peter Cushing Doctor. The various discrepansies are the result of alternate versions of The Doctor's life bleeding into each other. Actually, this explanation, if it were introduced into the show, would be a great addition to the mythos of Doctor Who, as well as explaining life, the universe, and everything (couldn't resist that one, Douglas).
"Blame the Toymaker's meddling" is admittedly a much easier solution than most others, but it's a bit _too_ easy. I'd rather something more medium-difficulty. Not nightmarishly complex, but also not so simple as to just blame a powerful entity, either.
@@Roxor128
But it does explain everything, down to why his blood was blue once.
Roxor......I know what you're saying, but things are SO messed up at this point (thanks largely, but not exclusively, to Chibnal) that it's going to take something like the intervention of an "all powerful being" to reasonably explain everything. Sad, but true.
Dicks has the best explanation of Doctor Who canon and most television canon. He said canon is everything I remember and when I leave it is everything the next script everything remembers.
For the "I haven't had kids yet" one, I think the Doctor changed from talking about his personal timeline to talking about the universal timeline. He, personally, has experienced having kids and raising them. But that could still be hundreds, thousands, or millions of years in the future for the rest of the universe.
I like to believe that the Doctor looked into what properly makes the iconic wheezing groaning noise. He Found out that River was indeed trolling him, and in true Timey Wimey fashion she taught him a way of turning that noise off that he will one day teach her to show off and she uses the knowledge to wind up her younger Doctor.
Love your videos, Ellie. Enjoy WhoCulture so much. Really appreciate your hard work and passion.
That works. I'd wager that silent landing is part of the Advanced TARDIS Piloting course at the Time Lord Academy, and the Doctor never took it, so it took that bit with River to get the Doctor to actually learn how to do it.
I feel like the "everything I am dies and a new face goes sauntering away" is more of a sentimental/figurative sense, because we know almost everything about the doctor does change, which we see a lot in the 10/11/12 regens, with 10 getting a "FIGHTIN HAND!" and 11 not knowing what food he liked, 12 not liking his kidney color, etc, even if they are the same person
I’m inclined to agree, when the doctor “dies” it feels more metaphorical, in so much that while the doctor is technically the same person with the same memories, the doctor does fundamentally change, both in form and personality. When we complain about the doctors death I think we are taking it far to literally.
I mean, if Doctor Who has shown us one thing, death is never so simple.@@russellbelless5537
I love doctor who but it will break its own rules an episode after it sets them. I don’t really expect a solid continuity and I just sorta enjoy the vibes
The fourth Doctor told Sarah Jane in Planet of Evil that he had met Shakespeare when the Bard was a young actor. The Shakespeare Code with 10 seems to be the first time the two meet.
And again in City of Death. Perhaps he's just making stuff up to impress people.
I always assumed that the TARDIS taught River how to land silently, and she was simply teasing the Doctor in the moment. Probably having him thinking “there aren’t brakes” but covering it up to not look silly.
It’s the kind of wind up I’d give my friends 😆
Precisely, it was joke. The TARDIS has a stealth mode/invisibility cloaking mode the Doctor probably forgot about.
@@Lukecash2 Might be one of those things covered in a single subject at the Academy and by the time the Doctor stole the TARDIS, he'd completely forgotten all about it because he hadn't been paying that much attention at the time because the subject wasn't that interesting to him.
The time lords probably left the brakes on their tardis’s so they can hear the engines………it is pretty cool to hear
That would work, but I do like the same class, dreadful teacher idea, too.
They probably left the brakes on while the Tardis was in the Repare Shop 😅
Or all the time lords just collectively agree the sound is cool
4:41 David Tennant's "what?" face will never not be funny
I personally felt like the 15th Doctor's statement about kids had some open-endedness to it. Like, he was SPECIFICALLY talking about the child he would have that would go on to be Susan's parent, and he was vague enough that it doesn't necessarily remove or conflict with the idea that he may have had kids with a different partner or partners before.
Doesn’t River live in the 51st century?
So their children….
Oops. Spoilers.
I was thinking that the Doctor’s mentions that he built the TARDIS was him unconsciously talking about his forgotten past from subconscious memories, as we know from Remembrance of the Daleks that the Doctor helped Rassilon and Omega (likely Tecteun too) with the construction of the Hand of Omega, so it makes sense that they also helped with the construction of the TARDIS, so I think that explains those moments. Same with how the First Doctor says in The Daleks that he was a pioneer amongst his own people, I think that was a memory slipping through.
The brakes being left on.... What if River was the first one to be taught to fly a TARDIS by the TARDIS itself!
Ellie just can't get over Ruby's biological mother being normal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Doctor hasn't had kids yet also contradicts Jenny, unless you consider her a clone of the Doctor.
She is literally his clone. So she is definitely not his daughter, he just considers her as such since she is newborn and very naive.
The Doctor hasn't had kids yet has a granddaughter called Susan who stars in 30+ episodes. Erm OK.
Mechanically assisted Bi-Generation 😂
@@FloweredUp-n4t but when in time was he Susan’s granddaughter?! Perhaps he meant he had travelled in time to a period where his family hadn’t been born (yet)
That is what the doctor considers her
Re The Doctor Bleed Blue Blood.
The Doctor regenerates into different people, who's to say the 4th Doctor didn't have blue blood, but the others decided to have red blood.
Remember the 12 th Doctor.
"KIDNEYS!"
"I don't like the colour!"
Concerning The Doctor not having kids "yet", I had a wacky theory way back in 2014 that 11 and River conceived a child at some point (a son) and that this child would somehow meet Clara, they'd fall in love, and Susan would be born. I started coming up with this theory when I saw a character who looked suspiciously like the 11th doctor at the beginning of "Day of the Doctor". I assumed that there was gonna be a romance between him and Clara and that he'd pop up during the 12th Doctor's era to continue this thread. My theory also had 12 bringing baby Susan to the 1st Doctor on Gallifrey and leaving her as a foundling. Who would've played the 1st Doctor? David Bradley! Funny how things worked out in the end. My crazy, wacky, unbelievable theory never came to pass but *who* knows? 12 and River were on Darillium for 24 years! Many things could've happened, including a child we don't know about...
I just find it funny how the Doctor not having kids "yet" reminds me so much of that unrealistic theory I had (which sounded a lot like the Amy giving birth to River arc). Good times...
Chalk it up to River's rule: the Doctor lies. Cheers....
If I may interject about the blood, he regenerates and in one says “still human”. I would suggest that even the blood changes with each generation. Tom Baker for example, may look human but may be an alien with alien blood. I mean the numbers of human like aliens in the Whoverse could have different types of blood.
We could say the Doctor's blue blood was simply a reaction to something in the bat's bite...
For the kids thing (#8), I like the idea that the children of important Gallifreyans (like Presidents or Teachers) who don't have the time to care for their own are taken care of by 'lesser' Gallifreyans, so Susan ends up being more akin to an adopted daughter to The Doctor, with Grandfather being an affectionate nickname that initially was taking the mick out of the Hartnell Doctor's aged mannerisms. As such, they've not had biological children, but they *have* been a parental figure.
No he literally has a crib in the tardis that was he's children's
@@Pat12379, I thought River said it was his own.
Maybe he said something later, it’s been quite a while since I saw it.
@judithstrachan9399 I'm pretty sure he said something like it was mine for my children or something idk
The 3 different Atlantis stories could be explained that Atlantis actually had 3 eras. The early Atlantis era , mid era , and last era , from which we get stories like Gilgamesh and the explosion in Sumeria , etc.
3. YASSSS!!! This always bugged me. It's so piviotol to the resolution.
Heck, it's the reason for half of their entire name. They're weeping to avoid making eye-contact.
I mean, the Daleks were using static electricity in their first episode. Sometimes you have to tweak a monster to make it evergreen. But the Angels never struck me as a great recurring villain, despite efforts to push them to the status of the Daleks and Cybermen. They just don't work if the freezing isn't involuntary.
The image of Angels becoming an Angel... I find kinda neat. Even if logistically it's nonsense, it was probably just a way for Moffat to mess with kids who had drawn fan art of them. Though I did like Village tweaking it to, an image of an Angel becomes a portal for an Angel to manifest from.
regarding the "blue blood" how about this for an "explanation" - before he became Lord-President, the Doctor had red blood, but at his ascension, the taking of the vows has an effect on the Time-Lord , transforming the body into a "higher" state so to speak, once the Title is renounced, the vows are broken, meaning a similar transformation takes place, giving him the red blood
Number 10 shouldn't even be on this list, really. I always figured Nardole was just "telling tales". Even just the way the picts are all sitting around him, just like you'd sit around a campfire listening to someone telling you spooky stories
My head canon for “leaving the brakes on” is that the “brakes” are a form of inertial dampener that keeps the tardis from “over shooting” the landing spot. Like gently applying the breaks to a car so that it stops where you want. Of course the tardis will sometimes fight back and just go where ever she wants
Even 12 thought about regenerating as him dying and the next one taking his place. He was more cynical about the personality being replaced with a new one. Because each doctor has a slightly different personality and moral code. He sees himself as dying and being replaced by something "new". It's just metaphorical I think
But then in 'Hell Bent', he shoots another Time Lord and calls regeneration 'Time Lord man flu'. So even he's not consistent about what it means.
It's more that, by that point, he was tired of going through the cycle of finding out who he is, accepting and finding happiness in it, and then losing it all over again.
Continuity errors in Doctor Who can easily be explained by the fact the show is about time travel. The timeline is always changing, apart from fixed points, and every time a time traveller goes to the past they alter history and the timeline.
The Doctor stated in Rise of the Cybermen that TARDIS's are grown, not built.
I feel like 10’s take on Regeneration was somewhat intentional. Ten resisted his regeneration as much as he could, with him even wasting it with that arm of his. So him saying that he’ll die is less of a literal thing and more of the fact that he’s become more attached to his body than the others. Both 11 and 12 confirm this, with them saying that 10 was “Prideful” and saying that he had “attachment issues.”
In the first episode of season 9, they mention something about 3 separate versions of Atlantis, I think Kate said it.
She did.
Nope. The only mentions of Atlantis in Season 9 are in the last six episodes.
For #8, putting my feelings about the Timeless Child away it does explain the whole kids thing. His child/grandchild could have been from a forgotten regeneration, the timelords telling him Susan was a future regenerations child and giving him custody in an attempt to keep him out of trouble
My person retcon about the Brigadier "retiring" in 1976 is that there was a time skip. When Pertwee arrived on Earth it was in the year as presented but prior to Sarah Jane there was a time skip of four or five years. During this time the brigadier did go into early retirement, offered to him for Services Rendered, but was "Kept Around" and rolled back out when the doctor returned. The events of Sarah Jane's era take place during his retirement. After all, old soldiers rarely fully retire.
(also re: the tearing sound is meant to be the sound of the Time Rotor. I wonder if turning off the Time Rotor when just travelling through space would turn off that tearing sound. Doing so would mean the Tardis was only travelling in space, and not also time when doing this...)
Regarding kids, it's not only the first and 10th doctor. In ""The Rings of Akhaten" , the 11th Doctor (Matt Smith) said that he visited Akhaten "with his granddaughter".
The Angels movement can be explained by the Vertical Blanking Interval. We are seeing them via video.
Perhaps in different incarnations Time Lord blood rarely changes colour, Tom Baker's incarnation may be one of few with different coloured blue.
So maybe the Doctor hasn't had a child yet, and they will have one in the future, and that child goes back in time to Gallifrey, where _they_ have a child and leaves them with the First Doctor? Susan is in the past, and her parent hasn't been born yet.
In regards to the Brigadier - As happens sometimes in the military, a person can be forced to resign or forced to resign retire and usually they are the person who is going to be the scape goat for something that went wrong but then the powers that be soon realize that they don’t have anybody better and they asked for forced the person to recommission and that does happen at least in America. It’s happened at least twice. I don’t know about England, but that’s how it could make sense. If you’re reading this, please understand I use voice to text. My eyes are currently not working well so I can’t tell if there’s a mistake or not and it spells and does things as it wants not always as I wish it as for punctuation, just don’t go there.
In Dalek Universe, The Doctor and The Monk both agree that the Time Lord Academy was boring. Perhaps it was so boring that none of them ever bothered to read a TARDIS manual and River's the first character we've encountered who has.
I think that last one is explained by the Time Lords not actually knowing everything about piloting a TARDIS, whereas River Song was literally taught by the TARDIS herself.
Being distracted by the Time War certainly didn't help the Time Lords in their TARDIS studies. And, further, the controls do seem to change a bit when the TARDIS changes her (actually, does the TARDIS actually think of itself as a "her"? Or was that due to inhabiting a womans body in The Doctor's Wife?) interior.
"Doctor Who Canon" is an oxymoron.
Did the 10th Doctor’s regeneration speech really change anything? The next incarnation looks different, has a different personality, a different style, and different tastebuds with a love for different foods. From the viewers perspective the former incarnation is essentially dead and that was always the case until they decided they would bring back former regenerations. The Doctor is in essence immortal and they remain the same at their core(normally anyway) yet still for a long time a key part of the show was the finality of those incarnations being over which is easily translated as those versions being dead.
Here's my own head canon for discrepancies in the history of Doctor Who
There are multiple characters time travelling, which means time is always in flux with the exception of fixed events. Its possible that two versions of a historical event could be true, thanks to some butterfly effect going on. A historical fact can be true in one episode but could have changed by another episode
This is of course, not confirmed or explained anywhere. It is purely my own head canon
Here's a biggie...
The War Games: "We [Time Lords] *_can live forever,_* barring accidents" (2nd Doctor)
The Deadly Assassin: Regenerations are apparently limited to 12
An interesting point. The 2nd Doctor of course was the first known regeneration. What is the lifespan of a typical incarnation of a Time Lord? As the Doctor has regenerated into maturity, middle age, and (depending on how you look at it) late middle age or early old age, how long would they stay at that state prior to being killed? The only Doctor we've seen live long enough to actually age is Matt Smith. Hmm.
A foreshadowing to the Timeless Child?
In "The Pirate Planet" the Doctor says that he was in the tree that Isaac Newton was sitting under, threw the apple at his head, and then explained mavity over dinner. But in "The Wild Blue Yonder" Newton thinks up mativy by himself.
As for the last one, the Doctor does say that he *likes* the wheezing sound...so it could be that everyone does it deliberately because they *all* like the sound.
I think the whole outlook of the regeneration depends on the Doctor. As he says 'a new man goes sauntering away' which, as we all know, means it's a new person with new ideas, beliefs etc. Some Doctors see it in a way that they ARE dying and some see it that they're NOT. Tennant's Doctor says that he's the same man at the very beginning and says it's a new man. To me, this can be explained two ways. He either said that he was the same man to try and comfort Rose and still believed it's like death OR by the end of his life, he saw it that everything that he is, is going to be washed away by someone else and he feels disheartened by that, thus changing his opinion.
Russell T. Davies has stated repeatedly that there's no such thing as canon. Canon "is a word which has never been used in the production office, not once, not ever" and ""usually happy for old and new fans to invent the Complete History of the Doctor in their heads, completely free of the production team's hot and heavy hands." = RTD (DWM #356). "I'm just the writer [...] I've got no more authority over the text than you!" - RTD (DWM #356). "It is impossible for a show about a dimension-hopping time traveller to have a canon." - Steven Moffat, San Diego, 2008. Right down to it being stated in the show - "I made a Jigsaw of your history. Did you like it?" The Celestial Toymaker.
ok easy explanation for the atlantis one! who said there had to be only one atlantis?
For #8, I could explain it as possibly that in his personal past, he has had kids, but thanks to wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, they were born in the future, as in a later year than 2024. So his kids haven't been born yet because they'll be born in a later year. So he's technically not a father yet if you take that into account. And Susan with the 1st Doctor could technically have been Susan coming back in time to meet his father.
For #5, I'd say that when he says it's like death, he means that his personality changes, which is evident. Regeneration is a way to cheat LITERAL death. But it does act as a FIGURATIVE death. That and 10 was being a bit melodramatic.
In #4, I think the Peter Kushing movies are a different continuity, where the Doctor really is just a human rather than Gallifreyan, and the TARDIS really is just a time machine that the Doctor built rather then grown and mass produced and stolen.
#1, Maybe the Doctor doesn't specifically leave the breaks on, but there's a "stealth mode" so something similar that allows you to silence the grinding noise.
The Doctor's children is something I happily accept to be the case of timey wimey. Timelords or at the very least the Doctor have a different perception of time (look no further than Heaven Sent). They could become a parent in the future which might overlap with their past, for example. And the 15th Doctor sees himself at a point where his children are yet to be born. And I honestly believe that's something the Showrunners were actually going for when giving two conflicting answers.
Something I stick by is not believing a word the doctor says unless proved otherwise. With context obviously. Rule number 1, the doctor lies; like number 4 for example or when Paul McGann says he’s half human on his mother’s side. I love how Moffat explores this with the whole stealing the presidents wife joke.
I always saw regeneration is like the teleporter theory.
If you assemble all your atoms somewhere else, with your memories.
It's not you, it's a new person who thinks they're you.
to them they're you, but the original you dies.
A few times doctors explained regeneration as being completely remade on a cellular level.
Almost literally being recreated as a new person, just with all his memories.
Some people would say "That's still the same person"
Others would argue, the original is dead and that's a new version of them.
or like the ship of Theseus dilemma.
So I could see most timelords (or young ones) be reborn and say "hey look it's me"
but a more cynical timelord might end up thinking "the real me is dead, I am just a recreation of my old self with his memories and a continuation of his consciousness."
I could see timelords being ok with this fact, because they as a being continue, even if the original body dies.
And they would have died anyway, at least a "clone/regeneration" of them is reborn to take their place after that "death"
So you are saying a time lord is a spade thats had its handle and head replaced several times. 🤣
A lot would make sense if Susan was just a human that the Doctor had picked up on his travels who was a bit of a fantasist and who the Doctor who was lonely at the time just indulged. It makes a lot more sense of her departure as well.
Regarding doctors comments about kids and about regeneration, remember rule 1 "The doctor lies".
Doctor Who doed when Tom Baker turned into Peter Davidson. Nobody could follow the man with the scarf.
Moffat not thinking through the full implications of his writing!? What are the odds?
10 was just being metaphorical. Obviously the doctor doesn’t die but 10 goes away and is gone so to him he dies. I’ve always seen regeneration like dying then coming back to life
I like the idea of them all being in the same Tardis class with the same shitty instructor. Would make a cool “callback” scene
I think the 15th Doctor saying he hasn't had children yet is more about "Empire of Death" taking place in the year 2024. The Doctor's life on Gallifrey is still in Kate's relative future, meaning in Earth year 2024 he hasn't had his children yet. At least, that's my interpretation.
Or he was talking about that specific regeneration or Just Lying 😂
@@LostSoulNexus Rule 1
The 3rd doctor's time on earth showcases a variety of fully earth produced futuristic technology that hasn't seen before or since. It's not impossible that was a timeline of 1970-80s earth that since been upset. The level of advanced technology was fairly consistent throughout the third doctors time. An advanced space programme, nearly drilling into the core of the earth (they could do it but they would have made the world uninhabitable), significantly more advanced robotics science, UNIT had access to at least two kinds of energy weapons fabricated without any alien interference (The doctor wasn't about to tell the brigadier how to make energy weapons) all in what's meant to be the 1970-80s.
When river song that mentioned the tardis brakes are on I assumed it meant some kind of stabiliser. You can turn it off but it doesn't affect anything outside materialising and dematerialising or just makes it smoother. River song does seem like the kind of person to fly a tardis in cobra mode.
What? No mention of the two different origins of the Loch Ness Monster?
10:45 -- relative to the Angels' "moving". It's not that we, the viewing audience, are "properly" seeing them move; rather, we are seeing the end result of their having moved when we *didn't* see them : they were, in fact, moving quite swiftly but only in the space/time between frames-per-second that we, the viewing audience, were perceiving them, which in-effect "slowed them down" as they approached Amy. (That is, their moving from one micro-position to another is no different than when we don't see them for "x" time within a scene and when we cut back to them they'll have moved/changed position -- same thing here, except that it's occurring super-fast in the frames-per-second as they move in-between those frames, even in digital feeds, and we see them then "still" for an equal fraction of a second, but simply too fast for us to note that they're not actually moving as we observe them; if we were physically present within the narrative of the story and observing them directly, then they wouldn't have been able to move at all as there'd be no micro-seconds of time for them to exploit.) In that context, we can understand that the Doctor saying x, y and z as he does in the control room about the Angels' movement-relative-to-their-instincts is just his trying to assuage Amy and River and get Amy moving... but he isn't actually correct, in context, as we the audience can figure out from the then-current and past instances to compare with.
Easy explanation for the blueness of the Doctor's bloodstained fingers in State Of Decay. These particular vampire bats have an anticoagulant in their bite which stains the excised blood blue and also helps digest the proteins.
Who is to say that the 1971 and 1972 versions of the city of Atlantis are referring to the same city, especially since they are located thousands of kilometres apart?
"Ten times it broke it's own cannon"
First one is immedietly something that can hardly be called breaking cannon when it involves history in a story with timetravel....
daleks are justy *one* possible way for the Marry celest crew to go missing.
9:28 Acronym.
10th Doctor just didn't want to go. He could do so much more.
As well as the 12th didn't want to pass the role to some new face.
This is death for the personality, but not death for the Doctor.
I suspect the sarcasm aimed at RTD might soon be replaced with 'I didn't mean it!' but that's simply because we're always thinking in straightforward terms. I think it's a mistake to consider things in the past as locked and the evolution of the show's attitude to how cause and effect works has been ongoing for nearly twenty years now - partially inspired by a writer briefly associated with the series at the end of the 1970s. The term 'What If?' should always apply in speculative fiction.
The Susan paradox can be explained by a pre-Hartnell Doctor bi-generating, but it's complicated. One of the two got kids, while the other one (a predecessor of Hartnell and Tennant) did not. But Hartnell still looked after Susan, considering her to be his granddaughter, since that other Doctor branch is still him in a way.
Same with Tennant. He, too, considered that branch of the family his own children. I mean, does it matter if they're the kids of his side of the bi-generation split or the other side? It's not like the Tenth Doctor himself had any kids (not counting Jenny), so he was always speaking of some other version of him anyway.
As for why Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor doesn't consider those children and grandchildren his own? Either memory loss, or the Toymaker's jigsaw, or his bi-generation created another layer between him and that mysterious great-grand-uncle who was also himself but wasn't? Or maybe he just uses a different meaning of "his children", not counting adopting Susan or whatever Hartnell and Tennant used to justify speaking of "their children".
Gonna go with terrible driving instructor on that last one lol
I thought Davis was guesting on this video from the thumbnail 😂
It would be nice if they did a revisit of the Doctors clone.
She forgot that when weeping angels aren’t being observed they are not stone
6:00 Maybe the colour of his blood change between his regeneration
The blueblood can be part of that particular regeneration. Like how the doctor checks number of ears nose and color of kidneys after regeneration, he might have had blue blood in that particular regeneration
Any contradictions between Classic and New Who can easily be waived away by saying it was the Time War. Which I think is great excuse. So if they ever go to Atlantis again in New Who just say it was the Time War.
I am quite convinced that in the beginning of the show, the Doctor was supposed to be a scientist who invented the Tardis, just like the Time Traveller in H.G. Wells' novel. This changed by the end of Season 2, when the Meddling Monk was introduced to the canon in The Time Meddler. However, that the Doctor nicked the Tardis was only revealed in The War Games at the end of Season 6.
The doctor dying on regen may not be as clear cut as you suggest. The 10 statement WAS hyperbole of a sort, but regen seems to be something between life extension and death, since EVERY new incarnation of the Doctor is VERY different from the one before them or the one after. There is continuity of SOME traits, but to suggest, for eg, #11 and #12 are "the same person with a new face" is a stretch since there are VERY few personality similarities from 11 to 12. Capaldi and Smith were both "The Doctor" but they played VERY different versions of that character ...
We did not see the Weeping angels move. They moved between frames...
This could become a whole series of videos 😂😂
River was picking on the Doctor
In regards to the Angels, Amy being the “magical girl” may have held them at bay at the time, only for her luck to run out years later in that cemetery.
As for the “parking brake”, maybe the TARDIS has a switch that silences the mechanism and no one thinks to ever use it?
the weeping angels only have one episode. i refuse to accept any future episodes of them as cannon
Wrong. They’re all canon.
The Marie Celeste crew could've been eaten after jumping overboard.
I could see the 4th Doctor deciding he wanted blue blood during his 4th regeneration. He was such an eccentric incarnation, that's probably not even close to all the little things he changed about his body.
The 10th doctor was fairly egotistical and young compared to other doctors. It’s not inconsistent, it’s very consistent with that incarnation of the doctor
In my head cannon, in the absence of the time lords, continuity is lost to the probabilistic chaos of the multiverse every time one traverses the time vortex... this seemed to be hinted at recently
'Wibly Wobly Timey Wimey'