Howling:"he can regenerate more than 12 times - a lot more!"

So apparently the Doctor can regenerate more that 12 times - a lot more. And he doesn't have to be white. This is a teaser for Death of the Doctor. Moffat said that an "old friend" would be tackling this issue, but do you think he meant Russell? He also said this series, and I suppose the series hasn't quite ended, so it could very well be this. I can't wait to see it now.... The article is here by the way. --The Thirteenth Doctor 23:04, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if they are going to break the 12 regeneration rule it probably is better that they are going to explain it rather than ignore it. It would, however, be better if they actually explained it in the main show instead of the spin-off. The regeration limit is an important part of the Doctor's character, and he is a Doctor Who character, not a Sarah Jane character. Syfy hasn't aired any of the Sarah Jane Adventures after season 1 in the U.S. (probably because it is not nearly as good as Torchwood of Doctor Who), so American fans will have to wait until the DVD comes out to find out this important piece of information about the Doctor.Icecreamdif 20:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * It does strike me as odd that the former producer of Who is altering such a heavy piece of the mythos rather than the current one, but I find it a bit neat actually. The closer we get to the Thirteenth Doctor, the more urgently the show would have to address what was basically a throwaway plot point in order to enable the Time Lord President to be really assassinated in The Deadly Assassin. They could just as easily have made the number 20 or 50 or 100, but nobody could have been giving much thought to the effect the limit of 13 lives would have on the character of the Doctor seeing as how in 1976 they were still only on Doctor Four on a (comparatively merely in hindsight) 13-year-old programme.
 * I'm glad the question is apparently being addressed sooner rather than later; it'd be cheesier to have the future Thirteenth Doctor lament how it's his last life for his entire tenure until some magic plot point grants him a 14th life. We just had that sort of emo story arc for a series of four stories with mixed results, imagine having to put up with that for a Doctor's entire tenure! It'd be unfair to the character, the actor, or the viewers, and handwaving it now frees all future Who cast, crew, and fans from having to worry about it. Additionally, addressing it in the spinoff means us canon addicts will be able to fully appreciate it, while all the newer and more casual Who viewers who never gave the matter any thought won't really have to start now. Rob T Firefly 20:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just in from SJA: he can regenerate 507 times apparently. How is that possible? 86.159.119.128 16:44, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * The same way it was possible for him to regenerate the past ten times. Rob T Firefly 23:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I live in the US, so i haven't seen it yet. Is there actually some explanation as to why he can regenerate 507 times, or is it left unexplained?Icecreamdif 23:35, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the number is left entirely unexplained, just as it was when the limit was given as 12 regenerations. Rob T Firefly 00:19, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the original regeneration limit seemed like it was both to make the timelords mortal, instead of theoretically being able to live forever, and to give the Master a motive in the Deadly Assassin. I understand that they didn't explain why they chose the number 507, but do they actually explain why the number has changed since the TV movie, or do they just act like he always had 507 regenerations.Icecreamdif 00:26, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The limit of 13 lives was introduced in The Deadly Assassin so that they could really kill off the Lord President and enable that murder mystery/conspiracy story to take place; before that we'd seen Time Lords regenerate with no mention of any limits. All other references to 13 lives stem from that. I do not imagine the writers were considering the effect the choice of number would have; the show was only 13 years old and they were only on Doctor Four. They might not have ever considered that the programme would go on for longer than any other scifi drama, and we'd actually get up to Doctor Thirteen someday and have to deal with the consequences of their plot point. Rob T Firefly 09:28, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the littlest chance that Moffat or Davies is watching, there is a way they can spin it to be 507. In The End of Time, one of the Time Ladies mentions that every second millions of Time Lords were dying and being brought back to life to find new ways to die. Regeneration seems like the obvious way to do that, so perhaps, given they can grant new cycles, the Time Lords gave a huge number of regenerations to every Time Lord and Lady so that they could live again and again and again. Of course, the Eighth Doctor wouldn't have regenerated into other forms, but at the end of the War into his Ninth incarnation. That's the way I'd like to see it. --The Thirteenth Doctor 11:09, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also another way.. In Forest of the Dead, River gave a hint that the Doctor's abilities were escalating beyond that of a Time Lord, to where he's able to snap his fingers and open the TARDIS. So, if his abilities are going beyond that of a Time Lord, then maybe his regeneration abilities are escalating too! TheTARDIScontroller 05:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also another way.. In Forest of the Dead, River gave a hint that the Doctor's abilities were escalating beyond that of a Time Lord, to where he's able to snap his fingers and open the TARDIS. So, if his abilities are going beyond that of a Time Lord, then maybe his regeneration abilities are escalating too! TheTARDIScontroller 05:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its because the time lords are no longer around to monitor his cycle so he alloted himself lot more.I think such a high number will make his lives throaway objects and will make a plot such as the curse of fatal death where he goes through a whole load of bodies far too quickly possible in canon.Assuming he's already used 11 of his 507 even if they had a different doctor every year the series could run for 496 years.Of course they'll have to do a lot of time crack style retconning to explain why the next few centuries are so different from how they appear in doctor who. --666hotline 14:24, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the Time Lords not being around anymore. Regeneration is a biological factor. See this link. Oh, and there is something from televised Who for those who choose to ignore the spin-off media. If you've actually seen the clip you can tell that he was most likely joking. Even Davies admits it wasn't to be taken seriously. My main worry is that they never will give it a good explanation. TemporalSpleen 15:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think Davies said it wasn't to be taken seriously, he just says it amused him greatly to do it and theorized that fandom would probably ignore it. Rob T Firefly 23:44, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 507 = 13 * 39 = 13 * 13 * 3 Apparently an upper limit of 39 on the number of cycles that a timelord can be granted. Wibbly-Wobbly 04:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 507 = 13 * 39 = 13 * 13 * 3 Apparently an upper limit of 39 on the number of cycles that a timelord can be granted. Wibbly-Wobbly 04:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

We know the Doctor was joking though, because we know for a fact that he can only regenerate 12 times. That isn't something like the Doctor's age, where different insignficant lines conflict with eachother. The Deadly Assassin, Mawdryn Undead, The TV Movie, and many other episodes plots are based around the fact that Timelords can onyl regenerate 12 times. Death to the Doctor just featured a random line of dialogue about regeneration that wasn't relevant to the plot. Since Davies isn't writing for Doctor Who anymore anyway, they probably won't go anywhere with the 507 limit. If they do end up having a 14th Doctor, without any explanation, then maybe we can take this line seriously.Icecreamdif 23:28, January 6, 2011 (UTC)