Howling:What's the connection between the Big Bads?

So, in Series 6 (Doctor Who), it was The Silence going to great lengths (maybe even causing the TARDIS to explode in Series 5 (Doctor Who) ) to prevent The Doctor from being "on the fields of Trenzalore at the fall of The Eleventh". Nevermind that it didn't look like there were any fields there, in The Name of the Doctor (TV story), Steven Moffat put together some kind of alliance between The Great Intelligence and The Whispermen...I suppose that snowmen were no longer available on a planet that looks volcanic? I'm guessing that that The Whispermen have nothing against The Doctor and are just agents of the Great Intelligence like The Silence had creatures/people working on its behalf.

So what is the connection between the Great Intelligence and the Silence? Moffat could have picked any location for The Name of the Doctor but he chose Trenzalor so there must be some link. However, The GI and The Silence seem to have two different agendas....The Silence need to prevent their own "fall" and The GI is seeking (for unknown reasons) to "undo" the good deeds that The Doctor had done over his lifetime.

All along, I assumed that Moffat would bring The Doctor to Trenzalor when Matt Smith wanted to leave and it was time for a regeneration and a new Doctor (hence, "the fall of the Eleventh"). But, no, he brought him there way before this.

So do any of you clever people see any connection between The GI, The Whispermen and The Silence and the pivotal role of Trenzalore in the missions of both groups? [Unsigned but appears to be Badwolff 20:14, May 19, 2013 (UTC)] Yep it was me...I thought I signed it. 20:09, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

We do seem to have disparate groups of adversaries whose actions are connected, even though there's no apparent connection between the groups themselves. That rather suggests there's something or someone behind all of them -- very possibly something or someone those groups don't themselves know about.

The Whisper Men: I'm not sure they "have nothing against The Doctor and are just agents of the Great Intelligence". They look & sound very like the Trickster. He's only ever appeared in The Sarah Jane Adventures but he's been mentioned in both the main show & Torchwood. In Turn Left, members of the Trickster's Brigade tried to use Donna to create a world in which the Doctor died defeating the Racnoss. One of the Trickster's aims (in a few SJA stories) was to remove the Doctor from history. The Great Intelligence has been very fond of using people as tools & it'd be fittingly ironic if, in the end, it was being used as a tool by someone else. The close similarity in appearance, sound & aims between the Whisper Men & the Trickster is a bit suspicious, to say the least. It might just be coincidence, of course.

Unfortunately for anyone trying to work out what's going on, that close similarity might also be a red herring. Even if there's a "Bigger Bad" that we still don't know about, it might have nowt to do with the Trickster.

To answer the main question: No I can't see the connection between the GI, the Whisper Men & the Silence, other than "the pivotal role of Trenzalore" (& we now know why Trenzalore is pivotal), but there's more than enough to suggest that there is a connection, albeit one that's still hidden. --89.241.65.242talk to me 02:33, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

At first glance it seems that the Silence preferred the Doctor die at their hands to prevent him from being undone and the universe destroyed. However, I think it's more likely that the events of Trenzalore mean that 'John Hurt' Doctor has a real chance of existing now. The Silence failed to keep The Doctor's greatest secret: whatever that future Doctor betrays his own promise and will do.

It'd have to be something pretty momentous, so mind-bogglingly huge that it's rippled back through time and The Doctor knows it's been coming for a long time. Alternatively it's something he's already had the misfortune of witnessing a future version himself do, and due to some weird time-effect the consequences of his future self's action can't come until effect until he actually does them.

Maybe he's searching the universe for a way to escape his fate. Psicraft ☎ 05:16, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

The Silence don't want to prevent their own "fall"; that isn't what their core belief ("silence must fall when the Question is asked") is about. They believe that the Doctor must never be allowed to reach Trenzalore to answer the Question. We saw what happens if the Question is answered on Trenzalore; the Great Intelligence gains access to the Doctor's tomb and undoes all the good he's ever done in the universe. The Silence want to prevent this from happening by killing the Doctor before he can go to Trenzalore. By killing him early, they would ensure that when the Question is asked, it would be met with no response, only silence (the Doctor's silence, because he know the answer and if he's dead, no one can answer and give the GI access to the Doctor's tomb). This was all confirmed in "The Wedding Of River Song". What the Silence want is basically the lesser of two evils; by killing the Doctor at Lake Silencio, they will ensure that the GI never rewrites his whole history, and all the worlds the Doctor saved will remain safe. If they fail to kill him (which they did), then silence can no longer fall because the Doctor is still alive and able to answer the Question (although River was able to get around that; no one ever accounts for River, although in this case, it was justified, since she should have been dead). The Doctor will proceed to Trenzalore uninterrupted and the GI will tear apart history through his timeline. Luckily, Clara was around to stop the GI. And speaking of, the GI wants to rip apart the Doctor's history in an act of revenge for defeating him at every turn, and also seems to think that he will acquire some form of peace in death. So basically, the relationship between the Silence and the GI is that of opposites. The Silence want to prevent the Question from being answered at all costs, and want the Doctor's silence to fall (due to him being dead) when the Question is asked so that the GI can't access his timeline. The GI, however, wants the Doctor to answer the Question so that he can get his revenge on him and finally find peace in death. The reason why no connection was pointed out between them in this episode is because the Silence was already dealt with in Series 6, and their plans to make the Doctor's silence fall by killing him were avoided. Thus, they've already failed in their mission (but they don't know they've failed, which is why they don't know about the Doctor being at Trenzalore). Ensephylon ☎  07:42, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Given what Esephylon said, I think the connection is more than "opposites", but an actual war. The Silence want to stop the Doctor reaching Trenzalore, while The Great Intelligence want to make sure he can do so. If they know so much about The Doctor's future, they'd surely know the Great Intelligence would be involved. So they must have a rivalry, somehow. Gallifrey102 ☎  00:24, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, while I do like to interpret it that way, it's also possible that the Silence simply feared what would happen if the Question was answered and because of that, did everything in their power to heed its warning ("a question that must never, ever be answered"). Ensephylon ☎  03:45, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Silence do seem to have known about the consequences of the Question being answered -- consequences that appear to be what we saw happening after the GI entered the Doctor's timestream & before Clara retrieved the situation -- but they don't seem to have known how the Question being answered would lead to those consequences.


 * If they'd known about the GI's role, the sensible course would have been to help the Doctor to stop the GI, not to launch an "endless, bitter war" against the Doctor. Helping the Doctor to defeat one of his enemies stands a pretty good chance of success. Becoming one of the Doctor's enemies tends to be a seriously losing game! --89.240.249.124talk to me 07:19, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Excellent point; I hadn't thought about that. Ensephylon ☎  08:14, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the things I've noticed about the Silence, throughout their dealings with the Doctor, is their propensity for acting on information that's (a) incomplete & (b) misinterpreted. They then make matters worse by closing their minds, so their false ideas can't be corrected. It's not a recipe for success. --89.240.249.124talk to me 11:51, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel it prudent to point out that, so far, the Doctor has only crossed paths with the Silence on two occasions, and one of those occasions was erased.DCT ☎  15:43, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's more than two occasions. He's only encountered the Silents (the aliens) twice. He's encountered the Silence (the organisation) more often. --2.96.16.178talk to me 16:32, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * I still think that, that allowance still only increases his encounters to three. The Silence seem shrewder than the Doctor gives them credit for. They seem prepared to let him kill members of heir order in an attempt to slim Amy-Avatar into his mix.DCT ☎  16:04, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Since people do not recall the Silence as soon as they take their eyes off of them, we have no way of knowing how many times The Doctor has viewed them in his earlier incarnations. We only know the incidents that have been included in the Series 6 narrative. I'm sure that the novels and comics will have additional encounters. Badwolff ☎  19:34, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually true of a lot of enemies in Doctor Who because we know he has adventures that aren't shared with us. The Silence's particular characteristic doesn't mean we can treat them differently from other characters we talk about.81.109.164.2talk to me 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thus far
First, thanks for all of the stimulating ideas everyone has posted. It gives me a lot to think about, I hadn't read up on The Trickster and he definitely has a similar appearance to the Whispermen. Although Moffat has said that the Whispermen were a scary new villain, he also likes to resurrect old ones from the Classic series. Or their physical resemblance could be a coincidence, I guess we will learn more in November and in Series 8.

One thing I can't accept though is that "The Silence must fall when the question is answered" refers to an actual moment of silence and not THE Silence. First, was there even a moment of silence at any point in the episode? I don't recall there being a significant one. And all of this business is supposed to happen only at "on the fields of Trenzalore at the fall of The Eleventh"...I don't think was the fall of the Eleventh. It sure wasn't his "darkest hour" which was at Demon's Run. I still think the fall of the Eleventh will be when he next regenerates.

The idea that this prophecy and the lengths that the Silence would go to to kill the Doctor and avoid the fulfillment of the prophecy (which I don't think has happened yet) is about a moment of silence and not them, is just a terribly bad pun and I don't think Moffat would do this. You could say it is some kind of misdirect for the audience but that would be quite an elaborate tact to take (to create an entire story arc in Series 6 around this) to then pull the rug out from under viewers.

I think there is still some connection between the prophecy, the Great Intelligence, the Silence and the Doctor's timeline that has yet to be revealed. It seems like it is much more like Moffat to hold back answers than to undermine previous storylines. He never answers any questions (in this case, telling us about Clara) without raising even more questions (who is John Hurt's character and what is the effect of the GI on The Doctor's timeline?).

What do you think? Of course, we have SIX months to think about this! Badwolff ☎  20:09, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

The Trickster isn't from the classic series. If you want to see him, you need to watch The Sarah Jane Adventures. (He was meant to reappear in the second half of SJA Series 5, as well, but that couldn't happen after Elisabeth Sladen died.) The Trickster's Brigade has been mentioned in Torchwood (Miracle Day: Immortal Sins) & a couple of its members (the Fortune Teller & the Time Beetle) appeared in DW Turn Left. In SJA The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith we got what the Doctor explicitly said was his first direct encounter with the Trickster.

Moffat being Moffat, there's no guarantee that the resemblance between the Whisper Men & the Trickster isn't a red herring but, to me, it seems an odd one to choose, if it is. The Trickster just isn't well enough known to make a good red herring.

The Great Intelligence is from the classic series, of course, & from fairly early in it, at that.

The business about the Silence isn't "just a terribly bad pun" if (as has been established) the Silence takes it name from the prophecy. However, I'm no more convinced than you are that the prophecy really does refer to the Doctor's silence (i.e., his failure to answer) when the Question is asked. That silence did happen in the episode, even if there was no moment of total silence.

The Silence clearly did intend to bring about the Doctor's silence but that was in order to avoid whatever silence the prophecy is about. At least, that's how I interpret the situation. (The multiple uses of the word "silence", probably with different meanings, do tend to make things a bit confusing & that's obviously not an accident.)

"I think there is still some connection between the prophecy, the Great Intelligence, the Silence and the Doctor's timeline that has yet to be revealed." I agree. One thing we need to remember is that the episode ended with "To be continued". We've only seen the first part of a two-part story. Trying, at this point, to work out what's going on with these is a bit like trying to work out the Sontarans' plan and how it would be defeated, on the basis of The Sontaran Stratagem only, without waiting to see The Poison Sky. (Mind you, RTD didn't make us wait 6 months between those episodes!)

"He [Moffat] never answers any questions ... without raising even more questions": All too true! --89.242.69.88talk to me 22:19, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * My head...explode! Badwolff ☎  23:18, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Ensephylon: Don't hash up other people's contributions & confuse everyone by jamming your remarks into the middle of existing text. Apart from anything else, it separates the words from the signature & leaves them apparently unsigned. It also jumbles up the sequence of what's been said, making it harder to follow the discussion. Not to put too fine a point on it, you're being grossly discourteous to everyone who takes part in or even just reads this discussion. --89.242.69.88talk to me 23:49, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I didn't mean to offend anyone by doing that; I just wasn't sure how to properly format my response. I apologize. Ensephylon ☎  00:09, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ensephylon: If you want to respond to a particular point, you can quote it. If it's too long to quote in full, shorten it & use an elipsis (...) to indicate you've left something out. It's not the most wonderful way of doing things but not much else actually works on a discussion page like this. It's not like a message board where you can reply to a particular message & have the software format things for you. The software here is "relatively unsophisticated", as the main page puts it.


 * A problem with inserting comments is that most people will have trouble finding them. If I see that there's been a recent edit to a discussion that I'm following, I look for it at the end. If it's not there, I've no easy way of working out where to look for it. Most people will do the same, so your comments may not even be seen if you put them anywhere else. If they're not seen, you might as well have saved yourself the effort of making them. --89.242.69.88talk to me 01:06, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright; thank you. I will keep that in mind. Again, I apologize for any disruption that I may have caused. Ensephylon ☎  05:14, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

"I think there is still some connection between the prophecy, the Great Intelligence, the Silence and the Doctor's timeline that has yet to be revealed." I agree, badwolf. I think there is a connection and that the series finale was used to set up the 50th Anniversary Special. I am hoping that it will all....well, mostly....well, somewhat be resolved then. As 89 pointed out, Moffat answers questions by leaving more questions... Whosethebestwho ☎  11:02, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I was 89, though I'm 2 just now, & I was simply agreeing with Badwolff. He's the one who deserves the credit for pointing out that Moffat answers questions by leaving more questions.

The "To be continued" at the end of the episode shows that The Name of the Doctor wasn't just setting things up for the Anniversary Special. It was the first part of a two-part story. As I said above (& this one was mine), it's as if RTD had left a 6-month gap between The Sontaran Stratagem & The Poison Sky. Only worse, of course, because there's so much at stake in respect of the Doctor himself. --2.96.29.191talk to me 12:47, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Afterthought: If the Anniversary Special ends with "To be continued" (in the Christmas Special), Moffat is going to need to be a very fast runner! --2.96.29.191talk to me 12:53, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Now THAT is something I agree with wholeheartedly! He'd need some darn good running shoes to boot! :) Whosethebestwho  ☎  14:16, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a two-parter, too, and mentioned this on another thread so there seem to be a few of us noticing this. But from what we've seen of Steven Moffat, he'll bring up even more issues in November and carry them over to Series 8. He never answers every question that his storylines bring up. He is constantly dropping "clues" that may or may not be addressed in later episodes. That's what makes his series both compelling and frustrating. Badwolff ☎  12:57, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Of course Moffat will "bring up even more issues in November and carry them over to Series 8." We'll be fairly lucky if he doesn't carry some of them over into Series 10! --2.96.17.223talk to me 13:01, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Those who'd very much like to keep their sanity in tact would hope that someone other than Moffat is in charge by Series 10 (not to put Moffat down; he's had and continues to have great stories...even if every new detail seems to rewrite all of history...) —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 23:47, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think anyone's said this yet but I saw the Whisper Men as being (possibly like the Snowmen) artificial constructs created by the Great Intelligence for the purpose of Trenzalore. After all, one transforms into another Dr. Simeon shape after the GI tears his then-current one off like wrapping paper, and the GI then presumably moves into and "possesses" it. I only see that happening if the Whisper Men were empty shells to start with. —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 23:54, May 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's certainly the impression that I got; I agree. Ensephylon ☎  02:27, May 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of sense, BioniclesaurKing4t2, especially because their physical form seems awfully conditional...without their outside shell, they are insubstantial (no innards).


 * I wanted to add that I've since seen an interview with Steven Moffat where he said that any thought that the 50th Anniversary episode was the second part of a two parter was ridiculous. Soooo, either Moffat is lying or, which is more likely, we are wrong about this. Maybe this really is the last we'll see of the Great Intelligence and the mystery of Hurt's Doctor will last over Series 8. Badwolff ☎  19:44, May 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * "[Moffat]... said that any thought that the 50th Anniversary episode was the second part of a two parter was ridiculous": When did Moffat give the interview?


 * If it was before "The Name of the Doctor" aired, he was almost certainly lying to avoid giving away the fact that the finalé wasn't going to complete its story.


 * If it was after "The Name of the Doctor" aired, then no matter what he said, the on-screen caption at the end of "The Name of the Doctor" very clearly stated, "To be continued... November 23rd". "The Name of the Doctor" was, therefore, the first part of something & the November 23rd episode is the next (that is, the second) part of that something. The only ways Moffat can be telling the truth are: (a) there will be more than two parts or (b) the November 23rd continuation isn't the 50th Anniversary episode, which would mean 2 episodes on the same day -- the continuation of "The Name of the Doctor" and a separate 50th Anniversary episode.


 * Much as I'd welcome such a "bonus" episode, I don't think at all likely. The possibility that we'll have to wait beyond the November 23rd episode for the conclusion of the story is rather more likely & rather less welcome. Most likely of all is that Moffat is lying -- again! It's hardly "ridiculous" to think that "To be continued..." means that the next episode is the next part of the same story. --89.240.242.61talk to me 21:12, May 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know any more than I just said there. I did a Google search to track down the URL for the interview but haven't found it yet. Given the options you offer, I'm thinking that perhaps John Hurt's Doctor character isn't resolved in the 50th Anniversary show and the mystery continues into Series 8.


 * But it could be that Steven Moffat has a distinctive idea of what a two-parter entails and this sequence of episodes doesn't match that definition. For example, in the new DW series, two-parters usually have both parts occurring in the same place and same time frame...the two episodes could be aired back-to-back as a two hour special and there would be no significant break in the action.


 * Perhaps this statement means that while the storyline continues into the 50th Anniversary episode, that the action leaves Trenzalor, the TARDIS tomb and the Doctor's timestream and the story goes in a different direction, to a different location while, at the same time, working towards resolving some loose threads. Of course, even in the two-parter, The Impossible Astronaut (TV story) and Day of the Moon (TV story) there were 3 months between events in the first part and the second part. But they were both set in the U.S. Badwolff ☎  22:51, May 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope it's not like The Impossible Astronaut. Stephen Moffat seems to be expecting us to fill out a lot of holes in that three months which we don't really have the authority or information to do. The Name Of The Doctor ended with Clara unconscious and both her and the Doctor stuck in a collapsing timestream. Imagine how much of an anticlimax it would be if getting out turned out to be as easy as walking through a door marked "exit".81.109.164.2talk to me 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

BioniclesaurKing4t2, "if the Whisper Men were empty shells to start with": In Clarence and the Whispermen, which is available online here, they say, "We are not men, we are the Intelligence." That strongly suggests they're not even empty shells but projections -- albeit tangible ones -- & have no existence at all except what the GI gives them. Whether they were solely for "the purpose of Trenzalore" or not is another question. The GI might have used them for other purposes that we've not seen -- not that it matters much, unless we eventually do see them used for something else. Since the GI has supposedly now been destroyed in the process of corrupting the Doctor's timestream, we may not see them again, except maybe in flashback. (That'd be a pity, because they're rather effective monsters.) --89.241.75.103talk to me 10:54, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * So, @89, they are just like the Snowmen but in a different form? Badwolff ☎  19:49, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Snowmen seemed to be made of snow that had a real material existence. The Wisper Men (or Whispermen) seem not to be made of any actual material. To me, it just seems as if the Great Intelligence has got better at it & no longer needs to use pre-existing material. Apart from that, though, I'd say they are the same. --89.241.75.178talk to me 22:26, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * The Whisper Men were let down by the fact they turned out to be merely manifestations of the G.I. They were introduced very like classic ghosts from a Victoria era ghost story then lost all theeir menace when they were defeated simply by the G.I. ending its self. They can come back of course because now they're in people's heads as an idea. They could also turn out to be real beings that couldn't fight the Great Intelligence or even real beings the Great Intelligence copied. Many explanations are possible if Moffat wishes to revive them.81.109.164.2talk to me 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

@Badwolff, if the seires ended on a cliffhanger, then technically there were no two-parters in the series. Call it semantics, call it a play on words, call it misleading even, but it was technically accurate. 06:24, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

That seems to have been Whosethebestwho. -- Yea, that was me..sorry, not sure why the date/time posted and the name did not. Whosethebestwho ☎  10:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, Moffat was ostensibly talking about the 50th Anniversary episode. The technicality might save his earlier statement, "No 2-parters in Series 7" from being an outright lie but it can't save his reported comments about the 50th. Of course, without getting his exact words, we can't tell if there's some other technicality that makes them true on the surface (but only on the surface). Anyway, it's not defamatory to say, "Moffat lies," when Moffat has said exactly that himself. In the end, the only way we're going to know the truth about the 50th is to see the thing. In November. After waiting 6 months. Unless someone happens to have a time machine handy. (I was 89 earlier.) --78.146.187.63talk to me 08:44, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Oh yea...I started a thread called Moffat Lies :) He has flat out admitted as much.  It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.  Whosethebestwho  ☎  10:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Whosethebestwho (& anyone else interested): If you type an extra tilde (, instead of ~ ), you get the date/time only. If you miss one out (, instead of ~ ), you get only the IP address (or, presumably, the username if you're logged in).

Back to the discussion (sort of): I don't mind Moffat being willing to lie when it's necessary to avoid giving away spoilers. What I dislike is his propensity for doing so when it would serve the purpose equally well if he said, "I'm not telling you. Wait for the episode." --89.242.72.152talk to me 12:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's just a way to give people an answer so they stop asking. The "Moffat lies" idea is very convenient for Moffat as a person, because it means he can say anything to stop people from bugging him, yet nobody can complain when it's proven the answer they got was wrong. Imamadmad (Contact me) 11:20, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that, which must be inconvenient for him (at least sometimes), is that he now can't stop speculation by making a statement. People simply say, "Moffat lies, so we can't rely on that," & speculate about what he's concealing. Anytime he needs to be believed, he's snookered himself. (I was 89 earlier.) --78.146.179.140talk to me 12:01, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as what Stephen Moffat said, I also read in an interview that I can't remember how to find him say he wanted the 50th Anniversary to be the beginning of a new story. I can't find the interview but I suspect hat was a lie too.81.109.164.2talk to me 12:56, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if it wasn't, it doesn't mean much. That's what happens when someone makes a habit of lying: their words become mere noise. In this case, it could be that Moffat will make the 50th both the end of one story & the beginning of another. It could equally be that he won't. We can't tell until we see the thing.


 * If we're going to speculate (which we are), we can only do it on the basis of what we've seen in episodes so far. Anything that Moffat says has to be treated as a "jamming signal", emitted only to obscure matters, & has to be filtered out. --2.96.24.42talk to me 13:57, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * 81.109.164.2 was me but I forgot to log in.DCT ☎  14:12, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I seem to have found the original quote though I couldn't find the one I saw. http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/6854-doctor-who-finale-is-quite-a-dark-episode-says-moffat DCT ☎  15:14, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * DCT: I took the liberty of repairing the link. It had "http://" twice -- presumably because some software insists on being "helpful" & adding it automatically, even if it's already there. Artificial Intelligence? More like Artificial Stupidity!


 * The Moffat quote says almost nothing. (Not a surprise.) The Anniversary episode won't be "the second part of a story, that would be insane." OK, so it won't be the second part, it'll just take up where the series finalé left off. To quote Victorian Clara in The Snowmen, "Words!" (I'm back to being 89 again.) --89.241.74.205talk to me 20:20, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Another quote which might be interesting in this discussion, from a little while back, from here:
 * 'In an interview in the latest issue [of Entertainment Weekly] he says that it [the 50th Anniversary Special] should be a way to attract new viewers in addition to pleasing die-hard fans; Moffat states:
 * "It is important you don't turn it into a fanfest.
 * We can't make this all about looking backwards.
 * It's actually got to be the start of a new story."'

So it seems Moffat is keeping his stance that the 50th is going to be something new and stand-alone, however continue the themes set up by the past series. Hopefully the kind of thing I can drag my friends along to and that we will all enjoy, hard-core whovians and non-whovians alike. Imamadmad (Contact me) 01:55, June 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for find that article, @DCT...I kept searching for it on Google with nothing turning up. I was beginning to think I had imagined it! But I was looking for articles on the 50th Annivesary, not for articles on The Name of the Doctor. Badwolff ☎  20:21, June 2, 2013 (UTC)