Howling:Had doctor really spent 200 years?

I wonder, due to recent information, if the doctor lied about his age being the Teselecta? Had he really wondered alone for 200 years? I see no evidence to support this: he looks 'younger' again in the eye, certainly not such old and bored as he was in Impossible Astronaut.

Please sign your posts. I don't think it makes much difference short term. Long term it gives more opportunity from which the writers may pull stuff out of the air. Boblipton talk to me 13:46, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

We know that the Doctor had to be travelling for long enough to meet River on quite a few occasions(Jim the Fish). Adding the 200 year gap there really solves one of the main problems that the show has always had, which is that we know that any incarnation can live for hundreds of years, but we usually only see them regenerate after a few years. There are obvious gaps in between Survival and the TV Movie, and Rose, and people come up with places where there may be gaps when he hasn't got companions, but this is the first time that they have specifically told us that there is a 200 year gap. We'll probably know soon enough though, given how much he gives his age in the new series. If he says that he's 909 then there was no gap, and if he says that he's 1104, there was a gap.Icecreamdif talk to me 17:03, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Also don't forget that there are technicaly three gaps this series. First over the summer the Doctor travels searching for Melody, then after he leaves Amy and Rory but before the adventure with Craig he does some traveling, and finally after leaving Craig he does research on the Silence for a time before ending up at lake Silencio.MasterIII talk to me 15:25, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think Moffat is planning to spend the decades after he steps down as producer filling in those years. Boblipton talk to me 18:24, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

There probably wasn't a very long break in between Closing Time and The Wedding of River Song though. Throughout Closing Time, the Doctor talked about how he was dying tomorrow, and even though we now know he didn't go straight to his death, we saw most of this time in flashbacks when he was talkiing to Churchhill. Besides, do you think the Doctor would have been able to keep the stetson that long if he had had any adventures with River after he got it?Icecreamdif talk to me 20:52, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Well Gareth Roberts confirmed that 200 years took place between the episodes, now it really depends on the writers remembering that the gap exists. If dialogue in later episodes suggests they forgot it could well be explained that the Doctor only gave himself such a large age because he remembers Amy, Rory and River asking him his age after they found younger him and realises he must have said his older age to them and so said a much older age in order for them to later ask the question about his age that he remembers in order to close a time loop. I mean there is no doubt there was significant amount of between the episodes but if his age is retconned it could be explained away as that. I think we hope they stay consistent like it has been so far and they keep his age at 1100+ so we don't have to worry about such things. The Light6 talk to me 01:56, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let's hope that they keep the Doctor's age consistent at just over 1100 years. Otherwise, we will have to deal with the completely new and unique problem of conflicting versions of the Doctor's age.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:49, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many will miss the sarcasm here, but yeah there's enough problems with the Doctor's age already without adding a new one on top of it all. The Light6 talk to me 04:58, October 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Moffat's explanation of the inconsistencies in the Doctor's age is probably the one to go for -- He lost track long ago and just made up what he thought was a plausible number but, from time to time, he loses track of that, too, and makes up another number. He simply doesn't know and, since the Time War, has nobody around who could authoratatively contradict him. For him and us, there are more important things to think about. --89.242.77.93 08:14, October 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, 89, but I have given up arguing this matter. Fans demand precise answers to their questions, because Truth lives in the eighth decimal column. You might as well say "No fanwanking." If Joe Fan dislikes something on Doctor Who, then everyone at BBC Wales is wrong and everyone must know it. Boblipton talk to me 11:54, October 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, when i put this question into forum, i wasn't thinking about exact numbers, but more about character. I mean, the Teselecta behaviour from Imp. Astr. is different enough from the behaviour in The Wedding. So i just was wondering what will see in 7th season: after all Smith's vision of role clearly evolved more into 'dark and serious' over the past years. So back to the roots, i suppose. 95.32.15.190 21:06, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Silly and dark. Everything but spoons. I appreciate it. I enjoyed the beginnings of the Cartmel Masterplan in the series and the depth it offered. Plus, it explains part of his attraction to River. She is an overt psychopath that glories in her... well, anti-social behavior. It's tittilating to him because it allows him to indulge in that side of himself without claiming responsibility. Boblipton talk to me 21:24, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Talking of the Cartmel Masterplan, there was recently a reply to a question on the Doctor Who Answers site that claimed the plan was to reveal the Doctor as God, when much of the point of the plan was to make the Doctor mysterious -- that is, to avoid revealing who he was -- as well as "darker" and more powerful. I've no way of knowing the extent to which first RTD and now Moffat heve intentionally been following the plan, rather than just having understood the same things about the show as Cartmel did and consequently come up with similar approaches, but there certainly have been notable parallels. Ace (who's still my all-time favourite companion) "fits" the revived series pattern far better than she does the previous approach -- she actually had a family background, for example, even if it was an unhappy one. Cartmel also reckoned that the best way to tell the Doctor's story is to tell the companion's story. That was definitely done with Rose, Martha and Donna and with Amy in Series 5. Although it's maybe a little early to decide, I thought Series 6 suffered from too much of a focus on the Doctor himself, at the expense of Amy, Rory and River, especially River. I can't help suspecting that the story that was told in Series 6 would have been better told by following River rather more than it did and letting us find out about the Doctor indirectly, through her story. Maybe that's just a reflection of my diappointment that we didn't get to see enough of the "little girl" (Sydney Wade) and Mels (Maya Glace-Green and Nina Toussaint-White) incarnations.


 * The reason I think it's a bit too early to decide about Series 6 is that a great deal depends on how Moffat takes the show forward from where he's got it now. He seems to have been setting things up for how he wants to proceed and we need to see how he does proceed. It's been remarked by quite a few people in various places that 11 has been developing traits that are strongly reminiscent of 7 -- "well devious", as Ace put it in Remembrance of the Daleks. The 200-year gap that's the topic of this page simply wasn't necessary for the story of Series 6 (although it did no harm) but it does leave room for future developments, which may well be exactly what it's intended to do. In terms of companions, though, Series 6 gave us a fair amount of Amy as action hero -- waving swords around in 2 episodes and a machinegun in the finalé -- not to mention identifying herself to Churchill as "Pond, Amelia Pond", which reminded me very much of "Bond, James Bond". That side of Amy is one I'd like to see developed further (and, from DW Confidential, it looks as if Karen Gillan enjoys playing Amy like that). Having a "kick ass" Amy as his mother-in-law could be rather interesting for the Doctor. --2.96.29.93 22:59, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting idea -- and you forgot to mention the older Amy on Appalucia (or however it's spelled) with her samurai moves on the handbots. My one cavil is that she doesn't seem to handle the different iterations of herself as well as the others. Technically her acting is flawless, but it calls attention to itself and so, instead of being drawn into the situation, I sit there analysing how she achieves the effects. However, I am certainly willing to give the Doctor another shot (and porobably three or four.  To see my thoughts on the subject, check out my review of the Wedding of River Song on the IMDB. Or don't. It's pitched at a more general audience than these mutterings are and it's not unlikely they hold nothing more than we see here. Boblipton talk to me 23:44, October 5, 2011 (UTC)