Howling:River giving the Doctor her regenerations

Did River use all of her regenerations to revive the doctor, or did she use only one to revive him and gave him all the rest? If so, does the Doctor have regenerations after his normal thirteen regeneratioos? (it does sound like a way to keep the show going after the Thirteenth Doctor dies). 98.242.167.50talk to me 12:46, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

it is generally thought that the doctor didn't gain the regenerations from river, but it was never outright stated on screen, only implied. so, although unlikely, if the writers get desperate they could say she gave him extra regenerations but i doubt they will. Imamadmad ☎  13:00, October 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Amy specifically said that she used up all her regenerations. There would be no reason for her to actually transfer her regenerations to the Doctor if he didn't need them to survive the poison, and they would have stated it much more directly if this was their plan to keep the show going past the 13th Doctor.Icecreamdif ☎  15:09, October 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * If the writers can't think of anything else, they can just say that the 12-regeneration limit was artificially enforced by the Time Lords &, with them gone, no longer applies. But if the writers can't think of anything else, they shouldn't be writing for Doctor Who (or any other show). The Doctor couldn't stop her sacrificing her regenerations to save his life but, if a transer such as the one suggested had happened, he'd be able to give them back. It would undermine the Doctor's character badly if he didn't at least make a very determined effort to do so. --89.240.251.36talk to me 15:11, October 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I never really bought into the idea of River having to give up all of her regenerations just to bring him back. Even when Amy tells River about it, she uses the word "apparently", meaning she obviously was told this by the Doctor. Yet in that very same scene in the hospital, we hear the Doctor remind us "The Doctor lies, rule 1." The important thing to note is that, unless they rewrite the events of the Library (which is highly unlikely, since that's when he met her) we won't ever know. They made a point in Silence in the Library to have River say that the very same thing that killed her would have killed the Doctor without ever allowing him to regenerate. So if she has remaining regenerations, from now on she still won't be anyone but Alex Kingston since that's who she is now and that's who she died as. So it really doesn't matter if she has them or not, at least not in the context of herself regenerating. Saghan ☎  16:39, October 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's as clear as anything could possibly be in Doctor Who that River used up all of her regenerations saving the Doctor, she has none left, and he's still on 11 out of 13.


 * In River Song: Her Story, at 02:57, River's narration says, "And so I gave all my remaining lives to restore his." During the same Confidential, Moffat described it as River using up all of her regenerations.


 * In an interview the next morning, Moffat was asked whether this gave the Doctor any new regenerations, and he laughed and said, "I hope we can come up with a more creative solution than that." But the best quote from Moffat is: "People keep asking this. It's like asking what colour the TARDIS is. Did they not watch the show?" --70.36.140.233talk to me 02:45, October 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Everybody knows that the TARDIS is a dark grey color. The main problem with using Let's Kill Hitler as a way for the Doctor to get past the 13 regeneration limit is that they never actually said that she transferred her regenerations to him. Sure, the Doctor or River or Amy could have been lying, but it will probably be at least 5 to ten years before it is time to deal with the issue. It would be a terrible plot point if 13 dies, and 14's first words are "normally a Time Lord would die after regenerating thirteen dies, but fortuanetly three incarnations ago, River transferred all of her regenerations to me in an episode that aired way back in 2011."Icecreamdif ☎  21:09, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Dark grey color': good one! I agree it would be dreadful if your described scenario played out.
 * I know quite a few people who are becoming disillusioned with Moffat (I'm not quite there yet, myself) and it's possible that by the time we hit Thirteen, the show will be ready to end due to low ratings. I highly doubt it, but it could happen. My own theory is that the TARDIS - who is bound to be heartbroken at the thought of losing her doctor - creates a "new" Time Lord somehow with his remains and the vortex.
 * Ooh, I just thought of another possibility. The hand (Jack's Doctor Detector) is only on its tenth regeneration. It's still around, isn't it? AthertonX ☎  21:25, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * The hand (and the rest of its body) is in Pete's world with Rose. But if I recall correctly (and it's very possible that I am wrong), I thought that "Doctor" couldn't regenerate. Shambala108 ☎  21:33, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shambala. Of course, we've seen Rose several times since she was banished ... I didn't know if it was specified about regeneration of the hand (and still don't; the Wikia doesn't say), but it does seem a stretch. Doable, though.AthertonX ☎  21:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I went back and looked at a transcript (because I didn't feel like digging out the DVD) and the hand Doctor specifically says he won't regenerate. Shambala108 ☎  21:52, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!AthertonX ☎  21:58, October 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * The only way the showrunners (whoever they are at the time) can deal with the regeneration limit problem is very openly & up-front. Anything else will be seen as cheating -- because it will, in fact, be cheating.


 * I can think of a few ways it could be done.


 * One obvious way is to have the 14th Doctor totally astonished to be there & to spend some considerable time & effort finding out why he (or she) even exists. Like most ideas, this one would work if done well enough & wouldn't work if not done well enough. In this case, much would depend on what he (or she) found out.


 * Another fairly obvious way is to say the limit was artificial & enforced by the Time Lords, so it no longer applies. The trouble with this one is that the best time to do it has passed: the first regeneration of the revived series (The Parting of the Ways) or its immediate aftermath (The Christmas Invasion).


 * The third possibility is to have something happen that is quite explicitly said, at the time, to have given him additional regenerations. This one requires the writers to come up with a really good rationale for it. This isn't so much one way of dealing with the problem as a category of ways.


 * Something that would fit into this category would be for the Doctor to find a way to bring Gallifrey & the Time Lords out of the time lock, without bringing the rest of the Time War with them. The "Ultimate Sanction" would then no longer be necessary & all the Time Lords who only supported Rassilon because it was their one chance of survival could give the Doctor a complete new cycle of regenerations in gratitude for getting them out of their dilemma. (I do not think this one is likely to be used.)


 * As I said above, though, this isn't something that can be sneaked past; it has to be confronted directly. It could not have been confronted directly in Let's Kill Hitler, for the reason I gave yesterday: it would fatally undermine the Doctor's character if he allowed it.


 * If there had still been other Time Lords around, it might have been possible to set up a situation where another Time Lord had a very good reason for refusing to regenerate & donated his/her remaining regenerations to the Doctor -- to let him carry on a shared task, say. That can't work now because it would mean first finding a way to introduce another Time Lord, when there are supposed to be none, then setting things up for the donation of regenerations & that's just trying to do too much. (I seem to be 2, just now, but I'm usually 89.) --2.99.198.204talk to me 22:06, October 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I doubt that they are going to deal with the regeneration limit until they have to. The other possibility that they probably will not take would be to say "well, the show's been running for over sixty years now, but we've reached the regeneration limit, so despite our good ratings, let's just end on a highnote and create an amazing series finale where the Doctor dies. After all, no show can last forever, and Doctor Who has already lasted longer than most shows."Icecreamdif ☎  00:38, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Icecreamdif, "I doubt that they are going to deal with the regeneration limit until they have to": Likewise. That's why I put my first option first. I can't think of any very good way it could be tackled at the last minute (when the 13th Doctor is about to be replaced), only after the last minute. That doesn't mean whoever actually has the job of tackling it won't find another, better way.


 * Just ending the show is a possibility & I suspect that depends mainly on unknowable factors like who's actually involved, what else is going on at the time, whether the showrunners have loads of story ideas they still want to make or are feeling burned out & so on.


 * It's also possible that they'll simply decide to ignore the limit without offering an in-universe explanation -- saying, in effect, that's the way it is, get used to it. --2.99.198.204talk to me 01:10, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was enforced by the Time Lords" is popular fanon, but it's boring, it's a cop-out, and Moffat seems to have gone out of his way to make sure no one tries it. (For example, after Let's Kill Hitler, you can't just say regenerations are only finite because the Time Lords impose a limit, because then you have to explain why River's were finite.) Really, it has to be something that happens during the 13th Doctor's life.


 * I think using "donated regenerations" would be cheesy, but there are other ways a Time Lord could be involved. Imagine another survivor who thinks he's the last of the Time Lords, and he's trying to either make himself immortal or create a new race of Time Lords, and in stopping him the Doctor accidentally gains a new cycle of regenerations. Whoever's writing the show at the time will have as long as he wants to set it up, and plenty of other motivation for bringing back a Time Lord or two without pressing the reset button on the War, so that really isn't much of a problem. But we don't really need a Time Lord, either. Some of their technology may still be around; if not, there's the Silence, the Minyans, Mawdryn's people, and who knows who else studying regeneration. And powerful entities who deal in artron energy, like House. Or the White Guardian might show up and reward the Doctor against his will. Or he'll make a deal with one of the Eternals with unexpected consequences. (This last option only if Paul Cornell takes over the series.)


 * I really like 2's idea that, whatever happens in his 13th life, he doesn't know about it, and neither do we. But I think that's because I'm imagining Moffat writing the next season. If I try to imagine what, say, Chris Chibnall, Mark Gatiss, or Phil Ford, Gary Russell would do with the idea… then it's not so good. I can think of some writers who could pull off something as good as (but very different from) the Moffat arc I'm imagining, but none of them seem very likely to be running the show. (Can we lock Neil Gaiman up in a cabin in Maine, hobble him so he can't run away, and force him to write a few seasons?) --70.36.140.233talk to me 03:49, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Gaiman might indeed be the right one to take on the job. As you (70) say & I keep saying myself, how it's written is really the key factor. Even an idea that seems really "cheesy" when stated baldly can work if it's well enough written. The unfortunate converse of that, of course, is that an idea that seems brilliant in outline can be turned into an complete disaster if it's written badly. Think how horrible The Doctor's Wife could have been if the personality of the TARDIS & the dialog between her & the Doctor had been mishandled -- if we'd been sitting there thinking, "No. No. No! That's just not her. She can't be like that!". Gaiman deserved the Hugo. What we need, & would need even without the regeneration limit problem, is one or two more writers of that quality but they're rare & always have been. (I'm back to being 89, instead of 2.) --89.242.66.17talk to me 10:46, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * the main problem with forcing gaiman to write a whole series is that chances are the writing quality will deteriorate. personally, most of my favourite episodes of DW are ons written by moffat during the RTD era.  however, now moffat's taken over, the episodes he writes, although good, aren't nearly as good as they used to be.  but if he could keep up the high quality writing, capturing gaiman might work... and i agree that the success of whatever idea they go with will mostly be determined by the quality of the writing.  if i were the bbc, i would give the episode brief or whatever it is to a few different writers and then choose the best out of the scripts they come up with.  but i'm not the bbc, so, yeah.  but i do think that, if done well, the figuring out the extra regenerations after he's regenerated for the 13th time would be the best way to do it.  Imamadmad  ☎  01:18, October 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Imamadmad, that's a good point. RTD and Moffat have both taken over many of the duties of a traditional script editor, on top of writing half the episodes and being the lead exec and producer. Very few people could pull that off, and Gaiman probably isn't one of them. He'd be a great head writer, but all those extra tasks would get in the way, and either his scripts or everyone else's would suffer. Gatiss, on the other hand, would be a great exec/producer/script editor but a mediocre head writer, especially if he had to do all those jobs at once (and even worse if he gets his wish of playing the 13th Doctor…).


 * Maybe what they need is a strong script editor again (like Bryant, Holmes, Adams, Cartmel, etc.), maybe even sharing in production duties. So you could have, say, Gaiman as head writer/exec, and Gatiss as script editor/producer/exec. Of course there's the danger of a JNT/Saward situation where they each try to do the other guy's job and neglect to do their own… but if they clearly delineate things at the start, they should be able to avoid that. Alternatively, find an existing partnership to hand the show over to. (After all, most decent US shows, and a pretty good number of UK ones—like Sherlock—are run by partnerships.)


 * Anyway, thanks for getting my hopes up about Gaiman so when they give the show to Gary Russell I'll be even more disappointed… --70.36.140.233talk to me 01:51, October 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * The point about Moffat having been a better writer during the RTD era is a good one. Part of that, certainly, is that he's too much else to do now. I think, though, that the most important factor is that everyone, no matter how brilliantly good, needs to have someone else around who can say "No" & make it stick when necessary. The boss doesn't need to be someone who's able to write brilliant -- or even good -- scripts. The boss does need to be someone who's able to recognise which scripts are brilliant & which are not. The boss also needs to be someone who can keep the team functioning as a team -- none of this "I'm not talking to him!" business.


 * There's another quality the boss needs: he/she needs to recognise what he/she is not good at doing & listen to those who are good at it. That's one of the differences between JN-T & RTD. Neither one of them could tell what would make a female character attractive to heterosexual males. JN-T thought he could & insisted on having his ideas followed, which just didn't work. We got Peri, who appeared as a scantily-clad pain in the coccyx. RTD knew full well he couldn't tell & had the sense to listen to others who could, which did work. We got Rose, who showed very little flesh but most viewers could quite easily see why the Doctor fell for her. (I'm 78, this time, instead of 89 or 2.) --78.146.187.111talk to me 11:14, October 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point; there are certainly good examples of people who are good bosses in your sense without being good writers, like Verity Lambert or Peter Bryant. But I think your other point hits the nail on the head. What's rare about RTD and Moffat isn't that they can take on so many roles without their heads exploding, but the fact that they're among the few writers who can be their own boss. Of course they're not perfect at it, but most writers couldn't even begin to work that way. Which is why so few shows work that way. The idea of a head-writer/exec was almost unheard of in 2005 (in the UK; in the US it's common, but only on shows that have a stable of permanent staff writers). Which I think is, ultimately, a better argument than my original that we shouldn't be thinking about Moffat's replacement, singular, as another show-runner in the RTD/Moffat mold.


 * Anyway, we're getting even farther off-topic than usual here; this started off as a discussion of how Let's Kill Hitler might affect the 13-regeneration issue and/or River's final death (if at all), and now it's on "gay men think women=boobs" (not that I don't love that RTD interview—he does an amazing job of making sure nothing he says is actually about JNT and Peri, even though it obviously is…). But it's all still interesting, and you're still making points that make me rethink some ideas, so I'm not complaining. --70.36.140.233talk to me 09:34, October 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's off-topic but, believe it or not, I haven't seen "that RTD interview" & didn't even know such an interview existed. I was going mainly by what I've seen in the episodes themselves, plus comments by people who worked with either JN-T or RTD.


 * Persistent off-topic contributions tend to be a sign that everything that anyone has to say about the topic has already been said. As far as I can see, the on-topic discussion has ended up saying: The scene in Let's Kill Hitler was definitely not intended to address the 12-regeneration limit; a future writer could perhaps use it that way but any future writer would be very foolish to try doing so. (I'm back to being 2 again.) --2.96.17.194talk to me 12:34, October 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, 70, you said earlier, "I really like 2's idea that, whatever happens in his 13th life, he doesn't know about it, and neither do we.": I should have pointed out then that it's not actually my idea. I don't know who originated it but it wasn't me. I've run across several variants of it, including the unworkably trite one in which the 14th Doctor immediately spouts a technobabble "explanation" of why the limit didn't apply after all. That is simply too much like what happened with the very first regeneration. It worked then because the Doctor himself would have known about regeneration, even though Ben & Polly (plus audience) didn't & it didn't contradict anything that had already been established. It wouldn't work again because it would contradict something that has already been established. The only variant I've seen suggested that could be made to work is the one where it's a major surprise to the Doctor, as well as to the audience. --2.96.17.194talk to me 15:32, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

My friend and I have a theory about his regenerations. Our theory is that because the 9th doctor took in the time vortex from Rose this messed with his DNA somehow. This is backed up by the fact that the "vortex blasting out of clothes" effect (or anything close to it) has never been used before. Also since then, any time the Doctor regenerates (or almost regenerates) this effect is used each time. AND he has breathed out "time dust" each time! So maybe this effect has to to with what the time vortex did to him. So in turn maybe when he gets to his 12 regeneration it might be a little different than other timelords. Maybe he will have more? an infinite amount? he'll explode? Who knows? but we think it'll be something interesting BECAUSE of the time vortex. Just a fun theory we have! Discuss... :)


 * PS...Explanations for River and the Master using the same effect: Well, river was only a timelord because she was conceived on the TARDIS so maybe the time vortex effected her DNA that way. The Master's resurrection by the timelords for the time war may have to do with why he regenerates like that. Just a guess. :) VoicesFromTheVortex ☎  17:26, October 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Don't buy it. It makes too many different things have the same effect. And it requires that "it just so happens" that the phenomenon also gives the Doctor additional regenerations. Besides, if suddenly referring back to an event that took place three regenerations previously would be obviously daft (as Icecreamdif pointed out a while ago), suddenly referring back to one that took place five regenerations previously would be unspeakably lunatic. --89.240.246.30talk to me 20:18, October 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * In the classic series, the regeneration effect changed each time, mostly because the effects improved over the years (and in the case of the 6th Doctor's regeneration, it was obviously necessary to cover his face). In the new series though, they have access to CGI, and can basically keep the regenerations looking modern without changing them too much. They have improved the effect a bit since the 9th Doctor's regeneration, but it really makes more sense for the effect to stay consistent anyway.Icecreamdif ☎  02:11, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

it was said i think in confidential that they kept the regeneration effect the same because the first two regens of the revived series were by different people, the first by the doctor and the second by the master, and they wanted it to be obvious to the audience that the same process was happening to each of them. then, there was no point in changing after that, and it would have been more confusing for the audience, so that's why they haven't changed the regen effect. Imamadmad ☎  03:18, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Paradoxically, regenerations have been more frequent in the revived series than in the "classic" series, despite the drastic reduction in the number of Time Lords &c available to regenerate! That in itself is a reason to keep the effects looking the same.

That reason has now been reinforced by the fact that a fair number of people watched The Impossible Astronaut closely enough to post comments in various places, almost immediately after it had aired, saying the regeneration effect in that episode hadn't looked quite right. It was months before we found out there was a good reason for it not looking quite right.

Full marks to those who spotted it, of course, but knowing how closely the thing is examined now that HD & "skip back" are available must make the production team very wary of changing things they don't actually need to change. --89.241.79.102talk to me 04:26, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts guys. It was just a fun theory we had. But calling it "daft" and "lunatic" was pretty rude. Sorry I'm not as knowledgeable about the show as you. Whatever man. Everybody else...thanks for being respectful in your responses. VoicesFromTheVortex ☎  14:41, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * VoicesFromTheVortex: "Daft" & "lunatic" referred to trying to use the theory in the show as a way around the 12-regeneration limit, not to the theory itself. Neither word was intended to be rude. Both were intended to convey why your theory, no matter how logical, couldn't actually be used.


 * Remember that, if you put up a theory for discussion & it can be attacked, it will be attacked. Remember also that it's the theory that's being attacked, not you. Don't take it personally.


 * If (as has happened, from time to time) someone said the same thing about a theory I'd posted, I wouldn't get offended. I'd argue back by explaining why I reckoned the theory wasn't "daft" or "lunatic". If I couldn't find good (that is rational) arguments in favour of the theory, I'd have to accept that it was "daft" and/or "lunatic" & try to come up with something better.


 * As for being respectful: I was assuming that, since you'd chosen to enter the kitchen, you'd be able to stand the heat. Taking it for granted that you can cope might be mistaken but it ain't disrespectful. --89.242.68.132talk to me 16:46, October 11, 2012 (UTC)