I’ve recently watched season one of the recent Doctor Who incarnation. I’d been superficially aware of previous Doctor Who shows from PBS, but was too young to pay much attention to them. At the end of this first season The Doctor “dies?” or something.
WTF happened and who is this new Doctor who is the same but isn’t?
If anyone is up for it I would also like an explanation for the literal deus ex machina that is the TARDIS.
I post this question out of curiosity, not criticism.
He regenerates. It’s kind of like immediate reincarnation, only he comes back as a slightly younger self and retains his memories. From what I understand (I’ve only seen the first season of NuWho too, but I’ve read wiki articles), that bit at the end of season 1 is the first time he’s regenerated on-screen.
The idea for a while is that he only has 12 ‘lives’, as it were, and they’re on the 11th incarnation of the Doctor now. I don’t know if they’ll adhere to that bit of canon or explain it away when it becomes inconvenient in the near future.
TARDIS-Time And Relative Dimensions In Space.
The TARDIS is a sentient time-space vehicle that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside. The Doctor operates an older Type 40 model with a supposedly broken “chameleon circuit”(which is supposed to allow the vehicle to blend in with its environment) that causes it to look like a 60’s British police call box.
TARDIS-Time And Relative Dimensions In Space.
The TARDIS is a sentient time-space vehicle that is larger on the inside than it is on the outside. The Doctor operates an older Type 40 model with a supposedly broken “chameleon circuit”(which is supposed to allow the vehicle to blend in with its environment) that causes it to look like a 60’s British police call box.
The current gimmick is if you “kill” the Doctor before he regenerates then he dies forever. The current shows writer came up with this gem.
Shoot him once. He staggers around a bit, sparkles and has flashes of light. Then he’s a new guy. Good as new.
But, shoot him a couple times while he’s sparkling and he’s dead. Stick a fork in him dead. So, you should always use a machine gun to kill Time Lords permanently.
No, we’ve only missed seeing two regenerations on-screen: from the second Doctor (Patrick Troughton) to the third (Jon Pertwee) which happened between the sixth season in 1969 and the seventh season in 1970, and from the eighth (Paul McGann) to the ninth (Christopher Eccleston) which came somewhere between the 1996 TV movie and the beginning of the new series.
The end of the first series of the new Doctor Who was the first time we’ve seen him regenerate while standing up: all previous regenerations, since the first in 1966, took place while the Doctor was lying in a state of collapse.
I need to get started on Season 2. I waded through Season 1 so I’d have the necessary background to enjoy Tennant’s Doctor, and I haven’t bothered to see a single episode with him yet (aside from the end of Season 1). Though I have to admit Eccleston wasn’t bad; just that Tennant is that much better as I understand it.
He’s done it loads of times on screen. IIRC only one actor refused to reprise his role for a regeneration scene, and one wasn’t used to introduce Eccleston.
They’ve already dismissed it in the Sarah Jane Adventures in one of the eps where the Doctor guest starred.
The popular consensus (although it’s never been stated onscreen) is that the 12 regen limit was a legal one imposed by the Time Lords. Since he’s now the last of the Time Lords, there’s nobody to enforce it - and nobody knows what the natural, biological limit is.
Suffice it to say, they won’t cancel a massively popular show because of it.
I believe the regeneration limit was set by the Time Lord Rassilon via one of his many modestly named devices-probably the Codpiece of Rassilon or somesuch. Now that the homeplanet Gallifrey is gone, the limit is supposed kaput.
The very first regeneration, in 1963, between One and Two is shown - they fade between the faces, slightly overexposing the film in the middle of the process. 2-3 is an odd case of a forced regeneration, and they don’t show the actual change, just the start of the process and Three exiting the TARDIS afterward. 3-4 and 4-5 were simple fades from one face to the next. 5-6 is arguable, since there’s a weird effect that hides the actual change. 6-7 is another odd case, since Colin Baker didn’t return to film the regeneration, but they showed it - they just obscured the Doctor’s face with a blur/lighting effect until fading from the curly wig Sylvester McCoy was wearing to represent Six to his own hair. 7-8 had lightning effects and morphed McCoy’s face into Paul McGann’s (accompanied by McCoy making weird faces - aided by the computer effects, from the look of it). 8-9 wasn’t shown at all. 9-10 and 10-11…well, we know them, yes?
Also, some meta-story background on the Regnerations - they originally introduced the idea because William Hartnell, who played the First Doctor was in ill health and had to retire. (He’s reportedly the one who came up with the idea, though I don’t think that’s ever been confirmed.) The original idea was that he’d used the TARDIS to de-age himself (from elderly to middle aged), to explain how Patrick Troughton took over. The second change, from Troughton to Jon Pertwee was simply referred to as ‘changing his appearance’, and accompanied an exile to Earth. It wasn’t until Pertwee handed the job over to Tom Baker that they called it a Regeneration - this is also the first time it’s shown to happen without outside intervention.
About the de-aging - Pertwee is actually 8 months older than Troughton, Colin Baker about 8 years older than Davison… The other changes are all downward - 9 years from Hartnell to Troughton, 14 from Pertwee to T Baker, 17 from him to Davison, 1 from C Baker to McCoy, 16 more to McGann, 4 years to Eccleston, 7 to Tennant, 12 to Smith.
In-universe, however, you can assume that regeneration doesn’t actually physically age the Doctor - it either holds him in place, or deages him. Which works, well enough, with their appearances - there’s enough variance in appearance, irrespective of their actual ages, that the progression works - I’d have never said Troughton and Pertwee were so close in age, nor that Pertwee was the older, for instance, nor Tom Baker quite so much younger than Pertwee (Troughton and Baker both looked rather older than they were during their tenures…Baker’s aged into his face, since, IMO.) Davison to Colin Baker is the only hiccup, here - Davison I wouldn’t have called, during his run, as out of his 20s (he was 30 or 31 when he started, 32 or 33 when he finished, depending when they filmed the series)…Baker…he looked every bit his 40 years.
No, it doesn’t. The actor’s age only goes up twice - from Troughton to Pertwee - not quite 1 year, not 4 - and from Davison to Colin Baker - 8 years, not 11.
The actors don’t stop ageing when they take the roles, so each start age has to be compared to the predecessor’s ending age.
56 year old William Hartnell was replaced with 46 year old Patrick Troughton. (Down.)
Troughton at 49 was replaced with 50 year old Jon Pertwee. (Up, but barely.)
Pertwee at 55 was replaced with 40 year old Tom Baker. (Down.)
Baker, at 47 was replaced by 30 year old Peter Davison. (Down.)
Davison, at 33 was replaced by 40 year old Colin Baker. (Up.)
Baker, at 42 was replaced by 41 year old Sylvester McCoy. (Down. Barely.)
McCoy, at 53 was replaced by 37 year old Paul McGann. (Down.)
McGann was 46 when he was replaced (offscreen) by 41 year old Christopher Eccleston. (Let’s call it an ‘unknown’ as it was offscreen.)
Eccleston was 42 when he was replaced by 35 year old David Tennant. (Down.)
Tennant was 39 years old when replaced by 27 year old Matt Smith. (Down.)
All ages approximate, as I don’t known when each series/film was recorded, relative to the birthdays of the actors. But none are wrong by more than a year, and I have actually confirmed the birth orders, so even if the numerical ages aren’t exact, the birth order is correct.