In “Turn Left”, it’s implied that if you kill a Time Lord quickly, he won’t have time to regenerate. A Time Lord has also been shown choosing to die rather than regenerate. That suggests that a Time Lord must be aware of his impending death to regenerate, so if you killed one by removing the head or destroying the brain, that would probably do the trick.
Well, doing that biases it towards decreasing. Because obviously an actor is older at the end of a run than the beginning of it. And the longer the run, the more pronounced the effect.
In that case, yes, it tends to go down. Because actors stop doing it later in life than they start doing it - due to pesky linear time and stuff that the character they play is fortunately not limited by.
I mean - using McGann’s age several years* after *he played the role in a single TV movie? That’s just massaging statistics. Same for McCoy.
If they cast a 50 year old, then cancelled the show for 20 years, and then cast a new Doctor who was 60 years old, would you claim it was decreasing because the original actor was now 70?
We don’t actually know that. We saw him die, he started to regenerate, and they they managed to kill him the rest of the way.
We don’t know if a bullet would achieve the same thing.
-Joe
Massaged in YOUR FAVOUR, because I called that one ‘unknown’.
The numbers were ALSO massaged in your favour by calling the Troughton/Pertwee and C Baker/McCoy regenerations ‘Holding’, rather than ‘Up’ and ‘Down’, respectively, as that puts them both in the ‘not down’ category, rather than one in each.
It’s utterly absurd to compare starting ages, since they don’t replace them at the start of their tenure, they replace them at the end. Because replacing them at the start of their tenure is logically impossible, even taking time travel into account, because, hey, his next incarnation can only come after the previous one in his own personal timeline.
Well, not my favour. I don’t really care; I just happen to disagree with your choice of methodology.
I don’t think it is. I think it’s utterly absurd to compare ending ages to starting ages.
Whaddya gonna do? Do we really care?
Davies said it isn’t canon, but a joke. He had hoped to make it canon, but it didn’t work.
For one thing, it makes a certain plot about the Master not make a lick of sense, seeing as the Master had performed his 12th regeneration and was deteriorating. If metacrisis doctor counts as a regenerations (and it should), then the next one should do the same for the Doctor. The fans pretty much demand it.
We do no such thing.
sachertorte, I don’t know if you realised, when you posted your questions, that you’d be igniting an abstruse squabble drawing on the 47-year canon of a show that explicitly has no canon. I guess you do now.
Anything else we can help you with?
I suspect the TARDIS is programmed to track down Susan once that happens.
Not so. The 7th Doctor was shot with an MG and that started the process of him becoming #8…
I wouldn’t say absolutely none. As a newbie, I was confused by the death/transformation. I thought it was kind of weak since Rose was going to die, but then by his switcheroo the end effect looked like basically nothing. Rose is alive. He is still the Doctor and not dead. Why not open up the TARDIS all the time when you are in a jam? Apparently, there was a consequence, it was just obscured by my not knowing the history of the character.
Thanks for the summaries. Like most SciFi there is a bunch of handwaving, but it is handwaving with a purpose.
One Real World reason for the “progression”: The show can continue even if the actor playing The Doctor suffers from declining health–as happened to The First Doctor. Or if he doesn’t want to be “typecast.” They apparently chose Christopher Eccleston to revive the role because he was already a well-respected actor, but he chose to stay for only one season.
Have The Doctors always been getting younger? I’m not sure, but the current Doctor is the youngest one yet. Many of us wondered when Matt Smith was cast. But he’s done an excellent job.
Absolutely I would, assuming that the show is supposed to be taking place 20 years later, which might not be a good assumption.
For example, Star Trek TOS came out in 1966. TNG came out in 1987. That’s 21 years later. So it would make sense to state that TNG is set 21 years later than TOS. But instead it’s set 100 years later. However, Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out in 1979, and it’s supposed to be set about a decade after TOS, as the characters have clearly aged and changed.
Of course, when you’ve got a time machine that you use every day, it’s hard to say how many subjective years the Doctor is supposed to have experienced since the first Doctor in 1963. However, it would make perfect sense for the Doctor to have experienced 48 years on his personal timeline. If Hartnell was 55 in 1963, the Doctor should look about 103 years old by now. Instead he looks about 28. Therefore, he de-ages during regeneration. QED.
Was there ever an attempt to explain Romana’s ability to “try out” different bodies when she went through her regeneration?
This is certainly not how it works, though. The first reference we have for the Doctor’s age is in 1967’s Tomb of the Cybermen, when the second Doctor says he’s 450 Earth years old. By the time of The Ribos Operation in 1978, the fourth Doctor’s 759 (though he claims 756). In Revelation of the Daleks, broadcast in 1985, the sixth Doctor is 900, but two years later in Time and the Rani, the seventh Doctor gave his age as 953.
The ninth Doctor apparently adjusted his age down again to a youthful 900, but that might just be his vanity again (though he’s been pretty consistent with it since).
He may (generally speaking) regenerate into a younger looking body, but he’s clearly not ageing on a one-to-one basis with reality.
On the show, you mean? No, of course not. 
That’s assuming that Time Lord incarnations age at the same rate as human bodies, if they age at all. Remember, the Doctor isn’t some human who figured out how to regenerate - he’s an alien life form. The fact that humans superficially resemble Time Lords is purely coincidential.