The dialogue, in full context, as I quoted before:
"I was you, or you were me" can be read both ways, either as the Curator being a later version of the Doctor, or the Doctor being a later version of the Curator. And each of those can also flip either way depending on context - whether you interpret it as the Curator talking from the Doctor's perspective, or his own.
Yes, it can be read both ways but it can't be read in any way in which they are not both the Doctor. Ergo, the Curator is the Doctor.
Since we already know that the fourth Doctor never grew to look as old as the Curator and since he has already indicated knowledge of the result of the Time War which the fourth Doctor clearly wouldn't have done and since he also said "in years to come you might find yourself revisiting a few faces" which clearly implies that the revisting of old faces would be in the the 11th's future, there really is no doubt at all over which way to read that line.
How long have you been watching Doctor Who? until it is explicit onscreen it is not resolved and the number of people that disagree with you who are at least open to other options show it wasn't clear cut.
I have been watching Doctor Who and participating in these forums long enough to know that just because people argue something doesn't mean they are not often completely misguided in doing so
In this case, it's just simple language comprehension and logic, as far as I can see. There is really no other rational explanation for the scene.
So many people on this forum stated that there was no confusion, that Tenants regeneration in Stolen earth didn't count,. no debate! they were wrong but had Moffat been in a different mood when he wrote TOTD they may have been right.
The show never tried to say one way or another whether it was a regeneration at the time. I'm not sure I even thought about the question one way or the other although, if I had, I suspect I would have assumed it was a regeneration. In any case I would never have insisted that my opinion was the only interpretation. In this case, however, I do insist that because I can see no other way to interpret that scene. Can you explain the dialogue some other way? Because I don't think anyone has successfully done so, yet.
There is plenty of ambiguity in the scene and it is deliberately so, it was a gift to fans to enjoy Tom Baker again and give us plenty to talk about. lets enjoy the debate and the madcap theories without trying to get one up or angry because people don't see what you see.
I am not trying to get one up and I'm more incredulous than angry. I see no ambiguity whatsoever.
It's just a cameo! It's just a nice way they could fit Tom Baker, as the oldest surviving Doctor, into the Anniversary special without having to make him a completely different character or having to explain it with loads of other episodes. It's a knowing wink to the audience, nothing more.
He was The Doctor, "retired". It was clear as day. I don't think it will ever be expanded upon or we'll ever see Tom in the show again, but the intent of the scene was not remotely ambiguous.
Yes, it can be read both ways but it can't be read in any way in which they are not both the Doctor. Ergo, the Curator is the Doctor.
Apart from the way in which he deliberately goes out of his way to not say that he is?
The Watcher - is he the Doctor or not? The Valeyard? The Meta-Crisis Doctor? The Goo Doctor? Perhaps they are the Doctor, perhaps they are not. Perhaps they are aspects of his personality, perhaps they are copies, perhaps they are psychic echoes, or future projections, or alternate dimensions counterparts.
Revisiting a few friends doesn't mean I'm going to become them.
there really is no doubt at all over which way to read that line.
Yes, it can be read both ways but it can't be read in any way in which they are not both the Doctor. Ergo, the Curator is the Doctor.
That depends on whether or not you think the Curator was telling the truth. If you assume he was lying (or maybe even mistaken about his own identity) then it's very easy to read it in ways in which he isn't the Doctor...
That depends on whether or not you think the Curator was telling the truth. If you assume he was lying (or maybe even mistaken about his own identity) then it's very easy to read it in ways in which he isn't the Doctor...
if he wasn't the doctor then that would mean there's some guy walking around who look's exactly like one of the doctor's previous body's aged a bit, who somehow know's all about galifrey, and the fact that the doctor now has 'a lot to do' all by chance. It just dosen't make sense that he could be anything other than the future doctor re-using a past face, and he clearly indicated such in what he said.
considering moffat's dialogue can often be confusing or unclear, with thing's not alway's fully explained, this has to be one of the clearest thing's he's ever written in my opinion
considering moffat's dialogue can often be confusing or unclear, with thing's not alway's fully explained, this has to be one of the clearest thing's he's ever written in my opinion
Exactly. I mean, yes, you could ascribe all sorts of unlikely scenarios to explain things in a different way but why would you?
You may as well claim that David Tennant wasn't playing the tenth Doctor because he may just have been some guy who looked like the tenth Doctor but who was either lying or thought that he was the tenth Doctor when actually he was a construct created by the Moment!
Oh, and so were the 11th Doctor and Clara, of course
These things might be possible in a show like Doctor Who but it's really ridiculous to even entertain the notion. Which is basically how I view the idea that the Curator is anything other than a future Doctor. It's possible but everything pointed to him being a future Doctor and the explanation for him not being would have to be so nonsensically convoluted as to be not worth considering.
if he wasn't the doctor then that would mean there's some guy walking around who look's exactly like one of the doctor's previous body's aged a bit, who somehow know's all about galifrey, and the fact that the doctor now has 'a lot to do' all by chance. It just dosen't make sense that he could be anything other than the future doctor re-using a past face, and he clearly indicated such in what he said.
considering moffat's dialogue can often be confusing or unclear, with thing's not alway's fully explained, this has to be one of the clearest thing's he's ever written in my opinion
I read the scene as he is a future doctor but there is plenty of room for ambiguity should anyone ever choose to revisit the concept and Tom is willing and able to reprise his role. It's hardly nonsensically convoluted in the realms of Doctor Who to consider that there could well be another Timelord wandering around with a face the same as the Fourth Doctors, after all Princess Astra looked remarkably similar to Romana II, Commander Maxil bared an uncanny resemblance to the Sixth Doctor and the Twelfth Doctor looks like the spitting image of Caecilius and John Frobisher.
Indeed if Moffat and RTD have an idea for the theme of where the Twelfth Doctors face came from it may all tie in and provide other possibilities.
If there is enough ambiguity then any future writer can change the interpretation of a scene or sequence of events. After all, until recently Gallifrey was definitely destroyed in the Time War and the War Doctor didn't even exist until Moffat revisited a story from RTD's era.
Do you think that Baker's curator will have any importance in the following seasons? Will his identity be explained? Would you like it to be explained or to stay as a mystery?
Or is he just fan pleasing 50th anniversary suprise cameo and nothing more?
As for what he said, do you think his words 'you might find yourself revisiting a few, but just the old favorites' says something about following seasons? Is he the last Doctor who knows everything about Doctor's future?
As much as I would love to see Tom Baker in Doctor Who again, I think he was put in the 50th simply to add a surprise.
No and I don't think it ever should.
As for people who seem to think Tom Baker's character wasn't ambiguous, you need to stop taking things too literally and at face value.
I have to agree with those who believe it's clear as day that the Curator was a future Doctor. Everything in the scene was strongly suggesting it and there's no logical explanation otherwise. I really can't see how you could draw another conclusion without deliberately ignoring a lot of the scene.
Really I don't think its something that needs to be over analysed or explained any more. It was a lovely treat for the fans that gave us the first perfect ending of two for the anniversary (the other being the group shot at the very end). Of course in true Moffat fashion it had a degree of ambiguity and would allow future writers to explore the idea that the Doctor can or will revisit certain regenerations but beyond that its best enjoyed for what it was. I very much doubt we will see Tom Baker in Doctor Who again and so it was a beautifully poignant moment.
Ultimately I think it was intended to be a tribute to the past and a great moment for fans. But Moffat made sure to include a line or two that meant it wasn't completely lacking in sense.
if he wasn't the doctor then that would mean there's some guy walking around who look's exactly like one of the doctor's previous body's aged a bit,
The Abbot of Amboise, Salamander, Maxil, Lucius Caecilius Iucundus, and John Frobisher all looked exactly one of the Doctor's bodies. The ones who didn't die in their stories probably went on to look like the Doctor aged a bit. Why should one more lookalike be a problem?
It just dosen't make sense that he could be anything other than the future doctor re-using a past face, and he clearly indicated such in what he said.
considering moffat's dialogue can often be confusing or unclear, with thing's not alway's fully explained, this has to be one of the clearest thing's he's ever written in my opinion
Again, you're assuming the Curator was telling the truth. Why? If someone says something that sounds just plain wrong, then the natural instinct is to assume they're mistaken or lying. You don't blindly accept it without further evidence.
And the idea of an old Tom Baker Doctor is just plain wrong. The thing that made his Doctor the greatest ever was his energy. His unique, wonderful, anarchic energy. I just can't accept the idea of his Doctor losing all that and becoming an old-fart member of the establishment. Hartnell or Pertwee, yes. Colin Baker, maybe. But not Tom.
It's gonna take a lot more than a few throwaway lines of dialogue to convince me!
I do think some things are best left as a bit of a mystery. My own opinion is that it is a future Doctor. The phrase he uses as visiting old favourites makes me think that sometime in the distant future the Doctor may have some control of his regenerations and choose his body much like Romana could.
I do think some things are best left as a bit of a mystery. My own opinion is that it is a future Doctor. The phrase he uses as visiting old favourites makes me think that sometime in the distant future the Doctor may have some control of his regenerations and choose his body much like Romana could.
That's even worse. It's bad enough Moffat trying to ruin our memory of Tom Baker's Doctor by wanting to make him a dull old fart working in a museum, but are you seriously suggesting the Doctor himself deliberately would do that to his own greatest incarnation!?!
That's even worse. It's bad enough Moffat trying to ruin our memory of Tom Baker's Doctor by wanting to make him a dull old fart working in a museum, but are you seriously suggesting the Doctor himself deliberately would do that to his own greatest incarnation!?!
My take on it was that he wasn't the Fourth Doctor as such but rather a future incarnation that had merely chosen the face of the Fourth Doctor. He may have chosen a younger version of the face anyway and just aged and retired to become a curator, in much the same way that 11 hung around on Trenzalore and became old.
Comments
Yes, it can be read both ways but it can't be read in any way in which they are not both the Doctor. Ergo, the Curator is the Doctor.
Since we already know that the fourth Doctor never grew to look as old as the Curator and since he has already indicated knowledge of the result of the Time War which the fourth Doctor clearly wouldn't have done and since he also said "in years to come you might find yourself revisiting a few faces" which clearly implies that the revisting of old faces would be in the the 11th's future, there really is no doubt at all over which way to read that line.
I have been watching Doctor Who and participating in these forums long enough to know that just because people argue something doesn't mean they are not often completely misguided in doing so
In this case, it's just simple language comprehension and logic, as far as I can see. There is really no other rational explanation for the scene.
The show never tried to say one way or another whether it was a regeneration at the time. I'm not sure I even thought about the question one way or the other although, if I had, I suspect I would have assumed it was a regeneration. In any case I would never have insisted that my opinion was the only interpretation. In this case, however, I do insist that because I can see no other way to interpret that scene. Can you explain the dialogue some other way? Because I don't think anyone has successfully done so, yet.
I am not trying to get one up and I'm more incredulous than angry. I see no ambiguity whatsoever.
The Watcher - is he the Doctor or not? The Valeyard? The Meta-Crisis Doctor? The Goo Doctor? Perhaps they are the Doctor, perhaps they are not. Perhaps they are aspects of his personality, perhaps they are copies, perhaps they are psychic echoes, or future projections, or alternate dimensions counterparts.
Revisiting a few friends doesn't mean I'm going to become them.
On the contrary - there really is no certainty.
I actually really don't want it to be either.
That depends on whether or not you think the Curator was telling the truth. If you assume he was lying (or maybe even mistaken about his own identity) then it's very easy to read it in ways in which he isn't the Doctor...
Now now, there's no need to bring religion into this.
Oops. Now that has to be the best typo I've ever made!
considering moffat's dialogue can often be confusing or unclear, with thing's not alway's fully explained, this has to be one of the clearest thing's he's ever written in my opinion
Exactly. I mean, yes, you could ascribe all sorts of unlikely scenarios to explain things in a different way but why would you?
You may as well claim that David Tennant wasn't playing the tenth Doctor because he may just have been some guy who looked like the tenth Doctor but who was either lying or thought that he was the tenth Doctor when actually he was a construct created by the Moment!
Oh, and so were the 11th Doctor and Clara, of course
These things might be possible in a show like Doctor Who but it's really ridiculous to even entertain the notion. Which is basically how I view the idea that the Curator is anything other than a future Doctor. It's possible but everything pointed to him being a future Doctor and the explanation for him not being would have to be so nonsensically convoluted as to be not worth considering.
IMO.
I read the scene as he is a future doctor but there is plenty of room for ambiguity should anyone ever choose to revisit the concept and Tom is willing and able to reprise his role. It's hardly nonsensically convoluted in the realms of Doctor Who to consider that there could well be another Timelord wandering around with a face the same as the Fourth Doctors, after all Princess Astra looked remarkably similar to Romana II, Commander Maxil bared an uncanny resemblance to the Sixth Doctor and the Twelfth Doctor looks like the spitting image of Caecilius and John Frobisher.
Indeed if Moffat and RTD have an idea for the theme of where the Twelfth Doctors face came from it may all tie in and provide other possibilities.
If there is enough ambiguity then any future writer can change the interpretation of a scene or sequence of events. After all, until recently Gallifrey was definitely destroyed in the Time War and the War Doctor didn't even exist until Moffat revisited a story from RTD's era.
As much as I would love to see Tom Baker in Doctor Who again, I think he was put in the 50th simply to add a surprise.
Yes.
Let's be fair to Tom, he's an older gent and he's like the Pope of Dr Who.
Only to wheeled out occasionally, to wave at the crowd, but otherwise we should just leave him be.
So answer to the original question....no. Well, I doubt it and personally hope not. it was enough to see Tom and Matt sharing a screen. Lovely moment.
As for people who seem to think Tom Baker's character wasn't ambiguous, you need to stop taking things too literally and at face value.
Ultimately I think it was intended to be a tribute to the past and a great moment for fans. But Moffat made sure to include a line or two that meant it wasn't completely lacking in sense.
The Abbot of Amboise, Salamander, Maxil, Lucius Caecilius Iucundus, and John Frobisher all looked exactly one of the Doctor's bodies. The ones who didn't die in their stories probably went on to look like the Doctor aged a bit. Why should one more lookalike be a problem?
If TotD is anything to go by, most of the universe knows about Gallifrey.
Who said anything about by chance? Whoever he is, he may have chosen that face deliberately to help gain the Doctor's trust.
Again, you're assuming the Curator was telling the truth. Why? If someone says something that sounds just plain wrong, then the natural instinct is to assume they're mistaken or lying. You don't blindly accept it without further evidence.
And the idea of an old Tom Baker Doctor is just plain wrong. The thing that made his Doctor the greatest ever was his energy. His unique, wonderful, anarchic energy. I just can't accept the idea of his Doctor losing all that and becoming an old-fart member of the establishment. Hartnell or Pertwee, yes. Colin Baker, maybe. But not Tom.
It's gonna take a lot more than a few throwaway lines of dialogue to convince me!
I have no issues with Tom returning if the story calls for it but I think TB will only return to DW via the audio adventures.
And voila: http://www.bigfinish.com/News/v/doctor-who-philip-hinchcliffe-presents-update
That's even worse. It's bad enough Moffat trying to ruin our memory of Tom Baker's Doctor by wanting to make him a dull old fart working in a museum, but are you seriously suggesting the Doctor himself deliberately would do that to his own greatest incarnation!?!
My take on it was that he wasn't the Fourth Doctor as such but rather a future incarnation that had merely chosen the face of the Fourth Doctor. He may have chosen a younger version of the face anyway and just aged and retired to become a curator, in much the same way that 11 hung around on Trenzalore and became old.