Is Jack in line for a return? Would love to see him back after so many series away, he was due to return in series 6 but coudlnt, so would love to see him back more than most characters. With his introduction do you think the likeness the 12th doctor has with John Frobisher and the guy in the Fires of Pompei will be answered? As we know there is a explanation in the works.

The First Doctor bore an uncanny resemblance to the Abbot of Amboise, the Second Doctor bore an uncanny resemblance to Salamander and the Sixth Doctor bore an uncanny resemblance to Commander Maxil. It was never explained why, it just was, so why do they have to explain why the Twelfth Doctor bears an uncanny resemblance to this Roman chap from the "Fires Of Pompeii" or John Frobisher? It's just the same actor playing more than one role, it shouldn't be a big deal.

Plus the Doctor never commented on Harry Sullivan, Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart or Amy Pond looking familiar when he met them. Nor did he find it odd to meet people who looked an awful lot like Barbara Wright and Sara Kingdom.

Romana 2, Martha Jones and Gwen Cooper were all compared to the actresses' previous characters, though.

I don't know why this issue keeps cropping up. I agree with Johnny, why does it have to be explained?

Also agree about the other actors who've played more than one part in the show. I mean, Philip Madoc, Michael Sheard, Bernard Horsfall, all of them have played at least four parts between them, do we need an explanation for all of them?

And what about Julian Glover? Shall we really investigate and see what possible connection there is between Richard The Lionheart, King Of England in The Crusade and Scaroth, Last of The Jagaroth in City Of Death?!!!!!

For myself, it isnt a problem, I am only wandering how it will be explained as we have been told it WILL be explained.
Quote from SM:

"I remember Russell [T Davies] told me that he had a big old plan as to why there were two Peter Capaldis in the Who universe: one in "Pompeii" and one in Torchwood. When I cast Peter and Russell got in touch to say how pleased he was, I said, ‘Okay, what was your theory and does it still work?” and he said, ‘Yes it does. Here it is…"[8]

These were back when people didn't have the chance to watch the episodes over and over again so the audience would have most likely forgotten, so no explanation needed.

I'd prefer it if the likeness wasn't pointed out, it was annoying when the Doctor mentioned the resemblance of Gwen & Gwenyth and even more annoying was Martha's identical cousin.

From the thread title I was wondering why Capaldi looked like a penguin

I didn't know there was another Frobisher!

I always held onto the theory that regeneration somehow dips into the timestream and pulls out ready-made images of people for use as a template. Hence all the other lookalikes that we've seen.

I don't mind if it's not explained but an explanation would be cool. Another bit of Time Lord Lore for the fans to regale the non-fans with

Of course I'm sure it won't explain how so many of the people around the Doctor every week used to look like Terry Walsh. Sometimes three different people in the same story

This. it 'keeps coming up', because we have been told there is definitely going to be an explanation.

no we haven't been told there will definitely be an explanation.

What is the above quote posted by jmsspr93, which we've all seen before if not confirmation. If it wasn't going to be explained they'd be sweeping it under the carpet so to speak by not mentioning it at all, you certainly wouldn't have Moffat himself talking about asking Russell for inspiration for an intended explanation

I would be disappointed if they don't use this potential.

For example, they could make Fires of Pompeii from Capaldi's POV (maybe with chameleon arch). It would be great opportunity to connect Tennant, Capaldi, Amy, Donna and Clara (or any other Capaldi's companion). Maybe for 10th anniversary of NuWho.

I've seen the interview where that quote is taken from. At no point does Moffat confirm or say they are definitely going to explain it. Watch the interview again. Not saying it wont happen. Just that its incorrect for you to say they have confirmed it will. They haven't.

But didn't both John Smith and Professor Yana have a load of dreams/flashbacks to their Time Lord lives? Twelve would need a new leak-proof Chameleon Arch to transform into Caecilius and casually interact with his former self.

Okay, so he at no point has said the word 'definitely' but it still seem's to me that is basically the most he can go to confirming it without physically standing on a rooftop shouting 'I shall give an explanation!'. I acknowledge that it's not official confirming, but I think it's unofficial confirming. As I say, if they weren't going to explain it, I doubt he'd talk about it at all.

Who said Caecilius didn't? That's what we could see in new episode from his POV.

Amazing idea for covering fires of pompeii, and would love to see it, but my only problem is it wouldn't do anything to explain frobisher. In the writers tale russell say's in his mind frobisher is a descendant of Caecilius so for it to completely explain away both is for Caecilius to be explained in such a way that he was a real person still around to procreate afterwards. If they did do your idea though it would be so cool that it would probably be worth the trade off of never having frobisher explained

Snap, I would love Frobisher to appear on the TV show (assuming that they could do him justice)

It's a shame that Frobisher never visited Cardiff in Children of Earth, or else I'd suspect there would be a link to The Rift. There was also a rift created in The Fires of Pompeii after all.

The fact they are linked still makes it visable. Would be easily done to include a scene where he did.
They dont really use Cardiff any more do they? I mean they may still film there but I remember in the first 3-4 series of the reboot they were there often

It doesn't really confirm, officially or unofficially, that it will be acknowledged in the show, though. It just confirms that Moffat is being quizzed over the point by journalists (as expected) , that he is aware that Capaldi has been in the show before, that he's aware fans talk about such things and that he's had an amusing little chat with RTD about it.

RTD's explanation may be nothing more than a little in-joke that he thought made an amusing connection between the characters, but had no intention of making a canon part of the story. After all, he didn't bother to make the connection official when Capaldi made his second appearance under his watch.

All this interview tells us is that Moffat was aware that RTD had an idea in his head of how to link them and asked him about it. It doesn't suggest that this idea will be making it on to the screen. In fact, it would be a pointless exercise in fan-service if they do. There is no need for them to waste precious screen time to tie the Doctor's new appearance to a bit-character who appeared in the show eight years ago, or to a character who appeared in a completely different spinoff show.

For fans, it might be a fun little nod. For most people, they'll just start scratching their heads wondering who these other characters being referenced are. The only people who really care about this are the slightly-too-obsessed ones who need every continuity hole neatly explained and tied up with a bow - and this isn't a plot-point that is big enough to need explaining.

Now maybe I'm wrong and maybe they'll decide to address it anyway. But there's no pressing need to and this interview offers no good reason to assume that they are going to.

They've shown before they can write thing's in such a way as to please fan's without confusing casual viewers. Most of day of the doctor is proof of this. If written well they can give a light explanation without casual viewers even noticing.

I say again why would he tell the amusing anecdote about discussing the explanation will Russell if he wasn't planning to do one. Whether or not he was pressured, he's often a master at dodging awkward question's or being vague when asked, if it's something he can't answer or is uncomfortable answering so I would expect that if he wasn't going to address it, when asked he would have just said that it the past appearances didn't matter or that he hadn't really decided whether to say anything on the subject, but instead he came out with a little story about how he'd been gleaming information from Russell on his idea's for the explanation. Why spend time asking for help on something which you have no intention of doing, then tell the media that you've done so, I just can't see it. Of course none of us can say anything 100%, but i'd be very, very surprised if it didn't get explained in one way or another.

sorry but you're taking things from the interview that aren't there. He didn't ask RTD for help. By all accounts they had a brief chat about it which is of course going to happen because of the history. This doesn't equate to them planning a plot. RTD had a vague idea. He shared it with Moffat. That's it. That's all.

Moffat is indeed a master of misdirection. He likes to keep things secret. As such I think the fact hes spoken about this already makes it less likely to happen as its the kind of thing he would keep under his hat as a surprise rather than blab it the planning stages. Of course it might be explained. But up thread you said it was definitely confirmed as happening. This was false. Far from it.

I conceed that the word 'definitely' was maybe a little far, but in my opinion, even talking in this way was, for me at least, a sort of unofficial confirmation that they were going to deal with it in some way. If he had no intention of an explanation, then it would be completely irrelevant to anything and I believe he would say such. If I were him and I had no intention of explaining it in any way I would just say that it dosen't matter that he's been in it before, quote the fact's about other doctor's such as colin baker appearing beforehand, and move on. He may be a master of misdirection, but what could he possibly gain by making people think that he is going to explain something when he has no intention of doing so? Surely that would just leave him open to backlash when he didn't explain it.

For the record, I'm with doctor blue box, here. It makes no sense to me that he would have said what he said if he had no intention of following through. Anything's possible but, for me, the probability is that the issue will be addressed.

I agree- I think because Moffat says he lies people assume everything he says is false, but thats not the case, if there's one thing I've learnt from the 2013 specials is that Moffat plays the audience- a lie here, a snippet of the truth there so then we don't know what to believe