There is no ambiguity over the identity of the Curator because there was no such character as "The Curator" in The Day of the Doctor. Every speaking role in an episode needs to be credited. Tom Baker was only credited as the Doctor.

"The Curator" simply does not exist as a separate character.

Just because he wasn't listed in the credits it does not mean that the Curator is automatically the Doctor.

There was a credit to "voice over artist" it doesn't mean that person wasn't playing the 1st Doctor.

The identity of the Curator was left deliberately ambiguous.


Edit

and whilst I'm here...


Bill Nighy wasn't credited in Vincent And The Doctor

Not true - many cameo roles are uncredited. Tom Baker was The Doctor on at least two cases elsewhere in the episode, he could be playing the same role or a different one.

To take another example, was Matt Smith credited as both The Doctor and The Ganger Doctor in The Almost People? For all we know the curator could be the ganger Doctor, after all he did have some control over his form, and access to all the old memories.

Because it was left deliberately ambiguous.

Hence your assertions are baseless and might be completely wrong. We may never know either way.

And isn't that wonderful? Even the Doctor himself loves it when there are things he doesn't know.

Indeed — I assumed this thread would be along the lines of people not needing to be confused because there's nothing complicated to understand. We specifically weren't meant to know. It was a piece of fun.

I think that to most, what was said it that scene made it pretty obvious that he couldn't be anything other than the future doctor, but I also think that those who for some reason choose to believe anything otherwise will not be convinced by anything said to them no matter what.

Does everything really need explaining, cant we just enjoy and then fondly remember those 'squee' moments?!?

Indeed. There was no real ambiguity in that scene.

I suspect even if the Curator had said "I am actually a future incarnation of you, Doctor.", some people would still shake their heads and deny the bleeding obvious.

On the contrary, it strongly implied that he was a future Doctor while leaving the door open to other possibilities — all the more so when you consider how often the programme states explicitly that something will happen, but then it doesn't. Trenzalore was where no person can fail to answer, wasn't it?

The full scene, for discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9yJrrm2tk

And vice versa.

But remember, ambiguity is not denial. Just because something presented as a certainty can be disbelieved, it doesn't mean that something presented as an uncertainty can be interpreted as a fact.

True. and with the fact that he had an identical face to one of the doctor's previous one's albeit aged, and stating that the doctor might find himself 'revisiting a few' and his knowledge that the doctor had 'a lot to do' it's practically the only thing he didn't say to confirm it.

When tom was listed as 'the doctor' in the credits it would have been so easy had it been needed to instead put 'the doctor/curator' and that would have suggested doubt, but the fact he was listed only as 'the doctor' proves that he didn't need listing as different characters because he only played one character - the doctor.

Had Romana 2 gone back and met Princess Astra then she'd have had the same face and knowledge of what Astra needed to do next.

(or, less convincingly, Six and Maxil, Thirteen and Caecilius, Two and Salamander if he were to revisit earlier)


If credits are determinative then we can shut the book on the 'Doctor Who' issue. That was the character Tom played last time.

Trenzalore is where you have to answer with the truth, not that you have to answer. And that is just what the Doctor did, not answer the question all those years. And that is only due to the truth field that the TimeLords on Gallifrey were transmitting with the question through the crack.

As to the future Doctor, we have seen other future Doctors interact with their past selves (The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors, The Two Doctors) and they have generally been cryptic about their future lives and how the past Doctor proceed in the future. This was no different. He was very cryptic and allowing the 11th Doctor to make up his own mind on what path he wanted to take. Just a hint, hint, nudge nudge here and there. Nothing a smart time lord couldn't figure out.

Even though it wouldn't be ultimate proof I think this issue has come up a lot, so someone should really add a poll to one of these threads discussing it to determine what the majority actually think. It would be more productive I think than both opposing sides repeating there views on a loop slightly differently, as were not really getting anywhere.

Tom said "I am a future incarnation of you," in about every way, other than actually uttering the words. Of course even if he said it outright, you could just then compare him to Jackson Lake, who also claimed to be the Doctor, but wasn't really.

You could claim anything with Doctor Who, really. Its a world where, potentially, anything goes. However, I do think the intention of "The Curator," is very obvious. He is meant to be the Doctor, but is written as ambiguously as possible to avoid setting him in stone (and thereby making him a plot-point that future showrunners have to deal with, ignore, side-step or whatever). He's there for two reasons;

1. To supply future information to the Doctor about the fate of Gallifrey, to imply a future story arc and to explain the presence of the "Gallifrey Falls No More," painting.

2. As a nice moment for the fans, simply because this was a special anniversary episode. Tom is the oldest surviving actor who played the Doctor and he also possibly wanted to make up for turning down appearing in the 20th anniversary. His appearance is just a little gift to the long-term fans of the show.

Now because of those reasons, I think it is both safe to make an educated deduction as to who he is meant to be and also that it is not worth dwelling on too much, as he will most likely never ever appear - or be referenced - again.

Well that's no actually what was previously claimed. The quote from Dorium said


It specifically makes the point that you cannot fail to answer.

Why do some people seem to think that the curator was obviously the Doctor?
It was deliberately left ambiguous.

The thought that there'll one day be 436th incarnation of the Doctor who has taken the appearance of an aged version of one of his past selves and retired to look after an art gallery annoys me slightly. I know this may well be the case, but regardless I prefer to think the Curator was the Moment.

I almost fell off my seat at this 'squee' moment. That booming voice. Unmistakable. Lets not analyse it. Lets just love it

Yet he never did answer that question. So either a time lord is immune to a time lord truth field or Dorium was just not quite right about the quote.

Actually, that works both ways.

I, for one, truly believe that the curator was indeed a future incarnation of the Doctor.

But I would be being disingenuous and blinkered, and not a little arrogant, to dismiss the fact that it was written with a sliver of a get-out clause, should anyone further down the line like to make a change to it. By writing it cast-iron one way, it would be robbing any future writers of the chance to easily incorporate it into a whole other story and take it into stranger directions.

And one thing I've learned through being a part of this forum is that obvious isn't always obviously obvious to all in the same way.

Fair comment

In that case I'm 100% convinced that Tom Baker was playing The Moment!

I'm right and if anyone disagrees



or we could just take it as deliberately ambiguous and we can all believe what it means to us as individuals and not state for certain that our own version is in fact correct.

It was written so we could make our own minds up and debate if we wanted to, not do a Victor Kennedy with those who have different ideas.

We've had this argument on another thread so I won't pursue it in this one. Suffice it to say that IMO it isn't remotely ambiguous and would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to interpret in any way other than that he was the Doctor.

Incorrect.
Other people do. Evidently you are wrong.

I believe that he was the Doctor. But I can also allow that there are other opinions and knowing that I can still go to bed at night and sleep very well. I hope you can do the same.