Do they really NEED explaining? Apparently they're going to explain it, but I don't understand why personally. It's been done before with Colin Baker, and Patty T actually met a character who looked like him. I don't get why it needs explaining.

Take a look at this.

http://media.comicbook.com/wp-conten...er-capaldi.jpg

Also, look at this.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/pho...03-624-352.jpg

And now this.

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...-7-2959340.jpg


It's amazing what a few years, a different hair style and and a pair of glasses can do. In actual fact, Capaldi looks very different in his three roles in the Whoniverse. The 12th Doctor, unless you look closely, only shares a resemblance to Frobisher and the Roman guy who's name I know but can't spell.

So why are they bothering? It's only going to confuse the casual viewers. If Capaldi had played a major character in Doctor Who, then fair enough. But he didn't. Who, apart from us fans, do you think even remembers the Roman character? He did play quite a major role in COE, but really, I don't think they'll be able to revisit a Torchwood character in much detail, let alone one that had such a dark and disturbing storyline.

There's just no point, it's not as if the majority of casual viewers (the majority of the audience) will be all that bothered that he's been in WHO before, assuming they even know at all.

Most arguments for and against this are already covered at some point in this thread

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1944262

What it basically boils down too is some people think there isn't a need, and others are happy that it is being addressed, and no matter how many times both sides go over their arguments, your either happy that it's going to be addressed or your not and probably won't change your mind either way.

No need to explain it at all and any attempt will, imo, be insulting our intelligence!

I have no strong opinion either way. If they decide to explain it then that's cool with me. If they decide to ignore it then I'm ok with that too.

As I say there has already been an extensive thread on this, but in response to your post I feel the need to say that in my opinion it is more of an insult to an intelligence to hope that avid viewers will just forget they have seen Capaldi's face before (and before you say it classic who was a different time - no constant internet anaylsis, and freema in doomsday was explained.).

Besides if your hoping there is a chance they will ignore it, I must say, through quoting a post I did in the other thread that I think you'll be disappointed.

Sadly, this sort of thing niggles me a lot! I suspect that if they do explain it in some downright silly timey wimey way, I will just regard it as not canon and ignore it like the 'half human' fiasco.

Yes it was a different time indeed, a lot less spoon feeding went on!

Considering it is very unlikely to be a plot device, I will just disregard it as canon and move on! Others can regard it how they like but that's how I will deal with it!

OMG I never realied he'd been in Who before




I don't expect an explanation. It just opens up a can of worms, we'd need to explain colin baker, martha, perter purves etc etc etc etc

If you want to blank something that actually happens in an episode then that's your choice. To be fair, I think that's what most people seem to do most of the time.

To be honest, I kind of think your comment shows why an explanation would be okay for both parties. Those who want the explanation will be happy and for those who don't, it will probably be such a small thing that they could easily ignore or disregard it anyway.

Maybe you're right but I'd prefer that they didn't at all! Ce Sera!

To be fair, they did explain Martha!

To be fair, martha /adeola was explained as them being cousins. As for not expecting an explanation, you'll see a few posts up a quote I posted from moffat specifically saying they are not going to ignore the fact he's been in it before and a link to the article which it came from.

The other point which people seem to miss when they cite the fact that previous reoccuring faces haven't been explained is that we are constantly reminded that the show is about change and reinvention, so the fact they haven't bothered to explain faces in the past dosen't mean they can't choose to do so this time.

In fact the gwendolene from unquiet dead/gwen from torchwood link was explained and as I said the martha/adeola connection was also explained so in fact you could almost say it is actually the rule that they usually do explain a reoccuring face in new who.

For me, the Martha and Gwen explanations were more palatable because you can stretch the artistic license to accept family resemblance, a bit like when popular characters/actors play their own fathers or mothers in flashback sequences/stories!

Explanations for why the Doctor looks like someone else doesn't sit quite as well. Although, the Romana - Astra link didn't seem too ridiculous but that was me with the mind of a teenager.

Oh! Canons again!

You can explain the things you see as canon in this:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1952580

With Romana, the most non sensical thing that really dosen't sit well was the whole 'trying on different bodies thing'. Still not sure what that was all about. Even if female timelords can choose their bodies, surely for her to have one body then change it like that she'd have had to be killing herself every time she went out of the room?

Does anyone actually get that scene?

They did it with Gwen looking like Gwyneth as well - spacial genetic transferrence, or somewhat.

It made me think... Caecillius lived in Pompeii where there was a rift created in space and time. It's a shame John Frobisher never appeared when Torchwood was still based in Cardiff...or I'd give some credence to rifts having some kind of involvement. Borrowed faces throughout all of history.

What's to get? It was a funny: continuity is often ignored in the sake of a joke.

That seems like a big deal to mess with the whole concept of regeneration for a joke. If it was in a comic relief sketch or something I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but it was in the main show, and involved someone who was not only a timelord but a companion at the time also. Can't imagine them dreaming of doing anything like it now.

The current writers are fans of the mythos, ingrained into the imagination since childhood, and probably wouldn't do a scene like that.

Douglas Adams, while obviously a fan, was just doing his job and didn't have those boundaries. Didn't the Daleks suddenly become robots as part of the plot?

suppose it was a silly episode all round really, can't really take the bad wig humanoids seriously either, although with the regeneration thing, being that it seems to set such a precedent, it's annoying that the episode seems to show that is possible, and yet there dosen't seem to be any way of explaining it away like people do with other anomaly type thing's.

I know at the time, they didn't really expect that people would be rewatching the episodes, but now I'm suprised that some older fans were saying they would stop watching if they ignored the regeneration rule because it was mentioned in a episode once, long ago, yet with things like this people seem to have no trouble ignoring the fact that it dosen't make sense

I think JD has a point. The writing back then was carefree and the production bods were making it up as they went. Canonicity and continuity was an afterthought. Pretty much all the stories were stand alone with only the characters being common themes. Today, the fan base is so refined and 'fanatical' and basically, calling the shots (Moff) that lore is backbone stuff!

The Romana scene was classic 'suck it and see', no one gave a crap about one line in one scene of one story two seasons before, Regeneration lore was still in its infancy.

I think regeneration lore was set in stone from Mawdryn Undead, where it was blatantly spelled out!

I doubt it'll much more than "oh, that looks familiar" really- i can't see how they can make it a major plot point or why the Moff would like to recycle RTD's failed ideas

If there's an explantion, then that or something similar is all it needs to be, although, i'd say to make it worth mentioning at all it would have to be "oh, that looks familiar, must be...." just a quick two sentence thing as he's looking in the mirror mumbling to himself or something. No -one's expecting it to be a major point, just a subtle nod in this way would suit. That way it's acknowledgement but not in an in your face type way.

Male Time Lords can choose their bodies as well. The 2nd Doctor was offered a number of specific bodies that he could choose from.


The Doctor himself is just not good with regeneration so usually ends up with something random.


As for Romana trying on different bodies you can either explain them as Future Projections in the same way the Watcher and Cho Je were or you can use the new series "lore" that a Time Lord body is malleable for 12 hours after regeneration and thus can grow new limbs, repair bullet wounds or change it's appearance.



Or if you want a third explanation IIRC there was an explanation in one of the novels that it was the TARDIS appearing to the Doctor (the real Romana was locked up).

That I like, seems to be the most logical in fitting in with the rest of the show. I appreciate your efforts in helping this previously confused poster make some sense of the scene