Originally Posted by Thrombin:
“Learning more about his past, his family and his people's culture doesn't mean we know what will happen next or that everything is "happily ever after". ”
I quite agree. You've sort of made my point for me

:
The series,
Doctor Who is not really about the Doctor. If the normal rules of drama were being followed,
and the story
was actually about the Doctor, and we'd resolved every significant question about the Doctor's past, the story would be over.
Quote:
“Nor do we have to know everything. Answers to one mystery may lead to more questions but if there's never an answer to the questions what's the point? I don't see that mystery just for the sake of vagueness is particularly interesting!”
I agree. The state of knowledge we have about the Doctor, gained in the course of the series, is minimal. That just reflects the lack of importance of the Doctor's backstory to the series. Despite being the central, and (almost, but not quite)
the eponymous character (we don't actually know his name) the series is not about the Doctor as such.
It's all about the story of the week and the current companion.
I think this is a trait of 1960s television series in general: There's always a background to the hero figure that drives he or she (almost always "he" in the 1960s) forward. e.g. In a police drama it's the fact that the hero is a police officer that propels the character into the story of the week. In a prosaic setting that "origin" needn't be explained - everyone knows what a policeman does. Another example: In original Star Trek, the details of the Federation were very deliberately kept vague. With the occasional exception, main characters' backgrounds are never resolved or given huge prominence. Many fans, of course, wanted that explored, and in fact the best episodes do explore character backgrounds (notably Spock's), but they are few and far between.
The reason for
not delving into the main characters' backgrounds is: It's an episodic television series, with no planned ending. It's the opposite of drama because, at the end of each episode, nothing important should have changed for the main characters. It's why, in 1960s, 70s and 80s TV shows, typically the new girlfriend or old-friend-we've-never-seen-before, of the week, is always killed off or says goodbye by the end of the episode.
Television has changed in the 21st century. It's no longer acceptable to construct a series that way. To some extent, that's why we have been given more about the Doctor's background, and developed his story, since it's return than all of classic Doctor Who.
Quote:
“That's something of a side issue, though. I would want Gallifrey back even if it had nothing to do with the Doctor. I find the whole idea of a race of people with power over time to be a brilliant idea in its own right and a rich source of material for the show. I loved Big Finish's Gallifrey series and that carried the story of Gallifrey for years without any involvement from the Doctor at all!”
I don't mind Time Lords returning, but they should stay in the background and be used only occasionally. They'd need to be handled carefully: E.g. There'd have to be a reason for them to, basically, leave the Doctor alone.