I'm currently on Planet of the Dead as part of my entire Doctor Who series marathon which I started this time last year. I feel like this wasn't explained; or it was explained, and I just didn't get the memo.

What exactly was binding the Doctor and Donna together, and more importantly, what for? Was it something that was established in Journey's End or The End of Time? Was it the Ood, Davros? The Rani?

I somehow get the feeling that it was to teach the Doctor a lesson, but I'm still a bit in the dark.

It was the Doctor/ Donna prophesied by the Ood and Dalek Caan. Donna was always going to travel with 10. Creating the half human 10 by touching the spare hand causing it to combine with her DNA.

Really crappy writting

Wasn't there something in Journey's End where Dalek Caan admits he did a bit of tampering with the time line in order to ensure the Doctor and Donna met up again and ended up travelling together?

The Doctor (in, I think, Turn Left) had alluded to all the coincidences involving Donna; meeting her grandfather Wilf (in Voyage of the Damned), her car parked next to the TARDIS and then meeting her a second time because both were investigating the same mystery (in Partners in Crime). I got the impression those were the coincidences that were caused by Dalek Caan nudging them back together.

Dalek caan.

In the stolen earth/journeys end (can't remember exactly which part) we see the doctor realise they had been bound together and in the same story had dalek caan confesses he was the one who had tampered with the timeline as so that the 'doctor donna' would eventually destroy the daleks plan as he had 'seen the truth of them' (the daleks)


It was an idea that was established, and the reasons behind it then fully explained. As with all the RTD era arcs, we had something shown to us and then it was all fully explained by the end.

Those times were like shakespeare compared to some of the stuff we've had with Moffat, especially the arcs where he starts something, and were just supposed to forget about it if he dosen't feel like answering it any more.

Wait, I've just noticed a new plot hole that's genuinely starting to bug me.
If Dalek Caan hated the Daleks, why rescue Davros in the first place?
Did it just have to happen or something.

Thanks for explaining. I agree, things were certainly much simpler back then.

He went mad because he rescued Davros. It was temporal shifting through the timelock to rescue Davros that made him go mad and hate the Daleks.

Almost completely the opposite. It was a completely lazy cop-out.

"Why are we all here, all of us, now?"
"I made it happen, because otherwise you wouldn't all be here, now. And if you weren't all here, now, then the things that are about to happen, wouldn't happen."
"And why did you do this - through mysterious and ineffable means, in a way completely undetectable or previously hinted at?"
"Because the things are about to happen, have to happen. And they have to happen because I've seen they have to happen. Because of a reason that I just made up."

It was just a pretentious way of trying to add some sense of portent to events that nobody would even question if they just played out as they did anyway. It's not the first time that amazing coincidence has driven plot.

The Force

Substitute Cann with Missy and you have a similar thing going on during series 8 (as well as the 'woman in the shop' thing)

To a certain extent - at least there were suggestions of the actions Missy actually took in order to guide them on a path, and it wasn't some vague prophecy ("I did it because I must do it, because it must be done") but part of an actual manipulative plan. As is often the case, Moffat shows how to do it properly.

Both examples are manipulation by a third party to make sure the Doctor and companion meet/stay together in order to reach an endgame.

One was due to a Dalek having entered the locked time war, seeing the destruction of the Daleks/Davros (timey wimey) and kept things on track between The Doctor and Donna. It isn't suggested in this case, no need for suggestions, we see and later learn about those moments. Caan's words were indeed a prophecy to Davros and the Daleks but not to Caan.

The other was The Master making sure Clara met the Doctor via a phone number from 'a woman in a shop' Beyond that I'm not sure how else Missy manipulated and intervened over two series in order for the Doctor and Clara to stay together so they end up at an endgame, which was what exactly?? To end up at a museum full of Cybermen? Was is in order so that companions boyfriend dies? Was it so they all end up graveyard for a surprise birthday present for The Doctor. What was the Endgame that The Master needed to manipulate The Doctor and Clara together otherwise her plans just would not work?

Caan was the Dalek's equivalent of Rose/Bad Wolf, and manipulated the timelines.

Except he didn't have the Doctor to give him a big tonguey kiss at the end on the pretext of 'saving him' (good luck offering that excuse to Operation Yewtree) and make jokes about dogs with no noses (which in all probability would be exterminated by the Daleks). So he became a loon.

Outside of the Time War, both David Tennant and Catherine Tate were contractually obliged to appear together during series 4. So whichever way you look at it, the answer to this thread is ultimately Russell T Davies and Julie Gardner.

Ah right OK.

They were simply just good mates!!

Indeed - but in one case, the ways in which the character manipulated events are described on screen, and the motivation for doing so is given. In the other, neither is true - things are done because they must be done.

Nothing you're saying makes sense. You could have simply just said, "Moffat's writing is better, in my opinion."

Everything has to happen, really, because it's a fictional television show and what's happened is what Russell's decided.

Nothing about Doctor Who is natural, it's all made up. You could have simply just said, "Moffat's writing is better, in my opinion."

They definitely didn't want to mate

Loved that scene ....

And Donna had so many bags

She never even wore a hat.