She was dying, he picked her up and removed her. You didn't see it because it wasn't shown. Matt had hurt his leg ( or something) which made it difficult to film. A magazine that you read (selectively?) clarified this in a Moffat interview.

The hybrid did not, does not and will not exist. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy created by Time Lord paranoia. The Doctor leaving Gallifrey had absolutely nothing to do with Clara.

I think the show could do with a little less of the dirty jokes (though they do seem to be a lot less since Capaldi stepped in the role) but Chibnall is also the guy who wrote the Torchwood episodes about the horny sex gas and the borderline pornographic Cyberwoman so... perhaps not. :P

Please no more hugely important companions (like Clara) who are saving the universe. We just need someone to represent the human side of the story, The companion should not be cleverer than the doctor or have all the answers. The companion needs to be likeable and fun.

I don't mind if she has a boyfriend/family as long as they don't take over the show. It might be better to have a single girl for a while though.

So, there should have been a scene filmed where it was made clear that the Doctor was removing all of the Claras from his timeline. However, Matt couldn't film it as he was injured but Steven Moffat then described the missing scene in an interview in (I am assuming) Doctor Who magazine. Is that right?

Sorry, I'm not sure about what you mean by a "selective" magazine so am assuming it was Doctor Who Magazine.

Well, I doubt whether we'll see 'Return of the Cyberwoman' or 'Revenge of the Horny Sex Gas'.

My main problem with series 1 of 'Torchwood' (I had a few! Not liking any of the characters much didn't help for a start) was that it was trying too hard to be 'adult' and just came across as completely adolescent a lot of the time. Still, it did get a bit better in series 2 and COE was superb. Parts of 'Cyberwoman' *almost* pushed it into my 'so bad it's good' category, but even failed at that....

(I've found Chibbers Who stuff reasonable to good, mind. Thankfully.)

This was my problem with Torchwood: it was advertised as a "grown up and mature Doctor Who" but thought it was doing that by throwing in loads of gratuitous sex and violence, resulting in something that was actually quite immature and indulgent (which RTD said it wouldn't be). If you took away all the adult content the plot might as well have been in Doctor Who.

Children of Earth, however, did a complete 180 degree turn. It actually took advantage of its adult status by presenting an extremely dark and haunting story that Doctor Who would never have gotten away with. It's what Torchwood should have been from the start.

I'd be more likely to buy the Dragonfire dvd if Jenna's face was one of the extras

You read DWM ("Tom says it's not a hit"), but didn't read the Moffat Q&A when asked how The Doctor got Clara out of his time stream. ("He walked out", was the answer).

Hey, The Name of The Doctor confused you, I get that. The abstract concept of a Time Lords time stream must be bewildering to a lot of Popbitch followers, so don't worry! Ha.Ha...But you don't have to think about it too hard to reach a conclusion that will satisfy what was shown.

The Doctor only recognises Vic.Clara as Oswin when she says "Run you clever boy...", but because he did not recognise the words when Oswin says them, he can't have met Clara before. It seems logical, therefore, that when the Doctor (metaphorically) walked out of his own time stream with Clara in the midst of her splintering, he removed all her splinters.
The two splinters that were left must be there to ensure that the chain of events that leads to them needing to be left there can occur. I choose to believe that The Doctor himself left these splinters, but it could easily be something else. Time itself might have done this to prevent a cataclysmic temporal collapse of inter-dimensional reality, for instance. Perhaps messing with the time stream of your current incarnation is way too dangerous and they had to be left...

Of course, there is always the default reason that crappie megalomaniac Moffat crappie ruining the show crappie Moffat crap writing Moffat crap, is behind it all. (Smiley face to indicate I'm being 'funny'.)

The only good reason to spend money on Dragonfire. :P

I don't read DWM but the section I referred to was posted on here by another forum member. It's amazing how easy it is to share things on the Internet. Did you know that?

The point seems to be that the majority of viewers don't read DWM so don't know all the Claras were removed from the Doctor's timeline.

And I don't think the Name of the Doctor confused anyone. I think some found it tiresome however. But good for thinking you're so bright you got it when no one else did.

Whizz bang.

Anyone else getting a little bit sick of this forum seemingly turning into one forum members personal blog of complaints about Steven Moffat? Same old thing repeated again and again and again. I can barely be bothered to come on here anymore because it seems some people have nothing better to do than post all day every day about the same tired subjects and derail every thread they possibly can. It's a blight on the good discussions that could and should be taking place.

I have to agree Saladfingers81. It's a shame but hopefully they'll stop attacking other forum members and just accept different points of view exist.

Let's hope Chris leaves them all behind then, eh?

Sorry, but there was never an indication given in the show that when the Doctor and Clara walked out of his timeline he also removed the Clara splinters. I always assumed each splinter was a sort of copy of Clara prime and the Doctor emerged with just Clara prime. I don't read DWM and I don't recall anyone mentioning that theory on here before. We began to see the corruption of the Doctor's timeline by the GI, Clara prime entered the timeline and, as a result, splintered and counteracted the GM's corruption, allowing 11 to recover enough to rescue Clara prime. That is what was shown.

Nowhere in the show does it indicate that 11 reclaimed the splinters to make things as though the Clara splinters had never happened, leaving things exactly as they were before the GI's corruptions. I'm not a Moffat basher, but a point like that shouldn't need clarification after the fact in an interview.

The hybrid was, as you say, a self fulfilling prophecy. It only existed in the sense of the threat to the Universe and the Time Lords coming from what the Doctor was willing to do to rescue dead Clara.

A Clara splinter pointed the Doctor and Susan to the correct TARDIS, so she was there, though not the cause of him leaving Gallifrey. We even have a hint as to how Clara (possibly Clara prime) was on Gallifrey, all those years ago.

As far as we know at the moment.

Thanks GDK. I was struggling a bit myself with the idea that something printed in DWM should be considered canon. Certainly the way it was left on TV is that there were (as you have said) splinters of Clara throughout the Doctor's timeline.

I'm not sure they all interacted with him - the Dragonfire Clara and the 3rd Doctor's Clara seemed to simply be in the general area. Perhaps just being around was enough to do the job?

I'm not sure the issue will ever be revisited on the show though - the "impossible girl" story was never mentioned again after Name of the Doctor, as far as I can recall. And that was even when there were opportunities to do so (e.g. Clara inside a Dalek).

Well, it was apparently said by the writer, so he should know.

But the fact remains, if that was his intent, it should have been clear from what was actually shown in the episode concerned. A simple fx shot of lots of Claras from lots of time zones merging back with Clara prime would have been enough.

I always rationalised the influence of the Clara splinters as being from behind the scenes, so the Doctor rarely, if ever, interacted with any Clara splinter and wasn't aware of her - until Asylum of the Daleks and The Snowmen, that is.

Well it's my theory, so unless you to go to other places where you can discuss these things properly, you are probably unlikely to have seen it before. (There is a world beyond DS). Moffat interview had nothing to do with it as I'd already pinned my hat to it before then. And it hung by a thread when there was a possibility that waitress Clara from Hell Bent was a splinter! Luckily, she is one of 'Two Broke Girls...In Space!' so it holds fast.

Entering into a time stream is abstract and unknowable, so however it is rationalised is open to wide interpretation. Exploring how I arrived at my theory will be boring for everyone and annoying too. I'm up for it if you are?

I'd like the exterior look of the tardis and the way it de/re materialsed to return to the way they were when th show first came back, it just looked more solid then.
It's hardly a deal breaker but for some reason they changed things that didn't need to be changed for the sake of it so they might as well fix that.

Aside from that the whole "comedy insult" everyone talking in bitchy soundbites thing has to go. Strap in series 7 and series 8 era capaldi style of misunderstanding human compliments so accidentally insulting. Funny for about 10 seconds then a joke stretched way too far

To clarify. Moffat has offered no explanation in DWM for Clara. He was asked in a regular feature "how did The Doctor get out of his time stream?" His reply was he 'walked out'.. He then went on to explain that this was supposed to be shown but Matt was injured. He mentions nothing about splinters and if they are in The Doctor's time line or not.

Thanks for clarifying: Moffat didn't say that was his intent in an interview then. It's simply your theory, which is one amongst many fan theories.

I'm well aware of the world outside DS and other places, thanks. I will admit that I am surprised that you don't think this a place for "proper" discussions about Doctor Who. Are the denizens of this forum not tru-fans in your eyes?

As far as I'm concerned any fan theory is as valid as any other, and up for discussion and debate until or unless the show itself contradicts it. There have been many interesting debates and theories proposed here.

I'm afraid what caught my eye was that this explanation seemed to have come from Moffat himself.

True fans don't post tittle tattle about show runners attacking disabled people at exhibitions or revel in bollocks about drunken hotel corridor prowling. To me, it's not that far away from the kind of abuse that Colin Baker received and it disgusts me that it happens in a Doctor Who environment . Not liking the show is one thing, getting so needlessly and horribly vindictive about an actor or writer because you don't, well it's childish and deranged.
Do it on a Doctor Who site and you get banned. But the open nature of DS breeds behaviour like that. So it's difficult to discuss the show properly here, at times and the people who behave like that, I reserve the right to hold in contempt. But they want an open, say anything forum, so shouldn't come over all 'poor me' if they suffer at the hands of that policy.

"The thing that everything that happened in Doctor Who is because of Clara" is also a fan theory, one that I disagree with. I dont claim my theory was correct or any more valid than this. My theory is true in my mind. The OP's is true in his. Yours is true in yours. Chibnall can't leave any of them out of his version of Who, because all of them are made up.

I don't like or indulge in gossip myself. I'm trying to think of anything like the claims you mention being discussed here (and by that, I mean within the DW part of this forum - i rarely visit other forums on DS except cult TV). The only thing that springs to mind is something about the departure of Julie Gardiner a while back.

Basically, I don't know where you're coming from on that one. Your remarks seem to come out of nowhere. I just discuss the show itself.

Fan theories are neither correct ("true", if you like) nor incorrect until tested.

And on that note, I think I'll leave this conversation.

I think he's referring to a thread someone started a few months back about a story that appeared in the Popbitch email about Moffat. It's the only time I can recall something like that being posted here though so does seem a little overstated.

Ah yes, the popbitch email. I do remember some comments about that actually. Never read the original "source" so was a bit nonplussed at the discussion. I dismissed it as it was unimportant to me. The name of the blogger says it all (to me anyway). It amazes me that anyone at all takes that sort of stuff seriously and I don't care to comment unless and until the truth is clear.

Thanks for that. One of the reasons I come to this forum (not the main site "news" home page) is that there's not so much of the usual mindless celebrity gossip cr*p here (it seems to me) that fills so many supposed "entertainment" forums. Even here I usually confine myself to the DW and Cult TV forums. And if there is a thread about some behind the scenes gossip I might read it, but I don't contribute.

I don't usually go to the DS home page so as to avoid gossip and potential spoilers.