http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-...ersary-special

f**k Moffatt, 5 6 and 7 should have been in that story. So what if they looked older no one was bothered when Troughton came back some 20 years later .

Maybe cameo appearances .. but full on parts would have made for a clumsy story

Regardless of limited options and running out of time and whatever other excuse Moffat had in 2015 and beyond, the inclusion of the "War Doctor" was typical Moffat: "I'm going to stamp my mark of this show via a new confusing, complex addition that will ultimately be viewed retrospectively by fans with a "why?", "why are you deliberately trying to bugger up our show?" I'm sure if a reporter asks Moffatt in 5 years time, do you think this was one of your highlights in your career running Who, at best he would try and respond putting on a brave face on it & get quite defensive.

I'd love to ask (the great) Terrance Dicks for his opinion of the addition of the "War Doctor". I think I'd have a fair idea as to what he'd say back..

As for 5, 6 and 7 looking too old I would have used them, using them sparingly as others suggest and used digital enhancement/ CGI (as with Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy) to make them look younger. Sure it would have been fairly costly to get right, but they would have limited air time & if done right would have gone down a treat & created a lot of interest. I would have also done the same with Tom Baker & asked Sean Pertwee to do a cameo as his Dad (again via a brief appearance & used the addition of digital enhancement), I bet he would have jumped at it.

More forethought should have gone into this to mark this special event me thinks.

Perhaps accidentally, Moffat does reveal just how badly the show was being run by this stage. The lead actor wasn't even under contract? Shocking really.

My greatest disappointment is that in 2013 - the 50th anniversary year - production was so far behind schedule that we lost an entire season of Doctor Who and instead were given a single episode.

We can only image what RTD and co would have delivered for the anniversary year in 2013, but I can't help but think it would have been a lot more than one episode.

This is why i think Chibnall will be better than people think, he knows how to run a show. A lot of SM's era has great ideas filled with behind the scene issues, plot holes and what seems to be rushed stories a lot of the time, usually the resolution to each story. It has progressively gotten thinner, honestly think about it.

I think some people would be in for a shock if they found themselves in the TV industry and realised it's not all as simple as that. I was very pleased with the addition of the War Doctor myself, I thought Hurt was a great addition to the roster of Doctors and opened up a lot of potential, which is being used by Big Finish and the novels. His introduction in the S7 cliffhanger was a great moment and he delivered on the hype. Though Tennant and Smith were great together in the 50th, I found myself a lot more eager to see Hurt's portrayal as opposed to the more "boyish" approach of those two.

As for being "complicated", he's the Doctor that comes between McGann and Eccleston. That's all there is to it.


I'd rather not.

Don't forget there was also Series 7B earlier in the year, Gatiss' An Adventure in Space and Time, The Night of the Doctor short, a Brian Cox Doctor Who special, Davison's The Five(ish) Doctors, and a handful of Doctor Who retrospectives. The S7 split was frustrating, but we weren't exactly short on Doctor Who material in the fall of 2013.

And is apparently The Doctor's greatest secret even though classic who refutes that in the 7th Doctor era.

Not so much these days.

No Doctor under contract?

It's times like this I miss the "rolleyes" smiley.
It's times like this that I don't miss C21st DW.

I'll have to disagree with you there Lord Smexy. BBC Wales produced only two episodes of Doctor Who in 2013 - the anniversary episode and the Christmas episode - rather than the standard 14 episodes. I've yet to hear a clear explanation for that other than Private Eye's story that it was down to production "chaos".

The small number of tenuously linked shows and season 7 leftovers were, for me, little more than smoke and mirrors; an attempt to distract viewers from the pitiful truth that Doctor Who's entire 50th anniversary season had been replaced with a single episode.

Sorry, but its still something that grinds on me.

That said, I do agree that the War Doctor is an interesting addition to the show although I would have loved to have seen Ecclestone return. And I still don't quite understand why the 8th Doctor wasn't used as the incarnation that pushed the big red button. But, hey - John Hurt as the Doctor? Brilliant.

Yeah, and because they threw together some who themed shows and a couple of minisodes, we were just supposed to agree that we apparently had 'more who than ever', when funnily enough, more who to me and most means more actual episodes of the show Doctor who.

Again it seems to be disorganisation on Moffat's part. Reading the article, it's as though the job of writing the 50th just jumped out at him out of the blue, when in reality he knew it was coming years before it did, and some pre planning would likely have meant he would have at least had his cast signed up in advance. We may have even gotten an actual series produced for the the anniversary year.


I'm not going to dismiss Day of the Doctor, because I quite like it despite a few technical story flaws, but I agree that RTD would likely have delivered so much more, and given how the stolen earth/journeys end was so epic and regularly poll's high in threads of favourite episodes even now, when that was just his regular series finale effort, I can't even begin to imagine how mind boggling fantastic the actual special itself, written by RTD, could have been.

It's a shame Moffat didn't at least ask him to collaborate on it with him. Especially since it involved RTD's 10th doctor, and with all the problems Moffat was having, it would have probably helped to have someone else in it with him.

Steven got the 50th anniversary special absolutely pitch perfect. With 12.8 million viewers, an audience appreciation index of 88 and ranking #1 in Doctor Who Magazine's every story ever poll, it couldn't have gone any better. It's probably the greatest achievement of his career.

Moffat did ask RTD to collaborate. RTD declined saying he'd feel like a ghost at the wedding..

The fiftieth anniversary year was such a disappointment. Firstly, there was no full series. Surely for the big year, the fans should have been given thirteen episodes for the series at the start of the year.

Secondly, classic Who was not celebrated as much as it should have been in the main show. Apart from the brilliant An Adventure in Time and Space, the The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot and the Night of the Doctor were not enough for the classic series. Also, Tom Baker's cameo was out of place because non of the other classic doctors had appeared.

Also, the storyline was not strong enough for the fiftieth and the Zygon storyline was left dangling. The Zygon storyline just stopped and never ended or even got a conclusion to it so we were left wondering what happened and I put that down to Moffat and his writing skills and ability.

Finally, I thought Moffat's creation of a doctor was not a good idea. He just wanted to put his mark on the show by randomly making up a missing doctor, how ridiculous. If he wanted three doctors and he could not get Eccleston, why not bring McGaan in instead of making up a doctor.

I remain puzzled by this. In terms of the narrative of the The Day of the Doctor, there was certainly no need to introduce an extra Doctor simply because Christopher Ecclestone declined to return. It could easily have been - and possibly should have been - the 8th Doctor.

In season 1, there was a clear suggestion the Doctor had only recently regenerated. For me, it felt as though it was the 8th Doctor (Paul McGann) who had fought in the Time War before regenerating at its conclusion.

Paul's a great actor too. He would have delivered a great performance.

The simple reason is Paul McGann is not a significant enough ratings draw. TV is a business, and who's bringing in the viewers? The star of one, long forgotten TV movie or the acting legend that is John Hurt?

Even as a hardcore fan, I think I would still take an hour and a bit of John Hurt(!) as the Doctor over Paul.

Now if a Doctor was to return in a less "this needs to be absolutely massive" episode, Paul would be the perfect and deserving choice.

I don't personally think John Hurt was a draw for viewers. Great that he was in it (I do love him) but David Tennant and Billie Piper's return was the real selling point. I honestly think if Paul McGann had been in it instead of John Hurt it would have received the same viewing figures. It also think it would have been more fun for Doctor Who fans to see the 8th Doctor in action again rather than an additional incarnation.

IMO just because a story gets a good audience figure, it doesn't necessarily make it a great story. England always get 20 million viewers when they play at a tournament, doesn't mean they played well and every moment was enjoyable(which it wasn't but that's another topic entirely)

It's the draw of the event itself that would have bumped the figures, wonder how many of those 12.8 could say they really enjoyed it in hindsight?

Just because it got a good audience appreciation index doesn't mean it's universally popular either. I've seen lots of disappointed people, myself included, on here and elsewhere who thought it was a bit of a let down.

Being number one in the magazine poll also doesn't make it universally popular. Caves Of Androzani is good proof of that.

I'm not saying it was an awful story by any means but think there's a lot better stories in both showrunners era which were of a higher standard and Name Of The Doctor was a far better episode imo. (Plus 5 Doctors Reboot)

Watch it plummet when DWM do their next poll. It was quite a good story, but he's done far better (and far far worse obviously). He can't take credit for the ratings, it was Doctor Who's 50th, of course it was going to get a high audience.

That was very ambiguous and poorly written by RTD. Remember the bloke with all the photos of Eccleston in his shed, thereby implying that he'd been around for some time.

That's not a simple reason, it's just wrong. As per my previous post, it was Doctor Who's 50th, the audience was guaranteed. However, if you had said that a few more people may have watched because of the mystery of the War Doctor then maybe, but that's got nothing to do with Hurt being a bigger ratings draw than McGann.

That's not opinion daveyboy, it's fact!

Perfectly valid points.


No, but then my point wasn't that it was a great story (that's as you say entirely subjective). I nearly pointed out myself that 'Day' will undoubtably fall in DWM's next every story ever poll now the hype has died. My point was 'Day' was a massively successful story, rated highly by both fans, critics and casual viewers. It could not have preformed any better, and Steven absolutely pulled it out the bag. He lead the good ship TARDIS successful through a momentous milestone with rapturous applause.

Now, the loss of a Series 8 in 2013 is another matter. I think it's quite likely the split between 7a and 7b was at least partially down to Matt not committing to a fourth series.

Wasn't the 7th Doctor's era already a little contradictory though, with the not-so-subtle hints of the Doctor being the Other?