1)He gained 12 more regenerations because of the rebooting of the universe. 2)He exceeded the limit a long time ago, as Brain of Morbius showcases other incarnations of his. 3)I don't know.
The Second Doctor also says his people live forever ("barring accidents") There's the Morbius pre-Hartnell Doctors Then came the Deadly Assassin retcon that implies that the Timeys *applied* a limit. The Timeys offer the Master a new set in The Five Doctors after he reached the limit Of course The Death of The Doctor has Eleven say he can regenerate hundreds of times. Then again, River uses *all* her regenerations in Let's Kill Hitler. But both she and the Doctor lie, so fuck knows on that one. Maybe it's just all her regenerative power or ability rather than a specific number.
Not canonically, as far as I know. But of course Who canon is fraught with contradictions. The Third Doctor once (nearly) claimed to be thousands of years old even after the Second had said he was in his 400s -- and before the Fourth went with 700s. The actual line in "The Deadly Assassin" is that "After the twelfth regeneration, there is no plan that will postpone death." It's strongly implied that it is a natural, insurmountable limit -- indeed, the Master needs to destroy Gallifrey and half the universe in order to circumvent it. Of course, later serials ignored this, but that just reflects the folly of trying to pretend there's a consistent continuity here. The show has said many contradictory things over the decades, but nobody in the show ever, ever said that the 12-life limit was artificially imposed by the Time Lords. That's a fan belief. Except, again, that's an inconsistency. "The Three Doctors" had already explicitly stated that Hartnell was the Doctor's earliest self; the Time Lords referred to him that way when they summoned him from the timestream. So "Morbius"'s portrayal of pre-Hartnell Doctors contradicted what had already been established -- and what came later, since there have been multiple subsequent references to Hartnell being the first, either directly or implicitly. For instance, in "The Five Doctors," the First Doctor called himself "the original, you might say," and in "Mawdryn Undead," the Fifth Doctor said explicitly that he had regenerated four times only. So it doesn't make sense to pick out the "Morbius" reference and claim it's proof when there are dozens of other references that explicitly, consistently contradict it. It's the exception, not the rule. Yes, DW canon is a mess of conflicting references, made by many different people who generally assumed that earlier serials would be lost or forgotten and that they were free to ignore or reinterpret them at will. Generally it's best to recognize that and not get too attached to any one claim or interpretation to the exclusion of others; we should acknowledge all the contradictory information. But in this case, the evidence that Hartnell was the earliest Doctor is abundant throughout the series, and the "Morbius" scene is the one and only thing that suggests anything to the contrary. It's not enough to tip the scales measurably away from the interpretation that Hartnell came first.
The Master is kind of a special case since he wasn't actually a Gallifreyan or even technically a Time Lord when he was offered a new set of regenerations. He was a Traken. Borusa was more or less offering him a new Gallifreyan/Time Lord body (a blank clone or some flunky no one would miss) with a fresh life cycle for him to pull his body snatcher routine on.
Ooh, good point. By that time, he'd taken over Tremas's body. Although his old body did merge with Tremas's through the power of the Source, so it's hard to say whether the revived Master was purely Trakenite or some sort of hybrid. Or, he may have been offering the use of the gizmo from "Mawdryn Undead" which could potentially induce regenerative ability in non-Gallifreyans. Although I'm not sure why the Master would've wanted a new regeneration cycle at the time of "The Five Doctors," since by that point -- or soon thereafter, at least -- he had his own ways of reviving after certain death. In "Planet of Fire" he was vaporized before the Doctor's eyes, but he soon came back intact with no explanation. And in the '96 movie we saw that when he was disintegrated by the Daleks, his consciousness survived in a gelatinous form that could possess a new body and take it over. I like to think that the same mechanism let him survive "Planet of Fire," although that doesn't explain how he regained his Tremas body. Anyway, I always figured it was probably a power he gained from the Source of Traken.
In my defense, I wasn't really serious with that suggestion. Its just an easy pick to make in a discussion that stems from Moffat's claim that there's a hidden nugget that seemingly everyone has ignored but he hasn't. Just pointing out some of the obvious ones, that have been pointed out by others as well. Personally, I think the other persons in that read-through of their minds really were Morbius previous faces. It'd be possible, right? Or, you know, Death saved Master a couple of times too many. Yes, my love for Big Finish's Master audio story kinda got to me.
Steven Moffat explains the John Hurt Doctor. What I don't understand is, when does the Doctor talk about his former incarnations? Its very, very rare that he did - indeed, only the Sixth ever has, in both his televised and audio adventures, talked at any length frequently about his past incarnations. So I'm rather puzzled about that.
I think it's more related to the fact the Doctor does talk about things he's done in his past, even as the other incarnations. However, this Doctor is one his successors just ignore and refuse to acknowledge existed. Although, curiously enough, the existence of Hurt's Doctor actually helps explain one inconsistency. The Doctor tells Sarah Jane in School Reunion he's regenerated "half a dozen times" since they last met. Although she has met the Fifth Doctor. But if you count Hurt, that does make six regenerations.
That's a popular retcon, but the dialogue makes it clear that they're meant to be the Doctor's earlier lives. The only real explanation is that Doctor Who has never really bothered much with continuity and so it contradicts itself all the time. Even the modern show, which is far more aware of continuity, is still quite cavalier about it -- look how Moffat wasted no time using his "cracks in time" to erase some of RTD's excesses like "Journey's End" and the Cyber King rampage. DW continuity has always been extremely protean; Moffat has just canonized that as part of the way time actually works in the show's universe, as something that's constantly being rewritten. Not familiar with it.
Definitely worth checking out. It's a very atmospheric story with great performances by Sylvester McCoy and Geoffrey Beevers. However, it does play around with the very basis of The Doctor, The Master, and their relationship as well as introducing a character that I'm still not quite comfortable with.
Honestly though, I think its a necessary buffer from the Ainly/Roberts Master to the Jacobi/Simm Master, and for the attitude of Doctor towards him in the Simms version.
Oh, also, on technicalities: The Second Doctor claimed to have been rejuvenated not regenerated. The Time Lords told him they'd only change his appearance. There are two off-screen changes in which we don't actually know what really happened... And Moffat talks bollocks and lies all the time which means the next episode will probably just establish that there's no such limit anyway...
Oh, I don't have a problem with that aspect of the story anymore, although I did the first time around. My issue is with Spoiler: Master audio play Death personification. I've listened to the story twice now and I still don't like the creation of that character. Some have suggested it was a being that acted like Death or Death's champion but it doesn't feel that way in the story. To me, the intention seems to be Death personification itself.
Wow, Moffat comes across as such a shallow RTD-esque producer type in that interview. Flat out admits this whole John Hurt Doctor thing came about after he thought it'd be a cool idea if they got a big star to play The Doctor for one episode. Shallow stunt casting with only ratings in mind, and yes, I would prefer an actual Doctor from the classic series. Every time I see Hurt standing there, I'm annoyed it isn't McGann, McCoy, or whoever.
Ditto. John Hurt is a good actor, but I'd much rather have Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, or even Peter Davison if it came to it. True, I don't want an overcrowded story, I don't want an Eleven Doctors, and I was desperate for Tennant to return, he was the doctor of my generation after all, but I'd still love one or two classic doctors too. Paul McGann appeared for about 40 minutes in his entire era, I think the BBC are missing out on a chance to ease fans pain by having him return again, and to be honest, the BBC in general are missing out on an opportunity to celebrate the 50th anniversary of doctor who.
Moffatt said in the interview words to the effect that if there were one classic Doctor who ought to be brought back, it's Hartnell, as he's the first, that Tennant and Smith are his children. So is the Hurt Doctor therefore a substitute First Doctor - rather than a Doctor between McGann and Eccleston, is he going to be pre-Hartnell?