Just realized this means he probably regenerated and therefore the Doctor didn't kill him. Problem solved. 
New Doctor Who Series Discussion *Spoilers*
- Thread starter silverskyes402
- Start date
Tennant's Dr. got too peacenik for my taste. In fact he was indeed more cruel, don't kill someone, lock them behind mirrors for all eternity. Smith's to me is more balanced. Yes, he will kill, but not out of hand, it takes a lot for him to do so, but I get the feeling that if he can clear it with his conscience that's it.
IIRC in "The End of Time" the inference I got was that he did indeed burn Gallifrey and everybody in it, then locked it, BUT basically because of all the inhabitants Regenerating, with all the regeneration energy flying around, everyone inside the bubble is constantly dying, regenerating, dying etc. for eternity...yeah I think my conscience would be a bit battered from having done that no matter what the justification.
IIRC in "The End of Time" the inference I got was that he did indeed burn Gallifrey and everybody in it, then locked it, BUT basically because of all the inhabitants Regenerating, with all the regeneration energy flying around, everyone inside the bubble is constantly dying, regenerating, dying etc. for eternity...yeah I think my conscience would be a bit battered from having done that no matter what the justification.
And Eccleston played it that way. A lot of weight on his conscience. :thumbsup
greatwazoo42
Master Member
I think one of the thing you guys missed was that Nefertiti (and possibly Amy) weren't so much abusing the big game hunter as they were flirting with him. Not in a submissive sort of way but as a warrior would to another; presenting a challenge.
Not Amy, her whole "you kill defenceless animals" thing I groaned at. It's really the overall tone though, "you need a gun? Loser."
cboath
Master Member
You don't have to be anti-gun to be anti gun-hunting.
You can view it as it's one thing to kill an animal for food, but it is on the cruel side if the only motivation is 'to do it' or stick a head on your wall.
But, wazoo's right - it was a method of flirting, and apparently it worked because he dropped 'Nefi' off with him at the end.
You can view it as it's one thing to kill an animal for food, but it is on the cruel side if the only motivation is 'to do it' or stick a head on your wall.
But, wazoo's right - it was a method of flirting, and apparently it worked because he dropped 'Nefi' off with him at the end.
With Nefi def. flirting. Amy not so much.
As I said before, he was a product of his times, the man was an adventurer and if it weren't for his "ways of the gun" they all would have been Raptor food.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
With Nefi def. flirting. Amy not so much.
As I said before, he was a product of his times, the man was an adventurer and if it weren't for his "ways of the gun" they all would have been Raptor food.
Not to mention the Doctor specifically fetched him. How he knew he'd need a big game hunter was a little stretched beyond belief.
In the first scene didn't they say their were extremely large life signs on board?
I did find it odd that he would choose him to come along. Convenient huh? :lol
greatwazoo42
Master Member
If you notice in the dialog they are friends. Good friends from the look of it too. Also one of the things the hunter mentioned is the only momento he wanted was a single dino tooth. That's a lot different from killing a critter just for it's head or hide.
Oh I know they're friends, still, "There's something in space and I need help, I know, I'll get my big game hunter friend!" seems an odd move for the Doctor.
And to be fair, all most hunters ever wanted from a Rhino was the horn.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Something I try and keep in mind (not that you have to but I do it) is how the other incarnations of the Doctor would know some of these people. Three was such a name dropper that I felt like he spent half his time travelling with a check list to make sure he hung out with as many historic figures as possible. Sometimes I think many of these friends are more a friend of the core being of the Doctor, the constant in all the incarnations, instead of a specific preference to that particular one. How would the 4th Doctor handle Amy? For that matter how would the current incarnation handle, say, Ian?
For sure. That's actually part of why I don't like how preachy current Doctors are about this stuff.
Pertwee's name dropping used to always get on my nerves. Like he had to prove he was special.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
He was trying to prove he was special: most of the early incarnations were going out of their way to always appear old and important (very British of them, I must say) and then came the 5th incarnation...
Hartnell yes, definitely. Troughton not so much I found although he did enjoy pointing out when people were idiots.
Pertwee however name dropped like that d-bag at a party that once visited a film set and saw Spielberg pass him in a hall but won't shut up about it...
I'm telling you guys...just as the TARDIS knows where & when the Doctor "needs" to be, she also knows who he needs. Combine that with the telepathic link between the two of them & you have the answer that fits the established canon.
Possibly, but until they say it I'm leaving it out. Quantum Leap started to suck when there was a higher power guiding everything...
I like to think the Doctor makes his own choices.
Orrrrrrr....the line about "large life signs".
timelordjedi777
Sr Member
I have to agree. While the TARDIS does some times take him to places he didn't mean to go, it doesn't just drive itself. If that was the case you wouldn't even need controls. Just walk in and say "lets go" and that would be about it. The Doctor does mean to go to a lot of these places, it just so happens that stuff happens when he's there.
Similar threads
