My interests really don't lie in untangling the details of multi-season continuity, so I won't fight hard for my position. (I was actually going to refer you to greenpear's post on the subject, but I see you've participated in that conversation already, so it won't be anything new to you.
It's pretty much been established that all the Doctors in a multi-Doctor story but one, the current, and therefore, oldest, incarnation, forget what they experience when the adventure is over.
But unless I'm mistaken, here the Doctors' own timeline has been changed. The War Doctor didn't destroy Gallifrey, he saved it. He doesn't remember the enounter with his successor incarnations, fair enough; but why would he have a false memory of destorying (typo - but I like it, so leaving it be!) the Time Lords when that didn't happen?
ETA:
This isn't exactly a water-tight theory, I admit, as it's based mostly on conjecture and our fellow fans filling in the blanks, as it were, but it makes sense and seems like as good an explanation as any to me.
And there's my problem with Moffat's plotting in a nutshell, one I've been ranting about critiquing for years now. I don't mind ambiguity in my fiction, but internal contradiction is bad for my suspicion of disbelief, as is the requirement that fans settle for theories that aren't "exactly ... water-tight" and are "based mostly on conjecture" in order to make what shows up on screen make even some kind of sense.
It's pretty much been established that all the Doctors in a multi-Doctor story but one, the current, and therefore, oldest, incarnation, forget what they experience when the adventure is over.
But unless I'm mistaken, here the Doctors' own timeline has been changed. The War Doctor didn't destroy Gallifrey, he saved it. He doesn't remember the enounter with his successor incarnations, fair enough; but why would he have a false memory of destorying (typo - but I like it, so leaving it be!) the Time Lords when that didn't happen?
ETA:
This isn't exactly a water-tight theory, I admit, as it's based mostly on conjecture and our fellow fans filling in the blanks, as it were, but it makes sense and seems like as good an explanation as any to me.
And there's my problem with Moffat's plotting in a nutshell, one I've been ranting about critiquing for years now. I don't mind ambiguity in my fiction, but internal contradiction is bad for my suspicion of disbelief, as is the requirement that fans settle for theories that aren't "exactly ... water-tight" and are "based mostly on conjecture" in order to make what shows up on screen make even some kind of sense.
Reply
Leave a comment