Why don't the kid age at all in the 3-year Time Skip? Cyril at the very least should have shot up like a bean pole in the intervening time but he doesn't.
That's because for him and his body, it isn't 3 years. They "skipped" to 3 years ahead, they didn't actually wait for 3 years.
That irritated me too, it wouldn't have been that hard to set the prologue in say, early 1939 and the actual events in December 1939 or even 1940. Perhaps, to the Doctor, they haven't aged? Or he was seven turning ten and so theoretically wouldn't have to grow too much, considering rationing and things?
He pilots an airplane. How the HELL does an airplane fly into the time vortex?! How. The. Hell.
Well, when the woman opening the time portal is thinking SOLELY about the airplane, and he's following a time machine that can clear the danger out of the way...
The Time Vortex isn't inherently lethal to pass through; there've been cases when beings ride on the outside of the Tardis without dying. Possibly the Tardis projected an air corridor behind it to carry the plane.
...so where was the wardrobe? There was no wardrobe. We were cheated.
Wasn't that what the Doctor jokingly called his TARDIS? Though if you want to be really picky, there wasn't much in the way of a widow, and did the Doctor ever call himself that here?
Yes, the Doctor called the TARDIS a wardrobe.
The Doctor isn't the widow. The whole idea is that the husband is mistaken for dead, and therefore the wife believes herself to be a widow.
I believe they meant that the Doctor never called himself 'the Doctor' in this episode. Can't remember if that's true, but it's not really a relevant point, since the title is for the audience, and we know who he is.
So the Daleks who capture the Doctor, Amy, and Rory. Some of them are Time War Daleks, and some are from the New Paradigm. I thought the New Paradigm Daleks believe that the Time War Daleks are inferior beings? Furthermore, where did these Time War Daleks come from?
For the first part, Daleks are fine with using the lesser races as cannon fodder (see the Robomen, Ogrons, pig slaves and partially-converted humans from this episode.) The Time War Daleks are the rank and file, while the "pure" Paradigm Daleks are the ruling class.
As for the second part, Stephen Moffat does seem to have decided not to bother too much with explanations of how the villains keep coming back; think about all those Cybermen we saw briefly last series. In fairness, the explanation would just consist of "We fell through time!", or something. He probably decided viewers could infer that for themselves.
Those three particular Daleks were impure, not necessarily the shape or style of the casings they're housed in. The New Paradigm simply bred new, 'pure' Daleks but kept the old casing for the rank-and-file Daleks and used the new casing for the officer class, scientists, strategists, 'NCOs', etc.
I, too, thought this was the reason for the mixed casings.
As far as I remember (feel free to correct me), there is nothing in the episode to indicate that there are Time War Daleks anywhere. Also, those Cybermen last series were intended to be the Cybermen of our universe, they just didn't bother to change their design.
Moffet confirmed that the Time War-style Dalek are the rank-in-file, while the Skittles!Daleks are the officers and ruling class. He did this because the fandom still prefered the older design after Victory of the Daleks came out.
The first lot of Daleks in "Victory of the Daleks" were impure because they were survivors of "Journey's End", made from Davros's cells. The Daleks that actually fought in the Time War were pure Daleks.
Why, when the Daleks care so much about their racial purity in Victory of the Daleks that they killed the previous Daleks, were they fine with converting a human into a Dalek and putting it in charge of the Asylum?
Maybe it's because of their racism; if there's a human who can do the job of guarding the asylum, why would they make a Dalek endure that?
The Daleks who did the converting were presumably the insane Daleks on the planet (or at least were the slightly-less-insane ones); the sane Daleks outside the Asylum didn't seem to be aware of the human in question's existence in the first place. And the insane Daleks' standards on racial purity might simply have fallen by the wayside due to the fact that they're completely mad. My guess is that when the ship crashed, the one of the slightly more functional insane Daleks took it upon itself to convert Oswin for it's own reasons.
This one makes sense. "Inmate" Daleks seem to have an "all in this together" mindset, because Imperial Daleks and Renegade Daleks live together in it with no fuss.
Why were the Daleks in Victory of the Daleks killed when Daleks are apparently too beautiful to be killed?
Insane Daleks are too beautiful to be killed, being balls ofhateful rage even by Dalek standards. Your common-or-garden screeching dustbin can be exterminated as they see fit.
Only pure Daleks ares sent to the Asylum, and even then only when it isnt inconvenient.
Why put the only control to lower the shield of the Asylum, in the Asylum that you are too scared to go in?
To make sure nobody can let them out without getting exterminated by a horde of insane Daleks or mutated by a nanocloud. Add to this the fact that most of them were inactive and half-dead and presumably the main Daleks thought an uprising'd never be a problem. Daleks tend to be arrogant.
Why were the Daleks able to feel fear in the beginning of the episode but halfway through the episode while Amy is being converted the Doctor claims that Daleks don't feel fear.
Not being able to feel fear doesn't mean you can't think fear.
At the start of the episode, the Doctor patches in to Oswin's signal, and she talks to him. In a human voice, not a Dalek's. (None of the Dalek Parliament, the androids, the Prime Minister or the Doctor and friends seem to notice a Dalek is speaking to them.) Why?
She talks to them throughout the episode. Either she managed to find a way to transmit in her human voice and then forgot she'd done it, or the transmission technology works on brainwaves (which would explain why they can hear the music she plays), and so sends across how she hears herself.
Note: The Dalek puppets are not androids, they're worse than that.
Why is there a Dalek Prime Minister, anyway? Do Daleks have elections?
'Prime Minister' is, in its more general usage, simply the first of the monarch's advisors / ministers. It's an elected position in the Westminster system of government and those derived from it, but it doesn't have to be. Presumably if there is / was a Dalek Emperor, the Dalek Prime Minister is the next step down.
There's little reason to think that the Dalek "Prime Minister" position is at all similar to real-life Prime Minister positions, apart from the fact that it's an office of significant authority.
I assume that the Prime Minister is basically an extension of the Emperor, or possibly something like the Classic Series' Dalek High Council. The Emperor can't dictate everything that happens in the Dalek Empire and needs a Dalek to basically be his voice. The Prime Minister would be his representative-just being a mutant in a fancy tube could signify that the Dalek Prime Minister has no real power. Being called a "Dalek Prime Minister" was both a joke and nod to their involvment with Winston Churchill.
Shouldn't Skaro be time-locked out of accessibility by its heavy involvement in the Time War the same way Gallifrey was?
Adding onto that, why isn't the Doctor more surprised when he sees the Daleks? In most of the New Who encounters with them, there's a moment of "didn't I kill you? How are you back?" And yet he seemed totally unsurprised by the Dalek civilization being exactly the same as it was in the Time War.
He didn't kill them all last time, they won. It makes sense they'd have gotten more powerful.
If the Daleks are back, what about the Time Lords? Doesn't this mean that the time lock did nothing, and we're back to the Time War again?
"The End of Time" implies that the Time Lords had gotten worse than the Daleks. Maybe the Doctor tried harder to stop them.
These aren't Daleks locked in Time War, as stated above, they're the civilization built by the ones who escaped with the progenitor device.
The Daleks were heavily involved in the Time War, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Skaro was; they could have simply abandoned the planet by that point. It does look pretty run-down and decaying.
Also, Skaro was destroyed by "Remembrance of the Daleks" in the classic series; the Daleks probably fought most of the War from spaceships or vassal planets in the Empire, so it might not have been worth time-locking. With that in mind, maybe the Doctor travelled to Skaro-pre-1963 (when it got blown up.)
They could've just bomb some nearby planet and called it Skaro. Their planet was already a wasteland anyway...
So where is Davros during all this?
For all we know, he died on the Crucible after the whole Reality Bomb thing.
Given the events of The Stolen Earth and Journey's End got eaten by time-cracks, he might never have even made it out of the Time War. Unless they got brought back in Big Bang 2, but then everyone should know about aliens.
Even if he survived thanks to Joker Immunity, genetically pure Daleks tend to hate him and only seek his help when they have no other choice (against the Movellans in Destiny of the Daleks, Caan when he's the last left).
At the end, the Doctor warps himself into the TARDIS, which is aboard the Dalek ship. But wait, why is the TARDIS aboard their ship? The Doctor didn't just come aboard on his own; he was kidnapped.
Maybe the Daleks decided to bring the TARDIS aboard themselves, after the Doctor was kidnapped?
Presumably so, as it's present in the Parliament when they fire the Doctor, Amy, and Rory at the planet.
The sane Daleks are afraid that the insane Daleks will break out of the asylum. But how would the insane Daleks escape, exactly? Even if the shield fails, it's not like the planet is loaded with spaceships. It seems like only a scarce few would escape, via the crashed ship and that one teleporter. There might be more means of escape off-camera, but why would there be? The whole place is a prison.
Perhaps Daleks have a means of teleportation built into the casings (like the Emergency Temporal Shift.)
Daleks can also fly, and we've seen them fly in space outside of spaceships before ("The Parting of the Ways"). Presumably they might be able to fly from a planet a short distance into space, enough to overwhelm the Dalek crafts orbiting the planet and steal them.
If the insane Daleks escaped, would they really pose a threat to the regular Daleks? Would they even attack the sane Daleks? As far as we know, they'll just travel around and kill random people. And that's something the regular Daleks would likely approve of.
Maybe attacking other Daleks is what qualifies them as insane. Perhaps these Daleks basically went on a killing spree of their own kind. I know they weren't attacking each other down in the asylum, but that's not to say they can't have before.
Or possibly the threat they pose isn't just physical. Confining them in the Asylum probably also locks the mad Daleks out of whatever communication-network links the sane ones together into an organized military force. If the inmates can get beyond the shield, their crazy psyches may re-join that network automatically and disrupt the sane Daleks' own mental stability, spreading their madness to the entire species.
Why do the Daleks call in The Doctor to save them? Even assuming that the insane Daleks pose an extreme threat, this is The Doctor we're talking about. He is the Predator. He is The Oncoming Storm. Why get him involved at all when there's a serious chance that he'll turn on you? Why not send somebody else to do the job? I get it; the Daleks are scared. But can't they kidnap some other people and get them to handle the problem? Can't they even try? I don't know, go grab some Judoon or something. They'd pose less of a threat to you than the friggin' Doctor.
So they can kill him when they blow up the planet the moment the shields go down? Whoever they send is going to be almost certainly killed, might as well send the Daleks' Devil. Worst case scenario as far as they're concerned, their asylum problem is taken care of and the Doctor problem is exactly as it was at the start.
There's also the notion that they know what Oswin can do and what her deal is, they aren't "afraid," they've just calculated that she can mess with them, which is why they can't go, so they logic-ed it out; the Daleks on the planet are a threat, how do Dalek threats get handled? The Doctor and his companions drop out of the sky and deal with it, so they made that scenario happen.
The Daleks call the Doctor the Predator, because he's the only being who's hurt them so badly that he's forced them to acknowledge he's more dangerous than they are. Anything less than him, they'd never believe capable of standing up to the inmates.
Why does the Doctor just leave at the end? Sure, the Daleks have all forgotten him now. But they're still a huge threat to the universe. (Heck, they've just demonstrated their ability to destroy a planet.) Shouldn't he do something about that?
He's still in the middle of a giant amphitheater filled with Daleks. If he stepped out of that TARDIS at the end for more than the half a second he did, they'd simply EX-TER-MIN-ATE him the same way they would any other random non-Dalek stranger that appeared in the middle of Parliament calling themselves The Predator.
In fact, one of the Daleks tries to do just that as the TARDIS dematerialises.
As they have no memory of bringing the Doctor there, the Daleks were probably trying to figure out the source of the big blue box that (to their perception) spontaneously appeared in the middle of their amphitheater. Just because it needs to be EXTERMINATED doesn't mean you can't take 5 minutes to figure out what the hell it is first.
Why reveal Oswin as a Dalek only to immediately re-reveal her as a former human? On a planet allegedly full of insane Daleks.
Well, it wouldn't really have made sense if she'd been a Dalek from the beginning. The insane Daleks weren't killed because their hatred was seen as beautiful, but a Dalek that thinks it's a human isn't full of hatred. Although, if they could have made it work, that would have been a brilliant twist.
Also now that we've seen the Christmas Special, it might tamper with the plans of having Clara/Oswin be the same "person" through out time.
Why do they leave Oswin behind in the end? She doesn't seem suicidal, she's in control of herself and we don't see any evidence her mind will degenerate, they had time, and the teleporter would presumably take her. So why don't they take her?
I thought the fact that Oswin finally figures out what 'eggs' refers to (i.e. 'exterminate') was a hint that her control was slipping, at least since she'd learnt the truth; slower than most, perhaps, but that she would eventually become a Dalek. In any case, I got the vibe that it was more that Oswin preferred to die as a human than live as a Dalek.
During the intro, Oswin mentions that she has to fortify the door because Daleks are trying to get in. Now that we know that the whole thing is a hallucination, perhaps that door is a metaphor for her Dalek tendencies trying to break in and destroy the human part of her consciousness. In which case, perhaps she will eventually succumb and start thinking like a Dalek. She prefers to die as a human.
"They had time"? Daleks are slow. I thought the implication was that Oswin could not have made it to the teleporter before the planet blew up.
Why do a number of fans seem to have the impression that all the Daleks in the asylum, or at least several of them, were converted humans or thought they were humans? Was it because of the scene where Amy was hallucinating? That's not evidence. We don't know exactly what kind of effects the nanomachines were having on her mind. It could be that she saw the Daleks as humans because while the machines hadn't gotten to making her consider herself a Dalek, they did make her perceive Daleks as the same species as herself. I don't think there was anything in the episode that implied that there were any more Oswin-style converted Daleks.
To be fair, the episode also contains humans crashing onto a planet filled with Daleks and at least one of them being converted into a Dalek. True, it's not directly confirmed that others were, and it's unlikely, but it's also not the most unreasonable conclusion to reach either.
Hold on: The entire premise of the episode is that the Daleks have no way to penetrate their forcefield, so they need the doctor for help. Now I can forgive the Daleks being able to send the doctor through the impenetrable shield, since they'd need to be able to deposit prisoners somehow (maybe the shield somehow checks whether or not the object in the gravity beam is a lifeform or a weapon). However, how did the Alaska escape pod get inside the shield? And if an escape pod is able to go through the shield, why couldn't a Dalek weapon?
The Doctor himself points out that obviously the shield is obviously not entirely impenetrable, and that if something can get in something can get out. However, the Alaska escape pod is presumably quite small, and thus is able to slip through what is presumably a fairly small 'crack' in the shield. While it's theoretically possible that a missile could make it through the same gap as well, they would at first need to find it (presumably not an easy task even for a Dalek) and then aim the missile right at the gap (again, probably not the easiest thing to do). Note also that at the end it takes a fairly sizable number of missiles — at least twenty, maybe more — to destroy the planet entirely; a single missile would presumably not do the job. Even if the forcefield is not entirely impenetrable, it's presumably easier just to switch it off and carpet-bomb the entire planet rather than locate the gap in the defences and target a whole load of missiles through that gap.
Why the beans did Madame Kovarian make Amy infertile? Wouldn't it make more sense to let her have another baby, in hopes that it would become another Time Lord?
Madame Kovarian didn't need Amy anymore. Remember that was the 51st century, if they wanted another Time Lord they could just take the DNA from River Song and clone her. Besides i think she didn't intentionally made her infertile, i think that was a side-effect of whatever the Silence did to her.
Unless they made her infertile to prevent someone making another Time Baby to combat River!
Wait, when did they ever say that Amy was physically infertile? I assumed it was an emotional problem. (IIRC she simply says "I can't have a baby", so this could go either way.) Her one and only pregnancy was hijacked by an evil organization; she herself was kidnapped and replaced with a ganger, Kovarian basically haunted her nightmares, and after the baby was finally born it melted in her arms! (because it was actually just another ganger at that point). Then that very same baby grew up and murdered the Doctor (actually the Tesselecta, but still it was a traumatic moment for Amy.) I figured that the whole experience just made the entire topic of pregnancy unbearable for Amy, even though she was physically capable of conceiving again.
Generally, if someone says they can't have kids, they mean that they can't have kids, not that they don't want them. I'd have thought, if it was an emotional thing, she would have worded it differently, something like "I couldn't handle it". If she meant it was an emotional problem, I imagine the writers would have made that clearer.
I don't know, it certainly sounds like she'd been over and over this and had reluctantly decided she couldn't handle it. It just makes so much more sense that the trauma of her first child left her emotionally not ready for kids. I mean, you can adopt or have someone donate their womb or their womb and their egg there are many options there. Alternatively, she could not physically nor emotionally have babies?
Since it was never filmed, this doesn't really count as canon, but in PS, a scene planned for the end of The Angels Take Manhattan, it says that Amy and Rory did end up adopting a kid in the past. So, it's possible she's traumatised by the idea of pregnancy and birth, but clearly the writers didn't think it was a case of not being able to handle raising a child, which gives me the overall impression she couldn't get pregnant. And it's not uncommon for people who are incapable of having children feel like they are worth less, and not view other options as enough. Again, PS ended up being unfilmed, but the BBC have put it out there for us to see, so I think it counts for something.
The Dalek from Dalek had been put in chains by humans who didn't know its strength. And it worked because it was so heavily damaged. Seeing it break free of those after repairing itself was a nice effect. But why are there so many shattered links in Asylum of the Daleks? Who thought it would restrain anyone? Or were the Doctor, Amy and Rory leaving time energy everywhere?
The Daleks also have a galaxy-spanning empire and are able to draw upon the resources of far more worlds than Henry Van Statten and his crew were; they're presumably able to find or make chains of stronger or heavier metal than anyone on Earth can. So presumably the mad Daleks initially start off chained up (for example, when they're first being transported from the planet to stop them causing havoc on the ships that are transporting them there), but all metals rust and weaken over time, allowing them to eventually break free. Once they do, however, they're safely in the Asylum, and the other Daleks outside of it don't care whether they break out of their chains or not.
This hasn't been definitively determined, although it's practically 100% certain that this will be revisited in some fashion at some point when Jenna-Louise Coleman's character takes on the job full time, so to speak.
Perhaps the new character is Oswin's twin?
The marketing for "The Snowmen" describes Jenna-Louise Coleman's character as "Clara", a Victorian governess. Obviously we won't know for certain until it actually airs and we get to know her, but the most likely scenario (on the face of it at least) is that Clara is an ancestor.
The final answer from The Name of the Doctor: Oswin and Clara are both the same person, a girl named Clara who becomes the Doctor's Companion and ends up jumping into his Time Stream to save his life. This action spreads her across his lifetime, causing her to appear in numerous times and places to help him.
Why does the Doctor being a Time Lord make him immune to the nanogenes? It just seemed like a cop-out solution to me, especially since it was explicitly stated that nanogenes were meant to make anyone attacking the Asylum part of it's security system. Who would attack the Asylum BUT the Time Lords? And wouldn't the Daleks want the nanogenes to be able to convert any species, not just humans? It's a big universe, after all.
For all we know, the Doctor isn't immune to them, at least not entirely. It's Amy who suggests that, after all, and she has no exact knowledge of exactly what he's immune to or not; other than what Amy says, it's never directly confirmed either way. It's entirely possible that the nanogenes were affecting him, only slower than they were affecting Amy, so he took a gamble that he'd be able to get business sorted out and get off the planet before they affected him sufficiently to convert him, and decided to protect Amy instead. And even if possessing biological abilities beyond those of a human hadn't been clearly established as part of being a Time Lord since pretty much the first time we ever found out what a Time Lord was, if not before (regeneration, respiratory bypass system, two hearts...), the OP's objection can be easily flipped; if the Time Lords are going to be the only ones who are attacking the Asylum (or any similar Dalek facility for that matter), then they've got a vested interest in anticipating and making sure they're protected from any possible defences that it might have. And if anyone is going to be anticipating and attacking Dalek defences, it's the Doctor.
What if it was affecting him, and Clara wasn't actually a Dalek, the Nanogenes just altered his brain to make him think so. She was fairly easily convinced because, well, she's been a year on a planet full of Daleks where people can be converted. Probably not true at all, just something that occurred to me.
To make a Dalek, you subtract love and add hate. Amy and Rory were in a bad place already because their marriage was in tatters. The Doctor figured that his love for both of them (and the universe at large) would be enough to stave off conversion symptoms for a few minutes at least, which was long enough to resolve everything and leave the planet.
Possibly the Time Lords developed an anti-nanogene vaccine during the Time War, and inoculated all of their own people including the Doctor. He didn't tell Amy this because he knew the nanogenes would seize upon any possible seed of envy or hostility they found in her psyche, possibly including envy of his immunity; rather, he convinced her they were both in the same danger, but that concentrating on her love for Rory could protect her just as it was "protecting" him.
Okay, I get that Rory wants kids: but does Amy really think, that the guy who had waited 2000 YEARS for her, would want to have biological children with someone else than be with her? This is also ignoring fertility treatments, surrogate mothers, or even adoption. And besides, if it did bother him, he still has a biological child in River: true, he doesn't see her until she's an adult, but still. I just don't understand why Amy's first instinct is to leave him to have kids with someone else in this situation.
It's not exactly uncommon for couples who have seemingly strong relationships to break down after discovering that one of the partners is infertile, and remember that Amy is going through a lot of grief and insecurity about this; it might not be strictly logical of her to think in this way, but then love, grief and insecurity very rarely operate according to strictly logical terms. River is is not exactly a conventional example of having a child, since they've missed out on several fundamental parts of the process of rearing their child (such as the whole 'childhood' thing for one).
Most likely it wasn't her 'first instinct'. More likely, she thought about it and thought about it until she'd managed to convince herself he'd be happier with someone else. Not logical, no, but as mentioned, she was feeling upset and insecure, and people can convince themselves that people will be happier without them, even when that makes no sense, if they're feeling bad enough.
Is Amy actually sterile after what the Silence did to her? When she told Rory she couldn't have anymore children, I didn't take it to mean she physically couldn't, but rather she doesn't want more children due to the trauma of what happened the last time she had a child (namely, Amy got kidnapped, her child got kidnapped and Amy missed out on raising her daughter).
I think she physically can't. Didn't she say 'I don't know what they did to me', or something? That implies more than trauma. I never got any indication that she didn't want kids, she seemed pretty upset about not being able to have them herself.
How long has the Asylum been around? I assume it's been there for a long time, considering the plethora of old series Daleks we see contained in there, but wasn't the "Metaltron" Dalek in Dalek supposed to be the last of his kind? (Excluding the Emperor and the Cult of Skaro, obviously.) I seem to remember them drawing attention to the fact that the Doctor and Metaltron were both the lone survivors of their respective species.
When the Asylum is first mentioned, Doctor says that he never believed in it.
Specifically, he'd never believed that Daleks would leave their own insane alive.
Why do insane Daleks stop attacking the Doctor as soon as Oswin deletes him from their database? I get that they don't know who he is anymore, but don't the Daleks want to exterminate everyone?
They're insane and, in this case, heavily traumatised; it's not unreasonable that normal Dalek rules would not longer apply in this case.
Wait, why wasn't Dalek Caan put in the Asylum? He sounded crazy to me.
He was also clearly of use to the Daleks (or at least Davros) at the time; their plan of the moment was working off his predictions, which they couldn't have done if they'd just dumped him in the Asylum. Just like the Special Weapons Dalek was used outside the Asylum despite apparently being completely off it's rocker even by Dalek standards as well. Apparently the Daleks will hold off on chucking a mad Dalek into the Asylum if they think they can be useful in some way.
And his insanity wasn't the kind that Daleks would find beautiful.
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship
Rory tells his dad he's 31. Is that possible? Amy was (correct me if I'm wrong on this) 21 when they got married, and based on flashbacks, Rory seems to be about the same age as her. I know the Doctor's been drifting in and out of their lives for awhile, but has it really been ten years since they were married? It seems like there should have been some acknowledgement that it's been that long. I guess I'm just getting a little confused about the timeline in general.
Well, I think it's fair to assume it's generally a year per series, so normally it would have been two. But then there's two years for after the Doctor's 'death', ten months between this and the last episode, an unspecified time between the Christmas special and the last episode (but long enough for them to go from a happy couple to the brink of divorce; yes, Amy was actually giving Rory up, but how long would it take for Rory to accept the break up and get divorce papers?). Oh, and an unspecified time before the last series and midway through it, and time enough between The God Complex and Closing Time for Amy to release a perfume brand and become a model... I was a little surprised to find it was ten years, but there has been a lot of unspecified amounts of time; so after thinking about it, ten years seems reasonable.
Actually, Rory has to be at least three years older than Amy, as when she was nineteen in 'The Eleventh Hour', he was working as a qualified nurse, implying that he'd already completed a three-year university degree after leaving school (presumably at age eighteen).
That's a very good point, but in Let's Kill Hitler they were clearly the same age... the writers may not have thought about this properly, but I think they think that they're the same age, so I think it is supposed to be ten years.
Is he definitely working as a qualified nurse? Student nurses work on wards doing the same sort of things Rory does.
In The Power of Three, Amy mentions that it's been ten years for her since she began travelling with the Doctor.
If the Doctor has erased himself from every database ever, then how did the Indian Space Agency know how to contact him? How did UNIT know, for that matter? Everyone seems to think he's dead (or nonexistent), except them.
UNIT at least probably had whatever info on him they had from the back when he was rolling around with them (and that is probably in some capacity a fixed point, that or The Brigadier told his daughter about the doctor and UNIT has a few people left from the old days who remember him to. The ISA has no real explanation beyond maybe that commander lady'll show up again.
Plus, UNIT is old enough (Earth-time) that it probably has plenty of archived records about the Doctor on paper from back in the 70s. Torchwood, even moreso.
The ISA didn't contact him - he had the psychic paper set to news feeds and went uninvited.
A Town Called Mercy
Can anyone else hear the Master's drumbeat when the Doctor goes especially off the deep end in this episode?
So the Doctor's being all crazy and Master-ish, and Amy acknowledges this is by saying "this is what happens when you travel alone for too long" Um. I know she and Rory have their own lives to live, but it's sort of strange that she knows what's wrong and then still decides to leave for a long time again. It just doesn't seem like something she (or Rory) would do, since the Doctor is her best friend and all. You'd think that when he dropped them off Amy would at least take a second and say "hey, you'll be okay by yourself won't you?" And yeah, the Doctor would lie and they'd still leave, but it just seemed really out of character for her to not make sure he's reasonably sane before leaving him.
There are some hints that this episode takes place during the events of the next episode (where the Doctor is stuck on Earth for a long period trying to figure out the cube invasion, and keeps taking Rory and Amy away with him when he gets bored). If this is the case, he's going to be hanging around long enough for them to be able to keep him company and make sure he doesn't go off the deep end.
No there aren't.
There aren't hints? Yes, there are. Specifically; the thing about Henry VIII. In this episode, it says Rory left his phone charger in the king's bedchamber. In the next episode, in the bit where they're travelling with the Doctor, Amy accidentally marries him, and they end up hiding under his bed. They could have gone back, but that just seems like the kind of thing that was put in as a deliberate clue; I can't see how they'd end up in the king's bedroom twice.
The Power of Three
So, did everyone who wasn't Brian or Rory on the ship die when it blew up? And why were the orderlies kidnapping people, anyway?
I think the implication is that they were being tested/experimented on to find the best way to kill humans, but it's not made explicitly clear. Nor whether or not they were already dead by the time Doctor and Amy got there (but considering Brian and Rory weren't...yeeaaahhh...)
A bit of Fridge Horror when you think that if Amy and Rory had listened to the Doctor when he told them to get everyone out (assuming he meant EVERYONE, and not just Brian, which I think he did), that wouldn't have happened. Also add the fact that the Doctor didn't even notice that he just blew several people up...which isn't like him at all...
Assuming that the people the orderlies had kidnapped from the hospital were being used to figure out how to kill humans (just theory, of course), what was the point of the cubes? It wouldn't have taken them 10 months (or however long it was) to figure out how to kill humans if they had been experimenting on people the whole time.
The cubes were there to apply said killing method on a global scale.
While that's certainly true, the cubes were sent months in advance so that they could analyze the human race and figure out the best way to kill them. Now, if the Shakri had been experimenting on people from the very start, they would have instantly noticed that humans could be killed by destroying basically any major organ. They wouldn't have had to wait that long; they could have killed them all instantly.
The wait wasn't just to figure out how to kill people, it was also to lower humanity's guard and ensure that people would feel comfortable carrying the cubes around, spreading them about and keeping them everywhere so the strike would have maximum effect. It was a surprise attack, a time bomb.
The Doctor also implied the Shakri weren't quite limited to normal time, either, so waiting for the cube plan to come to fruition likely wasn't a big deal to them.
Why was the heart-restarting power of the cubes treated like a happy ending? Most of that third of the population affected will now have irreversible brain damage due to lack of circulation. Yay?
We'll have to hope that the unexplained power to cause heart attacks also involves a method of avoiding brain damage, or a method of repairing such damage once the heart is restarted.
The writer obviously didn't know that lack of circulation for such a short time could cause irreversible brain damage (neither did I), so it's not true in the episode.
The Angels Take Manhattan
A cherubim Angel blows out Rory's candle in the trailer. Can Angels breathe when quantum-locked? Does that count as moving?
I think the wind just blew the candle out - the face of the cherub just made it look like it was blowing the candle out.
Being quantum-locked didn't stop that Angel in Blink from turning off that light bulb.
The Statue of Liberty isn't stone, it's made of copper and metal. How can they make it an Angel?
The Image of an angel becomes an angel, so they might be trying to make it look like one of them
Or they could have done it the other way around, making an existing angel look like the Statue.
Angels might be able to quantum lock into any form, as long as it can't be killed; you can't 'kill' metal any more than you can 'kill' stone.
Copper and metals come from refining mineral ores, which are stone.
No, copper ore (and all metal ores) are metal, they are simple deposits found in rock (or stone).
No... not at all. Hematite e.g. is an iron-oxygen compound, and is a mineral just like quartz (which is silicon-oxygen), which makes up a large part of what we commonly call "rock".
At the very end of Blink, aren't some of the statues shown made of metal?
How did Amy and River get that book published? It would have far too much required backstory to make any sense of the characters and plot mechanics (we only got it because we were already familiar with the characters and setting), and the afterword is more or less completely nonsensical.
As a side-note, how did Amy get that book published in 1938 if she's stuck in an apartment for the rest of her life? And if they sent it to another past Amy, wouldn't she have noticed it was weird an Amy, Rory and the Doctor showed up and that Melody sounds like her daughter?
Amy wasn't stuck in an apartment - her and Rory's suicide created a paradox which destroyed the whole operation. After the last Angel sent them back in time, they were free to live where they wanted in the past, just like the Angels' victims in Blink.
Perhaps it's one of a series; just because they don't mention other volumes doesn't mean there aren't any. Plus, back in the 1930s, there were loads of avenues for authors to get published (as well as publishers, there were a lot more short story magazines for a start) — it's where the whole 'pulp' thing comes from.
The Bells of St. John reveals Amy writes more books, which supports that argument.
How did the Angels plan on keeping people alive in the apartment complex if they keep them there for their entire lives? Did the angels provide thrice-daily meal service and delivery of enough mentally stimulating books/misc. to stave off suicide?
Possibly there's a statue in a farmers' market nearby, that time-shifts food into the rooms.
The idea of the Statue of Liberty being an angel in the first place is totally ridiculous. World famous statue in a city of 8 million-ish people, a city that "never sleeps", an alien that can't move if someone's watching. Seems to me that there should be at least one person at any given time that's looking at it, never mind when it's running around the city making giant booming footsteps. Who doesn't look around when you hear BOOM...BOOM...BOOM sound of a giant walking about?
Well, it was mentioned that no one seemed to notice the angels, so maybe they have a sort of Perception Filter that allows people to see them but never notice them. They seem to change with every episode, anyway, so why not? The BOOM...BOOM...BOOMs were sporadic; that was probably people glancing out their windows, "Oh look, the Statue of Liberty is in the middle of the street", and going back to whatever they were doing.
For that matter, does it even do anything? If you're going to turn a famous world landmark into a time demon, you might as well do something with it. Just stomping over to gawk at people on the roof seems somewhat unbecoming.
Its role is probably to poke those people that escape onto the roof, sending them back in time to be recaptured. Why not use a standard, more subtle Angel up there for that is less clear.
It's most likely that it goes over there to feed on the time energy. The question remains, of course, as to why make the Statue an Angel, bring up the Fridge Logic of how it's supposed to move, and then not do anything with it at all.
No matter how you look at it, it doesn't make any sense. So really, the only true explanation is Rule of Cool.
Which means, if we look at it in a Watsonian sense, that even the Weeping Angels of old can fall prey to Awesome but Impractical.
Further proof of this: no-one—NO-ONE—was looking at the statue that was taller than the building when Rory and Amy were preparing to jump. They were understandably too busy with Drama. The paradox wasn't that Amy and Rory died, it was that the statue existed, unhindered, and didn't EAT everyone in less than a split second. It just existed to show up, canonizing the joke that existed on the internet long before this episode, solely to threaten Rory and never be mentioned again once Rory got his idea to jump, because the characters had the relevant plot to talk about.
I assumed someone was looking out of a window or something in that scene. There were probably some people who had an idea what went on, didn't dare go anywhere near, but did still try to save others by staring as long as they could when they saw the angels were after them. But since there was no way out of the building other than jumping (and no-one else would know to do that), these efforts could never achieve anything.
As of "The Name of the Doctor", it's possible that one of Clara's duplicates was nearby and peeked at it long enough for them to escape.
The So L angel was probably stationed there to grab captives from behind in the event they did try to jump off the roof. It's not as if someone would need to be an expert on time travel to be Driven to Suicide by the sight of themselves aged to near-death, is it? The angels surely recognized the risk of a paradox, and took precautions against it. It would've caught Rory and Amy as they fell, returned them to the rooftop, and time-shifted them both, except that with two people falling instead of one, there was no direction from which it could reach in to catch them without getting time-locked.
We actually have the answer: There is a poster of the statue of liberty in the elevator. As per Flesh And Stone/Time of the Angels images of angels become angels. Make the statue an angel and every picture of the statue becomes an angel. The Angel!Liberty came from the poster in the elevator. Well, maybe. That kinda pushes into Wild Mass Guessing of course.
But if that image created a real Angel, wouldn't it be the size of the image, rather than the size of the actual Statue of Liberty?
In "Time of Angels", the Angel that was materializing from the recording was normal-sized.
But wait. There are millions of pictures of the Statue of Liberty. If any image of it—assuming it actually is an angel—can become a full-sized replica, the planet should have been overrun with the damned things a century ago. (Y'know, on a side tangent, as cool as the video angel scene was in "Time of Angels," the whole "image of an angel becomes an angel" thing opens a whole cannery full of worms once Fridge Logic is applied.)
Possibly the Statue had only recently been converted into/replaced by an angel, so only pictures created since that happened would pose such a risk. There'd be a number of them, but probably not enough to overrun the planet, especially at a time when photos still had to be painstakingly developed in a darkroom.
Since when can the Doctor use regeneration energy when he hasn't recently regenerated? Is this something he's always been able to do? Because if so, it's pretty out of character for him that he wouldn't have used it to heal any of the hundreds of good people he's seen die in front of him.
It probably only works between Time Lords, whose bodies are made to be able to use the stuff, and as such only really have been applicable when he was with Romana, the only other Time Lord he liked that he's spent any meaningful length of time with other than River.
He gave up ten years of his life to recharge the TARDIS in Rise of the Cybermen, so there's precedent. It does seem likely that it only works with Time Lordy things, though.
Don't forget that in Let's Kill Hitler River was able to use up her remaining regenerations to save the Doctor from dying. So yes it has been established that regeneration energy can be used to help another Time Lord who is injured.
The question is, what exactly does it mean for the Doctor to use up "regeneration energy" like that? Ten gave up ten years of his life, but that didn't really seem to mean anything in the long run- his next regeneration was really rough, but that's assumed to be because he was holding it in so long. Is Eleven going to have problems with his next regeneration? Or was River worried about nothing?
I presume that the more energy you use up, the greater the risk that your next regeneration will go poorly and you won't actually survive the process. This would work well with the idea that River used up all her remaining regenerations in Let's Kill Hitler.
Another point: if the Doctor could always use regeneration energy then why didn't he use it on the Master when the Master refused to regenerate?
River did want her wrist to get better, and she didn't see it coming, so she absorbed it. A broken wrist would have hindered her quite badly. The Master, on the other hand, would have rejected the energy because he wanted to die, to amongst other things, hurt the Doctor and leave him the Last Time Lord. Again.
A bit late to the party here, but additionally, the Master was dying, and the Doctor, being in his tenth incarnation at that time, probably didn't have enough regeneration energy left to heal him. It took River all of her remaining regenerations (a total of ten, assuming that she started with a full set) in order to revive the Doctor.
Plus... the Master is still a psychopathic mass-murdering bastard who has caused the Doctor nothing but grief and pain for a good long while by this point. The Doctor might be incredibly saddened by the Master's death and might not want to be the last Time Lord in the universe anymore, but that doesn't necessarily equal being so desperate to keep him alive to the point where he sacrifices his own life (or lives) to do so, especially since if he does so there's a fairly good chance the Master is just going to use the opportunity to cause more pain and misery to the universe. River is, by that point, his wife (sort of) and hasn't done anything nearly on the level that the Master has, so he's a lot more willing to sacrifice himself to heal her. Put simply, the Doctor believes that River is worth the sacrifice, and that the Master probably isn't.
Why, exactly, can't the Doctor go back in time to see Amy and Rory again? Even if he can't take the TARDIS back to New York in that particular time period, what exactly is stopping them from traveling to, you know, ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, where he could go? It just seems like a nonexistent problem created just for Rule of Drama.
They vanished right in front of their own gravestone. By observing the gravestone when he looks at where they vanished, the Doctor turns their death of old age in the past into a fixed point. Which was likely the reason the Angel wanted to poke them there in the first place.
That just explains why he can't bring them back to the present (not for good, anyway), but he explicitly states that he'll never be able to see them again at all. What's stopping him from just popping back to the past for a visit, as long as it's nowhere near New York?
Because now he knows that they've lived out their lives without seeing him again, so it's fixed and he can't change it. Like how reading something makes it fixed, it's the same concept.
"He knows that they've lived out their lives without seeing him again"-How exactly does he know this? It was never stated anywhere that they never saw him again, just that they lived the rest of their lives in the past.
I think that's where 'Amelia's Last Farewell' comes into play. He takes that to mean it's the last time he'll ever see her, and based on everything that's happened, he's aware that trying to fix a future he's already read about will cause a paradox. And according to him, another paradox would destroy NY.
It seems to me the Doctor could just commission that exact gravestone to be made and bring it with him in the TARDIS, and put it up in the proper spot, thus tricking out time in a manner similar to how he did in the previous season's finale.
A statement by Steven Moffat says that normally the Doctor could arrange for a fake grave stone to be made or otherwise trick out time, but since they've already mucked up time a bunch it would be too much. http://www.themarysue.com/steven-moffat-ponds/
Moreover, he's right there when Amy talks herself into following Rory into the past, and hears her make the choice to leave her Tardis-travelling friend behind in exchange for the slim hope of reuniting with her husband. He's plainly more than a bit hurt by this, but he's not going to subvert Amy's right to make that decision: she's willing to cut ties with the Doctor now, and he's learned to respect companions' decisions to leave, however much he's become attached to this pair in particular.
The same reason he rarely goes back to see any of his previous companions once they've made the decision to leave him — it hurts him too much.
Is the Doctor ever going to tell Brian why his son and daughter-in-law never came back from traveling with him? It's entirely possible that he would be too guilt-ridden and avoid Brian altogether...but you have to admit, that'd be a pretty rotten thing to do.
My theory is that Brian'll be back for the Christmas special, he strikes me as a good character for that and it would give closure to the whole deal with him.
I don't think there's anything stopping Amy and Rory from leaving messages for Brian. They could write 50 years worth of letters to him by the time the Doctor got the courage to approach him.
The newspaper that Amy is reading at the beginning says that the Detroit Lions have won the Super Bowl. Never mind the fact that there's no way that any American watching the program would take that claim seriously, but the Super Bowl usually takes place in late January or early February, meaning the weather in Central Park should be far chillier and winter-like than it is.
The Statue of Liberty is BIG and right on the bay of New York. Now, admittedly it's not really big, but considering how busy New York is and how busy New York Harbor is, wouldn't you think there would always be somebody looking at it, making it basically impossible to become Angel-fied? Not to mention that presumably the park service or NYPD would always have somebody on Liberty Island...
Maybe the statue isn't an angel, but it's filled with angels manipulating it. They move it around like a giant puppet/costume and since no one can see them inside, they don't get quantum locked.
Interesting theory (although how would they change its facial expression? Unless in the Whoniverse Lady Liberty has gigantic teeth.)
Maybe it's not really the Statue of Liberty, but simply a giant angel (same as the cherubs are undersized angels) which took on that shape so that people who see and quantum-lock it will assume it's a replica or a movie prop?
What's to prevent Amy's afterword and their graves from simply being planted fakes? Hell, the Doctor's death was given a precise time and date and he's still alive? And if the Doctor can't go back to New York in 1938, what's to prevent him from leaving them say, a cross-Atlantic telegram informing them to take a ship to 1938 England where he'd pick them up?
Again, 'Amelia's Last Farewell' is part of it. He can't see her again, ever, because he already knows that he's not going to. New York is already weak from all the paradoxes and alternate timelines—not sure how THAT works, but whatever—so I'm guessing he can't affect the Pond's timelines at all, at any point in time, as long as they're in New York. As for why the Ponds don't leave, the Doctor does say that if they left they'd be running for the rest of their lives. So I'm guessing the angels want them to stay in New York, possibly as revenge against both them and the Doctor for foiling their diabolical plans.
Amelia's Last Farewell doesn't have to point to her scene in the graveyard. That part of the story could have even just been an epilogue to the book that tells of adventures afterwards when the Doctor did manage to see her again. The title itself doesn't mean anything as it is easy to work around. As viewers we know that the Last Farewell takes place then due to Karen Gillan wanting her exit to be permanent but in universe there is nothing to suggest that it needs to be at the graveyard. Also the Doctor says that to Rory as the Angels were chasing specifically him to farm his time energy in the paradoxed timeline. The new timeline is just a case of that one Angel getting lucky. Seeing as how Amy and Rory live happy lives we can specifically see that the Angels didn't chase them.
Remember the afterword, too. Amy was apparently a lot older when she wrote it, and it confirmed that they never saw eachother again (alright, so he could go back to a time after she wrote it... but somehow I think meeting her again as a very old woman not far from death would probably upset both of them more).
Another factor is the fact that their ages at death are now fixed points. With how dangerous it is to be around the Doctor, he probably doesn't want to risk them dying earlier than that and causing a possibly destructive second paradox.
In reality only the gravestones are fixed points. All it'd take is for the Doctor to forge whatever it says on the gravestone and they'd be fine. Amy and Rory could have died each at age 40 in a new timeline and as long as the Doctor makes sure that it reads age 80 and 88 respectively when young Amy and Rory sees the graves then the fixed point would in fact stand.
But they didn't see their future selves. They saw a grave marker. Again, all that's fixed is the gravestone. The grave could be empty for all they know. Really, the only reason that the Doctor couldn't go back and rescue Amy and Rory is because the Doctor Who writers don't know how to invoke Tricked Out Time effectively.
More like the Doctor knows just how badly wrong Tricked Out Time can go if you screw around with it too much. Adelaide (re)taught him that lesson in "Waters of Mars". Plus the Doctor was beginning to get conscious that the time of parting with his latest companions was drawing near and he was trying to wean himself off them (Amy accused him of that and he gave the weakest no-means-yes answer possible). He was getting tired of always looking over his shoulder for the event that would take them from him, and there it was. It was time to move on, he knew it, Amy knew it, River knew it. As far as endings go it was pretty good compared to some of his other partings. Certainly not a planet to the face or a complete nervous breakdown coupled with a "The Reason You Suck" Speech directed at him.
The very end confused me. Did the Doctor really go back in time and tell Amelia those stories? Wouldn't that mess up the timeline pretty significantly? I know the shot of her looking up as a kid was always in The Eleventh Hour, but I don't understand what we're actually supposed to imagine happened. Was her timeline altered? Did the Doctor tell her the stories without her remembering somehow? Did she actually know everything that was going to happen all along and just never mentioned it?
I think we are meant to take it as he told Amelia vague things like "she will find a guy who truly loves her" rather than specifics like "Rory will wait 2000 years for you outside a box keeping you alive". So from that night on she knew she would see the Doctor again and have great adventures but had to pretend to be mad at him. Although if the "hit him with a cricket bat" part still happened in The Eleventh Hour, then that really does seem even harsher than it was if she actually was angry thinking she'd never see him again.
She probably was actually mad at him. Perhaps he didn't give her any specifics of when exactly he would come back, and she hadn't expected to wait 14 years. However, while the thought of him going back to comfort her is a nice one, it doesn't make any sense canonically. It even ruins the most compelling aspect of Amy's character development: the feeling of abandonment she had to go through.
There's also the question of why the young Amy was fixated on the raggedy Doctor she first saw, when (if he did indeed visit her again when she was young) he would have come in his usual garb.
Amy was told through her whole life that the Doctor was an imaginary friend. Even if he did come back to visit her (and beside this episode we know he did because of the the Big Bang 2) that just would have reinforcing her abandonment issues because, seriously Doctor, who going to tell her you'll be back and then not come back for 14 years? She should hit him with a cricket bat!
It's mentioned the Doctor has been going around erasing himself from various databases across time and space - this is from River, and it appears it's not long before she meets the Doctor for the last time in 'Silence in the Library'. The thing is, if he has been doing this, surely he'd also remove himself from the biggest library in the universe? So how can the Vashta Narada look him up? Doesn't he create a paradox? If he hasn't deleted himself from the Library, then surely people will still know who he is?
By River's time the Library has been abandoned for 150 years or so, so nobody could get in there and look anything up. Plus the Doctor knows that the Vashta Nerada are gonna look him up because he's already been through that, so he most likely left that database alone on purpose.
Another sort of headscratcher is how can the Doctor work for U.N.I.T. again if there's no record of him anymore?
Probably something similar to the above; he's kept some faint traces of himself around in case he needs them. In any case, the main contact he had with U.N.I.T in the episode we saw him working most closely with them following his determination to keep to the shadows was the daughter of one of his oldest and bestest friends in the universe; if anyone's likely to have heard enough about him to get a sense of how he operates, it's her.
He only erased records of himself. He didn't erase the memories of people who'd worked with him, or the people they'd told about it.
This episode seems to contradict itself. The future is set in stone once you see it, right? Well, they saw the gravestone minus Amy. So Rory died alone. Definitely, no way to change it. Except then they suddenly do. What? Doesn't that create a paradox?
It was written in stone (I believe that was the wording) that Rory died of old age. It wasn't written in stone that he died alone, his name was just by itself. Nothing was known about the exact circumstances of his death. Amy's fate wasn't written in stone, it was open. So I don't think there's a paradox; the only thing they knew to be true was that Rory wasn't coming back, and the age he died. Any other details about his death could be changed.
It never said it had to be written in stone. The plot point was that once someone's future was known then it was fixed and it couldn't be changed. When Rory saw the empty grave then by this episode's rules it would have been fixed that he was buried alone. The fact that Amy was added to the grave does in fact completely contradict the main rule of the episode. In fact the saddest thing is that this was the most concrete thing in the episode. Every other time the 'fixed point' came up there were easy work-arounds or it was an extremely vague fixed point. So they actually contradicted it in the worst way possible.
I meant, 'written in stone' was the metaphor the Doctor used. Really think about that metaphor; if something is written in stone, you can't change it, but you can add to it. The first time Rory died, it was written in stone, as it were, that he died, after not having seen Amy for a long time. That couldn't be changed. The last time he died, it was simply written in stone that he died at a certain age, and was buried in a certain place. Nothing else. When Amy went back in time, a bit was added to that fate; that she would die and be buried with him a few years later (so, if you want to be technical, he was buried alone, since Amy died later). Nothing that they knew for sure about his fate was changed, it was merely added to.
No, it's not set in stone once you see it necessarily; they were able to prevent the first version of Rory's fate, where he died in the hotel, by causing a paradox. They couldn't prevent it again without making the paradox so much worse that it would rip a hole in reality. They couldn't avoid writing the book for the same reason. But that didn't stop Amy from being sent back with him.
The book is, technically, fiction. Writing something does not make it true. For instance, if she had written "And then the Doctor grew wings and automagically murderized all the angels with a flick of his screwdriver" doesn't mean it would happen. So all it would take to avoid this whole thing would have been them interpreting certain parts as 'fiction' and thus determining that they don't have to actually happen.
But it gets worse: River KNOWS the Doctor will look at the table of contents, because the book is written after the events. Moreover, because she knows the whole 'set in stone' thing and knows that the Doctor will look at the Table of Contents. So she doesn't need to include the fatal chapter name. If her book would prevent Amy from travelling back, there's nothing to stop her from simply vanity publishing it and having the copy delivered to the Doctor ahead of time.
Actually, getting to the end of it, the entire plot hinges on River being a moron, because it's based on the book. If instead she had sent the Doctor a manual with a list of "If... Then..." type statements regarding the incident, everything would have been solved. Because "If you don't watch out after the paradox, Rory will be Angel'ed again" is true even if you watch out.
The Stable Time Loop is the problem here. The plot is based on the book, because the book is based on what happened, which included it being based on the book. Since the book existed, River couldn't avoid writing it or using those chapter titles without causing a paradox.
So as per Flesh And Stone/Time of the Angels, an image of an Angel becomes an angel. The Statue of Liberty is an Angel. Photography existed in 1938, as did newspapers. Why didn't the Angels use an inevitable front page picture of the Statue to hit all of New York simultaneously? Heck, any of the Angel'ified statues would have worked. Surely hitting everybody in New York would be far more energy than hitting one person per room at the hotel.
They don't want everyone to become an Angel, they just want food. There'd be too many Angels, not enough food.
Angels don't turn people into angels, they just send them back in time and eat their energy.
The point of the hotel was the energy was a continuous loop - you head up to the room, the Angels get you, send you back 40 odd years and feed off that energy, and when the energy has run out and you die, your younger self appears again and gets sent back again. It's a Stable Time Loop.
Doesn't work. If they can feed on one person for an eternity they'd only have to trap one person, especially since from the angel's perspective they'd have that infinite amount instantly. The reason it was helpful was because they could lock somebody up and... I don't know actually. Trying to fathom the purpose of the farm ends in madness. If they eat energy from people living their lives, the farm is counterproductive since the people aren't doing much. If simply being near somebody lets them nab the energy, then why bother with the hotel at all? Simply sitting in a park and nabbing bits from everybody nearby would produce significantly more than a hotel with a handful of people.
They feed off the potential energy. Basically, they feed off of what life the person WOULD have lived had the angels not gotten to them.
Speaking of the hotel... How are there nameplates on the doors? I can't imagine an angel sitting down at a typewriter and banging out these nameplates.
An Angel typist? That would be the coolest thing ever! But anyway, the nameplates are pretty much in the same camp as the meals, entertainment, turndown service, laundry, those funny mints on the pillows...
The angels don't seem to use any technology, even typewriters, but they do all kinds of crazy things when no one's looking, like ripping out a man's consciousness to use as a voice. Maybe they can just make stuff like that appear out of thin air when they're sufficiently fed? Angels seem to gain new powers at the plot demands.
I'm still confused what the angels gain by having the hotel. It's been established that the only thing they really feed off of is the time energy they get from the throwback thing. Why bother housing any of the victims? If they get energy from just being near people (enough that imprisoning them is better than throwing them back in time) then they could accomplish the same thing in literally any popular hotel in a major city because those tend to be full of people all the time. Just look like cool statues and eat energy there. Surely the payoff would be much greater and the chance of failure would be much smaller.
They don't get energy from people living their lives; zapping people back creates time energy to feed on. The hotel lets them keep victims whom they can send back again once they're hungry. They don't use a legitimate hotel because once a bunch of people disappeared after a bunch of statues began moving and attacking people, the place would be declared haunted and people would flee, and the place would quickly be just as abandoned as Winter Quay.
And that explains how that happened.
Yes, but they clearly don't zap victims more than one additional time. Let's see: Rory gets zapped back from 2012 New York to 1930's-era New York. That's eighty years. Then he gets zapped again at some point, as he meets his elderly self just before he dies in bed. They couldn't have zapped him more than once, or he would have died in a period long before 1930's New York. So they got two meals out of him, and then spent most of a century keeping him alive and, presumably, teleporting him back to his room whenever he tried to escape. How can two meals possibly be worth the effort and energy required to maintain his prison cell for so long? Plus, New York City is a relatively young city, only five hundred or so years old. The hotel couldn't have existed prior. If you were going to set up a "farm" based on zapping people further and further into the past, wouldn't you put it in, like, Athens or something?
Didn't the Doctor once call them 'the most considerate psychopaths in the universe' or something along those lines once? Not only do they kill their victims in a manner which means they're technically not murdered, they also provide some kind of housing for them in the time period they get sent to as a courtesy.
They're also psychopaths. Yes, they are provided living quarters with a (assumed) mild level of luxury. But they can never leave. It was also hinted in the episode that they can't even see each other. Maybe they're showing their "guests" what it's like to be an Angel?
When the Doctor attempts to reach New York 1938, why doesn't he materialize in orbit and just fly to the city?
Presumably that wouldn't have worked, either.
It doesn't really make sense, especially when you realize that he could just land the TARDIS in Boston and take a bus to New York if he had to. The best explanation I've got is that Amy and Rory are inextricably linked with a bunch of timey-wimey paradox stuff now, and so if the Doctor ever meets them again or if they try to change their "live in NY till you die of old age" fate, then that will be bad for the universe somehow.
"The Angels take Manhattan! Because they can. Because they’ve never had a food source like this one: the city that never sleeps." Yes, but...wouldn't The City that Never Sleeps be incredibly inconvenient for the Angels? Wouldn't they want something more like The City that Constantly Has Its Eyes Shut?
Maybe the constant activity provides a nice background meal?
That struck me as odd, too. Maybe the writers were interpreting "Never Sleeps" in some weird way? Like, never sleeps = always tired = not paying attention?
Possible Fridge Brilliance related here — New York is indeed one of the busiest cities in the world with constant activity. But that means lots of people working late in almost-empty buildings where no one else is around, lots of people stumbling home drunk from partying all night with their guard down, lots of people waiting all alone in dark, empty subway stations for a train that never seems to arrive or waiting on the sidewalk for a cab or a bus at a place that would be teaming during the day but is completely abandoned at night, lots of people accidentally turning the wrong corner into a dark alley or a creepy neighbourhood that isn't the best place to be at night, lots of people who form just one more member of a faceless mass of teeming humanity with no one around them ever quite paying attention to what happens to them ... how many people just completely disappear in New York City and are never seen again? I'm willing to bet it's quite a lot.
Angels are fast, faster than you can believe. They're super-strong. They kill you as soon as they touch you. How the Hell did Grayle manage to capture one? And hold it in place (behind a curtain, where nobody can see it) with human chains?
The chains are a result of Strong as They Need to Be (or possibly early Unobtanium. As for how to catch it? Team of three strong men carrying, two looking at it at all times and one looking where they're going.
What happened to the detective from the introduction sequence after the paradox? Would he come back to life as his younger self in his own time since the whole hotel plan never happened? Would he be conscious of having died before or would he not remember anything related to the hotel?
There's no indication in the show either way, but if the hotel/farm never happened then most likely none of the victims were ever trapped there. I assume they didn't retain the memories, but it's just not addressed.
When the angel sent Rory and Amy back, are there still Angels in that time period? If so doesn't that mean they keep doing that to people and have basically won? If they aren't then what stops Amy and Rory from leaving New York? Even if they have to be buried there, it doesn't mean they have to stay there all the time.
I thought Rory and Amy throwing themselves off the building caused the Angels to end up dead (except for the one in the graveyard).
There are no more angels in NYC after that one final straggler. As for why Amy and Rory couldn't leave the city after they were sent back, my best guess was that this would cause a dangerous paradox somehow. The whole city is riddled with paradoxes at this point, and Amy and Rory are at the center of them.
I don't remember anyone saying they couldn't leave NYC.
Shouldn't Amy and Rory have had separate gravestones?
It's not uncommon for married couples — especially those who have been together a long time as Rory and Amy are implied to have been — to be arranged to be buried together, either in the same plot or near enough to each other to only require one gravestone.
So... why DID they keep popping up in that graveyard whenever they were returned to the present day?
Because it was a significant point in time and space related to the goings-on.
Why did River have to break her wrist. She could've just used the vortex manipulator to escape.
In order to use her manipulator, she would've had to have taken her eyes off of the angel in order to input the coordinates, which would have given the angel an opportunity to strike.
How would breaking River's wrist allow her to get free? If she broke her thumb, she might be able to slide out, but how would breaking her wrist help at all?
Okay, I know starting a new bullet point down here when the things I'm going to say have been variously mentioned above already is frowned upon, but as a newly-minted Whovian, I missed most of the prior debate and am very selfish. So here's the major headscratchers from this episode, as I see them.
The farm doesn't make any sense. The angels feed by zapping people into the past and soaking up the potential energy their removal from the time stream generates. They also can apparently physically teleport people without sending them back in time, too. And they take over a hotel in New York and use it as a location that they can keep zapping people back to to feed younger versions of themselves. That part, I get. However, New York has only been around since about 1624, and chances are high that part of it's going to be underwater within the next century. It's one of the worst places you could possibly build such a farm. Plus, they can't be zapping prey much further back than the 1930's era we see in the episode, because otherwise there would have been no Old Rory to die in front of Young Rory's eyes. So they're getting, what, maybe three or four meals per victim out of it? And then they're keeping those victims imprisoned in the hotel, fed and cared for, even after they've fed. And when the victims try to escape, they (or the Statue of Liberty) zap them back to their room. But if the angels need to eat, then they clearly require energy to live, and they must be expending energy to return their prisoners to their cells. So unless Rory only ever tried to escape once before giving up—which I think we can all agree is unlikely—then the angels must have needed to keep expending energy to imprison him again. Not to mention the other resource drains that would come with maintaining the hotel for centuries. Yes, sure, Ten called them "thoughtful psychopaths," but if they're unable to handle basic resource management, they're not thoughtful, they're stupid.
The Statue of Liberty. First off, it's not made of stone. Okay, maybe angels can also be made of metal. But it's safe to assume that arguably the world's most famous landmark and tourist destination, not to mention a potential target for terrorism, is, between civilians and security, undoubtedly watched 24/7. Well, maybe it's just an image of Lady Liberty that became a proper angel and started stomping around. Okay, but one, there are millions of pictures of the Statue of Liberty, and even if they can only be activated by temporal radiation, the Doctor's taken enough trips to London alone that every Brit who has ever taken a holiday to the Big Apple should have found their home crushed beneath copper feet. Two, there's still the problem of it being a giant statue stomping around the biggest city in the United States. People are going to notice that. Well, okay, maybe it has a perception filter on it. And that... actually sort of makes sense. It also explains why Amy and Rory seem to completely forget about it while they're on the roof. Would have been nice for the show to acknowledge it, though. However, there's still one problem: an exponentially larger angel must require exponentially more energy to sustain it. Maybe that's why they built a farm, even if the farm makes no sense, as discussed above. However, it brings up the question of why a giant weeping angel would even exist, since it's both a massive resource drain and unable to hunt on its own without outside technology to cloak it. Rule of Cool, I know, but then, it didn't even do anything cool, it just stood near the hotel and made faces.
Why, oh why, does the Doctor, the man who just a year ago managed to escape his preordained death despite knowing it was coming, to the second, just immediately give up on saving Amy and Rory? His two best friends in the universe? His frickin' in-laws? So he can't go back to New York? Go to Chicago! Still too close? Go to Beijing and stow away on a boat! Is 1938 completely off limits? Fine, go back in 1939! Sure, sucks that Amy and Rory are stuck there for a year, but that's better than never seeing their friends and family again, right? Oh, but he saw their names and death dates on their tombstones, and read in a book that he never went to save them, so it's a fact of time now. Because apparently this matters to the Doctor now. It's vitally important that he absolutely not find some way to save them. He plays by the rules, now, and is a stand-up guy and paragon of Time Lord ideals. You know who isn't, though? River freaking Song, who has her own transportation device that's been explicitly shown to be able to carry passengers, not to mention she can fly the TARDIS herself. Why wouldn't she at least try to rescue them? And even if, even if, the tombstones are absolute, irrefutable proof that Amy and Rory have to die on the dates listed, what exactly is stopping them from coming back to present-day England, living out their lives, and then hitching a lift from River or the Doctor back to their appointed dates of death?
The whole episode just left a bad taste in my mouth, and it gets worse the more I think about it. I realize that Karen Gillan was leaving, but having Amy and Rory bow out gracefully at the end of "The Power of Three" would have been a much more fitting farewell to the characters, and wouldn't have resulted in the concussion I've inflicted on myself from all the head slapping.
Well, this is why we have the MST3K Mantra. You're right; a lot of stuff in this episode didn't make sense. (Though really we don't know what does and doesn't drain energy from the angels, so I think you're speculating there.) At the same time, there were some great thematic moments if you look past the flaws. Ultimately, it came to an emotional moment when Amy had to permanently choose between the Doctor and Rory, and she chose Rory. I think she needed a moment like that for her finale.
Basically, this. Moffat writes stories, not reality in the same way Sorkin writes dialogue, not reality. That is to say, they're highly flawed, lacking of verisimilitude, and full of Fridge Logic but they're also interesting, compelling, entertaining, thematic, and deep. The insistence on continuity is a style that is currently in vogue, but it's not the only way. For that matter, Moffat is significantly more concerned with continuity and logic than the classic series but he still has a similar healthy disregard. This is entirely Doylist and not the most satisfying answer and if you don't like it you don't like it, but I still think it's brilliant.
After the Doctor asks River to travel with him. She answers with "one psychopath per TARDIS". Now we know River (unhappily) considers herself a psychopath, but does that statement means she considers the Doctor insane too?
Yes. I remind you that this is a man with an actual theme called The Madman With A Box.
Books written from the future become temporally binding. What's to stop Twelve from coming back and giving Eleven his fanfiction, where the Daleks decide to adopt peace and love and the Doctor lives on Tahiti with Susan?
I've heard it's a magical place.
'Temporally binding' doesn't mean 'that which is completely made-up and fictional suddenly becomes real'. If you were to take a copy of Harry Potter back in time and give it to Charles Dickens, then Hogwarts and Dumbledore won't suddenly spring into existence, because they're still completely fictional. Presumably 'temporally binding' applies to books which more-or-less factually record what will happen — encyclopaedias, biographies, roman à clefs, etc.
The Doctor wanted River to escape without breaking her wrist because that would prove he can change time. But how would it prove anything? The book only told him words to say. It doesn't say that River's wrist actually broke. He had to say that, but then anything could happen.
Steven Moffat has just said that the War Doctor and the second Ten count and the Doctor has used all his regenerations. So how did the Doctor have regenerative energy to heal River's wrist? I know a lot of people think that he has energy left over from when River gave her regenerations to heal him, but I'm pretty sure that all went towards saving his life and he couldn't store that energy.
Can someone explain to me what The Doctor and River's argument regarding her broken wrist was all about? It seemed really silly and trivial to me and not worth arguing for. Did Steven Moffat just want to add a bit of drama between the Doctor and River?
A minor one, but why did the Doctor seem to automatically assume that he was dealing with an earlier version of Oswin? Particularly when he's so confident that she's not going to die; granted, Clara mentions souffles and he's presumably made the link that she sounds the same by this point, and I can see why he came to the conclusions he did about Clara and Oswin being different incarnations of the same person by the very end, but wouldn't it have been a more logical initial assumption to believe that Clara was an ancestor of Oswin's?
He didn't make the connection until he saw her headstone which read Clara Oswin Oswald, all he knows is that souffle girl's name was Oswin Oswald. Plus, what she said to him as she died "run you clever boy. Remember me" is the same thing that Oswin told him before. That's why he made the connection between the two.
I disagree with the first replier; there was a pause when she said she liked making souffles, and he recognised her voice; he knew something was going on, he'd made a connection, he just hadn't got enough evidence to realise they were the same person until the end. As for the original question; I got the impression it was less "No, I know she won't die", more "No, she can't die!". The first person who's managed to pull him back into being himself after the death of his friends, who seems to have a connection to someone he met before who died... she's a lifeline to him. He just can't face the possibility that she's going to die, and his insistence she wouldn't die struck me as desperation, not confidence.
That makes sense.
More to the point, he's a time-traveller, and he's invited a girl who's suspiciously similar to Oswin onto his spaceship. He's done the future self thing before, it was the simplest and most logical guess up until the moment she died too.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Clara is an earlier version, given the timey-wimey nature of things.
He met Oswin in the future. He met Clara in the past. Hence, the logical assumption is that Clara is an earlier version of Oswin.
Clara seems to have UST with the Doc. Isn't he married to River at this point? Maybe she doesn't mind sharing, what with being bi. INCOMING FANFIC!
Well, she has no way of knowing he's married, but yes, that did occur to me too. In the Doctor's defense, she was the one making all the advances. Anyway, the Doctor has to kiss all his companions at some point, it's a rule. Better to have it happen now than later, when she will presumably know about River.
Still, there couldn't have been one "But I'm married!" comment? After all, when we last saw the Doctor he was traveling with River and they were very close.
Are they really married? Even Steven Moffat has suggested that it's ambiguous whether or not that was a legitimate wedding ceremony.
I don't think it matters the validity of their marriage - just how they think of their relationship.
I hate that the father of the children is creepy when he calls Clara pretty, young and flirts, etc. but when Clara holds the Doctor and forcefully kisses him it's ok. Why doesn't the Doctor go "Hey that's so uncalled for have you ever heard of consent? I could be married for all you know and in fact I am"
Were we supposed to be find him creepy? He wasn't really flirting, the 'pretty' comment just slipped out, and he seemed embarrassed about it. I saw nothing creepy about the guy; I just saw a man with an unrequited crush on the children's governess. That's not creepy by itself, and considering he was upset rather than angry when he thought the Doctor was her boyfriend - and he'd have had a right to be angry when they'd apparently been together in his house - I'd say it was genuine feelings, he wasn't just lusting after her . You can still be annoyed at Clara kissing the Doctor, but I don't think there was any hypocrisy there.
Why didn't the Doctor teleport the Tardis to catch Clara's fall the way he caught River in Day of the Moon.
He directly observed the fall, fixing it in place. It wouldn't take that long for her to fall all the way down, and by the time he cleared his head and got in the TARDIS it would be too late and he'd know it was
First, he didn't exactly watch her to the very moment she hit the floor. Second, it's a time machine
Keep in mind that she's not literally falling in slow motion; it takes a human body surprisingly little time to fall from a far height to the ground. By the time he snaps out of his shock and horror over what's just happened quickly, gets back into the TARDIS, figures out where she's going to land and the trajectory she's falling at and all the other factors he needs to know to be able to precisely arrange things to catch her, and sets the controls to dematerialize ... she's probably already hit the ground. The reason he caught River is because it's likely that they're prearranged it in advance, he knew that she was going to be falling and where to best position the TARDIS, and was thus able to be ready it — an advantage he doesn't have with Clara in this case.
The TARDIS and Doctor couldn't leave before she hit the ground, there wasn't enough time. So if he caught her, it would be cutting back on his own timeline, generally established as BAD (though admittedly never explained more than that and a few Reapers.) Plus, when he saved River, the TARDIS was parked on the side of a building Via Gravity screw, and there was nothing to park on in this case. The Tardis hardly ever keeps still when it's flying, and unless he's careful with it, it spins. the door is only on one side, and clipping the edges of it would be even worse than hitting the ground. In short, he would have got one very difficult shot at it if he took off as soon as she was dragged away instead of running out after her, and even then he'd have to fly the TARDIS with the kind of skill even River has trouble with. Sounds pretty tricky... Besides, he panicked and missed his chance when he tried to stop the fall to begin with.
Is Strax wearing his battle armor under his clothes or are Sontarans just that bulky?
Knowing Strax, he's probably armored under there.
Why and how did Clara's death and the ensuing tears cause salt water to rain down? I guess it's supposed to be The Power of Love solving the situation, but how?
If memory serves correctly, the Great Intelligence had linked with the family's emotions, and their fear was what kept it going. When that turned to sadness, it changed the Great Intelligence's form and cut off what was keeping it alive. It is a bit weird if you think about it, but I think it just about holds up as an explanation.
The snow took on forms drawn from people's emotions. What else would sadness turn it into, if not tears?
The Bells of Saint John
Why would there be an Olympics in 2074? It doesn't fit into the cycle. Sure, he says Anti-Grav Olympics, but we can only assume it was the same Olympics since they were able to call it that.
Maybe it's like the Winter Olympics and runs in different years? That would explain why he called it the "Anti-Grav Olympics", rather than referring to a specific event. Or maybe something interrupted the ordinary cycle and they just held it again as soon as possible.
Why wouldn't there be? Between Winter and Summer, there's an Olympics ever even-numbered year.
Not every even-numbered year, just the ones that you can divide by four. You can't divide 74 by four, therefore, unless something happened or some planet holds an Anti-gravity Olympics at different periods than our Olympics, there really shouldn't be Olympics in 2074.
Just the ones you can divide by four?? What? The Winter and Summer Olympics are offset from each other by 2 years. Only the Summer Olympics happen in years divisible by four. The 2010 Winter Olympics, for instance, did not take place in a year divisible by four. 2010 divided by four is 502.5 .
What do you mean what? It is true for the Summer Olympics, and the Winter Olympics aren't very hyped. So I've made a mistake, there's no need to 'what' me. I have to admit, I don't know much about winter olympics, but I do know it is also every four years, just not the same four years.
Did he specifically mention it was on this planet? Maybe other planets have their own version of the Olympics held at different times
Did the Doctor just kill a bunch of innocent people? They've been sucked out of their bodies. They're in the datacloud. We can only put Oswin back if we put everybody back, so we do. But it's explicitly mentioned that many people can't go back because their bodies have decayed. Thus, sending them back will simply destroy them. And the Doctor is ok with this? He says its ok because he's rescuing people from a "living hell" but is annihilation really that much better? He really should have taken a Third Option somehow.
Yes but keep in mind that the clock is running out on Clara. We don't know how long a body can last without the consciousness, and she is the "Impossible Girl." as well as being under the Doctor's protection. As for a third option, there really isn't anywhere for them to go, is there? The wall'o'men at the Shard seemed like a cattle pen to me. It was keeping them alive. If he had released them into the internet or whatever, they might very well have just turned into viruses or been shredded by fire walls. Better to die than to be released into a world where reality as you know it isn't.
The Doctor didn't kill them. It was The Great Intelligence. Being in the datacloud means (at least for me) that your consciousness is uploaded, but not necessarily that your kept alive there, not if your body is destroyed. I say this because I don't think what they had in the datacloud can be called life. I mean, they were terrified, not even knowing where they were. They seemed to have been trapped in a single room, and all they could do is scream all day. I think even those who died wouldn't blame the Doctor for what he did.
Yeah, it sucks being in the cloud. But the question was why the doctor didn't Take a Third Option. Maybe get some of that Flesh stuff and make new bodies for the people whose natural bodies have decayed. Or find a way to transfer some of the people to that simulated reality where River Song winds up in the Library episode. All of this would be difficult to set up, of course, but arguably the doctor had plenty of time. He had already broken into the building and (presumably) contacted UNIT, who arrived soon thereafter. So realistically, you'd figure that he'd spend at least a few hours trying to find a Third Option before just moving everyone out of the cloud. But of course they couldn't do that, because the episode would be too long then. The best reason I can think of for doing what he did is that people's bodies actually decay pretty rapidly and so he only had a few minutes to save Clara.
The sheer logistics involved make that kind of impractical; particularly since his primary objective at that point is to rescue Clara. The Third Option in this case requires a lot of potentially fiddly temporal back-and-forthing that could in turn lead to other distractions, since neither the Flesh nor the Library are available in 21st century London. He wants to get Clara and as many other people as he can rescued as quickly as possible.
Does the phrase "put it out of its misery" mean anything to you?
The way I see it, it's kind of like the cybermen. Trapped, no actual body, etc. The cybermen actually blow up when they realize what happened to them; that's how bad it is. I think the people in the cloud would rather die than be stuck there. Also, it seems something's going on with their minds as well? They all keep repeating "I don't know where I am." It's possible the mind deteriorates after awhile in the cloud as well. As for taking a third option, I don't really see how the Doctor could. He can't simply build people new bodies, otherwise he would have done it for the people turned into cybermen. Regarding the flesh, don't you actually need to dip the person in the flesh-liquid-stuff to make flesh bodies? That wouldn't work considering the their bodies are dead and decaying.
When the slimheads dramatically turn around so they can suck your mind out...why doesn't anybody think to run away? Or like, just run circles around the slimhead, so the dangerous part is never facing you.
Well, keep in mind that only Clara has been caught by them twice, and it's a very striking image. The manager, though, does try to get away, but I assume the Spoonheads have some variety of counter measure. A compulsion field, a "LOOK AT ME" device to keep the prey ensnared.
In addition, once it begins sucking your mind out... well, your mind is being sucked out. Add that to the shock and fear, and even if the victims weren't actually being held in place (which they may well have been), they may simply not have been able to think straight enough to run.
Well yeah, but I was talking about why people don't run away before the mind-sucking process begins. It takes a slimhead like 5 full seconds to turn around.
How would they know it was just that part they had to stay away from? OK, yeah, you could guess that the back of its head wasn't a good thing, but for all they new it was just showing them it was a robot before it killed them. Freezing up in fear is a natural reaction. It also seems probable that if anyone attempted to run they would be pursued; there's no reason to think the robot wouldn't just have cornered them, then grabbed them and force them to look. They've got arms, and since they're robots designed specifically to capture people I imagine they're pretty fast and strong.
I'm pretty sure the only way to escape is not to click on the Wi-Fi connection in the first place, or at least that's what the opening scene implied to me (apart from the blatant Apple Mac Book Air placements all over the scene, which imply that that scene was just an Apple advert instead). Once you've clicked, it's over, I presume.
No, clicking the thing just means that they can see you. Getting your brain sucked out comes later. If you manage to avoid the slimheads indefinitely, you'll be ok.
Yeah, but once they've seen what you look like, they can follow you on CCTV across London, so probably you would have to avoid a large number of these robots chasing you, and I think you would have to escape from London as well, and that is if you can beat the shock that seizes you when you see someone's head turning around in 180 degrees while their body is staying still. So I think it you're pretty much doomed if you click on the Wi-Fi. Still, maybe it is possible to do all that, it's just too damn difficult. Also remember that the second time Clara was also shocked because it was the Doctor who turned out to be this Wi-fi robot in disguise, so we haven't actually seen anyone who was used to these robots trying to get sucked in by them.
They do seem to evaluate Clara before they upload her ("She's clever, but lacking tech skills," or something along those lines), which implies they might have a selection process of some nature, and they do seem to have some concerns about over-harvesting. Given that, it is theoretically possible that someone might click the link and be unacceptable. It does seem pretty clear, however, that most people who click the link get harvested.
I'm pretty sure the guy at the beginning said that not everyone who clicks the link gets harvested, but that if they decide to come after you, you can't get away. So while clicking the link doesn't automatically mean you'll get caught, it does mean you'll get caught if they decide to come after you. So yeah, if they want you, you're doomed.
Why did they put computer-knowledge into Clara's head? She had already clicked on the wi-fi thing. As far as I can tell, it wasn't necessary for her to know anything else at that point. The slimhead could just show up and suck her brains out.
Well, everyone serves as food for the Great Intelligence. Maybe they add bits of knowledge to people to make them tastier?
At best guess, the Great Intelligence's long game (since, well, it clearly has one) involves the Internet / modern technology in some way; as we basically learned in the previous episode, since the Great Intelligence is basically the mind of a Victorian scientist merged with a mimetic sentience that only mimics things, it probably needs both as many clever minds and as much modern tech-savviness as it can get.
Possibly they hadn't initially intended to feed her to the G.I., but to recruit her to work in their office. Then they realized the Doctor was involved, so changed their plans.
The Doctor "never takes the TARDIS into battle"? Since when, exactly? And in any case, they weren't even going into battle yet, just driving to a cafe for breakfast. Out of character, of course, there are at least two justifications for the bike:
Spoonhead!Doctor probably couldn't have piloted the TARDIS, and the helmet allowed a nice dramatic reveal.
Most of the time, the Doctor doesn't take the TARDIS into battle; he just parks it somewhere and leaves it alone while he sorts out what needs to be sorted out. It's only under usually very rare and extreme circumstances, usually involving the Daleks or the end of the world / universe, that he actually pilots the TARDIS into potential danger.
I kind of took it as he doesn't take the TARDIS into battle anymore. Look at what happened the last time: he got caught in a paradox, came dangerously close to ripping New York apart, and lost Amy and Rory forever. The TARDIS is one of the few things he has left, maybe the combined affect of losing Rose, Donna, Amy, and Rory in various ways finally convinced him to be a little more careful with her.
How exactly did Clara get hooked up to the Doctor in the first place? Even he's astonished (since the TARDIS is, of course, not a real phone box), but she just says that a woman at a shop gave her the number and said it was the 'best helpline in the universe'. So who the hell is working at that shop who has the number for a phone that's not really a phone that belongs to an alien living 800 years in the past? And how did she know to give it to the exact girl that alien was looking for? It's a pretty glaringly big detail that was never actually explained.
It's possible that this will be explained in a later episode, but most likely, it was River; it does fit her MO, so it's hardly a great leap to suppose it was her.
The Rings Of Akhaten
Did the native people know the caged vampire wasn't the Grandfather? The Doctor only presumes they don't. If that's the case, why didn't they just kill it?
If "potential futures" can kill the Godfather, why wouldn't picking a child out to be killed early do that? And wouldn't the Doctor himself have a potential future, on top of all the memories he crammed into it?
The Doctor's speech implies he's seen too much to really think of more than a few very finite possibilities.
Maybe it has something to do with how something is presented? Since this society is clearly psychic to some degree, how powerful an offering is may depend on how the person is thinking of it. The Doctor didn't think in terms of potential futures, Clara did.
It's also possible that the Godfather was already weakened from the Doctor's story, and it was merely the intensity of Clara's potential future that finally caused the killing blow.
Or, as we now know, her potential millions of futures post-"The Name of the Doctor". Damn, lotsa calories in one leaf, there...
As for the child, they're eaten by the vampire, not the Godfather personally: perhaps the vampire's purpose is to make it more digestible.
I figured that the Grandfather was like a sort of feeding tube for the Old God.
No, since it was a planet, not a star. There's still a possibility that the mucked up gravity could cause problems, but it's much less than there would be if it was a star.
I'm not sure whether Akhaten was a sun or a giant planet. Brown dwarf?
Definitely a planet. The Doctor says the people of the system beleive all life began on "that planet."
So the Grandfather feeds on stories/souls. When the Doctor offers his story it's obvious he's drained as he falls to his knees, but he didn't die and he doesn't appear to have lost any memories. So if Godfather "ate" Mary and/or the planets, wouldn't it just read their minds instead of destroying everything? Or are Time Lords just that physically/mentally strong?
The Doctor didn't die because the Grandfather didn't finish eating his story; doing so would presumably take some time, since he's lived for so long. If it had tried to eat Mary, it would have finished a lot quicker since she's just a child.
But if you don't finish eating a cookie, there's still a big hole in it. So surely the Doctor would have lost some of his memories or done more than just sag to his knees? Maybe I'm taking the eating metaphor too seriously, but it seems weird that: a)The Doctor somehow knew his story wasn't enough if the planet hadn't even finished eating it, b) He's unharmed but the leaf is disintegrated.
In answer to point b, at least: first of all, the Godfather feeds off psychic energy, so I don't think he wasn't eating the memories themselves so much as the feelings behind them. Secondly, a Time Lord body is considerably stronger than an old leaf. I assume that people die when all the psychic energy has been consumed, and then the body begins to deteriorate like the leaf did. As stated above, the Godfather couldn't finish, and just left the Doctor drained of some energy, whereas the leaf had a smaller story and was consumed in seconds.
Why wasn't the translator working for Clara?
The Tardis doesn't like her.
We don't know that for sure, Clara just said that.
Who said it didn't? Only one alien didn't speak English, and that's just the Judoon situation. It's no different from Martha being unable to understand the Hath in The Doctor's Daughter.
It did work. The alien seemed to understand her when she barked.
Is it just me, or was this leaf a completely different leaf from the one in The Bells of Saint John? That one had a very definitive "maple" shape, and a duller color. This one was brighter, and had more rounded edges instead of maple points. Also it had a shorter stem. Could the props department really not find the same leaf?
This is listed as a production error on the Doctor Who wiki... so, yeah, apparently they couldn't find the right leaf.
My question is how did the leaf survive that long? Clara appears to be in her early to mid twenties. Add to that the time that Clara's mother was pregnant, and assuming her parents dated and were married for at least a little while before having her, that leaf (which was technically already dead since it fell out of that tree) is decades old. Add to that it wasn't preserved in any special way, simply held in a book where it'll be touched, handled, and moved around, it should have deteriorated a long time ago. Maybe it ties in with the "different leaf" question above: maybe Clara's mother was secretly replacing them all along and simply not telling her.
Books are surprisingly good at preserving leaves. My girlfriend has a leaf in a book that's been in there for about fifteen years.
That's nothing: natural history museums have leaves that are centuries old in their collections.
It is (half-recalled and possibly-if-not-probably inaccurate information to follow) something to do with the oils in paper helping to preserve the leaf, and / or the fact that the leaf is essentially sealed in by the book and consequently not exposed to any elements that would act as a degenerative agent.
Possibly Clara's parents had it coated with a preservative, given its sentimental value to them.
Why can the armour can be summoned if an Ice Warrior is supposed to remain inside?
There are numerous reasons. Ice Warriors might remove them in private, it might be in case they have trouble finding their suit. It is probably just a disgrace to remove them in a battle-like situation.
Possibly they keep a few spare suits nearby when there's a battle on, so that Warriors whose suits are severely damaged can summon a replacement. The disgraceful-to-strip tradition would've arisen from this practice, as having to swap suits would mean you'd messed up badly enough to have your first suit disabled.
Why do the Ice Warriors suddenly have such advanced technology in their suit?
Same reason the Daleks went from being trapped in the confines of one ruined city on one planet by static electricity to Time Lord-destroying universal conquerors; escalation over time.
Why did the ship take so long to come?
Maybe most of the Ice Warriors remained on Mars in suspended animation, and it took time to wake and send a ship to Earth. Skaldak had not anticipated for his people to be in suspended animation, but the Ice Warriors made sure they would wake if such a high-ranking figure called.
The Doctor also says Ice Warrior societies still exist, just dotted around the Universe and not on Mars. It took them a little longer to find his signal and get a ship out there to help.
I would go with this; Skaldak would have known approximately how long it would take to get a response from Mars, and when that time passed, he assumed they were gone, not believing the Doctor when he said they were still alive elsewhere. Naturally, the response from Mars would have come faster than from wherever the ship came from.
How come we could hear the Russians speaking perfect English before the Tardis arrives? And, for that matter, after it vanishes stranding the Doctor and Clara?
First one: Translation Convention. Second one: The Doctor is part of the Tardis translation circuit. Being near either one works.
In "Hide", what was the purpose of the cold spot? After the Doctor marked it with chalk, it seemed like it became totally irrelevant.
Since sudden temperature shifts and oddities of that nature are reputed to be a common phenomenon in haunted houses (assuming, of course, that you believe in them), I think it was just to emphasise the creepy nature of the house and that something wasn't quite right; I'm not sure it had any other significance than that.
Presumably it was the place where the pocket universe was most closely linked to the real one, and it was chilly in that forest as well as foggy.
Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS
How could the brothers have possibly convinced Tricky that he was an android for so long? Even if he did believe the whole "flesh coating" story, he would still have to eat, sleep and go to the bathroom, and he would still feel pain (even though he claimed not to). Is he just the most gullible guy in the world or what?
I reckon they said that the eating and going to the bathroom is part of the "flesh coating", since eating would be for providing the necessary fuel for the "flesh coating", which I presume is supposed to be organic. They might have said that he is undergoing maintenance while he is sleeping, and that's why he needs to sleep. As for the pain... he might have convinced himself that he only imagines the pain. He does seem quite gullible, to be honest.
In fairness, many people would be a bit gullible after losing all their memories in an accident. He might not just have forgotten about his life and family, and with no-one else around to contradict the other two... I don't think it's too unbelievable.
Was there a reason that everyone was turned into evil ash zombies in the future, rather than plain old ordinary dead corpses? Some say you can't die in the TARDIS (even though Grace and Chang Lee managed it for a bit), so that might be an explanation, but it's weird that there didn't seem to be an explanation given.
I don't think they would have stayed like that for ever. I think the evil ash zombies are the results of their "cells liquifying and skins burning" that the Doctor mentioned would happen if they stayed in the Eye of Harmony room for more than one or two minutes. Since the TARDIS was leaking time, I think Clara and co. from the future were suspended in time, that's why they were still alive (since they were in the act of burning alive), just like when we saw past Clara panicking. I hope the explanation makes sense, since I am not that convinced (I mean, why did they have weird distorted voices from being burned?). The bottom line is, the ash zombies (credited as Time Zombies lol) were probably echoes from the future the same way there was a Clara and Doctor echo from the past.
They got out of the TARDIS engine room a second or so too late. Short enough to survive, long enough to be so horribly burnt they'd wish they hadn't. As for their distorted voices, their vocal chords have been burnt/liquified. That would, I'd imagine, cause some distortion to their voices.
Well, I thought their vocal cords being damaged would cost them their voice pretty quickly, but maybe it does distort their voice the way they were distorted in the episode. Then again, standing in the same room as an exploding star probably would've burned them much faster, but it doesn't matter since I was only half joking anyway (though for that purpose I should've mentioned the wonderful red eyes instead - probably the result of their eyes burning/liquifying). The point is, since the Time Zombies were leaks from the possible future and not being from the present, they stayed alive by virtue of being time anomalies in the first place. They weren't meant to exist as they did, only they probably passed somehow through the crack in time or came to being by a similar unnatural method. Also time probably gets weird in the TARDIS if the engine explodes anyway, so maybe we should just accept that weird things happen in weird circumstances.
Becomes Fridge Horror if you consider that the same thing probably happened to River during the Pandorica story-arc.
Why did the zombies try to trap the Doctor and co. in the Eye of Harmony room anyway? What part of being burned alive causes a person to think "You know what, I'll trap my past self here just to make sure I get burned alive"?
They were driven mad from pain. They didn't know what they were doing. Which does bring to mind the question of how dangerous they really were, but the Doctor seemed to think avoiding them was a good idea.
Insane horribly-burnt zombies staggering around lashing out at everything they see due to their mindless, endless agony? I'd keep my distance as well.
They WERE dangerous, though: they burnt one of the brothers to death with just a touch. Of course, a bit of Fridge Horror when you consider that the future zombie selves may have actually been begging for help.
The Doctor's name is the Biggest Secret in the Universe. So why does he have it written down in book that anyone can just pick up and read?
My best guess is that particular library is usually off-limits, but all the security measures went haywire because the TARDIS was haywire. (Still would have been nice if we had seen the malfunctioning security stuff, but whatever.)
As of "The Name Of The Doctor", it can be assumed that it is because his name isn't the "biggest secret in the universe." His name is merely the key to his tomb. His biggest secret, however, is the existence of the "lost" Doctor played by John Hurt.
The Crimson Horror
Why would you dump the reject bodies in the canal? Doesn't that just raise the risk that somebody will find the bodies and investigate Sweetville? (Which is exactly what happened.)
Maybe she was just too cocky about it. After all, she did manage to kill the first guy who came to investigate. Perhaps she felt that she'd be able to kill anyone else who followed in his footsteps.
Why do they have machines that convert crimson people into normal people?
Perhaps it's to convert the Adam and Eve doll like pairs into the human robots, and the Doctor altered it. You'll note he's clearly using the screwdriver to do something or other.
They have machines to turn Crimson People back to normal because they need a way to turn Crimson People back to normal. Mrs Gillyflower is building a master race. Her plan was: 1) Immunize people she considered of good stock to survive the toxin she was going to unleash (it had the effect of "preserving" those people), 2) Launch the rocket, spreading the toxin and killing everyone who wasn't immunized, 3) Use the chambers to reanimate the preserved people, thus restarting humanity with her "Adams and Eves". All the Doctor did with the sonic was simply turn the machine on.
Remember that guy who died in front of the Doctor? Why did he burst into the Doctor's cell just before he died? What was he trying to do?
He was looking for the Doctor, but fell into the vat of venom on the way.
Did he even know about the Doctor? I thought he was just investigating because of the dead people in the canal.
Maybe he was just running around at random, trying to escape before he died.
He knew the Doctor. He was helping the Doctor investigate, then the Doctor went missing, so he went in.
Why did the old lady stick the people she'd converted into glass jars? Was she giving them purified air or something?
The glass jars were a sort of preservation device (like cryostasis pods) that were meant to keep the people that she deemed "pure" safe while the poison killed everyone else. Mrs. Gillyflower and her chosen people would have waited the poison out from within Sweetville.
The Doctor kisses his married straight male companion on the lips, the companion grimaches but say nothing and none of the viewers freaks out about it. He later kisses his married gay female companion on the lips, the companion socks him because of it and everyone freaks out over it and some likens it to rape. Why?
Well, people tend to ship the Doctor with his female companions. So when the Doctor kisses a companion that seems ok, because that's what fans have been imagining all along. But people aren't so quick to ship the Doctor and Jenny, because Jenny and Vastra are shipped together (and canonically married.) So it seems really weird when the Doctor kisses Jenny.
People ship him with female companions? It said male companion.
Yeah, I think that first replier missed the point that the situations are almost identical except for the gender and sexual orientation of those involved; Neither Rory nor Jenny are attracted to men, and they are both married, and they both got an unwelcome kiss from the Doctor, so yes, it's absolutely a double standard to be upset over one and not the other.
If anything, it's because Doctor Who fangirls love anything remotely gay between two males but get up in arms about anything heterosexual. That's just the internet for you.
Heteronormality. A Straight Male that accept a casual kiss from another man with a shrug can be proven to be open-minded an cool. A Gay Female that accept a casual kiss from a man with a shrug is instantly labeled Straight and Cured or Bisexual and all her earlier girlfriends instantly transformed into " An experimental phase" that can now be saftly ignored.
I'm not entirely sure what point is trying to be made here, but Rory did not shrug the kiss off, he was visibly disgusted. The point that the original entry is making is that both times the Doctor kissed someone who wasn't into men, didn't want to be kissed, and reacted badly. It is a double standard to complain about one and not the other, especially when the one being complained about is the one where the Doctor actually got slapped for what he'd done, as opposed to getting away with it. It is not OK to kiss someone who is clearly uncomfortable with it just because they are a straight male.
Plus, the idea that a straight man can kiss or be kissed by another man comfortable in the knowledge that people will still assume his heterosexuality (and further his 'coolness') seems questionable at best, to be honest. If anything, straight men are, for whatever reason, traditionally far less able than many other groups to demonstrate such types of affection with other men without someone questioning their sexuality.
How did the kids find those pictures of Clara from all across history? Google may be great, but it won't respond to "Historical photos that look like my nanny and her boyfriend". And what would prompt the kids to make a search like that in the first place?
The boy stumbled upon one of them at school. Maybe they just have good facial recognition software for the rest.
Another possibility; we've seen there are websites dedicated to the Doctor, and they would probably include pictures of his companions too. Maybe he stumbled on one which happened to have pictures of Clara.
"Take us on a trip with you or we tell Dad you're a time traveler." How the hell does that make any sense? Especially the photo evidence, there is a thing called Photoshop after all. Clara should've just flipped them the bird and strolled back in the TARDIS.
She cares about them. She's not going to just say "Screw you" and stroll off. Not to mention that she's a pretty bad liar; if the kids brought it up to their dad, she'd end up confirming it somehow, like she did with them.
And....? Is him knowing really anymore dangerous than the kids knowing?
Probably not dangerous, all things considered, but given how interactions between companions, Doctors and companion parental figures have gone in the past it would more than likely subject Clara to more awkward questions and confrontations than she probably wants to deal with. And since there's an easy way to avoid both awkward questions and the kids driving her crazy by constantly going on about it, and given that she's clearly not the type of person to just tell them to piss off (seeing as (a) like the poster above says, she clearly likes those kids and (b) isn't obnoxiously and insufferably rude about things), she might as well just suck it up and convince the Doctor to take them on a quick jaunt.
Nightmare in Silver
Why wasn't there more investigation of millions of disappearances?
Perhaps the Cybermen were growing more bodies.
How can the Cyberman reboot in the river and become immune to the electric shock?
The electric shock wasn't severe enough to completely destroy it.
Why do the Cybermen never use their superspeed again?
Perhaps as the Cyberman that did use it was in stronger condition. The others had only just been activated so were less powerful. Or this Cyberman was a better design.
Why is Mr Clever showing such emotional extremes?
The Doctor's extreme personality isn't something Cybermen will be used to, so it has emotion.
How can Angie survive being picked up at such high speed?
After The Doctor disables Mr. Clever with the golden ticket, why doesn't he remove Mr. Clever entirely? He's got time enough to talk to Clara; now would be a great time to say "Hey, do you have any anti-cybermen weapons?". Then they could zap him with the hand-thing (which is what he eventually does anyway), and he'd be fine. There's really no reason to continue the chess game.
Probably the Cybermen would've simply blown the building to atoms if he did that. So long as he still has Mr. Clever hijacking part of his brain, they'll remain determined to take the Doctor alive; if he shuts down the connection fully, they'll write him off as too much trouble to convert and proceed to kill everyone, especially the Time Lord who just got to snoop at their cyberneural network.
They have a chance to leave before anything nasty happens, but The Doctor says they can't leave yet because he wants to investigate the "funny insects". Ok...but why don't you drop the children off at home first? Then you can return with Clara and investigate all you like without endangering the children.
Because he's the Doctor. He's hardly Mr. Responsible; being easily distracted and leaping into something without considering the potential consequences is kind of a fundamental part of his character.
By observing the "funny insects" they've become parts of the event, which is the excuse they always use for questions like this. They can't just get in the TARDIS and leave a situation, hey have to follow it through (although what constitutes the end of a chain of events has always been a bit fuzzy).
I think that's looking at it a bit too deeply. Simply observing the insects doesn't prevent them from leaving; they can leave any time they want. When they say they're "part of events," they are referring to the reason why they cannot simply go back and change the past using the knowledge that they've already acquired, such as when Rose suggests that they go back and warn the people of the Great and Bountiful Human Empire about the oncoming Dalek invasion, or when she suggests that they take the TARDIS to Reinette's time in "The Girl in the Fireplace" in order to circumvent the closed time window. That's not the case here. I think the Doctor really was just being too curious for his own good.
So...did I miss something? Porridge reveals that he's the emperor, and that he can active the planet-busting bomb, and furthermore that his ship will teleport everyone to safety before the planet blows up. Is there some reason he didn't do all that at the beginning, as soon as the cybermen showed up? I get that he doesn't want to be emperor, but...people are gonna die!
At that point The Doctor has Mr. Clever in his mind, the collected conscious of the Cybermen and they have the kids under their control. If they were to escape then Mr. Clever would still exist and so would the cybermen. He met the Doctor and the kids so he probably didn't want to cause them harm and only activated it once they were safe.
Plus the whole point of Porridge abandoning his role as the Emperor in the first place was due to his tremendous guilt after blowing up an entire galaxy. That suggests the kind of trauma that would at very least make him hesitate before doing the exact same thing all over again, even if on a smaller scale.
Minor point: the war happened centuries ago. Porridge personally didn't blow up the galaxy, unless he's Really 700 Years Old.
Considering Liz Ten back in "The Beast Below" has been alive for at least three hundred years, this is hardly an impossibility.
Just to reinforce your point, Liz Ten is 2550 by the time of her appearance in "The Pandorica Opens".
Mr. Clever and the Doctor play a chess game. Why? The Doctor clearly states that Mr. Clever can't be trusted to keep his promises. Presumably the Doctor can't be trusted either, in this case. (Would he seriously turn over all his memories and abilities to the Cybermen? Heck, no! That would doom the universe!) So, no matter who wins the game, nothing will change. If the Doctor loses, he won't actually surrender his mind. And if Mr. Clever loses, he won't actually leave the Doctor alone. Surely they both understand this. So why bother playing the game?
Perhaps they are simply using this to give themselves more planning time. Also Mr Clever's personality means it wants to prove its intelligence.
It is almost certainly a way of trying to outthink the other.
It's not really a practical necessity, but this being a Gaiman scripts it works very well as a visual metaphor for the battle of wits between the characters.
In the backstory, they won the war against the Cybermen by blowing up a bunch of galaxies. So...did they trick all the Cybermen in the universe into gathering into one spot like that, so they could blow them up?
Well it's a pretty big "spot". And presumably they didn't kill all the Cybermen with that blast; they just killed most of them, and turned the tide of the war.
Is there some reason why they couldn't use the anti-Cybermen gloves to fix the kids? I mean, it worked on Mr. Clever...
The doctor had to turn the power up on it and he might have been afraid it might hurt the kids.
So you've got Cybermen attacking, and a planet-busting bomb. You don't want to use the bomb because it would kill everyone on the planet. But wait...there's only a couple dozen people on this planet, and they're all nearby. So here's an idea: Tell everyone to get in the TARDIS. Then, arm the bomb and leave it outside. Use the TARDIS to warp away from the planet before it explodes. Then the cybermen all die, the people all live, and the only thing you've lost is an abandoned amusement park. Why didn't they do this?
Well, once they realized the Cybermen were attacking, the kids had already been hooked up with mind-control things.
But surely the Doctor could find a way to disable those eventually. (And see previous bit about using the anti-cybermen gloves.)
Breaking the link could have given the kids brain-damage. Also the Doctor may have worried about letting Mr Clever inside the TARDIS.
Hmmm, there's something strange going on here. Should I take, literally, one second to pop Clara's stepchildren back home safe while I investigate? No, I'll just leave them on the couch, I'm sure that'll be fine. Really, Doctor? Really???
This was discussed above; basically, seeing as it's been established over fifty years now that the Doctor isn't exactly the most responsible person in the universe, this shouldn't really be that much of a headscratcher.
The Name of the Doctor
If Clara has been showing up throughout The Doctor's history, how come he doesn't remember her? I mean, the Great Intelligence said he was going to turn the Doctor's "every victory into defeat", so she must have saved him on many occasions. There appear to be some times where The Doctor does register her, for instance when she convinces him to steal 'his' TARDIS. So why doesn't he remember a girl who convinced him to steal a different TARDIS? Has he forgotten? Did someone wipe it from his memory? It also seems to leave us with the conclusion that a human just randomly lived among Time Lords 'a long time ago' in order to convince The Doctor to steal the correct TARDIS. My point is this: If Clara has genuinely been helping The Doctor over the 50 year course of the show, there would have been some indication of her presence.
She does say that he doesn't notice her most of the time.
The first one we saw, on Gallifrey, was probably just forgotten. It has been over a thousand years and almost a dozen regenerations, after all. Also regarding that Clara: Some fans believe she managed to get reincarnated as a Time Lady that incarnation. But even if that's not true, I believe humans were allowed on Gallifrey before the Time War heated up again, so while her presence would be odd, it's not impossible.
He did instantly recognize that Victorian-era Clara was a potential companion in "Snowmen". Possibly One's millennium-old memory of her was giving him a subconscious nudge in that direction.
Is Clara aware of her purpose when she's helping The Doctor all of those times? Because in Asylum she almost killed The Doctor when she was a Dalek, but stopped at the last second. She must be pretty useless as a tool to save his life when she doesn't even realise that she's meant to be saving him. She even claims that sometimes the Doctor doesn't even register her, in which case what good could she have possibly done? And how did she even realise what she was meant to be doing if The Doctor couldn't even speak to her? Does she sometimes remember and sometimes not? In which case, what happens to The Doctor when she doesn't remember and doesn't help him? Presumably he dies. The End. Game Over.
Presumably, Original Clara knows, but she's simply undoing the damage the Great Intelligence caused, stopping him before he could interfere in the original series of events. Her goal is not to save the Doctor as often as possible, but to repair his personal timeline after all, and she wasn't in the original timeline until the eleventh Doctor, so she'll avoid being seen. The exception of this are the times she knows the Doctor has already seen here, willfully creating a copy there that doesn't have her memory beyond a few catchphrases. Since we see her interact with the first Doctor, restoration of the timeline does require occasional direct interference (Maybe the Great Intelligence switched around the TARDISes?), but it would be spread over a thousand years of experience, and Clara could have looked different enough (younger, older, fatter, thinner, dyed hair, burn accident, cyborg) that the Doctor wouldn't recognize her.
The Claras that we see calling the Doctor by name could be copies that saved him more than once. They didn't know him in their initial near-encounter, but after they'd helped him the first time — tugged his coat from behind so he didn't step in front of the bus, glanced out a window to freeze a Weeping Angel about to pounce, fixed a broken control panel he'll use to open an escape route, whatever — they got curious about this weirdly-dressed guy and asked about him. Next time he pops up in that Clara's time, she knows what he's called, and now can save him deliberately.
If Mr. G. Intelligence was linked to the Whisper Men, couldn't it have sent one of those into the time-scars to mess up the Doctor's life and die instead? Not to mention how its personal grudge against the Doctor ("only" being beaten twice, the second time still managing to feed and grow stronger and then painlessly escape) seems like a bad case of sour grapes.
First, the problem was that the Whisper Men were the GI. Sending one of them in is what he did—it's just that one had a human face at the time. And it killed all of him. Second, as I understand it, they fought more in the original series. But you are right, to those of us who have only watched New Who, it does seem kinda silly for him to be so angry over two defeats.
The new series GI (sentient snow merged with a human) seems a bit different from the classic one (a literal paid-up member of the Lovecraft Mythos.) Still, since it's never stated in the new series and he went from snow to wi-fi to time-traveller, he could well have managed to get that powerful eventually.
I actually imagine it would be pretty painful. To be thwarted once (plus the old series times) would be bad enough, but the last time the Doctor didn't even realise who he was fighting, or how much effort he ended up destroying - the GI had to erase the memories of a person he'd been feeding off for decades, as well as all the employees, and presumably go find someone new to start all over again with. Even if he got away painlessly, the sting of having years of work gone in one day, the insult of the Doctor not even realising that he'd done that, and an already proud personality... not everyone would get so angry, but I can buy it as a reaction.
Across old and new series and other media the GI has been defeated around half a dozen times depending on how you count canon. And for a creature that is nothing more than intelligence, continually losing battles of intelligence to the same man has to be downright infuriating, don't you think?
In addition to the above, the Great Intelligence seemed to be something of a Death Seeker in this episode, which I assume is because living as a disembodied psychic consciousness that never succeeds in its goals because of one man isn't exactly pleasant.
How was River there at Trenzalore? Post-Library River?
Yes, this was the already-dead River. She was an interface linked to Clara through Vastra's mental conference.
How did the Doctor and Clara get outside? One minute they were wandering through the giant TARDIS, and then suddenly they were outside, between Madame Vastra and the Whispermen. Did I miss something?
They weren't in the giant TARDIS when they arrived to Tranzilore. They saw the giant TARDIS and talked about it. They only entered after the door was opened.
What the Doctor and Clara took was a secret entrance that ran through the bottom of the TARDIS and probably led up to the front doors.
River implies that there's something spooky about the fact that she can still be mentally present even after Clara "dies". But she wasn't just linked up with Clara; she was also linked with Vestra, Jenny and Strax. They're all present, so...mystery solved?
None of them can see her, so apparently she isn't talking via any of them.
She linked to them, sure, but they made it clear enough that the continued connection was not standard. She specified that she kept the link open with Clara and she seemed to think it important so it's safe to assume she didn't maintain the link with the others.
Fridge Brilliance: Maybe there'd been a Clara "saved" in the Great Library's databanks, and she helped virtual-River to establish a stronger connection with her than with the others?
IIRC, Series 6 specifically brought up Trenzalore as "a place where no one may speak falsely, or refuse a question." Like the location itself just compels people to divulge their secrets somehow. But...Trenzalore doesn't do that! The Doctor is perfectly capable of refusing G.I.'s questions, and G.I. has to resort to standard coercive techniques ("Tell me or I'll kill your friends!") which would work just as well in any other location. (Granted, any other location wouldn't have the Doctor-tomb that G.I. wants, but that's a separate matter.) Why doesn't Trenzalore match up to the description from last season?
Poetic license. They never said that not being able to speak falsely was a property of Trenzalore itself; that was merely an assumption drawn from a vague prophecy, which I assume was the point. The GI's coercion was most likely what it was referring to (as the Doctor would not have been able to lie because a lie wouldn't open his tomb, and he wouldn't have been able to fail to answer because if he did, his friends would die, and he wouldn't let that happen), and the passing on of the myth probably obscured the literal-ness of that fact. Plus, the prophecy states that the Question will be asked when no living creature make speak falsely or fail to answer, not where. "Where" it will be asked it already covered by "On the fields of Trenzalore."
In Series 6, the Silence try to get rid of the Doctor, because "Silence must fall when the question is asked." That question, we're later told is "Doctor Who?", i.e. "What is the Doctor's real name?". So now we're on Trenzalore and G.I. asks the big question. What exactly was the Silence trying to prevent here? The "baseline scenario" I have in my head is that the Doctor simply answers the question (no interference via River), and then the tomb opens, and the G.I. super-kills the Doctor (and there's no Clara to rescue him). If that had all happened...the Doctor would have died. But that's exactly what the Silence was trying to do in the first place! It's like they went to all this trouble to kill the Doctor because....because otherwise somebody else would have killed him. I don't get it.
Well, the Silence simply planned to shoot the Doctor, whereas the G.I. planned to super-kill him. The latter form of killing fricked up the entire universe and caused the stars to disappear. Perhaps that is what the Silence was trying to prevent.
Indeed, the Silence want to prevent him from reaching Trenzalore and answering the Question. The logical assumption is that if he does make it to Trenzalore to answer the Question, the GI will gain access to his tomb and super-kill him, which will unravel all the good he's ever done. Simply killing him before he reached Trenzalore would not only prevent the universe from unraveling, but would also preserve all of the worlds he's saved. It's the lesser of two evils, essentially.
Maybe it's really important that River said the name, instead of the Doctor. Maybe if he had said it then some terrible consequence would have followed. (Though the destruction of the stars is bad enough by itself!)
I assumed "silence" referred to all the stars and most of the universe dying... The world goes silent, everything is dead because the Doctor has always been there to save as many as he can and without him ever existing, all of those people and things die and fall silent.
Well if the Silence were indeed trying to stop the Doctor from going to Trenzalore and being super-killed by the GI... Well they were taking a pretty damn big risk there I must say. Considering how their first attempt at killing him involved retconning the universe itself out of history and making him sacrifice himself to bring it back. And do consider that if the GI was indeed "turning all the Doctor's successes into failures"... this would also include turning the fact that he restored the universe after the Silence destroyed it into a failure. So the universe would be even more doomed. Not to mention that this plan also assumed a very specific set of circumstances, wherein if even a single thing went wrong, all would be lost. Forever. In short, if this was the huge disaster the Silence were going to such insane lengths to prevent... then the Silence are kind of idiots.
We don't know that the Silence had intended to cause the cracks so as to leave the Doctor with no choice but to retcon himself out of history; in fact, that idea makes little sense to me because if the Doctor never existed, then how would the Silence even know that they succeeded in forcing him to erase himself? They wouldn't be able to remember why they did what they did, because the Doctor would have never existed to begin with. The cracks, to me, seemed more like a misfire on their part - they wanted to kill the Doctor, so they set out to blow up his TARDIS. This will result in one of two things: 1) He'll be in it, and he will die, or 2) he won't be in it, but his ship will be destroyed which will at least keep him from getting to Trenzalore for a long, long time (and for a side of speculation, they may have drawn the TARDIS to 26 Jun 2010 because it was far back enough in the past from the events on Trenzalore for the Doctor to either die of natural causes before those events took place (as the battle that led to his grave's creation would likely have been very high-profile and widely-known about; specifically the time period in which it took place, so if he died before that point then his grave couldn't have been made), or for the Silence to think of a new way to kill him while he was Earth-bound. The cracks were probably just the result of the Silence underestimating the damage that a TARDIS explosion could cause, but regardless, yes; the Silence are stupid, paranoid religious extremists, and that's really kind of the point.
From the exchange from The Wedding of River Song, for reference:
The Doctor: I need to know about The Silence.
Dorium: Oh. They're a religious order. Great power, discretion. The sentinels of history, as they like to call themselves.
The Doctor: And they want me dead?
Dorium: No. Not really. They just don't want you to remain alive
The Doctor: That's okay then. I was a bit worried for a minute there.
Dorium: You're a man with a long and dangerous past. But your future is infinitely more terrifying. The Silence believe it must be averted.
The Doctor: What's so dangerous about my future?
Dorium: On the Fields of Trenzalore, at the Fall of the Eleventh, where no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer, a Question will be asked. A Question that must never, ever be answered.
The Doctor: "Silence will fall when the Question is asked."
Dorium: "Silence must fall" would be a better translation. The Silence are determined that the Question will never be answered, that The Doctor will never reach Trenzalore.
Tracing through the innuendo, double meanings, and vagueries it seems that, much like with the secret/grave quote, we were told everything but didn't know how to listen. That is:
The Silence call themselves "the sentinels of history". Surely this is because their goal is to stop the GI from screwing up history.
The Silence don't really want the Doctor dead, but they don't want him to remain alive. Even the Doctor had trouble seeing a difference at the time, but it seems that the Silence didn't really have any animosity toward the Doctor (or at least didn't start with any) but they didn't want him alive because of the consequences it would bring.
The Doctor is a man with a long and dangerous past. At the time this appeared to just be a reason for people to hate or fear the Doctor, but now it is clear that this, too, is far more literal: messing with the Doctor's long past is very dangerous indeed. The future is terrifying because that future is screwing up the past.
"The Fall of the Eleventh". Is this the GI finally defeating the Eleventh or is it the Eleventh visiting his own grave and the grave is being referred to poetically as his fall? If it's the former it's clear why no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer: I'd like to see you try to stand by as your friends and allies are dying in agony. It's not a property of Trenzalore; it's a property of the Fall of the Eleventh. If it's referring to one's own grave, there's a certain poetry to that as well. It's likely the former, rather than the latter, though.
Think literally: how does the Eleventh get to Trenzalore when the TARDIS refuses to fly him down? He falls onto it.
^ But the Doctor does stand by while his friends and allies are dying in agony. He begs and pleads, but he doesn't actually answer the question. And he has a good reason to remain silent: If he answers the Question, G.I. will super-kill him, which will consequently kill almost everything else in the universe, including the very same friends that are being threatened (or some of them, anyway). Now we can imagine that the Doctor would have answered the question anyway, eventually. But that still leaves us with the absolute nature of "no living creature". I can imagine several living creatures which would refuse to answer this question, even if their friends were being murdered. The Master, for instance, would be quite willing to sacrifice others in order to avoid super-death for himself. It seems to me that the only way to get around that discrepancy is to interpret the prophecy with poetic license, as suggested earlier.
Oh, for sure. There's a poetry to it regardless and it's likely seen some embellishment over the years. This is undeniable. But, at the same time, the Master doesn't care for anyone the way that the Doctor does and so, in finding it impossible for him to be in the same situation, we find it impossible to even discuss what the Master would do. We know that he has no trouble sacrificing others, but would that still hold if it were possible for him to care the same way the Doctor does? Who knows?
At any rate, it seems that the question regarding the Silence's motive is answered fair enough and that the exact words explain the "no living creature can speak falsely or fail to answer" question. The real question, then, is whether "no living creature" will prove important. After all, the one who answered the question was definitely no living creature.
And that may be the solution: the line from the prophecy wasn't a statement that there was no choice, but a statement that there was ... for River. Virtual-River could've chosen not to say his name, or she could have lied to Clara about what would happen if she followed the G.I. into the timestream, but she didn't. She chose to spare the Doctor from his moral dilemma and to be honest with Clara, thus allowing Clara to save him and, with him, the universe. The Silence had interpreted the entire prophecy backwards.
Why does G.I. invite anyone into the tomb with him? If he'd simply gone inside and used his whispermen to guard the door, he could've super-killed the Doctor and there would have been no interference from Clara. Was it really so hard for G.I. to imagine that one of the Doctor's friends might follow into the timestream, performing a Heroic Sacrifice in order to save the Doctor?
Because the Whispermen are him, and disappeared when he stepped into the timestream. So they wouldn't have been able to stop anyone anyway. Add on top of that the fact that the entire reason he's doing this is because of pride, and it's clear he wants the Doctor to know what's about to happen. Even if he had anticipated a Heroic Sacrifice, he would have assumed that he was more than capable of handling a billion echoes of a human girl.
He may not have realized that the re-writing of history wouldn't be instantaneous, and expected them all to vanish as soon as he stepped through.
When G.I. first approaches the timestream, the Doctor clearly yells out "Somebody stop him!". But nobody actually tries to stop him. This is especially weird because we saw Jenny demonstrate her unarmed combat skills just a couple episodes ago. (The Crimson Horror.) Now granted, the Whispermen can pass through your flesh like ghosts, so maybe it's impossible to fight them. But you'd think somebody would try.
The last person to try and fight them (Strax) almost got the Cora treatment. The others were probably too hurt/dazed/scared to try anything.
Why is River doomed to fade away? Has something gone wrong with the hard drive on the library planet?
I thought she was only going to fade away from where they were, because she was only there through the mental link with Clara? I don't recall anything about her disappearing completely, just that this really was the last time she could ever see the Doctor.
But if she's still safe and sound on the hard drive, why would this be the last time she can see the Doctor? What's to stop him from visiting the library planet sometime and saying hello? For that matter, what would stop him from holding a conference call like they did earlier in the episode? I thought the implication was that River was about to "die", in some sort of permanent sense.
My memory isn't perfect here, but I do seem to recall that the deal that the Doctor made with the Vashta Nerada was that they would give him time to get everyone out of their 'forest', and then no-one would ever come back. They are still there, that is why the Doctor cannot go back. The conference call point is a fair one, but maybe it's just too painful; if he got into doing that, he might never be able to say goodbye, and he might be tempted to do the same with others; he has a hard time moving on as it is, without giving himself an extra temptation.
He says it in the episode; because it hurts him too much to see her after she's dead.
So the Silence wanted to kill the Doctor to prevent him from reaching Trenzalore (there the GI would "super-kill" the Doctor when the Question was answered and all the stars would go out), right? So why blow up the TARDIS in season 5 and cause the universe to end?
Maybe they didn't understand the repercussions of blowing up the TARDIS and just thought it was an easy way to kill him?
Three seasons on, and we still have no idea why they want him dead. We don't even know their motivations.
That's not so true. We've been told rather explicitly that they want him dead so he wouldn't answer the Question and we've been told a bit less explicitly other parts about that. See above where the conversation with Dorium is reproduced and discussed for a bit more on that.
I think it's safe to say that they didn't realize that blowing up the TARDIS would rip apart the universe. Presumably, they were thinking that if there was no TARDIS, there would be no grave for the GI to enter.
I have a theory that the entire big bang 2 was their plan. If it had not been for Amy's memory powers, then we would have had a pretty nice universe but where the Doctor never existed.
It is entirely possible that what the Silence is concerned about has nothing to do with the events of this episode, but rather whatever battle has yet to happen in the Doctor's future that presumably leads to his (and the TARDIS') death at Trenzolore.
In "A Good Man Goes To War", the Doctor has a baby's cot on board the TARDIS, which he says was originally his. But in "The Name of the Doctor" we see the Doctor and Susan stealing the TARDIS, and they don't have any luggage — certainly nothing as big as the cot. When and how did it get on board?
Who's saying he took it with him originally? The Professor's visited Gallifrey countless times, even dropping by Lungbarrow once. Even before that, who's saying that it was used in his youth? It's the Professor, having been regressed into infancy at some point in his past, so it would be needed by a sentimental companion isn't a stretch.
Just to heap Pelion upon Ossa: Given what happens in "Remembrance of the Daleks", he should also have the Hand of Omega with him when he's escaping in "Name". That's much bigger than a cot, and he can't have gone back for it between "An Unearthly Child" and "Remembrance".
What we saw was the Hand of Omega inside a coffin, not the Hand of Omega itself.
Furthermore, there's no telling how much time passed between the First Doctor scene of "The Name of the Doctor" and "An Unearthly Child"; he could have slipped back for the Hand later on, or even gone back in time to swipe it from Gallifrey from a point before he left or before he was even born.
Should a Time Lord, a member of a species known for making things bigger on the inside, really have the contents of his luggage judged simply by its external size?
Good point. Let's not forget The Doctor's sometimes bottomless pockets.
Why did River open the Doctor's tomb if the Great Intelligence wanted to destroy him? Did she feel that the GI would've somehow discovered her anyway, and forced her to open it after the Doctor's friends all died?