I am going to follow the links you posted tomorrow once I've had some sleep and am thinking properly. In the meantime, I'll try to answer some of your questions. (With some seriously unhelpful answers.)
that ridiculous bassinet. Why would the Doctor say it was his? How would it have River's name on it while still being excessively old?
I wondered that, too. I thought, 'why is the Doctor all surprised at River's identity when he's had her cot in the TARDIS attic for God knows how long!' Here's my fanwank-y answer: It was his cot. His child/children also slept in it, which is why he gets all emotional when Amy asks who it belonged to. He only stenciled River's name on it recently as a gift for Amy. And only when River draws attention to it does he realize how "Melody Pond" translates to "River Song."
WTF do the headless monks have to do with anything?
IDEK, but wasn't it cool when we saw their headless neck stumps with the skin all twisted and tied like a helium balloon?!?
Does Moffat just have a thing for inventing enemies?
*touches nose* Bingo!
Where do the Silence fit into this?
*shrugs*
Did Moffat have some kind of contest with RTD for 1) kitchen sink guest-alien episodes and 2) gay couples?
I don't know. The first point bothers me, and the second makes me very, very happy for two reasons: 1. because I like to see gay people on tv. It makes me happy. and 2. because now, in all of those stupid RTD vs. Moffat debates people can SHUT THE HELL UP about this!
What is the point of having an actual half-human/half-Time Lord?
Methinks we shall find out! (What I want to know is if it's SO DAMN EASY to make a Time Lord/human hybrid to begin with, why all the angstyness about them all being gone? Rent out the TARDIS as a honeymoon getaway and MAKE SOME MORE, dammit!
Is there a risk of metacrisis?
Wait..what? Why? What did I miss?
Why are we killing Hitler?
Because with all of the time travel going on, someone must have finally gotten around to trying it...
(Why is this the next part of a two-parter? Why is this a two-parter? Why do we have to wait until September?)
ALL VERY GOOD QUESTIONS! Also: is it officially back in September? I was having nightmares that 'Autumn' was going to mean October or November.
These are all very good questions, and I'm sure I'll have more to say once I'm all rested up and de-caffeinated. Until then!
ETA: OH! I also noticed the lack of cliffhanger. (Thought I'm not really going to complain about it. I had enough trouble waiting a week to find out what happens to Amy and the baby!) I know the 'cliffhanger' is supposed to be that they still don't have the baby, but having a safe and sound grown-up version of said baby standing around pretty much kills any suspense on that account. What I really want to know is who River kills! All of the signs seem (to me) to be pointing to one person in particular, and I just really, REALLY don't want that to be the case! (Sorry to be all cryptic, but my brain's a bit addled at the moment, and I can't work out if it's appropriate to share my speculation or not.)
You know what I really don't get about the translation, though? I'm sure the Time Lords had a word for pond. And probably melody as well. So unless he was reading it in every language possible (or because of the TARDIS they were all thinking and speaking in the forest language? Idek...)
Re: the metacrisis thing... I was thinking of the fundamental incompatibility of human and Time Lord implied in Journey's End (the whole your brain is burning up because this isn't meant to be a thing thing). But then I went searching for an actual definition of metacrisis and there doesn't seem to be one, other than "What happened in Journey's End" and that's also RTD-canon, so who knows what the heck. I assume River's time lord streak is a stable configuration for the DNA, though, otherwise she wouldn't exist (though it does look like she had a rather awkward childhood, what with that back-alley regeneration and all. But, uhm, if she can regenerate... I'm going to have to re-watch Silence in the Library now, darnit.)
I think I know what you're thinking as far as who River kills. I think that's what we're all meant to be thinking (it's not the thing I implied in my post of fake theories--that'd be too easy). But, since it's what we're probably meant to be thinking, I'm kind of inclined to believe it's not true. Plus he never stays dead and... AGH, that's another thing they have in common, omg. I thought I was being novel last fall with the whole Rory is a good substitute for the Doctor thing, but nooo it had to be a plot point. (-:
Oh, to clarify: I think it says "Melody Pond" in Gallifreyan on the cot, because of course the Time Lords would have a word for both 'Melody' and 'Pond' and naturally that's what the Doctor would have written if he had intended it as a gift for Amy's baby. It's only when River says "I am telling you" that he realizes how "Melody Pond" might translate to "River Song".
At least, I think that must be what was going on. Because otherwise: why would he have a very old cot lying around with either "Melody Pond" or "River Song" written on it? (And am I the only one who thought that was a really creepy-ass cradle? The thing did not look like it would adhere to any sort of modern safety standards. If I were Amy, I'd probably demand to know why the Doctor were trying to place my child in what was obviously the Time Lord equivalent of a lead paint-covered antique death trap--complete with pointy metal stars for the baby to swallow when she's older!)
Oh yeah! I was thinking of the metacrisis from the "You got Human in my Time Lord!" "You got Time Lord in my Human!" standpoint. I forgot about the two bits being incompatible. But perhaps that's because Donna had a Time Lord consciousness (or whatever it was) suddenly and artificially inserted into her head and her human body couldn't deal with it. If Melody's DNA was affected by the vortex, perhaps she has that third strand of Time Lord DNA that...magically makes everything work out fine? (Damn! And I was doing so well there...)
But, uhm, if she can regenerate... I'm going to have to re-watch Silence in the Library now, darnit.
I thought about that, too, but I remembered: when River is explaining to the Doctor about why she's taking his place, she says she knows she won't be able to survive it and neither can he, "and don't think that you'll regenerate". So it's already a part of canon that having your mind zapped by a supercomputer prevents regeneration.
But are we supposed to think she's going to kill Rory, or are we supposed to think she's going to kill the Doctor? What worries me is this continuing theme of "Are they talking about the Doctor? Oh, no, they're talking about Rory!" It happens several times in the episode: at the beginning, when Amy is telling Melody about the man coming to save her; and there's a more subtle one later when the Eyepatch Lady remarks that good men have too many rules, and the Doctor says that (paraphrasing) "good men don't need rules. You don't want to find out why I have so many," implying that he is not the Good Man referred to in the episode title (so it must refer to Rory) and mostly likely (I think) not the "good man" that River kills.
Needless to say, I am worried. Console me? Make up some pretty lies I can cling to instead?
I've seen people who think the Doctor's real name is on the cot (but that contradicts the whole 'there's only one way you could've found that out'... unless by 'only one way' he means 'you've seen my deathtrap cradle')... But I'm confused about how River's name got on there at all, since the Doctor didn't know its name when Rory brought the baby to Amy. Timey-wimey, for sure, but something is definitely up there.
The cradle is more about ensuring a sort of Time Lord Darwinism. If you don't eat the stars, you live. If you eat the stars and live, close enough. I suspect if it was the Doctor's it probably used to have a lot more stars.
The regeneration bit was what I wanted to check (there are massive gaps I don't remember from season 4, which is a shame. I need to fix that.) I suspected that was the case, since otherwise everyone would be all "OMG SHE COULD'VE REGENERATED AT THE END OF SitL!!!!1" right now. Actually, I'm surprised they're not anyway.
Oh, oh, speaking of all the rules and things... the Doctor totally didn't go to war anyway. He made everyone else fight for him (also, Rory with the gun and the sword at the same time? Scary-awesome). 1) Didn't we learn this lesson two seasons ago and 2) Yeah, almost certainly not the "Good Man" in question.
The best pretty lie I can cling to is that Rory never stays dead. Also, there are other copies lying around that are ripe for killing (he's kind of like a Cylon that way)... Uhm... how about a distraction instead?
Oh, btw, did you notice the random quoting of Julius Caesar by the married ones? "We come to [fight him/bury him], not praise him" It's making me wonder if I should be looking for more? (Or if I should be looking for a Brutus... ........ >.>)
"There's only one way you could ever discover my name...you've been in my attic! Tell me you didn't find my yearbook from the Time Academy..."
But I'm confused about how River's name got on there at all, since the Doctor didn't know its name when Rory brought the baby to Amy.
I'm telling you--the Doctor is totally into stenciling. And possibly decoupage. Who knows--maybe they had a little downtime while they were waiting for all the soldiers to clear out, and he realized that he totally missed the baby shower and still owed Amy a gift?
*sigh* Yeah, not likely. Which means he did have a cot with River (or Melody's) name inscribed on it lying around, and my brain hurts again.
The cradle is more about ensuring a sort of Time Lord Darwinism.
My parents had a similar child-rearing philosophy, only theirs involved sharp-cornered coffee tables and basement steps that were not reliably gated.
I suspect if it was the Doctor's it probably used to have a lot more stars.
HA!
Actually, I'm surprised they're not anyway.
The truly stupid fans probably haven't made it that far yet. Give 'em a day or two.
Are there no alternate theories for who River kills besides the Doctor and Rory? (I think it's most likely to end up being one of them, but I'd be curious to know if there were any possibilities I hadn't considered.)
Ooh. Consider me distracted! Yes, I want lots and lots of domestic tropes fulfilled with The Ponds as in-laws. Rory just makes such a good foil for the Doctor's childish enthusiasm.
Sadly, no, I didn't notice the Julius Caesar quote. I'm not particularly familiar with the Histories! A Brutus, eh? With the Doctor as Caesar? Now, why do I immediately jump to the conclusion that this is Rory again...
that ridiculous bassinet. Why would the Doctor say it was his? How would it have River's name on it while still being excessively old?
I wondered that, too. I thought, 'why is the Doctor all surprised at River's identity when he's had her cot in the TARDIS attic for God knows how long!' Here's my fanwank-y answer: It was his cot. His child/children also slept in it, which is why he gets all emotional when Amy asks who it belonged to. He only stenciled River's name on it recently as a gift for Amy. And only when River draws attention to it does he realize how "Melody Pond" translates to "River Song."
WTF do the headless monks have to do with anything?
IDEK, but wasn't it cool when we saw their headless neck stumps with the skin all twisted and tied like a helium balloon?!?
Does Moffat just have a thing for inventing enemies?
*touches nose* Bingo!
Where do the Silence fit into this?
*shrugs*
Did Moffat have some kind of contest with RTD for 1) kitchen sink guest-alien episodes and 2) gay couples?
I don't know. The first point bothers me, and the second makes me very, very happy for two reasons: 1. because I like to see gay people on tv. It makes me happy. and 2. because now, in all of those stupid RTD vs. Moffat debates people can SHUT THE HELL UP about this!
What is the point of having an actual half-human/half-Time Lord?
Methinks we shall find out! (What I want to know is if it's SO DAMN EASY to make a Time Lord/human hybrid to begin with, why all the angstyness about them all being gone? Rent out the TARDIS as a honeymoon getaway and MAKE SOME MORE, dammit!
Is there a risk of metacrisis?
Wait..what? Why? What did I miss?
Why are we killing Hitler?
Because with all of the time travel going on, someone must have finally gotten around to trying it...
(Why is this the next part of a two-parter? Why is this a two-parter? Why do we have to wait until September?)
ALL VERY GOOD QUESTIONS! Also: is it officially back in September? I was having nightmares that 'Autumn' was going to mean October or November.
These are all very good questions, and I'm sure I'll have more to say once I'm all rested up and de-caffeinated. Until then!
ETA: OH! I also noticed the lack of cliffhanger. (Thought I'm not really going to complain about it. I had enough trouble waiting a week to find out what happens to Amy and the baby!) I know the 'cliffhanger' is supposed to be that they still don't have the baby, but having a safe and sound grown-up version of said baby standing around pretty much kills any suspense on that account. What I really want to know is who River kills! All of the signs seem (to me) to be pointing to one person in particular, and I just really, REALLY don't want that to be the case! (Sorry to be all cryptic, but my brain's a bit addled at the moment, and I can't work out if it's appropriate to share my speculation or not.)
Reply
Re: the metacrisis thing... I was thinking of the fundamental incompatibility of human and Time Lord implied in Journey's End (the whole your brain is burning up because this isn't meant to be a thing thing). But then I went searching for an actual definition of metacrisis and there doesn't seem to be one, other than "What happened in Journey's End" and that's also RTD-canon, so who knows what the heck. I assume River's time lord streak is a stable configuration for the DNA, though, otherwise she wouldn't exist (though it does look like she had a rather awkward childhood, what with that back-alley regeneration and all. But, uhm, if she can regenerate... I'm going to have to re-watch Silence in the Library now, darnit.)
I think I know what you're thinking as far as who River kills. I think that's what we're all meant to be thinking (it's not the thing I implied in my post of fake theories--that'd be too easy). But, since it's what we're probably meant to be thinking, I'm kind of inclined to believe it's not true. Plus he never stays dead and... AGH, that's another thing they have in common, omg. I thought I was being novel last fall with the whole Rory is a good substitute for the Doctor thing, but nooo it had to be a plot point. (-:
Reply
At least, I think that must be what was going on. Because otherwise: why would he have a very old cot lying around with either "Melody Pond" or "River Song" written on it? (And am I the only one who thought that was a really creepy-ass cradle? The thing did not look like it would adhere to any sort of modern safety standards. If I were Amy, I'd probably demand to know why the Doctor were trying to place my child in what was obviously the Time Lord equivalent of a lead paint-covered antique death trap--complete with pointy metal stars for the baby to swallow when she's older!)
Oh yeah! I was thinking of the metacrisis from the "You got Human in my Time Lord!" "You got Time Lord in my Human!" standpoint. I forgot about the two bits being incompatible. But perhaps that's because Donna had a Time Lord consciousness (or whatever it was) suddenly and artificially inserted into her head and her human body couldn't deal with it. If Melody's DNA was affected by the vortex, perhaps she has that third strand of Time Lord DNA that...magically makes everything work out fine? (Damn! And I was doing so well there...)
But, uhm, if she can regenerate... I'm going to have to re-watch Silence in the Library now, darnit.
I thought about that, too, but I remembered: when River is explaining to the Doctor about why she's taking his place, she says she knows she won't be able to survive it and neither can he, "and don't think that you'll regenerate". So it's already a part of canon that having your mind zapped by a supercomputer prevents regeneration.
But are we supposed to think she's going to kill Rory, or are we supposed to think she's going to kill the Doctor? What worries me is this continuing theme of "Are they talking about the Doctor? Oh, no, they're talking about Rory!" It happens several times in the episode: at the beginning, when Amy is telling Melody about the man coming to save her; and there's a more subtle one later when the Eyepatch Lady remarks that good men have too many rules, and the Doctor says that (paraphrasing) "good men don't need rules. You don't want to find out why I have so many," implying that he is not the Good Man referred to in the episode title (so it must refer to Rory) and mostly likely (I think) not the "good man" that River kills.
Needless to say, I am worried. Console me? Make up some pretty lies I can cling to instead?
Reply
The cradle is more about ensuring a sort of Time Lord Darwinism. If you don't eat the stars, you live. If you eat the stars and live, close enough. I suspect if it was the Doctor's it probably used to have a lot more stars.
The regeneration bit was what I wanted to check (there are massive gaps I don't remember from season 4, which is a shame. I need to fix that.) I suspected that was the case, since otherwise everyone would be all "OMG SHE COULD'VE REGENERATED AT THE END OF SitL!!!!1" right now. Actually, I'm surprised they're not anyway.
Oh, oh, speaking of all the rules and things... the Doctor totally didn't go to war anyway. He made everyone else fight for him (also, Rory with the gun and the sword at the same time? Scary-awesome). 1) Didn't we learn this lesson two seasons ago and 2) Yeah, almost certainly not the "Good Man" in question.
The best pretty lie I can cling to is that Rory never stays dead. Also, there are other copies lying around that are ripe for killing (he's kind of like a Cylon that way)... Uhm... how about a distraction instead?
Oh, btw, did you notice the random quoting of Julius Caesar by the married ones? "We come to [fight him/bury him], not praise him" It's making me wonder if I should be looking for more? (Or if I should be looking for a Brutus... ........ >.>)
Reply
But I'm confused about how River's name got on there at all, since the Doctor didn't know its name when Rory brought the baby to Amy.
I'm telling you--the Doctor is totally into stenciling. And possibly decoupage. Who knows--maybe they had a little downtime while they were waiting for all the soldiers to clear out, and he realized that he totally missed the baby shower and still owed Amy a gift?
*sigh* Yeah, not likely. Which means he did have a cot with River (or Melody's) name inscribed on it lying around, and my brain hurts again.
The cradle is more about ensuring a sort of Time Lord Darwinism.
My parents had a similar child-rearing philosophy, only theirs involved sharp-cornered coffee tables and basement steps that were not reliably gated.
I suspect if it was the Doctor's it probably used to have a lot more stars.
HA!
Actually, I'm surprised they're not anyway.
The truly stupid fans probably haven't made it that far yet. Give 'em a day or two.
Are there no alternate theories for who River kills besides the Doctor and Rory? (I think it's most likely to end up being one of them, but I'd be curious to know if there were any possibilities I hadn't considered.)
Ooh. Consider me distracted! Yes, I want lots and lots of domestic tropes fulfilled with The Ponds as in-laws. Rory just makes such a good foil for the Doctor's childish enthusiasm.
Sadly, no, I didn't notice the Julius Caesar quote. I'm not particularly familiar with the Histories! A Brutus, eh? With the Doctor as Caesar? Now, why do I immediately jump to the conclusion that this is Rory again...
Reply
Leave a comment