But nothing in TATM said that it was set in the era Amy & Rory were currently living in, so it really isn't a problem. It's pretty clear that Amy & Rory had to be living in 2018-ish in The Power of Three, when at the end they went off on more adventures. TATM was set in 2012, that's explicitly stated. What's not explicitly stated is that that was Amy and Rory's present, so it's just as likely that they travelled back there with the Doctor.
I agree.
I was answering smithers who DOES think the Ponds were living in 2012 in their present. I was simply saying that it couldn't be the case.
Although not explicitly stated in the script we have to assume that the Ponds travelled back in time from their own "present" to be in New York in 2012.
Why Moffat chose to do that (I.e. set up an ambiguity in the minds of many) we don't know.
I'm thinking the whole "It was filmed in 2012 so they set it there/then" seems to be the most logical answer now, if utterly bewildering to fans trying to casually get their heads around the current year for Rory and Amy!
Okay.... So, at the end of the episode, it was suggested that the Ponds had been living the past, thereby clearly intersecting the time line of Rory, Amy, Melody and the Doctor, and at no stage in any previous episode did either Rory or Amy ever send a message to either Melody or the Doctor to say "Hi".
And, assuming that Rory and Amy lived in happiness, they didn't seek to adopt or bring up an extended family to combat their loneliness that they would have experienced without Melody in their lives?
Perhaps the episode should have been retitled "Just Another Deus Ex Machina"... a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some extraneous factor.
Of course, "deus ex machina' is frequently exploited in order to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out.
So... put any inconsistencies in the plot to the writer failing to offer a better option.
Okay.... So, at the end of the episode, it was suggested that the Ponds had been living the past, thereby clearly intersecting the time line of Rory, Amy, Melody and the Doctor, and at no stage in any previous episode did either Rory or Amy ever send a message to either Melody or the Doctor to say "Hi".
And, assuming that Rory and Amy lived in happiness, they didn't seek to adopt or bring up an extended family to combat their loneliness that they would have experienced without Melody in their lives?
Perhaps the episode should have been retitled "Just Another Deus Ex Machina"... a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some extraneous factor.
Of course, "deus ex machina' is frequently exploited in order to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out.
So... put any inconsistencies in the plot to the writer failing to offer a better option.
It's hardly "Deus Ex Machina" when the Angels were there all along in this story. It's not a big "ask" of the audience to accept that (at least) one Angel survived the destruction of the farm.
You have a couple of reasonable questions - but it's definitely not another case of Deus Ex Machina.
Okay.... So, at the end of the episode, it was suggested that the Ponds had been living the past, thereby clearly intersecting the time line of Rory, Amy, Melody and the Doctor, and at no stage in any previous episode did either Rory or Amy ever send a message to either Melody or the Doctor to say "Hi".
And, assuming that Rory and Amy lived in happiness, they didn't seek to adopt or bring up an extended family to combat their loneliness that they would have experienced without Melody in their lives?
Perhaps the episode should have been retitled "Just Another Deus Ex Machina"... a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some extraneous factor.
Of course, "deus ex machina' is frequently exploited in order to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out.
So... put any inconsistencies in the plot to the writer failing to offer a better option.
There are three answers to your main point, the way I see it: Firstly, because we're viewing time in sequence for the Doctor, they've only just been sent back and so hadn't had the chance to send a message yet. (I realise Moffat's time travel rarely works this, but it worked that way in S2 with "Torchwood", didn't it?). Secondly, they knew better than to mess with things by sending messages and potentially altering timelines/blowing holes in the universe. Thirdly, perhaps they *do* send a message, but it hasn't reached him yet, a la "Back to the Future Part II" and "The Impossible Astronaut"?
Oh, and how do we know that they haven't adopted children in their past? We saw nothing to say they had, or that they hadn't either. Perhaps they did meet up with Melody/River, but it's not like she'd tell the Doctor anyway, as she's quite good at keeping secrets.
But we do know and fully understand everything you said. Honestly - I understand one hundred percent everything of what you say. But the ponds living in 2012 in "their time stream" does not fit with numerous other things shown and said this series and last series.
They WERE ageing faster than their friends, but only by a bit. Not such that they aged ten years worth of tardis adventures since the events of The God Complex and were living as people older than thirty in 2012. Whatever year it was for the Dinosaur story, Rory's dad believed it correct that his son was 31. Therefore not 2012.
I have quoted Fawlty Towers in this post. I really am not that upset.
Also, I never mentioned 2012, simply that they are aging faster than the world around them, which has been specifically mentioned.
Can't remember when it was mentioned to Rory's dad that he was 31, but was it after he'd travelled in the TARDIS? If so, he wouldn't have been surprised that Rory was that age, having realised that this is what Rory and Amy were up to every time they disappeared.
Haven't been on here for yonks - oh how I've missed it!
I have quoted Fawlty Towers in this post. I really am not that upset.
Also, I never mentioned 2012, simply that they are aging faster than the world around them, which has been specifically mentioned.
Can't remember when it was mentioned to Rory's dad that he was 31, but was it after he'd travelled in the TARDIS? If so, he wouldn't have been surprised that Rory was that age, having realised that this is what Rory and Amy were up to every time they disappeared.
Haven't been on here for yonks - oh how I've missed it!
But if you weren't implying that the Ponds were living in 2012 (about ten years older than their friends) , what on earth was the point of your post in the first place? The thread is all about the confusion caused by the story starting and ending in 2012.
It is possible that when Rory's dad heard his son say that he was thirty one that he simply assumed what you say. But it wasn't said in the script. The more natural conclusion is that Brian thought his son should be 31 because in the year they were fixing the light bulb his son should be 31. Otherwise why did Rory mention his age? It was information to the audience about how far into the Ponds' real life we were. If it was to inform Brian about his son having had ten years of life he didn't know about the writer would have made sure Brian remarked on this surprising news.
But anyway, are you saying that it was 2012 in the Dinosaur story, that the "31" line was about Rory telling his dad about a missing ten years? If so, what year did you think the Ponds were living their "normal" life in before they travelled to New York?
(BTW, I recognised the Fawlty towers joke. knew you werent upset. But if you weren't saying "the ponds were living in 2012" then it doesn't seem to make sense).
but was it after he'd travelled in the TARDIS? If so, he wouldn't have been surprised that Rory was that age, having realised that this is what Rory and Amy were up to every time they disappeared.
No it was before not that long before but it was before
The Williams weren't living in 2012. They must've been visiting NY in 2012 from their present. Pond Life etc seem to take place a few years after 2012.
No it was before not that long before but it was before
The Doctor had accidentally picked Brian up with the Ponds. Before long they were in the engine room (beach). Rory said he was 31. There was no reaction of surprise from Brian. If the purpose of this line was to convey to Brian that Rory had aged ten years in the space of between one and three years, the writer or editor made a very poor Job of it.
As it is, people can and will interprete it how they want. But I know which interpretation is the more likely intent of the dramatist.
Amy and Rory were ageing slightly faster than their domestic life timeline. But not to the extent that ten years had passed for them in the space of between one and three domestic years.
They needed time to have gone through a divorce, for Amy to have been through a succession of jobs, for Rory to have had several lengthy absences from his job. For Amy's friend to have noticed they are never around - especially since Amy's latest career of travel writer. Which followed her career as a model. etc etc etc.
And Amy had wrinkles and developed the need for reading glasses. It is unlikely they were still returning to 2012 or even 2013 or 2014 etc. pretending they had been away for a day or two. They were shown returning to their house after leaving it empty for a lengthy period.
Comments
I agree.
I was answering smithers who DOES think the Ponds were living in 2012 in their present. I was simply saying that it couldn't be the case.
Although not explicitly stated in the script we have to assume that the Ponds travelled back in time from their own "present" to be in New York in 2012.
Why Moffat chose to do that (I.e. set up an ambiguity in the minds of many) we don't know.
And, assuming that Rory and Amy lived in happiness, they didn't seek to adopt or bring up an extended family to combat their loneliness that they would have experienced without Melody in their lives?
Perhaps the episode should have been retitled "Just Another Deus Ex Machina"... a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some extraneous factor.
Of course, "deus ex machina' is frequently exploited in order to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out.
So... put any inconsistencies in the plot to the writer failing to offer a better option.
It's hardly "Deus Ex Machina" when the Angels were there all along in this story. It's not a big "ask" of the audience to accept that (at least) one Angel survived the destruction of the farm.
You have a couple of reasonable questions - but it's definitely not another case of Deus Ex Machina.
There are three answers to your main point, the way I see it: Firstly, because we're viewing time in sequence for the Doctor, they've only just been sent back and so hadn't had the chance to send a message yet. (I realise Moffat's time travel rarely works this, but it worked that way in S2 with "Torchwood", didn't it?). Secondly, they knew better than to mess with things by sending messages and potentially altering timelines/blowing holes in the universe. Thirdly, perhaps they *do* send a message, but it hasn't reached him yet, a la "Back to the Future Part II" and "The Impossible Astronaut"?
Oh, and how do we know that they haven't adopted children in their past? We saw nothing to say they had, or that they hadn't either. Perhaps they did meet up with Melody/River, but it's not like she'd tell the Doctor anyway, as she's quite good at keeping secrets.
I have quoted Fawlty Towers in this post. I really am not that upset.
Also, I never mentioned 2012, simply that they are aging faster than the world around them, which has been specifically mentioned.
Can't remember when it was mentioned to Rory's dad that he was 31, but was it after he'd travelled in the TARDIS? If so, he wouldn't have been surprised that Rory was that age, having realised that this is what Rory and Amy were up to every time they disappeared.
Haven't been on here for yonks - oh how I've missed it!
But if you weren't implying that the Ponds were living in 2012 (about ten years older than their friends) , what on earth was the point of your post in the first place? The thread is all about the confusion caused by the story starting and ending in 2012.
It is possible that when Rory's dad heard his son say that he was thirty one that he simply assumed what you say. But it wasn't said in the script. The more natural conclusion is that Brian thought his son should be 31 because in the year they were fixing the light bulb his son should be 31. Otherwise why did Rory mention his age? It was information to the audience about how far into the Ponds' real life we were. If it was to inform Brian about his son having had ten years of life he didn't know about the writer would have made sure Brian remarked on this surprising news.
But anyway, are you saying that it was 2012 in the Dinosaur story, that the "31" line was about Rory telling his dad about a missing ten years? If so, what year did you think the Ponds were living their "normal" life in before they travelled to New York?
(BTW, I recognised the Fawlty towers joke. knew you werent upset. But if you weren't saying "the ponds were living in 2012" then it doesn't seem to make sense).
No it was before not that long before but it was before
The Doctor had accidentally picked Brian up with the Ponds. Before long they were in the engine room (beach). Rory said he was 31. There was no reaction of surprise from Brian. If the purpose of this line was to convey to Brian that Rory had aged ten years in the space of between one and three years, the writer or editor made a very poor Job of it.
As it is, people can and will interprete it how they want. But I know which interpretation is the more likely intent of the dramatist.
Amy and Rory were ageing slightly faster than their domestic life timeline. But not to the extent that ten years had passed for them in the space of between one and three domestic years.
They needed time to have gone through a divorce, for Amy to have been through a succession of jobs, for Rory to have had several lengthy absences from his job. For Amy's friend to have noticed they are never around - especially since Amy's latest career of travel writer. Which followed her career as a model. etc etc etc.
And Amy had wrinkles and developed the need for reading glasses. It is unlikely they were still returning to 2012 or even 2013 or 2014 etc. pretending they had been away for a day or two. They were shown returning to their house after leaving it empty for a lengthy period.