Options
Amy and Rorys Heartbreaking Exit
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1649159acf48f6017d449108a8d75a46.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 644 Forum Member
✭✭
I like the idea of this but Dr Who has lost its way so much I expect no one will appreciate the heartbreaking factor with the gravitas it deserves as, knowing the loopy writing, they could just bring them back half way thru the next series with some lame excuse and tenuous story line link
Shame really
[news]'Doctor Who's Steven Moffat hints at Amy, Rory exit[/news]
Shame really
[news]'Doctor Who's Steven Moffat hints at Amy, Rory exit[/news]
0
Comments
That doesn't happen. It hasn't happened. The last time a main character was dealt with for good then brought back was back in 2008.
Whether you like the sci-fi content or not, the show remains consistent with storytelling expectations.
I kind-of long for the days when the companion falls in love with someone they met ten minutes before and decides to leave with immediate effect.
I agree with you. I felt the same about the RTD years. Surprise me, don't keep telling me that something will be heartbreaking.
Although I don't necessarily agree with you about the second paragraph (the exits were a bit too abrupt and unbelievable IMO), I agree with the rest.
Rose, heartbreaking exit, supposedly dying, came back.
Martha (best exit of new Who).
Donna, supposedly dying, heartbreak, mind swipe, came back.
Amy, died, heartbreak, resurrected.
Rory died,heartbreak, resurrected.
Probably not, but at least you'll be watching. Like it or not, Moffat has to play the PR game.
:eek: In the name of all that's good and holy, why?
But Martha was brought back several times after her 'exit' and never for a particularly good reason.
I should have made that clearer. What I meant is that she left without dying or any other heartbreaking reason. She left because the Doctor didn't fancy her and she didn't want to travel with him anymore. I didn't even know she was leaving, so it was more of a "surprise" moment. I didn't get hints throughout the whole series that she was going to leave or die.
Her return didn't bother me, as there was no reason why she couldn't return. She really isn't my favourite new who companion, but her leaving is the most believable.
Right, I see. They didn't load her up with tragedy.
In a nutshell, yes. I don't mind tragedy, but I don't want to be told each time that it will be heartbreaking etc. With all the heartbreaks, the doctor probably would have given up travelling with companions.
Heartbreaking is all well and good, but heartbreaking again and again and again gets a bit same-old same-old. Try something different.
And, of course 2008 was so very long ago... But wait, haven't you forgotten the return of the Master in 2009, which spilled over into 2010? That story included just about everybody the Doctor knew, provided that the actors were still alive, even the supposedly lost-for-all-time Time Lords. Then, we met Amy and Rory, with Rory dying on a regular basis and being brought back every time. Maybe you were in the kitchen making a sandwich and missed those parts...
That said, I do agree about being told it will be "heartbreaking" months in advance is annoying, like being told how you should/will feel, and more likely than not you feel any such thing.
Of course he does - though I would've been watching anyway. Just not sure that "my writing's so brill, you're going to feel THIS!" is the best form of PR, really. Not for me, anyway. (and yes, I know RTD used to do it, but it suited his style more).
Anyway, I hope when it arrives it's a good one and we really do need our hankies...(I might if Rory dies for real
You might want to re-read jonsfab's concern. The End of Time storyline didn't involve inventing a 'loopy' reason to bring back a character who wouldn't logically be able to - with the obvious exception of the Master, who we know will always come back. Donna's reason for being separated from the Doctor remained, and didn't involve any kind of backtracking.
Rose was sealed off in another dimension, with it being explicitly made clear that she could never return, necessitating a huge wibbly u-turn in order for her to appear.
As for Rory, yes, that's fair, he did die once, it could be argued that bringing him back was 'loopy', even though it was part of a deliberate plot thread and he was referred to frequently in the intervening episodes.
Basically, all I was getting at is that although it has happened, it's very rare and something any writer would avoid writing if possible.
Agree with this.
Would you like to enlighten me, what heartbreaking means? Or what Moffat means by heartbreaking? Maybe I'm getting it wrong.
When does your heart break? When someone dies, when you lose someone, when you observe someone else losing someone, when you have to leave someone? Maybe even when you lose your job, but I don't think we will see this kind of heartbreak in Doctor Who. All of these examples are tragic, and in some case deadly.
Fact is that we are told yet again that something heartbreaking (e.g., emotional, tragic, deadly, take your pick) is going to happen. Some of us don't like it, others don't care. No need to find some kind of alternative explanation for the word heartbreak to show that Moffat gets it right.
I bet in their final scene we see River reading stories to her kids in their bedroom (in Library database, as seen at the end of Forest of the Dead) and then she turns out the light, walks downstairs her lounge . . . where she's having tea with Rory and Amy (who've ended up in ther library database too somehow).
Watching my mother die of old age, content and surrounded by her family, I would find personally heartbreaking, but I don't think I could call it tragic.
Waving a friend off as they emigrate to a foreign country to take on an amazing new job opportunity would also break my heart, but I wouldn't think of it as tragic either.
What about two people deciding to divorce because it's the best thing for both of them? Sad, certainly - but not a tragedy.
Overwhelming emotion, even sadness, isn't always caused by suffering and misery, is what I'm trying to say.
I would actually disagree, I think death after a long lived happy live is just as tragic as dying young etc., because ultimately nobody wants to die. Again, divorce will always have some aspect of misery to it (nobody really divorces without having gone through some kind of misery beforehand, in my very subjective opinion of course).
However, I will take the point you are trying to make. Heartbreak in your opinion is not always tragic or due to misery. However, you agree that it is emotional (even if the emotion is not necessarily a sad one). I still don't see the relevance here.
Some people are saying that they don't want to be told what they should be feeling (e.g. heartbreak, regardless of your definition of the cause of the heartbreak). Amy or Rory are either going to die or maybe she is pregnant and will say goodbye this way (although we already had the goodbye scene in the last series). Maybe they are finding out that River is going to die because of the Doctor and start hating him. Who knows? For me it would have been much better if he had kept quiet about it, and if we had a more traditional goodbye. A mature one that shows how far the Doctor and Amy really have come.
Considering that we had all these "heartbreaking" goodbyes in New Who, it would have been amazing to have something different. Something humerous for instance. It's like with the finals, each time it has to be bigger and more bombastic. The same now with the companions leaving, each time it has to be more heartbreaking.
Totally agree. It was the best departure of the revived series. The beauty of it is that it was her decision. That's why I rate Martha as a companion. A total counterbalance to Rose's desperation to stay with this amazing man. It reminded me of Tegan's exit, that she had seen enough horror. I'd say it is some of RTD's best writing, just like the Ninth Doctor's regeneration, when RTD plays it down he pulls it off for me. Ok, the rest of the series 3 finale might have gone over the top, but the ending was perfect for me.
I agree with what you say about heartbreaking again and again, the only thing is for me neither Rose nor Donna's exits were heartbreaking. Perhaps Donna's a bit because she wouldn't remember, but I didn't buy the 'it would just be a story' if she heard it from someone else or on the news. Why would that not trigger her memories? It was also undone for me by the lame 'fail safe' The Doctor had installed in her so she would come to no harm if she remembered. Huh?
Okay, let me rephrase myself - I think that's easier than delving into semantics!
Amy and Rory's ending is going to be heartbreaking for us, the viewers. It's not necessarily going to be heartbreaking for the characters.
Even if the story ended with a triumphant and/or comic ending, handled right, it could still be heart-breaking to viewers.
I'm just trying to look on the positive side here - What Steven has said doesn't have to mean death and misery and suffering!
I agree with you apart from the BIB. I never really liked Donna's exit as it didn't make much sense at all and her return was a bit of a mess. Plus, we were promised a death and all we got was a lame throwaway line from 10 to suggest that. Away from Donna, Martha's ending was both surprising and well pulled off. However, as much as I'd hate to admit it, Rose's ending was, for me, genuinely heart-breaking and rewatching that scene does bring me close to tears, although they did lose a LOT of that emphasis by bringing her back.
It still doesn't deflect from my original point.
Firstly, why tell us that it is going to be heartbreaking rather than let us make up our own mind? I don't care if there is misery or death heartbreak or subjective viewer heartbreak. I don't want to be told that there will be heartbreak, full stop. I don't a writer to tell me how I should feel about a story.
Secondly, I don't want heartbreak (even subjective viewer heartbreak handled well) over and over.
I realise that you are trying to put a positive spin on things, and fair enough. However, sometimes people will just not like something (however, I'm not saying I could write anything better, far from it and maybe I will think it's the best leaving story ever when I see it).
In my subjective opinion, it is a mistake to go on about heartbreak once again when we already had multiple heartbreaks in New Who. Furthermore, now some of us will have the expectation that there will be some kind of viewer heartbreak (to use your phrase), which means that the leaving story could be really disappointing if it doesn't live up to your own subjective heartbreak expectation.
Think of it like a teaser trailer, nothing more. He's not saying that you have to be heartbroken by it, merely that he's trying to write something that will break your heart. Obviously, even if it were to come as a complete surprise, it may not touch you, you may even be eager for it if you don't like the characters.
He's just trying to create soundbites to get people talking and interested in the new series, using one of the few things he is in a position to say, and it seems to be working. Let's face it, the alternative is:
"Coming soon to BBC1 - a programme where some stuff happens. You might like it, you might not, probably just have to watch it to see."
It's the same as bigging up all the plans they're talking about for 2013 - they could over-do the hyperbole and the whole thing could seem like a let down.