No. We have evidence from both sides of the name-change that the person in question had changed his name.
We have zero EVIDENCE - rupert said he hated his name and Danny said "I haven't USED that name in a long time". I USE my dog's name - it's not MY name but I USE it when I talk to or about her.
I kind of already did that. We saw Orson hand the soldier to Clara, thinking she was family. She handed it to the Doctor (or "Barney", if you insist, although the episode says it's the Doctor). If the Doctor and Clara were the ones to enrol Rupert into the home, then the soldier could have gone with him. By the time we meet him, that soldier was already Rupert's favourite.
Not even remotely close to anything shown or said. Rupert showed no interest in the box of soldiers which were not his. It was CLARA who got the box, CLARA who chose to get soldiers out - and CLARA who suggested that the broken one was special - a "colonel" - Rupert dismissed the soldiers as not being his and dismissed the broken one cos "it hasn't even got a gun".
You are setting an almost impossible situation and calling it "simple".
That's a restatement of my case, not a contradiction of it. As I said, we've been focussed on Orson's heritage, and not examined Danny's, because we assume that Orson's history is Danny and that Danny's is irrelevant.
Don't include me in that we - I've been saying (and getting flak for it) that there's a lot more to the pinks - ALL OF THEM - than toys>>snoggs>orange suit.
Yes. Lots of people, all over the forum.
None of them in this thread or on this subject
If you're willing to throw out everything we know at any point, then any story can make sense. While I'm fine with the Doctor lying to his companion, the writer lying to the viewer is a different business.
No-one has lied - not the Doctor, not anyone. Some things have not been said and the viewer - like certain characters - is left to fill those gaps with ASSUMPTIONS.
You keep implying that I am "throwing things out that we know" but you have yet to show a single example of that happening - on the contrary, I'm making a great big point that what we KNOW is very little and I'm repeatedly proving that fact.
I asked why the WRITERS felt the need to put "Rupert" in a home. I said in another thread that I grew up in children's homes and that they are NOT "orphanages" - and that kids in care absolutely HATE being told that they have no parents.
I'm saying that the reason for having Rupert in a home was to avoid ANY reference to HIS PARENTS.
Rupert's not the start of the line - he's the middle or end of it.
There's various assumptions - that rupert becomes danny and falls for Clara. How about Rupert is Danny and Clara's SON - hidden in the 1990's by the Doctor to protect him.
Same few facts - different use of the same assumptions.
It even allows that Danny DID use to be called Rupert - him and thousands of other people including his son.
We have zero EVIDENCE - rupert said he hated his name and Danny said "I haven't USED that name in a long time". I USE my dog's name - it's not MY name but I USE it when I talk to or about her.
But surely you must realise that that is a very unusual use of English? If I were to say," I go by the name I.M. Foreman", a native English speaker would interpret that to mean that my name was Foreman, not that every Tuesday I walk past a sign with that name written on it. If Danny wanted to avoid the subject, he would have said (or the writers would have written), "I haven't heard that name in a long time", or the more straightforward, "That's not my name", or not acknowledge it at all. He wouldn't choose a phrase that is generally understood to confirm what she said.
Not even remotely close to anything shown or said. Rupert showed no interest in the box of soldiers which were not his. It was CLARA who got the box, CLARA who chose to get soldiers out - and CLARA who suggested that the broken one was special - a "colonel" - Rupert dismissed the soldiers as not being his and dismissed the broken one cos "it hasn't even got a gun".
CLARA: And they're going to guard under your bed. You see this one? This is the boss one, the colonel. He's going to keep a special eye out.
RUPERT: It's broken, that one. It doesn't have a gun.
CLARA: That's why he's the boss. A soldier so brave he doesn't need a gun. He can keep the whole world safe. What shall we call him?
RUPERT: Dan.
CLARA: Sorry?
RUPERT: Dan, the soldier man. That's what I call him.
CLARA: Good. Good name.
Not only has he played with them before, enough to give one of them a name that he'll eventually take for himself, but it doesn't even have to be his favourite in order to simply be there.
Don't include me in that we - I've been saying (and getting flak for it) that there's a lot more to the pinks - ALL OF THEM - than toys>>snoggs>orange suit.
Yes, a lot lot more. What I'm proposing is that if there is anything (and I'm not at all convinced that there is), there might only be a tiny little bit more, and it doesn't involve second-guessing every tiny thing a person has said.
It is really unlikely that such a distant descendant would look so similar to his ancestor. Are we to infer that down the years there was NO maternal influence on his appearance - even his skin tone?
Rupert, Danny and Orson are all the same person. The Doctor KNOWS this, which is why he is cautious of Clara's infatuation with Danny.
It is really unlikely that such a distant descendant would look so similar to his ancestor. Are we to infer that down the years there was NO maternal influence on his appearance - even his skin tone?
You're right of course but that could just as easily be artistic license because obviously they wanted the audience (and Clara) to have a reaction when they saw Orson.
I think it's clear that we're supposed to believe that Danny is Rupert (having changed his name), that Danny has something very suspicious going on and that Orson is his and Clara's great grandson. Whether this turns out to be true or remains true is yet to be seen (after all, if Danny dies then perhaps Orson is never born).
It is really unlikely that such a distant descendant would look so similar to his ancestor. Are we to infer that down the years there was NO maternal influence on his appearance - even his skin tone?
Rupert, Danny and Orson are all the same person. The Doctor KNOWS this, which is why he is cautious of Clara's infatuation with Danny.
It's not the first time they have used the same actor/actress to show a ancestor and descendent what may have lived 100's of years apart
Rupert, Danny and Orson are all the same person. The Doctor KNOWS this, which is why he is cautious of Clara's infatuation with Danny.
^^
I agree. I suspect that this could well turn out to be case. The doctor is playing detective... Danny is too? Maybe Danny knows who the Doctor is. He certainly appears to wants to influence Clara and her relationship with the Doctor. In fact he has been very successful to the point that Clara is lying to both..
We (and the characters) have been led to understand that Orson is Danny's descendent, and that Clara and Danny's relationship is therefore predestined, or at least would involve a whole bunch of paradox if they were to break up instead.
What if Danny is Orson's child instead? What if Danny is taking after his colonel father by joining the army, instead of the other way around? What if Orson is killed in the future, and for some reason, the Doctor and Clara have to protect baby Rupert by taking him back into the past, to an orphanage? What if they leave him with a special soldier toy, in the box with the rest of the orphanage's toys - one that brought the Doctor much comfort as a child?
Yes, it would be a big time loop, but only for a little soldier toy. And it would free up Danny and Clara's future for storytelling.
I had thought about this before but there is one flaw .....
Clara picks out that one gunless soldier the childrens home when she's talking to young Rupert/Danny, in which case...
It was Orson's family heirloom that Clara gave to the young Doctor and the Doctor would have to have put it in the children's home at some point for young Rupert/Danny to end up with it.
Of course he could do this for a reason, but then what would Orson's old family stories about time travel be about, because Clara wouldn't be his ancestor then, she'd be his potential daughter-in-law...
UNLESS...
...and this brings me back to another thought I had .... We never saw Journey Blue's brother, I think some people who have died this series are going to be ressurected later, and I wouldn't be surprised if Journey' brother has a familiar look to him.
All this seasons stories work on their own and don't appear at first to be as arc heavy, but I think in this season, rather than arc-heavy stories and standalone stories, we've got elements of the season arc running through the lot, we just arent going to realise it fully until the end ....... Moffat has perfected his "thing"
I had thought about this before but there is one flaw .....
Clara picks out that one gunless soldier the childrens home when she's talking to young Rupert/Danny, in which case...
It was Orson's family heirloom that Clara gave to the young Doctor and the Doctor would have to have put it in the children's home at some point for young Rupert/Danny to end up with it.
Easily enough done if the Doctor was the one who placed Rupert there - after all, he already knows that both Rupert and the soldier appear there.
More timey whimeyness and paradoxes. If 12 and Clara hadn't seen young Rupert he wouldn't have grown up to become "Danny" the ex soilder man. Just like 11 crashing into 7 year old Amys garden. From that point he was allways going to affect her life and by extension Rorys and later River/Melodys. Just hope Clara and Danny survive and can be happy. Maybe 12 has learnt from the heartbreak with the Ponds. He will help them if he can.
Comments
We have zero EVIDENCE - rupert said he hated his name and Danny said "I haven't USED that name in a long time". I USE my dog's name - it's not MY name but I USE it when I talk to or about her.
Not even remotely close to anything shown or said. Rupert showed no interest in the box of soldiers which were not his. It was CLARA who got the box, CLARA who chose to get soldiers out - and CLARA who suggested that the broken one was special - a "colonel" - Rupert dismissed the soldiers as not being his and dismissed the broken one cos "it hasn't even got a gun".
You are setting an almost impossible situation and calling it "simple".
Don't include me in that we - I've been saying (and getting flak for it) that there's a lot more to the pinks - ALL OF THEM - than toys>>snoggs>orange suit.
None of them in this thread or on this subject
No-one has lied - not the Doctor, not anyone. Some things have not been said and the viewer - like certain characters - is left to fill those gaps with ASSUMPTIONS.
You keep implying that I am "throwing things out that we know" but you have yet to show a single example of that happening - on the contrary, I'm making a great big point that what we KNOW is very little and I'm repeatedly proving that fact.
I'm saying that the reason for having Rupert in a home was to avoid ANY reference to HIS PARENTS.
Rupert's not the start of the line - he's the middle or end of it.
There's various assumptions - that rupert becomes danny and falls for Clara. How about Rupert is Danny and Clara's SON - hidden in the 1990's by the Doctor to protect him.
Same few facts - different use of the same assumptions.
It even allows that Danny DID use to be called Rupert - him and thousands of other people including his son.
Not only has he played with them before, enough to give one of them a name that he'll eventually take for himself, but it doesn't even have to be his favourite in order to simply be there.
Yes, a lot lot more. What I'm proposing is that if there is anything (and I'm not at all convinced that there is), there might only be a tiny little bit more, and it doesn't involve second-guessing every tiny thing a person has said.
Rupert, Danny and Orson are all the same person. The Doctor KNOWS this, which is why he is cautious of Clara's infatuation with Danny.
You're right of course but that could just as easily be artistic license because obviously they wanted the audience (and Clara) to have a reaction when they saw Orson.
I think it's clear that we're supposed to believe that Danny is Rupert (having changed his name), that Danny has something very suspicious going on and that Orson is his and Clara's great grandson. Whether this turns out to be true or remains true is yet to be seen (after all, if Danny dies then perhaps Orson is never born).
It's not the first time they have used the same actor/actress to show a ancestor and descendent what may have lived 100's of years apart
Name five examples
^^
I agree. I suspect that this could well turn out to be case. The doctor is playing detective... Danny is too? Maybe Danny knows who the Doctor is. He certainly appears to wants to influence Clara and her relationship with the Doctor. In fact he has been very successful to the point that Clara is lying to both..
I had thought about this before but there is one flaw .....
Clara picks out that one gunless soldier the childrens home when she's talking to young Rupert/Danny, in which case...
It was Orson's family heirloom that Clara gave to the young Doctor and the Doctor would have to have put it in the children's home at some point for young Rupert/Danny to end up with it.
Of course he could do this for a reason, but then what would Orson's old family stories about time travel be about, because Clara wouldn't be his ancestor then, she'd be his potential daughter-in-law...
UNLESS...
...and this brings me back to another thought I had .... We never saw Journey Blue's brother, I think some people who have died this series are going to be ressurected later, and I wouldn't be surprised if Journey' brother has a familiar look to him.
All this seasons stories work on their own and don't appear at first to be as arc heavy, but I think in this season, rather than arc-heavy stories and standalone stories, we've got elements of the season arc running through the lot, we just arent going to realise it fully until the end ....... Moffat has perfected his "thing"