Trying to get it all straightened out |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 294
|
Trying to get it all straightened out
So I know people like their theories and speculation, but I'm just trying to iron out in my mind the facts of the matter regarding River Song.
As I see it the following statements are either true or incredibly likely to be true: 1. The Doctor got River's name from looking IN the cot, not AT it, which is where the prayer leaf was. The camera looked at the side of the cot because that's where Amy (mistakenly) looked. 2. The cliff hanger isn't so much that River is Amy & Rory's daughter, it's that she is part Timelord (Human plus Timelord was the exact quote, and human plus timelord indicates partly human and partly timelord, so I'll defend my description of her as part Timelord). 3. It was the Doctor's finest hour not because he conquered a massive army, but because he conquered a massive army that had been specifically trained to kill him without shedding any blood (apart from the monks/clerics who shot each other during the misdirection). 4. Timelord is a mutation of a species, not strictly speaking a species in it's own right (although given how many there were, it may be considered as such). The Doctor is a timelord mutation of a gallifreyan, and River is therefore (presumably) a timelord mutation of a human. This implies that some parts of the Doctor's biology come from being a timelord (such as the ability to regenerate) and some come from being gallifreyan (such as having two hearts, seeing as River clearly doesn't share this trait). 5. The TARDIS is a cheeky one. Any of the above contradicted by something that actually happened in the show?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 | ||||
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,132
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Posts: 50,377
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,132
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, the person he was responding to has gone and so have all of their tweets so we don't know what the question was. Where it says "The" at the begining of that post could have been meant to say "they" or "he". The question could have been "How did Amy and Rory read the name on the cot when the Tardis can't translate Galifreyan". It could have been "Why would it say River Song on the crib if the baby's name was Melody?" - Moff's answer would apply to either of those (and a 1001 others) without meaning that the baby's name wasn't written on the crib. It also doesn't refer to what the Doctor read - it may do but it's not certain. In fact, the director's commentary on the offical BBC website refers specifically to the writing on the crib. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Posts: 50,377
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,682
|
Is Minky a lawyer?
![]() I think the reading the leaf thing is most satisfying. And makes sense because the rest of it was misdirection for the "No Luke, I am your mother" thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,132
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 294
|
I should amend point two, I wasn't referring to the cliffhanger, more to the 'big reveal' of River's identity. For me the big thing was that she's part timelord, her parentage was a fun little bonus.
For my money, the Moff's tweet clears up the thing about where the doctor was looking. The last point is pure speculation, i suppose. But that's what I gleaned from what little was in the episode. |
|
|
|
![]() |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24.



