So am I!

I'm quite sure it was the Teselecta all along. He didn't change his fate, his fate was what it always was. We just saw it from Amy's POV the first time, and then the events leading up to it the second time. There's no alternate timeline where the Doctor did the exact same things in the exact same order but didn't think to speak to the Teselecta and so actually died - he piloted the Teselecta before the timelines ever diverged. My impression is that the Teselecta always burned in that boat, and the Doctor always piloted the TARDIS to safety. (Along, presumably, with the crew of the Teselecta.)

The timeline reasserts itself at the end, so the events we see are the events we always would've seen. It's just that we, like River, have learnt that everything's going to be okay, and that events are allowed to assert themselves. That's our journey.

Seriously, watch it again. The scene at the start of the series and the scene at the end was the exact same event, the tesselecta faking the regeneration for it to be convincing that it was the doctor.

The whole reality in which the wedding took place was created because river wanted tried to change a fixed point in time, and real reality was only fixed when she was convinced to put thing's back exactly as they were supposed to be in that fixed point, as the doctor made her realise he was never in any danger, because it was the tesselecta all along. What do you think him whispering to her, and then her telling Amy what happened was all about?. He whispered it because it had already been set up before that aternate reality had ever happened. There was never a different series of event's on that beach, and the real doctor never started to regenerate.

Seriously, you watch it again.

Does the Doctor say that he did cheat the fixed point, changing events, by using the Tesselecta or does he say that's what happened all along?

He cheated a fixed point in time by using the Teselecta, but he did that first time round, too. The first time round is the last time round. We just take the long path!

There's no evidence that both times are the same path. Moffat's writing style further prevents any such assumption.

Also, what I said above about other people rewatching: I take that back. We may be having a minor disagreement over a small plot issue but it isn't personal and I wouldn't wish that sort of abuse on anybody.

What about LKH when he was poisioned ?. He actually said to the tards better regenerate then. Tradis told him he couldn't because his regenerations had been dispabled if memory serves.It made me wonder why Kovarian didn't just kill him herself. Either slip the poison into his food /drink or just wear the stupid space suit ands shoot him. It was automatic could have just used a remote control.No need to steal and torture a part timelord child into a psychopath. Also why didn't she insist his body be brought to her after the "death" ?. You would think after all the work to kill him she would have wanted to confirm it with her own eyes. Shame she didn't come back for TOTD.

we're on the same wavelength on this. I think this how it was too... Real Doctor first time round, Teselecta on the return.

Imo the Tardis was telling him that that particular poison overrides regeneration.

If your best argument is to continue to state your conclusions without any evidence (clue: there isn't any) then it's going to be hard to have a conversation.

The Doctor researched this for centuries, believed and stated, several times, that he was going to his actual death. Either way it would have looked the same.

So they show you the same scene twice, and just because the second time, they show you a bit of background information that they didn't show you before (to keep suspense), you suddenly think the content of the scene has somehow changed.

He did cheat his 'actual death' by hiding in the tesselecta. You understood that the second time the scene was shown, but nothing had changed, nothing could change, it was a fixed point, and any attempt by the doctor to somehow magically change the situation from the way it alway's happened would have just landed him back in the 'time happening all at once' parallel universe. That's why river trying to change event's made that universe occur in the first place.

So they show you two different scenes and just because they look similar, you suddenly think the two are the same?

You probably can't understand why they cut the bit where Rose and Eccleston see the other Rose and Eccleston the first time they go to Pete's death in Father's Day.

No, wait, let me guess: that was entirely different. Your argument being: because you say so.

The scene was shown three times. We, as viewers, were told about three sets of events. You seem unable to accept that we therefore may have seen three versions of the scene, because two is the magic undebatable number, right?

It wasn't two similar scene's though it was the exact same scene, there was nothing shown different about it, you've just convinced yourself that it was secretly different one time to another. With the older doctor sending the younger version of himself the '1' envelope there was a big time loop going round an round where younger doctor eventually became the older doctor and sent the younger doctor the envelope and thus event's go around on and on in exactly the same manner.

the alternate universe was a temporary manifestation created by river failing to act in the way she was alway's supposed in the fixed point. When the doctor convinced her to do what she needed to, that manifestation was gone and the fixed point was back to how it had alway's been. Nothing in that alternate universe manifestation had a effect on whether the doctor was already standing in the tesselecta or not.

if you want me to understand your view then please explain to me just how you think the doctor was able to alter the fixed point for it to be real doctor then tesselecta without creating the 'time happen's all at once universe' when river altering attempting to alter the fixed point did just that.

Question: can a fixed point be altered?
Answer: yes. See The Waters of Mars. See The Fires of Pompeii. See Miracle Day.

Question: must altering a fixed point always collapse time?
Answer: no. See The Waters of Mars. Etc. Etc.

Summary then: the Doctor asserts variously that:

1. that event is a fixed point, where he must die;
2. that fixed points cannot be changed;
3. that changing the fixed point in itself was enough to collapse time.

You seem to have cherry picked which of those contradictory statements you are going to go to the wall defending. Others of us are being more pragmatic.

Here's what fan wisdom has to say after attempting to synthesise the various things the series has said:


Emphasis added.

So, people on different sides of the argument:

• me, the accepted fan wisdom via the Tardis Data Core;
• you.

We're going to have a falling out if you keep talking to me like this.

Why, if it were a plot point that the Doctor changed his timeline, are we never shown that plot point? It's Steven Moffat, if he does something even slightly timey wimey he hangs all the bells and whistles in the world on it! Timey wimey is his thing, and changing a fixed moment in time is huge, he's not going to sneak that massive a plot point under the carpet!

You're the one asserting the time line changed, the burden of proof is on you. What happened that changed it?

I guess because TV programmes also have dialogue. For almost fifty years were you shouting at the TV "Why, if it were a plot point that the Doctor stole his Tardis, are we never shown that plot point?"?


Fixed points have changed almost every other time they've been mentioned. Moffat frequently doesn't show plot points. You show me where the Silence are shown to be the ones that blew up the Tardis.


The programme was contradictory. There are several interpretations.

I'm saying we don't know what happened for certain. You're saying we do.

In the ordinary world it's the person asserting that something definitely happened that has the burden of proof.

So, again:
• the Doctor stated on various occasions that he would die at Silencio, having spent a couple of centuries trying to avoid it;
• several other characters stated on various occasions that the Doctor would die at Silencio;
• it is also clearly shown that events at a fixed point in time can be changed — in The Waters of Mars this is explicitly a change of events, not just a trick so that they're misreported;
• other characters seem to be aware of this — the Silence make several attempts on the Doctor's life elsewhere than at Silencio but if it weren't a malleable event then why bother?

We were shown at least two versions of events, over three occasions. Three versions were described to us. It is not accurate to say that we can rule out that the third was also shown to us.

"Obviously we were being shown the same scene" doesn't work because we were shown at least two versions. The presumption that each version must be the same is broken.

"But fixed points can't be changed" doesn't work because they have been changed in the programme in previous episodes.

Its not just me, other people have further up this thread have also voiced the view have voiced the same opinion as mine that it was always the tesselecta, I wasn't even the first person to post that this was my opinion, so no point acting like Im a lone crazy that no-one else agree's with. Im fully aware that there have been times where fixed point's have been altered, as you stated with the waters of mars example, but it seem's to be the writer's perogative to change the rules on this on certain episodes as it suits them. On this occasion however, in my opinion, it was established that this particular fixed point could not be changed, as shown when the 'time happens all at once' scenario was created by river even trying to change it.

This is my opinion but I'm fully aware at that it, or anything else I say will not change your view anymore than anything you say will change mine. I also feel this conversation is getting a little heated and personal, for which we are both to blame, and is largely consisting of us both saying our same opinions over and over in slightly different ways. I respect that you have the conviction to rigorously defend your view as much as I do mine.

As such I feel at this point that we should agree to disagree so that we may both move on to more interesting, cheery threads.

Sure. I've given my opinion and the reasoning behind it. You've stated that you don't agree and given your opinion. I've repeated that I don't agree, ad nauseam. That wraps that up.

Let's congratulate ourselves that at least we're not in the camp of "but it doesn't make sense". And congratulate you for being the more level headed about it.

Agreed. It definitely makes sense, it's just obvious from the lengthy discussion on this thread that the specifics of how it makes sense differ in the opinion of different people.

How could the Doctor "know" he'd die at Lake Silencio when he knew he would die on Trenzalore?

That's a bigger plot hole to me.

How could River discharge her weapon if she wasn't in control of the suit? If she wasn't in control of the suit, why bother to kidnap and brainwash her in the first place? Why put her in the suit at all? Even if the suit wasn't in control, why train River for it — what difference would it have made if it were someone else?

I ask all these things while being a huge fan of The Pandorica Opens.

He didn't know he was going to die at Trenzalore until much later - all he found out from Dorium was that the Silence were willing to kill him to prevent him getting to Trenzalore. And even that was after he hatched his plan with the Tesselecta.

Also, he didn't 'know' that he'd die at Silencio, he learned about it through piecing together clues over the course of the series, specifically in Let's Kill Hitler. And, significantly, he learned not so much that he died, but that people recorded him as having died.

As for evidence that events at Silencio only ever happened one way?
1) The point was endlessly laboured that whatever events happened there could not be changed.
2) They spent half the final episode showing the terrible consequences of attempting to change those events.
3) Which ended up with River being persuaded to allow events to continue as normal. The Doctor couldn't have changed anything about those events without having the same effect. There would have to be a plot reason given why the rule didn't apply to him.
4) 'First time round', the Doctor didn't just turn up to an appointed place to be executed, he had already anticipated and planned for his death. He had already started formulating his plan when he saw Craig's blue envelopes. The plan was already in place when he invited his friends as witnesses - otherwise it would just be cruel.
5) Events form a perfect loop. There is no point in all the events shown in which anything was shown to happen differently - save for River's intervention.

Lastly, the argument about whether or not fixed points can be changed is moot. Used narratively as it has been done in the past, it has always been explicit that when changing a fixed point is discussed, it's in terms of the catastrophic damage that it would cause, or at the very least the risk of catastrophic damage. It's never just glossed over. If a fixed point was changed, we would be explicitly told about it.

The Doctor was never able to change his fate - he just made sure it was the right fate.

I think the point is that River wasn't necessarily in control of herself. She was mentally conditioned to kill the Doctor prior to Let's Kill Hitler, and then pulled back in by the Silence before being sent to the Lake. It's still up for debate whether she herself was responsible for blowing up the TARDIS in The Big Bang - she did spend a lot of time repeatedly apologising, after all.