Howling:Theory on River Song

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → Theory on River Song

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on The Howling if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

I have been speculating alot on what River Song's role will be later in the series. From what occurred in The Big Bang, I believe the doctor will fall in love with River. Now, as to her dark past. I have been thinking for much time, who is the great man that River Song killed. She did have a bit of a surprised reaction as to seeing The Doctor at the library while he was traveling with Donna Noble. Based on her behavior, i am going to assume that River Song, will, kill, The Doctor. As she mentioned, he is going to be rather cold towards her when SHE first meets the doctor. Maybe she will cause a regeneration or she will be the complete end of him. Who knows. Please tell me what you think.70.234.13.111 05:01, July 14, 2010 (UTC)7/13/1070.234.13.111 05:01, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

A fair theory, but there's one bit I don't agree with, River Song wouldn't kill the Doctor, but she might kill someone the Doctor knows or something like that. MatoroFreeze 06:20, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking. Continuing on the theory. Perhaps her killing the doctor wont be intentional. Perhaps an accident, or a mishap. I still strongly believe she will somehow hurt the doctor. Guess I have to wait a season or two 70.234.13.111 07:05, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that she will kill the doctor. It just makes sense.--God (Pray) 06:42, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

River was sent to prison because she was framed for the Doctor's death. It was actually the Teselecta. 94.72.209.160^{talk to me} 15:05, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that now.Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 08:57, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, we know River was sent to prison because of the nursery rhyme. But what I want to know is: how did the intergalactic police know that she had supposedly killed the Doctor? If the Silence had just left her in the suit and the Judoon had found her or something, she would have easily been able to prove that she had been forced to do so. Did the Silents just hypnotise them to send her to prison, or what? 94.72.237.220^{talk to me} 17:42, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

This really doesn't matter, 94, since even if noone caught River, River would have to send herself into the prison to both make the Doctor's "death" apparent to other aliens and to prevent a paradox.--222.166.181.93^{talk to me} 21:01, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Two things you might have to elaborate on: 1* How could River send herself to prison? 2* What's the Paradox in her not doing so? 94.72.237.220^{talk to me} 21:14, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

It's quite obvious though, 1. she just simply to confess it to whatever law enforcing agency associated with Stormcage . 2, the Doctor has been meeting a River sent to Stormcage since the beginning of her storyline.--222.166.181.198^{talk to me} 21:56, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

1, fair enough, but 2, maybe not. There will have originally have been a reason why River was in prison. She won't just be in prison because she was in prison. The Paradox must start somewhere. 94.72.237.220^{talk to me} 23:14, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

paradoxes don't have to start somewhere. that's why they're paradoxes. Imamadmad ^{talk to me} 23:46, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

On the DVD of The Big Bang (Series 5), in the commentary, I think, someone involved in making that episode talks about Steven Moffat having to explain exactly that point to him, so we can be certain Moffat knows it. --89.240.246.47^{talk to me} 00:18, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

In one of the episodes where River broke out of Stormcage, the Doctor offered to let her leave Stormcage with her, but she said that she had promised him that she would serve her time.Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 00:38, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Imamadmad: yes they do. In the Whoniverse, time is in flux, so for example if you went back and met yourself there would be an aborted timeline where your younger self hadn't been visited at all. Once you travel back though, you will have been visited and that provokes a paradox. In some other universes, like the Harry Potter universe, events can not be changed, you will always have been visited when you were younger, and if you hadn't, even if you tried to change time so you did, something will have stopped you from doing so, for instance you will have attempted to walk up to your past self but a Bus will have have flattened you and prevented it. Personally I have always preferred the Harry Potter time travel rules, because they are much more logical, but in the Whoniverse time travel isn't like that.

PS: I just know someone is inevitably going to mention Blink... but I think I have an explanation for that. 94.72.236.250^{talk to me} 17:23, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

well, your theory breaks down if the person only went to see their past self because their past self met their future self. take time crash as an example. if the 5 doctor hadn't seen the 10th doctor solve the problem of the tardises "creating a hole in the universe the size of Belgium", he wouldn't have known how to fix the problem as the tenth and he would have been fully killed in his 5th incarnation, preventing the tenth doctor from existing and crashing into him and therefore not experiencing "belgium" and therefore he can crash into himself when in his 10th incarnation but not have the information and therefore destroying themselves... and the cycle continues. therefore, the information on fixing the situation (the creation of which is nonexistant) comes out to stabilise the events so that the doctor isn't dead and not dead at the same time. same thing goes for blink. if the doctor didn't give the information to sally, there would be no way of receiving it to give it because sally sparrow probably would have been sent back to the 1920s or whenever because she wouldn't have known not to turn her back, not to look away, and to not blink. Imamadmad ^{talk to me} 00:29, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be getting your paradoxes mixed up. I was talking about temporal paradoxes. We know that the Weeping Angels feed off temporal energy, so I reckon the Angels provoked the "Blink" paradox so they could feed off the temporal energy. How they managed it, I have no idea, but it's just a theory. As for the Time Crash paradox, perhaps in the first instance of the timeline the Tenth Doctor made a series of random guesses that turned out to be correct, provoking a paradox due to the presence of the Fifth Doctor. 94.72.236.250^{talk to me} 16:37, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Harry Potter universe doesn't work quite that way. Hermione told Harry that there were Wizards who changed history, and bad things happenned to them. Fortunately for Harry, all that happenned on his time travelling venture was the creation of a stable time loop. The sixth book makes it a major point that the future isn't carved in stone, when Dumbledore explains that prophecies don't always come true, and people's choices affect the future. The problem with universes where history can never be changed is that it suggests that there is no such thing as free will. The Doctor Who universe just works in whatever way is convenient for the story. To explain stable time loops like in Blink and Time Crash, we probably just have to assume that there are some fixed points involved, and it all (mostly) makes sense. Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 05:16, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that when Hermione mentioned bad things happened to wizards who changed time, she meant that if say Harry had attempted to burst in to Hagrid's hut, time would somehow prevent him from doing so, perhaps by fatal means if it had to. The prophecies are a slightly different matter, as they don't especially involve changing events one has already seen or knows cannot be changed. Not that it matters, because this isn't HP wiki, and for now I'll have to agree with you in that Doctor Who time travel just works in whatever way the story requires. 94.72.204.80^{talk to me} 23:13, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me, but I thought that Hermione mentioned something about Wizards who killed their past selves, or drove their past selves mad. Anyway, you're right that this isn't the place to have a discussion about Harry Potter. Icecreamdif ^{talk to me} 23:57, March 22, 2012 (UTC)