Howling:River Song is a....... MAJOR SPOLIERS!!!: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 84: Line 84:
::::Meanwhile, ''Lungbarrow'' has notoriously been ignored and flatly contradicted by the EDAs/PDAs and the new series. The later novels and TV episodes establish that the Doctor was born to a mother and a father, who he lived with, as did other Gallifreyans; he later married at least once and had at least two children, which was perfectly normal. (For that matter, even before Cartmel, the Fourth Doctor mentioned "Time Tots".) But Lungbarrow said that Gallifreyans are birthed fully-formed from Looms into a House of Cousins, and are sterile. So, when Lungbarrow says that the Other threw himself into the Looms and was later reconstituted as the First Doctor, how does that fit in?
::::Meanwhile, ''Lungbarrow'' has notoriously been ignored and flatly contradicted by the EDAs/PDAs and the new series. The later novels and TV episodes establish that the Doctor was born to a mother and a father, who he lived with, as did other Gallifreyans; he later married at least once and had at least two children, which was perfectly normal. (For that matter, even before Cartmel, the Fourth Doctor mentioned "Time Tots".) But Lungbarrow said that Gallifreyans are birthed fully-formed from Looms into a House of Cousins, and are sterile. So, when Lungbarrow says that the Other threw himself into the Looms and was later reconstituted as the First Doctor, how does that fit in?


::::Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with any of the possibilities discussed in this thread? --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 03:36, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 
::::Logbarrow must be the most intetionally contradictied thing in the history of Doctor Who, contradicited by the classic series, the new series, and everything else. It's so damn contradicted, whic the writers do on purpose. They're well aware of what it said, but continually throw in that the Doctor has family and has had sex. Also , this has nothing to do witb the subject.
 
::::River Song is... SPOILERS! Just that - she is River Song, nothing more, nothing less. She is who she is. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 19:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 
::::
:Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with any of the possibilities discussed in this thread? --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 03:36, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
::::Personally, I don't believe that River Song kills the Doctor, as that would be too obvious, but I can't think of anyone else for her to kill. But she says "The greatest man I have ever known" could she know someone who she loves more than the doctor? I doubt that, but killing the Doctor would just be TOO obvious.
:Logbarrow must be the most intetionally contradictied thing in the history of Doctor Who, contradicited by the classic series, the new series, and everything else. It's so damn contradicted, whic the writers do on purpose. They're well aware of what it said, but continually throw in that the Doctor has family and has had sex. Also , this has nothing to do witb the subject.
:River Song is... SPOILERS! Just that - she is River Song, nothing more, nothing less. She is who she is. [[User:Delton Menace|Delton Menace]] 19:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
:
:Personally, I don't believe that River Song kills the Doctor, as that would be too obvious, but I can't think of anyone else for her to kill. But she says "The greatest man I have ever known" could she know someone who she loves more than the doctor? I doubt that, but killing the Doctor would just be TOO obvious.
:
:i agree river song is rivers song and it wont be the doctor who she kills it will be too obvious, so obvious in fact the i get the feeling that it is what Moffat wants us to think she means.
:
:the death will have a big effect on the doctor though, she more or less said this at the end of the big bang and has the death got something to do with the dalek beging for mercy, because to make that happen must mean something [[Special:Contributions/217.23.232.194|217.23.232.194]] 07:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:45, 2 July 2010

The Howling → River Song is a....... MAJOR SPOLIERS!!!
There be spoilers about un-released stories here.
Run back to the forums if you're scared.


This content has been found on (see below) and is a major spoiler and is an official statement into what happens in the Time of Angels and to who River Song is. The Statement is as follows:

[River has] been in prison for a long time for murdering somebody… She [has] killed ‘the best man she ever knew’. River is allowed to leave prison because her archaeological expertise is needed to confirm that a piece of art in a collector’s hands is a Weeping Angel. She thinks it’s a Weeping Angel rather than just a sculpture, but she needs the Doctor to confirm it. There’s a party in a spaceship where the statue is being held and everybody seems to be in 1940’s outfits. The Doctor, Amy and River [get] stuck in a forest, with Weeping Angels peeping out from behind trees. These Angels are much more frightening than before. It’s terrifying. River has a book that contains images of all the Doctors and their adventures, past and future. It’s also the map of their relationship, but he’s not allowed to see it! At the end of the two episodes, the Doctor asks if he can trust her. River Song says, “Yes, you can, but what would be the fun in that?”

The content was found on here http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/time-of-angels-spoilers-4575.htm

So what do you think??? There is many speculation on the blog of the website indicating that she meets the 12th Doctor and kills him and then meets the previous incarnations. So could she be the person who finishes it for the last regernation of the doctor??? -- Michael Downey 14:02, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


When I read the last bit a part of me died. HOW RIVER. HOW?! But i would hate that to happen. Well maybe she didnt kill him. It wont be the way I think she will kill him. BUT I dont want that to happen. Ahh I trusted and loved River Song from the start, but after reading that I just font trust her now. lol Im getting into this too much now.80.65.246.197 19:16, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Does 'the best man she ever knew' necessarily have to be the Doctor? And with a tendancy for the Doctor to remain unknown for the good deeds he has done to the general public, would 'killing him' actually result in imprisonment --Samoth 20:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)?

Seems unlikely now we know the best man taught her to fly the TARDIS and not the Doctor 86.26.137.154 10:01, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

No, we know that she "learned from the best", and that it wasn't the Doctor. But that just means that her flying instructor was the best TARDIS pilot/instructor, not that he was the best man she ever knew. The two _could_ refer to the same thing, but there's absolutely no reason they have to.

Also, there's not "many speculation" about River killing the 12th Doctor; there's just one guy throwing it out there and then following up with a bit more explanation after two other people criticized the idea.

Anyway, the question as to whether she killed the Doctor or someone else is still as wide open as it was before the episode. But my suspicion is that it's someone else. My crazy Jack Harkness theory from another thread is starting to grow on me... but actually, I think it's more likely it'll be someone we don't know yet, and that someone will have nothing to do with her learning to fly the TARDIS (or to write Old High Gallifreyan). --Falcotron 11:22, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


What i got from the episode dialogue when she was flying the TARDIS is when she told him 'you were busy that day' meant that she was refering to the 12th Doctor teaching her, and just didnt want to mention it to freak 11 out. 86.152.188.14 13:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. The last time they met (for him, and for us), she gave him all kinds of hints related to future Doctors--"have we done the crash of the Byzantium?", the sonic screwdriver, the diary, the secret she whispered in his ear--those are all things that happened with (at the very least) the 11th Doctor. However, since these are happening for her out of order (maybe in reverse order, but with only two examples, it could only be forward or backward, not shuffled...), maybe in the Library she knows that she doesn't have to be so careful about freaking him out, while in the Maze she isn't yet sure of that. --Falcotron 14:24, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Another thought--this doesn't seem too likely, but it's not impossible.

Remember when there were rumors from the press about Alex Kingston being the 11th Doctor? At the time, a bunch of fans speculated about how that would explain (almost?) everything about River Song from the Library--why she has a sonic screwdriver, knows his future, knows his name, etc. That would mean she's deliberately keeping things from her earlier self, but that could be with good reason. The flirting with her earlier self is weird, but not impossible (and the bit about two heads in this episode fits in pretty well). The fact that there's an information paradox (e.g., she tells her former self he can open the TARDIS doors by snapping, but the only reason she knows that is that her future self told her, back when she was him.

None of those are unanswerable objections. But there's one that does seem to be: If River Song were the 11th Doctor, and she died and lived on only in a virtual reality, that's a serious problem for the existence of the 12th and 13th Doctors.

But if she's the 13th Doctor, rather than the 11th, that problem goes away.

Unfortunately (I may have to watch it yet again...), unlike the Library episodes, I'm pretty sure there's stuff in this one that can't be explained by River being a future Doctor not telling us the whole story....

And, as I said, it doesn't seem to likely anyway. But worth bringing up, at least. --Falcotron 14:42, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

does anybody else think that River could be a timelord? Maybe one of the well known female timelords from the old series?

Her relationship with the Doctor, at least in regards to her being able to fly the Tardis better than he can but gets frustrated at his ability to stick his head out the door just about anywhere and know where he is, is rather similar to that of the Doctor and Romana, although that might well be a deliberate reference to the old series of Moffat's part and not actually mean anything(or at least I wouldn't put that past him).Doorofnight 21:59, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I started a nice little thread on that very topic under "Is River Song Human?" here on the Howling. The consensus is that there is too little information to make a call on yet, although the idea is pretty tantilizing. I like the Capt. Jack prospect as "the best man she ever knew" Especially if she had to kill him as a cover for some situation and is willing to serve time for his murder. As she already knows the Doctor isn't human, can that conclusively eliminate him as a "man"? Although with all the flirting she does with him, that isn't a firm answer in and of himself.ReTardis 17:26, April 28, 2010 (UTC)ReTardis

I actually have a theory about River that I've never seen before. Have you ever found it weird that River had had all these experiences with the Doctor, knew his real name, and so on ... yet she was unaware that the 10th Doctor was a prior incarnation entirely, vs the one who she did the Byzantium adventure with? I mean... different face, for starters, that's a facepalm right there. But uh, his wife (?) doesn't know which order the incarnations lived in? Sure, it's possible this is just a detail they're conveniently ignoring because Tennant left the show and they had to cope... but I think this and her appetite for grilling the Doctor about little details she can write in her notebook, might indicate her supposed relationship with the Doctor is 100% a con. The Rani? Yeah, I like that theory as much as anyone, but the Rani would have lost her patience and just started shooting people by now. She doesn't have Romana's mannerisms. I do think she's 'her own character' but I also think she's full of s____. Agonaga 06:35, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

no offence Agonaga, but in my opinion, River Song being the Rani or Romana is full of s***. its what every would LIKE to believe, but that doesnt make it true. plus, she actually said at one point in either 2 parter (i cant remember which), she actually said she has a picture of all his faces. im not really surprised by this because the relationship with the Doctor makes it quite inevitable Ooiue 07:27, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

For ReTardis, the Doctor considers himself a man. When he's talking to the mirror thing in "Vincent and the Doctor" he says something like "a man can be wrong." As for the theory she's a Time Lord. Nah, the Doctor would know. The Thirteenth Doctor 08:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ooiue, Agonaga is arguing _against_ River being the Rani or Romana, not for it, so you don't have to attack him over it. Meanwhile, to be specific, about 16:40 into The Time of Angels, the Doctor says, "How do you know who I am? I don't always look the same." River responds, "I've got pictures of all your faces. You never show up in the right order though. I need the spotter's guide."
Agonaga, she knew that the 10th wasn't the same as the 11th, she just didn't know if he was before or after the 11th. (See the quote.) Also, what would the point of the con be? We already know how her last (in her timeline) meeting with him ends. If she already got what she wanted, why keep meeting up with him anyway? And if she spent years of her life planning something and it got cut short by her death before she could pull it off--well, that's perfectly realistic, but it doesn't seem like much of an interesting story. Or is there some other possibility that I'm missing? --Falcotron 09:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's as many possibilities as stars in the sky. Churchill came right out and said he wanted the Tardis, while River ... River just keeps cooing about getting the Doctor into handcuffs. She's constantly getting her own companions killed, she knows way too much, and she positively flaunts keeping secrets from the Doctor. So, I'm often led to think she's shady. Agonaga 12:29, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the handcuffs thing is just that kinky bondage = handcuffs to everyone except people who are actually into bondage.
And we _know_ she's shady--she's been in prison for murder, she's been a museum thief, she's inflated her credentials as an archaeologist. But that doesn't mean she's necessarily pulling a con on the Doctor. Benny wasn't, and neither was Christina de Sousa. Jack, of course, _was_ pulling a con on the Doctor, but he soon turned out to be a valuable companion anyway.
Actually, if you're going to turn River's story into a plot about a 51st-century con-woman trying to work over the Doctor, you pretty much have to bring Jack into it. And we know that the Moff has left Jack open as the only RTD-era companion (unless you count Jenny as a companion) that he might bring on the show. Interesting possibilities there. (And I still like the idea of Jack as the one who taught her how to fly the TARDIS, and also the person she "killed".)
The bit about getting her own companions killed is also an interesting point. In a way, she's like a really incompetent echo of the Doctor. (I'll bet Iris Wildthyme would have a field day analyzing her story.) --Falcotron 23:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Something that appears to have been overlooked is the difference between the 11th Doctor's Tardis and the Tardis that catches River when she escapes from The Byzantium. The one she flies towards doesn't have the St John logo on the door which makes me think that perhaps she was really rescued by a different Doctor. Perhaps she was in space too long and went into a coma after being saved by this alternate Doctor thus allowing Prisoner Zero to adopt her shape and impersonate her in TTOA & FaS.
Prisoner Zero could then have been propelled into the 11th Doctor's Tardis from somewhere and made to appear as if it was River all along. This would account for Octavian's statement that The Doctor doesn't know who, or what, she is and would certainly explain her being labelled a prisoner!91.108.36.72 12:03, June 9, 2010 (UTC)ChrisL
It has been stated by Original BBC Doctor Who staff that The Doctor is actually The Other & can never die as The Doctor. He gives his life as The other then emerges as The Doctor.
I'll save Falcotron the typing by asking you to sign your post with four tildes. Also, if Cartmel's plans for the Doctor's looping last days remains intact, I'd love to see it. It would be so cool for the 13th Doctor's episodes to have him traveling through the Time Lock and the Induction Barrier, probably fending off a Gallifreyan military who knows what he's up to better than he does, and landing in post-Pythian Gallifrey to try and make the next iteration better than he remembers it. While I'm daydreaming: The final finale could be the Hand just beginning to stalk him while some strange girl calls him Grandfather, only this time he actually remembers her... Agonaga 23:00, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't "stated by Original BBC Doctor Who staff". The last head writer of the classic show was planning out these ideas when the show was canceled, and he and his friends managed to get about half of it into the Virgin novels before they too were canceled, mostly in one novel,

.

Meanwhile, Lungbarrow has notoriously been ignored and flatly contradicted by the EDAs/PDAs and the new series. The later novels and TV episodes establish that the Doctor was born to a mother and a father, who he lived with, as did other Gallifreyans; he later married at least once and had at least two children, which was perfectly normal. (For that matter, even before Cartmel, the Fourth Doctor mentioned "Time Tots".) But Lungbarrow said that Gallifreyans are birthed fully-formed from Looms into a House of Cousins, and are sterile. So, when Lungbarrow says that the Other threw himself into the Looms and was later reconstituted as the First Doctor, how does that fit in?



Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with any of the possibilities discussed in this thread? --Falcotron 03:36, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Logbarrow must be the most intetionally contradictied thing in the history of Doctor Who, contradicited by the classic series, the new series, and everything else. It's so damn contradicted, whic the writers do on purpose. They're well aware of what it said, but continually throw in that the Doctor has family and has had sex. Also , this has nothing to do witb the subject.
River Song is... SPOILERS! Just that - she is River Song, nothing more, nothing less. She is who she is. Delton Menace 19:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't believe that River Song kills the Doctor, as that would be too obvious, but I can't think of anyone else for her to kill. But she says "The greatest man I have ever known" could she know someone who she loves more than the doctor? I doubt that, but killing the Doctor would just be TOO obvious.
i agree river song is rivers song and it wont be the doctor who she kills it will be too obvious, so obvious in fact the i get the feeling that it is what Moffat wants us to think she means.
the death will have a big effect on the doctor though, she more or less said this at the end of the big bang and has the death got something to do with the dalek beging for mercy, because to make that happen must mean something 217.23.232.194 07:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)