Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Flesh and Stone

You are exploring the Discontinuity Index, a place where any details or rumours about unreleased stories are forbidden.
Please discuss only those whole stories which have already been released, and obey our spoiler policy.

This page is for discussing the ways in which Flesh and Stone doesn't fit well with other DWU narratives. You can also talk about the plot holes that render its own, internal narrative confusing.

Remember, this is a forum, so civil discussion is encouraged. However, please do not sign your posts. Also, keep all posts about the same continuity error under the same bullet point. You can add a new point by typing:

* This is point one.
::This is a counter-argument to point one.
:::This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above
* This is point two.
::Explanation of point two.
::Further discussion and query of point two.

... and so on. 

• The Doctor tells Amy that she can't open her eyes for more than one second, however when she does she keeps them open for around 5 seconds.

This may have either been prolonged for dramatic effect or the Doctor just said that so she wouldn't do that.

I was pretty sure you could see the background moving behind it.

The image of the angel was also missing from her eye - I interpreted this as the angel that was forming in her mind having fled (either destroying itself or submerging into her mind) from the crack. This implies that what happened next - keeping her eyes closed while crossing the forest - was meaningless.

That's how I interpreted it too...

I don't think the image of the angel had to be there all the time. I agree with the person who said that either the scene was prolonged for dramatic effect or the Doctor exaggerated how little time Amy had to live with her eyes open (whoever that person may be). Bluebox444 21:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

If I might add it is possible that the nature of the Crack itself had something to do with the length of time Amy looked at it, i.e. she could look at the Crack 'but only the Crack' for longer than 1 second

Perhaps what the Doctor meant was that the countdown would resume if her eyes were open for more than one second. Remember she wasn't about to hit zero on her countdown when she closed her eyes. So, there were a few moments left. Gixander 02:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

• When they're in the forest, and The Doctor is going to the Main Flight Deck with River and Octavion, he goes over to Amy, cuffs her head and says "Amy, later!" But moments later, he returns, with his sleeves ROLLED UP (when did this happen?!) WEARING HIS JACKET. She doesn't remember what he told her when she was 7. He's visibly closer, and more afraid for her at this moment. He kisses her forehead. Next scene, he's not wearing his jacket, his sleeves are rolled down and he's far more aloof. This is way too obvious to be a production error. What's going on with this? Double Doctor Syndrome? Something to do with the cracks? Ideas? Musedae 01:37, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

This is just a production error. They must have forgotten that the Doctor lost his jacket.

Are you sure? I'm inclined to disagree. I think it's way too obvious to be a production error, but that's just me...Musedae 16:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. WAY too obvious. Everything about that scene is incongruous with the rest of the episode - it has to mean something. Bluebox444 21:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's tied to the message Amy left herself after pressing 'Forget' in The Beast Below—we don't see when she would have left that. If time can be rewritten, they might be going back in time and leaving themselves messages to do just that. —209.169.196.24 04:55, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

• If the angels were wiped from history, then why Bob, Octavian, Christian and the other cleric still dead?

I was curious about that too. Especially since River said she might get pardoned. No one will remember that she did anything, so why would she get pardoned?? Musedae 16:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the bodies of Octavian and the other clerics were erased as well; that might explain why they were still dead. As for the consequences of the Weeping Angels being released...I don't know. One important thing to remember is that the crashed Byzantium was still there. Thus, "Angel Bob" must still have been there to crash it. Thus, we have to assume that some version of the Byzantium incident still happened. So, presumably, River can present the authorities with the evidence of what was going on in an attempt to gain her pardon. There ought to be some sort of evidence of the crack's presence, thus confirming that something weird was going on with time and corroborating her story. Bluebox444 21:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Bluebox444, the underlying point remains: The whole episode becomes paradoxical – if Angel Bob is wiped from existence, then there was no cause of the crash. Then, those who were wiped from existence should be un-wiped, because they had no reason to be on Alfalva Matraxis otherwise. This includes the other Angels, because the erasure of Angel Bob prevents the cause for the crash of the Byzantium, and therefore the Crack on A. Matraxis in the first place... (Actually, how is that possible? The Doctor said the Crack in Amy's Wall would be there even if the wall was demolished, implying that the wall is immovable. So why is this Crack "attached" to the Flight Deck??) Even if that last proposition is false, the fact remains the episode shouldn't have happened. Garaiavu 11:02, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course. (sigh) I'm getting a headache. Well, there are only two possibilities left - either Angel Bob actually wasn't wiped from existence (another problematic assertion) or the effects of such an erasure did not spread to the entire universe. There is some evidence for the second assertion. The clerics who went for a closer look at the crack were erased. So wouldn't it be logical to assume that other clerics would have replaced them on the mission? Actually, when you think about it, there's an inherent paradox in the idea of something being "erased" from history anyway. If something is erased, then it never existed, which means it was never erased, which means it did exist, and so on, and so forth. I don't think Steven Moffat would have screened this episode in the first place without thinking it through carefully, and I can only assume that some explanation will be presented for these problems before the end of the series. As far as the Crack is concerned, the Doctor said that the Crack was immovable, not the wall. It's been implied thus far that the Crack is an intelligent entity following the Doctor and Amy. It can't be moved, but it can move wherever it likes. Bluebox444 11:41, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

The notion of the Crack throws up other Paradoxes, such as those surrounding The Stolen Earth/Journey's End and The Next Doctor. If we consider the former, if these events never happend, does this mean that Donna is now healthy once more? Does this not mean Rose, Mickey and Jackie could not have crossed over from Pete's World consequently meaning (among other things) that Mickey and Martha never got married. Does this mean Davros is back in the Time War? Similarly does this not mean the enitre Victory of the Daleks episode could not have happened? In fact if the events of the Series 4 finale are erased from history then it might account for the removal of the Next Doctor as the break down between dimensions is what permitted the Cybermen to invade Victorian London. Also episodes of Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures seem to indicate everyone had a memory of the Dalek invasion. Gwen Cooper talks to Clement McDonald about the world's belief in aliens in Children of Earth Day 1. Clyde's father mentions the Daleks in Mark of the Beserker. Additonally if the events were erased from history then Luke would have no idea who the Doctor was or have any recollection of helping him during the invasion.

My theory is that the notion of time travel, at least for the Doctor Who universe, is so complex that only the Doctor, as a Time Lord, and possibly other intelligent indiviudals/species with an detailed knowledge of the mechanics of time travel can understand it. Steven Moffat himself has suggested something akin to this and even provided an explanation of sorts in his episode Blink. "Wibbly Wobbly Timey Whimey". The Doctor himself also states that time lines can become any shape in the Unquiet Dead. Perhaps the eents transpired and were rememebred because they hadn't been 'erased yet' (as confusing a concept as this is. This means the events that were erased definitivly occured and can be counted as part of the official canon but essentially it equates to mere memory loss as well as a loss of any official recor of the events. However the Doctor also states that Time travellers like himself, Amy and likely River Song can remember such things. This could be because they became part of the events when they landed the TARDIS or alternativly it has something to do with the very nature of travelling through time, at the very least in the TARDIS or in the presence of the Doctor (possibly something to do with the background radiation mentioned in Doomsday). Consequently this would account for Captain Jack, Martha, Mickey, Rose, Jackie and the Meta Crisis Doctor retaining memories of the event and possibly informing higher authorities such as UNIT. This does not account for Luke Smith, Mr Smith, K9, Gwen Cooper or Ianto Jones. Hoever, since Iato is dead we may never know and s for Gwen we have yet to see her post Children of Earth. As for Luke and the others: it is possible that Mr Smith's advanced technology may have retained information about the event and informed them, Luke's unique brain might be immune and capable of retaining such information, or Sarah Jane (as a Time traveller) retained information about the event and informed Luke and the others

• Okay - I've been thinking about this a lot, and here's my attempt at explaining the paradoxes in Flesh and Stone. Fasten your seat belts.

The Crack is an intelligent entity. The dialogue of the episode seems to imply that. It's hungry. Its sole intent is to get a meal; in this case, a nice dinner of Weeping Angels. Therefore, all its efforts will be focused on getting that meal. Also, it seems to be following the Doctor and Amy around, so it wants the Doctor to get to Alfalva Metraxis so it can eat the Weeping Angels.

"Angel Bob" was responsible for crashing the Byzantium. This event, in turn, brought River Song to Alfalva Metraxis. She brought the Doctor to Alfalva Metraxis, who in turn (it seems) brought the Crack there.

The Crack could have devoured the army of Angels without damaging any of these events. Time travelers aren't affected by changes in the timeline, so quite possibly the Angels aren't either. So Angel Bob could have crashed the Byzantium without knowing that his fellow Angels had been erased from history, in the new timeline that the Crack created. This would, of course, require the Crack to avoid erasing Angel Bob from history. Maybe it just killed Angel Bob and left his existence intact. Logic would seem to demand this.

The Clerics were erased from existence because their bodies were erased. Thus, the erasure of the Angels that killed them would have had no effect. They were never born, so they never came to Alfalva Metraxis in the first place.

One last thing - it's highly possible that there might be time travelers among the authorities who arrested River Song. They would have been able to sense that the timeline had been changed, so her actions - despite the fact that some or all of them occurred in an alternate timeline - would have still meant something to them.

So, there you are. It's not a foolproof explanation by any means. However, it does seem to cover everything pretty well. Logic doesn't really work on time paradoxes, so you're going to run into problems sooner or later with any attempt at explaining them. My advice is, let it go, and sit back and enjoy the episode. It's a really good one. Bluebox444 13:05, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I'm not certain the Crack itself is the entity, I think there is some time-sensitive entity at work here. My thought is that the Crack is either the entity itself, or there's something that happens (an explosion or perhaps something that messes with time like the Timescoop, and it requires some massive form of energy (thus it locks onto "complicated time events" like the Doctor and, perhaps, the TARDIS). Maybe it even has to do with something that happened during the Time War and it only started getting worse due to something Amy was going to do. Remember that at the end of the episode, the Doctor realizes the Cracks might not be following him, but Amy. In addition, I'm not certain I'd say that "Angel Bob" was the Angel which crashed the Byzantium. "Angel Bob" was just the Doctor's name for the remnant of the consciousness that was at one point Bob, and there was no direct evidence that I can remember which stated that the Angel on the Byzantium was the one that killed Bob. In fact, the main reason I don't believe "Angel Bob" and the Angel from the ship are the same is that when the Doctor asked him (I believe in the 1st part of this two-parter) if the Angel was still on the ship, instead of stating "No, I'm not" (which would imply they are the same entity), he simply said a form of "no", to which gives the impression they aren't. As far as why the events did not "un"-happen when the Angels were devoured by the Crack, the Angels sealed it, and there was possibly no residue energy for them to be erased. Otherwise, the main answer would be that non-time travelers would be removed from history, but those who are time-complicated would be fed to the Crack. I think the second option is the more likely of the two, because when they were talking about feeding the Doctor to it, they never mentioned any sort of ramifications of him being removed from history. The only way I can rectify this with the Doctor's later explanation for why the Angel image is no longer in Amy's eye/head is that the particular Angel which did that was taken by the Crack earlier, thus also making a case for the fact that they are not the same. With our viewpoint being akin to that of time-travelers, one has to wonder why they don't feed the cameras to the Crack, as they'd be almost as time-complicated as the Doctor! Gixander 02:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Good point! That's really funny... Bluebox444 13:10, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

See, for some reason, I think Steven Moffat is doing this deliberately - It'll all tie up wiht the Pandorica. Also, did I see some clerics for one scene near the end... aren't they dead or erased from history?

• When they start moving on camera, they move a lot slower than normal speed for an angel. I noticed other flaws, but I don't feel like mentioning them now.

If you look at them your see there still stone, their only just turning back to flesh, so its not that unlikly they are slower in stone form then they are in flesh.

I think they're moving slowly because they're not sure Amy can't see them, and they're being cautious. Beyond that, I'm having a little trouble explaining this scene. I had assumed that the quantum lock was something the angels had no control over, which would mean that it wouldn't make any difference whether or not they thought Amy could see them. Since he's been brilliant thus far, I'm going to give the Grand Moff the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has a logical explanation for this - I only wish he would tell us. In any case, here's the best I can do at explaining this scene - the Angels are used to freezing whenever somebody comes along, so their "instincts" kicked in when they saw Amy coming and they froze. They weren't paying attention because they were so terrified of the crack, so the fact that her eyes were closed didn't register at first. When it started to dawn on them that she couldn't see, they moved slowly either because the fact hadn't registered yet, or just because they were being careful. Another thing to remember is that these Angels hadn't quite finished restoring, so their behavior might not be the same as that of other Angels. Bluebox444 21:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

• In both The Eleventh Hour and Flesh & Stone, when the clock when from 11:59 to 12 (and it was night time outside) it goes from 11:59 AM on 6/25 to 12:00 PM on 6/26. It's REALLY weird. Look at...40:59 to 41:01. You have to fiddle with a clock for it to work like that. I'm sure people have already mentioned this in other places, but I thought I'd mention it here. What do you guys think this means? Because it has to mean something. We were purposely drawn to the clock at the end, and it was kind of obvious. Musedae 19:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
• In the original episode where the Weeping Angels are introduced, and noted on the Weeping Angels page in this Wiki, it was noted that the Angels cannot even look at each other as they would turn to stone. This means that any instances where the Angels moved in a lit environment in this episode, unless they had their eyes covered (in the established "Weeping Angel" pose) are inconsistencies. If the previous Doctor was able to lock four of them in a circle around the Tardis by moving the Tardis and leaving them all looking at one another, then any scenes where Angels could see other Angels in this episode (unless the lights were out) would have produced the same result.
  • So long as there were other Angels around to move the ones looking at each other, this wouldn't matter. No doubt, in a large community of Weeping Angels, this sort of thing happens all the time. Bluebox444 11:24, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Still doesn't carry. In that first episode involving the Weeping Angels The Doctor says that they are the loneliest creature in existence, as they cannot even look at each other. And for one angel to move another would require that the one doing the moving must be within the visible scope of at least one of the frozen angels. That first episode it is also inferred (if not declared) that the turning to stone is not a conscious choice on the part of the Angel, in which case, again, their ability to move somewhat once they realise that Amelia cannot see them is incorrect. It was a kick-ass episode, don't get me wrong, but so many inconsistencies.
      • Well, they could cover their eyes or keep them closed (if they can close their eyes) while moving each other. It wouldn't be that hard.
        My personal theory regarding the Angels being frozen while Amy's eyes were closed is that something was watching them through the crack until the moment they began to move. But that's still not a perfect explanation by any means. I wish I could attend a Q&A with Steven Moffat - is there a way to contact him, I wonder? Bluebox444 13:10, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
      • What I was told by the below post I made is that the angels have the choice to freeze when they are not being looked at. Why they would want to do this, because the entire point of freezing is as protection, and how they unfreeze after freezing because once they are frozen they are stone, so have no choice about unfreezing, there is some discontinuity there, but for now it seems the best way of explaining it. What I don't get is, why do they move slower on camera tham when moving off camera? They are supposed to be fast so, why so slow. I agree where you say "It was a kick-ass episode, don't get me wrong, but so many inconsistencies.". That is exactly what I thought. Foorganders 09:06, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
        
• In the orginal episode the Doctor said it was a fact of their biology that they turned to stone when veiwed but otherwise could move around freely. So why would they assume that Amy could see them and turn to stone when she had her eyes shut. The turning to stone part was a fact not a choice (If Amy couldn't see them they can move).
  • Turning to stone when seen is a fact not a choice, but that doesn't mean they couldn't choose to turn to stone at other times—kind of like how you breathe without thinking about it, but you can control your breathing if you choose to. But I think a bigger issue would be that the Angels appear to be deaf—the Doctor is telling Amy to walk as if she could see them, and the Angels are right there and don't pick up on that. —209.169.196.24 04:55, May 16, 2010 (UTC)