Howling:A collection of theories and questions regarding AotD and Oswin

Howling: → Howling archive → The Howling archives → A collection of theories and questions regarding AotD and Oswin

This thread has been archived.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.

[This is quite, quite long. While I feel reasonably sure I'm not violating any of the established rules by posting what felt like writing a book, I do still apologize if anyone has some kind of issue with it.]

There are threads here already that contain similar topics, but I feel it better to start from scratch with this one. Largely because some of the ideas I'm about to bring up are actually pretty outlandish, and may be disproven or reasonably argued against rather quickly after I do. It also gives me a chance to address these topics collectively rather than across several threads at once. I've been interested lately (since the Ponds removing themselves from the equation) on where the Oswin story arc is going, and after doing a large amount of reading I've found a few theories I feel to be noteworthy, and have been inspired to think of new ones of my own. Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily presenting these as entirely likely or even good plot lines, only that I believe them to be possible. I also have theories and even questions from The Asylum of the Daleks in general. (Normally I wouldn't put questions in this area, but since the answers are being used to further certain theories and speculations I feel that this is the most appropriate place for them.) Some of these may have been previously addressed here, organizing them into one post makes for far less jumping between. I do not, however, mean for this to take the place or precedence over previous similar threads. Again, do feel free to completely rip these apart if you have facts or reasons that absolutely disprove them. I don't pretend to be an expert here, and may be misinformed about certain things, or even have managed to forget or skip over some things I wouldn't have normally. Otherwise, I only ask that you try to keep an open mind for a few of these because even I laughed at a lot of them until I actually tried to rationalize them, and found some measure of possibility to them.

1. Has it been well noted that the Doctor doesn't have his "nanocloud protection bracelet" on for almost the entire episode? I know it's clear that he gives it to Rory for him to give to Amy (and in turn "fixing" their marriage), but he is seen quite clearly without it long before Amy loses hers. In fact, when he very first wakes up in the snow, he is already not wearing it. Even after finding Amy, it doesn't reappear until after they climb down the ladder into the pod full of skeletons. I would normally just chalk it up to production errors- but really? Seems kind of big of point in the episode to have just "forgotten". I also don't for a second believe that it's up his sleeve, since there's no visible bulk underneath his shirt or jacket, coupled with the fact that it has a bright conspicuous blue light that would have either shown through or been otherwise visible in some manner. I present this as a question because I can't find any reasonable plot excuse for him to have somehow gone from not wearing it to wearing it between those scenes (nor an excuse for him landing without it) because there really doesn't seem to have been any time for anything suspicious to have happened. Now, shortly after the skeleton scene, he never has it on for the rest of the episode, but that still falls under the reasoning of him taking it off to give to Rory, since Amy loses hers right before this. Though admittedly I do find it a bit strange that she didn't notice it missing from his arm, and that he took it off so soon. His lack of the bracelet leads me to my next point.

2. It's never actually stated that Time Lords are immune to this nanocloud. The only mention is Amy speculating that he "probably" thinks he doesn't need the bracelet, but even then the Doctor isn't in the room to confirm or deny it. This seems like it does have the possibility to be a plot point. Perhaps he actually does start to make the change. Even if it turns out that he's immune to the physical effects, he's a very emotional creature and it could be affecting his mind. It would be a usable excuse for the Doctor's sudden spike in anger in the following episodes, even admitting to not being sure if he wouldn't shoot someone in Mercy- something his last regeneration said he absolutely would not do, even after seeing his daughter (more of a female clone than actual daughter, since her DNA comes completely from him) shot and killed- not knowing she actually lived. Remember, "subtract love, add anger". If that's the case, it would seem plausible that he is being affected by the nanocloud, only much more slowly. One could argue that it's because there would be a lot of "love" to subtract from the Doctor. He may already have a dark side, but his massive guilt over countless past events is (I believe) a form of love. If he didn't care so much, it wouldn't hurt so much.

3. That brings up another interesting point. The Dalek-puppets are connected to the Pathweb. Assuming he is infected by the cloud, what if it's possible that Oswin deleting the Doctor from the database starts causing him to to, in a sense, forget himself? At the very least his own identity. Since the Trenzalore prophecy makes no mention of who asks the question or answers it, and we still don't know very much about the Silence organization (or their true motives) to begin with- what if a situation comes about when rather than being asked who he is, he is told he is the Doctor by one of the few who remembers, and the only response he provides is "Doctor who?". Silence would fall. In fact, silence must fall. If he has forgotten who he is by then, then there would be no living being that knew the answer. (Save for River if he tells her earlier. Either out of purely an act of trust, or even after noticing what's happening to him.) This, like some of the rest of these, is a bit impractical. But I have to admit, it's not impossible. Crazier things have certainly happened on this show.

4. Is the Daleks' concept of beauty just another rewrite of Dalek behavior? If not, then I would find it fair to say that Oswin's connection to the Pathweb may have been slowly bleeding her human emotions into the Daleks' minds, even if it ends up being warped by their already withstanding hatred. (Such as now having a concept of beauty, but in reference to hatred itself.)

5. Does anyone believe there to be significance in Amy's visions of the Daleks as Humans? The only explanation I can see there is that the Daleks have done plenty of full human-to-Dalek conversions, especially since it's visually implied that Hannah is the ballerina. (And that if I'm correct and those were also the same Daleks who had recently gone after Rory, then one of them perfectly mimics Oswin's later stuttering of exterminate.) But these are also the same Daleks that attempt to attack the TARDIS crew, so presumably they are fully Dalek now, making Oswin that much more of a special case. That does make me wonder why they would (seemingly successfully) convert them, only to send them to the Asylum. Or, if the case is that conversions take place within the Asylum, why they sent those humans there to begin with. I suppose they could have been purposely sent there for the purpose of experimenting, but I don't see why they would leave that up the damaged and insane Daleks inhabiting the Asylum rather than on their ship. Though if they were sent as "toys" for the Asylum residents I'd be completely fine with that since it's appropriately wicked- something I feel like the Daleks have been somewhat lacking lately.

Moving on to Oswin... Oh the theories surrounding this woman. Really I wouldn't know where to begin on actually choosing one that I believe the most, because even the less likely ones still tend to entertain me.

1. "Oswin is Jenny": It seems that half the people who discuss Oswin in most places all harp back to this. Before I even begin, I have to say I don't ever think this will happen, not with Oswin anyhow. In fairness however, I don't think it's impossible. It all starts with the chair. Prop repeat or purposeful hint, I don't really care what the case is. However, for the sake of being fair in this assessment, I'm going to be using the assumption that it was done on purpose. First of all, it is not unlike Moffat at all (especially in light how obvious the end of TATM was from the first time they even mentioned Angels being in it) to hide something directly in plain view, even going beyond that and making something so obvious that we dismiss it immediately. He can only use the same tricks for so long to create surprise moments, so every once in a while he has to do something like this to break the expected pattern. (It's so overt, it's covert.) It is also completely fair to this argument to remember that Jenny is only even alive because Moffat requested it. Even if this wasn't his plan to use her, it's fair to think it's likely. Even though the chair is supposed to be a mental image, Oswin had to have gotten that image from somewhere. She even mentions having set out to see the universe, and crashing on her first trip. Seeing as Jenny was alive for less than 24 hours before she started her trip, its presumable that it probably didn't go as expected- meaning it could have even gone badly enough she becomes injured and fully regenerated as a result of this failure. Oswin, like Jenny, also has the same mouthy Doctor-esqe way of speaking and behaving, as well as seeming to be a genius who oddly claims (or just happens to currently believe) to have worked in a field that she would have been wasted on. Assuming in this case that the nanocloud does not work on Time Lords (or even that it was just too slow) it could be that the Daleks had no choice but to fully convert her, and it would also help explain why her emotions seem to remain unaffected, unlike the other supposed fully-converted humans seen by Amy in the Asylum. As far as her message to her mother goes, for any of these arguments its pretty fair to assume that a person who has mentally denied her current existence so much that she lives an entire year in a room that doesn't exist just to hide from reality may also have also invented a mother for herself for similar reasons. Especially since it's a bit strange that she arrived on the Asylum 2 days after her mother's birthday, and stayed for almost exactly a year- ending directly on her mother's birthday. [Side note from the disbeliever in me: If she's Jenny then she flirted with her dad. Ew.]

2. "Oswin's travels are backwards, ending at the Asylum": This is another unusually popular one. Unusual because it's quite dull, and even more for the fact that River is still in the middle of that exact same plot device. The Doctor saw her die, met her in the future, and she still ends up always heading for the death he's already seen. Aside from being a boring rehash, that would be an incredibly lazy thing for Moffat to do. I include it only for its technical plausibility, but for me this would just be too mundane, and rather insulting to the viewers.

3. "Oswin escapes the Asylum before it explodes": Several different versions. The Doctor saves her; she finds a way to teleport to the Dalek ship; she "becomes" nanogenes and escapes some how; I even saw a few people try to claim he used the same exact River-save-to-screwdriver trick. (Sorry, no.) Another one mostly included for its plausibility, since this would be a bit too obvious. Everyone's first question is always, "Why can't the Doctor just take the TARDIS back and save *insert name here*??" Though since I'm trying to be (mostly) fair to these theories, I will note that there was plenty of time after when the Doctor left the room to run for something to happen. His mention of being pinpoint accurate with teleports could have been a double line referring to something we don't know yet. We don't see the Doctor or the Ponds as they materialize inside of the TARDIS, so who knows what really happened once they got there. Or more importantly to this theory, how many showed up.

4: "Oswin was never a Dalek": Getting back to the more interesting ones, this one has quite a few versions as well-- Oswin was mentally hooked to the Dalek (by force) rather than physically being there, similar to Gangers (The conversion flashback did look suspiciously like her being hooked into a crude Ganger-style harness. Lack of food and water being a possible issue with this one.); The Dalek itself was not Oswin but may have been so insane that it believed it was a human (A highly unlikely one, though I can see one or two slight cases of it being possible, just not most of the ones I've read.); Oswin, possibly in a future adventure with the Doctor, hacked the Dalek at some point and implanted her memory into it (Similar to the last one, but this one being an actual overwrite of the Dalek rather than being insane, and also being slightly more believable. Not to mention she/the Dalek happened to be held in the most secure room in the wing of the Asylum that "survivors of the Doctor" were housed.); Oswin was not human, but was the entertainment software from the wrecked Alaska (Also in other versions of this she is thought to be the actual security system for the Asylum. I liked both of these theories back when I first saw the episode. It would explain her not being easily controlled by the Daleks, or that if she was their program she was malfuncioning much like the "insane Dalek" theory, except the program chose to inhabit the Dalek that happened to be in the safest room. Also adheres with her being a "genius" despite having simply been the Junior Entertainment Manager on a starliner. JEM would have even been an appropriate abbreviation for said program. In contrast, had she been a Dalek program it would explain things much the same, such as her mastery over their technology, and being a genius. However, I doubt either of these being the story.)

5. "Oswin was (unknown) Time Lord": Okay, being Jenny is one thing, but this one is more generalized. There were plenty of names thrown around, but for the sake of this argument I will consider her just a general Time Lord, as for the most part the only difference between the established previous Time Lords would make would be motives. I think the important thing for all of those arguments was the idea of her being a Time Lord, and less about which one. Except in the above case of Jenny. Now, I can't provide much specific argument as to why should would have been in the Asylum, but I'm sure there are plausible ways. I'm sure the Daleks would be happy (pardon my use of any word that isn't "hate") to get a hold of really any Time Lord, especially since their bodies are "miracles". It would also (like the Jenny argument) explain the need for the full conversion rather than the nanocloud. (Though I will say, it might already be established somewhere that even full conversion doesn't work on Time Lords- honestly I don't know.) Another theorized reason for her having become a Dalek (and I'd really like to hear opinions or actual confirmation/denial from someone on this one, as it has me wondering) was that the "conversion scene" played out much differently than it appeared to. It was argued that the scene was not the Daleks converting her, but a modified attempt at using her own Chameleon Arch (be it from her own TARDIS or one she somehow made after arriving) in an attempt to hide in the Asylum. Presumably having not been fully converted mentally- either by design or by flaw in the machine itself. This would explain her not remembering exactly what she was yet- having had to allow some of her mind to convert, or it even being an effect over time. There were also somewhat clever (since I'm just plain not sure it would work quite this way) insinuations that the Dalek was never a Dalek at all, but Oswin's TARDIS using its Chameleon Circuit to blend in. And what could it possibly have chosen better than the image of a Dalek? It also, if you're going by this theory's rules, would explained that it wasn't a dream, it was just bigger on the inside. Now this is still completely just not the case, given that the Dalek moves around the room in the correct Dalek-like manner. However, I think it's noteworthy if simply for the fact that I would have never made those connections, so at the very least I'm impressed by the thought pattern used in coming up with it. While I don't personally put much stock into this theory, the part it has me wondering about is: Is it theoretically possible to use a Chameleon Arch to turn a Time Lord into a Dalek? All I can really remember about the thing is that it specifically "rewrites your biology", that it definitely caused Ten to only have one heart therefore being 100% human indeed, and that it hurts like hell. If it CAN be used this way, then I would easily believe that regardless of the theory above the Daleks were, in fact, using some form of Chameleon Arch in their conversions, since it really did look like a brutally inelegant form of one, and Daleks have stolen Time Lord devices and technology in the past already as well. It would certainly apply to humans if it could apply to Time Lords, but again both cases are completely unknown as far as I know. [Second half to that question: Could the Chameleon Arch then in theory be used to turn a Dalek (or at least a Dalek with human qualities like Oswin) into a human? Or is its initial use specific to Time Lords- or even just humanoids in general? ]

6. "Oswin Oswald is Clara Oswin's descendant": Personally, this another boring one to me. Too boring for the hype surrounding this character. The previous uses of actors for multiple parts is already too common for this one, and she was already signed on as the companion before this episode, so it doesn't make much sense. Unless, like the Jenny theory, it ends up being another "so overt it's covert" moment. So this one could very well be true (hence my inclusion of it), it just wouldn't give any reason to revisit what happened in the Asylum- essentially stopping a lot of potential importance of that episode, and largely wasting our time regarding Oswin's appearance in it. [I do have a better argument for this situation being worthy of using, but it goes further than this one's simplicity, and therefore will be separate.]

7. "Oswin is 'splintered' throughout time": This is the theory I really want to talk about. This one borrows from the previous idea, but this one intrigues me far more. The idea being that it's not only Clara and Oswin we can expect to see, but that she will be a different version of the same character in each appearance. While I have less argument for this one on how it could be happening to Oswin, I feel like that would be something we may simply not be able to guess without future story/plot information. (Though this mechanic has been somewhat used in a Classic era story, it was an enemy rather than a companion and he was connected to all of the versions of himself. So this wouldn't feel too recycled at all to me.) All I can try to do is provide somewhat of an arguement that it is happening to her. We see this Oswin's story in the Asylum and, unless it's corrected or explained later, it's perfectly safe to assume she did in fact die. Meaning that the next version of her will have nothing to do with this one, other than essentially being the same character in a different time period. This is not to be confused with an ancestral link, as this theory assumes that somehow this exact person is somehow existing at multiple periods throughout time, but living otherwise separate lives of their own. (Imagine you met someone in 1950 and got to know them intimately, then later met someone in 2000 who looked, acted, responded, and spoke exactly the same, but has never met you. As though that very same person had lived two complete lives in different times.) Meaning that (very much hypothetically) if you were to take any two of the "versions" of Oswin and put them through the same places and time-periods they would react and think in the exact same ways as the other, and end up with perfectly identical stories. This theory picked up a bit of merit after reports from several different witnesses at the filming of the Christmas special implied that Clara will die- especially noting a point during filming when the Doctor, Vastra, and Jenny (the other Jenny- Vastra's girlfriend in season 6) were standing in a graveyard in front of a her grave, and the Doctor mentioning that he is going to go find her. Since he never saw that Oswin looked the same, it could be that he learns about her splintered timeline in the Christmas special. I would be completely satisfied with this, and would be even more interested if she dies every single time they meet. Moffat, when talking about Oswin, said “And this never goes away, this thrill – you want to see the reaction when you see it’s bigger on the inside, you want to see the count the hearts moment, you want the story to begin again. And that’s what it gives you. It gives you Doctor Who at its most iconic, because a new person is having to learn the rules – and you've seen that story how many times now? I don’t think you ever get tired of it." While that may just be a reference to her first time in the TARDIS, you could just about put a few of those lines into context with this theory. If he keeps meeting her and she keeps dying, it would definitely create a brand new dynamic between the Doctor and his companion. (Like we were assured of since she joined the show.) It would also force the Doctor to abandon his more recent "childish" behavior while he deals with not only having lost the Ponds, but repeatedly losing the same new companion. That or it would send him further down the rabbit-hole of anger, which would be just as interesting. [Side Note: I based this version of the theory on the fact that, until we are given more information or dialogue from the Christmas special, there does appear to be no connection between Oswin and Clara as far as memory or or experiences go. The only link between them for this theory is the fact that they are the same person, only they have separate lives in separate times. This theory would work just as well, however, if they did have a connection between them. I just can't in good faith make that assumption quite yet.]

And for the sake of having one completely off-the-wall theory (but one I'll try to argue for) we come to this...

8. "Oswin is a future regenerated Doctor": In the most literal meaning of a common abbreviation, I actually laughed out loud when I first saw this. But being the way I am, I thought it would be worth a shot to imagine how that would be possible, and actually came up with a few okay explanations for it. (Especially since I believe if you try hard enough you can find a way to argue in favor of just about anything.) Alright. I suppose first of all its worth bringing up the intentional inclusion of the fact that Time Lords can regenerate into either gender (and variations thereupon... sorry, I just really really loved 'Midnight') in 'The Doctor's Wife'. Also, this would give Oswin a possible escape at the end without requiring Eleven to intervene or come back for her- which we don't know if he did/will at this point. I imagine if Oswin were the Doctor and had shown up at the Asylum, rather than being brought there, then hidden somewhere would be another TARDIS, meaning it's plausible but not likely that she got back to it in time. (Seeming to have started to remember who she was in those last scenes.) I also suppose that some of the "general Time Lord" arguement can be used here as well. This theory also can include how similar the Doctor and Oswin seem to act and speak, though with much more clear of a connection than her being Jenny. You could even argue the use some of the dialogue from the episode as being hints. For instance when we hear Oswin's music in the Parliament, the Doctor says "It's me!", or when she asks the Doctor if he's "real", both of which might be more specific to him in this case than it would be to having just heard a voice in general. Assuming she has forgotten who she was at this point (by either the Chameleon Arch theories above, and/or the other above theory of the Dalek nanocloud slowly taking effect on Eleven in very same episode- or really any other reasonable means) she may have just been subconsciously recognizing her own past voice. I suppose the line that actually fits for this argument the most is her asking Eleven "Is there a word for total screaming genius that sounds modest and a tiny bit sexy?" and his answer of "Doctor. You call me Doctor." Though interestingly she didn't ask the question everyone else does. Accidentally flirting accidentally with himself seems far more like him than having him flirt with his daughter, too. And while this theory may be fun to mess around with, considering how impossible this theory actually is, I think I'll just call it good enough right here.

Once again, I think you for your patience. Saghan ☎ 15:06, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on your Oswin theories:

1. Probably not. Just because she's female doesn't make her Jenny. Or the Rani, before someone suggests so. The chair thing is probably nothing.

2. Probably not. If this was the case, the only difference between her and River would be that the Doctor wouldn't know she would die at the Asylum, and that's not different enough to be interesting enough. Just like Elementary and Sherlock, the former having not enough difference from the latter.

3. Hope not. It's just not a clever enough theory. This kind of idea where someone somehow escapes from certain death is usually reserved for the Master or Davros.

4. This is my favourite theory that I have seen. I hope it turns out she was a Ganger or a very sophisticated robot, possibly one that Clara accidentally creates on her travels with the Doctor. In fact, that would be a good twist for the finale, one kind of similar to ending scene of "The Wedding of River Song".

5. Hope not. That twist would be as rubbish as the one in "A Good Man Goes to War".

6. Wouldn't really mind if this was the case, but we've already had two companions in the Whoniverse who have suspiciously identical relatives. I know we never actually saw the real Oswin, but even if it turns out that she looked completely different it would still be pretty boring.

7. An interesting theory. They would have to find a good way to explain it though.

8. NO!

One question I want to ask you: How long did this take?

87.102.118.41^{talk to me} 16:03, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Most of these aren't my personal theories, I just thought it would be interesting to attempt to take a few that I agreed with and a few that I didn't, and attempt to argue in favor of all of them. Consider it partially a mental exercise to practice looking for clues in places I might not have considered. I even agree that a large portion of them are either bad story ideas or don't have quite enough to support them. Another thing about this that was important to me is that after reading a lot of other people's theories, for the most part these were the popular ones. It's interesting to see how everyone else views the Doctor Who Universe, and to see how vastly different they all interpret it into theories. And I always try to find a way to look for things that don't seem to be popular points of interest. You'd be surprised how often that's where you find the actually important clues. Just look where everyone else isn't.

Also, surprisingly it didn't take that long. But as for the quality of it, there quite honestly were points I either failed to make, or forgot entirely. It may not have taken that long, but it was still in the middle of the night.

As your your assessments, again, I agree on a lot of them being unworthy, but even in this case I've already learned more from reading your thoughts on it. It seems that quite a few people would like to see a similar scene as your mention of number 4, and even for the same reasons. Yet personally, it's because of the similarities to last season that I wouldn't care for it. After the completely impossible-to-guess Tesselecta being used instead of the already established Ganger Doctor possibility, I really hope they don't bother to bring either of those back to the show. The Tesselecta because it was a bit silly, and the Gangers because it would remind me of all the more appropriate times they could have used it but didn't. I keep coming back to the thought of Moffat being so insistent on the fact that Oswin would be a unique kind of story. If he then uses a dated plot device as that "uniqueness", the entire thing would feel very cheap. The main reason I like the idea of the splintered-in-time Oswin approach is because it feels fresh. I have no doubt they could do the story for it incredibly well, but your guess is as good as mine as far as if they would do it well. And nobody technically says Oswin has to keep dying either, the more important aspect of it that I like is the idea of one person living several complete lives without it being as simple as a family link. I don't know, the concept just intrigues me to no end. Saghan ☎ 17:15, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan, I'll not comment on all your points, only the ones where I've actually got something to say, hence the "broken" numbering.

5. Another, previously unsuspected Time Lord:

A. Not (very, very definitely not) unless Moffat has come up with a really good & new way of explaining both her escape from the Time War & the Doctor's failure to be aware of her existence.

B. Human Nature implied that the chameleon arch could change a Time Lord into a non-human -- "I've set it to human." We've only seen 2 instances of its use, though. In both cases, the change was to human. In both cases, too, external appearance didn't change.

6. Oswin Oswald descended from Clara Oswin:

A. Caution: We don't know the new companion's name really will be Clara Oswin. That comes from a tabloid newspaper report. They've been known to get things wrong or even make them up.

B. Oswin Oswald could have an ancestral surname as a given name. It's not an uncommon practice. (My mother had an ancestral surname as her middle name.)

C. The idea does seem a bit mundane. Moffat might have given it an unusual twist, though, so it can't be ruled out.

7. An entity splintered in time:

A. The idea has been used before but it was a long time ago. A new variation on that theme could work, especially if it's his previous experience of it that lets the Doctor figure out what's going on. (In other words, take advantage of the fact that it's been used once before.)

B. It might work better if the Doctor doesn't figure it out in the Christmas Special but only becomes suspicious that there is something to figure out, then gradually puts it together over a few episodes.

C. If (repeat, if) the name Clara Oswin is correct for the Christmas Special, the various "fragments" could have the name Oswin as a "linking theme", sometimes first name, sometimes surname & sometimes middle name (when it might take a while to find out because people often don't use their middle names much, even as initials).

D. In City of Death, the various "fragments" appeared to be human but the original entity (Scaroth) wasn't. It's been a very, very long time since the Doctor had a non-human regular companion. (Nyssa was the last, I think, & she left nearly 30 years ago.)

8. A future incarnation of the Doctor: 87 is understating when he says NO! This one's a truly dreadful idea.

Please note: I needed to print your initial piece out to be able to read it properly. It covered seven pages! --2.101.55.171^{talk to me} 17:39, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Again, sorry for the length. Even I would absolutely despise Oswin becoming the Doctor, I just had to put it in there after I saw someone say it.

As far as the Clara issue goes, for now it's just easier during a discussion to use "Oswin" and "Clara" to distinguish between her appearances in the two episodes. Also, I've watched some of the on-set footage from the Christmas special, and while her name is not actually said in it, when she speaks she does seem to be using a more era-appropriate accent for that setting than in AotD. That may not actually have anything to do with them being different characters, but it's usually not a common practice on the show for anyone to alter their accent in an episode. (Emphasis on common there. I know David Tennant used his natural accent in season 2, but even that seemed to be more purposely included because it was his natural accent than it's relevance to them being in Scotland at the time. He didn't attempt to speak in any other accent in regards to any other episodes.) But again, I'm still not making a factual claim about the Clara/Oswin issue since we just plain don't know yet.

Concerning the Scaroth: I wouldn't want them to go about the time-splintering plot in the same way as the classic story. (As in she definitely should not be a similar species, or anything else besides human.) I was just noting that something similar to that theory had happened before. Meaning it's not entirely unreasonable for that theory to work, given that they could edit the details concerning her having been split into different characters in different times and be close to a plot device already shown to have worked. And as you said, the name Oswin may very well just be a detail connecting the fragments. In fact, they would have to tweak it somehow, because I do believe Moffat's insistence that Oswin is a human companion, yet I still believe that theory could possibly work if they went about it correctly. It certainly wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen to a purely human companion. Technically Jack counted as a companion, and he couldn't stay dead, and existed during every point in time. Invincible characters are absolute nonsense. He basically became the Superman of the Doctor Who Universe. (A term I'm not using here to compliment to Jack's character, more that he is unfairly overpowered. What could you really do to stop him? And also he apparently evolved into a giant face... Sigh. I certainly don't miss RTD.) Saghan ☎ 22:48, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

The Clara issue: Another (seemingly fan-generated) rumour has her name being overheard on set as Dana Oswin. Until I actually see the episode or a trailer that contains her name, I'm going to reserve judgement & continue to think of her as "the new companion".

"Moffat's insistence that Oswin is a human companion": Moffat swore blind that River was simply human & kept doing so until A Good Man Goes to War had aired.

The time-splintering plot: I agree (& said) it shouldn't be done the same way. There's nothing in the time-splintering idea that says she'd have to be non-human. That's just a possibility.

By the way, I was wrong about Nyssa being the last non-human companion. Turlough & Kamelion were -- by about a year. It's still a very long time ago.

Both RTD & Moffat have strengths & weaknesses -- different ones. To quote my all-time favourite of the Doctor's companions, "Nobody's perfect, Professor!"

I don't think Jack's immortality is as bad as you make out (though it does create problems). If he had other powers as well -- super strength or whatever -- that would be too much. He's not invulnerable; he can get hurt. He just has this inability to stay dead. However, that sort of thing works only if used very sparingly (one reason I wasn't too enthused about the ending of Miracle Day).

I realise you weren't recommending that Oswin should be the Doctor. It's just that it seems so outstandingly bad an idea that as many people as possible ought to say it's an outstandingly bad idea!

Of all the suggestions, the time-splintering one seems to me to be the most interesting. As I said, if it were to be used it should be a new variant of the idea, the fact that the Doctor has met the phenomenon before should be used (not just remarked on) & he shouldn't figure it out too quickly. I'm sure there's more that could be said about it & I'd like to see what others say -- as long as they're not as terse as 87 was. It merits discussion. I'd also like to think about it for a while myself, to see what (if anything) I come up with. (I seem to have reverted to being 89, after being 2 earlier.) --89.242.70.105^{talk to me} 23:42, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oswin/Clara/Dana: At this point, the only thing I feel okay saying for sure is that whatever her name is going to be come Christmas, it would appear that the name (or at least the first name) will be Oswin. I also definitely agree that if the time-splintering turns out to be true then the Doctor's previous encounter with something similar to it will help him realize it. Plus, since with both Clara and Dana the last name is still Oswin, that would also fit into his realization. If he starts the Christmas special not yet realizing who Clara is (since he never saw Oswin) then I can easily see a scene coming about where (after having been called by her first name through the episode) someone calls her Oswin, or Miss Oswin, and the Doctor suddenly starts to wonder about his past experience with possibly a similar situation, only to shake his head and dismiss it with a muted "no.. no.. not possible". (in the way only Matt Smith can do- where he tries to "click" an idea away as if it were channel on the television, with that brief intense look of simultaneous wonder and worry that he's gotten so good at.) He may beforehand even think her voice is familiar, but that wouldn't have been enough by itself to connect the characters in his head. (I could even see that scene as well: him asking if they had met before because something seemed familiar about her, and if she is playing different versions of herself she could either insist they haven't met, or may even feel the connection somehow, but not be able to place it- same as the Doctor.) It's completely possible that I'm overreaching at some of these points because of my personal hope of the time-splintering being true, but it does seem like the evidence is there to support it, or at least slowly making it seem more plausible- regardless of how things turn out.

River being a human: To be technical, one could argue that having lost her regenerations, she may have lost the only Time Lord quality she had to begin with. Leaving her essentially "human". Without further insight into her timeline, we can't be certain if her current body is still aging as slowly as it would have as half Time Lord. There was no apparent inclusion of her age in the Library, but we also don't know what she does when she's not directly within our eyesight, or for how long she's gone from her point of view. She may very well be quite a bit older than a human would look when she finally died in the Library. So really, unless its mentioned later, I can't really provide evidence to support her being a "human" now, I was just trying to find a reasonable idea for it. I still agree with the point you're making about what Moffat said about her in the past. I can't help but feel slightly worried he's going to use the same tricks he did with River in regards to Oswin, so from this fear I try to ignore any connections between the two of them. (Even seeing most of the people online being willing to accept possible plot ideas for Oswin that would pretty much be River's "front-to-back" dynamic all over again worries me. I want something better and unique for Oswin than standing in a shadow that's similiar to River's story so far. Though these are entirely based my personal feelings, and therefore only my problem, not the cast and crew of Doctor Who.)

Jack and RTD in general: I agree that Moffat and RTD have their weaknesses, yet I admit that my favorite two episodes post-revival weren't both overseen by just one of the two writers, (but were written during the Moffat-era and then the RTD era, respectively) So they're at least close together on my list of favorite stories so far. But in general, I have to give it to Moffat for better direction with the show overall. I was quite convinced I wouldn't enjoy Matt Smith as the Doctor nearly as much as I did David Tennant. But I have actually, at this point, enjoyed him a bit more than Tennant, which is no easy task. It would only be fair to say that the stories Matt has been given the opportunity to shine in were what helped get him to that point for me. (That and the fact the Amy and Rory (mostly Rory) were far better companions than some of the RTD ones. Namely Martha, but I was also so burnt out on Rose by the end that I wished she had died at Canary Wharf.) As far as Jack himself goes, its not the character himself I dislike. He got a little abrasive at times, but overall I enjoyed him. His invincibility being such a cheap move is what I disliked. I don't like the idea (especially in a show called "Doctor Who", not "Jack Harkness") that when faced an impossible or unsurvivable situation, the option was always there to just "call Jack", rather than actually be creative about it. It also subtracted from the character himself, leaving him as somewhat of a one-trick pony. You always knew when he showed up he was most likely going to pull the whole dying trick again. (Giving him a higher death toll in the end than even Rory managed.) Had his dynamic/ability been closer to something along the lines of Rory, I would have been much happier. Argh. I have a bad habit of talking (typing) for quite a bit in every post I make.Saghan ☎ 01:06, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to the original post in almost, but not quite, reverse order (as a tribute to River Song, I guess?).

7. 'Splintered through time' is exactly what I've been thinking about. I assumed it was just because I recently re-watched City of Death, and re-read Set Piece (where the restaurant that's splintered through time has the same bartender at each incarnation, and the Doctor obliquely references City of Death when Benny asks how that's possible).

A variation on this idea is that there's only one Oswin, but she's "linked to history" in such a way that every time history changes, she ends up with a different life in a different time and place. Kate Orman had an interesting idea like this (as a followup to her bartender in Set Piece, actually) that she discussed on r.a.dw, but she never figured out how to work it into a novel.

8. The big problem with this one is the same as the big problem with 5: She specifically remembers herself as _human_, not Time Lord. OK, so the Doctor, unlike most Time Lords, may or may not have a human mother to remember. But still, the idea of a Dalek dreaming she's human might actually be neither Dalek nor human but yet a different species just seems silly. Maybe a future daughter of the Doctor and River (1/4th Time Lord, 1/4 Time Lord-ish) would be human enough to not ever realize she was anything else, but that's just too many silly elements; at that point, she's not a character, she's a plot device.

5. You bring up the idea of the chameleon arch to try to make the Time Lord idea work, but that actually makes things worse. The only way it could work is if the Time Lord first successfully arched herself into a human, losing all Time Lord memories, and then later managed to figure out the arch as a human, well enough to turn herself into a Dalek, but not well enough to remove any of her human memories. Or other possibilities even more unlikely.

6. it's funny that everyone thinks the "same actor as descendant" thing has been used to death. As far as I can remember, it's _never_ been used. There are two cousins, one "spatial genetic multiplicity across the Rift", a bunch of coincidences (Amy, Steven, Sara, etc.)... the only companion who's a descendant of someone the Doctor met earlier is Dodo, and they weren't played by the same actress. But the big difference here is that in every one of those cases (except Steven), it was effectively an accident; in this case, it was quite obviously planned. And that's why I think it won't be something this boring.

4. If she's JEM, then she's fantastic--but the Misfits are better, and they're gonna get her. :) More seriously, the basic idea that she was never a Dalek has one fundamental problem: The Doctor was sure she was a Dalek, and once he pointed it out to her, she remembered it was true.

3. Escaping is workable, but even more boring than 6. Also, if she next shows up in Victorian England with no explanation for how she got there... isn't that a story for River, not for a new companion?

1 and 2, you dismissed well enough that I won't even comment.

Now onto the other half.

5. I think Amy's visions of the Daleks as humans _is_ interesting, but I don't know what it leads to. At the time, I suspected we were going to get something about the human-factor Daleks from Evil, and was a little disappointed when we didn't. (I'd still love to see what Moffat would do with Alpha, Beta, and Omega more than what he'd do with the more famous Omega...) Really, that possibility is still as good as any of yours. Alternatively, if they were the result of Dalek experiments on humans, who says the experiment had to have happened on the Asylum? Maybe there was such an experiment on Skaro or some conquered planet, and the results were deemed a failure (but too beautiful to destroy) and dumped on the Asylum. It seems simpler.

4. I don't think the Daleks' concept of beauty is a rewrite of Dalek behavior at all. Sure, they have no concept of elegance, but elegance isn't beautiful to them; brute functionality is. And, more than that, purity, single-mindedness, and hatred are beautiful. That's why they react with visceral disgust to abominations like Caan and Sec; they were ugly. That's why the Ironsides looked on the New Paradigm Daleks with something approaching awe; they were beautiful.

3. For the amnesia idea... Well, Moffat does love to borrow plotlines from the novels and repurpose them, but this one was done so many times, and usually to so little effect. Moffat even made fun of Richards for it. I could just imagine Moffat taking it as some kind of perverse personal challenge to prove he can do it right when nobody else did... but so far, he's clearly borrowed his favorite ideas from the novels, not his least favorites.

2. The Doctor is not the 10th Doctor. Most of his Incarnations probably could shoot someone if it were necessary. I suspect the reason the 10th Doctor "never would" is as a defense--sometimes he really wants to just shoot the bad guys instead of doing things the hard way, and that scares the hell out of him. The fact that he came close to shooting someone out of revenge, rather than necessity, is a clue to that; it's hard to imagine most of his predecessors doing that (6 being the obvious exception).

Anyway, I've heard a lot of people bring up the notion that 11 is more violent/ruthless/uncaring this season than before, but I don't see it. Before this season, he blew up a Cybership to make a point, he did something with his sonic to help River shoot a bunch of Silents, he whacked a Dalek with a spanner, he raised an "army" to go to war... Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many, at least when the one is Amy or an innocent victim and the many are Cybermen or Silents. The first two Doctors would certainly agree with him on that, even if 10 wouldn't. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 06:37, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

And to 2: I don't blame you for forgetting Turlough. He highlights the problem with all of the alien companions but Romana*: the writers never got any mileage out of their alienness; half the time, they apparently just forgot that Adric, Nyssa, and Turlough were aliens. (Of course these are the same writers that forgot they added a new companion in The King's Demons...) Nobody ever had that problem with Jamie or Leela.

* Unless Frobisher really did appear on TV, and I wasn't just under the influence of some substance that I need to get more of...

Anyway, RTD mentioned (I think in The Writer's Tale) that he and Moffat specifically created Jack because they thought the show needed someone besides a young modern woman, but it was too risky to make any of the first few regular companions anything different. Well, after 6-1/2 years, maybe it's not too risky. And personally, I'm not sure why they were worried in the first place. The most popular era in the classic show's history, the companions were Leela and Romana; the least popular era, the companions were Peri and Mel. It's only during the UNIT era and at the end of the show that all of the companions were modern-day humans, and yet for some reason everyone remembers that as the "standard" setting that the show can only deviate from at great peril.

So, I think Ms. Oswin likely will be something other than a 21st century human. But even the simplest story for her seems to imply that she's from Victorian times, which is already something other; I don't know why so many fans want to make her an alien on top of that. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 06:52, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

And finally, for the later replies:

I thought Jack was a great character. At first I was worried that he was exactly the "design by committee" character that Moffat and RTD would dream up together, because he ticked every single box you could imagine them wanting to tick. But fortunately, it all pulled together into an interesting character who really added something to the dynamic of the show. The immortality thing could have ruined the show, but it didn't have to, and it didn't. You compared him to Superman, and Superman does sometimes get boring--but in the hands of the right writers, he doesn't. (Or look at Marvel Man under Moore and Gaiman.) And, unlike Superman, his power is completely passive; it doesn't directly help save anyone but him. Immortal Jack was useful in Utopia and Last of the Time Lords, but no more so than Martha--or than mortal Jack in Parting of the Ways. Really, even Torchwood (which of course _was_ "Jack Harkness" instead of "Doctor Who") mostly pulled it off; his immortality was turned against him as often as it was useful, and when it floundered, it wasn't because Jack's immortality ruined the sense of challenge or danger. (Well, except in End of Days.)

Anyway, I agree with Saghan about another "out of order" plot right after River. I have no doubt Moffat could come up with enough twists to make it different and interesting, but I'd still be disappointed.

The "splintered in time" variant where she dies in every episode has a similar problem--we've just gotten through 2-1/2 years of people selling t-shirts that say "Oh my god, they killed Rory! You bastards!" Which is a shame, because it could be a very interesting twist on the idea. But still, the idea is good enough without that twist.

I don't see Moffat would having the Doctor remembering the Scaroth as a key plot point. He'd probably make a reference to it (and less subtle than Orman's, which IIRC was something like "Doctor, that's the same bartender, in every copy of this place. How is that possible?" "I once met a man who... never mind"), but his plots never turn on information from the classic series (or even, usually, the RTD era), beyond the basic knowledge that every person in the UK knows even if they've never seen the show. For example, what would have been different in The Hungry Earth if the Doctor had never met the Silurians before?

The big question is how Moffat could drag the story out for long enough to make her worthwhile as a regular companion. (Of course there's no guarantee he _will_; maybe she just gets half a season. But she's gotten a pretty big marketing blitz for someone who's not going to last.)

The first possibility I thought of is something like this: We meet 8 different Oswins, and then in the finale we meet the 1 Oswin who knows about all of the others, and it's driven her crazy. She knows she's a checkout girl at the Tesco's in Bromley in 2013, but she keeps remembering her life in Victorian Bromley, and leaving as a junior entertainment manager on a spaceship, and all kinds of other things that can't have happened. The Doctor finds some way to help her "reintegrate" all of her selves (except the one that died, which she has to come to terms with). The problem is, this is more Grant Morrison than Steven Moffat.

So, that's when I turned to the related idea about her being connected to someone changing history. There's just one Clara for the Christmas special and the rest of series 7, no explanation for the Oswin-Clara thing; the Doctor is worried about it, but trying to keep her from finding out that he's worried. Then, in the finale, they run into Oswin, from before she signed onto the Alaska. And it turns out that Oswin is the real one. The Silence were trying to change history to stop the Doctor, and Oswin's erasing him tied her into the causal nexus, so when history got rewritten she got twisted along with it. (To make matters worse, the Doctor even figures out that he unknowingly took advantage of her mutability to sculpt Clara into his ideal companion.) Oswin is the real one; if they fix history, Clara will disappear, and Oswin will end up dying on the Asylum in a few months. But Oswin finds a way to sacrifice herself to save both Clara and history. Clara finds out, and tries to stop her, but the Doctor doesn't know what Oswin is planning, and stops Clara from saving her.

Anyone who's read the novels will realize that this is basically the plot of Unnatural History. But when has that ever stopped Moffat? The thing is, Moffat always finds a way to turn things around so at least one of the big dramatic revelations plays out completely the opposite, or means something completely different. I'm not sure what to do to UN to pull that off without ruining it... but that's why I'm watching Moffat's show instead of the other way around, right? --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 08:15, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

70, "the problem with all of the alien companions but Romana: the writers never got any mileage out of their alienness": That's just an aspect of a more general problem with many of the writers. They tended to forget the backgrounds & distitinctive features of all the companions -- the female ones, especially. Almost the only times they referred to Sarah Jane being a journalist was when she needed a cover story to investigate something for the Doctor/UNIT. Mel (Bush) is remembered -- rightly, I'm afraid -- as the archetypal "screamer" but that wasn't how the character was originally designed. She was supposed to be a computer programmer from the early 21st century (i.e., about now or a few years ago), with all kinds of other skills. Some of these showed in her early stories but were soon lost. That's one reason Bonnie Langford decided to leave: the job she was doing wasn't the one she'd signed up for. It was different with Ace. Her background & skills actually mattered, which is one reason she was (in Cartmell's words) "a breath of fresh air". However, several of the regular writers complained in interviews that "the trouble with Ace was that she was difficult to write for". Why? Because her character & distinctive use of language had been solidly established right at the start &, if they didn't get these things right, it showed very, very obviously. In other words, they couldn't write her as "generic screaming female number (whatever)"; they had to know the character & write specifically for that character, which required effort & they didn't like that at all.

Most of the writers in the revived series are willing to make the effort to write specifically for the characters -- probably because writers who're not willing to do so don't get used. Given writers who exploit the distinctiveness of the characters, instead of ignoring it, the "alien indistinguishable from a human" problem wouldn't recur. The real problem always was lazy writing, not alienness.

All the recurring companions in the revived series have been good, including Martha. It's not that Martha wasn't good; it's just that the others were better. Compare Martha with most of the 1970s & 1980s companions & she shines. Compare her with Rose, Donna (especially), Amy & River & she's outshone. --2.96.30.92^{talk to me} 10:57, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: I think the most likely explanation of Amy seeing the Daleks as human is this: The conversion was trying to make her regard the Daleks as "my kind of people" &, to the unconverted part of her mind (almost all of it), "my kind of people" = "humans". I don't think there's any greater significance than that. (Having been 2 a lot lately, I'm back to being 89.) --89.241.75.238^{talk to me} 13:19, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Another theory that some of you might like: Maybe Oswin is a fixed point, like Jack and Rex? I wouldn't mind if this turned out to be the case, and it would be nice to have another immortal on Doctor Who. 15:35, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

70: I agree that the Daleks having a concept of elegance isn't necessarily the same as having one of beauty. While they may not have specifically rewritten their behavior in the seasons since the revival, there have been a few moments scattered throughout that felt a little too un-Dalek for a Dalek to be involved with. Even some of those moments don't necessarily imply a change to Dalek behavior, but they still kind of bugged me. Though most of these moments where during RTD's time, I didn't much care for the more recent scene where one of them begged River for mercy. (I do get that it was likely just another moment trying to hype up the fact that River is supposed to be a threatening/powerful force though. Perhaps even close to being on par with the Doctor- as far as her name inspiring fear in the Dalek.) Back when the Daleks suddenly had a concept of blasphemy was a bit irritating, and while I suppose I could find reasons to excuse or explain that behavior it's still just a bit off. Obviously the Daleks sticking to the idea of only ever showing anger and hatred may seem a bit one-note to some viewers (mostly ones who have only seen the revival), I think it's extremely important that they don't stray too far from that idea. (Which deep down I fear the show may one day do.) I do greatly appreciate that they at least tried to explain in AotD that even the concepts they have that aren't normally based on hatred for anyone else, are based on hatred for the Daleks. That was quite nice, and I hope Moffat keeps to this idea in future stories with them. It beautifully highlights the fact that the Doctor and Daleks are sometimes eerily similar- which has been noted by several Daleks as well as Davros in that the Doctor would "make a good Dalek". Yet it serves as a reminder that in situations where they are similar, the motivations for the Doctor and for the Daleks hatred for each other are vastly different. Daleks despise the Doctor first and foremost because that's what a Dalek feels for any non-Dalek, mixed with their past encounters with him. The Doctor despises Daleks because they despise everyone else, which I always though was a lovely concept that circles back on itself- his hatred is based on his love, compassion, and respect for the lives of everyone in the universe, which is the exact opposite of a Dalek. This was touched on when Ten was willing to help Dalek Sec rather than just destroy him, since Sec was willing to give the Daleks more of an open emotional palate than hatred. (Which all fell apart, thankfully.)

Next: I'm glad we've mostly discouraged the idea of the Chameleon Arch being used (since I wouldn't actually buy into the story anyway), I just thought it was an interesting question since we haven't been given very much explanation of the device itself. All we know is what the Doctor and the Master used it for, so it's natural to wonder what it would do to any other species- assuming it would even work on them at all since it would be fair to assume that the Time Lords would have no reason to have created it to work on anything else.

The Doctor's anger: I agree that each regeneration has a different personality, and that some of his previous forms would have handled Jenny's death quite differently. I'm also starting to believe that Ten's abhorrence to the idea of guns/violence would be a fair reason for Eleven being so torn about the consequences of his actions that he mentions in that pivotal moment in Mercy. Already having been versions of himself that accepted the use of violence or were more prone to anger (even recently with Nine) in some situations, his experiences as Ten were him trying to see if the disuse of those ideas would create better outcomes. Having now seen that it didn't work out as well as he'd hoped, now he's angry again. But he's not angry just to be angry. He's angry that in the centuries he's been trying to save so many people, no matter what he does he can't always win, and he can't always save everyone. This would be frustrating to any overly-compassionate entity, but having lived for so long and it happening so many times is something he's having a hard time coping with as his life continues on. In a sense he's become much more childish as a result. Rather than actually come to terms with it, he tries to ignore it by dismissing the thought, jumping in his box, and going somewhere else for a distraction- only to eventually end up in a problem situation again that brings it all flooding back to the surface. Hopefully his recent loss of the Ponds (who where quite literally his family) will eventually force him to "grow up" a bit. Having this new companion will help facilitate this need to grow, because Amy and Rory quickly grew to not need the guidance of the Doctor, putting them in almost an authoritative position over him in some cases. (Technically, if the Doctor's age is anywhere close to correct then Rory was even "older" than him.) Now he has to start over. Now he will have someone that requires explanations for everything time-travel related, and quite possibly his help (assuming certain plot lines), putting him back in the spot of authority and leadership. (But given Oswin's intellect, it'll still be interesting to see her be able to figure things out before the Doctor is even done explaining them-likely interrupting his speeches, rather than his more recent batch of companions' tendency to respond with a blank stare and a "What?")

Back to Jack: Concerning Jack, I liked the character himself. I thought he could be kind of cheesy at times, but that's completely forgivable. Also, while they didn't abuse his immortality too much by the end, the part I found irritating was that they gave themselves that kind of an out to begin with. Similar to my issues with Superman. Both of them could still be interestingly used in the right writer's hands, but the fact that they have the option to put less effort into it (if they choose) doesn't seem very creative, or fair to the fans. Especially in Jack's situation. In a sense he was one-upping the main character on the show's most impressive ability- regeneration. Had the Doctor been a more selfish man at the time, he would have hated Jack. Here was a man who could die and die again, like himself, but was allowed to keep being the same version of himself, and without any limitations on the number of times he could come back.

The RTD Companions: I don't hate any of the companions of that era, I just don't think they were great either. Rose started out fine, but by the end of the fourth season I was really just tired of her. I also liked her original ending. Sometimes I think its necessary for the show to explore the cruel side of time-travelling. Her being stuck in a hopelessly unreachable universe was an excellent example. But then they ruined their emotional departure by letting her just come back anyway. I was so touched by her and the Doctor's original heartbreaking goodbye, and now it's been cheapened for any further viewings of it since I know she just returns later. They should have let her just end at that high-note. Martha, however, I never really enjoyed. It's certainly nothing to do with anything racial either. I wanted to change the channel every time she talked about being in love with the Doctor. (Especially when Tom Milligan asked if she was involved with anyone and she said "there used to be someone". No. No there didn't.) Not only was it just a rehash of Rose's infatuation with him, but they kept flashing back to her kissing the Doctor, which he prefaced by stating repeatedly that "seriously, this means nothing". She didn't really provide anything to the story either, other than just happening to "be there" most of the time. Even her departure from being a companion was incredibly boring. She just pulled a middle-school-girl attitude and left because he didn't love her. Even the Doctor didn't really care when she left. All she had been to him was a target for his endless speeches which he was so fond of doing. Donna I liked the most out of the three, but it comes more from who played her than anything. (As I really wasn't a big fan of the metacrisis story.) Oddly though, the most excellent companion for Ten had to have been Wilfred Mott. That man was bursting at the seams with charm and charisma, and it's a shame he didn't get to travel with the Doctor for more than the last adventure of Ten. (Other than the same actor having previously playing Tom Campbell.) If anyone on the show deserved to see the stars, it was him. It seemed to be his entire passion in life. My favorite scene for the entire first four seasons was probably Wilfred's reaction to seeing Donna in the telescope. That excitement at seeing his granddaughter do the very thing he wanted to do, without a shred of selfishness, was one of the most genuine and touching moments I've seen on any television show.

89: My only problem with that theory is that it (and I could just be wrong) really seemed like the ballerina was previously Hannah. There just seemed to be a lot of connection between her and Darla. We knew she had a daughter who was kidnapped by the Daleks (which was confirmed to have been a real part of the human Darla's life) and it would make sense to assume that she had gone looking for her but was then infected by the nanogenes. It's also interesting to note the formal attire that the human "visions" were wearing. Seems likely they could have been passengers on the Alaska, which would lend credit to the idea that it was the Daleks in the Asylum who had done full conversions on them as well as Oswin.

As for why they converted them, here's a possible theory: The Doctor mentions that the Daleks "need genius". Perhaps the exiled Daleks were planning a revolt against the Parliament, and an attempt to escape. So they converted the passengers they managed to find in order to further their ranks, (rather than letting them become the Dalek-puppets- which were speculated by the Doctor to be part of the security system itself) and after finding Oswin decided to purposely use her to integrate with the security system somehow- possibly even allowing her to retain parts of her humanity on purpose. Especially since (as far as I recall) there was really no explanation as to why the Oswin Dalek was able to hack into the security system in the first place. Otherwise, wouldn't the other exiled Daleks been able to drop the forcefield themselves? Plus, her being in the room she was in has always been interesting to me. Maybe the exiles' attempt at using her for a means of escape didn't work out as intended (since her remaining humanity simply refused to help them), so they locked her away themselves. Maybe that line about them "needing genius" was in reference to the exiles- regardless of if the Doctor realized it.

To the unsigned post: Nothing personal, but I would hate this. I realize that my favorite theory being the time-splinter one is related to Jack in a minor way, that would certainly provide her with no form of invincibility. Given my distaste for the idea of an invincible character already (noted above), I would have to think very hard about not continuing to watch the show. I already hope they won't reuse the same story on Oswin as a previous character (or at least such a recent one), but that one would take the cake for all-time-bad-writing-decisions for this show in my opinion. Saghan ☎ 15:59, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: Darla's daughter Hannah wasn't exactly "kidnapped by the Daleks". They were both captured. Darla could only have "gone looking for her" if she (Darla) had escaped, which is what the Doctor said nobody does. The daughter was "a real part of the human Darla's life" but the escape wasn't. The escape was part of the puppet Darla's cover story. (I was 89, now I'm 2.) --2.99.198.167^{talk to me} 20:12, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

89: Somehow when I wrote that, while I completely remembered Darla at the beginning and most of the conversation her and the Doctor had, somehow I neglected to remember the whole "Dalek prison camp" thing. But then again, that could just be a lie. It would seem that even when accessing memories of the person they inhabit, Dalek-puppets still retain a bit of individuality- with their own "new" personality. Maybe neither of them were in a Dalek prison camp to begin with? Maybe the vision Amy had was them showing us this? Really though, I can't be sure. And my previous post was an on-the-spot kind of theory anyway. Saghan ☎ 21:34, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: That's possible. It's hard enough to sort out what's cover story & what's real when only humans are involved. With a Dalek puppet being able to access the real memories & personality of the original person, for the specific purpose of making the cover harder to "blow", it's effectively impossible to be sure. The only way we might be able to say definitely one way or the other would be if we got more information later in the series. The only reason I can think of why we might get any would be if it ties in with the new companion, so we're back to: "How is Oswin connected (if she is connected) with the new companion?" --2.99.198.167^{talk to me} 00:29, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

On (2), it would be mundane and boring if just a rehashing of the River Song plot device, but it may be the case that it is so obvious it is actually correct. I also see ways it could be done so that it is more original. Imagine that one time when the Doctor is saving the day as he does, he inadvertently rescues Oswin. He doesn't realize what he's done immediately because he's never actually 'met' Oswin and this is Oswin's first meeting of the Doctor. Normally, the Doctor would have to set the timeline aright, but between his recent loss of Amy and Rory and seeing the living human standing in front of him that he intends to condemn to a horrible fate, he goes all "Time Lord Victorious" and attempts to change a fixed point in time. This scenario is unique as I don't recall a paradox ever being successful for longer than an episode (not Father's Day or Waters of Mars or The Wedding of River Song, and Amy and Rory still didn't really escape in Angels take Manhattan). A major story arc would be that much of their time together is spent outrunning fate as the universe attempts to correct this "error" in various ways. The biggest evidence supporting 2: Oswin's last words of "Remember me".

On (4), I wouldn't give any credence to this except that Oswin being a Dalek bothers me almost as much as Oswin not being a Dalek. A Dalek is supposed to be an alien race that live in these metallic shells. A conversion I assume involves removing a human brain and hooking it up to a Dalek shell, but this is basically what Cybermen do, not Daleks. They also are extremely xenophobic and consider their race superior over all other forms of life. Now there does seem to have been some shifts in recent years among the Daleks mostly out of the need to survive, but color me suspicious.

On (6), it may be "so overt its covert" as you say. A descendant really has little emotional impact, however, as someone from the 19th century has no emotional connection to their distant future relation. Meanwhile the Doctor has never actually "met" Oswin so there's not a big connection there, either. It doesn't amount to anything but a wink to the audience. Being a close relation sister might be slightly better.

Anyway, my $0.02 72.230.196.167^{talk to me} 02:21, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

[The following post was written before the above post was on here, so I will address those shortly following this]

Red Dress and Carmen - Oswin: I'd like to point something new I've noticed but failed to mention so far. We now have three references to red dresses and Oswin. 1. She wore one in her mental image in the Asylm. 2. She was listening to music from Carmen, who also was a character that wore a red dress. 3. Clara/Oswin is wearing a red dress in the footage from filming during the Christmas special. Maybe if we keep seeing different "Oswins", they'll use this as another way to connect them.

Also, I'd like to point out some possibly relevant lines from the lyrics in the two songs from Carmen she used:

"And dream away, yes dream in combat, That a black eye is watching you."

"All of a sudden, it is silent... Ah, what is happening?"

"And you call him quite in vain if it suits him not to come"

"All around you, swift, so swift, it comes, it goes, and then returns. You think you hold it fast, it flees, you think you're free, it holds you fast."

Now, keep in mind I did not translate this myself, nor am I able to recognize exactly which lines actually show up in the show. If anyone else can tell which ones were used, I'd be very interested to know and very thankful. I do think it's interesting that one could connect the above lines to several different things in Doctor Who. If anyone confirms any of these lines being in the show, I'd be even more inclined to believe the similarities were intentional. Saghan ☎ 02:50, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

2: Thinking about it more, I was generalizing unfairly from Eric Saward to the rest of the show. Douglas Adams made good use of his alien, and I suspect Peter Bryant or Robert Holmes could have done the same. Even Nyssa was interesting before Saward got hold of her (despite the fact that Bidmead didn't want her as a companion).

And you're making the same unfair generalisation I did. You talk about "the 1970s & 1980s companions" as if the decades were the same, but look at who you're talking about. The Brig, Liz, Jo, Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, and K9 aren't even remotely similar to each other; Nyssa, Tegan, Peri, and Mel, are mostly interchangeable, and the only reason Adric and Turlough aren't is that one annoyed everyone and the other was too dull to even be annoyed by.

More generally, I agree that all of the companions in the revived series have been good, but most of the classic companions, outside the Saward era, were good too. Granted, Adric was already annoying even before season 19, and there were a few who were just mediocre (Dodo, Ben and Polly, and Jo), but otherwise, I can't think of anyone who wasn't good. Sure, I wouldn't put Victoria or Vicki up against Martha--but the Brig or Romana, I definitely would. (For that matter, most of the novel companions were good—even Sam became interesting in hindsight after Unnatural History—and all of the audio companions I've heard were too. Maybe it's really not that hard to have good companions if there's a script editor actually showing up for work...) --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 03:34, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Saghan: The Daleks begging River for mercy doesn't imply that they have, or even understand, mercy, just that they know that it tends to work on the Doctor and his friends, and they're cynical enough to use it.

I do agree about the religious Daleks being jarring. But that's just a small part of the larger problem with RTD and the Daleks. He kept completely destroying them every time they appeared, and then finding ways to bring them back a little different this time. But nobody _wants_ the Daleks to be a little different this time, and it gets a little hard to take them seriously when they get completely erased from existence once or twice every season. If anyone but RTD tried that, he would have been shouted at until he stopped--but RTD is better at creating Dalek set pieces than anyone in history--the four silent syllables flashing outside the window in Parting of the Ways, the "This is not war, this is pest control line"--so he got away with it. So he kept doing it. I love that one of the very first things Moffat did was to establish a Dalek Empire in the future so he never has to repeat that. The Daleks are the Daleks, and if you want to tell a different story about them, you don't change them, you change their circumstances. Aaronovich pulled that off brilliantly in Remembrance. Shearman pulled it off brilliantly in Jubilee (which, admittedly, was even better as an RTD/Shearman TV story...), and I think Moffat understands that.

The question of how Oswin's intellect will affect the show is interesting, but this is hardly the first time the Doctor will have a companion who's in his intellectual league, and I think Moffat must have thoughts of Zoe, Romana II, and Ace running through his head as he writes for her. (OK, and maybe a bit of Adric. But not Nyssa--we were frequently told she was brilliant, but she almost never figured out anything relevant to solving the problem.) It's hard to imagine the story won't be--as it was for Zoe, Romana II, and Ace--a mentoring relationship where she comes to realize that the Doctor's childishness and seriousness are two sides of the same coin, and she needs his wisdom as much as he needs her brains, and so on. But those three stories all played out so differently to each other that there's no doubt in my mind that Moffat can find yet another way to play it out.

I agree with you about what was wrong with Rose and Martha, just not the _extent_. Sure, Martha was by far the worst regular companion of the new series, but still, compare her to half the cast of Merlin, or half the cast-of-the-week of Primeval. (Also, she worked surprisingly well in the NSAs, although that may just be that she was the companion around the time BBC Books started letting the writers write actual Doctor Who novels again instead of kid-friendly TV-tie-in books.)

I also agree with you about Wilf (and of course Tom Campbell was also the best companion in the Peter Cushing movies, by far), but then it's possible that if RTD had tried to write a whole season around him, he wouldn't have made it work. It's not obvious (as it is with, say, Astrid), but RTD presumably has better instincts than we do about what RTD can do well, and he chose to only focus one story on Wilf... --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 04:07, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Finally, on the red dress: If Moffat makes a recurring reference to red dresses in connection to Oswin, I suspect there will be one episode where she wears a black dress, and it will never be publicly explained or even acknowledged, and the whole point will be for Moffat to laugh at a particular segment of fandom.

Here's the background: The novel The Tomorrow Windows included a throwaway reference to Moffat's parody The Curse of Fatal Death: "A listless-looking man sat on a sofa beside a girl in a red dress in an unconvincing medieval dungeon." Well, that certainly sounds like the Rowan Atkinson Doctor with Emma on the Curse set, so a few fans started to argue that it made Curse canonical. But it's also clearly an in-joke, so the argument faded out. And then someone noticed that Emma was actually wearing a black dress, not a red one--it definitely was an in-joke by Jonathan Morris, but he got it wrong. And somehow, that brought the issue back up for debate again. And it's never really died out since; it flares up every once in a while out of the blue. It's as if the phantom red dress that's really black makes things even more intriguing to the warped mind of some fans. And Moffat is on record as finding the theory hilarious. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 04:25, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Carmen: It's certainly from the right era for Clara. Most of what we heard was from the Habanera, but it briefly switches to Toreador in the middle (where the Doctor says he played triangle). The parts we hear are: "If you love me not, then I love you. [If you love me not, then I love you (You'd best beware!) But if I love you,] if I love you, you'd best beware!… [The bird you hoped to catch] beat its wings and flew away. Love stays away, you wait and wait." Then over to Toreador for "Toreador, en garde! Toreador, Toreador!" Then back to the Habanera for "But if I love you, if I love you…"

Your two quotes from the Habanera are stretching things quite a bit. This is basically the 19th century version of "Freebird". It could be a warning to the Doctor about how hard it is for him and River to catch each other, or about how dangerous River is if you do catch her, but I think he knows that by now. And I don't see how it could be relevant to Clara or any of the plotlines fans have imagined for her.

And the quote from Toreador about the dark eye… that's the beautiful girl watching the toreador and falling for him hopelessly; it would be very odd ot twist that into something spooky.

But the silence… Even besides a reference to silence, that part of the song is the calm before the storm, when the crowd knows the bull is about to make his big charge. And then all hell breaks loose, and it's the toreador's time to act. And then, the line that we hear is repeated (right after the line that was probably the first thing anyone in England associated with the word "allons"… although not so much after 2006). That could easily refer to the Doctor and his upcoming struggle. But it still wouldn't be much of a hint to anything, just sort of setting a tone. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me}

70: I said "most of the 1970s & 1980s companions", not "all of the 1970s & 1980s companions". Furthermore, that was when I was talking about comparisons with Martha. There were good companions in both decades. Even among the good ones, however, the females especially did tend to suffer from lazy writing. Elisabeth Sladen complained then & later that, very good though she was, Sarah Jane wasn't as good as she could have been because the scripts didn't give her (Sladen) enough to work with. The problem was certainly much worse in the 1980s, until near the end. It is a generalisation, of course, & even in periods when lazy writing was the rule, there were exceptions. Most of the companions got at least 1 or 2 good scripts -- enough to show that it wasn't the idea of the character or the actor playing the character that was to blame for the "sameness". What you say to Saghan, later, about Nyssa -- "we were frequently told she was brilliant, but she almost never figured out anything relevant to solving the problem" -- is very much to the point, here. There were occasions when Nyssa's abilities were used (rigging up a sonic weapon to destroy an android robot in The Visitation, for example) but that only emphasises all the other times when they weren't used but ought to have been.

As you point out, there were companions even in the 1960s who weren't up to standard. The difference was that, when that happened in the 1960s, the companion was written out fairly rapidly. Dodo is an example of this. She lasted about half a season &, in The War Machines, when she departed, she doesn't appear much. Her replacements, Ben & Polly, had effectively taken over before they'd even seen the TARDIS, never mind been inside or travelled anywhere. Substandard companions weren't persisted with then, as they later tended to be.

A very clear example of a companion being the victim of lazy writing is Mel Bush. It's not only that all the abilities she was supposed to have were neglected but also that, like River's, her timeline was out of synch with the Doctor's -- but almost nobody remembers that. They remember the screaming & the carrot juice. People don't remember the asynchronous timeline thing because almost nothing was done with it. (I'm back to being 89 again, instead of 2.) --89.242.75.146^{talk to me} 06:56, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

My point is that when you say "most of the 70s and 80s companions" what you actually mean is "almost all of the 80s companions, and very few of the 70s companions". Seriously, who are the clunkers in the Brig, Benton, Yates, Liz, Jo, Sarah Jane, Leela, K9, and Romana? And who are the standsouts among Adric, Tegan, Nyssa, Turlough, Peri, and Mel? (Ace is, of course, a special case.)

Yes, Sarah Jane could have been better, but she was still a great companion, easily on par with Martha. And really, the reason she sometimes seems like a generic companion isn't because she was written just her predecessors; it's because she became a standard, and whenever the 80s writers had no idea what the new girl was supposed to be like and Saward wouldn't tell them, they defaulted to making her a bad clone of whatever they half-remembered about Sarah Jane.

What Martha was noticeably lacking was any real growth in her character during her year in the TARDIS. There were a few episodes of her getting into stride, then she got there, then she was done. They got away with it in the early days—other than Jamie and Zoe, most of the early companions weren't much different when they left than when they joined. But after Leela, Romana, Ace, and Rose (and even more examples for fans of the novels and audios), they couldn't go back to that again without everyone noticing there was something wrong. And of course being followed by Donna, then Amy and Rory, makes it even more obvious.

Anyway, Mel is kind of a special case; lazy writing wasn't really the problem there. Nobody knew what Holmes had planned for Mel's story, because the only person Holmes had told was Saward, and JNT refused to ask him. Cartmel couldn't have invented something new to replace it, because he wasn't hired until two of the scripts were finished. And as for the individual writers, Pip & Jane Baker weren't even told whether the companion was still going to be Mel, and all three of the others were told to write out Mel and write in a new companion. Really, nobody could have done much with her in that situation. (And if you want proof that the season 24 writers weren't lazy, look at what Briggs and Wyatt wrote later—The Curse of Fenric was not by a writer who didn't care about character and backstory…) --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 05:07, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

70: Your point about lack of growth in Martha's character is reasonable. Even among the best of 70s companions, though, she'd have stood up well. She'd not have outshone Sarah Jane or the Brig. She would have outshone Harry, who was an entertaining enough personality but not well served by the scripts. Yates wasn't outstanding, though he certainly wasn't painfully bad. I'd say the same about Jo -- good enough but not great. (Mind you, Jo does have the serious disadvantage of having been followed by Sarah Jane!) How much growth, though, did any of them get? Look at Sarah Jane. How much was there to her by the time of The Hand of Fear that wasn't already there in The Time Warrior?

With Mel, the poor writing may not be the fault of the individual writers but poor writing it was. It's difficult to distinguish, watching what's on screen, between what's not been done because the writers couldn't be bothered to try & what's not been done because the writers didn't get the chance to try.

With 80s companions generally (& I agree they were well below the 70s standard), I get the impression that JN-T was the source of many problems. One was that he'd be enthusiastic (genuinely so, as far as I can tell) about the distinctive features of the companion when the initial character profile was being developed but would then exert strong pressure to force the companion into his idea of what a companion was for. Unfortunately, his idea of what a companion was for didn't include having a personality.

If female, the companion was to look sexy (for "the Dads"), to ask questions (on behalf of the audience), to gaze admiringly as the Doctor solved the problems (to make the Doctor seem wonderful) & to need to be rescued regularly (to inject some artificial "jeopardy"). Oh, yes, and to scream at the monsters in case the audience didn't realise they were meant to be frightening. If male, the companion was to be in conflict with the Doctor (in one way or another) to "create tension". The result, with both sexes, was that the Doctor seemed to have no good reason for keeping the companion as a companion &, quite often, ought to have had every reason for getting rid of a dangerous liability at the first opportunity.

As you said, "Ace is, of course, a special case" & one comment has been made repeatedly by people (both fans & professionals) comparing the classic & revived series companions: Ace was the first of the new-style companions, not the last of the old-style ones. Although not by any means an "Ace-clone" (which wouldn't have worked), Rose owes a lot to Ace & there are some very obvious similarities. There are some huge differences, too, not least the romantic element in Rose's relationship with the Doctor.

JN-T, though, applied pressure to fit even Ace into his idea of a companion was for & was still doing so when Ghost Light was produced (the last story of the classic series that ever was produced, though not the last aired). He wanted Ace to scream when the "husks" moved towards her. He didn't get his way because "it just wasn't in the character. Ace would just have started hitting things -- and so would Sophie!" (I can't remember which member of the production team said that but it's in one of the extras on the DVD.) --89.242.66.17^{talk to me} 12:37, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

My point about character growth was that the show could get away with that in the Sarah Jane era, because few of her predecessors had changed much; by the time of Martha, the expectations were different, and that's part of why she feels like more of a failed opportunity.

I agree that JNT was a big part of the problem, and I think the indirect problems he caused were even worse than the direct ones. For example, yes, he insisted that Fielding wear shorter skirts and higher heels, but that didn't affect Tegan's character nearly as much as firing Bidmead and ordering Saward not to talk to him. Similarly, his character notes about Mel were definitely bizarre, but the way he handled the season 23/24 debacle is what really ruined any chance of her being an interesting companion. And of course with Ace, his attempts to shape her character were misguided, but had barely any effect, while his getting the show canceled certainly affected things…

As for Ace being the first "new-style companion", maybe if you forced me to divide Doctor Who into two halves she'd fit in better with the latter half, but really, it needs to be broken into at least five eras, probably more. The difference between Ace and Rose is as big as the difference between Ace and Mel—or between Sarah Jane and UNIT, or UNIT and Jamie and Zoe. I'm not sure exactly where to draw a few of the lines, but you get the idea.

Also, Rose is clearly influenced by Grace and Sam as much as by Ace. And the later new series companions drew even more from the "wilderness era" companions (compare Grace:Martha, Kala/Jode/Roja:Jack, Trix:Jack, Benny:Donna, Benny:River, Sam:Amy, Fitz:Rory). Not to mention other changes to the setting inspired by the novels (no more Time Lords, most obviously). Those influences would be enough even if RTD and Moffat _hadn't_ added so many completely new elements to the show. --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 02:42, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

New-style vs. old-style companions: You're right that there were several different styles during the "classic" series. Most of those who've talked about the subject over the last few years, though, have been comparing the revived series with the 1980s (JN-T) era, rather than with anything before that -- even if they've not explicitly said so (& sometimes they may not even have been conscious of it).

Rose was influenced by all kinds of things & some of the influences had nothing to do with DW at all. That's part of why she was so good. Again, however, much of what's been said omits everything after 1989, as well as everything before about 1980. Rose isn't & obviously isn't "based on" Ace. In terms of the regularly-produced TV series, though, Ace was the first whose family background (sketchily depicted though it was) actually mattered & whose feelings about what she was experiencing while travelling with the Doctor actually mattered. To many, many viewers, Grace is what we saw in the 1996 TV movie -- nothing else -- & the "wilderness era" companions are utterly unknown. That's not to say they aren't important for understanding the treatment of companions in the revived series -- they are -- but someone addressing an audience that, in the majority, knows little or nothing about them can't easily talk about them without going into long digressions to explain things -- & there's seldom time for that.

What you say about , though, seems like a restatement -- with more specific detail -- of what I said. She suffers by comparison with the other revived series companions -- but only because they've been so much better. She doesn't really suffer by comparison with the "classic" series companions. Even the best of the pre-1989 companions aren't that much better than Martha. They may have seemed outstanding at the time -- because, as you say, "the expectations were different". A poor companion in herself? No. A "failed opportunity"? Yes, because by then things were different & she could (& should) have been better than she was. (I've been demoted from 89 to 78, for now.) --78.146.187.111^{talk to me} 12:13, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right that people tend to consider the new companions, and the new series in general, in contrast to the JNT era, even when they aren't doing so consciously. And that it's largely because most viewers who know anything at all other than the new series know the 80s (or, in the US, the last few 4th Doctor years).

But that doesn't mean the show can't borrow ideas from the 60s or the novels. Sure, it means you can't explain the influences on a prime-time talk show, but you don't _want_ to explain the influences. Use elements of Jamie and Zoe or Fitz and Trix, and most people think it's completely new, while those who recognise the influence appreciate the nod. It's win-win. And I think Moffat, unlike RTD, has consciously realized this and used it to his advantage. He cherry-picks the most interesting ideas (Remote Fitz:Auton Rory), and puts them into a different context so they have a different meaning, and ultimately it becomes one of the most memorable things about the character. RTD often picks things that didn't work the first time around (a Doctor who misinterprets a kiss and falls for the Doctor), and re-uses them almost verbatim, so theyy don't work any better.

(PS, a minor note: Grace is what we saw in the 1996 TV movie to _all_ viewers. She basically never appears again, except some minor comic strip references that tell us less about her character than that one line in SJA.) --70.36.140.233^{talk to me} 11:02, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Borrowing ideas: I know it's hardly a new insight but it's observable that, in many, many cases, poor novels have been the basis of some brilliant films & brilliant novels have been the basis of some really terrible films. That's partly because the requirements of the two media (novel & film) are very different but it's also because a reasonable idea poorly handled seems like a poor idea, while the same reasonable idea brilliantly handled seems like a brilliant idea. If Moffat handles the ideas well, they'll work.

I can't help thinking that Oswin Oswald (whatever her connection might or might not be with the new companion) has a fairly large dose of Zoe in her.

On Grace: I'm not in the least familiar with novels, audios or comics, so I don't know which characters have & which have not been developed (or mutilated, for that matter) in any of them. I didn't know (but am not greatly surprised) that Grace hasn't featured much.

On Martha: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about her.

You're probably right that most comparisons between the revived & the "classic" series (a term I don't like) are really between the revived series & the 1980s simply because that's as far back as the majority of the people making the comparisons can remember. I'm not complaining about being able to remember all the way back to the start but it does sometimes put me out of step with other fans. Of course, I'd prefer to say "it gives me a broader perspective", since that sounds much better! --89.240.253.227^{talk to me} 23:10, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

In regards to a much earlier post here about Oswin and red dresses being a theme: In the new photos from the set, Oswin is wearing a red dress again. The breadcrumb trail lengthens. Saghan ☎ 20:51, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Doctor who has many characters who wore red dresses that only lasted one episode, The woman(end of time) and mercy(the new doctor). I had an interesting theory, what if Clara is a timelord or the woman? what if she used the chameleon arch fob watch to become human? or she is bleeding through the time lock on the time war but coming out only fragments at a time? that would put emphasis on the theory that the Doctors name holds the time lock in place and the fields of trenzalore will unlock it. I doubt it would work though I just like to theory as we wait. unknown wiki editor

Can't be. She's Jenny's daughter. Can't believe the Moff is reusing the daughter idea again.--222.167.191.105^{talk to me} 03:54, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Jenny as in Doctor's daughter Jenny, not Madam Vastra's wife Jenny. Moffat left a very big meta-narrative clue with a more than obvious real world reference. Of course, he can always change it now that he read it on here that people actually figured it out.--222.167.191.105^{talk to me} 09:26, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Clara/Oswin doesn't have the characteristics of a Time Lord -- no regeneration, for one thing. She seems to be something new. It's pretty obvious she's not just a normal human but that's about all that's currently obvious.

As for the idea that she's (blonde) Jenny's daughter: No. That would make her the Doctor's granddaughter. In fact, because Jenny's only parent is the Doctor, a daughter of hers would be genetically as close to the Doctor as his own daughter. Given Clara's very openly expressed interest in the Doctor, things would be getting a bit too incestuous for a family show. Torchwood might risk something like that but not DW! (I was 89 before but I'm 78 now.) --78.146.181.218^{talk to me} 09:45, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

It's less speculative than you think: In Asylum, Doctor said it's Christmas. Moffat emphasized we won't see the new companion until Christmas. Did he really threw it there for non-narrative purpose or is it one of those schemes of his? In the beginning of Asylum, Oswin said it's her mother's birthday, she'll bake a souffle for her mother. Trapped in an alien planet and saying this is certainly out of place and quite senseless. Whose birthday is on Christmas? Georgia Moffett aka Jenny. Who bought Clara to Madam Vastra, thus the Doctor to save her? Vastra's Jenny. --222.167.191.105^{talk to me} 11:33, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

It's far, far more speculative than you seem to think. Of course a lot of what Oswin said in Asylum... was "out of place and quite senseless" -- she was constructing a fantasy world to live in because what had really happened to her was so bad. Christmas isn't Jenny's birthday, although it is Georgia Moffett's birthday. The actor isn't the character. There's been nothing to indicate that Jenny Flint is the same Jenny. It's not an uncommon a name & there have been several other characters with that name: a freedom fighter in The Dalek Invasion of Earth & the maid who got taken over by the mother in Human Nature/The Family of Blood, among them.

There's certainly something strange about Clara/Oswin but it's something new & more imaginative than a remix of the Amy/River story. I'm not objecting to your theory because it's too far out; I'm objecting because it's nowhere near far enough out. --78.146.181.218^{talk to me} 12:28, December 31, 2012 (UTC)