All New Who

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

that you really do see many things this black-and-white with no shades of grey.- David

{{In writing, largely yes because its the nature of the beast. Authors have to make clear choices and distinctions or you cannot have a character- a character is defined by having grey areas removed (as a general rule of thumb).

I think this is an area where you and I fundamentally see things differently.   While I do love stories where the characters are archetypal, drawn with bold black-and-white lines, where each character explicitly stands for something (the first Die Hard movie, for one example), they often fall into the trap of becoming cartoony cardboard cutouts  (every other Die Hard movie, for example).

I'm much more likely to stay with a character when they're written with more grey areas, and there are a lot of them out there. I've just watched the first 4 episodes of  Orphan Black on Amarië's recommendation {{{thanks A!}}} and one of the things that makes it so fun is that they began with cardboard cutouts, then immediately started subverting them all and mixing them up, making all kinds of wonderful shades of grey.

And as RTD's writing strength is in his character work if you don't like the main characters you cant fall back on enjoying the plot and structure as those are not RTD writing strong points and have a tendency to end in handwavium territory or with a solution which only appears in the last third of the story with no hint or precedent to it.}}}

One of the first episodes you sent me that I still really love is Father's Day. That's pure RTD, right? I think character, plot and structure were all just fine as far as I can tell

' one of the things that makes it so fun is that they began with cardboard cutouts, then immediately started subverting them all and mixing them up, making all kinds of wonderful shades of grey. '- David

{{{ Exactly really, its fun because its not the norm, it is as you say a subversion of it.
RTD Who is not doing that- its following a formula and template- that of Who the family scifi/fantasy/family drama, and with on top of that the BBC execs making sure the right demographic boxes are ticked ect.
Rose is not a very grey character at all, she is pretty much black and white. You always know where she will stand in a given situation, the same is true of Donna, Amy and Clara. You have to with the main companion. Martha is more ambiguous, but that seems to stem more from the writers being unable to find a role for her outside of highlighting the Doctor not being over Rose yet (they eventually do after she stops being a companion and joins UNIT).}}}

That's pure RTD, right? - David

No, that one was Paul Cornell- he also did the superb Human Nature/Family of Blood. But for whatever reason that was the last he did in NuWHo TV.}}}

You are very welcome, Dave!! You have a lot of crazy clone action to look forward to.

{{You might remember David RTD episodes like Boom Town- where the ending is so deus ex machina even RTD has commented on it- 'The resolution is a deliberate deus ex machina, regressing Margaret so she can start anew, although Davies remarked that the resolution did not come completely out of nowhere as the TARDIS' psychic link had been already established' (pity they never really set up the psychic link in this actual story! The TARDIS could have dropped her into space and he could have said- well its a ready established the TARDIS can materialise and dematarialse around people.) Same episode has a brilliant character piece at a restaurant table- good character stuff, plot, waved out the way.

Or perhaps you may recall The Parting of the Ways- 9's regen story in which the entire threat of the Dalek fleet and the death of main characters Jack is insto reversed when Rose takes in the Heart of the TARDIS and becomes a God or something and resurrects Jack forever and with a wave of her golden hand destroys all the Daleks and the entire threat, before being saved by the Doctor who can only draw the energy from her via her mouth and a kiss. Oh and the reveal of what Bad Wolf means and how it connects to this moment, which cant be guessed or worked out before by the viewer as all the clues are only revealed at the end, all you get till then are the two words Bad Wolf randomly appearing throughout the series. But has some really solid secondary characters, whose fates you really feel for.

Or Last of the Time Lords- where the Master and his entire army of future humans have taken over the earth, slaughtered about a 1/3 of the population, and enslaved the rest are defeated when his machine is broken and the entire past year and all the struggles we have watched are undone and none of it happened, its ok it was all a dream. Has some great Doctor/Master character moments and character building.

Or maybe End of Time- 10's regen story where the entire first episode is about the Master returning and gaining control of a machine which he can subvert to make everyone on earth a version of himself- it ends on the cliffhanger of him succeeding and only the Doctor and gang been left on the planet who are not the Master- its resolved in the first few moments of the following episode by the Time Lords turning up and Rassilion quite literally waving the hand of Rassilion (last mentioned circa the 7th Doctor and not in anyway explained here despite apparently being intrinsical to the resolution) at the problem and its all undone! Has Wilf in it, RTD's greatest secondary character and he gets some great character scenes, stirring, heart string tugging and sincere.

I could list more examples but I think the point is clear, the plot and resolution are nor RTD strong points- he is a brilliant character writer and dramatist, but he is not a sci-fi or fantasy plot writer (I think that showed in his version of a Midsummer Nights Dream too).}}}

wow in what twisted universe is referring to Greek mythology 'cheap'   but by now I should be used to your 'cheap' digs any time I dare to make fun of Moffat.

but movin on....

{{No, but dismissing the entire debate on my side as nothing more than Moffat love is.}}}

I was dismissing your monomania when it comes to the Moffat/sexism debate. I am over it, movin on....

{{Currently discussing the differences in writing styles and the reasons behind certain choices and decisions each writer has made as a result of their individual writers voices and weaknesses and strengths.
We haven't discussed sexism in the sense that you have not actually addressed it beyond stating its apparent existence and making easily disproved claims such as that RTD had no sexualised female boss characters only Moffat. And just as usual you dismiss everything I have to say as rubbish based on what you know is an utterly spurious premise within a short pithy non-answer reply.}}

{{I quite like these- interesting to watch- this guy takes scenes from Who and drops out the music core and stuff so what you get is something close to what you would get on set, just the dialogue and footsteps ect. It makes it a bit more like watching a play, feels closer to the performances somehow and its just interesting to see these scenes without the emotionally manipulating music. Huge spoilers for series 9}}

short and pithy enough for you?

{{Typically so, yes! }}

good. here to help.

{{Or not as the case may be }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{You might remember David RTD episodes like Boom Town-
Or perhaps you may recall The Parting of the Ways-
Or Last of the Time Lords-
Or maybe End of Time- }}}

I think I've only seen the two regeneration episodes. Probably because the others didn't make the cut to go on my flashdrive
Still if those are typical of RTD's writing, I kind of get your point. I was just assuming that regeneration was by it's nature deus ex machina so it followed that the writing of regeneration episodes would reflect that. No?

{{I suppose it depends on the regen- (though only 2 f those examples are regen stories)on the surface 11's reprieve by the Time Lords with a new regen cycle could be seen as similar- except that it has set up in the story arc, that 11 is coming to the end of his time, the cracks, the signal, the where is Gallifrey question ect are all there, giving that very Moffat style that when you go back and rewatch early episodes like Dorian telling 11 about his future and the ultimate question it all clicks into place and you know what it means now. You cant do that sort of thing with RTD's because at best you get something like Bad Wolf popping up, or Rose appearing mysteriously on background monitors ect and thats all the clues you are getting- but nothing you can piece together, all the reveals come in the final acts- if they are explained at all, as sometimes like the Rassilon thing they are not explained in the slightest. Not a single word. Knowing what Rassilon has done and what he used to do it and why its powerful enough to do such a thing relies entirely upon knowledge of classic Who and specifically of Rassilon.

Its probably no coincidence that one of the highest praised fan favourites penned by RTD is Midnight- a story with a small group of people stuck together in a confined space for the duration and a stroy with no resolution or explanation. Its a 45 minute character piece, and brilliant for it and for its lack of RTD having to come up with a resolution to it or explanations for anything that happens.}}}

{{From the Radio Times}}

We've been checking out the Office of National Statistics' annual list of the 100 most popular names for boys and girls in England and Wales, and have noticed that a certain sci-fi drama keeps popping up.

Unless we're very much mistaken, Doctor Who has inspired an awful lot of new parents this year.

Amelia – the dearly departed Amelia Pond of course – is the most popular girls' name in England and Wales for 2015. Even more significantly, Clara entered the top 100 for the very first time in 2015 – the same year as Clara Oswald's final moments in the Tardis. Rory (Williams) also has a place in the top 100.}}}

{{{ Just been reading some interesting things about Doomsday, Rose's (first) departure story where she gets her human Doctor.
Just so you know everyone being referenced, it was written by RTD, produced by Collinson and overseen by Julia Gardener, and there was some input from the actors, particularly Clarke who played Mickey.

The scene where Rose is lost on the other side and saved by her other universe father at the last minute and taken there was a matter of debate as to who did the rescuing.
RTD and Gardener wanted Pete, who they eventually went for, but Clarke and Collinson wanted it to be Mickey.
But in the end RTD felt that making it Pete showed hehad accepted her as a surrogate daughter (and I dont think RTD was ever much of a fan of Mickey anyway, he didn't originally write him to be likeable).

But even more interestingly the scene on the beach where Rose tells the Doctor she loves him and the Doctor is about to reply before the signal goes down, there was some discussion on the commentary track for that episode about what the Doctor was going to say. Collinson says he asked RTD what he intended the Doctor to say if he hadn't been cut off, and RTD replied that he didn't know.

This for me is a perfect evample of the difference in approach taken by RTD and Moffat to writing.
Moffat following writing the Sherlock episode Scandal in Belgravia Moffat is the sort of writer who goes off and writes some sequel scenes explaining what happened next (she steals all his clothes and leaves hi tied up and legs it) jut for his own pleasure, amusement and satisfaction.
Moffat is the guy who puts references in Sherlock whose only purpose are to explain or make continuity sense of small errors in the original works.
Had Moffat written Doomsday he not only would know what the Doctor said h would probably have written for his own fun a scene where the Doctor says it.

But RTD doesn't know, not because he is lazy but because for his approach to writing it doesn't matter. He doesnt need to know what the Doctor says next but what he might have said has performed its function in the stuff he is interested in- the character stuff, the emotional stuff. Having served its purpose its requires no frther explanation.
In Doomsday it arguably works, but when that same disinterest in plot elements surfaces elsewhere it can be problem.

Looking through critical reception for RTD penned elements there is a consistency to the criticisms leveled against him at times (he for the record gets a great deal of positive review as well, this is just meant to show where his tendency to disregard plot in favour of purely character story lines has been problematic)

The Long Game- "presents a few too many simple ideas, with the cumulative effect that this is a story that feels slight at best, underdeveloped at worst."

Love and Monsters- "but called the final 10 minutes "juvenile attack on the audience's intelligence and emotions" that ruined the episode with "a laughable monster and offensive humor at exactly the wrong moment"

World War Three- "criticism of the direction and "thin" resolution of the UNIT missile operated from a home computer"

"World War Three" he described as "slight" on plot with improbable Internet-ready missiles"

New Earth- ""too often feels like it is missing vital context"

Partners in Crime - "a runaway Saturday morning cartoon in desperate need of a solid story".

"comparing (the story) to something written on "the back of a fag packet"

Don't think I need to go through every RTD episode- the point here is that whilst there is much to praise about RTD era Who, often in the same episode most worthy of criticism, is weakest point as a writer is story and plot, and his strongest points are his characters and emotional beats.
And just like Moffat RTd is a good enough writer that at the best of his game, say Midnight, or Turn Left, the emotionalism and the strength of the characters mean you don't see or care much the plot is a bit ropey because your investment is all in the character stuff- and they are great episodes, among my highest rated in all Who. But when the character stuff isn't quite up to scratch the problems withe underling plotting and structure become more and more apparent.

Likewise in reverse when a Moffat plot is firing on all cylinders, Heaven Sent, Listen ect the weaknesses in his character writing are invisible as you are so invested in working out what is going on and what it all means you dont notice or have time to consider it.
But when the structuring falters (as it does withe Amy/Rory loss of child plotline) you notice any problems in the characterisation (they are going off on adventures while they have a lost child and recent terrible trauma to deal with and no one is mentioning it or acting like it just happened. And whilst plot wise all the i's are
eventually dotted and the t's crossed they are resolved in plot terms more than they are in character terms.

But overall the bald bare facts and truth of the matter, outside my opinion or anyone elses here, is NuWho has survived this long, and continued to grow in global popularity the entire time because even when RTD's plots are mcguffins, and when Moffats characters are not given enough breathing space, they are still better at what they do than most of what is out there.
Taken in the context of general prime time Saturday night family drama, Who has, and still does stand pretty much on its own.}}}

There's the clever, analytical wordsmith I've met around this site! I knew we couldn't possibly be as far apart as it has seemed.

{{{Just takes me a bit of time, and a lot of buckie to find the right words!

But it did get me wondering why I like Donna so much more than Rose despite the fact they are basically the same template and structure- a working class, ordinary women whose world views are narrow and parochial, meets the Doctor, has her eyes and mind opened and excels when given the opportunity and whose story ends on a tragic note.

I think the basic difference is RTD got the template right with Donna.
With Rose he choose to represent her closed mind at the beginning by making her, well a bit unpleasant in many ways, that selfish streak she has and the way she treats certain other characters. Its a very defining character thing.
Donna on the other-hand he just made ignorant and living in her own little bubble world. She is from the start though a basically good, big-hearted, decent, women who is more intelligent than she lets on or even realises. But she is shallow as a puddle, its all gossip and spats with Nerys, and whose eyeing up the shopkeeper down the road and whose on Britain's got Talent or in Heat magazine. She has that bubble broken to wider horizons and possibilities, but without the character baggage to carry about Rose has.
There isn't in short an unpleasant side to Donna, she just has her ignorance stripped away to reveal a fuller, rounder better person beneath, therefore its a joy to see her grow and mature as a person.
Rose retains her pettiness and selfishness over the Doctor right till the very end, it makes her hard for me to enjoy her as a companion or root for her, or even often like. And as I said before as characters not plot are his strengths if you are not enjoying watching the main characters with RTD then there often isn't much more beyond the secondary characters to enjoy.

And of course as a bonus there is no weird, creepy, inappropriate love story going on between Doctor and companion, and that's a huge bonus for me with Donna over Rose.}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ Collinson says he asked RTD what he intended the Doctor to say if he hadn't been cut off, and RTD replied that he didn't know.
This for me is a perfect evample of the difference in approach taken by RTD and Moffat to writing.
}}}

I like that analysis.
It reminds me of the discussions of how meticulously JRRT's appendices have been crafted, yet still he's left obvious and intentional holes in the fabric of the tale (Bombadil, Endwives etc) through which the reader's imagination can roam and explore the world on its own. Sometimes I think "I don't know" is the perfect answer.

{{In fairness to Moffat he does leave plenty of areas where things are left unsaid, such as what Clara said in the Cloisters, and he likes his viewers to work out the connections for themselves. One of his plotting strengths is his ability to put the answer right in front of you and use writing slight of hand so you don't notice its there until the crucial moment all the pieces come together.

Anyway all this thinking about writing styles got me musing on as favourite Moffat era episodes- so I wrote this-


This episode is about River, though she is never actually in it or ever directly referenced or mentioned in dialogue.

First we have to address a structural matter, the placement of this episode in series 6 and in the story arc overall concering the kidnapping of their new born baby.

Series 6 had a break in the middle that lasted the entire length of the summer, a time period reflected in the show as its also been the length of the summer for the Ponds since they lost their baby and the Doctor promised he would find her (and for you continuity freaks out there that same summer when the show was off is when Torchwood Miracle Day's events took place, even though no one mentions all that dead not dying thing).

The first episode we get following the summer break is Lets Kill Hitler- in which Amy and Rory learn that their child Melody whom they last saw in the late sixties is in fact Mels, their best friend since childhood, and they witness her regenerating into the River Song they know from previous encounters.
In the course of events Amy and Rory save their daughter and she breaks, or at least seems to break, her programming and they leave her in her own time line (ie the time period of her birth on Demons Run) in a hospital, with the future they know she will have before her.

The purpose here is to establish that the River they know has a life, a childhood, they know her, very well as Mel's- this makes River not just some exciting time traveler that they have occasionally met, but a person whose life they intimately know, and have done most of their lives and hers. River has a history now, a personal one with the Ponds her parents.

The next episode before we get to the Girl Who Waited is Night Terrors. This episode was originally meant to go out as part of block one- and in fact contains hints to the reveal of Amy's pregnancy and to her being the Flesh avatar, but as it does so using double meaning terms 'in the flesh' for example it made it a moveable episode in the schedules. And so for some technical reason it was switched with Curse of the Black Spot (a shame as we lost some nice little clues to the whole Flesh/pregnancy thing by doing so).

Night Terrors is in my view a particularly bad choice to put here, as it concerns a child and it not invoking in Rory or Amy some comment to their own lost baby seems at odds with the arc story-line.

It would have been better in my view to have gone right on with the arc story here and Girl Who Waited, even Curse would have been better here as its generally a bit lighter in tone and not so focused on the child character in it and could be excused in the arc as an unwanted adventure they got stuck in by accident along the way.
As it is Night Terrors opening with the Doctor telling the Ponds they are going to recuse a little boy seems a tad incentive even for the Doctor, and especially for 11.

Night Terrors doesn't have anything to add to the arc story and detracts from it, not because its a bad episode, its not its a pretty decent one, but because its in the wrong place.

Which finally brings me to the Girl Who Waited, which is all about the arc story, yet never mentions it.

The premise is fairly straight forward (though the early drafts were too timey-wimey and convoluted even for Moffat and with the writer (Mcrae) they went through a few drafts together to pair it down to what we get)

A planet is experiencing a plaque which kills the victim in 24 hours.
It has no cure.
But this is a very advanced civilisation, and they build a hospital in which the patients live in controlled time streams, which can be sped up or slowed down.
The 24 hours they have to live, they can experience in the hospital facility as a full life time, and their loved ones can be there for that time and view them through a sort of lens/screen living their lives out to old age in 24 hours.
Amy gets herself stuck in a time stream moving at a faster rate- a few minutes for the Doctor and Rory is a week for Amy.

Amy has to wait for the Doctor and Rory, hiding in the facility, avoiding the robot nurses, Handbots, who want to administer her medicine- not knowing doing so is fatal to her as a human.

The Doctors solution is to use the TARDIS to home in or her time stream, smash through and take her back out in the TARDIS- but when they arrive the Doctor has got the timing wrong and she has been there the better part of 20 years. And has become bitter and isolated over being abandoned.

The Doctor tells Rory they can try again, but if they do that then this Amy will never have existed- they would be killing this version of her. Rory who has got to know and understand this Amy as his Amy cant do this, and cant choose, and so the Doctor lies to him and tells him there is a way to keep both Amy's alive and save them both containing the paradox in the TARDIS.

But at the last minute and once young Amy and Rory are back aboard the Doctor slams the TARDIS doors in the face of the older Amy refusing her entry and reveals to Rory its impossible to keep both, Rory has to choose which he wants to save.

Rory accuses the Doctor of being unfair and declares that the Doctor is  'turning me into you'.
In the end Rory cannot bring himself to kill this Amy and the life she has led and he begins to unlock the door to let her in, but old Amy tells Rory not to let her in as she really doesn't want to die and if she does come in she won't go quietly, she will fight to the end for her life. Instead she chooses to let the Handbots administer the fatal medicine as the TARDIS leaves withe young Amy aboard.

She awakens and looking to Rory asks "Where is she?" the response is a very dark look from the Doctor to Rory, as Rory now has to explain what happened.

So you might ask what the buggery does any of that have to do with them losing their baby and the Doctor not having done as promised and found her yet?

Well here we have another aspect of Moffats writing preferences- he is a big ideas and big themes man.
The them of Amy's tenure on the show is that of a fairy tale. Series 5 is where we meet our Princess, Amy and her would be Prince, Rory and where she meets her magical friend, the mad man with his stolen magic box and goes off on adventures with him and series 6 is where the fairy tale, as all good ones do, turns dark and the wicked witch makes her appearance in the guise of Madame Kovarian who snatches their baby away from them.

The big theme in the Girl Who Waited is a morality question- if there was someone you knew, really well their whole life, and you could go back and alter their life right at the very start for your own benefit, knowing it would wipe out of existence the person you have known all your life and replace them with a new version with a different life. Would you do it? Do you have the right to do it?

And this is where the story is also addressing the lost baby issue. River is Mels, they have known her first as the adult River Song, then realised they have actually known her since childhood as Mels.
If the Doctor goes back and rescues their baby it kills Mels, it kills the River Song they knew, wipes her from  time and space and a new version exists, where she grows up with them now from a baby as she was when snatched on Demons Run.

This is the purpose of the entire scene at the door between Rory and the Doctor- worth recounting in full-

(The Doctor goes to the door. Older Amy starts running towards the Tardis.)
DOCTOR: I'm sorry.
(And slams the door in her face.)
RORY: What are you doing?
DOCTOR: I lied to her, Rory. There can never be two Amys in the Tardis. The paradox is too massive.
RORY: You can't leave her. She'll die.

[Gallery]

OLDER AMY: Doctor, let me in.

[Tardis]

DOCTOR: No, she'll never have existed. When we save our Amy, this future won't have happened.
RORY: But she happened. She's there.
OLDER AMY [OC]: I trusted you!
DOCTOR: No, she's not real.
RORY: She is real. Let her in.
DOCTOR: Look, we take this Amy, we leave ours. Only one Amy in the Tardis. Which one do you want?
(The Doctor puts Rory's hand on the door latch.)
DOCTOR: It's your choice.
RORY: This isn't fair. You're turning me into you.
DOCTOR: Your choice, Rory.
RORY: I, er
OLDER AMY [OC]: Doctor? Doctor! Doctor? Doctor?

[Gallery]

OLDER AMY: Rory, please.
(She puts her hand against a glass pane in the door. Rory does the same.)
OLDER AMY: The look on your face when you carried her. Me. Her.

[Tardis]

OLDER AMY [OC]: When you carried her away. You used to look at me like that.

[Gallery]

OLDER AMY: I'd forgotten how much you loved me. I'd forgotten how much I loved being her. Amy Pond, in the Tardis, with Rory Williams.

[Tardis]

RORY: I'm sorry, I can't do this.
(He unlatches the door.)

[Gallery]

OLDER AMY: If you love me, don't let me in. Open that door, I will, I'll come in. I don't want to die. I won't bow out bravely.

[Tardis]

OLDER AMY [OC]: I'll be kicking and screaming, fighting.

[Gallery]

OLDER AMY: To the end.

[Tardis]

RORY: Amy. Amy, I love you.


If you take even that first exchange and change the names you can see instantly its significance in the bigger question of the Doctor rescuing their baby Melody.

DOCTOR: No, River Song will never have existed. When we save your daughter, this future won't have happened.
RORY: But she happened. River's there.
OLDER RIVER [OC]: I trusted you father!
DOCTOR: No, she's not real.
RORY: She is real. Let her in.
DOCTOR: Look, we take River, we leave Melody. Only one Melody Pond in the Tardis. Which daughter do you want?
(The Doctor puts Rory's hand on the door latch.)
DOCTOR: It's your choice.
RORY: This isn't fair. You're turning me into you.
DOCTOR: Your choice, Rory.

his is exactly the decision Rory and Amy face regards their baby.
And the Doctor,as demonstrated in this episode is the man who can and will make those decisions, if they ask he will go and rescue their baby and wipe River from existence, something confirmed in the final dark look he gives to them at episodes close.
But he wont make the decision this time, River is their daughter, and the choice has to be there's.

Which brings me to the very last scene where after they have left Amy wakes up-

Amy is waking up. The Doctor sticks his tongue out at her.)
DOCTOR: I'll leave you two alone.
RORY: You all right?
AMY: Mmm hmm.
RORY: How are you feeling?
AMY: Where is she?

It is at this point we get the very dark look from the Doctor, and Rory turns to explain to Amy what has happened.

Or so it seems, but as was confirmed in an interview by Darvill, which annoying I haven't been able to track down again as of yet, where he talks about them discussing this very scene on set, the rules of meeting yourself in Who apply, just as the Doctor, who is a Time Lord, has at best very hazy recollection of any times he has met himself or more usually none at all (indeed Day of the Doctor relies on the notion he cant remember what happened) Amy cannot retain the memory of her older self.
Which begs the question who is she referring to when she asks "Where is she?" the answer is of course that the first thing she is thinking of when she awakens is her baby Melody whom the Doctor is supposed to be finding.

The conversation Amy and Rory are about to have is about do they act selfishly and get their baby back to heal their pain of loss? Killing River, the daughter they already know as an adult and whom they grew up with? Or do they let the adult River live the rest of her life, as their daughter but without ever sharing in her growing up fully as knowing parents?

That this conversation takes place is confirmed in the series finale when Amy kills Kovarian, it is clear from her words that such a conversation has taken place, that she has accepted it has to be this way, but that it doesn't make up for the pain or responsibility Kovarian has for it, or the pain Amy still feels, and which typically of her she has simply bottled up till they explode now, and which are enough to murder in the name of revenge.

KOVARIAN: Amy, help me.
(Her eye drive is hanging off.)
AMY: You took my baby from me and hurt her. And now she's all grown up and she's fine, but I'll never see my baby again.
KOVARIAN: But you'll still save me, though. Because he would, and you'd never do anything to disappoint your precious Doctor.
RORY: Ma'am, we have to go, now.
AMY: The Doctor is very precious to me, you're right. But do you know what else he is, Madame Kovarian? Not here.
(Amy puts Kovarian's eye drive back in place.)
AMY: River Song didn't get it all from you, sweetie.

------------

RIVER: How are you doing?
AMY: How do you think?
RIVER: Well, I don't know unless you tell me.
AMY: I killed someone. Madame Kovarian, in cold blood.
RIVER: In an aborted time line, in a world that never was.
AMY: Yeah, but I can remember it, so it happened, so I did it. What does that make me now?


So The Girl Who Waited, an episode which seems like a stand alone on first glance- so much so a large chunk of the audience mistook it for one and unrelated to the central arc (and not helped by being placed right after a stand alone episode, luring the viewer into colouring their perception of it as also being one from start) when it is in fact crucial.
Its all about the central conundrum on which the first half of series 6 ended- how will the Doctor get their baby back, and what happens to the River we know if he does?

I am inclined to think had this been an RTD story line it would have dwelt much more on the young Mels and her relationship growing up with young Amy and Rory, and the conversation Moffat leaves unspoken and off screen (something he does again in Hell Bent) would have been the climatic emotional scene of the episode with Amy, Rory and the Doctor thrashing out why they have to abandon their baby to save River.

But as I have said Moffat can be very thematic in his writing and high concept, and though this episode was not a Moffat written one, is was heavily redrafted and revised with input from Moffat (I'd love to see the original draft submitted by McRae just to read a Who script Moffat thought was too timey-whimey and convoluted!)

So there you have it- The Girl Who Waited and why its actually crucial to the main story arc. And a good demonstrating of where Moffat addresses character issues indirectly through themes. }}}}

the Doctor Who Official Facebook page is going to do a big announcement at midnight, it's been leaked the BBC will release a fully animated reconstruction of 'The Power Of The Daleks' for streaming and DVD in November.

Also:

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/capaldi-says-series-10-starts-april-2017-81009.htm

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/filming-wraps-on-doctor-who-spin-off-class-81004.htm

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-10-what-we-know-80436.htm

Oh gawd, not those things again  they still give me the willies