Rate and Discuss 6.13: The Wedding of River Song

[Richard Brinck-Johnsen]

I think the only episode that would be a stretch to allow children to watch was "God Complex" and even then, growing up I watched way worse- "Xena", "Hercules", "Buffy", "Angel", "Terminator 1&2", "Total Recall", I grew up with that.

Personally I agree but my nephew is not my responsibility so I didn't take the decision. My general point is that I don't think Doctor Who, having had the balance pretty much right for the first five series shouldn't suddenly become unwatchable for children below age 8/9.

However Moffat himself didn't write the episodes concerned and I think the episodes he writes do mostly get the balance right.

[egdcltd]

I think it can be conclusively stated that, even though the subject wasn't brought up in episodes when some thought it should, Amy was a bit upset over what happened to her baby, even if she had mostly come to terms with it.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I think the only episode that would be a stretch to allow children to watch was "God Complex" and even then, growing up I watched way worse- "Xena", "Hercules", "Buffy", "Angel", "Terminator 1&2", "Total Recall", I grew up with that.

Wow you watched XENA?! Hard core.

[SiHart]

My niece and nephew (6 and 10) have loved all this season and don't seem to have had any problem following the stories. Maybe it's just adults who can't grasp it all!

[Stuart Wallis]

I couldn't get into this episode. Yes, we got expanations, and I didn't see the Teselecta explanation coming (should've done on reflection), and the Brigadier tribute was good because it was understated. That said, the episode just felt a bit cop-out-y, with the Doctor, River and Amy remembering what the old universe was like (why didn't Rory, who was pretty much wasted in this episode?). Apart from the skulls, there was nothing that really stood out, and I'm even more sick of River now - the more i see of her, the more i'm convinced that she should've remained a one-off character. If "Doctor who?" really is the question, it had better have a good answer, because it's a bit of an anti-limax otherwise.

4/10

[FlyingBeastie]

However Moffat himself didn't write the episodes concerned and I think the episodes he writes do mostly get the balance right.

I disagree. Moffat is still producer, so those episodes do go through his desk. Also, I feel, if anything, he's talking down to his audience, including children. I feel like we've gone from Sesame Street to Yo-Gabba-Gabba. One show actually treated children with respect in terms of challenging them, whereas the other is just a bunch of annoying and shinning noises and sights.

I think it can be conclusively stated that, even though the subject wasn't brought up in episodes when some thought it should, Amy was a bit upset over what happened to her baby, even if she had mostly come to terms with it.

Yeah, but frankly I just remembered she unknowingly murdered her kid when she shot her at the start of this season and it's been treated like this Big Lipped Alligator Moment. Not only was her kid abducted and turned into a "psychopath" (so River kept calling herself), but Amy also ended up killing her own kid (god knows how, remember that terrible helmet crack? They never explained that) So Karen Gillan throwing out a couple of lines saying, "I'll never see my baby again" in that dry, wooden tone is beyond just a slap in the face to the viewers who were expecting some sort of resolution or a least a dignified addressment (not a word, I know), it's a slap in the face to the characters and the story itself which tells me Moffat doesn't care about the storyline, his characters, or his audience- and I'm once again happy I don't contribute to the ratings of the show.

So I think it can be conclusively stated that Amy Pond's arc, if it were an egg you were about to eat, contains salmonella and the eater should expect to be out of work for a week. It's severely undercooked, underdeveloped, and shallow.

[Rob McCow]

So I think it can be conclusively stated that Amy Pond's arc, if it were an egg you were about to eat, contains salmonella and the eater should expect to be out of work for a week. It's severely undercooked, underdeveloped, and shallow.

On the contrary, it's been consistently surprising, entertaining and bags of fun. There have been a few aspects that don't seem to have made sense to everyone, but overall there's been more development and complexity than either Rose or Martha. Without having her family at the forefront, we've found out loads about Amy's past, we've seen her life change even beyond travelling with the Doctor and her character has 'grown'. She's no longer the care-free, commitment-phobic of The Eleventh Hour, she's much more determined and responsible.

You might not like her, but her story arc has pushed back the boundary of what can be done with a Doctor Who companion in a positive way.

[Perry Vale]

RadioTimes did an analysis recently:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-...middle-classes

Interesting piece, thanks for posting the link, but as I expected it isn't saying what you implied in your original post at all. I don't see how you extrapolate from the number of 16-25 year olds watching increasing, that it's become "literally a children's show" just because there are less pensioners watching...

[Stuart Wallis]

It's severely undercooked, underdeveloped, and shallow.

I know the feeling - in more ways than one, he said ignoring the humour for a moment. Just when it seems as though this sinking hull full of plotholes is being fixed, questions are being answered and the waters of bad quality are being pumped out, another BIG Question termite starts chewing away at the bulwarks (Painful Missus!), we're distracted from the as-yet unnswered questions by a poor plot, and we're starting to flounder again.

[FlyingBeastie]

On the contrary, it's been consistently surprising, entertaining and bags of fun. There have been a few aspects that don't seem to have made sense to everyone, but overall there's been more development and complexity than either Rose or Martha. Without having her family at the forefront, we've found out loads about Amy's past, we've seen her life change even beyond travelling with the Doctor and her character has 'grown'. She's no longer the care-free, commitment-phobic of The Eleventh Hour, she's much more determined and responsible.

I couldn't hugely disagree more!

How has she been more developed than Rose or Martha? Rose and Martha had actual arcs, were well-developed characters--

Rose: Chav working at shop who was taken hostage by a dalek turned UNIT member who can take care of herself when the Doctor's not around.

Martha: Lovesick over The Doctor and was take hostage by two teens in New New York turned independent woman who walked out on The Doctor on her own terms and was able to survive a whole year without him while the rest of humanity was being decimated by the Toklefane.

Amy: A kid who had an obsession with The Doctor who grew into a chick who still had an obsession with The Doctor and ran out on Rory on her wedding night turned... a chick who still has an obsession with The Doctor and still, for comedic effect, there are jokes made about her being flirty with The Doctor or she's not all that into Rory...

I also find it very difficult to even characterize Amy. I don't know her motivation as a character. For Rose, she obviously wanted adventure in her life. For Martha, she was curious and smitten with this daft man she met to travel.

For Amy, in series 5, at least we had the motivation she was commitment-phobic as her motivation. But what was it for series 6?

And if you say, "Well, The Doctor's invites and his death."

Yeeeeah, but what did happen with that?

They made a big stink out of it for the first 6 episodes and then they sort of forgot about it and never brought it up again.

Not even when Melody went missing- it would've made sense if the Ponds traveled with him, but they didn't. So what was the motivation for traveling with him after LKH?

Also, her past, her present, her future is entirely predicated on The Doctor, which, frankly, sounds an awful lot like something out of a dreadful romance novel or a "Twilight". Amy is in no way autonomous character or one who has "grown".

Interesting piece, thanks for posting the link, but as I expected it isn't saying what you implied in your original post at all. I don't see how you extrapolate from the number of 16-25 year olds watching increasing, that it's become "literally a children's show" just because there are less pensioners watching...

I'm extrapolating that because the show has taken a more "childish" tone, "pensioners" are watching less and less.

Also, I find the class angle quite interesting, and maybe that's another thing that's been putting me off. In the thread for Night Terrors, I expressed how I felt there haven't been many minorities represented this time around and how I felt the series had become very "whitewashed". But maybe what I was really sensing was the lack of middle class and working class characters represented. We had them in Night Terrors, and the Ponds mocked them in an exchange. Perhaps this is another reason why I just can't get into the Pond's- they're this vague, upper-middle class couple from a random village (not even a 'burb).

Now, I'm not saying characters should be aimed at a specific demographic, that'd be horrible if that's how characters came into being. But coupled with all the other problems I have with them in terms of characterisation, etc., I'm starting to see the problem I have with them and why some other viewers don't fancy them all that much.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I know it's been said in the other thread, but.... how is shooting at a spacesuit that you didn't know contained a girl who you didn't know was your daughter who you didn't know you had anyway, and even then only hitting the suit and not the girl, even remotely the same as murdering your daughter?

[Rob McCow]

Rose: Chav working at shop who was taken hostage by a dalek turned UNIT member who can take care of herself when the Doctor's not around.

Martha: Lovesick over The Doctor and was take hostage by two teens in New New York turned independent woman who walked out on The Doctor on her own terms and was able to survive a whole year without him while the rest of humanity was being decimated by the Toklefane.

Amy: A kid who had an obsession with The Doctor who grew into a chick who still had an obsession with The Doctor and ran out on Rory on her wedding night turned... a chick who still has an obsession with The Doctor and still, for comedic effect, there are jokes made about her being flirty with The Doctor or she's not all that into Rory...

The fact that you wrote more about Amy without even trying says it all.

For Amy, in series 5, at least we had the motivation she was commitment-phobic as her motivation. But what was it for series 6?

She loved traveling with the Doctor, as far as I can make out.

[FlyingBeastie]

The fact that you wrote more about Amy without even trying says it all.

I didn't write more about Amy, because much of what I wrote is redundant.

She loved traveling with the Doctor, as far as I can make out.

Which is inconsistent with the original setup of this series. To start something, and then abandon it halfway through shows a lack of consideration for the arc you're writing. So, if he doesn't care then why should the audience?

I know it's been said in the other thread, but.... how is shooting at a spacesuit that you didn't know contained a girl who you didn't know was your daughter who you didn't know you had anyway, and even then only hitting the suit and not the girl, even remotely the same as murdering your daughter?

Manslaughter then, if you wanna get litigious. But frankly, any real mother, even if it was an accident, would feel the same guilt as if they were responsible. You see it all the time in cases where the mum'll say "what if I hadn't let my son/daughter walk home alone that day?" as opposed to simply seeing it as "some bad man came and killed my child".

So legally and literally, yeah, it's not murder. But for the character as a mother, there is no difference (or at least, should be no difference)

[egdcltd]

Manslaughter then, if you wanna get litigious. But frankly, any real mother, even if it was an accident, would feel the same guilt as if they were responsible. You see it all the time in cases where the mum'll say "what if I hadn't let my son/daughter walk home alone that day?" as opposed to simply seeing it as "some bad man came and killed my child".

So legally and literally, yeah, it's not murder. But for the character as a mother, there is no difference (or at least, should be no difference)

I hope that a real mother does see the difference between killing someone and not killing them.

I don't mind that you didn't like this series, but do you have to keep making up stuff that didn't happen in order to justify your dislike? If you dislike it, you don't need to justify it.

[SiHart]

Good grief, do you just want Doctor Who to be full of characters wringing their hands in angst about everything that happens to them? This isn't Battlestar Galactica.

[FlyingBeastie]

I hope that a real mother does see the difference between killing someone and not killing them.

I don't mind that you didn't like this series, but do you have to keep making up stuff that didn't happen in order to justify your dislike? If you dislike it, you don't need to justify it.

And if you're not a woman nor a mother then why judge? I'm not saying it's rational, but it's very much a realistic reaction that I've seen quite often. So no, I'm not making stuff up. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand.

Good grief, do you just want Doctor Who to be full of characters wringing their hands in angst about everything that happens to them? This isn't Battlestar Galactica.

No, but I would like to see characters who aren't just live action cartoon characters. Moffat had been playing the fence- either you have Amy Pond screaming "My baby!" during Demon's Run and you follow that sentiment up at other points during series (not necessarily many points)---

I'm just asking for consistency here. And Moffat has been inconsistent with his story, his characters, and especially with the tone of the show in terms of this arc.

[Perry Vale]

Bring back Dodo!

[egdcltd]

And if you're not a woman nor a mother than why judge? I'm not saying it's rational, but it's very much a realistic reaction that I've seen quite often. So no, I'm not making stuff up. You're the one who doesn't seen to understand.

Because you say that as a mother, Amy should be upset over killing River Song. Which she didn't.

[SiHart]

And if you're not a woman nor a mother than why judge? I'm not saying it's rational, but it's very much a realistic reaction that I've seen quite often. So no, I'm not making stuff up. You're the one who doesn't seen to understand.

People who aren't women or arean't mothers are perfectly capable of empathizing with a situation. The point here is that a) Amy didn't know it was her daughter at the time and b) sometimes watching people twisting and turning with angst about everything they've done and every action they've taken isn't actually any fun to watch.

[FlyingBeastie]

People who aren't women or arean't mothers are perfectly capable of empathizing with a situation. The point here is that a) Amy didn't know it was her daughter at the time and b) sometimes watching people twisting and turning with angst about everything they've done and every action they've taken isn't actually any fun to watch.

Because you say that as a mother, Amy should be upset over killing River Song. Which she didn't.

No, it might not be fun, but it's intriguing. And I'm not saying that Amy turn emo for the second half of this series. I'm saying that given all the crap she's been through, it makes no sense for her to continue obsessing about The Doctor. And it makes no sense, because there was never a scene where Amy and The Doctor had words and she said, "You know, I've seen my husband die like a hundred times, my baby was abducted and trained to kill you, I inadvertently killed her and she must've been so scared and god knows what those creatures did to her. I don't even know if I can trust you, because the reason why they took her was because of my connection to you. They're out to get you. Why me? Why my family?"

Like, if GWW was a crisis episode between Amy and The Doctor, and they addressed things and resolved it and Amy's trust in The Doctor was returned, then I'd be a happy camper.


Also, I think "She didn't know River was her daughter at the time" is a very sub specie aeternitatus way of looking at it. None of us have been in that situation, and it's one of those things that is so emotionally charged that it's virtually impossible to imagine yourself in.

But frankly, there needs to be some sense of guilt there. That's her kid. Accident or not, whether she knew it or not, there should be at least some guilt there about the situation. I'm sure it happens in real life- parents backing out of the driveway and end up running over their kids. They didn't know the kid was there, they didn't know that bump was the kid. They figured the kid was with the babysitter upstairs.

Unless you're a parent, or I guess talk to a parent and ask them their opinion you just don't get it. I'm sorry Si, but it's just not the same kind of empathy. I'm not even speaking from personal experience, I'm speaking from what I've witnessed how my mother reacts to things, and how I've seen other mothers I know or know of, react as well.

[egdcltd]

Yes, if she'd killed her kid by accident, I would expect her to feel horribly guilty no matter what the circumstances.

That's the point though, if she'd killed her daughter. She didn't. Her daughter didn't die. So why feel guilt over not killing her daughter?

[Perry Vale]

Unless you're a parent, or I guess talk to a parent and ask them their opinion you just don't get it.

Thankfully, the rest of us have you to inform us.

[FlyingBeastie]

Yes, if she'd killed her kid by accident, I would expect her to feel horribly guilty no matter what the circumstances.

That's the point though, if she'd killed her daughter. She didn't. Her daughter didn't die. So why feel guilt over not killing her daughter?

The kid regenerated at the end of Day of the Moon...

Thankfully, the rest of us have you to inform us.

Not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic, if it is, it's not appreciated.

[egdcltd]

The kid regenerated at the end of Day of the Moon...

I'm not sure if it was ever explained why she needed to regenerate. Still isn't dead though.

[FlyingBeastie]

I'm not sure if it was ever explained why she needed to regenerate. Still isn't dead though.

"::cough cough:: I'm dying... but it's okay... I have a way of fixing myself"

is essentially the line she says...

So no, not dead- b/c she regenerated...