| ||Archives: #1|
While being "decontaminated", the Doctor says: "Remove the human germ, remove half of what's keeping me alive". What does that mean? A reference to the controversial half-human line from the 1996 movie? 126.96.36.199 22:23, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I think Rory will be the one to murder Alaya, and the Doctor will take him home. That could be why he is not in Vincent and the Doctor. MidnightCat 10:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think it will be Ambrose, she seems like the sort of character with hatred and revenge, like Lucy Saxon. Meta-Levia, 18:56, May 23, 2010 (GMT)
In the Preview, the Doctor says "there are six moments in time that cannot change". What are these six events? The events of Genesis of the Daleks is one, and the Eruption at Pompeii is another. Anyone know what the other four are?
Possibly the events of Bowie Base One? However they were (somewhat) changed.
Are you sure he doesn't say FIXED points in time? DalekJast092 23:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, he did say 'fixed', I think. Hey, if Ambrose is the one to kill Alaya, then I wonder why he takes Rory home? Because I think if he becomes a victim of the cracks it will probably be in the final, on Amy's wedding day. That would be more dramatic. MidnightCat 15:31, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that he will go back to "Amy's Time" even to drop off Rory until one of the last 2 episodes considering the crack starts on her wedding day and the two of them got picked up the night before. I'm thinking the original reason for taking Rory and not just staying in that time and fixing the cracks is so that Amy and Rory can get everything sorted out between them. Once the two of them are happy again then comes the time to deal with the cracks and the pandorica and all that. If he is not in Vincent and the Doctor then I think there must be another reason other than he was brought home. V00D00M0NKY 23:01, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
What's this about the Doctor choosing not to save Rory? Why would he do such a thing? I know he's a bit jelous of Rory's relasionship with Amy, but he wants them to be happy, doesn't he? I just can't see the Doctor being so cruel. If he does choose not to save him, then there must be a special reason. Maybe I was right about him killing Alaya, but still... so confused... P.S: I've edited this talk page three times already. I'm really interested in this episode for some reason. MidnightCat 16:24, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't save him at that point because he CANT save him. he knows theres nothing he can do and it'd be dangerous to touch rory's body.
how do know that he won't be in vincent and the doctor? has it been confirmed? 188.8.131.52
We Have a Couple of rumors in this article saying they have been confirmed by a review. I have not seen such a review so if i have missed something can you please post a source for this or the rumors will be removed. Thank you Liamhenney 20:11, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
It's from Beehive City. See http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/cold-blood-spoilers-6148.htm and http://www.beehivecity.com/television/preview-doctor-who-cold-blood17400909/ 184.108.40.206 07:16, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the two listed just above:
There are more detailed spoilers on the Gallifrey Base and DWO forums, but I won't link deep into the middle of threads there.
I can only think of one Alex Ferguson phrase that's suitable for pre-watershed TV: "Just when they thought they were safe again, ___ killed them a little again." Put that together with #5 ("Something that last happened millions upon millions of years ago happens again. Though it’s not as memorable as last time."), and I can't help but think that Adric is going to crash a spaceship again and kill off the Silurians. :)
But more seriously, I think #5 is referring to Rory's apparent death being somehow similar to Adric's death millions of years earlier. Although, as we know from other spoilers, Arthur Darvill is in episode 13 playing what appears to be good old Rory in a Roman auxiliary soldier uniform. Which may be why it's not as memorable (or that may be a punning clue to the fact, mentioned in other spoilers, that he falls into the crack, which is "not memorable" because the cracks erase things from history, and therefore from memory).
Also, according to the various spoilers, it sounds like there's actually a lot of HHGTTH references, even for Chibnall and even for season fnarg. Does that imply anything about the "Pandorica is the new Shada" theory?
PS, if #4 is carrot juice instead of celery, I will not be smiling, unless the Silurians have captured someone who looks and sounds like Mel and thrown her in the food processor with the carrots. --Falcotron 08:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to note, after Rorys death his ring that he put back in its case is still clearly shown in the TARDIS, not vanishing at all. It could just be the TARDIS protecting it, but the ring is still there and could mean that Rory is not gone. Only speculation since the TARDIS couldn't protect Amy from losing her memories.
- Good point, but that's a general problem with the Cracks mechanics: What does it mean that someone "never existed"? What if any of the clerics had had kids, will those disappear as well? You see, if you think about the problem of "erasing someone from history", you'll come across all kinds of issues. The ring is just one of them. (I for one am just glad we're rid of mushbrain, I don't want a comic relief bumbling through Doctor Who knocking over apple carts.) Hack59 22:09, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
- The Crack would have to "patch things up" a little to make it work - it would need to throw in semi-plausible reasons for why things happen. For example, anything that Rory discovered or figured out would have to be discovered or figured out by Amy or the Doctor. This would mean that Amy remembers the previous events of the series in a completely different way to the Doctor. This could result in major confusion if she asks him about something, unless the Doctor can somehow remember both the modified and unmodified versions of history.
- 220.127.116.11 04:47, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Silurian alarm clock...
I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not, but doesn't the 1000 year sleep for the Silurians mean that they'll be waking up just in time for the events of The Beast Below (somewhen during Liz Ten's long reign) - i.e. earth will have been deserted due to solar flares and the pesky apes will be in space, on colony ships... 18.104.22.168 22:26, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
- You're right! TBB takes place in 3295, and Liz Ten ruled for at least 300 years, so by 3020, the Earth would be uninhabitable for Silurians. :( No peace between species.
- Actually, given that they can keep the temperature at a sustainable level for humans 21 kilo-meters down in the earth's crust (minimum), I think they may be able to handle rising temperatures. Plus, they'll be happy they can have the planet to themselves. --The Thirteenth Doctor 23:38, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe that's exactly why he choose 1000 years. All the humans will be off the Earth and the Silurans get it to themselves. If he knows that the Earth will be empty, then why not intentionally tell them to wake up then? V00D00M0NKY 01:16, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- In a previous episode the doctor mentions that solar flares cause not only extreme temperatures but massive amounts of radiation, which the silurians would probably not be able to survive. Also, the doctor wouldnt just let the silurians live on earth alone, after the solar flares had passed, would humans really just come back to earth and live in peace with the silurians after hundreds of years trapped on a spaceship? TimeLord17 07:07, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- What about the "Spread the Rumour" bit? Why would he do that? He didn't know, he didn't see Amy's age, did he. -Tom
It cannot be the current doctors TARDIS thats exploded, well it could, but it would be a massive production error by the doctor who team. the piece of the TARDIS door the doctor finds is different to the current TARDIS. The white sign is indented on the piece, and is not on the TARDIS, also, the lettering on the piece is embossed, where as it is not on the TARDIS's sign.
Thoughts? Deliberate as part of the story or catastrophic production error? TimeLord17 02:03, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I would argue that the piece is identical. Its shaped may have changed slightly from being blown up, but it is definitely from the same TARDIS. 22.214.171.124 04:41, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but don't forget apparantly in The Lodger the Doctor builds (or whatever) another TARDIS, ie the Blue Peter compettition winner, so it could be that 1 which gets destroyed ? 126.96.36.199 05:57, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- To me it looks like the lettering on both is embossed and even though the wood around the sign on the piece pops out more it still does pop out slightly on the TARDIS. Maybe the wood got warped somehow when it burned... wood does that... V00D00M0NKY 06:01, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Well yes, its from the doctors TARDIS, as each timelords TARDIS looks different, but on every picture & episode, the sign on the latest TARDIS is merely a poster. Plus, on an added note, TARDIS's are grown not built, so it may be more likely that the secondary control room is found, or an older/ newer version of the TARDIS will be used in 'The Lodger', which has been done before. The more likely is a past, or the current TARDIS using the secondary, and more simple control room.TimeLord17 07:02, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's a premature leap to go from the piece of wood in the Doctor's hand to "the Doctor fishes a piece of TARDIS out of the crack", as is currently written. After all, it is just a piece of wood. For all we know, the explosion could have happened in 1960 in a police box manufacturing site. It's a scary sight, but we don't know at the moment that this is actually a piece from the TARDIS. Hack59 13:13, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I am wondering how connnected to Amy's Choice, you know, how he ended the second dream, by blowing up the TARDIS? NekoKitty 02:34, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Production error to add
Can someone add in that after getting the tardis remnant from the crack in the red hanky, when the doctor gets up from the ground he is not holding it in his hand, thanks 188.8.131.52 06:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Someone walking behind?
in the final death scene, someone walked behind amy. The doctor was near the tardis so who was that?
- Amy's back was to the TARDIS. That was the Doctor walking between the TARDIS and her. If you want to know why you can't see the TARDIS then, it's because the angle wasn't pointed at the TARDIS but to the side of it. The Doctor went all the way around from Rory's right side, walking around him towards his head, back behind Amy, and he approached Amy slightly from her left side. V00D00M0NKY 22:25, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect sentence in Rumours section
Te rumour that Rory would die saving the Doctor then be consumed by the crack is followed by a statement in italics that this was false. It was true. 184.108.40.206 12:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- The statement in italics says it's true. Here's what the article says (both currently, and at the time you added the comment):
- According to on-set fan reports, from filming, it seems that Rory Williams will die by saving the Doctor and then be swallowed by the Time Field crack near the end of the episode. This was proven true.
- It's possible that an old version of the article got it wrong, and you've somehow got it stuck in your cache. If you're still seeing that, try shift-reloading the page? --Falcotron 13:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I know the problem here: IP Addresses don't see the current version of the article for some time after it's updated. That's how Wikia works. (I know that from the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia.) Sabre Knight 18:42, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the episode, when Amy is looking at future Amy, she says something along the lines of "I thought I saw someone there... just a for a second...". When I first watched it, I thought it was just supposed to be her final memory of Rory, or something like that. But thinking about it, I think it's more important than that, suggesting that somebody else was with her, but it's not going to be revealed yet.On the subject of Amy waving, she could be trying to get Amy's attention or warn her? She could even be asking for help... not waving, but drowning.Thoughts? Or am I clutching at straws here? --Halftimelord 14:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
"Future Amy" kind of lazily walked off after the wave, so I wouldn't think she was looking for any kind of help or warning. BrainySpecs 19:55, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe she saw FutureRory wiz off for a wiz. It looks like he'll be back anyway. We all love a good paradox. --Looq 22:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Ambrose listed as an enemy
I opted to list the character of Ambrose Northover as an enemy for this episode. While her intentions were to save her family, she killed Alaya, and positioned the drill to destory the Silurian's home. Thus ruining the chances of a coexisting Human/Silurian world. That to me, seems pretty villainous. FixtheFernback 16:25, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
After watching the episode, I don't believe she killed Alaya on purpose, so I'd hold off. Please. Sabre Knight 18:43, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to say that but she did tell her father to start the drill back up to kill the entire Silurian tribe. First death was an accident and she was upset about it but she intentionally tried to destroy the entire tribe. Still not sure about being considered an enemy though because she did have remorse. If she was a true villain, then even at the end she would have been convinced she did the right thing. V00D00M0NKY 22:52, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
Very Minor Quibble
But isn't the Silurian performing the dissections a scientist and not a doctor? I don't remember him ever being referred to as such.
Dead companion count
Someone added that Rory's was only the second companion death, which was then expanded to 3 (I'm not sure why) and then to 4 by User:The Nth Doctor ("Katarina and Sarah Kingdom were both killed in The Daleks' Master Plan. Also, I'm not sure if Kamelion/K9 Mk III count, being machines").
As it currently stands, the article says:
- This marks the fourth time in the entire history of the Doctor Who television series that a companion has been killed. The last time this happened was the death of the Fifth Doctor companion Adric. In addition this is the first time that a companion has actually been shown dying, whereas Adric was not visually killed on screen.
Clearly, it's significant that companion death is pretty rare, and long-time fans are meant to draw parallels with Adric. But, as written, the note is just wrong.
- Sara Kingdom was a single-story companion, not even included in the BBC's list of classic companions. Astrid Peth was also a single-story companion, and she is included in their list of RTD-era companions. So, why doesn't Astrid count?
- If Astrid counts, Adric is not the last companion to die, and Rory is not the first to be killed on-screen.
- Even without Astrid, Rory is not the first to be killed on-screen. Sara Kingdom and the Doctor are hit by the Time Destructor energy, we see them aging, they both collapse outside the TARDIS, and she turns to dust.
- Depending on your definitions, Jenny may have been killed on-screen, but then regenerated. Does that count as death? We list the Doctors' deaths as deaths. And, while the BBC doesn't list Jenny as a companion, again, the same is true for Sara Kingdom.
- If Kameleon and K9 are alive enough to be companions, why aren't they alive enough for death? (In fact, if you look at TV: Planet of Fire, the infobox lists "Kamelion (death)".)
- Peri Brown is killed. This later turns out to have been faked, but she's still shown as having been killed. And on screen, too.
- This ignores all non-TV continuity.
Maybe the best thing to say is something like:
- Rory is one of only a handful of recurring companions who have been killed. The most similar occurrence in the past was the death of the Fifth Doctor companion Adric.
I don't really like the wording of that very much (hopefully someone can fix it), but it gets the idea across. I'm going to change it to that, and see if others can improve it. --Falcotron 22:07, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that Rory is actually dead and will stay dead? As much as I hope so, I have this niggling worry that Moffat will pull some lame cop-out in the season finale whereby all the crack victims are found happily alive in some parallel pocket dimension and all brought back by the Doctor... the crack deaths feel too much like a setup to be true. It says elsewhere that "Rory is heavily rumoured to return in the finale". Maybe just stick with a more careful phrasing for now until we know how this plays out. Hack59 23:22, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I wrote that line, and I had forgotten about Sarah and Astrid, but neither actually travelled with the Doctor and the same holds true for Jenny. Jenny did not regenerate by the way, she was resurrected by the terraforming gases. I don't count the robots, and Peri's doesn't count either as she didn't die. In addition we shouldn't be counting non-TV continuity, because it's not confirmed as canon in regards to the TV series. MegaNerd18 02:44, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
- This is wrong in many ways. Most importantly, according to the policies of this wiki, non-TV continuity is very definitely counted as canon. Meanwhile, your original count of 2 obviously left out Katarina, who did travel in the TARDIS, and the updated count of 4 apparently includes her plus Sara Kingdom but not Astrid. (Besides, why is traveling in the TARDIS so important? Would you really say Liz Shaw isn't a companion?)
- Meanwhile, on top of everything I mentioned before, how many companions died in Turn Left and Last of the Time Lords? Yes, both of those timelines were undone, but then Rory's entire timeline, including his death, has already been erased, not to mention that there's reason to suspect he'll be alive again in the finale.
- Unless someone makes an argument for why Katarina, Adric, Rory, and exactly one other companion (presumably either Sara Kingdom or Astrid, but which one?) count but nobody else does, you can't say "Rory is the Fourth organic travelling companion to be killed in the entire history of the show." --Falcotron 22:22, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps my count was wrong, but you still can't count non-TV continuity as definitely canon. The object of a wiki is to be an encyclopedia. Therefore it must give CORRECT information. If your counting spin-off material as definitely canon, something that the BBC itself hasn't done (and instances like the adaptation of Human Nature prove that they only pick and choose whether they want to incorporate something or not), then you're knowingly giving false information. Spin-off Doctor Who is should not be counted as canon just because you here think it should be. I thought I should add the line about companion death, but it was incorrect. Bottom line, you people here need to re-think your policies regarding spin-off material which is of uncertain canon in regards to the TV series. That is a FACT, and that is correct information. MegaNerd18 03:27, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Properties of the Cracks
Almost every crack we've seen so far has a different property or effect on the person near it. It was established in "Flesh and Stone" and "Cold Blood" that if the time energy in the crack touches someone, they are erased from existence. However, in "the Eleventh Hour" it was an escape "window" for prisoner Zero, where the prison was on one side and Amy's room was on the other. In "Cold Blood" the doctor put his hand inside the crack, and there was what seems to be the BIg Bang on the other side. I understand that some might explain why he wasnt erased from history, since he's a time traveler and Time lords are strong or something like that, but i still think it should be a little more than that. I hope it gets clearer in the final episode. 220.127.116.11 16:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
- One type removes things, the other is a window. This seems to be a third that does both. The Thirteenth Doctor 16:09, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Is this really the case, though? I haven't seen anywhere that the cracks themselves have any properties other than being cracks in time and space. What removes people from time is the light energy (whatever it's called). The energy causes the cracks, but there's no reason to assume that any time a crack is observed that the energy is still present. Prisoner Zero would have escaped through a "cold" crack (for lack of a better term). In TEH, an Atraxi eye was able to pop up to the crack from one side while the Doc and Amelia was on the other, and there was no light to affect anyone then. Was there something said in the series that I missed to establish the cracks as causes rather than effects? BrainySpecs 02:52, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
- It's actually not 100% clear. I think your answer is by far the simplest interpretation of what's been said (on-screen and off) about the cracks--they're sort of like wormholes, and the only difference between a "cold" one and a "hot" one is whether the other side is located in a Scottish girl's bedroom or the middle of a raging temporal explosion, and you only get the time energy in the latter case. But, even if that's the simplest interpretation, it's not the only possible one. They could actually be different types of cracks. (It is, however, 100% clear that it's the time energy that erases people, unless the "time field" is something other than a field of time energy.)
- To the original poster: the difference between the Doctor and Rory isn't just that "Time Lords are strong". There's also the fact that the Doctor was struggling against the energy, while Rory (being dead) wasn't. And, most important of all, the Doctor only had his hand in there for a few seconds. Look at how long Rory was lying in the time energy, and he still hadn't vanished by the time they got into the TARDIS and took off. If that's not nearly enough time to erase Rory, why would you think it would be enough time to erase the Doctor? --Falcotron 06:42, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just that Rory didn't struggle, but also the doctor mentioned to Amy that once the energy touches him there's nothing they can do.. that's why he didnt allow her to grab rory or take him to the tardis, because according to the doctor it's too late. So why isn't it too late for the doctor when he touched the energy? While writing this i thought of one explanation. The doctor might have wanted this to happen, i.e. Rory to be consumed by the energy and thus erased from Amy's memory, because it might be the only way to bring Rory back to life. So leaving him was intentional, not just bcoz it's too late to save him from the cracks. But this implies that the doctor already understands what this energy does exactly and how to "fight" it... is it the case? 18.104.22.168 18:59, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Remembering - Spoilers?
This is the second time that the Doctor has asked Amy to specifically remember something. This time it's Rory, to prevent him being erased from history. The first time, in Flesh and Stone, was notable because of a change in the Doctor's jacket/appearance - a continuity error, or as some thought, crossing his own time line - and that it wasn't referenced again in the episode. Could it be that the finale somehow involves the Doctor being erased from history and recreating his timeline through Amy? TheKingOfWrong 17:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
I think this time he asked her to remember Rory so he can find a way to bring him back. Remember he told her to remember him or she'll lose him forever. So somehow the doctor started to understand what those cracks are about. As for the one in Flesh and Stone, very good point! Especially that in the synopsis of the last episode, Amy has something important to do.. and I'm sure seeing Amy and Rory waving is also related to this. Obviously they're not from 2020, they're from the last episode of Series 5 "Big Bang"22.214.171.124 17:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
This is not the first time that these have been mentioned this series, last time in 1940s London... BlueDalek 17:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Did anybody else think it was strange the way Rory mentioned the Gravity Bubble just before they went down to the city? It seemed like he knew them well and then kind of had to cver it up with fake stupidity. It seems to me that there might be more to Rory than what we've seen so far.126.96.36.199 19:36, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
I thought I was just overthinking it but you noticed that too. That did seem to just slide right off his tongue like he actually knew what he was talking about. But as I just typed that i remembered he also knew that the inside of the TARDIS was in another dimension because he looked up scientific theories. He may know of the gravity bubbles from something that was documented from VotD. V00D00M0NKY 21:28, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense I suppose but we have still got the I.D. badge. I know Moffet said it was a production error but I think thats a bit of misdirection. He has stated before that he lies to the fans, specifaclly when talking about that supposed error.188.8.131.52 19:52, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
If Rory didn't exist, then how did he save the doctor?
Just a random thought, if Rory was wiped from time ad space, then the doctor would still have been shot, regenerated or himself wiped from time. Was this a necessary plot hole or something that could come up later? -No account
- Good Question, but I think that Actions that already happened aren`t undone. This would cause an paradox. Think about it: Rory is erased from time-> he can`t save the doctor. Not saving the doctor would cause him to never have been erased. (Depending on how the erasing works). You could ask the same question about the wedding ring, why it is still there. I only wonder, what AMY would say, if she gets asked, how the doctor survived...184.108.40.206 14:27, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I started thinking about the grandfather paradox the second after I Posted it lol. I guess the crack allows for paradoxes. -No account
- well a few things:
- 1. wibbly wobbly timey wimey
- 2. if it really was the TARDIS explosion, then it wouldnt matter
- 3. if the cracks are gateways as well....well...its fine :D Ooiue 15:34, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Time travel into the past already inherently creates paradoxes--grandfather paradoxes, ontological paradoxes, etc.--and erasing doesn't add anything to this.
- The Doctor creates paradoxes all the time. As he's walking around in 2020 Wales, every breath he exhales, every twitch of his pinky, is making a tiny change on everyone in the future light cone of 2020 Wales, which includes, for example, the 2070 Moonbase, which includes the Doctor in his personal past. In fact, it probably includes the Doctor's personal past a few hundred times. So, his own timeline is a convoluted mess.
- And the same is true for everyone else around. Elliot Northover had people appear out of nowhere, give him knowledge of the future in hopes that he'd affect that future, then disappear. If he decides, screw the Doctor, I'm going to spend 1000 years making sure we're ready to kill the Silurians, then that future the Doctor saw with humans and earth reptiles living in peace doesn't exist anywhere on Elliot's timeline--and yet, the Doctor still came back to the past and told him about it.
- Something is only a paradox when viewed along a particular timeline. People want to believe that there's single linear "universal timeline" that makes sense for everyone, and that doesn't have any paradoxes on it. But that doesn't even work _without_ time travel (which is really the whole point of relativity), much less with it.
- Have people stopped signing posts? Anyway: Nonsense. General relativity, or more precisely, physical solutions of general relativity, are perfectly free of paradoxes. You are confusing the non-existence of simultaneity or a "universal time coordinate" with... well, with whatever scifi mumbojumbo you where thinking about. The scifi concept of a "timeline" has no foundation in physics in any meaningful way. General relativity is always causal, meaning that for any two distinct events A and B, if there is a future-pointing time- or light-like curve from A to B, then there cannot also be such a curve from B to A, or in other words B is always in the future of A. Hack59 11:48, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the way most sci-fi deals with time travel. One way ("something will stop you from changing the past") makes the show impossible (it would be as if every point were a "fixed point in time"), while the other ("every change just creates a new alternate timeline and you can never get back to the one you started from") makes it pointless. So, you can't just import your intuitions from other sci-fi to Doctor Who without thinking.
- So, what does "big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey" mean? You could take it to mean, "Shut up and stop worrying about it." Or you could take it to mean that history isn't a line, it's a big tangled ball of yarn. Some of the strands might be pretty straight, but some (like the Doctor's) are almost a whole ball of yarn in themselves. That's history. There can't be any paradoxes in that. But things that look like paradoxes along one of those short straight segments? Yeah, they happen all the time; no big deal. --Falcotron 04:18, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Somewhat related question: So, if Rory was killed by the Silurian, why didn't the Doctor then drag Rory away and then drag the silurian over so she was eaten by the crack, thereby restoring Rory to life? Maybe he just wouldn't do something like that, even for a companion, but it seems maybe Amy would have at least mentioned or tried it since it's so obvious. (sorry, not a regular user, don't have a user name!)
- This sort of thing, I just chalk up to being one of the great many paradoxes that have resulted from the 26 June Event. These Cracks have been enabling absolute time paradoxes left and right (Amy still had the one cleric's communicator in "Flesh and Stone," for example). If it's not resolved after episode 13, then you can worry about it. Memcginn 04:48, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Rory is dead (?)
Rory will be coming back in the end of the series (Yay!) however, if the crack was a "wormhole" crack, then there are still 2 problems
1.) Rory still got shot, so technically, he is still dead
2.) Amy does not remember him.
Is it possible that there are 3 types of cracks? Erasers, wormholes and both The Captain Tornado 16:30, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the deleted scene where the Doctor refers to having been executed before refers to the cliffhanger for episode 1 of The Caves of Androzani where the Doctor and Peri are apparently executed? Neil DG 18:35, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was a reference to the the war games
Incorrect title line
as with the discussion of Vincet and the Doctor, the episode was not incorrectly titled "warm planet"by the BBC, but by the sylevstermccoy.com website, (who clearly labelled it as an 'educated specualtion') in earlier versions of their episode guide. Someone who had read those posted on a comments board about them, claiming to be from the BBC (I'd assume to give more it more credability) though it is very unlikely they were from the beeb - they posted the exact same information (right down to erros and unknown titles) after the sylvy website posted them220.127.116.11 02:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
Tony Mack Mutation The Doctor claims Tony is mutating, but into what? Or is it just random mutation of cells? Also, how is Silurian venom mutagenic? ~Too lazy to get wiki account.