32X13 The Wedding of River Song (Grading/Discussion) SPOILERS

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, there's two reasons for that. One, the show is still mostly of stand-alone episodes. Second, they already did see her grow up. In order to find Melody as a child, they would literally have to alter their own history.

Maybe a throwaway line about whether it's possible to still rescue her and being told no, but that might be about it.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, there's two reasons for that. One, the show is still mostly of stand-alone episodes. Second, they already did see her grow up. In order to find Melody as a child, they would literally have to alter their own history.

Maybe a throwaway line about whether it's possible to still rescue her and being told no, but that might be about it.

I guess I need to rewatch the season and put the pieces together a little better...

-We see baby Melody stolen.

-We see a young girl, presumably Melody, regenerate in the beginning of the season. We don't see what she regenerates into, but can we assume she turns into Mels?

-Mels grows up with Amy and Rory, the whole time trying to find the Doctor. She eventually does, and then she regenerates into River.

-River gives up her regenerations to save the Doctor in "Let's Kill Hitler."

-River then begins to study archeology in an attempt to locate the Doctor again.

Does that cover the basics? River's existence is confusing!

I guess my point is that there is a span between "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" when Amy has no idea the whereabouts of her daughter. She knows that Melody will be safe and eventually grow up into River, but there's really nothing that says that Amy would never see her baby again in the meantime. Baby Melody could always be found sometime between being a baby and her first regeneration when she turns into the child Mels.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

Well, there's two reasons for that. One, the show is still mostly of stand-alone episodes. Second, they already did see her grow up. In order to find Melody as a child, they would literally have to alter their own history.

On the first point, the episodes in the first half of series 6 had no problem making numerous references to both the Doctor's death, Amy's pregnancy and mysterious Eyepatch lady, to the point that I found it annoying. So I can't understand why the second half of the series can't make one reference to Amy and Rory coming to terms with the idea that they'll never have to chance to raise Melody themselves until the finale, when it was far too late to have any real impact and basically boiled it down to Amy performing an act of revenge. It's especially odd given the subject matter of the episodes, 2 of which are about parents and children, the other 2 about the Doctor letting the couple down.

I guess the difference is that Death, Pregnancy and Eyepatch were plot points while this was purely an emotional one.

 

[RoJoHen]

That was my problem with it as well. If they've come to accept that they'll never find their baby, fine, but you can't just assume that we know that, especially with how upset Amy was at the end of "A Good Man Goes to War."

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, there's two reasons for that. One, the show is still mostly of stand-alone episodes. Second, they already did see her grow up. In order to find Melody as a child, they would literally have to alter their own history.

Maybe a throwaway line about whether it's possible to still rescue her and being told no, but that might be about it.

I guess I need to rewatch the season and put the pieces together a little better...

-We see baby Melody stolen.

-We see a young girl, presumably Melody, regenerate in the beginning of the season. We don't see what she regenerates into, but can we assume she turns into Mels?

-Mels grows up with Amy and Rory, the whole time trying to find the Doctor. She eventually does, and then she regenerates into River.

-River gives up her regenerations to save the Doctor in "Let's Kill Hitler."

-River then begins to study archeology in an attempt to locate the Doctor again.

Does that cover the basics? River's existence is confusing!

I guess my point is that there is a span between "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Let's Kill Hitler" when Amy has no idea the whereabouts of her daughter. She knows that Melody will be safe and eventually grow up into River, but there's really nothing that says that Amy would never see her baby again in the meantime. Baby Melody could always be found sometime between being a baby and her first regeneration when she turns into the child Mels.

And then what, erase Amy's entire childhood where she grew up with her best friend Mels who essentially set up her and Rory together? Or have her briefly again as a baby before giving her up to the Silence so history can continue as normal? The first sounds like a bad idea. The second just seems pointless.

On the first point, the episodes in the first half of series 6 had no problem making numerous references to both the Doctor's death, Amy's pregnancy and mysterious Eyepatch lady, to the point that I found it annoying. So I can't understand why the second half of the series can't make one reference to Amy and Rory coming to terms with the idea that they'll never have to chance to raise Melody themselves until the finale, when it was far too late to have any real impact and basically boiled it down to Amy performing an act of revenge. It's especially odd given the subject matter of the episodes, 2 of which are about parents and children, the other 2 about the Doctor letting the couple down.

I guess the difference is that Death, Pregnancy and Eyepatch were plot points while this was purely an emotional one.

For the purpose of a throw away line, perhaps (although I don't see why the absence of a throw away line is such a big deal except that something wasn't given directly to the audience (there are plenty of off-screen moments when such a conversation could occur)). However, if it's something that affects their mood and interactions among each other, that's different. None of those 2 second flashes for Amy and Doctor staring at his screen impacted the middle of the episode. But a complete tonal shift where they despair the loss of their daughter would. Since the episode in question was written before Let's Kill Hitler, that's a fairly noticeable change.

 

[RoJoHen]

The first is not at all what I was suggesting. Melody could still regenerate into Mels and grow up with Amy. But she's, what 7 or so years old when she turns into Mels? That's 7 whole years that she was alive before she ever entered young Amelia's life.

I just would have liked to see Amy put a little more effort into finding her daughter. The whole subject should have had an entire episode dedicated to it. Instead, we get the Doctor saying, "Nope, haven't found her yet" and Amy and Rory being perfectly okay with it. There are any number of stories that could have been told about Amy and Rory trying to find their baby, but the way it's presented, it's like they gave up before they ever started trying.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'd also really prefer it if next season the finale didn't require the fate of the entire universe/time/reality to be at stake. It's getting old.

But that's integral to modern day Doctor Who finales. It's not a proper finale if the world/universe/multiverse/time itself isn't in danger. Also, an appearance by the Daleks or the Master is required.

-We see a young girl, presumably Melody, regenerate in the beginning of the season. We don't see what she regenerates into, but can we assume she turns into Mels?

That was pretty much confirmed in LKH just before Mels regenerated she said the last time she did that she was a toddler in New York.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The first is not at all what I was suggesting. Melody could still regenerate into Mels and grow up with Amy. But she's, what 7 or so years old when she turns into Mels? That's 7 whole years that she was alive before she ever entered young Amelia's life.

Three or four of those years she was in that orphanage being raised by the Silence. Unless you are talking about changing that history too, there's a problem. And changing that history would create a paradox because she'd be altering her history based on knowledge she obtained at that orphanage. But even if she could alter that history, it was the motivation of the Silence to brainwash River Song that led her to want to grow up with them. In fact, it seems likely that she was specifically transported to the future and to the UK for this purpose, since otherwise, the time gap would not make much sense.

I just would have liked to see Amy put a little more effort into finding her daughter. The whole subject should have had an entire episode dedicated to it. Instead, we get the Doctor saying, "Nope, haven't found her yet" and Amy and Rory being perfectly okay with it. There are any number of stories that could have been told about Amy and Rory trying to find their baby, but the way it's presented, it's like they gave up before they ever started trying.

My fundamental point is, once they realized they'd have to alter their entire history just so they could be with her (and that altering this history might have precluded the possibility of Rory and Amy getting married and having Melody in the first place), a continued search would be an exercise in futility.

 

[RoJoHen]

I simply would have liked it to be acknowledged. Why is that so hard to understand? AMy Pond had a baby. Her baby was stolen. I guess it would have been nice if she and Rory actually gave a shit about it.

Plus, I very much doubt Amy would have accepted "altering history" as a reason not to look for her. One of the fundamental aspects of her character is that she's special. She grew up with a crack in her wall, the whole universe pouring into her head. "Time can be re-written" is basically her motto. She would not have given up so easily.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

She did get a shit. Then she realized that her concerns were based on something far to dramatic to understand (when Mels regenerated, she talked about how shocked she was). Could they discussed this at the end of the episode? Yeah, probably. However, they had a lot to fit in with River becoming an archaeologist. It seems a reasonable inference that this discussion would be the first thing they talk about after the credits roll.

 

[Stevil2001]

^ That's the problem, though. To me, Amy's emotional life is more interesting than spelling out why River became an archaeologist... but apparently not for Moffat.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

It seems a reasonable inference that this discussion would be the first thing they talk about after the credits roll.

No, it's a "reasonable inference" that the characters go to the loo off screen. It's poor writing that something so fundamental to the characters isn't dealt with ON screen.

TBH, this isn't even my biggest problem with series 6's arc, though its close.

 

[RoJoHen]

^ That's the problem, though. To me, Amy's emotional life is more interesting than spelling out why River became an archaeologist... but apparently not for Moffat.

It seems a reasonable inference that this discussion would be the first thing they talk about after the credits roll.

No, it's a "reasonable inference" that the characters go to the loo in between episodes. It's poor writing that something so fundamental to the characters is dealt with off screen.

Yes, these are the points I'm trying to make. Amy and Rory coming to terms with Melody's absence from their lives is not the kind of thing we should have to infer.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

That's fine, but you're essentially complaining about the absence of a throw away line in an episode that would have completely changed its tone. The explanation I'm mentioning is really the only possible one anyway. Regardless of whether Amy is comfortable accepting the fact baby she knew she had for a week before it was ripped from her will never get to grow up with her by the end of the episode, it's clear that she had no choice.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, shit, let's just leave out all character development from now on. As long as the plot is served, who cares about the emotional state of the people involved?

 

[Rowan Sjet]

In addition, you keep saying this:

That's fine, but you're essentially complaining about the absence of a throw away line in an episode that would have completely changed its tone.

And isn't really true anyway. Take Night Terrors, as you did earlier. You have one short scene at the beginning talking about missing Melody, one at the end relating it to the episode's plot, and the middle part with Amy and Rory running around the dollhouse continues as normal because they have more immediate things to worry about. The scenes can take up little time in the episodes so you may call them throwaway but they give us an insight into the characters.

 

[Stevil2001]

Or indeed, "The Girl Who Waited," an episode about how the Doctor disappoints Amy, could have had another layer about the most recent time the Doctor had disappointed Amy.

Dealing with it as "a throwaway line" isn't what anyone's suggesting at all.

 

[Psion]

How attached are Amy and Rory to this baby in the first place? Neither of them were even aware that Amy was pregnant until she was literally giving birth. Intellectually, they're sure to be concerned about the welfare of the child, but they've had none of the bonding experiences mothers and fathers have as the fetus develops. There was no planning for the nursery, no nervous pre-natal checkups, no touching the tummy to feel little feet kick.

They're young, barely out of their honeymoon, and just found out that if they do nothing, their little girl, whom they just found out about, will grow up just fine. More or less. Honestly, I'd expect too much pining for Melody to come across as effusively sentimental.