tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post643302018925360438..comments2024-01-01T23:38:43.414-08:00Comments on The Oncoming Hope: The Problem With the Pondstheoncominghopehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-3614672445761201482012-04-24T21:48:11.824-07:002012-04-24T21:48:11.824-07:00I think you have some good points, and Night Terro...I think you have some good points, and Night Terrors definetely had some problems. BUT, I think the way Amy in particular, reacts to things is quite accurate. In "A Good Man Goes To War", she says to Madame Kovarian "just leave her," in the most desperate tone of voice, and her expression and the tears in her eyes when Flesh Melody melts in front of her is heartbreaking. I think her character is on the outside quite strong but on the inside she is very vulnerable.<br /><br />In the prequel to "Let's Kill Hitler", she begs for the Doctor to find her baby. In "Let's Kill Hitler", I think they react the way they should. Think about it. They have just lost their only child, realised that she was their childhood friend and that she is someone important to the Doctor in the future. Amy's face as she says "why would she be a psychopath?" is extremely sad. <br /><br />That being said, I did like Series 5 slightly more, simply because it seems the Ponds have taken a slight back seat in Series 6. Series 5 was about Amy, series 6 was about River.<br /><br />But you made some excellent points and it's a great blog. :)Amy Pondnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-25311478835567235032011-09-18T06:06:07.806-07:002011-09-18T06:06:07.806-07:00@e8122f98493d49af8394ad5df5a78248
Thanks for com...@e8122f98493d49af8394ad5df5a78248 <br /><br />Thanks for commenting on my Night Terrors review and sorry it's taken me so long to get round to commenting here. I agree that they seem to lack agency and your frustration with their seeming lack of interest or desire to question their surroundings. It's as if they're so jaded from travelling with the Doctor and seeing so many weird things that they have no capacity for curiosity left. Furthermore, I think you raise an interesting point about the River Song/Melody Pond juxtaposition. It does feel a bit as if they've just accepted that River is fine (albeit in prison) so are completely unconcerned with what happened to her in her previous incarnations. I take @3da6c605400591d23297760612296cca 's point that they knew Mels grew up with them and that they know River Song is taken care of, but by her own admission they also know that at her last regeneration she ended up as a toddler on the streets of New York. Wouldn't that cause them at least a twinge of concern for their child?<br /><br />Also @555fab6c5978d95a083049bddd0d55fc and @2fc977e82d9f8395a0f49e6f4958bc84 , I'd been wondering myself about the Gangers. I mean the Doctor spend the whole episode proving that there was nothing different about the Gangers, how they had real feelings and all your own feelings and memories, had switched places with his own and sent another one off to be a father (afraid I can't remember the character's name), but then, without a second thought, he liquidizes Amy's Ganger. Talk about not playing by your own rules. Are we supposed to believe that with the developments in the Flesh technology they had made it that your Ganger couldn't take on your characteristics and were really only a conduit for your own mind? If so, I think there needed to be more clarity and a greater distinction made, otherwise the Doctor simply undermines all his compassionate understanding as soon as it's his friend that has been taken over. I can see that there might be an argument that only by destroying the Ganger could he prove to Rory that this wasn't really Amy and start chasing after the real Amy, as the Ganger would understandably not want to let Rory go (what with her having all Amy's memories and feelings. However, that merely emphasises the Doctor's ruthlessness, which we see surfacing again in 'The Girl Who Waited'. K Samplenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-89212322316039475492011-09-09T02:56:01.613-07:002011-09-09T02:56:01.613-07:00If I may pose a rebuttal of sorts...
I have watch...If I may pose a rebuttal of sorts...<br /><br />I have watched Doctor Who for a very long time and Amy & Rory's actions and their lack of agency don't seem that odd to me. Compare them to Tegan, or Turlough, or Mel, or Victoria, or Jo, or (fill in any companion except Ace here). It's strange that people have become so demanding of Doctor Who. I have half a mind to blame Cartmel, but then again, I love what Cartmel did to the series and how Davies and Moffatt more or less picked up his ball and ran with it. For all the faults I find with Moffatt's tenure, I still enjoy it more than Davies because it seems more... Whovian. No grasp of continuity - check. Choosing random plots/genres and just going with it - check. Focusing on the Doctor as opposed to his companions - big check.<br /><br />Back in the day, no one cared so much about the companions. It wasn't until Ace that companions became in the least bit interesting. And now we place a whole lot on their shoulders. Is it fair? I don't know. Could Moffatt possibly be writing in a way that fits the almost 50 years of the series, an homage of sorts? I don't see why not. But then again, thanks to Buffy, BSG, the New Adventures, and Lost, the television and Who audience has become far more demanding. We want more cohesive plots; is that a good thing when it comes to something with the baggage of Doctor Who? I don't know. Are we being a bit unfair when demanding complex human emotions from a show about a guy who won't even say his own name? Maybe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-16970539472536738362011-09-06T07:45:03.108-07:002011-09-06T07:45:03.108-07:00One problem with the Ponds is that the writers gav...One problem with the Ponds is that the writers gave themselves something hard: here are characters whose pasts have been rewritten, what, three times over their arc, so who are they, indeed? How would they react to anything? What would they remember? I loved Rory's "Oi, we're dead, aren't we" reaction because of this--direct acknowledgment that the usual rules weren't at play.<br /><br />But having raised that timey-wimey issue, it's turned into a non-sciency-wiency device: just remember hard or love hard or something, and poof! no more doll people. How about using this to get the baby Melody back, etc., etc. At this point in my spaceship tenure, my sole goal would be to develop Flesh detectors and perception filter disrupters.Ann Marie Gamblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15524023358327369037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-91957883705740657652011-09-05T16:43:24.511-07:002011-09-05T16:43:24.511-07:00Have you been listening to eyepatch lady? Melody P...Have you been listening to eyepatch lady? Melody Pond wasn't abandoned by her parents and I don't think River ever feels that. Her regeneration into Mels gave her time to spend with her mother and father.<br /><br />I don't find Amy and Rory passive at all. Rory is rather a reluctant hero and I think he's passive my nature, yet he provides great comic relief but can also provide heart and emotion. <br /><br />As for Amy, it was her proactiveness that got her turned into a creepy doll. She wanted to take charge of the only thing they were in control of and let them in, take them by surprise. <br /><br />The thing is that this is a stand alone episode that wasn't shown in order. However, with the way that this is aired, the Ponds have no reason to be looking for their daughter. They know they grew up with Mels. Why would they risk messing that up? And as far as they know now, Melody is in the safest hospital in the Universe.<br /><br />The next episode is rumoured to be almost Doctor-free, so I can't wait to see your reaction to that. <br /><br />I really don't have a problem with the Ponds. I agree that sometimes the characterisation may be a little off, depending on the writer, yet I find that understandable. <br /><br />Actually, I rather adore the Ponds. It's good for the Doctor to have a loving couple onboard the TARDIS. Makes a change from all "guilt" that was created during RTD's run.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-38114993980405331602011-09-05T14:57:03.507-07:002011-09-05T14:57:03.507-07:00@theoncominghope
Thanks for checking out my "...@theoncominghope<br />Thanks for checking out my "Doctor Who" reviews. I think you make some excellent points here about the Ponds. I enjoyed "Night Terrors", but the Ponds do seem fairly reactive. In part, I think that their lack of a motivation is an inevitable consequence of writing such a stand-alone episode. Also, I thought I read somewhere that Gatiss originally conceived this episode as a companion-less story. So it would make sense that Amy and Rory feel a bit more "tacked-on" than usual.<br /><br />@Mark<br />Why would Ganger Amy be different than Original Amy? I thought Amy was just essentially inhabiting the flesh body remotely. And for that matter, why would an exact duplicate of a person be any different than the original? The only way it could be different is if it were a flawed duplicate, unless you believe that there is more to a person than their physical form, and I didn't think that was the case in the "Doctor Who" universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-61791069098639045542011-09-05T12:56:01.930-07:002011-09-05T12:56:01.930-07:00@Mary I think their relationship does work, but in...@Mary I think their relationship does work, but in order to find a lazy way of making it work, the writers have deprived them of their competing desires, as you say. Which is a shame, because there's great opportunity to add some real adult drama there (not adult as in sex and swearing, but the real stuff that people go through, the difficult choices, etc). For some reason the show doesn't want them to go there. Previous companions have all had to make difficult choices, but the Ponds aren't really given that opportunity.theoncominghopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-24892274109053326042011-09-05T12:54:10.764-07:002011-09-05T12:54:10.764-07:00@Stacia coincidentally, Gatiss wrote the Churchill...@Stacia coincidentally, Gatiss wrote the Churchill episode as well (which, good on you for finding the connection with the two extremely silly endings!)theoncominghopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-78451372482564233692011-09-05T12:52:55.942-07:002011-09-05T12:52:55.942-07:00@encylops I feel that the show has moved far enoug...@encylops I feel that the show has moved far enough in that direction that they could in fact investigate those emotional responses. I think they should look to Angel for inspiration, as it was excellent at managing its many characters and multiple through lines.theoncominghopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-74292183369898777382011-09-05T12:50:11.136-07:002011-09-05T12:50:11.136-07:00@serenitywomble that's a fair point.
@blurred...@serenitywomble that's a fair point.<br /><br />@blurred that does seem Moffat's agenda now...theoncominghopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-15962882566102712972011-09-05T12:49:15.439-07:002011-09-05T12:49:15.439-07:00@Simon I think you've hit the nail on the head...@Simon I think you've hit the nail on the head. Moffat has done really well on payoffs, but not so much on the journey. But he did that quite well on Coupling, so it's not like he's incapable. Btw, I've read some theories that suggest that at some point River regenerates into Mel (wild redhead screamers!)theoncominghopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-47888087717005774432011-09-05T12:46:26.427-07:002011-09-05T12:46:26.427-07:00Wow guys, so many great thoughts! I'll try and...Wow guys, so many great thoughts! I'll try and reply in kind...<br /><br />@peacockpete I don't know if it makes you less demanding. To be honest, this is the first episode where this stuff bothered me, because it seemed to highlight the stasis the characters are stuck in.<br /><br />@Mark that plot point about sending Rose off with Doctor #2 drove me absolutely nuts, but then, everything involving Rose drove me nuts. That actually felt a bit invasive, though I couldn't tell you exactly why.theoncominghopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471519506797609837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-86586096650500393292011-09-05T10:46:05.961-07:002011-09-05T10:46:05.961-07:00That last comment was @Sara.That last comment was @Sara.Maryhttp://vicariously.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-27298748169331842262011-09-05T10:44:51.477-07:002011-09-05T10:44:51.477-07:00In "The Beast Below" Amy chose to forget...In "The Beast Below" Amy chose to forget because she thought there was no way to help not because she didn't want or couldn't be bothered to help.Maryhttp://vicariously.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-85323038000364815682011-09-05T10:25:37.149-07:002011-09-05T10:25:37.149-07:00I feel like Doctor Who has a problem right now not...I feel like Doctor Who has a problem right now not just with Amy and Rory but with emotional continuity in general; the Doctor's emotional reactions to things makes no more sense that Amy and Rory's [non-]reactions but we forgive him because he's supposed to be 'mysterious' (and Melody/River's characterisation in "Let's Kill Hitler" was all over the place too and handwaved as being the result of 'brainwashing' in a really unsatisfactory way) although the result is that there is no emotional thread being carried forward from episode to episode. The particular problem with Amy and Rory is that their relationship actually, really does not work: throughout last season we were presented with an Amy who wanted excitement and adventure and for whom the idea of settling down in Leadworth was anathema, and a Rory who wanted nothing more than to settle down in Leadworth with a wife and child and for whom excitement and adventure were anathema -- and there's no way of compromising on that, they want fundamentally clashing things out of life. And because Steven Moffat and his writing team are unwilling to address this and admit that without some character development on either Amy or Rory's side their relationship is broken in ways which can't be fixed by talking it out (because it will always be the case that one or the other of them is forcing the other party to do something they don't want to do) they're no longer writing any exploration of either Amy or Rory's emotional landscapes -- because if they explored how either one of them really felt about anything it would reveal this problem that they're trying to sweep under the rug.<br /><br />And the lack of reaction re: River comes from the desire to do shocking things on a show which, by its very nature, can never fully explore the dramatic consequences of those events; Amy in particular went through the really traumatic experience of not being herself, of waking up in labour in unfamiliar surroundings, of having her melt in her arms -- and never got to have an authentic reaction to that or talk about it because the moment there was a breather from the relentless unfolding of that plot it was time to have some standalone episodes. Steven Moffat has prioritised manufactured 'twists' over characterisation and emotional continuity this year in a way which makes it really difficult to engage with the show or any of the characters right now.Maryhttp://vicariously.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-46773988904517173342011-09-05T10:04:31.614-07:002011-09-05T10:04:31.614-07:00I addressed my thoughts on the chicken-or-the-egg ...I addressed my thoughts on the chicken-or-the-egg thing with George's fears on my blog, but it brought up an interesting point which I haven't seen much since that episode last season where the guy was a living bomb and the Doctor thought it was just fine and dandy to let him go live his life.<br /><br />Now we have two people parenting a child who is technically not human, and the Doctor rather laughingly says he'll check back in around puberty. Ha! Ha! Because there's nothing at all worrying about the idea that any fear or insecurity this child has could potentially kill innocent people, or what other sorts of powers or abilities he may have that we--and the Doctor--don't know about. Sure, that's okay! I'm sure it will all be fine, until the day young George gets scared of bullies or a mean teacher and sends them all into another dimension. <br /><br />The Doctor seems less like someone who cares about humanity and more like an irresponsible child himself, messing things up and inviting babies into homes with exposed live wires and tracking back on his own timeline and otherwise being totally ignorant of possible consequences. And the Ponds, yeah, they're just sort of along for the ride; they make no decisions, do nothing but get imperiled, and have lost so much of the personality and fun that made them worth watching last season.Stacia Kanehttp://www.staciakane.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-13622989716049632502011-09-05T09:44:27.755-07:002011-09-05T09:44:27.755-07:00I've been trying to think of a classic Who com...I've been trying to think of a classic Who companion who was frustrating in this same way, and you might be right -- I can't come up with one offhand. Then again, the problem's been worst in this episode and "The Doctor's Wife"; they weren't passive in "Let's Kill Hitler" so much as emotionally flat. As I said in my take on that episode (http://encyclops.com/archives/291), you'd think the astonishing revelations about the fate of their child and the true identity of their best friend growing up would have led to some reaction, but rather than "everything we knew is wrong and one of the most important people in our lives was actually our daughter all along" it's more like "wow, what a crazy twist!" They react not like real people, but like actors reading a script involving their characters. Not that I blame Gillan or Darvill; they're terrific with what they're given. It's just that no one's thought to give them anything authentic.<br /><br />I also don't think we can blame the Ponds for Melody -- she was stolen from them just after she was born, and they don't see her again until she's grown into a young girl, regenerated, and then planted herself deliberately into their lives. Perhaps Mme. Kovarian told her she was abandoned as a child in aid of brainwashing her, but her affection for them as Mels doesn't seem like an act.<br /><br />This kind of long-term emotional trauma isn't something that ever really fit into the show's format, which might be why it's difficult for them to address it the way you would in a more serial show like, say, Battlestar Galactica or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. When you're in the same setting week after week and not traveling to unusual places to explore them, it's natural for ongoing dramas to be worked out onscreen, and for flashbacks to show up when they're needed. For example, in those shows we'd probably see young Melody being brainwashed, get some insight into her personality and what might have shaped her personality. It seems unlikely that we will now, and it's hard to imagine that sort of thing fitting into a random episode (the way it could have in BSG).<br /><br />Thanks for letting me know about your blog! I love that you illustrated your point with Kate Beaton comics -- she's a genius.encyclopshttp://encyclops.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-20882440628158002432011-09-05T09:21:19.604-07:002011-09-05T09:21:19.604-07:00To be honest, I hadn't realised Night Terrors ...To be honest, I hadn't realised Night Terrors was aired out of sequence until I read this. The Ponds' lack of believability makes a bit more sense now. Still, it doesn't change how baffled I am by how detached they are in Let's Kill Hitler. <br /><br />The Amy and Rory we got to know in season 5 wouldn't have stood there, waiting for the Doctor to reclaim their daughter for them. They would've grabbed Eleven on a journey to search the ends of the universe for Melody. They wouldn't stop until they find her. <br /><br />The writers could've shown them laying out plans to look for her or something to that effect. Lazy, but it's still SOMETHING.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-32709702476316548502011-09-05T08:40:56.180-07:002011-09-05T08:40:56.180-07:00I think there's a lot of good points here. I ...I think there's a lot of good points here. I have to wonder if it's deliberate or accidental that they seem not to care about anything much except themselves.<br /><br />The fact that Amy was a ganger for much of the season meant that neither she nor Rory were aware that she was pregnant. Once it was revealed, it was all over so quickly, they had little time to come to terms with the idea or to bond with their baby - so perhaps the writers are trying to show that there is a disconnect there (although that may be a little optimistic).<br /><br />I definitely think they've been sorely under-used this episode. Never mind the strange way that they were pulled into the doll house - once there they did nothing useful. I can think of literally nothing that they contributed to the episode, or to the successful resolution of the problems.<br /><br />How things have changed from the start of last season, where Amy was instrumental in resolving the problems for the first few episodes and the doctor almost irrelevant.<br /><br />p.s. thanks for commenting on my blog - much appreciated. For those interested, my take on Night Terrors can be found at http://thoughtsonmorality.blogspot.com/2011/09/doctor-who-night-terrors-review-warning.htmlRational Anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002966782423667010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-3565625775391388322011-09-04T18:46:04.396-07:002011-09-04T18:46:04.396-07:00"You know, if these two weren't so charmi..."You know, if these two weren't so charming, they would have literally nothing going on."<br /><br />The two really are really charming, aren't they? It's their chemistry that makes the passiveness of the Ponds a bit bearable.<br /><br />And you're right. Compared to the other companions, there is a certain lack of activeness with these two. But maybe that was the point? The previous companions we've seen: Rose, Jack, Martha, Donna and even Mickey and Wilfred were all very proactive--to the point that each one of them went on and did great, big, impossible things to save the world and the Doctor. Maybe Moffatt wanted to veer away from that?<br /><br />Then again, Amy (and Rory, in the episodes he was in) were proactive and curious in the Series 5 episodes. Maybe it's the being married thing? Or maybe Moffatt is trying to tell us subconsciously that it's time to let go of the Ponds...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-90335084550808871042011-09-04T17:11:34.122-07:002011-09-04T17:11:34.122-07:00Although the baby thing is all kinds of weird, I d...Although the baby thing is all kinds of weird, I disagree about the Ponds being passive in the last two episodes. Amy has a stroke of genius in using the sonic screwdriver to disable the teselecta or whatever it was called), and although it might not have been the smartest thing, the passive/dull/dramatically unsatisfying thing for them to do would have been to stay in the room and do nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-39312707433078402342011-09-04T15:45:39.494-07:002011-09-04T15:45:39.494-07:00I haven't watched Night Terrors, so I can'...I haven't watched Night Terrors, so I can't comment on that, but yeah. I mean, even in the episode with the Space Whale, Amy's first inclination was to forget, not to help. Even Sarah Jane's companions wouldn't have stood for that crap, and they're children.<br /><br />SaraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-61104831137710933752011-09-04T15:36:03.669-07:002011-09-04T15:36:03.669-07:00Hi! Good analysis, and thanks for pointing me to y...Hi! Good analysis, and thanks for pointing me to your blog. <br /><br />It's fair to say that, with Moffat in charge, things that at first seem like lazy writing often have a payoff later - like the Doctor being so insanely violent earlier this season, then having that addressed outright as one of the central themes in Good Man Goes to War. So it IS possible that the very obvious inconsistency in how the Ponds are portrayed may be addressed in a future episode.<br /><br />However, I'm a little sceptical that even doing that can address the weakness in the characters overall. As you say, they seem to be unable to function much without the Doctor to direct them, a point I'd never really clocked until you spelled it out. They're both likeable enough, but lack the initiative displayed by, say, Jamie, Sarah, or even Melanie Bush.<br /><br />I loved, but had oft-repeated gripes about, Russell T Davies' tenure as showrunner, but he did know how to write a companion. Knowing Steve Moffat's skill as a writer from many other productions, it would be unlikely that he couldn't pick this up. So I guess I'm hoping for his long game justification of what he's doing, particularly as this time travelling team will apparently carry on for at least another year. In the end, the Ponds' credibility may come down to the oft-contested argument about how advisable it is to have a multi-season story arc which leaves so much unexplained until its (presumably still distant) conclusion).Simon Fernandeshttp://incoherent.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-60312700218231458082011-09-04T15:14:09.555-07:002011-09-04T15:14:09.555-07:00My take on Amy is that we need to wait and see if ...My take on Amy is that we need to wait and see if there's a difference between Ganger Amy and Original Amy. I think what I've read of the feminist critique of Amy for this season has been pretty strong, but now that we know that the Amy we've been watching hasn't been Amy (since at least MOON, and perhaps even before that - the story suggests MOON but the producers have said the switch happened pre-ASTRONAUT), we need to see if she reverts back to how she was when she was introduced.<br /><br />I think, perhaps, we might find that Amy "not existing as a character" was Moffat's point, that not being Original Amy meant we were getting a different character.<br /><br />One thing that always stuck in my craw about the Davies run was his absurd idea that a duplicate of you was, in essence, YOU, or at least close enough to you that you could stand in as a substitute and everything would be cool. He tried it with the Doctor and Rose in JOURNEY'S END, and pulled it off with Pete and Jackie in DOOMSDAY. <br /><br />My hope is that what Moffat is doing is showing that Davies was wrong, and that, at least subtly, we've been shown that there is a difference between the Original You and any kind of Duplicate You.<br /><br />I hope we see some kind of obvious recognition from the characters that Ganger Amy and Original Amy are different characters, but we absolutely need to see a change in Amy's attitude away from the passive, only-here-as-a-fetish-piece character she's become.<br /><br />I think next episode will do a lot towards us finding out these answers because it appears to be an Amy-centric episode where she's purposely "dolled up" yet again. It's 2011 - she needs to be something more than "something for the dads."<br /><br />Anyway, I don't just want to be someone who incessantly posts links to his own blog, but since the duplicate thing has come up, if you're interested, I touched on the subject here:<br /><br />http://atomicanxiety.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/doctor-who-the-stolen-earth/<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />http://atomicanxiety.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/doctor-who-army-of-ghosts-doomsday/<br /><br />I'll definitely be back to read your thoughts on the next episode, especially in regards to what it says about the Amies.Markhttp://atomicanxiety.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3139769202527811820.post-60543185149066147012011-09-04T14:57:51.168-07:002011-09-04T14:57:51.168-07:00While I can understand the frustrations outlined i...While I can understand the frustrations outlined in this blog of Amy and Rory's seeming passivity towards the events in this story, I quite like their reactions. They were completely on the back foot in Night Terrors, and in doing so, played the part of companion perfectly. By way of explanation, some companions have situations where they have abilities that come to the fore, and in some cases they're totally at a loss. <br /><br />For me, the companion doesn't always have to be feisty, go getters, or constantly questioning everything. Sometimes they're quite rightly scared. In this case, the purpose of Rory and Amy was to open up the other storyline. I don't have any beef with thatnat all, and se no harm with the traditional companion role occasionally falling back to getting lost corridors, if those corridors have a point.<br /><br />Reading this post does make me feel a little like an undemanding viewer in some ways (nothing wrong with having certain views challenged - good work!), certainly regarding the lack of coonnection with the River story arc. Sometimes I really don't care about the effect River Song is having on the lives of the TARDIS crew. While it might seem odd to go from LKH to Night Terrors with the River Song storyline in mind, it seems perfectly fine for them to carry on in this crazy time travel lark. Perhaps they're more proactive than they're given credit for, and they've suppressed it like any companion of the Doctor's would. <br /><br />After all, despite all the fun and highjinks, there's an awful lot of tragedy in their 'job'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com