Howling:River may not really be dead....?

I just saw Forest of the Dead for the second time, and this time AFTER seeing most all of River's later adventures. Well, something struck me. Near the end of the episode, when the Doctor is running down to "save" River, the chair that she was in is now empty. No ashes, no skeleton, no corpse. And if you listen to the dialogue earlier, River tells the Doctor that "It will fry both of your hearts" But not "It will totally disintegrate you." Also, The Doctor thinks that there is a tiny chance that he may survive, so why couldn't she?

So, did anybody else notice this? And doesn't it seem strange that, once the countdown reaches zero, we never see River in the chair again? And only see the Doctor's reaction? It's far-fetched, but Steven Moffet has done stranger, and just think of The Doctor's reaction when he asks River where she was last and she replies: "The Library." (For that matter, imagine the audience's reaction.)

I know, I know, everybody on the show has said that she's dead, but what if Moffet told them that, but left the option open if he ever wanted to bring her back. She very well could be dead, but it wouldn't take much at all to change that. And yes, she's out of regenerations, but that's never stopped The Master.

He put that shot of the empty chair in there for a reason. And River wasn't in it for a reason. So the question is, why? 70.234.186.31talk to me 16:07, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Judging by Moffat's record, the reason is probably to keep future options open -- which is, of course, just another way of saying what the title of this topic says. He did much the same with Jenny (The Doctor's Daughter, not Jenny Flint). It doesn't mean Moffat has a clear plan to bring River back but it does mean he -- or another writer -- has room to do so. Right now, Moffat seems to be busy with yet another character who treats death as a temporary inconvenience. Later on, though... --92.17.165.19talk to me 17:54, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

She could of probably just got digitized like Donna and everyone else in the library did, I mean a fully digitized would probably be more valuable than millions of humans right? KnightmareS-C075 ☎  04:07, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

I sure hope she didn't survive, that would be just as dumb as what they did with Peri. 94.72.226.48talk to me 12:16, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

What they did with Peri was very dumb indeed. What was dumb about it, though, was the way it was handled, not the fact of her survival. If River were to be brought back from the Library, it would need to be a major story in itself, not just an afterthought in dialogue. It could be made to work but it wouldn't be easy. It would be very easy to make it really, really cringeworthy. (I was 92 before.) --89.240.241.224talk to me 03:24, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

For you that might be the case, but any episode that brings back a dead character is not one I will fully enjoy, regardless of how it is handled. I don't know why they had to ruin Peri's "death" like that. Even the actress herself preferred the death how it originally was - real. I'm guessing they must have been getting complaints that the death was too disturbing or something like that, but it doesn't really matter because I've decided for myself that the claim that Peri survived was a lie. 94.72.226.48talk to me 17:07, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's impossible to bring back a character in a good (interesting & enjoyable) way. It's not something that can be done often, however. If I were you, I'd brace myself because we seem to be in for a further dose of exactly that with Clara. Admittedly, we're not being told (as we were with Peri) "Oh, by the way, she didn't really die, after all!" It seems Clara does really die but comes back, anyway. (I've been 92 & 89 but now I'm 2.) --2.96.23.151talk to me 22:55, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, for you that might be the case. But I certainly prefer my deaths to stay as, well, deaths. 94.72.226.48talk to me 16:52, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it basically made VERY clear that River wasn't dead? After all, how long had the rest of the Library inhabitants been "saved" for? All that would have to happen would be that The Doctor places her consciousness in some kind of artificial body. Problem solved! --71.201.148.238talk to me 09:57, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

What was "basically made VERY clear" was that she was dead but that her "data ghost" had been saved in the sonic screwdriver & that it was transferred to CAL's hard drive. It was even made clear that the ability to regenerate wouldn't have kept her alive. Admittedly, when we first saw the story, we'd no way of knowing that River had once herself been able to regenerate. It looked then as if it just meant that the Doctor couldn't have survived, either. The unclear bit is whether or not she could be retrieved from CAL's hard drive into a restored body. Donna & most of the inhabitants of the Library could be, because they were saved using the teleport & that meant their bodies were saved, too. Those who, like River, were actually killed & then saved as "data ghosts" could not be restored in that way.

The question raised by the chair empty of remains is this: Would those remains have been enough to allow the creation of a new body, thus making up for the fact that, unlike Donna, River wasn't saved to the hard drive while still alive & were her remains missing because, unknown to the Tenth Doctor (& us) at the time, they had been taken so that could be done? --2.101.63.84talk to me 12:10, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

I sure hope not. 77.86.12.244talk to me 18:09, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, although I can see how River could be brought back, I can't see the need to do it. Because her timeline is out of synch with the Doctor's, any story with her in it can just be set before the Library, so far as her timeline is concerned. There's ample scope for that, so there could be lots more River stories without resurrecting her from the Library.

The one & only reason there might be to have her somehow resurrected from the Library would be to provide a way for her to be given back the ability to regenerate, so that other actors could play her, once Alex Kingston is no longer available. That's not something I think either likely or desirable. (I'm back to 89 now.) --89.241.65.121talk to me 04:43, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I always thought the reason they never showed River in the chair post mortem was because of the little kid viewers of the show. Burned and mangled bodies are best left to Torchwood. Anyway, I think it would be stupid and completely unnecessary to bring her back after the library. It would ruin the beauty of the moment. Imamadmad ☎  05:44, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Doctor Who hasn't had a shortage of "burned and mangled bodies", but I can see where you're coming from. Seeing River's body would be violence just for the sake of it and would also ruin the beauty of the moment, just as having her appear alive would be. 94.72.235.63talk to me 19:18, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Burning and mangling River would be worse as she was the main guest character of the episode. The audiance had more invested in her, so her death had to be clean. Besides, he would have to figure out what to do with her remains, as a future self might care about that. That would just slow things down, and undercut the actual resolution of his "saving" her.Phil Stone ☎  06:46, June 3, 2013 (UTC)