Talk:Flesh and Stone (TV story)/Archive 1

"Doctor in the TARDIS"
Shortly before the Crack appears on the spaceship, Angel Bob is communicating with the Doctor. At some point, Angel Bob uses the phrase "Doctor in the TARDIS hasn't noticed", a phrase also used by Prisoner Zero when in hospital referencing the Crack (In both occasions the words are spoken by another human's voice).

Carlo0904 07:09, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

This could easily be a reference to the song "Doctorin' the TARDIS" by The Timelords/KLF (The KLF said the song was inspired by the Ford Timelord, which is featured in the music video, and the Car spoke to them and told them to become The Timelords.)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdTELokKfCk (Music Video)Jjmfdl 05:29, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I thought I heard them both say "Doctor AND the TARDIS". Maybe someone who has the DVD (closed captions) or a script can check? As the TARDIS seems to be more "aware" this series, and more like a fairy tale (Moffet is quoted somewhere saying that), what with the Doctor calling it "you sexy thing" and saying "thank you, dear" when it gives him a new sonic screwdriver, I wouldn't put it pass them to mean "AND the TARDIS" rather than "IN the TARDIS" (as would seem the reasonable dialogue). Lmb02 18:12, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it is worth tracking, but in watching Silence In the Library, where Doctor Song is talking to Anita, she says, "The Doctor in the TARDIS. Next stop, everywhere". Lmb02 03:33, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Angels Moving
We see the Angels move very slightly when they grab the Doctor. One of the Angels readjust their grasp. It is obvious that this is meant to be obvious, and it is before the scene where they notice Amy isn't looking at them.

Yes, but to be honest, I didn't see them move their grasp, so oops, it wasn't obvious to me ... Who7 16:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor's Jacket
I don't know if this is worthy of putting into the article or not, but in the ter, railer, it shows the doctor without his tweed jacket, then at the end, it shows him losing it. --Semian2 23:57, April 25, 2010 (UTC)




 * I noticed that this is down as a production error in the main page. If you watch closely, the Doctor loses his jacket before meeting up with the others and is then not seen with his jacket for the rest of the episode, apart from when he speaks to Amy. However, just before this his voice fades off as he moves away with River. It seems highly likely that this is a future Doctor who has crossed his own timestream (riskily!) and come to talk to Amy for a particular reason.Neil DG 22:54, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's too obvious to be a production error. Crazy as it sounds, your theory about a future Doctor is probably right. I don't think this should be listed as a production error. Watch the scene. Everything is different about the Doctor's demeanor when he comes back to talk to Amy. Even the way he kisses her on the forehead. It all fits. That Doctor has known her for a longer time - and has come to love her. (In a "friend" kind of way, I mean. This episode certainly shattered the idea of a Doctor/companion romance.) There must be something extremely significant in the Eleventh Hour... Bluebox444 23:49, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The most obvious answer is usually the correct one. Either: 1 - its a glitch, and these things can happen easily, or 2 - he went to the TARDIS wardrobe and picked out another jacket. To assume that its a future Doctor just does not fit. Don't go putting in unsubstantiated rumors without some discussion here first.-Jedman67 04:30, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit) whoops. I missed what you were trying to say. I just rewatched that bit, and while it only takes 5 seconds to push up your sleeves, with him wearing his jacket, it could be a clue. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a glitch, or it was supposed to be cut. Keep an eye out for news.Jedman67 05:07, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just the jacket. The Doctor's sleeves were rolled up as well, and with the change in demeanor, it can't just be an error. He ws even checking in the direction 'he' went. 71.7.130.217 04:53, May 2, 2010 (UTC)Mopps


 * Exactly! And the reason for telling Amy to remember what he told her when she was 7 was never explained in the episode. I know we can't be certain that this isn't a production error, but I do think that there's enough evidence to put some kind of note on the page saying that this scene may mean something important. It might have huge significance for the rest of the series. Bluebox444 11:04, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * That scene's been bugging me too like you say his demeanour, the jacket, the way it's directed, the remember bit and his glancing at presumably where he, river and octavian went really do suggest this isn't this episode's Doctor. If it really is nothing more than a simple error and he shouldn't have had the jacket then fine (all that debate about Rory's ID card and that turned out to be an error) but I'd like to hope there's something more going on here. Carnivius Prime 14:59, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoever first worked this out is actually a genius. I've just watched it again. You must be right. Very, very clever. 137.222.231.37 18:22, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The two doctors theories is one of the most ridiculous ones i've ever heard, let me guess, river is the rani too. it was an error, i dont mind people thinking up ideas, but being certain of them due to someone putting on their jacket? Its utterly insane! I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 07:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if the two doctors theories are ridiculous, can you explain what he said when he came back wearing the jacket? he told her to remember what he told her when she was 7. This wasn't mentioned later in that episode, as if it didn't have anything to do with it. It clearly has a significance in a future episode, where we will find out what he meant and what is the important thing he told her. Plus, the next shot goes directly to the doctor (with no jacket), River and the bishop all together, as they left together, so the doctor didnt go back to Amy and rush back to them. If he is the same doctor and the jacket is just a production mistake, then at least at the end of the episode the doctor should have told Amy what he wanted her to remember, and why was it important for her to remember! certainly not significant to this story.91.73.110.104 09:40, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that River Song showing how the TARDIS can land without making any sound its the key to this scene, the clerigs are looking outside, not to the circle were Amy is in, so its very probable that he landed inside it, and talk to her to leave some kind of mind key she will need in the future Gridcube 02:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let's keep Bigredrabbit's comment here, so we can come back to it when the truth is later revealed :P 137.222.231.37 19:16, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's definately important. Its not just the fact he's wearing a jacket, it's that he's wearing a brand new jacket, one which we assume he'll get in vampires in venice, a brown one!!! Mc hammark 22:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed that our present Doctor wears a gold watch, but the future Doctor is wearing a black watch, you can see it when he takes amy's hand. Mc hammark 20:31, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * yup! I noticed that just now, when I was rewatching it. Musedae 22:27, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * What I think really gives the scene away, is the way he says "Later Amy! River, gonna need your computer!" the line sort of quietens down as if hes moving away - there is also a lot of shots showing the doctors sleeves down. Then...Cut to rolled up sleeves, a new jacket, and a different doctor - I cant imagine it being a production error - it seems to well silly why when none of the other shots in the forest have him in the jacket, does he suddenly wear it? Makes no sense to me to be one - also lets not forget who is penning the series now? Moffet likes his little paradox stories - in my opinion its another Doctor - though we wont know until we know the significance of that line. "Remember what I told you when you were 7" I've watched the 11th hour several times and I cant think about what line he could mean LagunaVII 20:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a hunch that what he told Amy when she was seven is nothing we have seen yet, and that at some future point the Doctor will visit Amy at several stages of her life, maybe to try to coordinate a chain of memories or so. While doing so he needs to get all the versions of Amy to recall those moments in her relative past. Maybe when this scene will be revisited, we'll stay with it for a bit longer and see her actually remembering, "after" the Doctor has gone back and actually told seven-year-old Amy something. Pure speculation at the moment, of course. Hack59 22:20, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are right - there was a scene in The Eleventh Hour at the end when you see Amy as a child sat on her suitcase, then you hear the sound of the tardis - I passed this off a dream the first time i watched this due to the nature of the scene that follows - Older Amy in her bed. I now think this may have been one of those times you are referring to as when the Doctor goes back... Why Amy forgot, well thats beyond me. Though I think the line "Time can be unwritten" that is going to be of most vital importance. Still, I think this is too big an error to be a continuity error, Just the fact that The Doctor NEVER wears his jacket in the forest tells me it isn't, if it is well the continuity checker needs sacking. --LagunaVII 23:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call! I forgot about the TARDIS noise when we see 7-year-old Amy sitting on her suitcase as day breaks. She's definitely smiling, so I don't think the TARDIS noise is just pulled-forward sound editing from the events twelve years later. We shall see, eh? Hack59 17:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's something I've noticed though I won't dare try to debate the work-ability of it. The doctor (comes back?!?) tells Amy that she must trust him and that's when she finally tells him about her wedding. She even tells the audience explicitly in the beginning of the 2nd episode, but doesn't tell the doctor. If she doesn't tell the doctor, he wouldn't know about her wedding--if he doesn't know that the wedding is on the same day as the message (or whatever) he got then he would never be able to connect the fact that they are related. I think we do have a paradox issue (or whatever) where this episode didn't end the way we think it did. The doctor worked out on his own that time can be rewritten and will come back later to change the fact that Amy didn't tell him about her wedding until too late. I have no idea what he could possibly mean by having her remember when she was 7 except for the fact when he tells her that he isn't "people" (though that is a very weak argument based on the fact that I think she's dreaming about the doctor later in the episode--her dream self would recognize the sound subconsciously making her dreamself smile). But I guess to be fair, if I'm right about him coming back to tell her to tell him the truth then whatever he told her in episode 1 happened after episode 5 (AND after her own reaction in episode 1 after he shows up the 3rd time) then that really was her younger self meeting him and is foreshadowing her change in attitude in episode 5. And I've just confused myself. I do have ONE question about the jacket which is the only reason why I have the slightest doubt about him traveling back to give her the message--how does one wear a jacket WITH the sleeves rolled up? 199.111.189.92 23:56, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I offended people, I was in a bad mood. but how does a man wearing a jacket he once lost and telling amy to remember what he told her when she was 7 mean he's the doctors future self? companions trusting the doctor has always been a big thing, he just brought that up so he would completely trust her. This is rory's id badge all over again, it's tiny, it doesn't matter. The Time Shield explains all! I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 07:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I offended people, I was in a bad mood. but how does a man wearing a jacket he once lost and telling amy to remember what he told her when she was 7 mean he's the doctors future self? companions trusting the doctor has always been a big thing, he just brought that up so he would completely trust her. This is rory's id badge all over again, it's tiny, it doesn't matter. The Time Shield explains all! I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 07:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

At first sight, it might just be a continuity error: it's just the two of them, so it's probably shot at another time (later, earlier) then the wider shots with the clerics, increasing the chance of an error. It's shot close, so if they only found out about the error afterwards, they might have thought it wasn't that visible (or just not used the wide shots) and put it in anyway. Or just the old saying: "If they can see that, there's nothing else to see". In my experience as a continuity supervisor, it's all stuff that gets tossed around regularly. But after reading all the theories above, and on rewatch, it seems more logical that it was intentional. It just seems too subtle to actually be intentional. You can see the doctor's hands (no jacket, sleeves down) in Amy, close, then when they cut to her hands, his hands come in and his sleeves are rolled up and the watch is quite visible. This second shot was probably filmed right after the first one. Furthemore, the countershot of the doctor is continuous to Amy's shot. I may be reading too much into it, but Stephen Moffat is really great with the whole 'set up/pay off' thing, so having the doctor lose his jacket pretty clearly (has he ever lost an item of his wardrobe?), and the doctor might revisit moments of the entire series in the finale. Then again, it might just be too subtle, and I'm overthinking it. HerBN 23:06, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

And a note to anyone who says the Doctor can't cross his personal timeline:

a) It isn't his timeline, it's Amy's

b) You say it can't happen: What about the entire thing with Martha and the tie in 'Smith and Jones'

Proof enough? ~Coolio~


 * "Crossing into established events is strictly forbidden, except for cheap tricks." V00D00M0NKY 21:16, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, taking his tie off in front of Martha wasn't interfering with the events that were still to come. --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:42, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but it did make Martha think there was something weird about him (apart from the whole two heartbeats thing of course). ~Coolio~

"The Doctor in the TARDIS" is the specific phrasing used both by Prisoner Zero and Angel Bob. That's more than coincidence. It's a scripted clue to tell the audience that there is a distinction between the character they are seeing on screen and "The Doctor in the TARDIS" in terms of plot. There is most definitely another version or timeline for The Doctor, and that's the one that is being referred to. But all of this looking back to see what it was The Doctor told Amy when she was 7 is misguided. The answer to this other Doctor is in the end of Cold Blood. When Rory gets erased from existance, The Doctor tries to get Amy to remember him, and thus keep some part of him still in their world. And we now know that the crack is directly related to the TARDIS, specifically to an explosion that could destroy it. The Doctor doesn't need Amy to remember any specific thing about him - he just needs her to REMEMBER him, because something in the season finale is going to threaten to erase him from time as well. 24.228.56.86 06:32, June 9, 2010 (UTC) Aden Nak

Damn it, but it feels good to be right. 24.228.56.86 08:27, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Aden Nak

Until it is confirmed whether or not the doctor goes back from the future i think it should be left as a production error untill we have that confirmation lottie01 23:21, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hehe Spoilers TheSilentAngel ☎  21:20, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Clock problem
How do we know that it was a production error, and not something caused by the Time Field? --trlkly 03:22, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're going to include the jacket thing, which has a very logical explanation (look at the The Eleventh Hour), then I think the clock should go back. Apparently it is policy to count it an error until it is officially explained. --trlkly 12:16, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this regarding clock Amy's bedside clock at the end of the episode? Because that is totally wrong!! In the episode It's 11.59am, then changes to 12.00pm, with a date change;and clocks just don't work that way!! (If it's approaching midnight then the Clock should say 11.59pm then change to 12.00am, with a date change; if it's approaching midday the clock should say 11.59am then change to 12.00pm, but the date should remain the same.) What the hell is going on? Granted it's probably not a production error, because you would have to fiddle to get a clock to display like that, but it deserves a mention.86.138.134.150 20:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is definitely not a mistake. Go back and watch The Eleventh Hour. At timestamp 1hr:01minute:26seconds (approximately) there is a clock in the TARDIS that exhibits exactly the same behavior. It jumps from 11:59am to 12:00pm... but the TARDIS is vanishing from the middle of the night outside Amy's house. I'm going to go ahead and move this "discontinuity" out of the Production Errors section -- there's no way that they'd make the same "mistake" twice in 5 episodes. Phasmantistes 06:31, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, IMHO there's an 'It's a wonderful life' thing going on here. The Doctor repeats about Amy getting married in the morning, then the clock changes from 11.59 to 12 pm ie noon, so the morning doesn't happen and therefore Amy can't get married.


 * Also if i may point out when the doctor comes back to Amy he places his hands over hers, note well the lack of shirt sleeves. In the previous shot the sleeves are down and when we go back immediately to the doctor his sleeves are still down and he is not out of breath and has seemed he was there for the whole time. One last thing he has his jacket on as he kisses Amy but the angel's clearly stole his jacket and they weren't going to let go of that.


 * Also at 28.32 the camera moves closer to focus on Amy's face as she concentrates and remembers whatever it was the Doctor told her when she was 7, just as she's been thinking about angels, the cleric not remembering the others and so what happens if you never existed at all. What would be the repurcusions if Amy never lived? Bracewell would have exploded, Prisoner Zero would not have been recaptured, so twice already Amy has effectively saved the human race / Earth from being totally destroyed! (Yes, it's a bit Turn Left!). So what is she and/or Rory destined to do at the opening of the Pandorica that the crack is trying to stop ? 86.26.137.154 07:15, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * 12pm is not noon. Neither is 12am. "12 Noon" and "12 Midnight" are the official designations.Technically, the clocks, being digital, should move to 00.00, but hey.... 86.178.234.243 10:56, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically true, but try finding a clock where am and pm vanish at noon or midnight lol.


 * Nice spot on the Clock in 'The Eleventh Hour' - it is doing the same (showing noon, when it's clearly midnight). Are we now accepting that these little 'production errors' that have bugged us from the start aren't errors at all? I'm now almost certain Moffat lied about that, and they all hold some significance - I won't go any further because that would be forum speculation, but there is something about that particular time. 86.138.134.150 23:49, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also if I may point out when the doctor comes back to Amy he places his hands over hers, note well the lack of shirt sleeves. In the previous shot the sleeves are down and when we go back immediately to the doctor his sleeves are still down and he is not out of breath and has seemed he was there for the whole time. One last thing he has his jacket on as he kisses Amy but the angel's clearly stole his jacket and they weren't going to let go of that.


 * Plus. Quote from Moffat: "a television series which embraces both the ideas of parallel universes and the concept of changing time can't have a continuity error—it's impossible for Doctor Who to get it wrong, because we can just say 'he changed time'". Proof enough, I think so ~Coolio~

Well, we finally have a strong clue that this is fully intentional: In The Pandorica, when the Doctor and Amy arrive in ancient Britain, the Doctor says something like "1.02am ... no, pm! No, A.D.!" Hack59 12:14, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy spoilers
[]

I realize these don't always turn out to be correct, but at least they seem worth mentioning the the Rumors section. Well, some of them. I'll list them here:

1. Eureka! Galileo!

2. Amy: "Basically we've *** up the inside of a *******."

3. The Byzantium contains a forest. Yes, a forest.

4. Amy: "Seven."

5. There's a scene reminiscent of a scene from 'Doomsday'.

6. Amy: "Six."

7. What's the opposite of the moral from 'Blink'?

8. River has done something very, very naughty.

9. There's a very important date you'll want to mark in your diaries/iPhones/Google calendars come the end of this episode.

10. The crack. We finally learn what it is and what it wants.

11. Amy does something to The Doctor that prompts an epiphany. And a collection.



10 certainly seems important. #8 implies that we'll get on-screen confirmation of the River-murder-prison thing. #11 substantiates the rumors that the Amy-Doctor kiss from the series trailer will be in this episode (although the fact that Amy is wearing the right clothes already did that). Of the rest, everything seems either vague or unimportant (except for #4 and #6 as fuel for the speculative "countdown as a story arc" theory). --Falcotron 21:37, April 27, 2010 (UTC)



It can already be confirmed that 3 is correct, since we saw the images in the trailer for Flesh And Stone. Also, in 7, the moral from Blink was "Don't Blink" so the opposite is, obviously, "Don't open your eyes." And since in the trailer for this week, we've already heard the Doctor telling Amy not to open her eyes, this is obviously important. -- Musedae 19:24, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure these teasers are written by someone who has been shown the advance press screenings; so they're usually ALL correct. Only the The 'Time Of Angels hasn't been 100% correct, with a couple of misprints/misinterpretations, but generally they turn out to be right. All of these fit.86.138.134.150 16:04, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Amy
In one of the clips released today (before the episode), the Doctor is shown trying to get Amy to remember what he told her when she was 7, which apparently upsets the Doctor as she doesn't remember. That coupled with the fact that she doesn't remember the Daleks at all further suggests something has been tampering around with her head. Adam 148 07:37, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

It may be total left field, but the Doctor told Amy that she had a great name, a fairy tale name when they first met and was upset that she went from Amelia to Amy. River and the Doctor mentioned the Pandorica as a fairy tale, and "aren't we all". 71.7.130.217 05:18, May 2, 2010 (UTC)Mopps

Amy's sudden attraction to The Doctor
It was incredibly out of character for her. Any ideas?

Please sign your posts. And out of character? It's completely IN character. She's had four psychiatrists, bitten them, she's nuts, she took the risk of killing thousands of people on the starship UK and she's grown up in admiration of the Doctor. Plus he's saved her life. It's hardly sudden, she's had 14 years to fall for him. Mc hammark 20:09, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hammark. This is entirely in character, though very unexpected. ~Fan555

I also agree with Hammark, Amy is CRAZY. Steven Moffat said it in an interview for DWM. - BillyWilliam3rd

Her expression when watching him dress in The Eleventh Hour suggested she was attracted to him too I think Carnivius Prime 20:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, Carnivius Prime. ~ BillyWilliam3rd

Hang on, but he had his back to Amy when he was getting undressed, he had his back to her, so she wouldn't have been able to see his... 'naughty bits'.

Though we all have to remember that there's something VERY strange going on with Amy Pond, aside from the fact that she's crazy. I think there might be two different time lines running almost in sync with one another. After all, things don't seem to be working the way that they should! Musedae 01:02, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

I agree - that whole scene really threw me off, and I'm not inclined to think that Moffat would shift Amy's character so radically without a reason. And there did seem to be something about her behavior that made the Doctor realize something regarding the 6/26/2010 issue.

"Remember what I told you when you were seven..." Is there something in the Eleventh Hour that we're missing, that might provide a clue? Bluebox444 11:10, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he is referring to when he told her that her name (Amelia Pond) is like a name from a fairy tale, which might imply something about her whole existence. Note that River did say at the end "arent we all" when the doctor said smthg about a fairy tale. Or maybe, he also said to her (when she was 7) that it is weird that her aunt left her home alone at night.. we never met that aunt.. maybe there's no aunt at all! I dont know what would be the explanation but there sure is some mystery surrounding amy's life..

It was not a shift in character. the fact she watched him strip signifies an attraction. he is the most influential figure in her life, has saved her and provides danger, exitement but also love and care. didnt surprise me in the least Wrathisacke 22:48, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

i think it was very in-character. she was a kissogram, these things don't stray too far from her mind. ~ BillyWilliam3rd

I don't think Amy is crazy at all. Emotional wreck, yes, but I think the Doctor will fix her of that. I was surprised to read somewhere about one of the previous companions having been sexually abused by her step-father. Given the age and history of this program I didn't think they would let this kind of plot line happen. I looked it up and it's Peri Brown who was with the 5th and 6th doctors and the story was told in a book published in 2003. I don't know a bit about how the books are/should be treated, but if that book was published with the slightest appearance of affiliation with Doctor Who then I'm sure the BBC would have cared a lot about the story and could have labeled it as, I don't know, slander or something. I've never seen a 6th doctor episode so I can't say anything about their relationship, but it'll probably be something like that (the author of that book must have gotten the idea from somewhere). This doctor does seem to be reliving the personalities of his past incarnations--he's got a little of everyone in him so far as i can tell. 199.111.189.92 00:17, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor's Age
He's lying about it again. At the end of the episode he protests to Amy that he is 907 years old. Now, this doesn't correspond with End of Time where he claimed he was 906. And for the Doctor it can't have been more than, what, a week since his regeneration? Of course, he could have celebrated it in that week but there's been no mention of it thus far. Adam 148 20:18, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that the Doctor celebrates his birthday after 907 years. Mc hammark 20:22, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Could you even begin to imagine the wax required for birthday candles? Ghadius 20:27, May 1, 2010 (UTC)Ghadius

I didn't mean 'celebrate' as in 'throw a party', I meant, 'celebrate' as in, 'you're a year older now'. There was absolutely no mention of it until that point. Adam 148 20:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we have to think wether a year works the same for the doctor, with all the wizzing around time and space. Also, at the age of 907, would he even acknowledge a birthday?Fan555 20:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC)Fan555

He was probably just rounding off or something. I mean, after 900-odd years, surely you can afford to change the date a little. Tardis1963 05:39, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

That's sorta like what I keep wondering regarding time travellers returned to their own time their ages are hard to figure out. Say you go time travelling on March 12th (random date), you spend a year of your life visting various parts of history and then you return right back or as close to the moment you left as possible. Then when it's your birthday are you the age of years since you were born to the year you are in now or your actual physical age which would be a number higher to count for the year of time travel? And the opposite being like the scene in The Beast Below where the computer says Amy is well over 1000 years old when really she's only about 21. I think age starts getting really messy for time travellers as a whole and especially for someone who's lived as long and time travelled so much as the Doctor. How would he keep count? I think I just go along whatever figure he says and try not to think about it else I get a headache Carnivius Prime 12:05, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think you have kind of "two ages". You have your official age that depends on you brithdate. This age will be mentioned in calculations which can't know how much time you've spend outside of your timeline. And you have you biological age that ist just about how long you have lived (in hours or minutes independet in which timeline you were. Just the Time you "feel" living, without the time you skipped. This problem was earlier discoverd with Rose who was a bit too long time travelling. I think the doctor count's his physical age, since he would have to state a different age each time he tells his own age.78.43.114.215 14:35, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

The most likely theory is that the Doctor has forgotten his age. He claimed to be 300 in his first incarnation, 750 in his fourth, and 975 in his seventh. By that logic, he should be around 1300 years old, but that could be in human years, Galifreyan years, or he could have made up the 903/4/5/6/7 figure as he has lost count - being a time traveller, there is no actual way of remembering your true age, save for counting the days as they pass - and he's usually rather too busy for that. Unhari 23:14, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Lunar Eclipse
Ok, looking up 26th June 2010, I've discovered that it's a partial lunar eclipse that day, and stonehenge is believed to be a lunar eclipse computer. Now where have I seen stonehenge before? Mc hammark 20:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

You are good. To good. Are you sure you are not working for Moffat, trying to throw us off the scent? ~Fan555

I WISH. Let's just say, I'm very good at research. Mc hammark 20:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I hven't really thought bout it. But i have aways been intrested with Stonehenge and River Song in the Series 5 trailer ~ BillyWilliam3rd

Could Stonehenge be the Pandorica? River says the next time the Doctor sees her, the Pandorica will open, though I didn't notice River at the Stonehenge. Will watch the trailer again thoughFan555 20:38, May 1, 2010 (UTC)Fan555

Yeah, you can just see like the back of her head or something. Its hard to spot ~ BillyWilliam3rd

OMG, have we solved the Pandorica Mystery!? Fan555 20:41, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Fan555

I doubt it. Not really amazing research. The lunar eclipse is the first result if you just google "June 26, 2010".

Also, the lunar eclipse will be visible pretty much everywhere *except* Stonehenge: Asia/Australia at dusk, North/South America at dawn. Phasmantistes 06:31, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Still, there very well could be a connection to Stonehenge. It seems to be too big a coincidence to ignore.

By the way, I wonder if the fact that River will meet the Doctor "when the Pandorica opens" means that she's from our time...

Bluebox444 11:07, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that she seems to know that the Pandorica is the *next* meeting for him. It seems like either of them knowing the exact order of future events for the other is rather unlikely, unless they start talking to each other much more openly sometime soon. Phasmantistes 06:31, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Double Doctor?
In the forest, as The Doctor, River and Father Octavion are heading to find the main flight deck, The Doctor cuffs her head and says "Amy, later!" He is wearing only his striped shirt and his suspenders on his upper body. But moments later, he returns, with his sleeves ROLLED UP (when did this happen?!) WEARING HIS JACKET. She doesn't remember what he told her when she was 7. He's visibly closer, and more afraid for her at this moment. He kisses her forehead. Next scene, he's not wearing his jacket, his sleeves are rolled down and he's far more aloof. This is way too obvious to be a production error. It's Doctor Who, guys. That's way too big. There's something we still don't know. Musedae 01:30, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why have you posted here: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Flesh_and_Stone#The_Doctor.27s_Jacket.3D.3D and then posted this section? - Looq 03:00, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure if it had gone through, as my internet went all wobbly. I'll go edit it out in a moment. ALSO: that section is exclusively about the Doctor LOSING his jacket, where as this one focuses on how he seemingly didn't have a jacket, then appeared with one, and then appeared without one within a two minute frame. Musedae 02:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

It's DEFINATELY a future version of the Doctor. He is wearing a jacket, but it's not even the one he had, it's a new one that he will presumably get in vampires in venice. So the future doctor comes back in time and meets Amy. Weird. I'll bet it's revealed in the finale when he passes through the open pandorical. Mc hammark 19:20, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Was it a different jacket?! I didn't notice, all I knew was that he was wearing a jacket. We shall see! Musedae 19:17, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a brown one, not his old cream-browny coloured one, a darker brown. Mc hammark 19:20, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

This has been proven true by The Pandorica Opens. Good call on how we would find out, McHammark! Musedae 17:20, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fairy Tale
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the Doctor tells River that the Pandorica is a fairy tale that River's response is "aren't we all". It brings to mind the several incidents when the Doctor has met some advance race and mention that he is a Time Lord that people have referred to them as a myth, a legend, or a fairy tale. This would seem to be another hint that River is more than just human and possibly a Time Lord herself. Of course, being Steven Moffat, every time I think that I can't help but wonder if I am just thinking what Moffat wants the viewer to think.Doorofnight 04:54, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's definitely some sort of fairy tale theme running through this series, with the Doctor describing "Amelia Pond" as a "fairy tale name," and, in turn, "the Raggedy Doctor" being something of a fairy tale for young Amy. I also think it's interesting that the Toclafane (well, the name, anyway) was apparently a fairy tale the Doctor knew as a child, and he had a similar reaction to mention of them as he did to mention of the Pandorica. Is it some other Time Lord fairy tale? TweedJacket 18:33, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there but the Russel T. Davies series' ended with two female characters open ended: River Song, who we now know will be explained (at least in part) this series, and Jenny. Just wild speculation here but is it possible that Jenny and River Song are the same person? After all, Jenny can regenerate.Guitar Steve 12:35, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it unlikely that River Song is Jenny because a)that isn't how the relationship between them is portrayed, it is certainly left vague but there is certainly a very strong romantic and sexual charge to their relationship and River all but says that it is reciprocated by the Doctor in his future and I can't see either of them going in for incest, along with that there is the fact that Father Octavian knows who River really is and again all but says that the Doctor wouldn't be too happy when he finds out and since one would think he would be happy to find out his daughter is alive. And then there is b) which is why would the Doctor's daughter hide her identity from her father?Doorofnight 18:33, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

^Good grief, what is that? -- Dragonfree  09:29, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I got rid of it, whatever it was. --152.131.9.132 20:35, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, I'm not the only one with that thing showing up. I've gotten into the habit of checking all my posts. I think it might be something to do with firefox, because it never shows up when I use internet explorer. Shall I leave it up so people know what we're talking about, or shall I get rid of it? Musedae 16:16, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. I remember reading somewhere that Jenny was originally going to die at the end of "The Doctor's Daughter", but it was Steven Moffat who wanted to keep her alive. Coincidence? - Anon 14:01, May 2, 2010

River Song is not a timelord. Recall from Silence Forest of the Dead the Doctor notes he'd have a chance of at least surviving, while River wouldn't. Although River disagrees and says "You wouldn't have a chance and neither do I", you've still got to logically deduce that the Doctor at least knows she isn't a Timelord. 92.21.63.165 12:29, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

The logical argument to that would be that how is River so sure that the Doctor wouldn't survive if she wasn't a Time Lord herself(or at least REALLY familiar with their biology). Again, see the comments below, the Doctor not knowing she is a Time Lord doesn't mean that she isn't, as has been established on the show.Doorofnight 01:59, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

More evidence that she is not a time lord is that the Doctor would have known. He says so himself in 'The Sound of Drums'. The only reason he hadn't recognised the Master beforehand was because the Archangel network was interfering in whatever sense he uses to detect other time lords. Burnup15 22:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

It is true, that makes it unlikely, but any Time Lord would be able to produce something to mask that detection, just as the Master does with the Archangel Network. The question is, if she is a Time Lord, WHY she would want/need to mask her identity as a Time Lord and such. I do agree that it is unlikely that she is, I am just saying that since it is established that both technology and a kind of telepathy can mask it the fact that the Doctor can't tell she's a Time Lord doesn't preclude her being one.Doorofnight 01:59, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Duck Pond
The Doctor references the duck pond without any ducks in The Eleventh Hour as something connected to the cracks and their nature of unwriting/rewriting time. Is this significant enough to go under the references section? 92.4.29.75 13:24, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely important, let me just highlight something; when Amy is questioned about the Duck Pond she's says there's never been any ducks which points towards them being erased before she time travels, if they did get erased that is. Or perhaps the ducks were part of her personal timeline and she forgot them anyway, like Rory *sniffles* ~Coolio~

Everyone Dies
Should it be noted that everyone introduced in this story (e.g. not the Doctor, Amy or River) dies? This is especially rare considering Moffet has penned a lot of 'everybody lives' stories. --Bluesilver 10:09, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I know, Moffat said he didn't even realise he'd killed anyone off until afterwards. Mentioned something about 'blood on his hands' if I remember correctly ~Coolio~

Rose
When The Doctor and Amy are standing on the shoreline and the doctor says time can be written, does anyone else think he's thinking about Rose

I don't think Rose will return or anything. But you never know!! Who7 18:06, May 3, 2019 (UTC)



NOOOOO!!!!! (Sorry, gut reaction.) Seriously, though, I doubt Rose will have anything to do with Steven Moffat's stories, especially considering she was done to death in the RTD era. It's more likely that he was talking about preventing River's death or possibly stopping the cracks from ever having occurred. Bluebox444 17:13, May 3, 2010 (UTC)



Preventing River's death was my first thought, too. Her death must be heavy on his mind, while he knows that Rose is alive and well (and in fact with a copy of himself).



Hack59 18:00, May 3, 2010 (UTC)



I HATE Rose. I hope won't be returning, please NO! By the way, if the events from the series 4 final never happened because time was re-writen, doesn't that mean the duplicate doctor was never made? Rose is still rotting alone in the parelel universe, yipee! MidnightCat 19:26, May 3, 2010 (UTC)



It would also mean that the Doctor-Donna never happened. But that would mean Ten would still be travelling with her, and maybe "End of Time" would have ended differently since Wilf would have acted differently, and... oh this is just getting confusing. Librarinerd 22:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)



Rose, Donna and The Other 'Childeren of Time' may all remember the events of The Stolen Earth because they were all Time Travellers and, Like Amy (Who remembered all the Clergy



dying and the weeping angels falling in to the cracks).DalekJast092 22:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)



He was probably thinking about everything bad that ever happened to anyone he loved, and how it could be rewritten. Time travelers are unaffected by the changes to history, but the world around them will change. How akward it must be for them... Like, Donna's family might expect her to remember the Doctor because the memory wiped never happened, but it did to Donna, and therefore she doesn't remember still? This is super-diper, wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. Delton Menace 23:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think the crack just erases whatever fell into them, it's certainly hinted at, thus the Daleks would fall through and never exist, yet the events would still have happened, minus the Daleks. Donna would have had her mind wiped anyway. -whoknows

My First thought at that scene was "Thats Bad Wolf Bay!" and after rewatching all of its aperences I would have to wholeheartedly say that it is a homage to Bad Wolf Bay.

Ditto to the comment above mine, probably was filmed at the same place or something ~Coolio~

Will River kill the Doctor?
It is possible it is someone related to The Doctor. Maybe The Doctor's father (we've seen The Woman which is believed to be his mother) or maybe his grandson (we never found out what happened with Jenny(The Doctor's Daughter)). But then again it is possible that the mysterious man is the child of The Doctor and River. Your guess is as good as mine.Invictus152 22:02, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

This great man that River is meant to have killed. Does anyone think it could be the doctor?

That sounds pretty likely. I'm guessing something along the lines that she'll kill him in some way at the end of Matt Smith's time. Hack59 18:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

A possibility is that River is forced to kill the Doctor at the series climax - making it look deliberate - and even she won't know whether he survived to regenerate or not. Idji 18:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

River said she learnt how to fly the TARDIS from "the best" - and it wasn't the Doctor, maybe the "very good man" is also not the Doctor. Moffat in Confidential said he wants us to wonder whether it was the Doctor - so he will leave that possibility always open until the end, just like the "4 knocks" was something we waited a whole season for, we thought it would be the Master and "he" turned out to be Wilfred Mott Idji 18:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

River sacrificed herself for the Doctor and everyone else in the Forest of the Dead, maybe it was her redemption from her deep sense of guilt that she was the one who caused the Doctor to die. Something happened to cause her to got off the right time stream into the 10th Doctor's Idji 19:02, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe River "marries" the 12th and last Doctor, and her killing of him is what "reboots" the Doctor so he can start his generations over again? Octavian knows the man the River killed and it clearly wasn't the 11th Doctor. Idji 19:02, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Octavian says that if the Doctor finds out, he won't help them any more. So he believes that the Doctor would really resent that River killed that particular person, and who would be important enough for the Doctor to resent that? Himself is a good and obvious guess. Hack59 20:01, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Idji. That's exactly what I thought. And Hack59, the Doctor isn't that self centered. He'd be really, really angry if she killed one of his friends. Isop 16:53, May 4, 2010 (UTC)



Well, not self-centered, but he knows that he is "brilliant" (he keeps saying that of himself, regularly) and "the best". Also, how many close male friends does he have? He routinely forgot Mickey's existence, for instance; and I don't think he'd count either Jack or Wilf(!) as "the best"... I find it would just be very much in character for him to draw that conclusion, that doesn't make him self-centered. He's plenty caring, but false modesty he has not. Hack59 22:25, May 4, 2010 (UTC)



I got another thought about this one: River Song was only a doctor at the time of the killing, so perhaps that event happened quite early in her own timeline. It would be poetic symmetry if she kills the Doctor when she first meets him, similar to how he sees her die when he first meets her. If that's the case, then we won't see this until Matt Smith's last appearance, though. Hack59 17:17, May 5, 2010 (UTC)



That is such a cool idea, she killing the Doctor when she first meets him! Maybe she thought he was very bad and did it deliberately and then she is filled with so much guilt the rest of her life when she finds out how good he was. Idji 17:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hack59 he killed himself to save Wilf, do you not think that he might be a bit annoyde if he was killed?! Not saying it was Wilf, just that it's likely that he might get a male companion who he likes. - whoknows

Okay, lets start with what we know shall we? River kills the best man she ever knew Aka, the Doctor. However this happened 12,000 years before the time of Matt smith's Doctor, he is a time traveller so that bits taken care of. The Christmas special coming up Moffat or someone else stated that this episode was the first time the Doctor and River met. It is stated here that River will die in series 6. My guess is that she will kill the Doc 12th not 11th how, I do not know, probably using the Vortex manipulator in the current day to go back and such be able to kill the doctor, having already died twice. Someone said earlier that River was not taught by the Doctor, however, in later episodes she says, "I was taught by you remember," or something like that I believe it was in TPO or TBB. Any thoughts?--Dannflow  00:52, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Does the Doctor cause the cracks?
I said this before in the Victory of the Daleks discussion: Could it be that the Doctor (or the TARDIS) is causing the cracks? (The crack in the War Rooms wasn't there when the TARDIS arrived, but it was visible at the end.) In that case, how did the crack in little Amelia's room come about? The Doctor (possibly a future version) would have to already have been there. Maybe he told Amelia something back then which she's supposed to remember, but doesn't? Hack59 18:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be right! Because apparently, Caitlin Blackwood (who played little Amelia) has been spotted filming another episode with some other kid being told something by the Doctor. It could be in the finale and he... well, I can't get round the fact that he already knows and we haven't seen it. I actually thought he was trying to get her to try to remember something non-exsistent so she could cling on to her personality and keep as Amy. Isop 17:00, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

River apparently doesn't know about the cracks in The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone. Evidence: When they spot the crack River asks the Doctor what it is and unless she is extremely good at lying she genuinly doesn't have a clue. What does this mean for The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang? ~Coolio~

== Please explain! ==

I think that if the cracks had erased the Medusa Cascade incident then 1.Donna would be never gone,2.Rose wouldn't return to this universe to warn the Doctor and 3.the Doctor wouldn't feel guilty about losing companions and would travel with companions,even if Donna left him,which could somehow prevent his regeneration.I want your opinions! Jimmy10101997 19:02, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused to. See my comment in the catagory Rose on this page. MidnightCat 19:29, May 3, 2010 (UTC)





It'd going to be something at the end of the series,possibly to do with the Pandorica opening - The doctor mentioned in this episode towards the end (I forget the correct line) "Yeah, for Now! But it's still happening out there, somewhere in time" The series will ultimately (probably) be them trying to stop the one that causes the cracks (backed up I think by another line towards the end - it's all you - the whole universe depends on me sorting you out right now) though technically if they stop the cracks from ever appearing the first episode is negated - thanks to Amy not being scared of said crack and wishing to Santa - not asking the doctor to come have a look, and so on - though I have mentioned before - Moffets head writer now and he loves his paradox's so who knows. but ultimately them stopping the cracks will stop the erasing of the Medusa Cascade from being and everybody remembers - though technically one could also argue that without the cracks this episode is pretty messed up too - agh I am thinking too much now.91.109.102.152 22:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

yes, you are all thinking too much. Because the Doctor is a time traveller AND a Time Lord, it kinda erases the possiblity of cancelling his own timeline out -.-. He's called a TIME LORD for a reason :D. besides, if Medusa Cascade war was erased, the time travellers wouldnt be affected and neither would the Doc10 clone or Rose and Jackie because they all used the TARDIS. Everyone who has used the TARDIS would not be affected by the erasion because of some complicated Time Lord time travel reason.

Plus, you would have to erase Dalek Caan's intrusion into the Time War essenially because Medusa Cascade was a result of his intrusion succeeding, so the Daleks came back and did Medusa Cascade. Its also possible that the crack on Amy's wall only affected her as we haven't talked to another Present Day Human since Victory of the Daleks, should be interesting to see what Rory says.... Ooiue 19:01, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Don't the Angels deadlock each other?
I'm getting a bit confused how so many Angels can coexist in such narrow spaces without completely deadlocking each other, just like the four original Angels did. They are clearly supposed to be able to see perfectly in the dark, and they all have their eyes wide open. How can they be as mobile as they are? (Also, how can they jump up to the ship after the grav globe had been depleted?) Hack59 20:08, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor explained that the Angels self defence mechanism is instinctive (which is why they froze even when Amy had her eyes closed). Either they were fighting against instinct, or they were directly avoiding looking at each other, we're not entirely how the Angel's eyesight works, so for all we know they're capable of focussing their gaze to the point where they can only see their intended target and nothing around them. The Weeping Angels the Doctor trapped in Blink may have eventually been able to fight off the affects of the defence mechanisms to avert the and move, but by then the Doctor probably had UNIT or someone round them up and destroy them. Adam 148 20:17, May 3, 2010 (UTC)



Hmmm... maybe that's how the plot is explained, but it's pretty lame. The Doctor definitely said earlier that the Angels are "quantum locked" and that "they have no choice". That always made it sound like a physical reaction to being observed (measurement problem anyone? ;-) ), not like a biological reaction that is in some sense deliberate. Hm, well, this whole episode was kind of laming out, everything was very deus-ex, and the final solution didn't even have anything to do with the Doctor -- the Angels were in fact just thick enough to do themselves in. Hack59 23:56, May 3, 2010 (UTC)



The Doctor says in Blink that they have NO choice. That their quantum lock is a "fact of their biology". While they are certainly Moffat's monsters, and he has every right to add to canon, this change made them logically inconsistent. He should know better as a storyteller that plot holes like that interrupt the suspension of disbelief. I agree that this was a very deus-ex sort of solution, and that it seemed like Moffat was just getting his kicks by trying gimmicks to scare the audience. It completely wrecked the wonderful scariness of the Angels to say, "they can't move if you look at them, and it's so much a fact of their biology that EVEN THE AUDIENCE LOOKING AT THEM freezes them into rock", and then to say, "Nope, we lied, they move if the characters close their eyes and their instincts don't kick in. Watch them move, aren't they scaaaaary!" I was NOT amused. CitizenX

There is one detail that no one else has thought of - not really a foolproof explanation, but it may help. Did anyone notice the scene in the Byzantium in which we were given a view of the Angels from the other side of the Crack? That would seem to imply that someone is watching them through it. That would make sense, I think. With the Angels' amazing speed, don't you think they'd have been able to get away from the Crack a lot faster than that? I think (and this is just a theory) that something had its eye on them from within the crack, but not all the time, which explains why they were able to move at times. The thing about the audience being able to freeze them isn't actually set in stone (pardon the pun). Also, even if the quantum lock is a fact of their biology, it would probably make them instinctively freeze whenever they saw someone coming, because they knew they would be frozen anyway. And, if all their attentions were focused elsewhere, they might just stay frozen without noticing that the person's eyes were closed. I think they were moving slowly because they were being cautious. Think about it. There's a reality-destroying crack on their heels; they're going to be TERRIFIED of being frozen, so they don't want to give Amy a chance to do it. If they make any noise, she might turn around and look, and they'll have lost more precious time. Bluebox444 11:04, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

One other thing - when the Doctor talked about the Angels' "instincts" kicking in, he might not have been talking about the quantum lock. In fact, he almost certainly wasn't, as this would contradict "The Time of Angels", in which he said the Angels can't move if you're looking at them. It makes more sense to assume that he was talking about their instincts to avoid getting stuck, not to consciously freeze. While they weren't paying attention to Amy, thus being fooled into thinking she could see them, they avoided her so they wouldn't provoke her to stare at them. That way they could still focus on escaping once she had left. If they had caused her to get them into a staring contest, she wouldn't have left, and the Crack would have gotten them. Once they began to suspect that she couldn't see them, they moved slowly toward her for fear that she would open her eyes and freeze them. Yes, I know, this doesn't fully explain why they were frozen in the first place as she walked by. My theory is that the Crack itself - or something inside it - was looking at them until the moment when they began to move on screen. The scene in which they have the Doctor by his coat would seem to support this. He's not looking at any of them, since he's facing the Crack. The Crack is "looking" at all the Angels, and they're frozen. Yet there are times in the flight deck scene when they can move, therefore the Crack must not be looking at them constantly.

Aside from all these attempts at explanation, I do agree that there are some weaknesses in Flesh and Stone. Some things just weren't adequately explained. I blame this on the many complex concepts the episode was dealing with, and the fact that the story was forced into a 42-minute running time. In other words, it's not entirely Steven Moffat's fault. Bluebox444 13:17, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that simply through sheer number, unless all of them got deadlocked at once, that another angel could simply move another angel and cancel out the deadlock? That's over-complicated, but the only major moments we see possible perma-deadlock are the stealing of the Doctor's jacket and Amy, with her eyes closed. Even then, there's always an angel at the back of the pack, who, as soon as we stop looking, is no longer deadlocked. The only reason the angels in Blink were perma-deadlocked is beacause they are all equally deadlocked. So basically, if you have angels coming for you in formation, look at the one at the back.219.90.150.136 15:47, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible since the angels evolved the quantum-lock that they could evolve further to the next stage in quantum-lock where they could control it? I mean look at the time distance in between Blink and Flesh and Stone. Thats like 3000 years isn't it? I think the angels would be able to perfect the quantum-lock (or at the very least control it)? If they really did have about 3000 years to look at each other one would eventually figure out a way to get around it, we see it in nature every day its simply natural selection, the angel that figures out a way to move while still Quantum-locked would be the one to live.Berfomet 03:34, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bluebox444's solution. The angels have just sort of developed an instinct to freeze whenever they see something move or something approaching. Amy wasn't looking at them when she tripped, which means they could technically move, but still chose to (instinctively) not to since they knew Amy was there and could freeze them any second. Perhaps being forced to freeze is somehow "painful" for them and they can simply "elect" to freeze. Speculation, but fun to think about. By the way, none of the events or scenes in this episode stops the Angels from being kick-ass. Bttsstewart 12:58, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

One possible explanation is that the Angels are presumably used to the fact that they'd lock each other, and have adapted techniques to work around it. Presuming a group of Angels were all facing the same way, the one in the back wouldn't be locked, and could close/cover its eyes, freeing ones in front of it, who could then do the same to allow those in front of them to move. Sure, it'd be tedious, but we know they've been around forever, so it's not impossible that they've got some sort of system like that perfected. Also, minor side note, I saw your edit there, Berfomet, and you were right the first time - this story takes place roughly 3000 years after Blink, not 12000 (51st century = the 5000's) TweedJacket 21:59, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my time but yeah I would imagine that in 3000 years any species could evolve a way to undo something it had already evolved (there was even a fish that de-evolved after hundreds of years on the sea floor) and didn't the doctor say the angels were weak? after years without power? than couldn't they not have enough power to trigger the Quantum-Lock?Berfomet 22:18, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Amy says "Explain."
I may be reading too far into things, but upon re-watching this episode I noticed Amy says "Explain." a number of times, as it's own one-word command (as in, as its own sentence, not just in a sentence, since that'd hardly be noteworthy). I don't know if that's at all significant or if it's just how Amy talks, but sounds like an odd thing to say/way to say it. Dare I say, it almost sounds like a Dalek way to phrase it. Anyone else notice this? TweedJacket 09:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Doctor's later statement in The Big Bang that Rory is now "Mr. Pond" pretty much sums it up. 68.146.64.9 18:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Moffat's clever Cracks!?
Okay, the "Cracks" in time... I think they actually successfully explain EVERY SINGLE CONTINUITY ERROR EVER. I mean, now everything can just be put down to the cracks. Even those little production errors; a character's hair being in different positions between shots? A simple "blip" in time caused by the Cracks... I mean, these could technically explain every single production error that has ever existed in the Whoniverse. It is now officially IMPOSSIBLE for Doctor Who to have any continuity error, isn't it? Thoughts? Bttsstewart 13:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Haha I love this comment - thanks for making me smile and i totally agree!!!!! lottie01 23:30, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Possible Production Error?
So I've noticed something after watching The Time of Angels and Flesh and Stone back to back a few times. Has anyone else noticed that the distance between the top level of the maze and the bottom of the Byzantium changes drastically between the end of The Time of Angels (when the group first reaches that point) and the beginning of Flesh and Stone (when the camera zooms out and shows the group is actually upside-down)? By my estimate, the first distance is roughly 7-8 Amy Ponds (which comes out to let's say 40-45 feet, which makes sense because River estimates it at a little over 30) while the second distance is at least 10-15 Amys (a distance of 60-80 feet or so). Would anyone else agree that this counts as a production error? KalebPSpector 01:43, September 2, 2011 (UTC)