Howling:The Little Girl's True Identity

I finally discovered who the little girl is, and it is actually pretty obvious if you think about it. The little girl has the power to regenerate, but the only timelord left alive (the doc) is a man, so he can't be a little girl. However, if you have played THe Mazes of The Dead, then you will know that Amhy also, apparently has the power to regenerate. Therefore, the little girl is either Amy herself, or more likely, the daughter of Amy and Rory. If it is Amy and Rory's daughter, then because Amy has the power to regenerate, there wouldn't even need to be any interference from the silence or the tardis, or the doctor being the father. 69.251.176.120 00:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Who says a male Time Lord can't regenerate into a little girl? The 4th Doctor said he could, and there have been other such references in the show. And Moffat definitely knows about those references, since he talked about them after he wrote [The Curse of Fatal Death], a parody where the Doctor _did_ regenerate into a female. --99.33.26.0 04:26, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

The girl is obviously not Amy, but the previous poster does raise an interesting point. If this wiki does consider video games to be canon, than does that mean that we have to consider Amy's odd ability to regenerate to be canon, despite the fact that it will most likely never be addressed on the TV show?Gowron8472 00:42, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Is Amy's regeneration a major plot point of the game, or is it just some minor thing, and was Moffat or one of the other writers of the current season involved with writing the plot of the game. If Moffat was involved, I doubt that he would reveal such a major plot point in a video game, and if he was not involved, I don't think we should allow a video game to define such a major plot point.Icecreamdif 03:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It was written by Oli Smith, who's written (at least) an NSA and the two Nintendo games, but no TV episodes. Also, IIRC, the game was written "in consultation with" Moffat, Willis, Wenger, and BBC Wales. But anyway, unlike the Adventure Games, no one from the show has gone out of their way to tell us it's canonical. So, I'd say it falls into the same category as the Nintendo games or the Flash games on the BBC website.
 * More importantly, it's not really a plot point so much as part of the game mechanics. The characters only die if you screw up, and regeneration is just how you get your "next guy". It's just like the way time rewinds itself to the start of the scene if you screw up in the Adventure Games--but, even though those games are canonical, we're not expected to believe that the Whoniverse works that way. For that matter, the fact that Pacman reappears at the center of a maze every time he dies in the game wasn't a plot point in the Pacman cartoons.
 * PS, it's [The Mazes of Time], not The Mazes of the Dead. Go check it out in the App Store. --99.33.26.0 04:26, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I just downloaded the game, and have already experienced Amy regenerating a few times. The problem is that normally when a character dies and then comes back to life at an earlier part of the level, you are just meant to pretend that the character never died and is continuing on. However, the character's death would normally be depicted as you would expect it to happen. For example, if Pac-Man were ever to die, his mouth really would open wide and he would sort of collapse in on himself. In this case, if we are to consider the game to be canon, we have to assume that if Amy were to die she would regenerate. We don't see the completed regeneration, because the player(the real person who is holding their i-pad) essentially travels back in time a few minutes, and we see Amy from before she died, and in this timeline she hasn't been killed. However, if we were to somehow continue to watch the events unfold, we have to assume that Amy would have regenerated into a new body. Since the TV show will obviously never pursue this, we should probably consider the game non-canon, since the alternative would be to assume that Amy could regenerate.Icecreamdif 01:33, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

As a big nerd and a big video gamer, I feel I should point out that things done for gameplay purposes may not be canon. Sometimes, continuity sacrifices must be made for the purposes of making a good game. Sorryaboutthatchief 05:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sorryaboutthatchief. I don't think Amy's regenerations in the game are meant to imply that Steven Moffat told Oli Smith that Amy is a Time Lady. Also, keep in mind that this isn't a cinematic, looks-like-an-animated-episode type of game; it's less directly representational than the Adventure Games. (Again, unlike the Adventure Games, we haven't heard from Moffat and Wegner that it definitely is part of the Doctor Who continuity anyway--but I think that, even if the game in general is considered canonical, I don't think this bit is.) --99.33.26.0 02:24, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Where is this game? Don't think I've heard of it before JCRendle 11:17, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's a cheaply produced iPhone game which you can buy on the app store. I wouldn't look to deeply into the Amy regeneration thing though, the game reuses maps constantly so to reuse a death scene doesn't seem that out of place when you're playing on it. --Revan\Talk 12:19, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can watch Matt Smith playing it on the iPad at http://www.combom.co.uk/2011/05/matt-smith-plays-doctor-who-mazes-of.html. For some reason, he keeps calling the companion "Karen" instead of "Amy", so maybe it's Karen who can regenerate. :) --99.33.26.0 03:39, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think the little girl is a child of The Doctor and River. Weird theory, but makes sense. There are parts that don't, (For example, River would already know who the girl was if they do meet in reverse order all the time) but I can bet she isn't Amy.

That idea has been brought up before on lots of forums. There are some interesting points for it (e.g., in the novels, hybrids with Time Lord mothers are human, while hybrids with Time Lord fathers are Gallifreyan) and against it (like the one you pointed out), but the biggest thing for me is that it seems odd to put all this emphasis on Amy's possible pregnancy only to drop a River baby on us instead.... --99.33.26.0 03:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)