Howling:Amy Pond's time periods - 90s, 2008, and 2010

We are we classing the events of the Eleventh Hour as happening in 2010, and the Doctor's second return as 2012? When the Atraxi look at tEarth's recent history, it shows only events that happened prior to 2008, it showed no 2008 or 2009 events. The latest thing it showed was The Runawya Bride - the end of 2007, nothing after that. In Vincent and the Doctor, when the Doctor takes Amy back to her time period, it's 2010, placing most of The Eleventh Hour in 2008.

It fits, though: they only show events that happened prior to to 2008 (the latest being the end of 2007), placing it more in 2008, and then two years later, 2010, fitting with how it's 2010 when the Doctor goes back to Amy's time period later in the series, and calls it 2010. Delton Menace 19:42, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

So... Are our timelines synced now? Finally >.< Cannon881 19:46, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

They are as of the shaky 2009 specials forcing them that way, and the grand Moffat, being how he is, wouldn't want a confused chronology. Many reports cited child Amy scenes as 1996, which when adding 12, makes 2008, and another 2, makes 2010, which again fits with the dialouge in Vincent and the Doctor. :) Delton Menace 19:48, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hah, good, no more confusion about the one year ahead thing RTD had (the only bad thing in his era.....that and the new cybermen) the twelfth doctor 20:02, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Course none of this takes into account the prominent shot of the London Eye in the opening sequence . . .  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 03:59, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does nobody read DWM? Moffat did a 'answers to your questions before you ask them' - one of which was 'Because it's a time machine, dummy'. Issue 417, Production Notes. BlueDalek 17:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing they could do about that, they got a helicopter to film an overview of London at some point this year, and wa-la, the landmarks are there! Basically - nothing they could do, they probably don't have the money to edit our landmarks and replace them.Or they just weren't bothered/thinking. We can always come up with the lovely excuse that the Whoniverse had some things built earlier. Plus, when the Doctor left Earth, it was a snowy 2005; however, when the TARDIS crashed back down, it's monitor with the time-reprisenting synbbols went mad, he could have been knocked into different time periods before ending up in Amy's Garden. Delton Menace 04:18, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just on that point, of course there's something they could do about that. They did the same thing for Daleks in Manhattan. They de-aged modern shots of Manhattan. London Eye would've been somewhat easy to paint out in those shots as well, cause there's not much around it.


 * Anyway, you've got bigger problems than the London Eye. The only definitive date in the entire episode is Rory's ID badge, issued —wait for it — 30th November 1990. That makes the Amelia stuff in the early 1980s at the very latest. If that's not a production error, this whole episode can't be any later than about 2000. Your whole theory of 96/2008/2010 is frankly shot to hell.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍

MY THEROY? That's what has been reported from on-set, that the child stuff was 1996, plus the Atraxi see 2007 events when looking at Earth's history, and when the Doctor returns to Amy's time period in a later episode, the year is - wait for it - 2010. Rory's ID badge is frankly shot to hell, too, say Earth's history and a later episode. Delton Menace 04:57, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only thing! Facebook, Twitter, and a very modern laptop - and multi-webcam conversations. Twitter, for a start, didn't exist until like 2008, and Facebook was 2004. Webcams like that seen in the episode, along with that laptop, are very wouldn't have existed prior to the 2000s, too. To add fuel to your fire, people weren't too suprsied by the aliens, either. Rory wasn't shocked, and asked if they were bad aliens - note how "bad" aliens invaded in the mid to late 2000s. *rolls eyes* Delton Menace 05:00, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, your theory. No need to shout. "Reports from the set" aren't valid references. That's not to say I don't understand everything you're saying. The chronology of this episode, taken in isolation, is frankly quite confusing. They didn't have to make the badge the way they did. Despite what you've said above, they didn't have to leave the London Eye in a shot ostensibly from some point in the 20th century. They didn't have to show us the latest models of cell phones and laptops. THe props and backgrounds are incongruous. Somewhere there is a production error in the episode —or some kind of purposeful statement from Moffat that the DWU is not running at the same time as the real world. After all, the DW of Moffat's youth wasn't contemporaneous with the year of the viewer..
 * Until we get to these later episodes, we won't be able to tell what about the many conflicting things in The Eleventh Hour is a production error, and what isn't. At the moment, the best we can say is that the only firm date in the entire episode is what's given on Rory's badge.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 08:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I might have a solution, the doctor who universe has slightly more advanced technolagy than us, so perhaps the devices were relased earlier, for example they have or had space ships to mars (The Ambasidors of Death, The Tenth Planet), working and powerfull lazer guns (The Seeds of Doom), crude time travel devices (The Invasion of the Dinosaurs, The City of Death), Dooms-day weapons (The Tenth Planet, The Stolen Earth/ Journeys End) Ect.

So why can't they have modern laptops and all the other stuff a bit early? General MGD 109


 * Hold everything, I have the answer, As reveled in DWA 161 the doctor meets young amy in 1996, the main part of the story takes place in 2008, and at the end, doctor takes her from 2010 in the end, check it if you don't belive me. General MGD 109|General MGD 109
 * It's certainly worth noting that DWA says this — in a behind the scenes note. But it's still a behind-the-scenes article. We're looking here for in-narrative proof. DWA and DWM have both been wrong about in-narrative facts they've reported, just like any other news source. There's no rush to find this answer. It'll come as we watch the series.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 17:30, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Plus the fact that it had a great big shot of the millennium dome during the TARDIS crashing sequence, could indicate sometime just before 2000, like, when it was being built. - Ooiue 18:36, April 9th 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon visit 1 was 1996, visit 2 was 2008 and visit 3 was 2010. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 03:07, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Amy's lack of familiarity with the Daleks in Victory would seem to suggest we really know nothing definite about Amy's actual time line. I'd urge everyone to calm down on making positive references to her timeline until the series concludes so that we don't have to go back through several articles and revert everything.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 22:55, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

My theory: pre-title sequence is New Years Day 2005. Tardis travels back to 1996 and from London to Leadworth before materialising, presumably just above, and crashing on Amelia's shed. She clearly hears the sound of the Tardis before rushing outside so it hasn't just flown there through the sky.

.It was confirmed that Rory's ID badge was a production era, and CzechOut, the Doctor would know when Amy is from because he has a time machine, and he expects her to remember the Daleks, so there. When he returns to modern day Earth later in the series, it's 2010, too. So there, just accept it already. End of. And right after he mentions her not knowing about the Daleks and says she SHOULD (meaning came with him following their invasion), a crack in time and space is shown. It's clearly that the events probably never even happened anymore because the cracks changed time and removed some events from history. Delton Menace 08:52, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

But that's not the only possibility. For example:
 * Maybe it's more complicated: (whatever's behind) the cracks didn't just remove things from history, but totally splintered it. History is no longer self-consistent. If anyone sat down and tried to work it out (as us fans do in real life), they'd notice things didn't make sense, but they'd probably figure that it was the evidence and/or memories that were wrong, not history itself. (This one could even be used retroactively, to explain things like the UNIT dates and the Brig being over 100 only 80 years after he was born and there being no Wheel in Space....)


 * Or maybe everyone is somehow on a different timeline from each other now. The overall effect is similar, but each person's timeline is consistent, so it would be even harder to notice. (If your past were different from someone else's, it would only come up in those "I paid last time" or "you forgot our anniversary 5 years ago" arguments--which already happen all the time, so nobody would necessarily notice that time was broken).
 * Slightly simpler, maybe they just took certain people, maybe even just Amy, out of the normal timeline and into another. (But, unlike the "Pete's World" thing, she's still interacting with the rest of us.)


 * Much simpler, they just stole memories (whether just from Amy or from everyone)--Amy still lived through Journey's End, she just doesn't remember it. (Just like Donna, but for different reasons.)


 * Maybe the memories are still in her head, but there's the equivalent of a perception filter (or a SEP) preventing her from accessing them.


 * Maybe she's a robot with preprogrammed memories (like Bracewell or a replicant), but they made some major mistakes, or intentionally left things out.


 * And so on.... --Falcotron 00:48, April 27, 2010 (UTC)