Howling:The Angels and the Ponds

I am never right when I do this, but I do it anyway. I've just got a lock on my batty conspiracy theory for Amy, Rory and the Angels. I don't think the recurring themes are foreshadowing or window-dressing, I think they are narrative coordinates left by Moffat (yes, it's one of 'those' sort of conspiracies).

Flickering lights get you two associations: The Silence and the Angels. Those both get you 1969. Then there's Christmas references, and the fact that the Angels will be offering their travel services in Manhattan in next week's episode.

Put all that together with River feeling the need to make another meaningful family appearance, and you get the coordinates Christmas 1969, New York - just weeks prior to the "New York - 6 months later" segment from Day of the Moon where Melody turns into a toddler on the streets of New York and takes 20 years to somehow work her way to Leadworth.

I think Amy and Rory are going to finally be sent 'home'. But even if I'm right (and I'm not), I get the impression they don't plan to tell us what actually happens to them. Wibbly-Wobbly ☎  21:09, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a pile, isn't it? (sorry, this was still me Wibbly-Wobbly ☎  01:39, September 30, 2012 (UTC)) (unsigned)

well, i think you might be right. and then we may see how melody got from new york to leadworth. it may answer a few questions. and you're right; it isn't like moffat to put in these recurring themes and not having them lead to anything. ps, i heard somewhere i think that one of the ponds might die in this episode, although i can't remember where i heard that to verify my sources. but i do think we will be shown what happens to the ponds no matter what. Imamadmad ☎  08:07, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Wibbly-Wobbly: "Christmas 1969, New York" would certainly answer the question (in the topic "Series 7 Arc possibilities") of "how they'll fit a Christmas reference into The Angels Take Manhattan"! --89.242.70.202talk to me 14:02, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be good if it turns out that the Angels are working with the Silence in this episode. That would give two resolutions to the possible flickering light bulb arc. 94.72.194.203talk to me 19:04, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

I just read another theory on Facebook about next weekend's episode - in The Power of Three, a dressing table in the Ponds' bedroom has a fob watch on it. In Let's Kill Hitler, when River regenerated, Rory complained of a banging in his head. And in The God Complex, Rory didn't have a room. The Doctor looked in a room which could be presumed to be his, but he said "Of course it was you" and we hear the Cloister Bell. Could Rory be a regenerated version of The Master? It would be heartbreaking for Amy if he is. Personally, I doubt that it's true at all though. Why bother including the Angels in the episode if it was?

Rory is not the Master. Ignoring how stupid a plot point that would be, we've seen Rory as a child in Let's Kill Hitler, the Master has already used a chameleon arch so it would be repetitive if he used one again, he has no reason to use one again now that the Time War is over, fob watches are something that exist without being part of a Time Lord machine, he didn't have a room because he no longer put his faith in anything after two thousand years, and most importantly, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Rory is the Master.Icecreamdif ☎  00:50, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of using a fob watch in the first place is that it's ordinary enough not to be an immediate giveaway. The ploy only works because almost all fob watches are just fob watches. --89.242.77.146talk to me 03:37, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Rory being the Master would be silly. On top of everything mentioned above: Think of what they'd have to reveal about Brian for it to make any sense at all. Plus, River wouldn't have needed the whole "conceived in the TARDIS" thing or any of the Silence manipulation if her father were the Master.

If they wanted to do more with Rory, there's still a lot of interesting ideas left open. First, "real Rory" isn't really any more real than Auton Rory was: they were both created out of Amy's memories. Does that ever bother him? Are there any other consequences? Meanwhile, do we know for sure that Auton Rory ceased to exist when "real Rory" was restored? If not, think about it: He waited 2000 years for Amy, and then another re-remembered version of himself stole his life and got to live happily ever after. If handled right, that's potentially a better villain than the Master. And so on.

However, I don't think any of that going to happen. There's only 45 minutes to tell the "heartbreaking end of the Amy and Rory saga", and the aftermath where "not everyone gets out unscathed, and I mean it this time", all in a massive story set in Manhattan with the Angels and the return of River Song. Throwing the revenge of the other Rory into all that would be like… well, exactly like throwing the revenge of the other Fitz into The Ancestor Cell, and I think that's a mistake Moffat wouldn't make. --70.36.140.233talk to me 07:11, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the temporal coordinates were off a bit... but it's worth noting that they stayed in New York, so they would have been there for the events of Day of the Moon, and died around the time little Mels appeared in Amy's childhood in Leadworth. But you may file that under 'happily ever after' speculation. Wibbly-Wobbly ☎  01:39, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Adult River was able to stay in contact with them (she gave her "novel" to Amy to get it published). She'd make it clear to them what they could & what they couldn't do in respect of young Melody. Whatever else they might be willing to do, they'd not want to mess up their daughter's timeline. That doesn't rule out the possibility of interaction with young Melody & it might explain some of the mysteries about her life between regenerating in New York & arriving in Leadworth. It might also mean there was more to the remark "you got to bring me up, after all" than they (or we) understood when Mels said it in Let's Kill Hitler. --89.242.79.205talk to me 07:58, September 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * All we really know for sure is that River was able to contact Amy once, to send her the manuscript, not that she was able to maintain regular contact. But of course we don't know that they _didn't_ have more contact than that. I suspect Moffat deliberately left open the possibility of Amy and Rory meeting adult River, little-girl River, and/or young Mels, in case he wants to bring them back for the finale or series 8 without ruining the end of their story. But Moffat leaves a lot of things open and only uses a handful of them, so there's a good chance we'll never know what, if anything, happened between them. --70.36.140.233talk to me 14:10, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

"Moffat leaves a lot of things open and only uses a handful of them": Oh! You noticed that, too, did you? :) --89.240.250.6talk to me 17:22, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Really, what brought River to 1938 in the first place, where she was known by locals to be 'investigating angels'? Rory asks her 'how' she got there, but not why. I think she knew this was an 'event' in her life, like she knew about Demon's Run. I read a lot into River's sudden, insistent encouragement to Amy, that her touching the Angel was the right thing to do. She seemed pretty confident, almost impatient, to override the Doctor's attempts to discourage Amy. I think she knew precisely that Amy would land in the past with Rory, which means she had some knowledge of these events earlier on her timeline. I doubt Moffat will ever violate their departure by filming something set in that part of the timeline, but we might see some bits of River-banter that throw light on it. 174.25.106.125talk to me 20:10, September 30, 2012 (UTC)