@Patrick
Ah yes but let’s not forget that when the TARDIS was flying over London, seen was The Millenium Dome… I’m not denying the dats you#ve specified, more just throwing out some more info.

@Patrick n Joey
Patrick, have been miffed about that since it happened, we KNOW he just put the TARDIS in earth orbit n then crashed after seeing Rose in 2005 then he crashed back in the mid(ish?) Nineties. I’m terribly hoping that that fact as well the Doctor’s several severely OOC moments this past series are significant of the plot and not indicative of mistakes this writing team has made.

This hope is somewhat supported by the timey-wimeyness of the multi-Doc episode we had last series and also by Moffat stating that the fact that River clearly remembers the Doctor when supposedly he’s entirely out of existence was, indeed, important. High among those OOC moments is the Doctor’s casual dismissal of someone building a timeboat the ATE PEOPLE. and the Doctor WASN’T in the least bit concerned by this fact.

@Merry
WRT: the TARDIS flying over the Dome at the top of 5.1, watch the ep with the commentary if you’ve got the boxset. That’s no big plot point, that’s just the fact that as a three dimensional object travels in three dimensions before crashing, a 4D machine will crash through time, too. No big deal.

I do agree that more needs to be done with the time machine in The Lodger, though. Left as is, that’s very lazy writing. I struggle to see how they’ll rectify the Doctor’s reluctance to investigate further, which is a massive shame.

TSG, I never thought of that! 4D machine! and I should have, thank you for pointing that out! As far as the massively sloppy writing that may or may not be a plot point, I also think his response to the Sil scientist should be listed there. The guy stated he kidnapped schildren, slowed their metabolism and experimented on them and the doctor responds “I love you”?!?!? I don’t see how they can make it related sans, say, the Valeyard of the like, but I truly hope they do somehow.

So interesting to read all the theories for series 6!
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this before.
Just watched episode 1 of series 5 again, and I thought about that Amelia Pond is mentioned several times to be a “fairy tale name”. And there are later mentions of Amy’s life not making any sense. And why would Amelia ‘change’ her name to Amy (or use it instead of Amelia)? Could it be that Amy is not real, a fairytale or that she is simply not the real Amelia?

@MSF
Good theory that. Could that have something to do with the crack?

@MSF I always took the change from Amelia to Amy as a character note, rather than a plot one. She was doing it partly to spite the Doctor, partly to convince herself that he didn’t exist – imagine your own name reminding you of something you know you should forget.

As for her life not making sense, hasn’t that been fully explained by the cracks already? Although forgetting the Daleks is possibly a bit of a stretch. Yeah, I’d like an explanation to that.

In the past series with Billie Piper then was BAD WOLF writtain suttaly through out the series. With Freema Agyeman there was ‘VOTE SAXON’ and news reports through out the program as hints to the last episodes as well as THE BEES DISAPEARING in catherine Tates series. Matt smiths series had cracks through out the series…..so whats gonna be hiding in the next series….?

everybody shortens thier name if they don’t like it! And the cracks were key in the last series not HER NAME that has NOTHING to do with anything…..or does it?
@MSF

It could just be nothing, the idea just popped into my head watching the first episode. It could just be that she changed her name/shortened it because she thought it was nicer
But still, you never quite know with DW: anything could mean anything I just really think that there is something with Amy, as they keep saying that they face big choices and that there is something with her in the cliffhanger episode in the new series. I just have this feeling that we’re not quite aware of all that she is, yet.
River Song also takes some of the focus away from Amy (at least for me) because throughout series 5 you’re wondering who she is and where she comes from. It would be crazy if the big surprise was actually not River’s true identity, but Amy’s.

@MSF
Liking how your thinking particularly the last sentence about the “big surprise of finding the identity of Amy instead of River.” Very clever that =)

@MSF
I like it. And you’ve a good point: none of these spoilers we’re getting seem to mention River. Instead, they’re all about Amy and the Doctor.

Incidentally, don’t you think River’s reveal has a huge chance of being an anti-climax after the last three years of theorising? We must have stumbled across the truth at least twice before discarding it.

@MSF
Brilliant idea. And you’re right, I did’nt see it before, but River was’nt a major part of the trailer. But what could Amy’s secret be?

I think the big revalation will be more about Amy than River. That would be a super twist. Here we are theorizing all about river when in fact the real WTF moment will be about Amy.

This is just going off what Matt said in an interview:

“The Doctor and Amy are faced with some really harrowing and seismic choices about their relationship and who they are, and why they are important together”

Who they are? …What?

They had better not kill off Amy Pond. I will be VERY upset.

She needs at least one more season

My wife bumped into James Corden in a Jacuzzi in a hotel in Cardiff today. He was doing a night shoot for Dr Who. She asked him what he was up to (not being a Dr Who fan) and he said (so she says) he was being the companion for Dr Who.
Just one appearance?…no idea. Any thoughts on whether he would make a good full time companion?

@lee rawlings
Are you kidding? He’d be fantastic!! Your wife is brilliant!

@Banegirl
On the other hand, if you killed Amy, it would get rid of Rory too. So if you’re looking to keep things fresh and changeable, that would probably be a good way to do it…

As for the ‘who they are’ line – figurative or literal???? That’s what we need to know!!

When i saw the picture of the naked River in prison I immediately thought of A Tale of Two Cities.

I’m starting to think Amy may in fact be a Tardis. I’ve voiced the theory before, and little things keep adding up, i’m probably way off the mark, but there is still the mystery about Amy’s house having an extra top floor (which wasn’t mentioned again after 5.1, but when River returns there later the house has two floors not three) there was a primitive Tardis on craigs house disguised as a top floor.

Amelia and Amy are not the same person, as evidenced by them both meeting in the finale last year, no paradox.

@Revenant
But when the Doctor arrived at the museum he referenced them as two Ponds when he said, “Come along PondS and not POND,” meaning that they are the same person and even in the opening part of the Beast Below Amy says, “My name is Amy Pond. When I was seven I had an imaginary friend. Last night was the night before my wedding. And my imaginary friend came back.” Which also confirms they are the same and in the Eleventh Hour she says she changed her name to Amy as Amelia was a fairytales name as quoted by the Doctor in the same episode but when he met young Amy.