Series 7/Season 33/(insert your own alternative designation) News

[quinny06]

I'm wondering if Julian "Downton Abbey" Fellowes and ITV have been secretly rubbing their hands with glee at the timing of the announcement. Jenna-Louise appears in Fellowes' Titanic mini-series, starting on ITV1 this Sunday. Might they be hoping to get a ratings boost from Who fans tuning in for a look at Ms Coleman?

I'll certainly be watching for that very reason.

[newbaggy]

The first teaser promo - a video using footage from Block 1 (episodes 2 and 3) that was first shown at the official Doctor Who Convention in Cardiff this weekend.

http://www.ksitetv.com/doctor-who/doctor-who-series-7-the-promo-trailer-is-released/13023

Note: saw KSite edit to change the link - not a problem.

[quinny06]

The trailer looks glorious. Absolutely can't wait. I loves me some Daleks!

Has everyone heard the news about Amy and Rory's final adventure? As well as featuring the Weeping Angels, the show will be returning to America to film, as this episode will be set in New York.

[Austin 3:16]

Matt Smith told The Huffington Post this past wknd that he will be with Doctor Who for the "forseeable future" according to Darkhorizons.com. Overjoyed to hear that! he has become one of my favorite actors to take on the role.

[liana]

The trailer looks glorious. Absolutely can't wait. I loves me some Daleks!

Has everyone heard the news about Amy and Rory's final adventure? As well as featuring the Weeping Angels, the show will be returning to America to film, as this episode will be set in New York.

New York and the Weeping Angels? Hum. I wonder... What if this changes River's past? She was a toddler, in the middle of New York when she regenerated right after escaping the Silence, and time can be rewritten. I mean, maybe Rory and Amy are thrown into the past, and they end up near the first Melody Pond, before she died and regenerated into Mells.

It is probably not going to happen, but one could hope, right? It wouldn't be the first time one of the Ponds got their past rewritten. Amy, for example, in the first version of the universe didn't have parents. After the Doctor rebooted the universe, she got both her parents back.

It is too much of a coincidence, after all, and it would still be a happy ending for both of them. And Melody could still become River, going by another path. The only difference is that, instead of growing up with her parents, she would be raised by them. The post hypnotic suggestion that made her try to kill the Doctor would still be there, so events could still happen the way they did in "Let's kill Hittler", with some differences. It will certainly beat killing both of them. Besides, the original way that Weeping Angles used to kill people, IMO, was much better than the way they did in "Time of the Angels" and "Flesh and Stone". As the Doctor said, they killed people nicely in "Blink".

That would be the only way I could accept Amy and Rory's death: going back to the past, when the Doctor couldn't reach them, in fear of crossing his own timeline (both 10th and 11th were in 1969, just in different places), or simply because he had no idea which point in time they were sent to. This "death" is not really death, because they both get to live their natural lives, just in another time, and if they are together they can still reach happiness. It would be even better if it turns out that this allows them to find and raise their daughter.

[newbaggy]

Today's Radio Times has a new interview with Jenna-Louise Coleman (print version only - not on the website at the moment). Apparently, the "Jenna" in her name comes from Jenna Wade, Priscilla Presley's character in the original Dallas. More importantly, Jenna-Louise doesn't even know the new companion's name or where she comes from. Although she was given some details about the character and her story, she asked executive producers Steven Moffat and Caroline Skinner not to tell her anything more before she needs to know - she can't even say if she will use her natural Lancashire accent or not because she doesn't have enough information. Should make her first read of the Christmas script interesting.

[liana]

Today's Radio Times has a new interview with Jenna-Louise Coleman (print version only - not on the website at the moment). Apparently, the "Jenna" in her name comes from Jenna Wade, Priscilla Presley's character in the original Dallas. More importantly, Jenna-Louise doesn't even know the new companion's name or where she comes from. Although she was given some details about the character and her story, she asked executive producers Steven Moffat and Caroline Skinner not to tell her anything more before she needs to know - she can't even say if she will use her natural Lancashire accent or not because she doesn't have enough information. Should make her first read of the Christmas script interesting.

Interesting. That means whoever she is going to be is a big deal, and she has to be someone linked to the past history of the show. She must be either linked with one of the Doctor's previous companions, or even one of them (Susan or Romana, both of them timelord, and supposed to be dead). She could also be a regenerated Jenny, or one of the Doctor's children (he admitted to Donna that he had been a father) that survived the Time War.

She certainly isn't an entirely new character with no link whatsoever to the past, such as Rose, Donna, Martha or Amy were, or they would reveal some details about her. Not to mention they wouldn't say things like "dramatic turn of events" or even "one of the biggest mysteries the Time Lord has ever encountered".

Any way, thanks newbaggy for all those spoilers. It is very kind of you to share them with us.

[Austin 3:16]

What if she is somehow related to Sarah Jane? Could be a nice tribute to one of his best friends.

[quinny06]

Interesting. That means whoever she is going to be is a big deal, and she has to be someone linked to the past history of the show. She must be either linked with one of the Doctor's previous companions, or even one of them (Susan or Romana, both of them timelord, and supposed to be dead). She could also be a regenerated Jenny, or one of the Doctor's children (he admitted to Donna that he had been a father) that survived the Time War.

She certainly isn't an entirely new character with no link whatsoever to the past, such as Rose, Donna, Martha or Amy were, or they would reveal some details about her. Not to mention they wouldn't say things like "dramatic turn of events" or even "one of the biggest mysteries the Time Lord has ever encountered".

Any way, thanks newbaggy for all those spoilers. It is very kind of you to share them with us.

Either that or Moffat hasn't quite gotten around to writing what her name is/who she is yet.

[liana]

Either that or Moffat hasn't quite gotten around to writing what her name is/who she is yet.

True. But I would expect them to already know it. I mean, apparently they already filmed episodes 2 and 3, and she is supposed to appear in episode 6, right? At this point they must have an idea of who she is supposed to be. How can you select an actress for a role you have absolutely no idea about? Certainly some small details, such as names are always subject to changes. You can decide to call a character 'Alice', and when you are actually filming the episode decide that 'Catherine' suits the character best. It happens, but that is not what they are saying. They are implying they are not giving details because it is something huge and extremely relevant to the story.

Of course, rule number one always applies ('Moffat lies').

[protege]

New York and the Weeping Angels? Hum. I wonder... What if this changes River's past? She was a toddler, in the middle of New York when she regenerated right after escaping the Silence, and time can be rewritten. I mean, maybe Rory and Amy are thrown into the past, and they end up near the first Melody Pond, before she died and regenerated into Mells.

It is probably not going to happen, but one could hope, right? It wouldn't be the first time one of the Ponds got their past rewritten. Amy, for example, in the first version of the universe didn't have parents. After the Doctor rebooted the universe, she got both her parents back.

It is too much of a coincidence, after all, and it would still be a happy ending for both of them. And Melody could still become River, going by another path. The only difference is that, instead of growing up with her parents, she would be raised by them. The post hypnotic suggestion that made her try to kill the Doctor would still be there, so events could still happen the way they did in "Let's kill Hittler", with some differences. It will certainly beat killing both of them. Besides, the original way that Weeping Angles used to kill people, IMO, was much better than the way they did in "Time of the Angels" and "Flesh and Stone". As the Doctor said, they killed people nicely in "Blink".

That would be the only way I could accept Amy and Rory's death: going back to the past, when the Doctor couldn't reach them, in fear of crossing his own timeline (both 10th and 11th were in 1969, just in different places), or simply because he had no idea which point in time they were sent to. This "death" is not really death, because they both get to live their natural lives, just in another time, and if they are together they can still reach happiness. It would be even better if it turns out that this allows them to find and raise their daughter.

I'm wondering if the episode in question has the Doctor, Amy and Rory, travelling to new york to find their child, who regenerated into a baby, only to find the weeping angels have her...

[liana]

I'm wondering if the episode in question has the Doctor, Amy and Rory, travelling to new york to find their child, who regenerated into a baby, only to find the weeping angels have her...

I don't think the Doctor would change history to give her back to Amy and Rory. If this happens, it will be by accident. The Doctor's death in River's hands is a fixed point in time, and for it to happen, Amy and Rory can't raise baby Melody. If it happens, it will be by accident and somehow, the ending result will be the same because it was always meant to happen, of course.

But changing it on purpose, after knowing what could happen is something the Doctor would never do.

I wonder, though. This is the last episode with Amy and Rory, so, shouldn't River be part of it somehow? It seems unfair that they will say good bye to the show without having one last episode with their daughter.

[Tekken Force]

Haven't fully read everyone else's posts, but I was under the impression that the next season would be Matt's last hurrah, and that he was looking to pastures new. But if Coleman is only just joining in on the xmas special, surely that must be this won't be Matt last's full year? Oh, but of course I'm forgetting about what 2013 is...

[Austin 3:16]

Tekken, he said something about leaving in TV Guide last fall but recently, he changed his mind. Works for me. He has really become The Doctor.

[liana]

Haven't fully read everyone else's posts, but I was under the impression that the next season would be Matt's last hurrah, and that he was looking to pastures new. But if Coleman is only just joining in on the xmas special, surely that must be this won't be Matt last's full year? Oh, but of course I'm forgetting about what 2013 is...

Well, Matt has been saying, recently, that he will be there for the 50th anniversary, and that he is not planning to leave for now. I was under the impression, from his recent interviews, that he will be around both in 2012 and 2013. After that, I am guessing he will probably leave. I also read something about David Tennant wanting to return for the 50th anniversary, and I know there is some tradition in former Doctors returning. It would be interesting to see how they are going to do that. I mean, I thought that if two doctors from different times were in the same place there would be a paradox, and the universe would end.

Then again, River mentioned that it happened once, on her birthday in "A good man goes to war". It would be interesting if that was what she meant: two doctors but not only from two differents points on time, but also from two different regenerations.