Overview on Rory

Post Reply
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

One friend told me he felt it wrong that Rory wasn’t the companion from Series 5’s beginning, nevermind Moffat interrupting his run by repeatedly killing him.

Personally I felt Rory was a gooseberry. Yes he’s Amy’s boyfriend, and it’s plausible she loved him and felt he’s right for her, being an insecure commitment-phobic.

Perhaps Amy’s personality problems meant she worked with only select people one to one. Perhaps she and Smith worked as a pair better than with Rory too.

The Ponds were the loveable misfits that discovered each other. I liked Rory initially. His clumsily fighting off a vampire with a broomstick. The natural followon to Amy seducing the Doctor. Like Mina seduced and half-turned by Dracula, reasserting her faithfulness to her fiancé by killing the vampire agent attacking him.

Maybe I didn’t mind Rory so much as prefer Series 5’s earlier half. Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone remains my favourite Matt Smith story, though Day of the Doctor and Rings of Akhaten occasionally threaten to usurp it.

I loved Amy’s Choice which suited their trio team dynamic like Genesis did Sarah and Harry and Enlightenment anomalously did Tegan and Turlough. Girl Who Waited did too. That beautiful emotional climax where older Amy begs Rory not to save her is as much his scene as hers.

His death and Amy’s numbed reaction in Amy’s Choice was perfect. Suddenly any insensitivity she’d shown Rory or recklessness with his heart was clearly her Peter Pan syndrome or heartfelt words she couldn’t say aloud for being too afraid or too autistic to understand her emotional centrality.

Unfortunately they kept repeating it. In Cold Blood, Rory’s death should be fittingly tragic, an innocent killed in the crossfire of another petty war between man and Silurian the Doctor couldn’t peacefully resolve.

But whilst Amy’s Choice was understated and yet thinly cutting and hard hitting in its cruel silence, this was nulling Chibnall sound and fury concluding plentiful suspect sentiments and cheap, calculating audience manipulations beforehand. It didn’t enhance the tragedy, it exhausted it. I didn’t care. Yet two episodes earlier I absolutely did in the same scenario.

This got worse after The Big Bang. Maybe the wedding was a mistake.

It makes sense though. Transitioning from young Amelia being told the Doctor’s bedtime story, to the woman putting away childish things, yet remembers back her childhood imaginary friend.

But it requires the crack reopened by Amy’s will (like Gwyneth opening the rift to the Gelth) presumably at her house, whereupon offscreen the Doctor escapes, changes clothed, then materialises there in wedding getup. It would’ve made more televisual sense having the crack open at the reception and showing us the Tardis escape through it. But Moffat apparently judged it better he arrives appropriately dressed.

The other problem is Rory shouldn’t remember being an Auton, any more than Hartnel’s Doctor should remember being a Dalek duplicate.

The same issue bugged me about the Red Dwarf episode Timeslides where Rimmer all too briefly is alive again having changed his personal history. He shouldn’t be ecstatic about being alive, nor remember his hologramatic self’s plan, because in his hologram’s words “I’m not really me. I’m a computer simulation of me.”

Auton Rory was a clone, a ganger almost. Sure it gives him affinity with the gangers’ plight in Series 6. But otherwise it’d be better if Amy and the Doctor alone knew Rory unknowingly in another life was her fiercely loyal protector, and thus had deepened affection for him.

Instead it became Rory’s easy card to pull on her of “I’m more devoted to you because I spent 2000 years protecting you and waiting when you were in a box you were only in because I shot you in the first placeyou selfish bitch!”

What do you do after making a married man of Rory? Well Moffat seemed to think you make a bloody Klingon of him next!

I liked Worf, and kinda liked DS9’s Dax (especially her roleplaying as an acerbic chary Romulan with Sisko in In The Pale Moonlight). However she’s easily the River Song of Trek.

I hated when they became a couple and their tacky displays of flirtatious affection making me actually feel like a gooseberry. I even hated Tennant and Rose less and *they* made even my inner prudish anorak shout “Oh just shag and be done with it!”

But I *really* hated Worf after Dax died and he used that as an excuse to be a colossal pr*ck to everyone who liked her. Quite frankly he became a creep then, right down to his bizarre reverse-stalking of poor nervous Ezri.

But this was to prolong the mandatory seventh season with filler episodes, even filler arcs.

I suspect there’s similar reasons Rory becomes uncomfortably like Worf from then on. Even in A Christmas Carol where he seems to be more concerned about reprimanding Kazran for possibly momentarily looking at Amy’s hardly remotely arousing grainy hologram’s skirt than that the starship they’re on’s crashing!

And I know they’re married but Rory dropping a Tardis cable in Space/Time because he momentarily spied up Amy’s knickerless skirt through the glass ceiling (oh how deep) is an indescribably icky and creepy piece of Moffat writing.

I’m afraid much like Worf’s cold blooded murder of Weyoum, Season 6 saw the show lose its moral soul. Moffat seemed now so ashamed of the do-gooder old square Doctor that he made him instead a hardened ruthless badass, and to River too, making it now impossible to buy the Doctor’s romance with someone so morally reprehensible as her gunslinging self.

It’s been suggested this gun-chic poster-boy/girl posturing is Moffat’s cynical selling to American audiences. Indeed that seems the only reason A Town Called Mercy exists at all.

I don’t believe gun-chic and morality are necessarily mutually exclusive. Nikita’s the most beautiful moral film about a killer growing a conscience I’ve seen. Terminator 2’s a morality play about the worth of human life. Aliens is about the victimised becoming strong enough to protect innocents.

But as Cameron had his utterly cold blooded and insanely right wing True Lies turn, and the coldly, crassly manipulative Titanic, so Moffat’s soul took a fall here.

Time of Angels’ cliffhanger resolution and Hurt’s ‘No More’ message blasting demonstrated Moffat’s Doctor using a gun intelligently and pro-life. Frankly if suckered American gun-nuts learned something enlightening through watching, good.

Unfortunately Series 6 pushed the gun-chic beyond its limit (wait what am I saying? Resurrection of the Daleks would have felt right at home there). Day of the Moon’s resolution was even a crass justification for America’s gun culture’s existence. Much like Independence Day was a crass justification for having a ridiculous military budget.

I don’t actually take umbrage with the Doctor doing this to the Silents, despite it making a colossal hypocrite of him for his reprimanding of Ambrose. The fact is they’re a dominant predator with every advantage over us meaning we have no means of defence against the unseen unmemorable enemy they are. If their superior tyranny was benevolent that’d be one thing, but we see they have, just for sport, murdered humans like that harmless older woman in the bathroom who was no threat to them at all, just because they can.

But the Doctor’s actions are justified in giving mankind a fighting chance against an enemy they can’t and shouldn’t accommodate.

The problem is, well it’d make far more sense to have him do this immediately after Amy’s abduction rather than having him wait to act whilst listening to her palm transmitter as she’s terrified and tormented by these creatures. Having him be so callous and then having him orchestrate the Silents’ massacre is a bit like the Sixth Doctor killing Shockeye in revenge for the death of Oscar he seemingly didn’t care about anyway.

But that was seemingly written so we could get the contrived soap opera rubbish of Rory overhearing Amy talk of her besotted love of the centuries’ old man with the box in frustratingly contrived terms no real person ever would, just so Rory’s left feeling jealous before learning she was talking about his Auton Centurion self, not the Doctor. Because apparently that’s more important than that his wife’s being f*****g tortured!

Hmm, Moffat must really hate two-parters if he’s forced to pad them with mawkish garbage like this.

Now, the scene where Rory finally succumbs to the Doctor’s force of authority and his trust and steps away and lets go of the bogus Amy is beautifully done in regards Rory himself.

But as for next episode, I often criticise Bad Wolf for the moment Eccleston snaps at the Controller for suggesting Rose’s death doesn’t matter, despite the fact he knows she’s an abused, emotionally stunted child with her capacity for human empathy robbed of her when aged five.

But at least the writer seemingly knew this. Moffat seemingly has us believe behind the Cybermen’s ‘blank looks’ they’re sh*tting themselves at the Doctor’s explosions.

Larry Miles once suggested Moffat’s closet anorak will deliberately get the show’s facts wrong to avoid seeming nerdish.

It just serves to boost Rory’s machoness as moronically and implausibly as For The Uniform did for Sisko. Like Warriors’ Doctor suddenly out the blue holding grudges on the Silurian’s behalf, despite being perfectly chummy with the Brigadier in the story immediately beforehand.

I guess the implication is the Doctor, like any typical bloke will, if he’s pissed off, pick a fight with an old enemy who had nothing to do with wronging him this time on the way to save the day. Perhaps a galaxy-monitoring Cyberfleet of that size, gathering intelligence was amassing for invasion and had to be destroyed anyway, but the script doesn’t say so.

Most frustratingly though if Rory should be having a go at anyone it’s the Doctor. Why don’t we open on him shouting at the Doctor at how could he murder Amy’s ganger in cold blood when she shared Amy’s soul and memories, and was their only link to finding the real Amy? So the Doctor can give the answers we desperately want to ask him about why, or how he can know for sure that what he did wasn’t murder? Supposedly the beauty of Rory is that he challenges the Doctor over his actions.

But no, we had to have that narration just to further confuse the focus of what Rory was aiming for by insinuating the Doctor might’ve been the real father. Moffat doesn’t get the difference between smart writing and smartarsed does he?

But it’s also that he badly needs a script editor to in this case tell him he should cut this and replace it with the similar scene with the Dalek in Wedding and have it make much more sense, since everyone knows the only safe Dalek’s a dead Dalek.

The problem is once you’ve made Rory that implausibly invincibly badass it just becomes hopelessly out of synch with his more human realistic fear reactions and timidness elsewhere. Like his nervousness with a gun when pistolwhipping Hitler or well-timed punching out that officer on motorbike. Or indeed his nervous trying to appease a homicidal Dalek he thinks is asking for “eggs”. Or his beautiful vulnerability in Girl Who Waited.

But even his badassery in enduring the Silent’s lethal eyepatch currant to fight them off for Amy’s sake becomes redundant when she just lets rip on them with a machine gun anyway (actually that was kinda hot!).

I’ll discuss my issues with their joint suicide in Manhattan, and that Chibnall penned awkward moment when Rory’s dad letches at his son's wife elsewhere. But for me the Ponds should’ve left on A Good Man Goes To War. Preferably with Amy moved to hug her found daughter as they all teleport home.

Because apart from anything else, If Rory’s the kind of husband who’ll go on the warpath and blow up a Cyberfleet over Amy’s abduction but is all “Nevermind. Where’s our next adventure to” about Melody’s abduction, something’s not working here.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

All I am going to say is that I liked Rory, I thought he and Amy made a perfect couple in the end and were the perfect companions for Smith's Doctor, and I disagree with at least 70% of the above post. Unsurprisingly.

Oh, and just because I'm sick and tired of people making this fairly basic mistake: the Doctor did not "murder" Amy's Ganger. It wasn't alive, it had no mind or soul or independant existence of its own, unlike the ones affected by the storm. It was simply something Amy was unwittingly 'piloting' by remote control, which is why she Wide Awake Club up in the maternity room when it was destroyed.
User avatar
Allons-y
 
 
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:28 pm
Contact:

tony ingram wrote:All I am going to say is that I liked Rory, I thought he and Amy made a perfect couple in the end and were the perfect companions for Smith's Doctor, and I disagree with at least 70% of the above post. Unsurprisingly.

Oh, and just because I'm sick and tired of people making this fairly basic mistake: the Doctor did not "murder" Amy's Ganger. It wasn't alive, it had no mind or soul or independant existence of its own, unlike the ones affected by the storm. It was simply something Amy was unwittingly 'piloting' by remote control, which is why she Wide Awake Club up in the maternity room when it was destroyed.
I didn't read 70% of it, but I too liked Rory, he was a bit of a woose at times, but on the whole he was a good companion for the Doctor and it was nice to see a male companion again (I suppose Jack and Adam were too, but they were both so brief), and Amy and him were well suited.
AMERICA IS AN ANVIL.

:4thDoctor: There's no point in being grown up, if you can't be childish sometimes!
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

tony ingram wrote:All I am going to say is that I liked Rory, I thought he and Amy made a perfect couple in the end and were the perfect companions for Smith's Doctor, and I disagree with at least 70% of the above post. Unsurprisingly.
I liked him, and liked Amy with him as a couple. I just had issues with his characterisation and his use in Series 6.
Oh, and just because I'm sick and tired of people making this fairly basic mistake: the Doctor did not "murder" Amy's Ganger. It wasn't alive, it had no mind or soul or independant existence of its own, unlike the ones affected by the storm. It was simply something Amy was unwittingly 'piloting' by remote control, which is why she Wide Awake Club up in the maternity room when it was destroyed.
It was an organic form of life. It had her thoughts, her feelings. It was in a sense alive. Not sure if you've heard Cyberman 2 but there's a beautiful existential discussion between Samantha Silver the android and Hazel about what makes a living existence and emotion genuine, and Samantha says that her binary code and electrical impulses is no less true an emotion than the chemical reactions in the porridge of the human brain.

Likewise what about the ghosting in Silence in the Library where the deceased astronaut's personality chip survives a good four minutes after the occupant's death and actually experiences their terror and death agony belatedly after. Were they also not 'alive' when the end came for them? They certainly beieved so, and feared death as much as any real living creature would.

I'm sorry but the scene with the Amy Ganger was crying out for a Solaris like moment for her to outright say "My feelings are not 'inferior' to yours."

I do feel something's a bit wrong when quibbling about the worth of a ganger's life and soul is dismissed as 'pointless nitpicking' (I can't think of anything less in the show's moral spirit infact), just as much as RTD's fanatics mock nerdy nitpicker fans even when it means ignoring the fact that Eccleston behaved needlessly cowardly in the resolution to Aliens of London by running out on his electrocuted Unit chums and leaving the voltage on, rather thasn endeavouring to cut the power and to see if any of them can be revived and might've survived the voltage (since he survivied it and in any case there's no such thing as a definite lethal voltage for all humans since there are cases of prisoners in the electric chair taking six minutes of electrocution before they actually die).

Yes the Doctor might have been guilty of no murder at all and Amy's ganger might've possessed no life, and only the echo of Amy's true life and personality... but what bugs me is that the Doctor has to *absolutely* beyond a shadow of a doubt know this for sure before he does it. And I don't for a moment feel he was, a scene where he explains this fully to an outraged Rory in the next episode's opening could have cleared up this issue for the doubting viewer. I don't see why they were excluded answers here.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

Tanlee wrote:
tony ingram wrote:
Oh, and just because I'm sick and tired of people making this fairly basic mistake: the Doctor did not "murder" Amy's Ganger. It wasn't alive, it had no mind or soul or independant existence of its own, unlike the ones affected by the storm. It was simply something Amy was unwittingly 'piloting' by remote control, which is why she Wide Awake Club up in the maternity room when it was destroyed.
It was an organic form of life. It had her thoughts, her feelings. It was in a sense alive. Not sure if you've heard Cyberman 2 but there's a beautiful existential discussion between Samantha Silver the android and Hazel about what makes a living existence and emotion genuine, and Samantha says that her binary code and electrical impulses is no less true an emotion than the chemical reactions in the porridge of the human brain.

Likewise what about the ghosting in Silence in the Library where the deceased astronaut's personality chip survives a good four minutes after the occupant's death and actually experiences their terror and death agony belatedly after. Were they also not 'alive' when the end came for them? They certainly beieved so, and feared death as much as any real living creature would.

I'm sorry but the scene with the Amy Ganger was crying out for a Solaris like moment for her to outright say "My feelings are not 'inferior' to yours."

I do feel something's a bit wrong when quibbling about the worth of a ganger's life and soul is dismissed as 'pointless nitpicking' (I can't think of anything less in the show's moral spirit infact), just as much as RTD's fanatics mock nerdy nitpicker fans even when it means ignoring the fact that Eccleston behaved needlessly cowardly in the resolution to Aliens of London by running out on his electrocuted Unit chums and leaving the voltage on, rather thasn endeavouring to cut the power and to see if any of them can be revived and might've survived the voltage (since he did, and in any case there's no such thing as a definite lethal voltage for all humans since there are cases of prisoners in the electric chair taking six minutes of electrocution before they actually die).

Yes the Doctor might have been guilty of no murder at all and Amy's ganger might've possessed no life, and only the echo of Amy's true life and personality... but what bugs me is that the Doctor has to *absolutely* beyond a shadow of a doubt know this for sure before he does it. And I don't for a moment feel he was, a scene where he explains this fully to an outraged Rory in the next episode's opening could have cleared up this issue for the doubting viewer. I don't see why they were excluded answers here.
The Ganger didn't have Amy's thoughts and feelings, it didn't have any thoughts and feelings. Amy had those thoughts and feelings, and Amy was looking out through the Ganger's eyes and using its hands, but she was not it and it was not her. All the Doctor did was to cut off a remote connection. I don't believe any explanatory scene for the doubting viewer was necessary because I think most of the viewers understood that perfectly well. The only reason the other Gangers in that story had independant consciousness was because of the storm that zapped the equipment. The Amy Ganger was a product of a later version of the technology which presumably was created after they ironed out the bugs that allowed that to happen.
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

tony ingram wrote:I don't believe any explanatory scene for the doubting viewer was necessary because I think most of the viewers understood that perfectly well.
Really?

But just think about how the scene's presented to the viewer. It is a moment where the Doctor becomes sinister and reduces Amy to distraught tears. It is played like something out of a horror movie with the Doctor presented as the cold blooded hunter, condemning Amy's ganger to her fate ruthlessly. Moreover it's presented like a literal nightmare, in the sense that things suddenly become unpredictable and shocking, and events and people's actions change and become sinister and cruel without warning, much like the dreamed dad in Paperhouse. The Doctor does something that leaves the viewer thinking "did I just see what I just saw?". It is not a scene that plays on the sense that what's happening is logical or pragmatic. It's about the horrific shock of the moment. It's essentially a cliffhanger but there's no reassuring resolution or return to normality where we're reassured that the nightmare Doctor is still the benevolent hero we know.

I'd say not until Angels Take Manhattan or Rings of Akhaten infact.

[/quote]The only reason the other Gangers in that story had independant consciousness was because of the storm that zapped the equipment. The Amy Ganger was a product of a later version of the technology which presumably was created after they ironed out the bugs that allowed that to happen.[/quote]

The problem I have with this detail is who perfected the later advanced technology?

The Silence did. And we have no reason to believe they'd be so benevolent as to create the most humane method of creating Gangers so that they possess no human soul and don't die when they're effectively creamed.

Infact it'd make more sense given their knowledge of him and nefarious goals to put the Doctor in a moral quandary where he daren't get rid of their spy without it requiring killing a living sentient thing with as much innocence and right to exist as the real Amy. That's how these things play, or at least are supposed to. The villains are cavalier about innocent life, the hero is not.... not the other way round.
User avatar
tony ingram
 
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:03 pm
Contact:

It was the real Amy, mentally inhabiting a flesh avatar. At no point is it ever implied that it's anything else. They didn't create the Ganger to spy on the Doctor, but to prevent him (and Amy and Rory) from realising they'd taken Amy.
User avatar
The Krynoid Man
 
 
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Contact:

I think he's a less cool Harry Sullivan
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
User avatar
Allons-y
 
 
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:28 pm
Contact:

Harry was pretty cool 8-)
AMERICA IS AN ANVIL.

:4thDoctor: There's no point in being grown up, if you can't be childish sometimes!
Tanlee
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:45 pm

I think the main classic influence on Amy and Rory was from Jimmy and Jenny in Seven Keys To Doomsday.
Mr J Angry
Banned From Forum
Banned From Forum
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:00 am

My overview

he wuz a wus and smelt of cabbage
User avatar
The Krynoid Man
 
 
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Contact:

Mr J Angry wrote:My overview

he wuz a wus and smelt of cabbage
I'm going to agree with this
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
User avatar
The Ginger Cat
Site Manager
Site Manager
Posts: 11819
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:39 pm
Location: Hell
Contact:

The Krynoid man wrote:
Mr J Angry wrote:My overview

he wuz a wus and smelt of cabbage
I'm going to agree with this
Well I can only partially agree with it,as unfortunately (or fortunately as the case maybe) my telly doesn't come equipped with 'Smell-o-Vision'.
Post Reply

Return to “The Smith Era”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests