Doctor Who News Doctor Who writer Steven Moffat

Published on October 2nd, 2012 | by Christian Cawley

Amy and Rory: Endings All “used up” Says Moff

The new issue of the Radio Times is on sale today (for the week running 6th to 12th October) and features an interview with Steven Moffat who explains why Amy and Rory had to leave the TARDIS.

With the dramatic cover tagline “STEVEN MOFFAT WHY AMY HAD TO DIE”, you might be forgiven for thinking that the RT has missed the point somewhat. But of course, from the Doctor’s perspective, the immutable fact of Amy and Rory’s gravestones means that they are now dead; he can no longer go back and visit them.

Showrunner Steven “The Grand Moff” Moffat tells Radio Times that the companions were ready for a final, proper ending.

It was time to give the story of Amy and Rory Pond and their mad old friend, the Doctor, a proper ending. Something fitting and final. The trouble was, I’d used up all the endings already…”

Doctor Who companions generally leave the series in one of three ways.

Interestingly, both had already left the TARDIS and been married off (to each other) which really only left one more option…,

Read the full interview in this week’s Radio  Times, the cover for which you can see below. Find out more at  www.radiotimes.com!

 

email

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

A long-term Doctor Who fan, Christian grew up watching the show and has early memories of the Graham Williams era. His favourite stories are Inferno, The Seeds of Doom and Human Nature (although The Empty Child, Blink and Utopia all come close). When he’s not bossing around the news team, Christian is a freelance writer specialising in mobile technology and domestic computing, and enjoys classic rock, cooking and spending time in the countryside with his wife and young children. You can find him on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.




10 Responses to Amy and Rory: Endings All “used up” Says Moff

  1. James says:

    The characters had completed all their arks but surely Dr Who could still meet up with them whilst they’re on their holidays abroad and have yet another adventure? As long as there is a gravestone erected eventually, his last adventure remains unparadoxical.

    The trouble is that these characters are boring. I wouldn’t want them back, they’re always whining to go home so go already!

  2. Paul Gee says:

    Except there are so many plot holes the Doctor can nip back any time and visit the Ponds. Should have popped them on a freighter and smashed it into Earth, that’s the way to kill off a companion!


    • Indeed – and what of the first few moments of The Hungry Earth?

      • Colin McDonough says:

        But surely that occured on Earth prior to the Big Bang reboot of the Universe?


        • Did it? Only the Moff knows…

      • Ian McArdell says:

        I thought of that, but it was in about 2020… and Amy suggested that the Doctor had been in and out of their lives for about ten years (from 2010?)… so I don’t think it conflicts.

        Quite why they can’t pop on a train out of New York and meet hum is another matter of course… a shame there’s no rule about those touched by Angels being unable to time travel, but that was nixed by Martha and 10 in Blink I suppose.

  3. James says:

    I’m such an anorak, my first thought was, “She didn’t die…”
    :P

  4. Michael Mcghie says:

    I really am glad that they killed them off the story has been really weak since David Tennant left! I think Matt Smith is a crap docotr!


    • Michael, please note that reasoned discussion is the order of the day on Kasterborous. Declaring an actor as “crap” is both unfair and irrelevant without evidence to form an argument to back it up.

      I suspect you’re one of our younger readers, but I reckon as a Doctor Who fan you’ll be bright enough to put a few words together to explain why you feel that way.

  5. Andy Blake says:

    There’s no good reason why he can’t go back and visit them before they died. Amy’s afterword does suggest they never saw him again, but then…it’s hard to fathom why, all of a sudden, the detail of history cannot be rewritten because the broad outline is known. When Rose saved her father, he still died but not in the same way. When the Tenth Doctor made even a fixed point like Adelaide’s death wobble slightly, the KNOWN history was rewritten in his memory. Moffat’s new explanation of “fixed time” is an arbitrary contrivance on his part. Like expecting us to believe that another paradox will blow up New York when the paradox that un-did the Angels’ “battery farm” obviously didn’t.

    The deeper question is this: if showrunners have to go hunting for “options” to dump companions, and then offer us scenarios that are as implausible as they are moving (and believe me, when you want to cry but you’re struggling to work out the why, that’s a weird place to be in)…well, doesn’t that suggest that maybe the companions don’t have good cause to be leaving in the first place?

    Series like Buffy and Smallville ran successfully for a decade with largely the same core cast. (Sensibly, American networks have their actors on five or seven year contracts.) On Doctor Who we seem to think that you can’t do that. Only we Brits could design a show where, every couple of series on average, we keep losing the main audience identification characters in their prime. Development is truncated and years of unrealised potential are thrown away so that we can do the whole thing over again with a new face.

    Never mind: I couldn’t really get into the Ponds too much anyway, I mean why should I put in the emotional investment for someone who’s just passing through? There are enough of us who are still hurting that we prematurely lost Rose to a similarly contrived ‘resolution’ in Journey’s End. In one character, we had a Buffy the Dalek Slayer, a romantic heroine and a female James Bond (as in Nikita meets Men in Black), with some residue of Bad Wolf still (ask Queen Vic’s werewolf) and, unlike Moffat’s companions, an open-ended future. So many directions open to her, and she’s left sitting in a parallel universe going to waste!

    Make no mistake, Oswin/Clara is looking every inch a worthy successor. But surely the Doctor should not be restricted to a conveyor-belt of one or two ‘friends’ at a time? He has so many he could call on. In a single series he could spend episodes with Amy, Christina and Martha, either separately or teamed up. Clara could share some adventures with Rose: a dynamite pairing if you ask me. And why couldn’t Rose have been set up as a recurring character and allowed to drop in and out on dates with the Doctor instead of the annoying River Song? If we’re going to give him a wife (or at least a sweetheart), what was so wrong with the available, logical and widely favoured choice in the first place?

    And yet, Rose got a ‘resolution’ which undermines who she is: the woman who would have followed the real Doctor even into a black hole. But still we’re stuck with smug, holier-than-the-Doctor River Song, whose past and future have basically all played out. She is now a hangover from Amy and Rory, but you can bet Moffat will keep HER coming back for no particularly good reason except…because she can.

Tell us what you think!

Please be aware that all comments are subject to adherence to our comments policy.
Back to Top ↑