Den of Geek

Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang

LordJuss


Are you still puzzled by elements of the Doctor Who series 5 finale, The Big Bang? Then this might be the explanation you're waiting for...

Published on Jul 5, 2010

Okay, so The Big Bang was a fantastic and clever and silly Doctor Who series finale, but also rather difficult to understand in some places.

So here’s a quick run down on what I think happened. Most of this is drawn from comments in the show, but you have to go beyond the Pandorica: The Eleventh Hour and Flesh and Stone are also needed to understand everything that happened. Being fair, I’m pretty sure of about 60% of this, less sure of 30% and there’s 10% that’s guesswork (particularly regarding the fate of Auton Rory).
 
How did the Doctor get out of the Pandorica?

Rory let him out. Simple as that!
 
Alright, not actually that simple. Rory could only do that as the Doctor, who had already been let out of the box by Rory, came and told Rory to let him out.

This has made some people very uncomfortable as they feel that the Doctor must have got himself out some other way then come back to get Rory to do it. Sad to say, they are wrong. While it may not be pleasant, and some may see it as cheating, there is no reason that this can’t happen within the rules as established in the DW universe. If you have a time machine you can go back in time and save yourself, so allowing yourself to go back in time. In Star Trek they call it a Predestination Paradox and a big, fat paradox it is, but that doesn’t stop it being allowed.
 
We have plenty of other examples of it happening in DW, they are just less obvious. Time Crash is one – the Tenth Doctor saves the TARDIS because, when he was the Fifth, he saw the Tenth do it. Blink is another – the only reason the Doctor knows what to say to Sally on the DVD is because he has a transcript written by someone who watched him on the DVD. Even in the old series, Day of the Daleks is built on this sort of paradox.

But Day also shows its weakness – one change and the whole timeline goes up in smoke. Essentially the Doctor is crossing his own time-stream and this is deeply frowned upon because of the trouble it can cause if it doesn’t work – look what happened in Father’s Day!

But, by this point, the universe has collapsed and they are all doomed. In this circumstance it’s understandable that the Doctor throws the rulebook away: he knows that if he screws this one up, then it can't really get any worse than, er, the universe having been destroyed.
 
More generally, after the loss of the Time Lords, the rules of time seem to be rather less well enforced than they were. As Waters of Mars makes clear, they are not physical but legal constructs, designed to stop people playing silly buggers with the time-stream. And that episode shows that the rules can be broken, but doing so tends to have serious consequences.
 
How come the Pandorica was so easy to open?

That’s the thing about prisons: you have to be able to open them from the outside to put someone in. They only need to be secure from the inside. The Doctor chose not to open it in The Pandorica Opens because he wasn’t certain what was inside, not because he couldn’t open it at all.
 
Why was the Vortex Manipulator so good at time travel if it’s meant to be crap?

The Doctor kindly explains this in a throwaway line. The universe is now much smaller, taking up essentially only the Earth-Moon area, so time and space travel is much, much less complex.

Why did River run into a wall when she tried to leave the TARDIS?

A good question. As the TARDIS is beginning to explode, the Doctor tells River that if she leaves the engines will stop. The implication is, therefore, that the wall is put there by whoever is controlling the TARDIS to stop that happening. One for next season.
 
Why did the Dalek not kill the Doctor?

When the Doctor shuts the roof hatch he says the Dalek will need four and half minutes to charge to lethal capacity. The conversation then runs seamlessly until the Doctor is shot roughly a minute and half later. Hence the Dalek was not at lethal capacity.
 
Why did big Amy not explode when she touched little Amy (like the Sonic did)?

For those who don’t know, this refers back to Father’s Day (and even further back to Mawdryn Undead). Essentially the idea is that if a single item at two points in its timeline touches, a lot of energy is released.

In the case of Amy, big Amy and little Amy are not the same object. Big Amy is from the universe with stars and little Amy is from the one without. At no point in little Amy’s timeline will she become big Amy, hence no discharge.
 
An equally valid question is why this doesn’t happen to the Doctor when he hugs himself. He really is the same person in both.

The short answer is that this never happens to the Doctor. The Doctor has touched other versions of himself in all the multi-Doctor stories and has never exploded. Time Lords seem to be immune.
 
Why did Amy and Rory not remember the Daleks?

Some people seem to think Amy has forgotten the Daleks because she was near a crack as a child, so Rory should still remember them. This is not the case. Flesh and Stone pretty-much states that the Daleks from The Stolen Earth (and the Cybermen from The Next Doctor) are eaten by a crack and so removed from time. Hence nobody remembers them – resetting Russell T Davies’ decision to have the people of Earth know about aliens (and perhaps retconning every continuity error ever).
 
Hang on, if people don’t remember the Daleks, what did people think happened during The Stolen Earth?

This is difficult to say and, to be honest, I’m not certain myself. Once you remove the memory of the Dalek invasion fleet, the whole experience from the stealing of Earth to its later return is unlikely to make much sense to people.

The obvious defence mechanism is that the mind skips the whole experience so nobody remembers any of it. A few unexplained heart attacks and the deaths are dealt with as well. By making time-travellers immune from the effect, Sarah-Jane and Jack can even continue to remember it all. This is similar to people forgetting the Yeti on the underground (The Web of Fear) or the Cyberman invasion (The Invasion) – in the DW universe it’s amazing what people can convince themselves of!
 
How did these cracks work anyway?

Excellent question and, after The Big Bang, we have enough information to answer it.

The cracks were caused by the TARDIS exploding which, it being a space/time machine, took place at all moments in space and time. From what we were shown, as the Doctor/TARDIS’ personal timeline got closer to the event, the cracks became more numerous and more dangerous (they were wider each time).

Being near a crack is dangerous because sometimes (although not always) light from the crack can erase someone from history. The important point here, and this was consistent throughout, is that erasure from history does not mean that actions already taken by the erased individual disappear. They still stand. This was made clear by Father Octavian still being dead and, most importantly, Amy still existing when her parents didn’t.
 
How this sits with “time can be re-written” is a sticky point. This whole thing becomes easier if erasure is just that – total erasure of all actions taken from the timeline. But it can’t be because, if that was the case, Amy couldn’t exist and the Doctor, Amy and River would all have reverted back to where they started once the Angels were removed in Flesh and Stone. One for Mr Moffat should anyone interview him soon.
 
From what we saw, an erased individual has no future from the point they are absorbed by the crack – hence future Rory disappears in Cold Blood. The effect on the past of the individual is that they cease to be remembered, something like a perception filter. Some objects from their life still exist (like the engagement ring) and individuals find themselves unaccountably confused by the gap but, essentially, the universe papers over the cracks and carries on regardless. Thus the Daleks still invaded Earth and the Cyberking still walked over London, but nobody remembers it happening.
 
The cracks don’t always do this. As Lady Calvierri pointed out in Vampires of Venice, through some cracks they saw other worlds. It seems that cracks can link places (like Amy’s bedroom and the Atraxi prison) or eat people. Presumably which effect occurs when is pretty much random.
 
Why were Amy’s memories important?

Amy was special because of her long-term proximity to a crack. As the Doctor said, the universe had been pouring out of the crack, filling her subconscious (“dreams”) with information about the universe – past, present and future. This made her memories unusually powerful and accurate (or at least her subconscious ones). Essentially it turned her head into a reality store. When she remembered something, she remembered its essence as well as its form.

Hence, when the Alliance take a scan of her memories and create a replica Rory, instead of being like an ordinary person’s memory of him (i.e. only the things known to them), he is a complete simulacrum of Rory including his own memories right up to the moment he died.

The young Amy demonstrates this too when she remembers stars in the dying universe.
 
It is this function of Amy’s memory that allows her to bring her parents back. And this is a vital point, because it shows that Big Bang Two did not undo the effect of the cracks. If it had, Amy would not have needed to do anything, her parents would have just popped back into existence on their own. Instead the Doctor had to tell her to specifically remember them. They (and by implication Rory) are returned only because she brought them back from her memories when the universe was reset. Everything else that had been eaten by the cracks remains eaten.
 
So the Angels aren’t back?

Correct. The Angels stay eaten as Amy didn’t bring them back through her memory.
 
Then what happened to the cracks? Didn’t they shut?

Yes and no. We saw, as the Doctor moved towards the explosion in his own timeline, the cracks got bigger. Conversely, as the Doctor goes back over his timeline as he is erased, the cracks shut, but that didn’t stop them existing for a time. The moment they close does not seem to be identical to the moment they open.
 
In addition, the presence of the jacketed Doctor in the original Flesh and Stone shows that the post-Pandorica and pre-Pandorica universes are identical. The explosion and its cure are therefore pre-destined – they always happen.

Thus, in the timeline (as there is only one) the cracks open, eat people, and shut again, but the universe is not destroyed as the explosion is countered the moment it happens. This also allows River to encounter a crack in her, subjective, future (Flesh and Stone), during which she remembers the events of The Pandorica Opens.
 
So did any of the series happen?

Absolutely! All of it happened. Once the cracks are closed, it’s like the Doctor has been erased: all of his actions stand but nobody remembers them. So Amy left with him, Rory was killed etc. Everyone (except seemingly River) has forgotten these events until Amy brings back the Doctor.
 
Why was the Doctor erased?

He flew into the explosion, which had reality erasing effects. Essentially it was like throwing oneself into one of the cracks (given that the explosion was at the centre of them). His timeline unwound in much the same way Rory’s did – however in the Doctor’s case he seemed to be able to get on and off the rewind and, incredibly, interact with Amy.

Why he would be able to do this is anyone’s guess. It could be a simple as, as a Time Lord, he can control his time stream to an unparalleled extent. This is certainly implied by his decision to skip the rest of the rewind.

But there are two important points. Firstly he is always near a crack. My presumption is that, as he rewinds, he is stepping through these cracks into reality. This would explain why he needs to be on the other side before they can close properly. Secondly, only Amy can hear him and, each time, he appears near her. Again why this would be the case is not clear, but it might be because he is (in forwards time) already in Amy’s memory so she is anchoring him to the timeline.
 
What about the Pandorica?

By flying into the explosion, the Pandorica, like the Doctor, is erased. Events involving the Pandorica are gone from people’s memory, seemingly leaving enough residue in the timeline for the Pandorica to become a fairy-tale.
 
In addition, the events in the dying universe get removed completely (we see this timeline unravel) as the explosion is countered at the instant it occurs. Hence that whole part of the timeline just melts away and the 26th June 2010 carries on from where it left off (with the addition of Amy’s parents and Rory). This is similar to Day of the Daleks when the timeline unravels back to the event where the pre-destination started (the peace conference).
 
Why were the Doctor, Amy, River and Rory still alive in the dying universe?

Amy actually asks the Doctor this and his answer is characteristically unhelpful. In the case of the Doctor, he was in the Pandorica and so seems to have been protected from the erasure. The same is true for River who was kept safe in a timeloop by the TARDIS.

Amy and Rory are rather more difficult. One option is that, since Amy’s enhanced memory can bring people back from erasure, her memories of herself can counter her own removal from history. Similarly, since Rory is created from her memory, he may get the same protection.
 
A more interesting point is what this all looks like from the point of view of the Alliance. Once they seal the Doctor in the Pandorica, the universe then ends and is instantly re-instated – without the Pandorica, the Doctor, Amy or Rory. For them, they all just disappear. I imagine a long and slightly fraught conversation then occurs.

Given that they’ve all time travelled to get to the second century (a lift with the Daleks perhaps?), they are presumably immune from the erasure of the Doctor and the Pandorica, so they still know why they are there.

One of two things could then happen. Either they conclude that the Doctor has tricked them and set about hunting him again. Or, more likely, they conclude that the explosion has been averted and they can all go home.
 
Where did the burn marks on Amy’s lawn come from?

It seems to have been from the Nestenes, since they took the memory scan of Amy. Unfortunately that would mean the memory scan was taken when Amy wasn’t there, as she had already left with the Doctor earlier that night (although she returns briefly in Flesh and Stone so it may have been then). Equally they could have taken a psychic imprint of Amy’s mind left in her house so she needn’t have actually been present.
 
The real question is why they would pick up the memory of Rory’s death, which hadn’t happened yet. Everything else (the Romans, the Box, even Roman Rory) is already present. In fact it may not matter. As we said above, the crack was pouring information from all across time into Amy’s head so her unconscious memory of Rory may have included his death even before it happened.
 
On a side note, in the photograph Roman Rory appears to have been at a fancy dress party (Amy is dressed as a police woman) and this seems to have given the Alliance the idea of putting him with the Romans in the first place as an extra distraction for the Doctor and Amy.
 
So is Rory still an Auton?

No. Or at least, I think no.
 
The reason I think this is as follows. As we said above, after the Doctor’s erasure his actions must still stand (even if nobody remembers them). If they didn’t, the whole of reality would have been different from the dawn of time onwards, which is not what is shown.

So, original Rory is still dead, even if nobody remembers him dying.

This has to be the case because, if Rory at the wedding were the original, he would spontaneously disappear when the Doctor’s history returns.
 
So, Wedding Rory could then be assumed to be Auton Rory returned from the dying universe. But if the Doctor had stayed erased, Amy and Rory’s marriage would have become increasingly difficult when it was discovered he was a practically-immortal plastic robot. Somehow that just doesn’t seem right.

Logically therefore, Auton Rory doesn’t exist in the new timeline. He disappears into the dying universe in Roman Britain and never comes out – he’s essentially erased as, when the timelines reset, there’s nowhere he can sensibly exist. If my theory about why he survived in the first place is correct, one could suggest that once Amy leaves that universe, her memory is no longer there to prevent Rory from being wiped.
 
And if anyone can come up with a better explanation of what happened to Auton Rory I'll gladly hear it!
 
Then where does the Rory that Amy marries come from?

Assuming that the above is true, it appears that when the universe reset, Amy brought Rory back through her memory in the same way she brought back her parents. Thus Rory can die in Cold Blood, be eaten by a crack and be alive at the end of The Big Bang. Once the Doctor returns, Rory’s memories of his past return.

You can see this happen – he has no idea what Amy is talking about until the TARDIS appears then he suddenly gets it all back. You can actually hear him in the background remembering the Doctor being the stripper at his Stag Night and being an Auton (“I was plastic”). He remembers both events because Amy considers Auton Rory to be a continuation of real Rory, so both sets of memories will be present in the version she creates.
 
So how did Amy bring the Doctor back?

Same way as she did with her parents and Rory. The Doctor tucked a copy of himself (and the TARDIS) into her childhood memories using the ‘Something borrowed…’ rhyme as a trigger. He knew she would marry Rory once the timeline reset and so hoped the rhyme would jog her memory.

We saw in The Eleventh Hour that Amy responds to the Doctor when unconscious, so it’s not like he didn’t know if she could hear him. Interestingly, given that the TARDIS still explodes (even if nobody remembers it happening) she must have remembered that into existence too.
 
How this astonishingly risky strategy works is questionable. The Doctor seems to believe that his adventures with Amy are never going to happen now. On some level he’s right – he won’t remember them and neither will she (or anyone else) so, by some definitions, they didn’t happen.

He then hinges his own survival on the assumption that Amy will still remember these non-existent events. In essence, she has two divergent sets of memories, one subconscious (her life with him) and one not (her life with her parents). That she is confused is evident in her reaction to the appearance of her parents as adults in 2010, despite the fact that the Doctor told 7-year-old Amy that 'tomorrow, when you wake up, you'll have your parents again'. This implies that, until he's reinstated, there is a fundamental instability in the timeline - both sets of events may have happened, and Amy has access to both sets of memories.
 
Why did River still remember the Doctor?

Damn fine question. This may be to do with the nature of who River is. Alternatively, we saw in Flesh and Stone that being a time traveller means that the cracks don’t always affect you. Hence the Doctor’s erasure may not have affected her.

Another possible explanation is that River made the effort not to forget, because she knew it was likely to happen. We saw Amy fail to do this in Cold Blood, but the Doctor stated that it was possible to maintain the memory through mental effort.
 
An equally good question is how she got to Amy’s wedding. We don’t know where time put her after the re-boot so it’s difficult to be sure, but the implication is that she and Amy (the only two survivors of the dead universe timeline) both ended up at that date because it was the centre of the explosion so that’s when time reset itself. Certainly Amy’s reaction to seeing her parents when she wakes strongly implies that, although history has been changed, the wedding day is actually Amy’s first day in the reset timeline.
 
For further evidence, it’s worth noting that, when River sees the Doctor at the wedding, he gives her back the Vortex Manipulator, implying that it is straight after the earlier events for both of them.

Phew.

So there you are. It’s mind-bending and mostly constructed from extrapolation and inference but it does make sense. You are of course free to disagree with any or all of it but, notwithstanding The Moff telling us what really happened, I’ll stick with this for the moment!
 
Our review of The Big Bang is here

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By TheRahman 1 July 5, 2010 07:18:27 AM

Ok, he used the time travel backwards once in Blink, but is he going to keep doing it over and over again in the series to come ?? Doctor is hanging on a rope, the rope snaps, and the doctor is plunging into the abyss, with no way out, cue end music. We all know now how Moffat will resolve the issue. Send the doc from the future back to save the day. It's a cop out. Stephen King once relayed a story about how he watched a Flash Gordon Sat morning serial where he watched Flash, in a train careering over a mountain to his doom. he waited all week to see how he survived, but the next week they showed the same scene, but added a new scene of Flash jumping clear just as the train careered of the rails over the mountain. He said this was wrong, and cheated the reader. Well Moffat is cheating the viewer.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Headache2112 1 July 5, 2010 07:41:50 AM

And twenty one years ago, we all thought "Ghostlight" was difficult to comprehend! I understand "Big Bang" received high appreciation marks. But really, should a single episode of a TV show need to have an article of exhaustive explanation written about it like the above? Hopefully for casual viewers, the confusing elements of an episode like "BB" are easily glossed over and don't drive them away. As a long-time fan of DW, I still feel I was abandoned by the script of "Big Bang", left scratching my head trying to work it all out. As for the Doctor's "timey-wimey" escape from the Pandorica, I felt cheated as the build-up of the Doctor's imprisonment in that box was huge and incredibly dramatically involving. Then this was all just flicked aside like a pesky insect so that "Big Bang" could get on with it's story without getting bogged down with explanation. There's a lot to work through in this above article. Much of it, like the episode, still has me confused. I suppose it's all just too much for my little brain to absorb.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By phantom 1 July 5, 2010 07:46:48 AM

I think Rory was human again. If he was still an Auton, he wouldn't be brushing his teeth in the morning. Autons don't eat. Right? :/

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Zephos 1 July 5, 2010 07:56:40 AM

I suppose you could feel "cheated", but really it's a subjective term anyway. Some people felt "cheated" all the way through RTD's tenure as show-runner but I was able to just enjoy the ride without complaining too much about his buil-ups and reset-buttons. I feel that if you can believe in time travel then you have to believe in the possibilities it creates, such as the predestination paradox. JK Rowling did a similar thing in the ending of "Prisoner of Azkaban", but I certainly didn't feel cheated. I was fascinated at the concept of the endless loop, and for a long time it was the only concept of time travel that made any sense to me.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Dierk 1 July 5, 2010 08:01:12 AM

Actually River knew all of this beforehand as the events of the last series are in the past of her, the future of the Doctor. Remember, they are meeting out of order.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Codgin 1 July 5, 2010 08:10:13 AM

ok to the two comments above I say this, The Stolen Earth - The Doctor was shot in the back by a Darlek instead of regenerating he "cheated" by putting the regeneration energy into his chopped off hand. That is apprantley far more ridiclous then the Doc from the future? My point being that in this one example alone, you can see there are far worse resolutions to cliffhangers. Secondly a casual viewer wouldnt think to much about it. And finally I wouldn't even say it was that complicated if there was anything I don't understand I just back it up with wibbley wobbley time stuff. For example the universe and time is gone, so the rules are out the window, the explosion created a parrlell universe and the "silence" and river will be explained next season, simple

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By mooseglove 1 July 5, 2010 08:19:11 AM

Woah, I know this is Den of Geek, but you seriously have waaaaaay to much time on your hands.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By B_Ramsay 1 July 5, 2010 08:26:12 AM

So, the Doctor from his future comes back to get Rory to let him out? But as soon as the Doctor is locked in the Pandorica his future is being locked in the Pandorica! The "future" Doctor still has to be let out of the Pandorica by someone so that he can travel back in time to get Rory to let his "past" Doctor get out.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Viridis 1 July 5, 2010 08:30:12 AM

"But, by this point, the universe has collapsed and they are all doomed. In this circumstance it’s understandable that the Doctor throws the rulebook away" No, because the Doctor already saved himself he was forced to go back in time and save himself, completely by the book or else a paradox would occur. One apocalypse at a time, please!

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By cordas2 1 July 5, 2010 08:42:01 AM

Hmmm.... A load of very interesting speculation, some of it I agree with a lot I don't. I also think that we aren't playing with as many answers as you think you are.... by that I mean that I think some of what happened in Pandorica/Bang will be explained next season, I think the Dalek eta ll might come into play when we find out more about the Silence... I find it a bit baizzare that you seem to think the Daleks, Cybermen, Angels e.t.c. have been destroyed... Amy's memories are infinite they contain all of history (past/present and future) and reality... as these races existed they must exist again. The reason why the Dr 'risked' being deleted was because he went to the heart of the explosion - the otherside of the crack.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By R-type 1 July 5, 2010 08:45:25 AM

I thought that episode was pretty self explanatory really. I mean getting out of the pandorica was explained and everything. The only bit that confused me was rory: auton or not? He remembered being plastic but he still died so what happened. Amy conjuring him like her parents makes perfect sense. I love that moffat has left a few things to be explained next series! I was getting so sick of RTD's tie everything up in a neat little bow, then do a bolted on surprise ending, "What? WHAT?" to setup the next episode.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Sprocket 1 July 5, 2010 08:59:19 AM

I thought the Tardis had sealed herself off due to the explosion,hence the wall when River opens the doors.Thought the Doctor mentioned this when he was on the roof.Tardis put her in a loop to protect her.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Ronin74 1 July 5, 2010 09:00:12 AM

I think something just popped in my head after reading all that!

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Shilling 1 July 5, 2010 09:16:24 AM

If a small dissertation is needed to explain your script, you're doing something wrong I think. Time travel will always confuse people. But Dr Who doesn't even follow quasi-scientific laws of time travel. It just does whatever it pleases and then techno-babbles to explain it.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By curphs 1 July 5, 2010 09:17:36 AM

Brill article, mostly corresponding with my own opinions on what happened. Only one difference - the wall at the Tardis door. I think this was just the emergency protocols blocking River from getting out and thus protecting her. She's obviously not underground because the Tardis is in the sky exploding and she still keeps seeing that wall - it's a locked time loop.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By PandaJazz 1 July 5, 2010 09:56:37 AM

Wow. i thought it was all quite simple. people needed this explanation? Oh well!

The Third Rory
Posted By gbsrd 1 July 5, 2010 10:18:59 AM

What you're suggesting is worse than Bad Wolf Tyler. I'm not saying that I disagree with you - because the only alternative explanation I can imagine is that the "soul" of Rory is enjoying some sort of wibbly-wobbly continuity of identity - but the notion that Amy was writing arbitrary changes to the post reboot universe, not bounded by the information stored in the Pandorica but rather by her preferences, doesn't sit well. Of course, I don't personally require more than one more winking Moffat throwaway line in the next series to have all put to right.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By SallyAlice 1 July 5, 2010 11:16:08 AM

"[Some people] feel that the Doctor must have got himself out some other way then come back to get Rory to do it. Sad to say, they are wrong." You can't say this for sure. You cite other instances in which such paradoxes occur as evidence that this theory is wrong, but there's no way you can know that the doctor hasn't gone back and written over a previous get-out in each of these instances too. The Whoniverse is complicated and contradictory. People *will* come up with all sorts of alternative, equally justifiable explanations for events, and I'm not sure it's helpful to accuse a portion of the fanbase of being "wrong" without a direct canonical statement to that effect.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By cordas2 1 July 5, 2010 12:15:04 PM

As soon as you bring time travel (well travelling backwards, travelling forwards is easy) into anything then you are throwing all rational understanding of the universe out the window.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By cordas2 1 July 5, 2010 12:15:14 PM

As soon as you bring time travel (well travelling backwards, travelling forwards is easy) into anything then you are throwing all rational understanding of the universe out the window.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By ON3i1 1 July 5, 2010 02:51:52 PM

A well done and comprehensive article-- though I am a bit confused by why people need the episode explained in the first place. Moffat's dialog makes it perfectly clear. The only things unexplained at this point are why the Tardis exploded and what the "silence" refers to. Keep up the good work!

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Name1ess 1 July 5, 2010 03:43:29 PM

This is Doctor Who as a continuation of Lost! Seriously there are far too many plot devices which are just thrown in without that much thought and are just left to dangle. The worse one is the exploding Tardis that causes all the cracks and eventually blows up the universe. My objection is that if the Tardis can literally destroy everything because its explosion can take place at “ all moments in space and time" than that means that either, one has never blown up before (So during the time war did the Time Lords parked up every Tardis they owned out of harm’s way?) Or the universe has repeatedly exploded and we’ve been lucky that someone has been there to reset it. Neither option seems in any way satisfactory.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By daniel_g 1 July 5, 2010 04:04:29 PM

I think the Doctor said it best himself in Blink: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but, actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Zephos 1 July 5, 2010 04:47:33 PM

@Name1ess: That's a bit of plot-hole at the moment, but seeing as we don't know exactly who took control of the TARDIS and how it managed to explode at every point in space and time it's, at this point, something that remains an unanswered question. If it's logically explained in the next season, then that's all well and good. But if not, THEN we have something to complain/arbitrarily bitch about.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By oatzy 1 July 5, 2010 05:44:31 PM

Or to put the first point another way - if The Doctor HAD got out of the Pandorica some other way at first, why would he THEN need to go back and tell Rory to get him out? Therein madness lies! To be honest, I loved how he got out. It's the sort of thing that just makes me chuckle and think "you cheeky bastard" :p If you feel cheated by a Time Lord using time travel to get out of a sticky situation, well... I don't know what to tell you. I mean, if he can, why shouldn't he?

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Codgin 1 July 5, 2010 06:31:21 PM

in response to the tardis never blowing up before thing, consider this what if another tardis crashed in to the tardis or even better what if that wall River run into was because she was trapped inside a massive oven designed soley to create a reaction inside the tardis in a percious point of space which would blow up the tardis, the vortex and throw reailty and time into the void..

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Photoman15 1 July 5, 2010 07:55:30 PM

I believe EVERYTHING was reset by the Big Bang 2, even the events (and Daleks) of STOLEN EARTH. There is nothing after the reset of the universe that says otherwise.... yet.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By dave1159 1 July 5, 2010 08:13:59 PM

Hello this is Planet Earth calling... you do understand that it's Science FICTION... I actually thought that it all made some kind of sense within the world of DW... I love a burst of technobable as much as the next geek and surely isn't that why we all love DW or Star Trek because of the brilliant, mad escapism? yes, good fiction must have rules, JK Rowling's world has very strict what can and can't be done but... it's the finding the clever way around those rules that make us love The Doctor, or James T Kirk or Harry. And it was a great article, very well thought out

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By bobsuncorp 1 July 5, 2010 09:05:04 PM

I think that the reason the Sonic Screwdrivers crackled when they touched each other was because they were part of the Tardis (remember that the Tardis makes them) and so had their own space/timey-wimey effect when encountering another version of themselves. I think that the same would happen to the Tardis itself, in fact I also believe that the reason the Tardis had trouble landing in "The Lodger" was not simply because their was another Space/Time machine in the area but because it was another version of the Tardis itself. Which we will find out in a future episode. Maybe for the first time in centuries the Tardis changed its appearance, and without the Doctor (it's pilot) it used the keys (given to the Doctor by whatsisname) left on board to choose a location and approximate time to temporarily land. My only problem with this is that it would be a bit freakin dark for all those people to have been killed by the Tardis.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By hooplahey 1 July 5, 2010 10:53:16 PM

I don't understand how you can have a problem with the Doctor's escape. It makes sense...from his point of view he is let out by Rory and is told that he told Rory to do it. Therefore he time-travels back to tell Rory to let him out? Isn't that what time travel is?? Its the same as what happens in the Lodger...Amy writes a note and leaves it back in time for the Doctor to find. As long as he remembers to do go back in time, then events will play out as seen. Also as to how Rory got him out...its the same way Amelia got Amy out. She touched the box and it recognised the same DNA outside and inside - opened. In the same way Rory sonics the box and it recognises the same sonic screwdriver inside and outside the box - opened.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Jez_Noir 1 July 5, 2010 11:01:57 PM

Good lord, I'm knackered after reading that. Appreciate the effort though Juss, nice one.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Discrespective 1 July 6, 2010 12:42:16 AM

Alright, it like what I said before, Doctor Who is seriously beginning to get to me ! For guy who has seen so much Doctor Who, I can get a degree in it, I think this season of Doctor Who has sucked with honors ! Why Discrespective ? Because it's trying to be something that it's not and when your trying to be something that your not, it never works ! That's why you don't do it dude ! That's why Doctor Who has got to stop trying to be so full on serious and needs to get back to being fun or this show is fucked for me ! People piss me off :-(

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By aj3000 1 July 6, 2010 11:17:51 AM

Can LordJuss explain why the Doctor doesn't use the timey-wimey get out of jail solution all the time? Also can he tell me if the Doctor has any free-will? i.e. Can he choose to not free himself or write the messages to Amelia?

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By oatzy 1 July 8, 2010 12:15:15 AM

@aj3000 If he's already been back and given the messages then he doesn't really have a choice, otherwise there'd be an inconsistency, the loop would unravel, and Amy would still be trapped in the Pandorica. Similarly, if he chose not to free himself, the universe would end and he'd be stuck in the Pandorica for all eternity in a non-existant universe. I suppose he does has a choice, but it wouldn't be in his best interest. Otherwise, whether or not the Doctor has free will is as debatable as if any of us have free will. Why doesn't he use time travel as a get out of jail all the time? Well that'd just be boring :p Rose asks him that question in "The Parting of the Ways", and his answer is "as soon as the TARDIS lands, we become part of events". Which, I guess, translates to a version of the 'Grandfather Paradox', where changing the past mean the future that leads you to change the past never happens. So unless going back in time to leave something to help your future self is 'predestined', you can't do it. Of course that implied a 'clockwork' universe where everything just happens because it's supposed to. Which is not necessarily a problem. Just puts a whole new twist on how you view the Who-niverse. Besides that, it's not always feasible or practical. And sometimes, it's just not the best solution to a problem. And like in Genesis of the Daleks/Waters of Mars/etc, sometimes he won't use time travel as a solution because it'll have negative repercussions for the future or because an event is 'fixed in time'. Quite often in the RTD era they'd have the Doctor arrive somewhere then quickly become separated from his TARDIS (for whatever reason). Other than that, I think it's just the Time Lord's 'laws' that are stopping him (and the consequences that the laws are meant to prevent). Or it may even be a moral thing, like how he won't use guns, despite how much easier some situations would be resolved if he did. But as the writer of this article said, universe collapsing, screw the 'laws', we need to sort this shit out! This is an exceptional case. But under normal circumstances, it's not necessarily a get out of jail free, because it usually has consequences.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By oatzy 1 July 8, 2010 12:42:20 AM

Or alternatively, simple because of the "Blinovitch Limitation Effect" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinovitch_Limitation_Effect Originally invented to "gloss over the plot problems inherent in the time travel premise of the serial".

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By LordJuss 1 July 8, 2010 08:51:38 AM

Hiya, Tried to send this yesterday but technical issues got in the way. Oatzy’s answer is pretty good but I’ll put what I wrote yesterday anyway. Thanks for the question. I started to write this discussion in an earlier version of the article, but I felt it was outside the scope of the The Big Bang as it got into deeper philosophical issues. But, since you ask, I’ll have a stab… • Why doesn’t the Doctor use the timey-wimey card all the time? Difficult one. Logically, since he doesn’t, there are some limitations on its use – we’re just not clear what they are. An internally consistent, but uncomfortable, solution is that he only does it when he does it. Say he’s stuck in a cell. If, after a few minutes he hasn’t turned up and rescued himself, he knows he’s not going to, so he has to find another way out. Now I don’t think I like that idea very much, but it does match what we see – the Doctor was clearly surprised to be let out the box. He only finds out he’s going to play that card once he’s played it. A much better answer becomes clear once you’ve covered the free will question below. • Does the Doctor have any free-will? i.e. Can he choose to not free himself or write the messages to Amelia? Well this is the real kicker isn’t it! Generally time travel movies/books/TV series tend to choose one of two models. Either time can be changed freely or it’s fixed. A fixed timeline is relatively straightforward – time is immutable and any time travel is already built into the timeline. Twelve Monkeys is a pretty good example of this. Fixed timelines mean that there is no free will as all events in your future have already been played out. Changeable timelines are much more complex but boil down to two basic types. In the first, you can change the timeline but, if doing so negates your own existence, you disappear, leaving the change. This is the model used by Back to the Future. In the second, you can make the change but, if doing so negates your own existence, you continue to exist as a relic of a now non-existent timeline. Star Trek generally runs with this model. Now, applying those to DW… If time was immutable, the Doctor would indeed have no free will. The entire timeline from start to finish would be laid out and the Doctor would follow it, perhaps believing he is making decisions but not actually making them. But the Doctor has made very clear that (apart from a few locked events – Water of Mars being a good example) the timeline is changeable. In fact he went further and specified in The Shakespeare Code which model we’re in: the Back to the Future model (he even references the film). So, what would happen if the Doctor chose not to free himself? Possibly he would start to fade as the paradox sets in – but that would still leave a further paradox. More likely, for such a big error in the timeline, the Reapers would appear and eat everybody. This is what happened when Rose introduced exactly this sort of major paradox in Father’s Day. It was implied in that episode that the Time Lords used to prevent such paradoxes occurring but now they don’t – possibly explaining why they are so much more prevalent in the new series. Now, this provides a more satisfying answer to the first question. If the risk of not fulfilling the predestination is that a hole opens in the universe and Creatures from Outside of Time(TM) fall in, then you can understand why he would try to avoid using such a mechanism unless absolutely necessary.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By oatzy 1 July 8, 2010 12:52:35 PM

Sorry for jumping in on that one, LordJuss. The questions just grabbed my interest :)

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By LordJuss 1 July 8, 2010 02:01:46 PM

No problem! It's anyone's game.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Docmartin 1 July 9, 2010 11:43:12 AM

I may be alone in thinking this but isn't there something fundamentally wrong when an episode has to be explained? "The Big Bang" was a nonsense from start to finish. It doesn't matter how smugly Steven Moffat tries to cobble an explanation together with winks to the audience and poo-poos to criticisms - it was hogwash. I've been a fan since 1972 - I've seen good episodes and bad episodes. This one was bad. Big Bang? Wet fart more like.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Abermez 1 July 21, 2010 06:01:44 PM

I've read your article, but not all the follow-up comments. So apologies if this has already been suggested: But my controversial opinion is that your explanation needed to be so complex because actually it is cleverer than Moffat himself. Although I have enjoyed this past series, I do believe it has been dumbed down a generation, and many of the twists have been for entertainment value without having real substance in the Whoniverse. Or is that just me?

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By Abermez 1 July 21, 2010 06:11:04 PM

Oh - and my thoughts on the next series? The TARDIS was taken over by the Time Lords to force the Doctor into a war against the Alliance. In other words. The Five Doctors revisited. Bring it on!

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By eyliena 1 July 22, 2010 02:25:16 AM

What I don't understand about all these later comments is the concept of "free will" in knowing that you've done something, and therefore being forced to do it, then. It really isn't a question of freewill at all considering you already know you've chosen to exercise your free will in having done it in your future. If you weren't willing to do it, it wouldn't have ever even been considered. As for the rest of the wibbly wobbly timy whimy stuff - time travel doesn't exist anyway, it's all science fiction. So what's the issue with Doctor Who making up its own rules for time travel?

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By seth.j.fischer@gmail.com 1 February 17, 2011 06:52:10 AM

Why did big Amy not explode when she touched little Amy (like the Sonic did)? I had another thought on this... both Sonics are made up of the same atoms. A living organism is constantly replacing atoms. The two Amys would not have the same atoms. Neither would Doctors from different times.

Re: Explaining Doctor Who: The Big Bang
Posted By LordJuss 1 April 20, 2011 09:10:14 AM

Little Amy is from a different universe to Big Amy. There's no way the one can become the other through the passage of time, so they are not the same object at different times. Hence no Blinovitch. The big question is why Kazran Sardick doesn't explode when he hugs his younger self in Christmas Carol, as they really are the same. Damned if I can figure that one out. One can speculate that the unusual atmosphere of the planet leeches away the energy. Or possibly the Doctor is more cunning than we thought and little Kazran is actually an illusion. A third possibility is that the Doctor has fiddled so much with the two timelines that, at that stage, little and big Kazran are independent temporal entities. None of them are really convincing.
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Doctor Who series 5 finale: The Big Bang

Doctor Who series 5 finale: The Big Bang

Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement