3 weeks till new Who!


log in or register to remove this ad

No comment on the cinematography?

No but if I hear one more person insightfully observe that it was reminiscent of Skyfall, I'll likely teeter over the edge into homicidal mania. The BBC really put that little "observation" out there in the last two weeks, and now everyone's parroting it as though they came up with it themselves. Well done to the BBC, I guess.
 

I re-watched it on DVR and I can't help but think most of the episode is set up for later events.

Well, after seeing it again and re-watching Silence in the Library, I am more convinced than ever that she is CAL.
 



The kid in the library. I've heard the theory from a couple of people; doesn't convince me any more than any of the other theories do. You can see anything you want to if you look hard enough.
Yes, I admit its entirely possible I am just seeing connections because I am looking at this particular episode. There are people out there who have made a much better case than I could, but the thing that actually clinches it for me is pretty simple. The last episode and the silence in the library have a lot of similarities with downloading people into a computer, the whole spinning head thing, etc. but primarily its because CAL calls River "Clever Girl".
 

Yes, I admit its entirely possible I am just seeing connections because I am looking at this particular episode. There are people out there who have made a much better case than I could, but the thing that actually clinches it for me is pretty simple. The last episode and the silence in the library have a lot of similarities with downloading people into a computer, the whole spinning head thing, etc. but primarily its because CAL calls River "Clever Girl".

You could equally argue she's Amy, because he saw her as a child on a swing. Moffat does re-use ideas a lot, and I think folks could put together arguments for her being pretty much anything. I can see where you're coming from, but it's only 1% convincing to me - it would need a heck of a lot more!
 

You could equally argue she's Amy, because he saw her as a child on a swing. Moffat does re-use ideas a lot, and I think folks could put together arguments for her being pretty much anything. I can see where you're coming from, but it's only 1% convincing to me - it would need a heck of a lot more!

A friendy wager?
 

A friendy wager?

That she's CAL? Sure, why not!

As an aside - Moffat has said there's no possible way we can get it. I don't like it when he says that, because that means the clues aren't really there, it's just pulled out of a hat at the end and he acts like he did something clever.
 


Remove ads

Top