Vonnie, 5 (not 4) and yes to both.

Do you know how many more? I hope it's more than five. Really, really.

Right! Fiiiive. I was so bored with the western episode so I forgot to count that one.

The one with the boxes was my favourite so far. The thing that bothers me the most about the latest ep, aside from the lack of logic (like, why can't River go back there again? Why can't they travel to some other place in the world that's not part of the crazy time vortex thingie? This barely even merits a 2 on a scale of 0 to 10 on DW impossibility scale) is the fact Rory's poor dad will not get to see Rory and Amy again. That's just not right.

why can't River go back there again?

She did, didn't she? I mean, she wrote the book Amy published (why did Amy have to publish the book? What did I miss there?)

That's just not right.

I'm so not really that upset about it. I mean, his kid, he's going to be sad, but I'm sure the Doctor will tell him that he's not dead, he's with Amy, and he lived a long life and Amy says they're happy. To me, it's like they moved away and lost touch. Which isn't optimal, but happens all the time.

I feel bad that I have to be the one following Charlie Jane around and telling her Rory didn't commit suicide, that I think he sacrificed himself to save a threat. She's bothered because he didn't die, and she's dealing with a suicide in her life, and she feels stories like this (not a fresh trope) trivialise suicide, especially when they are a reset button.

But I cited things like Swan Song and The Gift, where it's a mortal thing they're doing, but it's in the face of a larger threat, one beyond just their own peril.

Did you feel that Rory was escaping, or taking out all the angels? Amy--she was escaping. If Rory didn't come back, she wouldn't have to live without him. But I thought he was also fighting back.

River said she's send the book to Amy to be published. No idea what that means.

Rory was definitely fighting back. The point was not to avoid being sent back in time again, it was to cause a paradox and poison the angels.

Rory was definitely fighting back. The point was not to avoid being sent back in time again, it was to cause a paradox and poison the angels.

Yep. And to not have to be running away from the angels for his entire life.

Not that I understand why they would just keep coming after him, but then I thought that there was a remarkable lack of logic in the episode, even for a Moffat script.

Frankly, I seem to have a lot of trouble following Moffat's logic. It never makes any sense to me, even when it has lots of emotional weight (like the whole business with the Pandorica and Amy's wedding).

The premise seemed to be that he was in immediate and persistent danger, but that all of New York was potential food.

Charlie Jane's article hinged on suicide as an escape, and no...not the plot of this story, although it has happened, and the other example she brought up (it was the sort of article that ruins the other piece in the title once you work out which trope she means in the one you've seen) was fighting back too...sometimes it's high personal cost, sometimes your friends or an awkward angel pull you out and it's not quite right for one reason or another, and sometimes it's just dead in the service of saving others--we deem that heroic, even if we look askance at kamikaze, there's a way to not have it be a Thelma and Louise (or even Butch and Sundance).

why they would just keep coming after him

Because if he successfully gets away that's also a paradox? A slower one, so they'll have opportunities to send him to where/whenever he needs to go to die in that hotel room so they can avoid the whole poisoned farm thing.

This episode made me cry buckets, so the flaws in logic are not exactly jumping out at me.

I love it when geeks are being geeks. With charts to explain their argument (why Moffat is a brilliant writer, but a bad showrunner): [link] [link]

(Original post is in Hebrew, but doesn't give much further information. Posting here for the charts, not for the sake/reason of argument. Not sure I agree with it all).

Shir, that's cute! I'm not sure I'd disagree with either chart much.