Interesting.
Although I don't really get why Mary should even be the same character as River in the first place. Have people made that connection? Are there any metas out there about this?
Also, I think it's a bit tricky to talk about what we knew about River before anything else happened, because let's not forget that her story isn't told chronologically. It's "Doctor Who", we're talking about time travel. And in terms of River it's not even time travel, it's just that we're getting the end of her story at the very beginning. Mary's story on the other hand is told in a completely different way, it's told chronologically. So of course we know different things about those two women at different times.
Yes, right, Moffat could have given us Mary's backstory at the very beginning, but how boring would that have been? 

I think it's difficult to compare River and Mary, at least when you're doing it with regards to "Moffat's women" - because in terms of Mary we don't even know how much Moffat brought to that character and how much Mark brought to it.
And I also think that "Sherlock" and "Doctor Who" do have a lot in common, but there also are a lot of differences. First and foremost the way in which the stories are told. You might even say that it would be a tad boring if Moffat had told Mary's story in the exact same way he told River's. Do we really need to know about any redemption from the very beginning?  

SusiGo wrote:

 
Why is it that I can accept River's development and not Mary's? Not just Johnlock, I am sure, there are reasons within the narrative. I feel with River because I can understand what drives her while Mary is just a blank page. 

Same with me, Susi. And to be honest I need a very good explanation and background story in this case to make me think only a bit caring about Mary.
River's history is told about several episodes and also not in a chronical order as Solar already mentioned. Don't know how they could manage that in any way with Mary. Has to be a whole episode with a lot of flashbacks about Mary to be convincing. Something I am not really keen on. And something Steven and Mark certainly wouldn't do.

Well said, boss.
Mary didn't do anything heroic... as we know so far.

Yes, I agree. I just watched "The Wedding of River Song" where two women kill someone - River shooting the Doctor and Amy killing Madame Kovarian. And both are completely different from HLV and not just because it is a different show based on the concept of time travel. 
We are given reasons and believable emotions and feel empathy with the female characters, something I never manage to do when watching Mary shooting Sherlock. 

Btw, I just found this. Very interesting if you think of how they dealt with Amanda when shooting series 3:

Moffat informed Kingston of the secrets of her character at the end of the previous series and she was not allowed to tell anyone; Smith, Gillan, and Darvill were unaware of the identity of her character.[28] River's identity was kept in top secrecy; the script read at the read-through of "A Good Man Goes to War" had a false ending, and only a select few were issued the real script.[27]

Last edited by SusiGo (July 7, 2015 8:32 pm)

True, but I think the DW scripts themselves ensured the empathy of the audience while the HLV script does not. It is not just the way Alex Kingston plays her part, it is the dialogues as well. She is crying and begging for forgiveness and does everything possible and impossible not to kill the Doctor.

Nothing of which can be said about Mary in HLV. And many people liked her Mary from TEH and TSOT so there would have been a basis for empathy. But the changes to her character's behaviour in HLV made it impossible. Deliberately so, I think. 

gently69 wrote:

Well said, boss.
Mary didn't do anything heroic... as we know so far.

Actually, that's a great point-- and one, I'm not sure I can remember seeing in print. What has Mary ever done that can be considered heroic? (I think I'm going to take that question to the other Mary thread...)