While I like Rory and am not a fan of the unlikely and forced "romance" angle between every single companion and the Doc (especially since he never sleeps with any of them and all in all seems asexual, so what's the point? Is this the male vision of what romance is? Longing stares?)
However, this right here deserves a standing ovation:
I also don't know why they always have to have a young woman play the companion. Is Dr. Who a dirty old man? What's wrong with having someone middle-aged or even elderly? And why are they always from the 20th/21st Century? It would be great if he found a companion from say the 1500's or so. Can you imagine how fantastic and interesting someone like that would find the adventure?
So, yeah, Amy Pond isn't anything special in terms of the story. She is, in many ways, a carbon copy of all those who have come before her. I'm talking of the "new" version of Dr. Who started by RTD of course.
:ditto:
All the companions are very traditional females. They might be all sass and self-confidence on the outside (btw, how does he run into these impossibly confident women?), but deep down they're oh so fragile and weepy and sensitive.
Meanwhile, the male characters are non-traditional in terms of fictionalized masculinity (the Doc, Jack, Rory...). I wish they took some of that and made female characters that didn't come out of the 50's housewife playset. River seems tough, but that's just the flipside of the same coin, because what matters to her the most, is the Doctor. I do sort of like her though, at least I like her better than Amy.
I liked Donna too, until she started crying all the time and saying "DOC-TOR!" until she got her way.
Sorry about being a sourpuss grumpyface.