If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Mary Sue)   Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat says that the Red Menace is over for good, explains how a clear resolution to the problem was impossible to air on television because audiences are too stupid   (themarysue.com) divider line 85
    More: Interesting, Doctor Who, Weeping Angels, dream sequence, Steven Moffat  
•       •       •

5474 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Mar 2013 at 3:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 12:26:58 PM  
That's the problem with a show about a guy with a time machine. When he heard the Brigadier was dead he could have just gone back six months earlier. Crossing his own timeline? He knew Churchill had died but he still went back to WWII to see him. In fact every single person he has ever met he will know that at one point in time they will be dead and at another point they will still be alive. Without exception. Except maybe Captain Jack. He's gone to the far future hundreds of times. Guess what? Sarah Jane and the Brig were dead then. Go back to the 1970s and they were still alive. Interfering with history is what he does. Every week. Every time he tries to fight the bad guys.
If you're the writer you just have to make up something and hope it makes sense to most people.  Moffat is concerned with the moral of the story, the message, not the technicalities of the time travel.
 
2013-03-16 12:41:24 PM  

Flint Ironstag: That's the problem with a show about a guy with a time machine. When he heard the Brigadier was dead he could have just gone back six months earlier. Crossing his own timeline? He knew Churchill had died but he still went back to WWII to see him. In fact every single person he has ever met he will know that at one point in time they will be dead and at another point they will still be alive. Without exception. Except maybe Captain Jack. He's gone to the far future hundreds of times. Guess what? Sarah Jane and the Brig were dead then. Go back to the 1970s and they were still alive. Interfering with history is what he does. Every week. Every time he tries to fight the bad guys.
If you're the writer you just have to make up something and hope it makes sense to most people.  Moffat is concerned with the moral of the story, the message, not the technicalities of the time travel.


Actually, he seems more concerned with grand ideas and movie poster blockbuster episodes than good episodes.

Of course, this is a change from last season, when it was all about a dense, nigh-impenetrable ongoing storyline where everything meant something but it was mostly forgotten about for a big cliffhanger.

/Moffat wrote some great episodes under RTD, but shouldn't be running the show.
 
2013-03-16 12:43:44 PM  
The whole episode was a mess. In the city that never sleeps nobody saw the giant Statue of Liberty walking thru New York City?
 
2013-03-16 02:12:07 PM  

Walker: The whole episode was a mess. In the city that never sleeps nobody saw the giant Statue of Liberty walking thru New York City?


Let's hope Moffatt doesn't write "Ghostbusters 3".
 
2013-03-16 03:50:25 PM  
I actually liked how they ended the Ponds story line, yet still left that little door open with the lost, adopted son and grandpa. Our children, however we get them, are how we time-travel, projecting a part of ourselves through them, into the future.
 
2013-03-16 03:50:42 PM  
I figure the not see in the Ponds again is a bit of a lie. I'm thinking he's got one last twist left for later in the season, where it will be revealed in a River episode that the older Ponds found Mel's in 1970 as a child on the streets of NYC, raise her through her childhood, and then send her to England in the 90s to meet their younger selves (I'm guess she rolled back her age or slow down her aging during this period). It's the final piece of the River story missing, and it allows the Ponds to finally raise their child, so it needs to happen.

They probably shot the footage already as part of the filming for the Angels episode. When they were filming that episode Karen Gillan tweeted that Arthur and Matt had put a picture o Mrs. Doubtfire on her trailer, apparently making fun of her old age makeup. Since she never appeared aged in this episode, and the tweet happened after The Girl Who Waited had already aired, there is apparently a scene of an older Amy we haven't seen yet that was shot buy not yet aired.
 
2013-03-16 03:53:28 PM  
Sorry if the autocorrect on my Kindle mangled my thoughts above. I hate how it sometimes just replaces correctly typed words just for the hell of it.
 
2013-03-16 03:54:13 PM  
With sci-fi, all death is presumed and never final. All they saw was a gravemarker and not a corpse.
 
2013-03-16 03:57:46 PM  
Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat says that the Red Menace is over for good, explains how a clear resolution to the problem was impossible to air on television because audiences are too stupid Steven Moffat is an arrogant ass.

FTFY subby
 
2013-03-16 04:06:54 PM  
Somebody personally send Moffat the link to this page.

/caution! TV Tropes!
 
2013-03-16 04:14:01 PM  

Flint Ironstag: That's the problem with a show about a guy with a time machine. When he heard the Brigadier was dead he could have just gone back six months earlier. Crossing his own timeline? He knew Churchill had died but he still went back to WWII to see him. In fact every single person he has ever met he will know that at one point in time they will be dead and at another point they will still be alive. Without exception. Except maybe Captain Jack. He's gone to the far future hundreds of times. Guess what? Sarah Jane and the Brig were dead then. Go back to the 1970s and they were still alive. Interfering with history is what he does. Every week. Every time he tries to fight the bad guys.


The thing Moffat emphasize is that there is a difference between time travelers and people who live in normal time. For the Doctor, meeting historical people means he has to work within a frame work. He largely knows their life stories, so he's limited in scope when he first meets them. It's how he knows if something is wrong  with history.



With someone like the Brigadier, The Doctor had no exact details, thus he free to act. This creates a more "personal time line" once he learns the exact method of Death, they "die" in his personnel time line.

With The Ponds, you have the same thing, but time travel affects their bodies. (It was a point made several times, it's how they rescued Amy in "The girl who waited") Even within that episode, they had several overlapping time streams going on. I thought it was pretty obvious, that they were locked into their fates,

FirstNationalBastard:

Actually, he seems more concerned with grand ideas and movie poster blockbuster episodes than good episodes.

Of course, this is a change from last season, when it was all about a dense, nigh-impenetrable ongoing storyline where everything meant something but it was mostly forgotten about for a big cliffhanger.

/Moffat wrote some great episodes under RTD, but shouldn't be running the show.

Really, what specifically did Moffat forget in terms of Details? His work is far superior to Davies, "I'll-pull-something-out-of-my-ass" ending. Oh look! Rose has tapped into the TARDIS and wiped out the Daleks! Oh look, Donna has become a Oh look, Martha went around the world and "tinkerbelled" the Doctor to health! Time Lord and she wiped out the Daleks!

Walker: The whole episode was a mess. In the city that never sleeps nobody saw the giant Statue of Liberty walking thru New York City?


It wasn't the Statue of Liberty. The Angels have the ability to reside in images. (Mentioned in their second appearance) There was a Statue of Liberty picture in the elevator lobby- That's where it came from... It basically headed off any escape from the roof.
 
2013-03-16 04:31:48 PM  
I really had no major problem with the episode or that Amy and Rory ended up in past New York.  As for the Doctor not being able to get them, we'll, there was the book that he was reading and he mentioned that him reading it made those events fixed.  Plus,we need a McGuffin of sorts to prevent the Doctor from doing anything he wants.  The Eighth Doctor audio play "To the Death..." Ends with a long time companion killing herself to rid Earth of the Daleks and the Doctor asking why he shouldn't go back to right before the explosion and rescue the companion?  The answer he was given was that he knows better and knows why not, that there are rules that even he must obey.  Plus, it does make a bit of sense that you could really fark up an area through enough time travel, especially if it is sloppy enough, that the area could become too dangerous to travel through.  This is something that would have to reappear later on.  The Doctor commenting that he can't return to Paris anymore because of events, such as "The Girl in the Fireplace."  This also could be used to explain how a place or event can be time locked.  What if the Time War is time locked, not through Time Lord protection but through the sheer temporal mess of Time Lords using time as travel and a weapon added to that, what ever the Doctor did to end it all and wiping out the Time Lords.

As for the mention of the Brigadier, I am on the fence about that.  Yes it was great to have the mention that he was gone, but about him not getting that last good-bye...there is an audio play, I forget which one, but it deals with the character of Evelyn Smythe.  She was an audio only companion for the Sixth Doctor.  She was on her death bed when the Seventh Doctor arrived.  She recognized him as she knew already of regeneration (she saw a few of them in a previous audio play), and he explained that he has a calendar of when each companion dies and visits them.  Of course, regenerations, this could be something that later Doctors abandoned.
 
2013-03-16 04:33:34 PM  
I read his explanation as, "The answer is impossible to explain in a way that doesn't seem convoluted and arbitrary, especially within the confines of the dialogue, so we skipped it."

I'm fine with the Ponds being done; they had a good run, and it's time to move on. I hadn't even noticed the plot hole. But this answer kind of smells.
 
2013-03-16 04:39:21 PM  

LiberalWeenie: I read his explanation as, "The answer is impossible to explain in a way that doesn't seem convoluted and arbitrary, especially within the confines of the dialogue, so we skipped it."

I'm fine with the Ponds being done; they had a good run, and it's time to move on. I hadn't even noticed the plot hole. But this answer kind of smells.




What plot hole? I thought it was alway plain that the doctor couldn't just do what he wanted. It set up that once the future is fixed for a Time Lord, it's fixed.
 
2013-03-16 04:54:06 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: What plot hole? I thought it was alway plain that the doctor couldn't just do what he wanted. It set up that once the future is fixed for a Time Lord, it's fixed.


It's always struck me that it isn't an issue of  can, it's an issue of  will.  In particular, the Time Lords primarily exist to protect the timeline.  As such, they're morally and ethically bound to  not just change things for their own preferences.  If they allowed themselves to do so, they would basically become Gods and the inevitable end would be the destruction of all of time and space.  That's exactly why the Doctor commited  genocide of his entire species to stop them.

This is a man who will not only kill his family, but his entire family history and every other family of his entire species, to prevent them mucking up and destroying the timeline.  When he finds out Rory and Amy are stuck in the past, but lived a happy life, it's bittersweet but he has no real reason to  need to do after them.  They end up living happily ever after.  He just can't see them again.

For someone willing to kill his entire species, that's a pretty small price to pay, to avoid the risk of causing the same kind of damage the Time-lords were causing before he took them out.


People saying "but he could just go to another point and see them anyway" completely miss the point.  They lived a good life.  He'd be "saving" them from that good life.  He's not willing to do that.  He'll risk damaging the timeline, if it's worthwhile, but wanting to see his friends again isn't a worthwhile reason.  He knows he's not some petulant impulsive godling, and doesn't let himself fall into that trap.  That's what made him different from the rest of the Time-lords.
 
2013-03-16 04:55:21 PM  
Moffat does the same thing with DW that he does with Sherlock: if it looks pretty, he hopes you won't notice the massive plot holes that make no sense.
 
2013-03-16 04:58:10 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Flint Ironstag: That's the problem with a show about a guy with a time machine. When he heard the Brigadier was dead he could have just gone back six months earlier. Crossing his own timeline? He knew Churchill had died but he still went back to WWII to see him. In fact every single person he has ever met he will know that at one point in time they will be dead and at another point they will still be alive. Without exception. Except maybe Captain Jack. He's gone to the far future hundreds of times. Guess what? Sarah Jane and the Brig were dead then. Go back to the 1970s and they were still alive. Interfering with history is what he does. Every week. Every time he tries to fight the bad guys.
If you're the writer you just have to make up something and hope it makes sense to most people.  Moffat is concerned with the moral of the story, the message, not the technicalities of the time travel.

Actually, he seems more concerned with grand ideas and movie poster blockbuster episodes than good episodes.

Of course, this is a change from last season, when it was all about a dense, nigh-impenetrable ongoing storyline where everything meant something but it was mostly forgotten about for a big cliffhanger.

/Moffat wrote some great episodes under RTD, but shouldn't be running the show.


Counter evidence: The Sound of Drums. Oh and that episode with the concrete tile chick. Oh and walking fat blobs.

/Moffat is great being show runner.
//RTD is fine with Torchwood, but shouldn't touch another episode of Doctor Who again
 
2013-03-16 04:59:39 PM  

LiberalWeenie: I read his explanation as, "The answer is impossible to explain in a way that doesn't seem convoluted and arbitrary, especially within the confines of the dialogue, so we skipped it."

I'm fine with the Ponds being done; they had a good run, and it's time to move on. I hadn't even noticed the plot hole. But this answer kind of smells.


Agreed. Ponds were fun but time for new companions. I thought it was a pretty good way to off them - they still lived long lives.
 
2013-03-16 05:00:11 PM  

Mad_Radhu: I figure the not see in the Ponds again is a bit of a lie. I'm thinking he's got one last twist left for later in the season, where it will be revealed in a River episode that the older Ponds found Mel's in 1970 as a child on the streets of NYC, raise her through her childhood, and then send her to England in the 90s to meet their younger selves (I'm guess she rolled back her age or slow down her aging during this period). It's the final piece of the River story missing, and it allows the Ponds to finally raise their child, so it needs to happen.

They probably shot the footage already as part of the filming for the Angels episode. When they were filming that episode Karen Gillan tweeted that Arthur and Matt had put a picture o Mrs. Doubtfire on her trailer, apparently making fun of her old age makeup. Since she never appeared aged in this episode, and the tweet happened after The Girl Who Waited had already aired, there is apparently a scene of an older Amy we haven't seen yet that was shot buy not yet aired.


That's awesome, and you're probably exactly right. However, the whole of what you said could, with proper direction, be shown in about a minute of flashbacks and brief sequences.
 
2013-03-16 05:02:48 PM  

blue_2501: FirstNationalBastard: Flint Ironstag: That's the problem with a show about a guy with a time machine. When he heard the Brigadier was dead he could have just gone back six months earlier. Crossing his own timeline? He knew Churchill had died but he still went back to WWII to see him. In fact every single person he has ever met he will know that at one point in time they will be dead and at another point they will still be alive. Without exception. Except maybe Captain Jack. He's gone to the far future hundreds of times. Guess what? Sarah Jane and the Brig were dead then. Go back to the 1970s and they were still alive. Interfering with history is what he does. Every week. Every time he tries to fight the bad guys.
If you're the writer you just have to make up something and hope it makes sense to most people.  Moffat is concerned with the moral of the story, the message, not the technicalities of the time travel.

Actually, he seems more concerned with grand ideas and movie poster blockbuster episodes than good episodes.

Of course, this is a change from last season, when it was all about a dense, nigh-impenetrable ongoing storyline where everything meant something but it was mostly forgotten about for a big cliffhanger.

/Moffat wrote some great episodes under RTD, but shouldn't be running the show.

Counter evidence: The Sound of Drums. Oh and that episode with the concrete tile chick. Oh and walking fat blobs.

/Moffat is great being show runner.
//RTD is fine with Torchwood, but shouldn't touch another episode of Doctor Who again


Uh... counter evidence against what? Bad episodes during RTD's run don't mean Moffat is a good showrunner. I mean, does season 4 of NuWho vs. Season 24 of Classic Who under John Nathan-Turner mean RTD was great being a showrunner while JNT sucked?

/also, you may go to hellish underworld you believe in, sir or madame... the Adipose children were farking great! And definitely better than a space whale, or the first part of season 7.
 
2013-03-16 05:03:13 PM  
The timeline tends to be self correcting - often in rather extreme ways (see Waters of Mars and Father's Day). If he went back and scooped them up he would risk altering time in a way that he couldn't possibly predict, possibly with disastrous consequences.
 
2013-03-16 05:06:31 PM  

jonny_q: Mad_Radhu: I figure the not see in the Ponds again is a bit of a lie. I'm thinking he's got one last twist left for later in the season, where it will be revealed in a River episode that the older Ponds found Mel's in 1970 as a child on the streets of NYC, raise her through her childhood, and then send her to England in the 90s to meet their younger selves (I'm guess she rolled back her age or slow down her aging during this period). It's the final piece of the River story missing, and it allows the Ponds to finally raise their child, so it needs to happen.

They probably shot the footage already as part of the filming for the Angels episode. When they were filming that episode Karen Gillan tweeted that Arthur and Matt had put a picture o Mrs. Doubtfire on her trailer, apparently making fun of her old age makeup. Since she never appeared aged in this episode, and the tweet happened after The Girl Who Waited had already aired, there is apparently a scene of an older Amy we haven't seen yet that was shot buy not yet aired.

That's awesome, and you're probably exactly right. However, the whole of what you said could, with proper direction, be shown in about a minute of flashbacks and brief sequences.


Yeah, I expect it to just be a small part at the end of a River episode, and not a major guest appearance. Still, I have a feeling that with all the pieces in place, we still haven't seen the very last of the Ponds yet.
 
2013-03-16 05:14:23 PM  
does anyone actually care. I'm just happy to be past them.  Its a tv show and actors move on, this time for the better.  I don't need a sensible explanation given that most of the show doesn't make sense, with the counter argument to that being "wibbly wobbly."
 
2013-03-16 05:20:57 PM  
The number one rule of Doctor Who is: Never let anything get in the way of telling a good story.

And honestly, the best way to prevent this would have been to write a different and better farewell episode.  The Weeping Angels are the most overrated, one-dimensional monsters I've ever seen.
 
2013-03-16 05:22:52 PM  

blue_2501: //RTD is fine with Torchwood, but shouldn't touch another episode of Doctor Who again


You haven't watched Miracle Day have you?

I agree somewhat with the folks saying that Moffat is a better show writer than show runner. He is better than RTD somewhat, but he's gone and bit himself in the ass with the constant Angels and River stories. The way they were done has made both characters lesser than they started out. Dude needs folks to tell him no once in a while.
 
2013-03-16 05:42:10 PM  

Thorak: It's always struck me that it isn't an issue of  can, it's an issue of  will.  In particular, the Time Lords primarily exist to protect the timeline.  As such, they're morally and ethically bound to  not just change things for their own preferences.  If they allowed themselves to do so, they would basically become Gods and the inevitable end would be the destruction of all of time and space.  That's exactly why the Doctor commited  genocide of his entire species to stop them.

*snip*

People saying "but he could just go to another point and see them anyway" completely miss the point.  They lived a good life.  He'd be "saving" them from that good life.  He's not willing to do that.  He'll risk damaging the timeline, if it's worthwhile, but wanting to see his friends again isn't a worthwhile reason.  He knows he's not some petulant impulsive godling, and doesn't let himself fall into that trap.  That's what made him different from the rest of the Time-lords.


It's rather strange, how the sow evolved. The Doctor left Galfrey because he wanted to travel and use his ability to help. The Galefrians were pictured as detached observers. The Doctor WAS a Renegade that the Time Lord's had to stop.

Yet it was also Shown the Doctor was right because Time Traveling tampered with reality.

For example, the Pyramid of Mars took place in early 20th century with a threat for the end of the earth. Sara Jane suggested that The Doctor just go back to 1970's because we knew that the earth wasn't destroyed. Doctor showed her that the earth could be destroyed, because alien and their involvement changed things.

Then there's the actual argument that In the show that Time is Fixed vs History can be rewritten.
 
2013-03-16 05:42:21 PM  
Still think that Amy wasn't all that bad, and Rory was the best companion since the reboot.

/I just watch the show for fun. You can't take it too seriously.
 
2013-03-16 05:47:12 PM  

LiberalWeenie: I read his explanation as, "The answer is impossible to explain in a way that doesn't seem convoluted and arbitrary, especially within the confines of the dialogue, so we skipped it."

I'm fine with the Ponds being done; they had a good run, and it's time to move on. I hadn't even noticed the plot hole. But this answer kind of smells.


I agree with this.  On screen you simply can't explain all the little details that the fanbois crave and yet keep the show going.  That is what wikipedia is for.
 
2013-03-16 05:48:36 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: blue_2501: //RTD is fine with Torchwood, but shouldn't touch another episode of Doctor Who again

You haven't watched Miracle Day have you?

I agree somewhat with the folks saying that Moffat is a better show writer than show runner. He is better than RTD somewhat, but he's gone and bit himself in the ass with the constant Angels and River stories. The way they were done has made both characters lesser than they started out. Dude needs folks to tell him no once in a while.




River stories are fine, the Angels were weakened by their second appearance. Their third appearance brought back some of their creepiness. but I think they are done for, as mosters.
 
2013-03-16 06:07:36 PM  
I suspect that Moffat is trying to keep Amy and Rory's eventual return a surprise. After all, (SPOILER WARNING) Rose Tyler was supposedly locked in her parallel universe but we saw her return. So it's possible that Amy and Rory are coming back and Moffat's silly denials are meant to provide cover. It would explain his apparent hostility. We'll see if I'm right.
 
2013-03-16 06:11:21 PM  

Optimal_Illusion: Somebody personally send Moffat the link to this page.

/caution! TV Tropes!


It's not that he thinks Doctor Who viewers are morons; it's that he thinks BBC One viewers are morons, and I don't see any reason to ague with him on that one.
 
2013-03-16 06:12:39 PM  

soporific: I suspect that Moffat is trying to keep Amy and Rory's eventual return a surprise. After all, (SPOILER WARNING) Rose Tyler was supposedly locked in her parallel universe but we saw her return. So it's possible that Amy and Rory are coming back and Moffat's silly denials are meant to provide cover. It would explain his apparent hostility. We'll see if I'm right.


The difference is that Moffat has this all planned, while Rose's return was RTD giving into what he thought the fans wanted.
 
2013-03-16 06:19:31 PM  
Have you ever been to New Jersey?  Yeah, that's right.  Even a Time Lord couldn't handle that smell.
 
2013-03-16 06:22:08 PM  

LiberalWeenie: I read his explanation as, "The answer is impossible to explain in a way that doesn't seem convoluted and arbitrary, especially within the confines of the dialogue, so we skipped it."

I'm fine with the Ponds being done; they had a good run, and it's time to move on. I hadn't even noticed the plot hole. But this answer kind of smells.


Eh. If I was constantly needled by nerds, I'd get a bit grouchy too.

I don't watch Doctor Who for its scientific insight or even its rigorous storytelling. Truth be told, I miss the rubber monsters with the visible zippers.
 
2013-03-16 06:25:24 PM  

thecpt: does anyone actually care. I'm just happy to be past them.  Its a tv show and actors move on, this time for the better.  I don't need a sensible explanation given that most of the show doesn't make sense, with the counter argument to that being "wibbly wobbly."


That should have been Moffat's explanation for TFA's author.
"Why couldn't the Doctor have traveled elsewhere?"
"Because of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff."

It works for me.
 
2013-03-16 06:25:58 PM  
Look, I've been a Doctor Who fan since I saw the very first Tom Baker episode ('Robot') back in the '80's.  In many ways, I love the show.

But I must say I find it amusing that people are worried about continuity and plausibility in the show.  Doctor Who has many virtues and many admirable qualities, but never has been, is not, and never will be a bastion of continuity and scientific accuracy.  "Just repeat to yourself, 'it's just this show, I should really just relax'."

For me, Who was always an amusing, entertaining, cheesy little show with great pretensions, but what raised the show itself to greatness was not the science or continuity (if you want those, go elsewhere).  No, for me it was the idea that this show dared to lift its eyes up from the ground, to the horizon and far beyond, to challenge every viewer to be greater than they were when they came in.

It said, Yes, there are principles worth standing up for; Yes, you can be a hero without packing heat; Yes, it's a large, dangerous, scary, and magnificent universe out there, and we're no way ready for it - but let's go larking off on adventures anyway.

Doctor Who is/was silly in many ways.  That's one of its virtues.  It never had a rod up its butt (*cough* ST:TNG *cough* - and I was a Trek fan from the first episode of TOS).

Does Doctor Who contradict itself many, many times over?  Of course it does.  I don't care.  Look, I love good, scientifically accurate SF.  If I want scientifically plausible time travel (and still with a good story), I'll re-read James P. Hogan's 'Thrice Upon a Time'.  But it's a huge universe - there's plenty of room for everybody.  I love Doctor Who, I love it for what it is.  But even if 'what it is' is not something else that I love, that's fine.

'The Next Doctor'?  Superb story.

'The Doctor's Wife'?  I *love* the way Neil Gaiman can stand conventional wisdom on its head and find obvious truths that no one else has ever seen.

'The Waters of Mars'?  *There* was a side of The Doctor to keep in mind!

'The Planet of Death'?  BRING BACK LADY CHRISTINA!

'Blink'? A perfect little jeweled Faberge Egg of a story.

... And Wilf Mott, and Donna Noble.  My heart still aches.  And the Brig.  And Sarah Jane - Thank God the writers brought her back and gave her a dignity she rarely achieved in the old series.  And Leela.  And K-9.

Yep, a lot of stuff there to love in Doctor Who.  I hope folks won't mind if I love it for its indomitable spirit, even I smile tolerantly at its hard science lapses.  Because, occasionally, the power of the story trumps the power of physics.

/and running.  Lots and lots of running.
 
2013-03-16 06:40:24 PM  

Thorak: That's exactly why the Doctor commited  genocide of his entire species to stop them.


Extremely well said, and I agree completely. But one small point - the Doctor wiped out Gallifrey during the Time War not to stop the Time Lords, but because it was the only way to stop the Daleks from winning. It was a matter of either both sides died, or the Daleks got control of all time and space. (it was established in the novels and while it has never been stated explicitly in NuWho the broad hints indicate that they've taken it as canon.)

Knowing that, go back and watch #9 in "Dalek" when he's first finds himself in the room with one. That's why he freaks the fark out. The only solace he had for the crushing guilt of exterminating his entire planet was "oh well... at least I stopped the Daleks."

And then he walks in to one.
 
2013-03-16 06:40:29 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Moffat does the same thing with DW that he does with Sherlock: if it looks pretty, he hopes you won't notice the massive plot holes that make no sense.


When you watch Doctor Who, part of the unwritten contract is 'try not to think too hard about the plot holes because things get very timey-wimey around here; please remember that you're still a damn sight better off than the old guard who used to have to deal with guys in rubber monster suits'.
 
2013-03-16 06:45:49 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Yep, a lot of stuff there to love in Doctor Who.  I hope folks won't mind if I love it for its indomitable spirit, even I smile tolerantly at its hard science lapses.  Because, occasionally, the power of the story trumps the power of physics.


Your newsletter. Let me subscribe to it. :)
 
2013-03-16 06:49:15 PM  
repeat to yourself, "It's just a show,I should really just relax"
 
2013-03-16 07:10:17 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Does Doctor Who contradict itself many, many times over?  Of course it does.  I don't care.


I actually  do care. Doctor Who has survived this long because the only things that are guaranteed to be true are the things that are happening on screen right at this very moment. It's free to rewrite its own history. Coupled with its system for replacing the entire cast on a regular basis and a story element that literally allows you to use any setting you can imagine for your stories, you have a show that  should never get stale.

Slavish adherence to canon would ruin Doctor Who.
 
2013-03-16 07:23:45 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Because, occasionally, the power of the story trumps the power of physics.


Doctor Who fans are obviously not Terry Pratchett fans or they would understand this.  Narrative has its own power.  Stories are heavy, universe-altering things.  Sometimes things are just because the story demands it.  Million-to-one chances.  Dramatic nick-of-time entrances.  All the convenient little Deus ex Machina.

I'm going to miss Rory.  Some people have complained Doctor Who turned into "The Amy Pond Hour".  It was on my mind when I recently rewatched nuWho, and I suppose I could see it a bit, but they all seemed to be ignoring Rory.

The Ponds were the first married couple companions.  Seeing how travelling with the Doctor affected a marriage was interesting.  Seeing how the Doctor dealt with companions as people with a life and issues of their own playing out in his TARDIS instead of singular extensions of his own ego was interesting.  Just like Donna Noble gave us the chance to see the Doctor deal with a companion who wasn't desperate to slob on his knob, but instead who was a proper friend in the real sense, happy to tell him when he was being a jerk instead of just gazing all starry-eyed at him.

/My god I hate Rose and Marfa
 
2013-03-16 07:30:58 PM  

Gosling: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Moffat does the same thing with DW that he does with Sherlock: if it looks pretty, he hopes you won't notice the massive plot holes that make no sense.

When you watch Doctor Who, part of the unwritten contract is 'try not to think too hard about the plot holes because things get very timey-wimey around here; please remember that you're still a damn sight better off than the old guard who used to have to deal with guys in rubber monster suits'.


I have yet to think of an episode that Matt Smith has been in that will achieve the "classic" status that some of the episodes with the guys in rubber monster suits have achieved, and that's a shame, because Smith has gotten his interpretation down.  Unfortunately, the companions and the scripts have been incredibly shiatty.
 
2013-03-16 08:01:54 PM  
Doctor Who has always been a show you have to meet halfway. Things aren't always going to make sense. You're not going to always be handed a neatly-wrapped package to consume. It might take some effort to suspend disbelief sometimes. If you are able to accept all of that, the show rewards you many times over.

If you demand more than "wibbly-wobbly" for an explanation, you're doing it wrong. Sure, it's fun to speculate about your own theories, but the show doesn't owe it to you.
 
2013-03-16 08:04:06 PM  

jack21221: Doctor Who has always been a show you have to meet halfway. Things aren't always going to make sense. You're not going to always be handed a neatly-wrapped package to consume. It might take some effort to suspend disbelief sometimes. If you are able to accept all of that, the show rewards you many times over.

If you demand more than "wibbly-wobbly" for an explanation, you're doing it wrong. Sure, it's fun to speculate about your own theories, but the show doesn't owe it to you.


I will say, that in the classic episodes, the writers at least attempted, most of the time, to "wrap up" the episode.  Of course, they had more time to do so, but it seems like Moffat's writers are just like "fark it, tell them there's a rip there and he can never go back."

\and he can't land the TARDIS nearby and take a cab
\\or plane
 
2013-03-16 08:21:44 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: but it seems like Moffat's writers are just like "fark it, tell them there's a rip there and he can never go back."


That's not just Moffat. It was like that throughout RTD's reign as well.
 
2013-03-16 08:54:13 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: \and he can't land the TARDIS nearby and take a cab
\\or plane


Or wait a year and then go get them. After all, the damage is that place and time. Otherwise, any further time travel to New York at all would rip apart the universe or whatever.
 
2013-03-16 08:56:56 PM  

UNC_Samurai: The number one rule of Doctor Who is: Never let anything get in the way of telling a good story.

And honestly, the best way to prevent this would have been to write a different and better farewell episode.  The Weeping Angels are the most overrated, one-dimensional monsters I've ever seen.


www.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-03-16 10:08:05 PM  

RassilonsExWife: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Yep, a lot of stuff there to love in Doctor Who.  I hope folks won't mind if I love it for its indomitable spirit, even I smile tolerantly at its hard science lapses.  Because, occasionally, the power of the story trumps the power of physics.

Your newsletter. Let me subscribe to it. :)


I've never seen anyone kick so much ass in my entire life.

/obscure?
 
2013-03-16 10:27:43 PM  

TheManofPA: RassilonsExWife: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Yep, a lot of stuff there to love in Doctor Who.  I hope folks won't mind if I love it for its indomitable spirit, even I smile tolerantly at its hard science lapses.  Because, occasionally, the power of the story trumps the power of physics.

Your newsletter. Let me subscribe to it. :)

I've never seen anyone kick so much ass in my entire life.

/obscure?


Vash would make a cool companion.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report