|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Sept 26, 2016 21:16:27 GMT
But, they are not plotholes, as it doesn't affect the content of the story! Does it affect the content of the story that we didn't see The Doctor and Clara leave his time line in between stories? Or that the Doctor remembers Day of the Doctor even though at least two future versions of himself were around? I used The Two Doctors as an example because there is an elaborate fan theory that explains away most of the plotholes, but the Classic Series is filled with plot holes. And that isn't a bad thing. The stories are still very good and entertaining to watch, and its fun to come up with theories to fill in the plotholes. Of course, Clara and the Doctor trapped in his timeline is a plothole. Its a cliffhanger that isn't answered.
|
|
|
Post by coffeeaddict on Sept 26, 2016 21:35:58 GMT
Jamie knew who the Time Lords were, even though he'd never heard of them in The War Games. The Doctor was working for the Time Lords, even though he was on the run from them at the time. The TARDIS had the wrong interior. The Doctor could control the TARDIS. The Doctor had that remote control thingy, which he never had at that point in the show. I could go on. They're more continuity errors and aesthetic mistakes than plot-holes though. They may clash with the plots of stories prior but aren't plot-holes in and of that particular serial. In all fairness, it could be argued that continuity errors can lead to/ become plot holes.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Sept 26, 2016 22:00:43 GMT
Does it affect the content of the story that we didn't see The Doctor and Clara leave his time line in between stories? Or that the Doctor remembers Day of the Doctor even though at least two future versions of himself were around? I used The Two Doctors as an example because there is an elaborate fan theory that explains away most of the plotholes, but the Classic Series is filled with plot holes. And that isn't a bad thing. The stories are still very good and entertaining to watch, and its fun to come up with theories to fill in the plotholes. Of course, Clara and the Doctor trapped in his timeline is a plothole. Its a cliffhanger that isn't answered. Well then, of course it matters that The Two Doctors contradicts the entire Second Doctor era. You can come up with excuses like the CIA erasing the Doctor's memory or whatever, but that's still just you filling in plotholes with fan theories.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Sept 26, 2016 22:51:26 GMT
Jamie knew who the Time Lords were, even though he'd never heard of them in The War Games. The Doctor was working for the Time Lords, even though he was on the run from them at the time. The TARDIS had the wrong interior. The Doctor could control the TARDIS. The Doctor had that remote control thingy, which he never had at that point in the show. I could go on. They're more continuity errors and aesthetic mistakes than plot-holes though. They may clash with the plots of stories prior but aren't plot-holes in and of that particular serial. Finally!!!
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Sept 26, 2016 22:53:07 GMT
Well then, of course it matters that The Two Doctors contradicts the entire Second Doctor era. You can come up with excuses like the CIA erasing the Doctor's memory or whatever, but that's still just you filling in plotholes with fan theories. A contradiction isn't a plot hole! But the fact that the plot never explains why the Doctor is working for the Time Lords is. If it had been Three or Four it would be one thing, but it is a plot hole to have Two working for the Time Lords without explaining what is going on. If you just want examples of things that were never explained, then there are other examples from the Classic Series. The Sixth Doctor and HG Wells survived Time Lash with no explanation (until later, anyway). The Master survived Planet of Fire with no explanation (well, he's indestructible, the entire universe knows it), and Davros survived Ressurection of the Daleks. Its easy to come up with fan theories as to how they got out of those situations, but the story never gave us an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Sept 26, 2016 23:37:29 GMT
A contradiction isn't a plot hole! But the fact that the plot never explains why the Doctor is working for the Time Lords is. If it had been Three or Four it would be one thing, but it is a plot hole to have Two working for the Time Lords without explaining what is going on. If you just want examples of things that were never explained, then there are other examples from the Classic Series. The Sixth Doctor and HG Wells survived Time Lash with no explanation (until later, anyway). The Master survived Planet of Fire with no explanation (well, he's indestructible, the entire universe knows it), and Davros survived Ressurection of the Daleks. Its easy to come up with fan theories as to how they got out of those situations, but the story never gave us an explanation. But none of the above are actual plot holes in the story they take place in. They are continuity and sometimes production errors, but not plotholes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 0:01:37 GMT
But the fact that the plot never explains why the Doctor is working for the Time Lords is. If it had been Three or Four it would be one thing, but it is a plot hole to have Two working for the Time Lords without explaining what is going on. If you just want examples of things that were never explained, then there are other examples from the Classic Series. The Sixth Doctor and HG Wells survived Time Lash with no explanation (until later, anyway). The Master survived Planet of Fire with no explanation (well, he's indestructible, the entire universe knows it), and Davros survived Ressurection of the Daleks. Its easy to come up with fan theories as to how they got out of those situations, but the story never gave us an explanation. But none of the above are actual plot holes in the story they take place in. They are continuity and sometimes production errors, but not plotholes. Actually, the more I think about it, the more Doctor Who seems to get off pretty well in terms of internal plot errors. I only one I can really think of is the Doctor's transmigration of object skill in The Ambassadors of Death to hide the data-tape, which is never really explained and doesn't pop up in the story again. Even Attack of the Cybermen actually works within the context of its own story, as a kid I didn't have any problems with all the continuity references. You could pick on Timelash for the Doctor performing a "Tricky little manoeuvre," to escape the Bendalypse warhead or Tekker's sudden change of heart, but I think that'd just be cruel considering all the problems that story has. Continuity errors on the other hand? Oh, boy... The Two Doctors is a big one, but there's also the Final End from The Evil of the Daleks, Davros being moved from his own bunker into the Kaled city for Destiny of the Daleks (although you could say the Daleks moved him in the interim), the Daleks being described as robots, Romana's regeneration... There's a lot more for Destiny than I initially remembered actually.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Sept 27, 2016 4:39:49 GMT
But the fact that the plot never explains why the Doctor is working for the Time Lords is. If it had been Three or Four it would be one thing, but it is a plot hole to have Two working for the Time Lords without explaining what is going on. If you just want examples of things that were never explained, then there are other examples from the Classic Series. The Sixth Doctor and HG Wells survived Time Lash with no explanation (until later, anyway). The Master survived Planet of Fire with no explanation (well, he's indestructible, the entire universe knows it), and Davros survived Ressurection of the Daleks. Its easy to come up with fan theories as to how they got out of those situations, but the story never gave us an explanation. But none of the above are actual plot holes in the story they take place in. They are continuity and sometimes production errors, but not plotholes. Well then, neither is Name of the Doctor. It isn't a plot hole that the story ends with the Doctor and Clara still in his timeline. We don't find out that they left until Day of the Doctor, which is a different story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 5:55:49 GMT
Ahh fandom.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 27, 2016 8:46:58 GMT
Jamie knew who the Time Lords were, even though he'd never heard of them in The War Games. The Doctor was working for the Time Lords, even though he was on the run from them at the time. The TARDIS had the wrong interior. The Doctor could control the TARDIS. The Doctor had that remote control thingy, which he never had at that point in the show. I could go on. 1 - The TimeLords send the Doctor on a special mission. We already know from The War Games, that the TimeLords can erase memories. So its no stretch to the imagination that after the mission, both could have had their memories erased/altered after the mission. Because, as you said Jamie doesn't know who the TimeLords are until The War Games. 2 - Special Mission, The Doctor has helped the TimeLords before in, The Three Doctors. 3- Not really an issue, considering how much it would have cost to build a new Troughton console. 4 - Special Mission, and whose to say its not the Doctors TARDIS. 5 - Only for this SPECIAL MISSION. These "plotholes" are tiny issues that don't affect the story. In regards to point 2, the Doctor hasn't helped the Time Lords yet. The Three Doctors takes place well after Victoria has left, as the Doctor recognises Benton from "...that nasty business with the Cybermen", which was a Zoe story ( The Invasion). At the start of The Two Doctors he referes to dropping Victoria somewhere to study graphology. You could use the excuse that the First Doctor had performed the 'special mission', but then you're filling in even more blanks. If you follow the Big Finish stories, the Doctor has the Statenheim (?) remote control in a Companion Chronicle called Helicon Prime. Yes, I know we're discussing just plain, old Classic Who, but at this point I think it's safe to say the Big Finish IS canon, and thus a part of Classic Who. Whoever wrote Helicon Prime just wanted to gives us all a headache, I think The Second Doctor and The War Games things dates back to The Five Doctors though - when the Doctor sees the images of Jamie and Zoe, he points out that they shouldn't recognise him, as their memories had been wiped. According to The War Games, the memory wipe of his companions was mere minutes before his sentencing. This means there is no way he could have partaken in The Five Doctors... unless Season 6B (which I personally am still undecided whether to believe or not) is actually a thing.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Sept 27, 2016 9:40:49 GMT
My point with the Second Doctor helping the TimeLords was based on the fact that the Second Doctor has co-operated once, he can do it twice - irrelevant of where the TimeLord use him in his time line. As for the Big Finish canon - how many fans actually know about BF. Its not in the 100 of thousands! I tend to think that the Five Doctors bit is simply a production error, or bad writing. I'm sure, if given time, Dicks could have come up with something better.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Sept 27, 2016 9:52:02 GMT
But none of the above are actual plot holes in the story they take place in. They are continuity and sometimes production errors, but not plotholes. Well then, neither is Name of the Doctor. It isn't a plot hole that the story ends with the Doctor and Clara still in his timeline. We don't find out that they left until Day of the Doctor, which is a different story. Unfortunately, viewers have become so accustomed to plot holes within the actual 50 minute adventure, that when there is a cliff hanger at the end of an episode, and it isn't concluded in the following episode, they just go "meh". Steven Moffat is paid a nice amount of money for DW. His writing leaves gaps in his scripts. It shouldn't always be up to the audience to fill in the blanks. It is bad writing. If these plot holes were in EastEnders, there would be uproar! Scripts should be tight! Sure, some dramas can leave you thinking. Sometimes even asking the audience "What do you think happened?" But, Moffat does it all the time. A good example is Poirot. Every episode tends to end with the killer being caught, and loose ends explained. Its a crime/murder story, the audience expect it. But, in the ITV version of Murder on the Orient Express it leaves the audience not knowing what Poirot will do. That's fine, whether you liked it or not! But, it's only done once in a blue moon - not every week. Other good examples include every last series episode of Blakes Seven. Always ending on a cliff hanger, but explained in the next first episode.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Sept 27, 2016 10:04:27 GMT
Well then, neither is Name of the Doctor. It isn't a plot hole that the story ends with the Doctor and Clara still in his timeline. We don't find out that they left until Day of the Doctor, which is a different story. Unfortunately, viewers have become so accustomed to plot holes within the actual 50 minute adventure, that when there is a cliff hanger at the end of an episode, and it isn't concluded in the following episode, they just go "meh". Steven Moffat is paid a nice amount of money for DW. His writing leaves gaps in his scripts. It shouldn't always be up to the audience to fill in the blanks. It is bad writing. If these plot holes were in EastEnders, there would be uproar! Scripts should be tight! Sure, some dramas can leave you thinking. Sometimes even asking the audience "What do you think happened?" But, Moffat does it all the time. A good example is Poirot. Every episode tends to end with the killer being caught, and loose ends explained. Its a crime/murder story, the audience expect it. But, in the ITV version of Murder on the Orient Express it leaves the audience not knowing what Poirot will do. That's fine, whether you liked it or not! But, it's only done once in a blue moon - not every week. Other good examples include every last series episode of Blakes Seven. Always ending on a cliff hanger, but explained in the next first episode. So for you Drama in general should Always have a definite beginning middle and end, apart from the times when you think it works to leave things open for interpretation?
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Sept 27, 2016 10:11:56 GMT
Unfortunately, viewers have become so accustomed to plot holes within the actual 50 minute adventure, that when there is a cliff hanger at the end of an episode, and it isn't concluded in the following episode, they just go "meh". Steven Moffat is paid a nice amount of money for DW. His writing leaves gaps in his scripts. It shouldn't always be up to the audience to fill in the blanks. It is bad writing. If these plot holes were in EastEnders, there would be uproar! Scripts should be tight! Sure, some dramas can leave you thinking. Sometimes even asking the audience "What do you think happened?" But, Moffat does it all the time. A good example is Poirot. Every episode tends to end with the killer being caught, and loose ends explained. Its a crime/murder story, the audience expect it. But, in the ITV version of Murder on the Orient Express it leaves the audience not knowing what Poirot will do. That's fine, whether you liked it or not! But, it's only done once in a blue moon - not every week. Other good examples include every last series episode of Blakes Seven. Always ending on a cliff hanger, but explained in the next first episode. So for you Drama in general should Always have a definite beginning middle and end, apart from the times when you think it works to leave things open for interpretation?
Regards
mark687
Drama in general should ALWAYS have a definite beginning, middle and end. On the ODD occasion, NOT EVERY WEEK, you can leave SOME THINGS open for interpretation. But, as I say above. Moffat does it every week. That isn't good for a series. A good way to explain would be if, for example, in EastEnders, a character was standing on a ledge, wanting to commit suicide. His best friend, who he betrayed tries to talk him down. The next scene is the person falling through the air. But, did he jump, or was he pushed!!! I find that okay.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Oct 4, 2016 1:03:09 GMT
I'd establish the Doctor from day 1 as an anti-romance character. A thousands of years old alien should not be whinging on about a lost love (lookin at you RTD) and it was so refreshing for me upon my very first episode (Vincent and the Doctor) to see a male and female pair of friends galavanting around in a time machine having the time of their lives with no romance involved. And then I saw the entire RTD era and I was crushed. I was seeing sickening and horribly written romance between an annoying female and someone who looked twice her age who then turned to someone also looked twice her age and more then 1000 times her age. I didn't cry during Doomsday I was jumping for joy. And then Martha came and Ten was whining about Rose and here was Martha who was more competent and had a better personality and she was being ignored. Needless to say the Roseless episodes with Donna are some of my favorite in the series because it was the fun and touching show I was expecting coming in and there was a clear feeling of 'at last' when I saw it.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 4, 2016 10:41:04 GMT
I'd establish the Doctor from day 1 as an anti-romance character. A thousands of years old alien should not be whinging on about a lost love (lookin at you RTD) and it was so refreshing for me upon my very first episode (Vincent and the Doctor) to see a male and female pair of friends galavanting around in a time machine having the time of their lives with no romance involved. And then I saw the entire RTD era and I was crushed. I was seeing sickening and horribly written romance between an annoying female and someone who looked twice her age who then turned to someone also looked twice her age and more then 1000 times her age. I didn't cry during Doomsday I was jumping for joy. And then Martha came and Ten was whining about Rose and here was Martha who was more competent and had a better personality and she was being ignored. Needless to say the Roseless episodes with Donna are some of my favorite in the series because it was the fun and touching show I was expecting coming in and there was a clear feeling of 'at last' when I saw it. Did you not notice Amy pouncing on 11, or Clara Snogging 11? Both Moffat produced!
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Oct 4, 2016 10:45:03 GMT
I'd establish the Doctor from day 1 as an anti-romance character. A thousands of years old alien should not be whinging on about a lost love (lookin at you RTD) and it was so refreshing for me upon my very first episode (Vincent and the Doctor) to see a male and female pair of friends galavanting around in a time machine having the time of their lives with no romance involved. And then I saw the entire RTD era and I was crushed. I was seeing sickening and horribly written romance between an annoying female and someone who looked twice her age who then turned to someone also looked twice her age and more then 1000 times her age. I didn't cry during Doomsday I was jumping for joy. And then Martha came and Ten was whining about Rose and here was Martha who was more competent and had a better personality and she was being ignored. Needless to say the Roseless episodes with Donna are some of my favorite in the series because it was the fun and touching show I was expecting coming in and there was a clear feeling of 'at last' when I saw it. Did you not notice Amy pouncing on 11, or Clara Snogging 11? Both Moffat produced! But those were dealt with and moved on from with ease, rather than just going on and on
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Oct 4, 2016 11:16:18 GMT
Did you not notice Amy pouncing on 11, or Clara Snogging 11? Both Moffat produced! But those were dealt with and moved on from with ease, rather than just going on and on or the number of times 11 ignored Rory to look out for Amy. Or, the soppy hallucination of Amy when 11 regenerated.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Oct 4, 2016 15:09:23 GMT
I'd establish the Doctor from day 1 as an anti-romance character. A thousands of years old alien should not be whinging on about a lost love (lookin at you RTD) and it was so refreshing for me upon my very first episode (Vincent and the Doctor) to see a male and female pair of friends galavanting around in a time machine having the time of their lives with no romance involved. And then I saw the entire RTD era and I was crushed. I was seeing sickening and horribly written romance between an annoying female and someone who looked twice her age who then turned to someone also looked twice her age and more then 1000 times her age. I didn't cry during Doomsday I was jumping for joy. And then Martha came and Ten was whining about Rose and here was Martha who was more competent and had a better personality and she was being ignored. Needless to say the Roseless episodes with Donna are some of my favorite in the series because it was the fun and touching show I was expecting coming in and there was a clear feeling of 'at last' when I saw it. Did you not notice Amy pouncing on 11, or Clara Snogging 11? Both Moffat produced! Both of which were not launched by the Doctor but the companion. I'm fine with the companion being in love with the Doctor as long as it is only the companion in love. See Charley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 16:53:49 GMT
Did you not notice Amy pouncing on 11, or Clara Snogging 11? Both Moffat produced! Both of which were not launched by the Doctor but the companion. I'm fine with the companion being in love with the Doctor as long as it is only the companion in love. See Charley. What about the dialogue in Deep Breath Doctor: Clara I'm not your boyfriend Clara: I never thought you were Doctor: It's not your mistake I'm talking about. Or words to that effect. Clear implication that 11 thought of Clara as his girlfriend.
|
|