|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 27, 2017 19:25:32 GMT
He's surprised because they are using a brutal way to kill as opposed to their usual kind method of murder. Sending someone back in time and feeding off their time energy is murder IMO. It's not though. It's a pain for those it happens to, but barring whatever THEN happens to them in the past, they're NOT DEAD. And that point was made very clear in the very first story where Kathy writes to Sally and explains that she has HAD A FULL AND HAPPY LIFE. You're conflating being removed from the ongoing narrative with character death, and it's not. An analogy would be Rose's initial trapping on Pete's World which she could never return from. Awful, but we don't count that as death. That isn't death, but anything where the Weeping Angels send someone back in time and feed off their time energy is IMO.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Jun 27, 2017 19:39:32 GMT
It's not though. It's a pain for those it happens to, but barring whatever THEN happens to them in the past, they're NOT DEAD. And that point was made very clear in the very first story where Kathy writes to Sally and explains that she has HAD A FULL AND HAPPY LIFE. You're conflating being removed from the ongoing narrative with character death, and it's not. An analogy would be Rose's initial trapping on Pete's World which she could never return from. Awful, but we don't count that as death. That isn't death, but anything where the Weeping Angels send someone back in time and feed off their time energy is IMO. Did you just not read the Kathy bit of my reply? "but anything where the Weeping Angels send someone back in time and feed off their time energy is...not death". Fixed it for you. Where are they dying? Like I said, you're simply conflating removal from the ongoing narrative with death. And it simply isn't the same thing. It's horrible but it isn't death, no matter how many times you say it's your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jun 27, 2017 21:37:45 GMT
It's not though. It's a pain for those it happens to, but barring whatever THEN happens to them in the past, they're NOT DEAD. And that point was made very clear in the very first story where Kathy writes to Sally and explains that she has HAD A FULL AND HAPPY LIFE. You're conflating being removed from the ongoing narrative with character death, and it's not. An analogy would be Rose's initial trapping on Pete's World which she could never return from. Awful, but we don't count that as death. That isn't death, but anything where the Weeping Angels send someone back in time and feed off their time energy is IMO. Except no. As Charles notes, characters writing other characters notes saying they lived a long, happy and full life is not getting killed off. It is only killed off if you have a different definition for what words mean from everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Jun 28, 2017 6:16:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 6:18:02 GMT
It's not though. It's a pain for those it happens to, but barring whatever THEN happens to them in the past, they're NOT DEAD. And that point was made very clear in the very first story where Kathy writes to Sally and explains that she has HAD A FULL AND HAPPY LIFE. You're conflating being removed from the ongoing narrative with character death, and it's not. An analogy would be Rose's initial trapping on Pete's World which she could never return from. Awful, but we don't count that as death. That isn't death, but anything where the Weeping Angels send someone back in time and feed off their time energy is IMO. So if you woke up tomorrow and found you'd been transported to 1963 with no way back, that's the same as being dead? Grim news for all those people unfortunate enough to have actually lived in 1963. But at least you've got Doctor Who to look forward to.
|
|
|
Post by TinDogPodcast on Jun 28, 2017 6:19:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 28, 2017 8:50:48 GMT
That isn't death, but anything where the Weeping Angels send someone back in time and feed off their time energy is IMO. So if you woke up tomorrow and found you'd been transported to 1963 with no way back, that's the same as being dead? Grim news for all those people unfortunate enough to have actually lived in 1963. But at least you've got Doctor Who to look forward to. Personally I would consider myself dead because I would be dead in my original present time.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jun 28, 2017 8:58:40 GMT
So if you woke up tomorrow and found you'd been transported to 1963 with no way back, that's the same as being dead? Grim news for all those people unfortunate enough to have actually lived in 1963. But at least you've got Doctor Who to look forward to. Personally I would consider myself dead because I would be dead in my original present time. Read that back. Think about what those words actually mean. ACTUALLY. MEAN.
By virtue of the fact you were capable of considering anything, you would *BY DEFINITION* not be dead.
'Dead' has a meaning, it's not something you can say 'in IMO' or 'personally'. You are dead or you are not.
In those circumstances you would be alive.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 28, 2017 9:00:30 GMT
Personally I would consider myself dead because I would be dead in my original present time. Read that back. Think about what those words actually mean. ACTUALLY. MEAN.
By virtue of the fact you were capable of considering anything, you would *BY DEFINITION* not be dead.
'Dead' has a meaning, it's not something you can say 'in IMO' or 'personally'. You are dead or you are not.
In those circumstances you would be alive.
True, but being sent back in time without a means of returning to the present day would be as good as death and if not murder by Weeping Angel, manslaughter.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jun 28, 2017 9:10:29 GMT
Read that back. Think about what those words actually mean. ACTUALLY. MEAN.
By virtue of the fact you were capable of considering anything, you would *BY DEFINITION* not be dead.
'Dead' has a meaning, it's not something you can say 'in IMO' or 'personally'. You are dead or you are not.
In those circumstances you would be alive.
True, but being sent back in time without a means of returning to the present day would be as good as death and if not murder by Weeping Angel, manslaughter. The Doctor leaves Susan in another time against her will without a means of returning to her normal life...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 9:48:05 GMT
True, but being sent back in time without a means of returning to the present day would be as good as death and if not murder by Weeping Angel, manslaughter. The Doctor leaves Susan in another time against her will without a means of returning to her normal life... And Vickie clearly committed suicide by staying in Ancient Greece.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jun 28, 2017 9:52:44 GMT
The Doctor leaves Susan in another time against her will without a means of returning to her normal life... And Vickie clearly committed suicide by staying in Ancient Greece. Vicki did in the past and then Victoria did too in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 10:27:52 GMT
And Vickie clearly committed suicide by staying in Ancient Greece. Vicki did in the past and then Victoria did too in the future. The Fourth Doctor left Sarah in Aberdeen. That's as good as dead, surely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 10:31:15 GMT
*sniff* *sniff* Anyone else smell burnt toast...? Uh-oh...
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jun 28, 2017 10:32:13 GMT
Vicki did in the past and then Victoria did too in the future. The Fourth Doctor left Sarah in Aberdeen. That's as good as dead, surely. Only when not speaking to a Scotsman... *grips kilt ready for battle*
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Jun 28, 2017 11:00:36 GMT
I can see where dalekbuster523finish is coming from with this. My favorite quote from Saint Augustine is something he never actually said. When questioned about what God was doing before He created the world, Augustine was reported to have said (but didn't really), "Creating Hell for people who ask this kind of questions." That doesn't have anything to do with my point, other than the fact that they both involve Saint Augustine. As best I recall, and I may be mangling this a bit because it's been a long time since I read about this, Austine attempted to answer the question of how to reconcile an omnipotent and omniscient God with the concept of free by stating that God lived outside of time. We do have free will, but from the perspective of the omniscient, any decisions made using that free will have already been made. It's worth noting that the Doctor characterizes the actions as killing. Fascinating race, the Weeping Angels. The only psychopaths in the universe to kill you nicely. No mess, no fuss, they just zap you into the past and let you live to death. The rest of your life used up and blown away in the blink of an eye. You die in the past, and in the present they consume the energy of all the days you might have had, all your stolen moments. They're creatures of the abstract. They live off potential energy.James Brady is the most well-known example, but American courts tend to look far back. In the Brady example, he was injured in the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. He died in 2014 as a result of the wounds received and the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide. It didn't matter that the cause was more than thirty years removed from the effect. It led directly to that outcome. Amy and Rory are dead in 2012. But-for the actions of the Angels, they would not be.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jun 28, 2017 16:38:01 GMT
Read that back. Think about what those words actually mean. ACTUALLY. MEAN.
By virtue of the fact you were capable of considering anything, you would *BY DEFINITION* not be dead.
'Dead' has a meaning, it's not something you can say 'in IMO' or 'personally'. You are dead or you are not.
In those circumstances you would be alive.
True, but being sent back in time without a means of returning to the present day would be as good as death and if not murder by Weeping Angel, manslaughter. That is absurd. Please stop.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 28, 2017 16:52:14 GMT
It's worth noting that the Doctor characterizes the actions as killing. Fascinating race, the Weeping Angels. The only psychopaths in the universe to kill you nicely. No mess, no fuss, they just zap you into the past and let you live to death. The rest of your life used up and blown away in the blink of an eye. You die in the past, and in the present they consume the energy of all the days you might have had, all your stolen moments. They're creatures of the abstract. They live off potential energy.Well, he uses the word, but he also quite clearly indicates that he understands people so-zapped can live a full life. It's just from the perspective of someone who knew them or with them that they are dead-in-present despite being alive in the past. And that's only true if you do not have a time machine (more later). Interesting perspective for a character who has referred to everyone he has or will know as ghosts - they're all dead somewhere, sometime, but they're also alive somewhere, sometime. (I need to re-watch the S5 episodes. Because he says the words you quoted in Blink, but I could swear he went on about how it was odd that Angels were actually killing people in the S5 double-parter rather than zapping them back). I've always felt it kind of strange that the Doctor acted like Amy & Rory were dead dead. He couldn't go back to the immediate moment they were sent (unless he's since fixed the thing he was building in Mysterio) but he could let them alone for a few years and visit them sometime in the 40s. Or 50s. I suppose one might point out that the Angel that touched them in the Doctor's presence already fed on their potential energy, in his past, so if a future-Doctor goes back and does anything to change their lives, that changes the amount of potential energy the angel already absorbed in his own past timeline. Though, query further on two points: (1) since the Angel is frozen when he's looking at it, it can't do anything differently if the energy absorbed is changed; that is, whatever changes the Doctor might cause by going back and visiting cannot possibly affect his own Timeline, because the Angel that touched them will be doing the same thing no matter what - standing there frozen, (2) even if that's wrong, it'd be yet another decision where has to ask himself "do I change things by going back? or must I go back because I always did, and not going back would change things" It's not quite the same situation as learning where the Brigadier had died. Had he gone back to visit after receiving the nurse's phone call, the Brig might never have expressed sadness that he hadn't visited, so the nurse would not have told the Doctor about it when he called, so the Doctor would not visit. So, the Brig would express sadness, so the nurse would tell the Doctor, so the Doctor would go back to visit --> Loop (well, I say "loop" but it's actually a 4-dimensional mobius strip; two potential realities, each causing the other). Granted, this is all pure nonsense without a foundation in physics, but to the extent the show has "rules", I don't see that it would break them for the Doctor to go visit Amy and Rory in mid-20th c. NYC, perhaps even whisk them away. But, he cannot visit the Brig. Because, in Amy and Rory's case, all that really has to stay the same is that the book they were reading needs to get written and published, also, a grave with their names on it planted in the proper spot. Even a "fixed point" can apparently be changed, just so long as it looks to the rest of the universe like the same thing happened (Season 6), and even then it appears that is only temporary. (Season 7 and on, where the Doctor erases info about himself, then just starts going around calling himself the Doctor and apparently reminding everyone of what he's done, because we get those quips along the lines of "doctor, cause of death, the....look it up....I'm such a badass, aren't I?"). And here, there's nothing said about Amy and Rory living their lives out in the past being "fixed." Smith put on a show of being upset, but there's really nothing in-universe stopping him from picking them back up after a stay in NYC. The only reason he hasn't is because the two left the show. Either way, I've gotten side-tracked. Regardless of how an angel sending someone back looks to that person's friends, from an objective viewpoint - aka, the viewer - they didn't die. Their bodily functions didn't cease. That person just lived out a life off-screen and won't be back. It's an exit from the show, but I sure wouldn't call it "killed" in a dramatic sense anymore than any other companion who got out at a specific space-time point and never saw the Doctor again; it'd sure be odd to say that Sarah Jane and Leela lived only because they saw later Doctors, but Vicki died because she didn't. (caveat: I am not steeped in the full non-BBC universe of Who stuff, so maybe I missed a story.) On that view, we would effectively have to conclude that every time the Doctor leaves after saving the day, every last person who stayed behind was "killed", even though they really lived out the rest of their lives doing whatever, off-screen.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Jun 28, 2017 17:04:03 GMT
Either way, I've gotten side-tracked. Regardless of how an angel sending someone back looks to that person's friends, from an objective viewpoint - aka, the viewer - they didn't die. Their bodily functions didn't cease. That person just lived out a life off-screen and won't be back. It's an exit from the show, but I sure wouldn't call it "killed" in a dramatic sense anymore than any other companion who got out at a specific space-time point and never saw the Doctor again; it'd sure be odd to say that Sarah Jane and Leela lived only because they saw later Doctors, but Vicki died because she didn't. (caveat: I am not steeped in the full non-BBC universe of Who stuff, so maybe I missed a story.) On that view, we would effectively have to conclude that every time the Doctor leaves after saving the day, every last person who stayed behind was "killed", even though they really lived out the rest of their lives doing whatever, off-screen. A couple things. 1.) My initial reply wasn't very lucid. Had some nasty insomnia, so I wrote that when sleep-deprived. Reading it now, I can barely suss out what I intended. I'll see if I can organize my thoughts in more coherent manner. 2.) Fixed points drive me crazy. I think they're a lazy way to constrain a story. 3.) I think this is an interesting conversation and one worth having, but it's gotten way off topic. I'll message the mod team and see if they can spin this discussion off into its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Jun 28, 2017 17:12:37 GMT
Fascinating race, the Weeping Angels. The only psychopaths in the universe to kill you nicely. No mess, no fuss, they just zap you into the past and let you live to death. The rest of your life used up and blown away in the blink of an eye. You die in the past, and in the present they consume the energy of all the days you might have had, all your stolen moments. They're creatures of the abstract. They live off potential energy. Even with your example I don't see it as the same thing. Sure the Doctor uses the word kill and death but he also uses live. And whereas the person by being zapped in the past loses all the moments they would of had in that time period. They still are able to make new memories and moments. I suppose to all accounts and purposes they are dead to everyone in the present. But I still think there is a major difference between what happened to Bill who if she remains a cyberman has no chance of any life at all. And I don't really think this discussion needs a new thread unless you guys want specifically to discuss the Weeping Angels.
|
|