|
Post by mrperson on Jun 28, 2017 17:23:49 GMT
Also, as for this episode, I am quite glad that Simm played it down in his brief appearance. Hope the rest of the next episode is like that, as far as he's concerned.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 28, 2017 18:34:41 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. Once the Doctor sees anything set in stone or in writing that's it. He can't go back. Amy and Rory's deaths were on the gravestone. Amy also wrote a foreword for the Melody Malone book indicating that the Doctor doesn't find a way to return before she writes it. If the Doctor picked them up in the 40s or 50s, something could happen during their adventures that causes them to die in a different time, changing the gravestone and causing something to happen to time like it all happening at once again. The 12th Doctor would definitely have attempted it because he is reckless, but the 11th Doctor was always shown to take things more by-the-book and when something bad happened to time it was someone else's fault (EG: River). He knows when things can change or 'be rewritten', whereas 12 would try to change someone's fate regardless without thinking of the consequences (see Ashildr).
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 28, 2017 18:41:59 GMT
Also, as for this episode, I am quite glad that Simm played it down in his brief appearance. Hope the rest of the next episode is like that, as far as he's concerned. Yeah, he's much more effective when he's not acting like a rejected Looney Tunes character.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 18:49:46 GMT
Also, as for this episode, I am quite glad that Simm played it down in his brief appearance. Hope the rest of the next episode is like that, as far as he's concerned. I can't think how his return could have been better written or played to be honest. I've even mixed feelings about his return being kept as a surprise (if such a thing were possible these days). I think knowing he's returning is better - throughout World Enough and Time I was wondering when he was going to put in an appearance, not knowing that he he already had.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 28, 2017 18:51:19 GMT
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. Once the Doctor sees anything set in stone or in writing that's it. He can't go back. Amy and Rory's deaths were on the gravestone. Amy also wrote a foreword for the Melody Malone book indicating that the Doctor doesn't find a way to return before she writes it. If the Doctor picked them up in the 40s or 50s, something could happen during their adventures that causes them to die in a different time, changing the gravestone and causing something to happen to time like it all happening at once again. The 12th Doctor would definitely have attempted it because he is reckless, but the 11th Doctor was always shown to take things more by-the-book and when something bad happened to time it was someone else's fault (EG: River). He knows when things can change or 'be rewritten', whereas 12 would try to change someone's fate regardless without thinking of the consequences (see Ashildr). I address that already with this: "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.""
You ignored that, but to beat this horse a little more: Picking up Amy and Rory simply don't violate any of the quasi-rules the show has laid down. It just always has to remain the case that when the Angel touches Rory, the Doctor sees the grave stone with the name. Then Amy, then Amy's name. It can be a machine programmed to look like the names appear on the gravestone, just like the Doctor instructed the Teleselecta crew to go about mocking his death.
As long as the same things always things happen or appear to happen in the same way in Angels Take Manhattan, then it doesn't really matter what happens after he goes back and picks them up. It's not like he's shown reading a biography of Amy and Rory's life in NYC. All that's in play are the grave stone and the Malone book.
I actually don't like the fact that this is the "rule" re: fixed points or otherwise, but it's the way the show has played out under Moffat. Take it up with him. The only reason we are having this discussion is he couldn't just have Amy and Rory say "actually, we want to go settle down now, buh-bye" and exit the way all original series companions not called "Adric" exited.
He wanted a gut-punch, so we get silliness in S7 that contradicts the entire reason his survival in S6 was supposed to work.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 28, 2017 18:55:28 GMT
Also, as for this episode, I am quite glad that Simm played it down in his brief appearance. Hope the rest of the next episode is like that, as far as he's concerned. I can't think how his return could have been better written or played to be honest. I've even mixed feelings about his return being kept as a surprise (if such a thing were possible these days). I think knowing he's returning is better - throughout World Enough and Time I was wondering when he was going to put in an appearance, not knowing that he he already had. I actually didn't guess that the weird hunched man was him until he started talking to Missy, but I suppose that's credit to Simm's skill.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 28, 2017 18:57:35 GMT
Once the Doctor sees anything set in stone or in writing that's it. He can't go back. Amy and Rory's deaths were on the gravestone. Amy also wrote a foreword for the Melody Malone book indicating that the Doctor doesn't find a way to return before she writes it. If the Doctor picked them up in the 40s or 50s, something could happen during their adventures that causes them to die in a different time, changing the gravestone and causing something to happen to time like it all happening at once again. The 12th Doctor would definitely have attempted it because he is reckless, but the 11th Doctor was always shown to take things more by-the-book and when something bad happened to time it was someone else's fault (EG: River). He knows when things can change or 'be rewritten', whereas 12 would try to change someone's fate regardless without thinking of the consequences (see Ashildr). I address that already with this: "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.""
You ignored that so you'll probably ignore this, but to beat this horse a little more: Picking up Amy and Rory simply don't violate any of the quasi-rules the show has laid down. It just always has to remain the case that when the Angel touches Rory, the Doctor sees the grave stone with the name. Then Amy, then Amy's name. It can be a machine programmed to look like the names appear on the gravestone, just like the Doctor instructed the Teleselecta crew to go about mocking his death.
I actually don't like the fact that this is the "rule" re: fixed points or otherwise, but it's the way the show has played out under Moffat. Take it up with him. The only reason we are having this discussion is he couldn't just have Amy and Rory say "actually, we want to go settle down now, buh-bye" and exit the way all original series companions not called "Adric" exited.
He wanted a gut-punch, so we get silliness in S7 that contradicts the entire reason his survival in S6 was supposed to work.
They still have to die on the exact same day on the gravestone, and even if the gravestone is faked that still relies on the Doctor remembering what was on it. The 11th Doctor was a very forgetful incarnation - he forgot about the Great Intelligence in The Snowmen, for instance. As I said, the 12th Doctor would definitely have done what you said. He's reckless. The 11th Doctor would never do that. He saw it as a fixed point in time, and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 19:03:31 GMT
I can't think how his return could have been better written or played to be honest. I've even mixed feelings about his return being kept as a surprise (if such a thing were possible these days). I think knowing he's returning is better - throughout World Enough and Time I was wondering when he was going to put in an appearance, not knowing that he he already had. I actually didn't guess that the weird hunched man was him until he started talking to Missy, but I suppose that's credit to Simm's skill. I'm happy that I twigged just before the reveal actually came. Upto that point, I thought it was the surgeon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 19:11:58 GMT
I can't think how his return could have been better written or played to be honest. I've even mixed feelings about his return being kept as a surprise (if such a thing were possible these days). I think knowing he's returning is better - throughout World Enough and Time I was wondering when he was going to put in an appearance, not knowing that he he already had. I actually didn't guess that the weird hunched man was him until he started talking to Missy, but I suppose that's credit to Simm's skill. I felt especially silly on sexond watching when I realised they kept playing music from Last of the Time Lords when he was watching the Doctor on the video screen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 19:17:02 GMT
I actually didn't guess that the weird hunched man was him until he started talking to Missy, but I suppose that's credit to Simm's skill. I felt especially silly on sexond watching when I realised they kept playing music from Last of the Time Lords when he was watching the Doctor on the video screen. I missed that detail too! Them's clever, them Doctor Who people.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jun 28, 2017 19:48:46 GMT
I address that already with this: "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.""
You ignored that so you'll probably ignore this, but to beat this horse a little more: Picking up Amy and Rory simply don't violate any of the quasi-rules the show has laid down. It just always has to remain the case that when the Angel touches Rory, the Doctor sees the grave stone with the name. Then Amy, then Amy's name. It can be a machine programmed to look like the names appear on the gravestone, just like the Doctor instructed the Teleselecta crew to go about mocking his death.
I actually don't like the fact that this is the "rule" re: fixed points or otherwise, but it's the way the show has played out under Moffat. Take it up with him. The only reason we are having this discussion is he couldn't just have Amy and Rory say "actually, we want to go settle down now, buh-bye" and exit the way all original series companions not called "Adric" exited.
He wanted a gut-punch, so we get silliness in S7 that contradicts the entire reason his survival in S6 was supposed to work.
They still have to die on the exact same day on the gravestone, and even if the gravestone is faked that still relies on the Doctor remembering what was on it. The 11th Doctor was a very forgetful incarnation - he forgot about the Great Intelligence in The Snowmen, for instance. As I said, the 12th Doctor would definitely have done what you said. He's reckless. The 11th Doctor would never do that. He saw it as a fixed point in time, and decided there was nothing he could do about it. Yes, he would have to make sure the right days appeared at the right times on the gravestone, just like he had to make sure that everything played out at Silencio the second time, just like it did the first time. The point simply is that he's quite clearly capable of pulling that kind of thing off. The second point is that really, the only reason he didn't go back is out-universe: the performers left the show. And that is why there are no absolute clear answers here. I'm just pointing out that if you try to view his failure to return using in-universe "rules" rather than the real-world reason we all know about, things don't add up. It bothers me because there was no reason they couldn't just have a normal exist instead of a gut-punch. It bothers me because I'd really just rather them not announce "rules", rather than present rules that viewers care about - ie, rules that determine whether or not the Doctor chooses to do a thing, to save someone, etc - and then ignore those rules whenever another episode makes it convenient to the plot. (For example, it bothers me that Nexus Points were built up, then ignored. We went from "no, you can't ever change a fixed point" to "sure, you can change it. just make sure it looks (to ...someone? Who?) like everything went the same way). In contrast, they add up quite well with the homage to the late Brigadier. As for his memory, well, we could get into quite a lot of debates about just how much of that "forgetting" was actual forgetting and how much of it was just not wanting to think about it. (aka that scene in Day where he says he "forgot" how many children were on Gallifrey, but his face - facing away from both other Doctors - seems to tell a rather different story).
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 28, 2017 22:58:47 GMT
They still have to die on the exact same day on the gravestone, and even if the gravestone is faked that still relies on the Doctor remembering what was on it. The 11th Doctor was a very forgetful incarnation - he forgot about the Great Intelligence in The Snowmen, for instance. As I said, the 12th Doctor would definitely have done what you said. He's reckless. The 11th Doctor would never do that. He saw it as a fixed point in time, and decided there was nothing he could do about it. Yes, he would have to make sure the right days appeared at the right times on the gravestone, just like he had to make sure that everything played out at Silencio the second time, just like it did the first time. The point simply is that he's quite clearly capable of pulling that kind of thing off. The second point is that really, the only reason he didn't go back is out-universe: the performers left the show. And that is why there are no absolute clear answers here. I'm just pointing out that if you try to view his failure to return using in-universe "rules" rather than the real-world reason we all know about, things don't add up. It bothers me because there was no reason they couldn't just have a normal exist instead of a gut-punch. It bothers me because I'd really just rather them not announce "rules", rather than present rules that viewers care about - ie, rules that determine whether or not the Doctor chooses to do a thing, to save someone, etc - and then ignore those rules whenever another episode makes it convenient to the plot. (For example, it bothers me that Nexus Points were built up, then ignored. We went from "no, you can't ever change a fixed point" to "sure, you can change it. just make sure it looks (to ...someone? Who?) like everything went the same way). In contrast, they add up quite well with the homage to the late Brigadier. As for his memory, well, we could get into quite a lot of debates about just how much of that "forgetting" was actual forgetting and how much of it was just not wanting to think about it. (aka that scene in Day where he says he "forgot" how many children were on Gallifrey, but his face - facing away from both other Doctors - seems to tell a rather different story). Two different Doctors, two different approaches. Also: I don't see why he would purposefully forget the Great Intelligence. Nothing different there to any of his other adventures. If anything, it would be a memory he would look back on fondly given it saw the start of one of his longest ever friendships with the Brigadier.
|
|
|
Post by agentten on Jun 29, 2017 5:47:14 GMT
Also, as for this episode, I am quite glad that Simm played it down in his brief appearance. Hope the rest of the next episode is like that, as far as he's concerned. I can't think how his return could have been better written or played to be honest. I've even mixed feelings about his return being kept as a surprise (if such a thing were possible these days). I think knowing he's returning is better - throughout World Enough and Time I was wondering when he was going to put in an appearance, not knowing that he he already had. It had the opposite effect on me. I knew Simm was coming at the end of the season so I recognized him despite the (really very good) make up. I was almost certain it was Simm's Master and when he did the line about Bill's heart, which was subtle and which she didn't seem to notice at all, I knew it was exactly the kind of mocking, hiding right under your nose comment that the Master would relish in. I don't know if I would have noticed these things or not if I didn't know Simm was returning, but I definitely noticed them because his return had been spoiled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 6:15:12 GMT
I actually don't like the fact that this is the "rule" re: fixed points or otherwise, but it's the way the show has played out under Moffat. Take it up with him. The only reason we are having this discussion is he couldn't just have Amy and Rory say "actually, we want to go settle down now, buh-bye" and exit the way all original series companions not called "Adric" exited. He wanted a gut-punch, so we get silliness in S7 that contradicts the entire reason his survival in S6 was supposed to work. Which, and I say this with some irritation even now, they'd done already. The God Complex was a very natural dropping off point for the Ponds, everything was wrapped up and all was well. A little sadness there, but it was a clean break that made sense within the context of the narrative. Then Asylum of the Daleks happened, a story which seems to have been blasted from existence by its own successors, and they came back. Only to up and go a couple stories later. If anything, the Doctor's melancholia in The Snowmen only really makes sense if you've read The Dalek Generation and attribute it to what happened with the Blakely family. Also: I don't see why he would purposefully forget the Great Intelligence. Nothing different there to any of his other adventures. If anything, it would be a memory he would look back on fondly given it saw the start of one of his longest ever friendships with the Brigadier. I'd honestly put that down to natural wear and tear. Either the Sixth or Seventh Doctor recalled that there were parts of his memory that were as vague as anything due to the number of regenerations he'd gone through since then. Memories fade even for the Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by seeley on Jun 29, 2017 6:39:51 GMT
Which, and I say this with some irritation even now, they'd done already. The God Complex was a very natural dropping off point for the Ponds, everything was wrapped up and all was well. A little sadness there, but it was a clean break that made sense within the context of the narrative. Then Asylum of the Daleks happened, a story which seems to have been blasted from existence by its own successors, and they came back. Only to up and go a couple stories later. If anything, the Doctor's melancholia in The Snowmen only really makes sense if you've read The Dalek Generation and attribute it to what happened with the Blakely family Not to deny Moffat agency, but RTD, for all the good he did, has a lot to answer for there. Of the four longterm companions under his watch, only Martha left of her own accord and without a lot of sound and fury. Jack died and came back to life, only to be abandoned on Satellite 9; Rose was trapped in a parallel dimension; and Donna had her mind wiped. You might count Mickey, as he is something of an edge-case, but his time aboard the TARDIS amounted to a mere two stories, and he was always more of a supporting character. So it's not surprising that Moffat, who has stated that he couldn't have run the show if Davies hadn't laid the groundwork, continued the whole "You are the most important woman in the universe! Really! Truly! Not like the other ones!"-nonsense. That said, RTD was better at it. Donna and Rose's departures both had dramatic weight, in a way that the ill-defined temporal jiggery-pokery that befell the Ponds didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 6:56:39 GMT
Which, and I say this with some irritation even now, they'd done already. The God Complex was a very natural dropping off point for the Ponds, everything was wrapped up and all was well. A little sadness there, but it was a clean break that made sense within the context of the narrative. Then Asylum of the Daleks happened, a story which seems to have been blasted from existence by its own successors, and they came back. Only to up and go a couple stories later. If anything, the Doctor's melancholia in The Snowmen only really makes sense if you've read The Dalek Generation and attribute it to what happened with the Blakely family Not to deny Moffat agency, but RTD, for all the good he did, has a lot to answer for there. Of the four longterm companions under his watch, only Martha left of her own accord and without a lot of sound and fury. Jack died and came back to life, only to be abandoned on Satellite 9; Rose was trapped in a parallel dimension; and Donna had her mind wiped. You might count Mickey, as he is something of an edge-case, but his time aboard the TARDIS amounted to a mere two stories, and he was always more of a supporting character. So it's not surprising that Moffat, who has stated that he couldn't have run the show if Davies hadn't laid the groundwork, continued the whole "You are the most important woman in the universe! Really! Truly! Not like the other ones!"-nonsense. That said, RTD was better at it. Donna and Rose's departures both had dramatic weight, in a way that the ill-defined temporal jiggery-pokery that befell the Ponds didn't. Quite right. That and they were all part of an established character arc. Rose's was the fulfilment of her becoming as estranged from day-to-day life as the Doctor was. Martha walking out and doing more on Earth was part of her journey to build confidence and stand up for herself. RTD even knocked the trend of his own OTP with Donna, who put her foot down and told the Doctor that she wanted to be treated as his equal and happily, she very much was. The Doctor praised her for it, even when she herself couldn't see it. With the Ponds, it's very difficult to see the decision to forgo a quiet ending and instead go with bluster to be a certain lack of bravery (or perhaps, creative freedom). It's one of those decisions that really baffles me, like the Doctor spying on Clara as a child or repeatedly dropping companions back home on modern Earth. Back before we got the Vault as a good excuse for his repeated returns. Actually speaking of dropping off companions... That's something which happened so often that I started getting the impression they really didn't want to be travelling with one another. Personally, I think Clara enjoyed it as a novelty, she didn't really commit to the idea like other companions did. She liked being in control and I don't think the TARDIS is the best place to be for long periods since it's nothing but an almost complete absence of control. If the Doctor hadn't arrived in her life, I suspect she'd have likely found a lot more earthly way of distracting herself from life like online gaming or visiting foreign countries while England was in winter. I doubt that was the intention, but there it is. It's a bit like Adric, really. I get the idea and it can be very good idea, but the execution leaves a bit to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by seeley on Jun 29, 2017 7:51:01 GMT
With the Ponds, it's very difficult to see the decision to forgo a quiet ending and instead go with bluster to be a certain lack of bravery (or perhaps, creative freedom). It is. It's a fantastic departure, and it's maddening to think it only exists for the sake of the Lake Silencio arc. I enjoyed Angels Take Manhattan, but its tacked-on excuse for a departure simply doesn't compare. I get the idea and it can be very good idea, but the execution leaves a bit to be desired. True of a number of the Moffat Era's failings, I think. I think I prefer Moffat's vision of the show, but Davies was much better at realizing his. When I didn't like something under his tenure, it was usually down to the concept. There was rarely this feeling that it might have been better had things been different on the production end. And, more often than not, I liked what I saw. The Moffat Era, particularly in Series 6, has a nasty tendency of feeling unfinished. Stephen Thompson's first two episodes exemplify this, for me. You have perfectly decent ideas marred by an all-round mediocrity. The quality gap between them and his near-contemporaneous Sherlock episodes is so vast its not even funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 8:26:00 GMT
With the Ponds, it's very difficult to see the decision to forgo a quiet ending and instead go with bluster to be a certain lack of bravery (or perhaps, creative freedom). It is. It's a fantastic departure, and it's maddening to think it only exists for the sake of the Lake Silencio arc. I enjoyed Angels Take Manhattan, but its tacked-on excuse for a departure simply doesn't compare. I get the idea and it can be very good idea, but the execution leaves a bit to be desired. True of a number of the Moffat Era's failings, I think. I think I prefer Moffat's vision of the show, but Davies was much better at realizing his. When I didn't like something under his tenure, it was usually down to the concept. There was rarely this feeling that it might have been better had things been different on the production end. And, more often than not, I liked what I saw. The Moffat Era, particularly in Series 6, has a nasty tendency of feeling unfinished. Stephen Thompson's first two episodes exemplify this, for me. You have perfectly decent ideas marred by an all-round mediocrity. The quality gap between them and his near-contemporaneous Sherlock episodes is so vast its not even funny. And unfinished in a very big way. You can only be invested so many times in an arc before you give up because the characters that have been introduced simply up and vanish. I believe that Moffat is one of those people who's a great ideas man. He's the Anderson, the Roddenberry or the Lucas, but he needs someone to do the busywork that makes it all click together. Series 6, I think, would have fared a great deal better if the latter half had been informed by A Good Man Goes to War. Why didn't we get to meet Vastra and Strax for the "first" time? Why didn't we get to see the Gamma Forests? What exactly motivated Kovarian? Lots of good opportunities, but none of them really explored. Looking back on it all now, I think he should've done what RTD did with Torchwood and bring in a co-producer to act as an unofficial head writer. I think he got a bit too caught up in the show's metatext ("Clara I'm not your boyfriend," "I'm not the Doctor," "Is that really your name?" etc.) and forgot that it's about telling good stories. Sherlock was brilliant, it sometimes managed to be more Who than Who was. It's sister show on the other hand... I can't help but feel that much of what happened after Demon's Run had been in a set holding pattern. It's a very different feeling when you get to the comics and the novels where he's trying to outwit Chiyoko, bluff his way as a merciless Hunter by shooting down his companions or being told to stand up for himself by Ian and Barbara. These stories feel as though mean something in a way that the TV tales don't. The Moffat era's given us a lot to play with, but it's never been particularly good at seizing (and more importantly holding onto) its own opportunities. It has the unfortunate habit of falling victim to its own contrivances like it's being too clever for its own good. I've seen the rebuttal there be "It's too sophisticated to understand," but I've seen these ideas done before and done well in a Doctor Who story. It's more like it doesn't quite understand what it's trying to pull off. Which is a great shame really because I went into it wanting to like it. Aside from this current season, which has been tremendous, I've found that really hard to do.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 29, 2017 8:49:22 GMT
Which, and I say this with some irritation even now, they'd done already. The God Complex was a very natural dropping off point for the Ponds, everything was wrapped up and all was well. A little sadness there, but it was a clean break that made sense within the context of the narrative. Then Asylum of the Daleks happened, a story which seems to have been blasted from existence by its own successors, and they came back. Only to up and go a couple stories later. If anything, the Doctor's melancholia in The Snowmen only really makes sense if you've read The Dalek Generation and attribute it to what happened with the Blakely family Not to deny Moffat agency, but RTD, for all the good he did, has a lot to answer for there. Of the four longterm companions under his watch, only Martha left of her own accord and without a lot of sound and fury. Jack died and came back to life, only to be abandoned on Satellite 9; Rose was trapped in a parallel dimension; and Donna had her mind wiped. You might count Mickey, as he is something of an edge-case, but his time aboard the TARDIS amounted to a mere two stories, and he was always more of a supporting character. So it's not surprising that Moffat, who has stated that he couldn't have run the show if Davies hadn't laid the groundwork, continued the whole "You are the most important woman in the universe! Really! Truly! Not like the other ones!"-nonsense. That said, RTD was better at it. Donna and Rose's departures both had dramatic weight, in a way that the ill-defined temporal jiggery-pokery that befell the Ponds didn't. I disagree. Personally I found Amy and Rory's exit much, much sadder than Rose or Donna's (not to say their exits weren't sad).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 9:07:20 GMT
I really liked the Pond's exit. It was nice that the cause of their departure was just a cruel, tiny twist of fate rather than a part of an effort to save the universe. Donna had to become the Doctor/Donna to save the day, and her fate was sealed. Rose had to pull the lever to seal the void, and her fate was sealed. Yet Amy and Rory had finished their adventure, the day was saved already. A wicked, sudden addendum to the story saw them lost forever and the suddenness of it added to the tragedy - it was (I'm sorry) blink and you'll miss it. Not poignant, not drawn out. No time for big farewells - sad for what it wasn't as much as for what it was.
|
|