Doctor Who [11]

As you so infallibly managed to prove by these many examples they did and I'm totally with you on this. I was just trying to say that I didn't see Doctor Who the last few years the way I saw it during the RTD era until now again. - Semiramis

Oh not to worry. I didn't seriously think you would be arguing such a point. It was Figg and Amaries assertion that the fact they did address them (you just didn't like how rather than their absence) was just my opinion- and not a cold stone obvious fact as it is. Does go to prove though that Figg and Amarie will disagree with me and accuse me of enforcing my 'opinion' regardless of what the debating point is, just because its me making it.

But I would argue RTD was less consistent with his rules than Moffat was.
A good example is a good episode- Fathers Day- but it introduces two major ideas which are completely new- one of which blatantly contravenes previous Who and the other of which would never get a mention again.
The former was the rule you cant touch your younger self, despite this having happened in Who several times in the past and since, and the latter being the creatures that sterilise the wounds in Time. In this 1 episode then all forgotten about.

'For example when 11 just popped back in time in "Big Bang II" to fake his own death when it had always been clear so far that he can't go back in his own timeline. '

The set up and explanation for his ability to break the rules of time is earlier in the episode with the vortex manipulator and the Doctors explanation than in the shrinking universe they were now in it was possible to severely break the laws of time without dire consequence because the dire consequences were already happening. And the much smaller and ever shrinking size of the remaining universe made it possible to bend the rules. Now you can of course not like that as an explanation- but the episode does give one- it doesn't just ignore the rules.

'he can go back in time (nearly) anytime he wants.'

Only if he is in a collapsing universe on the verge of extinction and has either his TARDIS or a vortex manipulator with him. You've got to admit, that's quite limited circumstances.

"Two parts of space and time that should never have touched, pressed together"

I suspect a lot of that is because it appeared in trailers and the like, from memory it only appears in the first episode, the angels two parter and in the finale. Beginning, middle and end.
It eventually comes again in series 7 on Trenzalore- but I think its fair enough to repeat there after a whole series inbetween its last appearance and then for any new viewers.

'I think this whole conversation is waaaaay too serious'

All conversations on the Who thread are.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:(...)

'I think this whole conversation is waaaaay too serious'

All conversations on the Who thread are.

Amen!

i KNEW that you'd be able to disprove everything I said, don't know why I bothered...
Good for you

This is why I'm mostly satisfied just reading what you guys are arguing about rather than participating myself, because originally i just wanted to express how happy I am about the latest two Doctor Who episodes, nothing more, and now it I got the feeling that I had to justify myself for the reasons I gave for my happiness.
But nevermind, let's all love Doctor Who in our own way, hm?


by the way: we can agree that the video you posted earlier on is amazing! thanks

Pettytyrant101 wrote:As you so infallibly managed to prove by these many examples they did and I'm totally with you on this. I was just trying to say that I didn't see Doctor Who the last few years the way I saw it during the RTD era until now again. - Semiramis

Oh not to worry. I didn't seriously think you would be arguing such a point. It was Figg and Amaries assertion that the fact they did address them (you just didn't like how rather than their absence) was just my opinion- and not a cold stone obvious fact as it is. Does go to prove though that Figg and Amarie will disagree with me and accuse me of enforcing my 'opinion' regardless of what the debating point is, just because its me making it.

But I would argue RTD was less consistent with his rules than Moffat was.
A good example is a good episode- Fathers Day- but it introduces two major ideas which are completely new- one of which blatantly contravenes previous Who and the other of which would never get a mention again.
The former was the rule you cant touch your younger self, despite this having happened in Who several times in the past and since, and the latter being the creatures that sterilise the wounds in Time. In this 1 episode then all forgotten about.

'For example when 11 just popped back in time in "Big Bang II" to fake his own death when it had always been clear so far that he can't go back in his own timeline. '

The set up and explanation for his ability to break the rules of time is earlier in the episode with the vortex manipulator and the Doctors explanation than in the shrinking universe they were now in it was possible to severely break the laws of time without dire consequence because the dire consequences were already happening. And the much smaller and ever shrinking size of the remaining universe made it possible to bend the rules. Now you can of course not like that as an explanation- but the episode does give one- it doesn't just ignore the rules.

'he can go back in time (nearly) anytime he wants.'

Only if he is in a collapsing universe on the verge of extinction and has either his TARDIS or a vortex manipulator with him. You've got to admit, that's quite limited circumstances.

"Two parts of space and time that should never have touched, pressed together"

I suspect a lot of that is because it appeared in trailers and the like, from memory it only appears in the first episode, the angels two parter and in the finale. Beginning, middle and end.
It eventually comes again in series 7 on Trenzalore- but I think its fair enough to repeat there after a whole series inbetween its last appearance and then for any new viewers.

'I think this whole conversation is waaaaay too serious'

All conversations on the Who thread are.

I still assert you don't have facts. its subjective.

KNEW that you'd be able to disprove everything I said, don't know why I bothered...- Semiramis

Oh I love a good debate and just cant resist. But please, always bother!   (And if you find a flaw in the explanation I have given do engage on the matter   )

'originally I just wanted to express how happy I am about the latest two Doctor Who episodes, nothing more, and now it I got the feeling that I had to justify myself for the reasons I gave for my happiness.'

Not in the slightest- I have made no criticism regards the latest series and your comments- I'm delighted you enjoyed it and your enjoyment requires no justification.
But my crabbit could not also let the comment about the laws of time and previous Moffat pass without some scrutiny. I really just saw something that struck me as an interesting subject for debate- the Laws of Time in Moffat era Who (I had not expected Figg and Amarie to immediately derail that debate however by claiming the subject itself doesn't even exist! ).

'can agree that the video you posted earlier on is amazing!'

Yes, yes we can!  


'I still assert you don't have facts. its subjective.'- Figg

 You are trying to maintain black is white here Figg. There are many, many occasions where the laws of time play a major factor in Moffat era Who. That's just a fact.
It shouldn't even be a subject of discussion as its self evident.

there are no facts. to you its a fact, but to other people its not. you don't have the monopoly on facts.

A thing is either there or not. It either exists or not.
The subject of the Laws of Time come up in Moffat era Who- characters talk about them! It EXISTS!
It is therefore not my opinion but a FACT!

This would be like you arguing the sonic screwdriver or the TARDIS doesn't appear in Moffat era Who. They do and that's a fact too and not an opinion. Its that black and white.

I know.

This is why I drink so much!!!

OK, I've watched Forest, Water, and Heaven now.  Some quick tired thoughts:

Forest of the Night had a lot of potential.  Setting it up with the Blake reference in the title and the red riding hood right from the opening said "allegory/faerie story" so it made it easier to not take literally.  Still some of the mistakes were so needlessly stupid, I found myself facepalming.

For example, if you live around forest fire country as many of us do, you know that there's no f***ing way you'd clear a road with a flamethrower, any more than you'd use it to install a window window in your house wall. Forest fires are hard to start and even harder to stop. Give me a chainsaw, or a bulldozer, or any number of pieces of specialty logging equipment and I could clear a road in no time! (I know the sole purpose was to demonstrate that the trees were flameproof, which makes no sense in itself, but the flamethrower is such a terrible idea that it transcends allegory.)

Also, what's with the trees protecting the earth by "releasing oxygen into the atmosphere" to protect against fire? First, we should be talking about radiation damage, not fire.  Second, I'm betting Youtube has 100's of videos showing what a rich oxygen atmosphere does to fires. Here's one
 

All they had to say was that the trees were somehow boosting the ozone in the stratosphere and protecting the earth from radiation. It would still be a fantasy, but at least it wouldn't be giving anybody dangerous ideas about clearing trees with flamethrowers and putting out fires with oxygen.

Waters/Death in Heaven was generally a fun adventure ride, better told than the Pandorica finale I thought.  I just wished they could have toned down the Temptations of Christ themes.

Making the Doctor "President of the Earth"?  WTF? WHY???? The Doctor isn't a leader that people unite around. He's your crazy uncle who's a genius at some things but at the same time never remembers to wash his hands or zip his fly. Advisor yes. President NO!  

And Missy going to infinite trouble just to give him a cyberman army for his birthday and to prove that they were "the same"? No, it's just Moffat comparing the Doctor to Jesus Christ again. Enough please! I get it!!!

(tired crabbit rant over. still very enjoyable!)

No, it's just Moffat comparing the Doctor to Jesus Christ again.- David

This has me curious- in all honesty such a notion has never entered my head, and I've never heard the theory before that Moffat compares the Doctor to Jesus (RTD did yes, blatantly so on some occasions)- interesting notion however.
When you have some non-harvesting time I'd love to know what brings you to that conclusion.

Forest of the Night is the episode everyone disliked (except Figg obviously she liked it)- it was written by a first time Who writer who normally writes award wining children's novels. It earned the rather cruel nickname in Who-circles of In the Forest of the Shite, and was considered by many the worst episode since Love and Monsters back in RTD era. I don't think its that bad myself, but its certainly got a lot of problems. And it is probably the low point of series 8.
But its full of nice themes and ideas- and I really enjoy the character stuff between the leads- but the plot is a mess, the budget cant quite meet realising the ambition (where is everyone?!) and the final scene with her sister comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel earned or justified but just weird.
Also it has one of Who's more dodgy messages in my view about children and medicine for mental health- and it is essentially encouraging children not to take their medicine- that seemed an odd one.
One of the weirder episodes of modern Who.

UNIT have a history of making stupid decisions regards the Doctor. But putting him in charge in the event of an alien invasion does make sense- he has single handedly saved the planet countless times, and he does declare himself as the Protector of Earth, numerous times telling aliens that 'this planet is protected.'
So really its just UNIT making that claim official at need (and realising they will have to drug and kidnap him to make him to do). And worth it just for the look on the Doctors face when they tell him and for one of favourite all time comedy exchanges between Doctor and Master-

AHMED [OC]: Mister President, sir, we're ready for you up here.
DOCTOR (to Missy): Remember all those years when all you wanted to do was to rule the world? (to AHMED) On my way.
AHMED [OC]: Thank you, Mister President.
DOCTOR: (to Missy) Piece of cake.

Glad you enjoyed the finale over all though. It had some cracking ideas in it and some that definitely kept the kiddies sleeping with the light on (the 'dont cremate me' message caused a bit of a stir in the UK- the old questions of it being too scary, too adult for children which always underestimates the resilience of children).


edit add- 'I'm betting Youtube has 100's of videos showing what a rich oxygen atmosphere does to fires.'- David

That was the point- the trees flooded the upper atmosphere with oxygen creating an oxygen bubble around the planet- the solar flare hits this bubble and ignites it and the whole lot burns off without ever touching the surface.
Resulting in, as the Doctor put it "some weird weather and a few trippy sunsets for a while".
I have no idea how much nonsense that is or not but it does address and use the notion a lot of oxygen will ignite.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No, it's just Moffat comparing the Doctor to Jesus Christ again.- David


Forest of the Night is the episode everyone disliked (except Figg obviously she liked it)- One of the weirder episodes of modern Who.

The premis of Forest was great, the idea of it was interesting, the imagination that went into it was far far far more interesting than the stale tired ''Doctor is dying, Doctor as tin pot god, Doctor faces yet more Daleks'' crap that Moffat churns out. Whether it was successful is besides the point. The writer used faerie tale and William Blake, it was a failure of the producers not the writer. they interpreted it badly in some places, ie flamethrowing, but I know why they did that, it was to demonstrate the violence of man against Nature, and what is more violent than the sight of trees going up in flames? its psychologically disturbing, and its symbolic of our thoughtless destruction. Where I live many acres of forest get fryed because of someone throwing a cigarette away, or deliberate pyromania. I loved the Blake theme, it wasn't well done visually as it lacked impact, again not the writers fault. all in all I liked it for what it could have been.

Oxygen doesn't burn by itself. You could throw a lit match in a blimp full of pure oxygen and nothing would happen. It needs something to react with. Same with hydrogen, which is why the Hindenburg didn't blow up, it burned from the outside in.

Whats in a solar flare? Burning hydrogen? If so wouldn't that do for the reaction?

dooooWEEEEEEdoooooooo!!!doooo weeeeee liiiiiive!!! no we don't we're a fooooooOOOOOOooooooL!!

halfwise wrote:Oxygen doesn't burn by itself.  You could throw a lit match in a blimp full of pure oxygen and nothing would happen. It needs something to react with.  Same with hydrogen, which is why the Hindenburg didn't blow up, it burned from the outside in.

Petty wrote:Whats in a solar flare? Burning hydrogen? If so wouldn't that do for the reaction?

What about all carbon-based life on earth? The higher the percentage of oxygen in the air, the better we all burn!

What's in a solar flare is mostly radiation, electrons, and protons accelerated to close to the speed of light. They don't become hydrogen until they slow down and burn off enough energy that a proton can capture an electron. Or they can get gobbled up by other unstable molecules. That's why I was saying they should mention the ozone layer - it's pretty good at intercepting these particles and dissipating the energy harmlessly, and most people have at least hear if it thanks to the holes that started forming last century.

Just passing through for lunch. Back to the field.

The higher the percentage of oxygen in the air, the better we all burn!- David

It seemed to form a sort of buffer in the upper atmosphere, the Doctor described it I believe as a cushion.
Not that I am seriously defending the science in this episode, its not an episode about science as Figg pointed out its more thematic.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Not that I am seriously defending the science in this episode.

Yeah, best not to. It would be a tricky defense.
There was a lot about the tone that I liked though, and looking at the author's name I find I have to defend him as a possible kinsman.
{{{This is me IRL http://northernveg.blogspot.com/2011/07/interview-with-david-cottrell-cranberry.html }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No, it's just Moffat comparing the Doctor to Jesus Christ again.- David

This has me curious- in all honesty such a notion has never entered my head, and I've never heard the theory before that Moffat compares the Doctor to Jesus (RTD did yes, blatantly so on some occasions)- interesting notion however.
When you have some non-harvesting time I'd love to know what brings you to that conclusion.

OK quickly, it came to me when Clara was at the volcano asking the doctor to bring Danny back from the dead, and I thought hmmmm.... resurrecting the dead.....where have I heard that before?  Then I found myself seeing a whole bunch of apparently biblical and Christian references, starting with the title "Death in Heaven", the St. Peter interviewer, the Dead of the Ages rising at the End of Days, lots of images of St Paul's and churchyards, and several more I'm forgetting now.  Here's the bit from Luke 4 on the temptation of Jesus:

Luke 4:1-13 wrote:5 Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
6 And the devil said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.
7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”
8 Jesus answered him, “It is written,‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’”

9 Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,
10 for it is written,‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’
11 and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”
12 Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

13 When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.

To me that looks a whole lot like being appointed President of the World, and falling from a very high place to be saved by a flying police box.
Missy does some pretty good Satanic destroyer and tempter turns too.  To me it all seemed a bit heavy-handed as I was watching it. My opinion of course.

Could you refresh my memory on the RTD Jesus episodes? If you'll remember, I've only watched highlights from those years and it's been a while.  I seem to remember 11 getting a bit messianic on an occasion or two, but I can't place them right now.

David H wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Not that I am seriously defending the science in this episode.

Yeah, best not to. It would be a tricky defense.
There was a lot about the tone that I liked though, and looking at the author's name I find I have to defend him as a possible kinsman.
{{{This is me IRL   http://northernveg.blogspot.com/2011/07/interview-with-david-cottrell-cranberry.html  }}}

I looked it up Dave & I found what you had to say warm & comforting like maple syrup over warm cinnamon pancakes you seem to have found peace within yourself & its soothing

azriel wrote:

David H wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Not that I am seriously defending the science in this episode.

Yeah, best not to. It would be a tricky defense.
There was a lot about the tone that I liked though, and looking at the author's name I find I have to defend him as a possible kinsman.
{{{This is me IRL   http://northernveg.blogspot.com/2011/07/interview-with-david-cottrell-cranberry.html  }}}

I looked it up Dave & I found what you had to say warm & comforting  like maple syrup over warm cinnamon pancakes you seem to have found peace within yourself & its soothing

agreed. I wish I was as well rooted in myself as Dave is. Its a rare quality.

Ditto

Good interview. She did a good job or asking the right open ended questions and then stepping back out of the picture...except for the pictures.

Now I'm puzzlelating over economics. Having the Co-op take your product and sell it, then dividing the profits by amount contributed - what's going on with the big industrial farmers you contrast this to? Are they not being paid proportionally? Are small farmers being crowded out because the big companies only want to deal with big farmers?