Re: Alternative Doctor Who/Sherlock thread

[Mrs Figg]

No its basic creative writing 101 Petty


its not creative, its wishful thinking

[Forest Shepherd]

Well of course it's bizarre and fantastic. It's Doctor Who, remember?

[Pettytyrant101]

'its not creative, its wishful thinking'- Figg


I really dont see why this is so difficult, it seem so obvious to me looking at from the perspective of  writing that as a character type and as a character functioning in a narrative Amy is in a different category from Rose ect whereas Rory shares the same character function within the narrative as them.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just did a double check on something in Good Man Goes to War- the first time we see Amy with her baby is one month after the birth.

Kovarian- We've been waiting a month. He's done nothing.

[Mrs Figg]

'its not creative, its wishful thinking'- Figg


I really dont see why this is so difficult, it seem so obvious to me looking at from the perspective of  writing that as a character type and as a character functioning in a narrative Amy is in a different category from Rose ect whereas Rory shares the same character function within the narrative as them.

Its because you want her to be in a different category, that doesnt make it true. She functions exactly like every other assistant in the history of the show.

[Pettytyrant101]

Its not because I want her to be- its the function within the narrative on a technical level.
If I was writing an English dissertation on the characters the difference in function between Amy and Rory would be one of the things I would mention- its not ground breaking and seems obvious to me.

And she functions like some companions in the show- but not in NUWho prior to her. All previous NuWho companions have fallen into the same narrative category.

[Mrs Figg]

Its not because I want her to be- its the function within the narrative on a technical level.
If I was writing an English dissertation on the characters the difference in function between Amy and Rory would be one of the things I would mention- its not ground breaking and seems obvious to me.

And she functions like some companions in the show- but not in NUWho prior to her. All previous NuWho companions have fallen into the same narrative category.

its no use using the words 'technica level' Its all phooey. The function within the narrative   is the same whether its Amy or Rose or Rory, its not difficult to understand. The function between Amy and Rory is different only because Rory acts as Amy's assistant in a way, he is not as central as her, but he functions in the same way she does to further plot devices and storylines. There is nothing inherently special about Amy, she is a bog standard assistant. Claiming she has some special role is just wishful thinking. She is actually a step backwards in terms of gender roles being little more than a passive Mary Sue who's body is regularly taken over to further the story. She doesnt do much more than run around and be horrible to Rory, hardly revolutionary stuff. She has a lot of inept timey wimey rubbish foisted on her character but that doesnt really add up to her functioning any differently than any other character in the show, as they all suffer this stuff under Moffat.

[Pettytyrant101]

I am not saying she is a special role- I am saying she has a specific role as a character within a narrative structure, one that is inherently different from her NuWho predecessors.
Rory on the other hand fits perfectly into the mould of NuWho companions.

The pattern seems blindingly obvious.

Rose- has a normal everyday job and life. There is nothing inherently special about her. Her first episode we are shown how ordinary and everyday her life is, seeing her at work, meeting her family and boyfriend. Meets the Doctor and her potential is revealed over the course.
Martha- has a job, better than Rose granted but still a normal job. Nothing inherently special about her.  First episode we see her at work and shortly after we meet her family.Meets the Doctor her potential is revealed over the course.
Donna- has a normal job as a temp.  Nothing inherently special about her. First episode  we meet her family and find out about her social circle (Nerys and co). Meets the Doctor her potential is revealed over the course.
Rory- has a normal job as a nurse. Nothing inherently special about him. First episode we see him at work and we see him with his girlfriend (Amy) his first full companion episode we see him with his social group (stag night) and eventually we meet his father and see his relationship with him. Meets the Doctor has his potential revealed over the course.

Amy- Has an unusual job not many do. First episode she is a complete anomaly with no apparent family present, one aunt we never see and no parents present or their absence explained (and when they do finally appear they are in it for exactly the last quarter of one episode and then never seen again). We dont see her at work, we dont ever meet any of her social group, she doesn't even appear to have one until after she and Rory have married and settled down together. She is the mother of the Doctors wife, has a crack in time pouring through her head, can bring people back from a state of non-existence using the power of memory and is a trap set by the Doctors future opponents for him, all true from the very first moment we meet her. Meets the Doctor and her connections and relevance to the Doctor are slowly revealed.

They are completely different character functions within the narrative serving different purposes. I dont see how that can be denied or not be obvious.

[Mrs Figg]

I am not saying she is a special role- I am saying she has a specific role as a character within a narrative structure, one that is inherently different from her NuWho predecessors.
Rory on the other hand fits perfectly into the mould of NuWho companions.

The pattern seems blindingly obvious.

Rose- has a normal everyday job and life. There is nothing inherently special about her. Her first episode we are shown how ordinary and everyday her life is, seeing her at work, meeting her family and boyfriend. Meets the Doctor and her potential is revealed over the course.
Martha- has a job, better than Rose granted but still a normal job. Nothing inherently special about her.  First episode we see her at work and shortly after we meet her family.Meets the Doctor her potential is revealed over the course.
Donna- has a normal job as a temp.  Nothing inherently special about her. First episode  we meet her family and find out about her social circle (Nerys and co). Meets the Doctor her potential is revealed over the course.
Rory- has a normal job as a nurse. Nothing inherently special about him. First episode we see him at work and we see him with his girlfriend (Amy) his first full companion episode we see him with his social group (stag night) and eventually we meet his father and see his relationship with him. Meets the Doctor has his potential revealed over the course.

Amy- Has an unusual job not many do.    yeah because most women think being a strip-o-gram is demeaning, unusual my arse. She is normal with nothing inherently special about her. She has a demeaning and very low paid job.

First episode she is a complete anomaly with no apparent family present, one aunt we never see and no parents present or their absence explained (and when they do finally appear they are in it for exactly the last quarter of one episode and then never seen again).

This is due to the crappy writing skills involved. Someone had the bright idea that families no longer matter in Who, that assistants exist in some twilight world where people are brought up by house elves because there sure isnt any adult parent figure on the scene. This makes the characters empty and rootless and its not real.

We dont see her at work,

What!    at some pub taking her clothes off or singing Happy Birhday to lorry drivers, thank god for that!

we dont ever meet any of her social group, she doesn't even appear to have one until after she and Rory have married and settled down together. She is the mother of the Doctors wife, has a crack in time pouring through her head, can bring people back from a state of non-existence using the power of memory


No she cant, she just has to simply remember something, and I am under the impression we can all do that. You are making this shit up as you go along.

and is a trap set by the Doctors future opponents for him, all true from the very first moment we meet her. Meets the Doctor and her connections and relevance to the Doctor are slowly revealed.

She is no more special than say Donna, why would she of all people be transported to the TARDIS on her wedding day? she became the most important woman in creation, so she was destined to be important. Clara was born to save the Doctor, so important. Amy is just another assistant who happens to have a really spooky home, thats all.She could have been anyone.

They are completely different character functions within the narrative serving different purposes. I dont see how that can be denied or not be obvious.

This is a non statement, it doesnt prove anything or say anything. All the assistants have different characters, they all have various variations on a central theme, ie normal human meets Doctor and goes on adventures, some are more linear character arcs like Martha, some are irritating timey wimey self consciously smart arse weaving about, eg River Song, they ultimately all serve the same purpose, the characters are there as a foil to the alien Doctor, the central assistants are in NuWho at least all ordinary humans without special powers. You havent given me any concrete proof that Amy doesnt fit this mould

[Amarië]

I get the feeling that while RTD's style has a touch of ADHD; active and a bit all over the place but very sweet and caring. Moffat is more light autism; very focused on his long, complex plot and not so good with emotions.

Amy and Rory are Rose and Mickey rebooted. River is Idris 2.0. Moffat is a Doctor Who fanboy who's allowed to play (lucky bastard and poor man). And he succeeds at somethings but not all.

[David H]

 

[Pettytyrant101]

I am starting to assume you are just being deliberately obtuse Figg.

'yeah because most women think being a strip-o-gram is demeaning'

She is not a stripper, she is a kissogram- and Karen Gillan was quite vehement about the accusation Amy was any sort of stripper when it was made.
Nothing in the script supports the notion she is stripper. You are determined to portray her as being demeaned because it suits your agenda, but it is based on nothing but your own prejudice and desire to portray Amy as just a sex object.


'This is due to the crappy writing skills involved.Someone had the bright idea that families no longer matter in Who, that assistants exist in some twilight world where people are brought up by house elves because there sure isnt any adult parent figure on the scene.'

Theres a good phrase for this- utter pish.
Moffat is an accomplished writer with many years writing professionally and very successfully to his name- I think he thought it out and knew exactly what he was doing with Amy's character set up. Her parents being missing is integral to her plot arc.

'at some pub taking her clothes off'

Why dont you save yourself some typing time and just put 'slag' or 'whore' every time you want to talk about her. Talk of demeaning, you couldn't demean the character or actress more.

'No she cant, she just has to simply remember something, and I am under the impression we can all do that. You are making this shit up as you go along.'

Are you sure you even watched the show?

The Doctor: Because you're special. That crack in your wall, all that time. The universe pouring into your head. You brought Rory back. You can bring them back too.

The Doctor cant do it, Rory cant do it, Rive cant do it- only Amy can.

'She is no more special than say Donna'

Donna's arc is one of thinking of herself as nothing- Donna noble shouting at the universe to keep it at bay, an coming to release her potential. But her normality is driven home in her opening episode, even by the bad guy who gives a long list of her normal interests to mock her.
And the reason her ending is to powerful and tragic is that she is reduced back to that bland normality after all she has grown and changed.

'all ordinary humans without special powers. You haven't given me any concrete proof that Amy doesnt fit this mould'

What besides the ability to bring people back into existence once they have been wiped from it you mean?


'very focused on his long, complex plot and not so good with emotions.'- Amarie

I agree entirely and have said so before- Moffat in my view does far better plots and better scifi, RTD does better emotional kitchen sink type drama.
And Moffat would have been a fool to try to copy RTD just as if RTD had he come second would have been fool to try to copy Moffat style plotting.

[David H]

The Doctor: Because you're special. That crack in your wall, all that time. The universe pouring into your head. You brought Rory back. You can bring them back too.

This whole plot device -- that people and universes could be reconstructed from memory --was a problem for me from the beginning when I watched the series. So presumably false memories (which we all have) could make other new universes? There were so many plot holes when I tried to follow the internal logic that I eventually just tried to ignore it, only to realize that the entire story arc hinged on it.

Also the power of LOVE to blow up space ships and such. It's just weak writing in my opinion.

[Pettytyrant101]

that people and universes could be reconstructed from memory- David

They cant, except by Amy. And Amy can do it because when people are absorbed by the light of the crack and removed form existence the same knowledge, the same pattern is in Amy's memory because the time crack is also feeding through her- which is why it takes her parents but not her and its why she can remember the soldiers who into the light when no one else can. Its why when the bad guys in Pandorica take a psychic imprint they get, in the Doctors words, 'more than they bargained for' and bring Rory back too.

'the power of LOVE to blow up space ships and such.'

I think its only used once in that context- the cyberman episode, one of my least favourite episodes, even if the banter between the Doctor and Craig can be fun. But I thought the whole love thing was overused where it was used elsewhere anyway and it didn't help that for some reason the episodes with that theme were grouped rather closely together which cheapened the device even more.

[David H]

Right, I get it. But Amy's memory is still living in an organic brain the size yours and mine, compose of the same neurons and synapses as ours, so by implication the writers seem to be saying "and so can you reinvent the world" in the same way they're saying Craig's love can save the world.  

I'm afraid you won't ever be able to explain it in a way that will make me like it. Like PJ's Great Goblin, I know what he was trying for, I've read the defenses, but it's still best if I just try NOT to remember....  

[Pettytyrant101]

Its a scifi/fantasy show- I dont see why the idea that a crack in the fabric of the universe located on an individual could have such an effect is a strecth. Its why it follows her about no matter where she goes- starship UK, the warbunker, Byzantine ect She is the focal point, its why the TARDIS is drawn there when River is in it, its why the whole thing hinges on 'Amy's time' as the Doctor puts it.

I dont think its any greater a thing to accept than the existence of talking dragons in Tolkien or for that matter most of the scifi/fantasy elements in classic Who. Or even that Rose can absorb the Heart of the TARDIS and use it to bring Jack back to life after his death and make him an eternal undying permanent fixed point.

[Amarië]

Why doesn't the tardis throw a fit when Amy comes aboard? She has the crack in her head, she brings along a time eating universe destroying force. Somehow the Tardis doesn't mind?

[Pettytyrant101]

Or she knows what's coming and it has to play out- she does exist across Time after all and always takes the Doctor, and River it seems, where they need to go rather  where they want to go. Arguably it was the TARDIS that drew the Doctor to notice Amy in the first place by crashing in her back garden and then by coming back after his ten minute trip more than a decade later. Tardy had a vested interest after all in the creation of River- who is partly a product of the TARDIS - the TARDIS herself tells River she is a 'daughter of the TARDIS' (let's Kill Hitler)

[David H]

Its a scifi/fantasy show- I dont see why the idea that a crack in the fabric of the universe located on an individual could have such an effect is a strecth.

I don't see it as a stretch at all. The crack itself is just an ordinary off-the-shelf MacGuffin. It's how Moffat clothes it in the romantic mantle of MEMORY that reminds me very much of the LOGIC theme in Original Star Trek. As much as I have always loved the show, I can make no defense of Kirk melting down superior intelligences and causing computers to through sparks with simple paradoxes and human emotions.  

[Pettytyrant101]

Mmm interesting Dave, as I entirely agree about the Kirk thing- I dont like or buy those episode either- but I dont see the Amy thing as being the same device at all.

Although my favourite part of the whole memory thing is when the doctor explains that when you see a photo of someone but cant remember who they are, or meet someone in the street you've ever seen before and felt instantly that you know them is not memory playing up at all, its because time and the universe is consistently being rewritten all around us all the time.

[David H]

Although my favourite part of the whole memory thing is when the doctor explains that when you see a photo of someone but cant remember who they are, or meet someone in the street you've ever seen before and felt instantly that you know them is not memory playing up at all, its because time and the universe is consistently being rewritten all around us all the time.

That was fun, I agree.  To push a little farther into the ST analogy, I'd say that's fun in the same way I completely enjoy the LOGIC theme as it's used in the interplay between Kirk, Spock and Bones. It's both entertaining and thought provoking.  

It's when the themes are used as "big hammers" to fix what would otherwise be major plot holes that I shake my head and put my head in my hands.
  

[Mrs Figg]

I am starting to assume you are just being deliberately obtuse Figg.

'yeah because most women think being a strip-o-gram is demeaning'

She is not a stripper, she is a kissogram- and Karen Gillan was quite vehement about the accusation Amy was any sort of stripper when it was made.
Nothing in the script supports the notion she is stripper. You are determined to portray her as being demeaned because it suits your agenda, but it is based on nothing but your own prejudice and desire to portray Amy as just a sex object.

We first meet her with a police woman costume, complete with handcuffs and short skirt, people pay good money in porn shops for sexy nurse, sexy police women, and French maid costumes down Soho. are YOU being obtuse to support YOUR agenda. There is a lot of confusion about kiss-o-grams a LOT of people wonder if they take their clothes off, so why Moffat would allow this ambiguity into a childrens tv show is Beyond the pale


'This is due to the crappy writing skills involved.Someone had the bright idea that families no longer matter in Who, that assistants exist in some twilight world where people are brought up by house elves because there sure isnt any adult parent figure on the scene.'

Theres a good phrase for this- utter pish.
Moffat is an accomplished writer with many years writing professionally and very successfully to his name- I think he thought it out and knew exactly what he was doing with Amy's character set up. Her parents being missing is integral to her plot arc.

He doesnt have a good track record when it comes women or families, he just cant do it. Therefore he doesnt.

'at some pub taking her clothes off'

Why dont you save yourself some typing time and just put 'slag' or 'whore' every time you want to talk about her. Talk of demeaning, you couldn't demean the character or actress more.

I cant even   

'No she cant, she just has to simply remember something, and I am under the impression we can all do that. You are making this shit up as you go along.'

Are you sure you even watched the show?

yup, I remembered it into being.

The Doctor: Because you're special. That crack in your wall, all that time. The universe pouring into your head. You brought Rory back. You can bring them back too.

The Doctor cant do it, Rory cant do it, Rive cant do it- only Amy can.

'She is no more special than say Donna'

Donna's arc is one of thinking of herself as nothing- Donna noble shouting at the universe to keep it at bay, an coming to release her potential. But her normality is driven home in her opening episode, even by the bad guy who gives a long list of her normal interests to mock her.
And the reason her ending is to powerful and tragic is that she is reduced back to that bland normality after all she has grown and changed.

'all ordinary humans without special powers. You haven't given me any concrete proof that Amy doesnt fit this mould'

What besides the ability to bring people back into existence once they have been wiped from it you mean?

No because she just thinks them into being, easy peasy


'very focused on his long, complex plot and not so good with emotions.'- Amarie

I agree entirely and have said so before- Moffat in my view does far better plots and better scifi, RTD does better emotional kitchen sink type drama.
And Moffat would have been a fool to try to copy RTD just as if RTD had he come second would have been fool to try to copy Moffat style plotting.

[Mrs Figg]

that people and universes could be reconstructed from memory- David

They cant, except by Amy. And Amy can do it because when people are absorbed by the light of the crack and removed form existence the same knowledge, the same pattern is in Amy's memory because the time crack is also feeding through her- which is why it takes her parents but not her and its why she can remember the soldiers who into the light when no one else can. Its why when the bad guys in Pandorica take a psychic imprint they get, in the Doctors words, 'more than they bargained for' and bring Rory back too.

this is classic sci-fi bullshit dressed up as something meaninful.


.

[Amarië]

It's very hard to not know what you know, be that how the brain works or basic knowledge of pregnancies and your own gender. Plot holes are plot holes.

[Pettytyrant101]

this is classic sci-fi bullshit dressed up as something meaningful.- Figg

You were right up till the end of- this is classic sci-fi

No because she just thinks them into being, easy peasy- Figg

Well if you choose to just ignore the small mountain of evidence that consists of the entire story arc for all of series 5 and everything that happens in it- if you do that then yes.

I get it. You hate Moffat, you hate everything he does, thinks, says, he hates and loathes all women and has an evil agenda to brainwash all boys into misogynists and all girls into being sluts, you hate that he breaths at all and he is the devils spawn. And Karen Gillan is a betrayer of all women everywhere for colluding with him, or else to dim to see his evil plans (and Jenna Coleman too and Alex Kingston).
I have to make this assumption as you will take the most basic obvious answers- which are in the show and shown in the show and given as the answers in the show- and then make statements like the above one.
Maybe take  a break from Who then till you get a showrunner you do like? (I did that when I didnt like the 6th Doctor years, its not hard, you just dont watch it till it changes again then see if you like that version- didnt like 7 either at the time- his first series is still mainly poor but I wish I'd hung on for his second series at the time- but I stayed away from him too for years, then came back for 8 I did the same for a period during RTD's run).
Thats the good thing about Who, someone else will eventually come along and do it differently.

'It's very hard to not know what you know'- Amarie

Is that sentence timey-whimey!