Doctor Who
Oct. 1st, 2012 12:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fingertroubleHmm half expected Pete ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
whyaduck to post about the latest Doctor Who episode but looks like he hasn't posted here for a while so it's left for me to do it. Proceed at your peril
OK this wasn't a surprise, sad but you knew it was coming, the loss of Rory and Amy but did it have to suck so much? I don't mean emotionally, I mean it had plot holes so wide you could drive Starship Titanic through it (or the Statue of Liberty/Angel)
1. Angels zap you back to a fixed point in time right? So how could they have 'saved' Rory the first time (in 1938 at the Hotel) at all? Surely his point was 'fixed' - more than the intended paradox here?
2. River travelled back to see them in 1938 - something specified as 'impossible' by the Doctor because they were a fixed time and couldn't be changed by visiting in the Tardis. But surely going back in time and writing a book to warn them is changing the past time - and also couldn't Amy just create a paradox easily by not writing the book?
3. She wrote the afterword 'after' - so why couldn't she write in a changed ending saving them all or changing it all? Time wimey total bollocks more like.
4. It was similar to the way they wrote out Tasha Yar in Star Trek, abrupt and not really making much sense - but unlike that one this has been planned for ages...
5. So Brian (the Dad) waits at home forever and they never return...after the Doctor promised he'd get them back safe. Nice, err closure. Not.
6. Rory is an auton right? A Roman auton centurion? Did I miss the memo where he could age and die? He waited for 2000 years without aging but ages normally in his own time. WTF?
7. 'Old detective novels - why read those?' 'oh it keeps me in contact with someone I care about' - did I imagine that scene last year or earlier in this? It basically spells out he knew that all of this would happen, which again why didn't he change anything unlike his 'death'?
These are just the ones I spotted - I bet there are many more.
whyaduck to post about the latest Doctor Who episode but looks like he hasn't posted here for a while so it's left for me to do it. Proceed at your perilOK this wasn't a surprise, sad but you knew it was coming, the loss of Rory and Amy but did it have to suck so much? I don't mean emotionally, I mean it had plot holes so wide you could drive Starship Titanic through it (or the Statue of Liberty/Angel)
1. Angels zap you back to a fixed point in time right? So how could they have 'saved' Rory the first time (in 1938 at the Hotel) at all? Surely his point was 'fixed' - more than the intended paradox here?
2. River travelled back to see them in 1938 - something specified as 'impossible' by the Doctor because they were a fixed time and couldn't be changed by visiting in the Tardis. But surely going back in time and writing a book to warn them is changing the past time - and also couldn't Amy just create a paradox easily by not writing the book?
3. She wrote the afterword 'after' - so why couldn't she write in a changed ending saving them all or changing it all? Time wimey total bollocks more like.
4. It was similar to the way they wrote out Tasha Yar in Star Trek, abrupt and not really making much sense - but unlike that one this has been planned for ages...
5. So Brian (the Dad) waits at home forever and they never return...after the Doctor promised he'd get them back safe. Nice, err closure. Not.
6. Rory is an auton right? A Roman auton centurion? Did I miss the memo where he could age and die? He waited for 2000 years without aging but ages normally in his own time. WTF?
7. 'Old detective novels - why read those?' 'oh it keeps me in contact with someone I care about' - did I imagine that scene last year or earlier in this? It basically spells out he knew that all of this would happen, which again why didn't he change anything unlike his 'death'?
These are just the ones I spotted - I bet there are many more.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-01 09:50 pm (UTC)I agree 100% with your post by the way. This episode didn't do it for me. Too many plot holes, too much foreshadowing, too much angels, too many seemingly random rules.
One interesting theory I read though...
River said "he hates endings, don't let him see the damage." I assumed she meant her age and the inevitable coming departure of one Ms. Song. But he remarked on Amy's wrinkles and glasses. What if the "can't ever see them again" schtick is his way of ending things on his terms?