Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
I don't suppose that all the moaners could actually stop and remember the show is aimed at kids? As the target audience is the under 14 year olds, I don't think blatant storyline pot holes really matter to them?!? Please try an remember this when picking holes with it.

Saying 'Well it's for kids and poor writing doesn't matter there' in this day and age is a poor excuse. It's like saying 'It's just for American TV, it doesn't have to have good writing, just lot of cleavage and six packs'. To a degree, that's true, but only if you're producing abominations like Jersey Shore.

This is Doctor Who. One would hope that it's held to a marginally higher standard than Spongebob Squarepants or Ren and Stimpy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazz, Angels, Aslong as they are quantum locked, they are inv invincible. They are stuck in that moment of time.

I might point out that the Doctor has beaten them before by positioning them so that four of them were looking at each other.

Yes that is true, When they where not quantum locked and actively attacking the tardis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:
I view Dr. Who as "pulp" sci-fi, it's supposed to be epic and exciting, funny and more than a little bit ridiculous. Time travel is not scientifically possible, so the whole damn show doesn't have a shred of plausibility to it to start with, never mind the complete and utter unrealism of basically everything else about the entire show. Suspension of disbelief is a perquisite for sci-fi such as this, if you're constantly hung up over whether or not some people would have definitely been looking at the statue of liberty at 3am on a pitch black night (remember, the angels are able to turn out *all* the lights), then you're never going to enjoy the show.

It's in the same category as Farscape or Stargate (SGU excluded).. it's not "hard" sci-fi like Trek (original series excluded), BSG, Babylon 5.

So, yeah, I forgive all plotholes that make the show cooler... statue of liberty coming to life might not be scientifically or plausibly accurate (although David Copperfield did make it disappear that one time, which makes you wonder. ).. but it is extremely cool, so I happily excuse it on account of rule of cool... the opening scene was made a whole lot creepier by its addition.

Suspension of Disbelief is good. But there is only so far you can get suspended. Shows need to have rules(unless the show shows a complete lack of rules as part of its premise) that make sense in the universe.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
I don't suppose that all the moaners could actually stop and remember the show is aimed at kids? As the target audience is the under 14 year olds, I don't think blatant storyline pot holes really matter to them?!? Please try an remember this when picking holes with it.

Saying 'Well it's for kids and poor writing doesn't matter there' in this day and age is a poor excuse. It's like saying 'It's just for American TV, it doesn't have to have good writing, just lot of cleavage and six packs'. To a degree, that's true, but only if you're producing abominations like Jersey Shore.

This is Doctor Who. One would hope that it's held to a marginally higher standard than Spongebob Squarepants or Ren and Stimpy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazz, Angels, Aslong as they are quantum locked, they are inv invincible. They are stuck in that moment of time.

I might point out that the Doctor has beaten them before by positioning them so that four of them were looking at each other.

Where did I say that poor writing was ok as it was a kid's show? I said it's for kids and the adults are expecting too much of the plotlines. I think if you go back to the Dr Who shows of the past they are just the same. It's only the adults that have grown up and added to the background and expectation.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, Simplist way to defeat an angel.
Mirrors, Tape one to the back of your head, and a few to your front, and any angel that attacks you sees its own reflection.

Awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I liked the episode, Weeping Angels are by far my favorite villain in Doctor Who, I agree they're not as scary as they used to be in "Blink", but when you have an entire planet of them, you kinda throw your hand a little early.

I felt it was actually a sad way to go for Amy and Rory, killing them off without actually killing them... (Just don't let me know that all of the recent companions have been killed off without being killed off)

Also, River is getting near the end of her life in the series as well isn't she? This is the first time since meeting the 10th in the "Silence in the Library" that she is mentioned to be a professor. So, we might not be seeing much of her in the future. Though granted, with the whole, "she's a time traveler" we could be stuck with her for a while.

If they just go back in time doesn't that doom them to a life of luxury as they use their knowledge of past events to make a royal mint?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why not land in New Jersey in 1938, and cross the river?

It's all governed by the need to generate plot points, of course.

Because retrieving old friends from doom is still not enough to make you go to New Jersey?

 scarletsquig wrote:
Time travel is not scientifically possible...

Actually general relativity does allow for time travel, and special relativity throws the Law of Causality out the window if a particle travels faster than the speed of light. (our friend the tachyon, for example)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Time travel is not scientifically possible...

Actually general relativity does allow for time travel, and special relativity throws the Law of Causality out the window if a particle travels faster than the speed of light. (our friend the tachyon, for example)

Its always the tachyons breaking the rules isn't it. You show me ten tachyons and I'll show you ten particles that are up to no good.

It was a great episode.

If it's one thing I've learned with Doctor Who, it's to make my own perception filter for plot holes. This is not hard Sci-fi guys. It's just fun.

I loved Rory a lot more than Amy. I want more of his dad! Still, I'm looking forward to the new girl and how they hell are they going to explain her if she's already a human turned Dalek and dead at that!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I liked the episode, Weeping Angels are by far my favorite villain in Doctor Who, I agree they're not as scary as they used to be in "Blink", but when you have an entire planet of them, you kinda throw your hand a little early.

I felt it was actually a sad way to go for Amy and Rory, killing them off without actually killing them... (Just don't let me know that all of the recent companions have been killed off without being killed off)

Also, River is getting near the end of her life in the series as well isn't she? This is the first time since meeting the 10th in the "Silence in the Library" that she is mentioned to be a professor. So, we might not be seeing much of her in the future. Though granted, with the whole, "she's a time traveler" we could be stuck with her for a while.

If they just go back in time doesn't that doom them to a life of luxury as they use their knowledge of past events to make a royal mint?

I'm sure that they would have no problem making a mint, and the Amy does say she and Rory lived a good life after the Angel sent them back in time, but without any major changes in history, you could assume that maybe Amy and Rory didn't pay attention to any level of American history, and thus were unable to live their lives in luxury in NYC. Now the other question that pops up is what time were they sent back to? If the Rory dying at 82 in 1938 was his fixed time of death, then they were sent back to the 1800s, still very possible to make a mint at that time, but a little farther out of the whole scope of making money. Granted if they ONLY used knowledge of their lives, then even if they were sent back to 1938, Amy only lived for another 53 to 54 years (she died at 87, and was assumed roughly 33 or 34 when the episode before the Angels Take Manhattan). So she would have only lived to the early 1990s, and probably did not care about wealth at that point.

I agree that they probably lived a good life, and many of the Angels victims did live a good life, if you go back to Blink, the lives of Billy Shipton and Kathy Nightingale were still good, Kathy having a nice life with a husband and several children, as well as Billy starting a film production company.

Yes, the sad part about it is not that Amy and Rory have a good life post-doc, but that they will never be able to be the Doctor's Companions and live that life anymore, couple that with Amy's infertility, they simply spend their days together, which isn't bad, since they don't have to deal with screaming children lol.

 CDK wrote:
It was a great episode.

If it's one thing I've learned with Doctor Who, it's to make my own perception filter for plot holes. This is not hard Sci-fi guys. It's just fun.

I loved Rory a lot more than Amy. I want more of his dad! Still, I'm looking forward to the new girl and how they hell are they going to explain her if she's already a human turned Dalek and dead at that!

Frazzled view:

Too bad we have to wait awhile for it.
Christmas time is a notorious dead zone for sci-fii

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Time travel is not scientifically possible...

Actually general relativity does allow for time travel, and special relativity throws the Law of Causality out the window if a particle travels faster than the speed of light. (our friend the tachyon, for example)

I like to think (and fear, in equal measures) that time travel is possible. My knowledge extents to the point of knowing of Tachyons and that they like to be hipsters, travelling back in time before it was cool.

Just the muses of a relatively ignorant fanboy, but if you could get suitable power and containment then simply surrounding a craft with tachyons and being able to direct them would allow time travel. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that but it sure would be fun. Probably a one way ticket though.

I think the last episode was just as bad and typical of the whole season. The Ponds have grown tired and stale and it was just time for them to go. I actually really like River and wish they would have the Doctor run with her for a prolonged period of time.

My fingers are crossed for the New companion breathing new life into the series, otherwise I done with WHO.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
My fingers are crossed for the New companion breathing new life into the series, otherwise I done with WHO.

Told myself that a few times, but I keep watching just in the hopes it gets better and so I don't get behind, seeing as they seem to enjoy multi-series spanning plots that make no sense and are unnecessarily complex and/or silly. Wouldn't want it to finally live up to high expectations and me not have a clue of what's going on.

Besides, at least this series has been better than the last one.

You mean the last season? That I would agree to, but the lastt series if you mean the 10th Doctor, was far superior. I haven't enjoyed much of Matt Smiths run at all!

 NecronLord3 wrote:
You mean the last season? That I would agree to, but the lastt series if you mean the 10th Doctor, was far superior. I haven't enjoyed much of Matt Smiths run at all!

A series is what we in America would call a season... Right now we're on series 7, Matt Smith has been with us for series 5 through 7, and will probably continue into series 8 for a bit... Or go out at the end of series 7 and no one knows it yet.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
You mean the last season? That I would agree to, but the lastt series if you mean the 10th Doctor, was far superior. I haven't enjoyed much of Matt Smiths run at all!

Tennant was one of the best Doctors and my all time favourite. Granted, I've not had much experience with many Doctors but I've seen enough to make a good call on that. Naturally, Tom is second with the third Doc following behind.

I liked the 9th doctor lol... I seem to be the only person that really liked him. I actually stopped watching Doctor Who on Netflix when he became the 10th doctor for a while (watched Breaking Bad instead), and kinda had a sour taste in my mouth for the first 5 episodes with David Tennant, until I warmed up to him. I didn't have the same issue with Matt Smith, but that's because I had already seen 4 seasons of the doctors, so I knew it was going to happen.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I liked the 9th doctor lol... I seem to be the only person that really liked him. I actually stopped watching Doctor Who on Netflix when he became the 10th doctor for a while (watched Breaking Bad instead), and kinda had a sour taste in my mouth for the first 5 episodes with David Tennant, until I warmed up to him. I didn't have the same issue with Matt Smith, but that's because I had already seen 4 seasons of the doctors, so I knew it was going to happen.

At the time I was only really old enough to properly get into Doctor Who, and because I was new I found the 9th a bit.. hard to get to grips with. But in hindsight, he was good and frankly Eccleston would've done well to have another series, but overall his short run works quite well.

Just found this on facebook.

I really liked Eccelstiens(forgive spelling) run as the 9th Doctor, he reminded me of Baker whom I was familiar with as a child. I liked his style and darker tone, but his run felt suited to being short as he had baggage from destroying the Daleks and his own race.

I think Smith is great but definitely not in Moffat's camp. It's turning more and more to fantasy than Sci-fi. It never was hard sci-fi but at least it was close.

I just Saw the Midseason Finale of Warehouse 13, Its end put me on edge way more then the midseason finale of Doctor Who.
And well, I think Doctor Who is heading into the territory of being way to campy. The Villains aren't scary anymore.
Its time to hire new Writers BBC.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I just Saw the Midseason Finale of Warehouse 13, Its end put me on edge way more then the midseason finale of Doctor Who.
And well, I think Doctor Who is heading into the territory of being way to campy. The Villains aren't scary anymore.
Its time to hire new Writers BBC.

Seconded. Warehouse 13 is good at taking the harmless and making them scary.

Really? Warehouse 13 I'm getting sick of because of the simple things like the unexplained ability to travel around the world in 5 minutes! Also the so many times they should have just shot someone instead of them getting way. You have a damn stun gun! Just shoot him!

Yes, there are plot holes, but they are not readily apparent such as the statue of liberty moving.
And im comparing mid season finales. 13 left me much more wanting to see the next episode(i skipped 40k night to see it) because thats how you end a season in the middle. By everything going belly up

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I just Saw the Midseason Finale of Warehouse 13, Its end put me on edge way more then the midseason finale of Doctor Who.
And well, I think Doctor Who is heading into the territory of being way to campy. The Villains aren't scary anymore.
Its time to hire new Writers BBC.

Seconded. Warehouse 13 is good at taking the harmless and making them scary.

Have they made a second series?! I loved the first, but it just disappeared off the radar completely.

From a website i use, they are on series 4...

Hot damn. Guess they just took it off the channel I watched it on way back then. *curses*

Anyway, back to the Who..

I would really like to see them cast a 12th doctor and not kill off Matt Smith. Then they should design a plot line around events involving the next Doctor and it would also be nice to involve allof the modern Doctors in a new "the 5 Doctor"s movie.

I'm watching Asylum of the Daleks at the moment. Did the writers swap with Cybermen ? I thought Cybermen converted people, by destroying their emotions, and that Daleks where a specie, who evolved into that. Now this episode saying they convert people goes against all that I can remember. Or am I missing something ?

Arkon wrote:
I'm watching Asylum of the Daleks at the moment. Did the writers swap with Cybermen ? I thought Cybermen converted people, by destroying their emotions, and that Daleks where a specie, who evolved into that. Now this episode saying they convert people goes against all that I can remember. Or am I missing something ?

Apparently there were borglike Daleks, last season. Hate the idea. Asylum is disappointing at best, and is supposedly the solution to the dead Doctor situation from last season.