Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
3 March 2016 at 05:17 #51167
I haven’t been participating for a while… for various reasons. But I did want to share this…
I’m looking at “cutting the cable” and I was looking at channels available over the broadcast airwaves.
I saw a channel I had heard of before – RetroTV or RTV. As I was surfing, I saw a scene that I thought looked a lot like Classic Doctor Who (or maybe Blake’s 7).
I remember we were recently talking about how The Doctor was being pulled from streaming almost everywhere.
Then I saw…. ROMANA (the blonde one)!!!… and K-9!! …and Adric!
It turns out that one of those low-budget, golden oldie TV channels cropping up all over the US is showing Classic Doctor Who SIX NIGHTS A WEEK! (except Sunday). They show two episodes starting at 11pm and tonight was “Full Circle” parts 1 & 2.
So if you’re lucky enough to be where RTV is on cable or available with a decent antenna (mine cost $50) then you can be watching Classic Doctor Who almost every night.
It might be worth checking out if you’ve never looked to see what you can receive via antenna. It will probably be the third or fourth (in my case 7th) digital channel of a local TV station.
You might also want to check out their trailer at myretrotv.com – it features The Doctor prominently.
28 January 2016 at 22:58 #50639I was working on that and then I got distracted with a silly argument about how many weeping angels could dance on the head of a pin (not really but something just as silly).
I’ll put that together soon and let everyone tell me that I’m a scoundrel because left out their favorite episode. LOL.
I’d would have liked to put them all in but I was afraid that they wouldn’t watch them if I said they had to watch over 100 episodes. Hopefully my selections will get them hooked enough to fill in the gaps.
They still haven’t started the list because they like to binge watch and they haven’t had time. I got them started on The Blacklist and Mr. Robot, so they trust my judgement but like many of us they don’t have enough time to see all that they would like.
(I also gave them Sherlock which they haven’t yet watched.)
28 January 2016 at 22:38 #50638do actors paint a world on the writer’s canvas, with the brushes of the technicians?
That’s not bad. Let’s see what some others can come up with.
28 January 2016 at 20:59 #5063528 January 2016 at 16:20 #50628Okay, so I’d like some help.
I was thinking last night about how much we love the surprises in the plots that the writers throw at us. And how much we love the surprises in the way that the actors portray their parts.
And a thought popped into my head…
“The actor is the canvas that the plot is painted on.”
I thought, that SOUNDS deep, it’s not quite there yet. So I thought…
“The actor is the brush that paints the plot.”
But I thought “That’s rubbish. Complete rubbish.”
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Who can come up with the pithiest, wittiest, most poetic saying weaving together artist, canvas, plot, brushes, actors, easel..? You get the idea.
Maybe if someone comes up with a really good one we could spread it around. And maybe one day we’ll hear our grandchildren use the expression.
And we’ll say, “I remember when that saying was…”
But then their phone will beep with a text message and we’ll never get to finish that story.
But what do you say?
Have a whack at it.
Invite your friends.
Go on, play the game, Sherlock.
28 January 2016 at 01:29 #50610@puroandson
@ob-wan I don’t believe that ‘Pete’ Capaldi (has he been introduced as such?) is…
Please, Please, PLEASE…
…do not put my name anywhere near a comment like that.
I already have enough people trying to read INTO what I write instead of reading what I ACTUALLY write.
LOL.
I said that he hadn’t been “well-received universally.” And I still think that that is a fair statement. After all, who is universally well-received besides you? (and that’s not sarcasm)
All the best for you and yours, OB-Wan.
27 January 2016 at 14:12 #50591Sorry I have had a chance to revisit Romana. Got tied up with DW News and talking about lawyers and life in general.
27 January 2016 at 14:06 #50590I’ve already seen a couple of articles quoting a “source” or “sources” inside the BBC as saying a new Doctor is coming. (For whatever THAT’S worth.)
After all, do you think PC’s contract pays him for making one show in a year? There’s probably a clause in every TV actor’s contract about the show going off the air or suspending production. I realize that’s speculation but it seems reasonable. Believe me, Pete’s agent is on the phone right now lining up guest shots or stage work to fill the gap. (After all, I know he also writes and directs.)
I realize that a lot of people here just love Capaldi but he has not been well-received universally. It makes sense on the producer’s and the actor’s part that if they were even thinking about a change – 2017 would be the time.
But they have the time, so I would not expect them to be in a hurry to make an announcement. And I wouldn’t start speculating so early on who Who will be.
27 January 2016 at 05:55 #50572@lisa & @allonsy
After Gap. Thanks to you both. I never would have gotten that.
“If I wasn’t cursed with Comcast, which has a data cap on their Internet, I would drop the cable and just use Hulu.”
My limit with Comcast Blast service is pretty high. But I’m an old guy so I may not be using as it as fast as a younger person might. I don’t play online games and my phone isn’t on Comcast.
27 January 2016 at 04:31 #50569I’m tired and probably just too dense, but I can’t seem to figure out what “AG Doctor Who” stands for.
A little help, please.
I will now have to find an alternative way of catching up on the show (maybe Hulu or Amazon Prime).
I have Amazon and I really don’t like it. I’m going to drop it before my renewal date. I don’t like the selection of programs. The only original programs I’ve watched were a couple of episodes of “The Man in the High Castle”.
And they change their selections so that one month a show might be free and then next month you have to pay a fee to see it, even if you have Prime.
Right now, I would have to pay $2 per episode for STANDARD DEFINITION to watch Season One of the new series or $25 for the entire season in SD. HD doesn’t start until Season 5 and then it’s $3 an episode and $34 for the Season.
And that’s WITH a Prime membership.
—
I might go with Hulu which has Classic and New Doctor Who, although I know I that Daily Motion also has the Classics.
I’m seriously considering just dropping my cable television and switching to all-Internet viewing combined with over-the-air broadcasts since I really don’t watch much sports except games that would probably be on local over-the-air channels anyway.
Does anyone have Hulu and what do they think of it as an alternative source?
27 January 2016 at 03:57 #50567If we’re going to go much further we should probably move this to the Sofa. I’ll try to put it into perspective and then if you have any other questions – please put them there.
In the US, any lawyer can be a trial lawyer, but many don’t have what it takes, so they join a firm or refer their clients to others for a referral fee. Most specialize in one kind of law (contracts, divorce, criminal, litigation, etc.). Lawyers need special certification to argue a case before the Supreme Court, but they don’t get a special name for that.
So basically they’re all called lawyers or attorneys as long as they have a law degree and pass a rigorous test called a “Bar exam”.
A bit of trivia – the railing that separates the working area of the court from the audience is actually called ‘the bar’. So “passing the bar” means passing the exam and being allowed to pass through that railing into where the action is.
I worked for a law firm that only handled personal injury and contact cases with the potential of a million dollars or more in damages. Shortly after I started with them one of the lawyers asked me if I had any questions.
“Yeah, I know that you depose the witnesses and Mr. Smith deals with the clients and Mr. Jones handles the documents and Mr. Able is the trial lawyer, but what does Mr. Baker do? He just sits in his office all day and I don’t know what he does.”
“Why, son”, he said laughing. “HE’S THE LAWYER! Every law firms needs at least one person who knows what the law is.”
I hope that was somewhat helpful and I’ll see you On the Sofa.
27 January 2016 at 02:11 #50560My first thought was maybe the BBC thinks that BBC America is losing $$$ because of the other outlets.
Perhaps they want to expand the Doctor Who offerings. I had seen that they were playing Classic episodes on Saturday mornings (Tom Baker, or course) a short time ago but I checked their schedule and don’t see them anymore.
Hopefully someone will put everything together soon and tell US what their grand plan is for The Good Doctor.
27 January 2016 at 00:17 #50550According to CinemaBlend –
Sadly for us and any who might have come after, Netflix will be pulling Doctor Who from its streaming service on February 1, 2016…
Official confirmation that both series collections of Doctor Who will be soon gone from Netflix is disappointing, considering that there have been false alarms in the past about the franchise being discontinued on the streaming service that were debunked.
Netflix actually confirming that the TARDIS will soon be making its final streaming appearances is definitely a bummer.
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Doctor-Who-Leaving-Netflix-Get-Details-113907.html
26 January 2016 at 21:12 #50542No, of course not, Mersey.
It just seems that some of my opinions don’t match with the orthodoxy of other forum members.
And to be fair some of them seem to take that very personally while I’ve just been trying to defend my conclusions.
One of the big brouhahas was because I mentioned what I thought was “a minor technical point”.
You would have thought that I had shot the Pope.
Personally I don’t mind engaging in lively but civil debate. After all, we can pretty much convince ourselves of anything, but how do we know that we’re right unless we take our ideas out into the public square and test them -see how much we’ve been fooling ourselves and how much is based on solid evidence?
For instance, I commented that I thought that “A Christmas Carol’ was inconsistent with the dire warnings about crossing one’s own timeline.
But @bluesqueakpip suggested that the dire effects had been lessened following Big Bang 2 and included examples. And I had to admit that I had not considered that. So now I’m holding off on calling it an inconsistency until I’ve had more time to consider Pip’s comments.
So I’m NOT immovable. But I will not roll over and say up is down unless someone can convince me that I’m mistaken.
26 January 2016 at 10:56 #50521I did mention lawyers. I used to work with lawyers. In this case I mean “lawyers”, as in American lawyers/attorneys – not Barristers/Solicitors.
In America there is an expression among lawyers that I mentioned…
“Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes.”
It refers to trying to trying to trick an eyewitness into getting confused about what they actually saw and trying to get them to doubt their own experience. Trying to get them to accept the lawyer’s version of what happened despite the fact that they saw something different with their own eyes.
26 January 2016 at 05:17 #50510Welcome!
I’m a Yank myself. I would send you a much longer greeting but it’s getting a little late.
I’m sure we’ll have a chance to talk in the coming days.
25 January 2016 at 22:56 #50473Kharis changed their profile picture
LOVED the blonde Romana. Hot in a very cool kind of way – The Doctor’s Mrs. Peel (without the cat suit *Darn*).
I keep hoping that they’ll figure out a way to bring her back. Not Lalla Ward, obviously, but I would like to see the character make a comeback considering that she played such a big part of his earlier life.
Too bad they already used Georgia Moffett, she would have been a great choice.
Let’s start a protest – “You brought back the dog, you can bring Romana back too…”
Oh well, great picture – thanks for the memories.
25 January 2016 at 21:34 #50468No, the point is that the use of the word is correct — both mine, and Moffat’s and RTDs. And yes, it is a rationalisation because reason was used…
You are using the word “rationalization” incorrectly…
Attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate – Oxford Dictionaries
Rationalizations are a defense mechanism where one makes clever-sounding excuses for why they’re not *really* wrong, when they are, in fact, really wrong.
—–
@jimthefish: Remember “diary” and “dictionary”? I do and I didn’t bring it up because it was a ‘missing the point by a country fucking mile’ useless analogy…
WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! Your inability to control yourself does not speak well of your ability to reason dispassionately.
I notice also that you don’t address my point about the usage creating zero ambiguity…
And you didn’t address my point that the reboot of a computer is used to “clear the memory” just as the reboot of a show is about “clearing the memory of the old show”. That is why that word came into usage when there were already plenty of other words to cover the relaunch, restart, etc. of an old show. A reboot has distinctive characteristics that the others do not. That is why the word “reboot” is not appropriate in the case of Doctor Who.
(BTW, lay off the caps lock. I’m not deaf.)
As politely as I can – You are NOT the boss of me and I am not interested in tailoring my posts to please you. I will continue to use caps when I feel it’s appropriate to emphasize my points.
And with that I’m officially done with this conversation.
A day I was beginning to think would never come.
25 January 2016 at 18:52 #50460@jimthefish
<div class=”activity-inner”>OB-Wan: And it will never be correct no matter how much you may rationalize it to yourself. The definition of words aren’t going to change to suit your musings.
jimthefish: Not my musings, no, but with the musings of enough people… So, no, afraid you’re wrong there.
Oh, Jim, try to keep things straight. First you agree with me, then you expand it to the entire human race and claim that that makes me wrong when I was clearly referring to YOUR musing and not that of the entirety of humanity. I didn’t say that the usage of a word couldn’t ever change.
I said TWO THINGS in that excerpt…
– Your usage of the word is incorrect and the fact that you are using it incorrectly is not going to change no matter how you rationalize it.
– The definition of words are not going to change to suit YOUR MUSINGS.
And I stand by both of those statements.
Basically you just made up your own statement, tried to say that that was what I said and then argued with YOUR statement, not mine.
OB-Wan: Davies and Moffat are both using the word incorrectly
jimthefish: No, they’re not. And leaving aside definitions and the like…
NO, YOU DON’T GET TO DO THAT. We are communicating in English – you are required to use English definitions “and the like”… otherwise we have no basis for communication.
(Remember “diary” and “dictionary”? They cannot be used interchangeably because of “definitions and the like”.)
That’s what I meant about your rationalizations – you want to make up your own rules so that you can declare yourself to be right when you are using words incorrectly.
</div>
25 January 2016 at 14:14 #50452@puroandson
All the best to your mum. Hopes for a speedy recovery.
Happy Australia Day! Kinda funny. It seems a lot like our 4th of July except you celebrate when the British planted their flag and we celebrate when they took their flag and left.
Have fun and know that were we to vote here – you would be the Australian of the Year.
—————–
My one Australia joke, which you’ve probably heard over and over, but here goes…
Eddie Izzard at the airport…
Name? Eddie Izzard.
Here for business or pleasure? Business.
Do you have a criminal record? I didn’t know you still needed one.
25 January 2016 at 04:03 #50435I know, let’s talk about Doctor Who news!
LOL. Good point, K. Sorry for the OTPs. Just kind of got caught up in the give-and-take.
Thanks for the gentle reminder.
25 January 2016 at 03:36 #50433@puroandson
Yet you then discuss a brain, comparing it to a computer when a brain is nothing like a computer…
NOTHING like a computer? Really? Are you sure?
Besides comparing a brain to a computer is no different than saying that your voice is like chalk on a blackboard, for example.
Metaphor – a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
———
@puroandson: The point of these pages is to debate in a lively manner using literary features to assist the process of understanding.
As politely as I can say this – you are not the boss of me. I don’t have to tailor my posts to please you and obviously you don’t have to do what I tell you to do (not that I would be so presumptuous).
———
Cautiously dipping a toe into the heated waters of this debate: I remember the “reboot” debate circling around Daniel Craig…. I vaguely remember the term “retcon” being bandied about as the more appropriate term. Yes or no? I won’t tread any farther than that.
Oh, don’t be scared nerys, we don’t bite. It’s just a spirited give-and-take. I certainly don’t have any animosity towards anyone here despite some lively discussions.
———–
Now retcon is not quite a reboot. And I’m not sure it applies to a complete re-imagining like the new James Bond stories. (Besides I grew up with the original “Casino Royale”. And even though it’s crazy silly I still love it. It was on one of the HBO channels this afternoon. Peter Sellers is my favorite James Bond.)
retcon: (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
Let me hazard an example.
Let’s say that instead of ignoring the Timelord-human hybrid theory from Paul McGann’s Doctor, that they wrote an episode that revealed that The Doctor had somehow fooled The Master and he really wasn’t part human. He just did that to throw The Master off.
That would be a retcon – a new explanation for a scene that would change the way we look at it in the future.
That’s probably not the best example but it is an example.
25 January 2016 at 01:39 #50428@puroandson
I don’t know if you were tagging me or others on the matter of pronunciation. I think mistakes happen though -its not about not caring.
It just seems strange to me that during writing, editing, rehearsals and filming that NO ONE realized that they were pronouncing Goddard in a very un-American way even though most of them were portraying Americans. I guess I just figure with so many smart people working there and people that are well-traveled that someone should have caught it. But that’s the way it goes.
My real problem with that episode is that the title “Dalek” will continue to be a spoiler until the end of time. I showed that episode to a friend who had a passing familiarity with Classic Doctor Who. I wouldn’t let him see the show title. When the Dalek was revealed he actually *gasped*. I’ve never heard a person in real life gasp before, but he did.
I’m NOT going to be drawn into another discussion of the DEM in “The Parting of the Ways”.
As for reboot – sorry, Davies and Moffat are both using the word incorrectly.
You do not that reboot actually means restart, don’t you?… Nothing is jettisoned, although it can be a good way of clearing cruft out of caches.
Yes, reboot means restart but you’re mistaken in your characterization. Information is jettisoned when the RAM is cleared. RAM is your computer’s memory – memory being the key word.
That’s why a “reboot of a show” is forgetting the old canon and starting a new one – you need to “clear your memory” of the previous show as a part of the restart – an approach that Doctor Who did not take.
24 January 2016 at 22:37 #50421Then we’ll have to agree to disagree about the definition of “reboot”.
I think ‘reboot’ as a film and TV term really only dates back slightly over a decade…. But what they were doing was nicking a computer term to describe shutting down the old franchise and starting up the new one.
Exactly. There are plenty of words (most beginning with “re-“) to describe a returning show – returning, restart, revive, relaunch, regeneration, etc.
Why did they need to invent a new one? To indicate that a reboot is different is some way from the words already in usage.
Wiki – In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.
There’s a lot of other sources – just look for “define show reboot”. OED is good, but they tend to be a little behind the times. For instance, they just added the words auto-tune, Blu-ray and birdhouse a few months ago. (Birdhouse? Really?) – New words list June 2015, OED
It would be a bloody awful computer reboot that destroyed all your data.
But why do you do a reboot? – To clear out your PC memory, your RAM. Whatever information was stored in RAM is gone after a reboot. Hence it’s a VERY appropriate word to use for a show reboot since it “deletes” information about the show that you currently have in memory.
On a side note – I used to work with a brilliant attorney who had to be briefed before each witness because he had so much going on in his head he couldn’t retain all the details over the long term. We used to compare him to a computer with a small amount of RAM who had to be rebooted and reprogrammed before each cross-examination.
24 January 2016 at 18:35 #50417Words have meanings attached to them
jimthefish: Yes, they do but once again it’s a great deal more nuanced and complicated than that.
No, it’s not. You just want to make it complicated so you can pretend that the way you use the words (“reboot” for instance) is correct, when it’s not. And it will never be correct no matter how much you may rationalize it to yourself. The definition of words aren’t going to change to suit your musings.
That’s not really how language works.
Yes, it is. There are right words and wrong words to suit every occasion. If you continue to insist on using words incorrectly then you will sow confusion among your audience. Unless they are privy to your own personalized jimthefish glossary.
You see, if I had said “your own personalized jimthefish diary” that would have been the wrong word. Then I would have to start a blog just so I could try to explain how a diary is the same thing as a glossary, when it’s not and it never will be.
If we want to communicate clearly we have to learn the definition of words and use those words correctly.
And THAT’S the way it works.
24 January 2016 at 16:13 #50409Where he plays a “Time Master” in a stolen time machine, wearing a very long coat.
Spot on. Although I missed the detail that the time machine was stolen.
You see, I’m familiar with the character – Rip Hunter, Time Master – from the old 60’s comics. But I can’t claim to remember much about it, except that I enjoyed the stories.
24 January 2016 at 14:22 #50407(E.g. as a nuclear scientist would you take Merriam-Webster’s definition of fission as the last word on the subject. Of course you wouldn’t.)
Whoa. Never said I was a scientist. I worked as a technician in a plant. But I had six months of school from 9-5 studying thermodynamics, metallurgy, nuclear physics, radiation calculations, etc. They don’t let you flip a switch without making sure you know what can happen when you flip that switch.
Fission – the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy
Why wouldn’t I accept that? – It’s a perfectly fine explanation of the word. Sure I know a lot more of the details surrounding fission, but in terms of what is it – yeah, that’s it.
Words have meanings attached to them and even if you want to spend 20 hours beating your dead horse over them, that doesn’t change their meaning.
Just as, I don’t care who says that Doctor Who has been rebooted – if they don’t jettison the past, then it’s not a reboot – that’s the meaning of the word. You can call Doctor Who a zucchini for all I care but that wouldn’t make it a zucchini. And I really wouldn’t bother to read a blog that tried to convince me it was a zucchini.
@puroandson
Funny thing is, the father of my best friend in high school WAS a rocket scientist. He worked at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
—
And on another note – the pronunciation of Diana Goddard’s name in “Dalek” just drives me up a wall. It reminds me that it was a bunch of British actors standing around with no one to tell them – “Hey, they don’t pronounce Goddard that way in the US.” (or else they just didn’t care)
It’s an unnecessary jarring distraction that constantly reminds me that it’s a show while I’m trying to enjoy the story.
24 January 2016 at 05:01 #50390@nightfell
I do want to go through the Classic Who episodes first!… any suggestions where I can find something a bit more complete?
Hulu says it has 413 Classic Doctor Who episodes available for a subscription.
Subscriptions start at $7.99 a month. But as with any plan, watch out for the fine print.
Gee, I should sign up for that. I’m getting pretty tired of Amazon Prime.
24 January 2016 at 04:44 #50389@nightfell
IMO, if you are introducing someone to Doctor Who and having them watch the show on their own, I wouldn’t recommend this episode as a introduction
I totally agree. In fact, I recently put together a watch-list for a co-worker to get her to the 50th Anniversary episode without giving her so many episodes that she would just quit. I ended up with 24 episodes and the Anniversary.
I skipped “Rose” and went straight to “The End of the World”.
<BEGIN SPOILERS>
The spoiler warning is not for your benefit, of course, NightFell since you’ve been to Bad Wolf Bay, but since we’re in the “Rose” forum I’m just warning others who may not have seen anything else.
“The End of the World” introduces psychic paper, the TARDIS translation circuit and the fact that The Doctor is the last of the Timelords.
<END SPOILERS>
And honestly, the Nestene Consciousness looked like a pretty silly bug-eyed monster. The humanoid plastic people were okay – but the angry Silly Putty? Not so much.
For those who missed my intro, I recently became a fan of Doctor Who…
5 days, 13 hours ago – NightFell became a registered member
A hearty welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here. I’m relatively new to the forum myself…
5 days, 8 hours ago – OB-Wan became a registered member
Hey, wait a minute. I’m a newer member than you are – you should be welcoming me!
LOL. Well, whatever… Have fun and make lots of friends and keep your hands and feet inside the TARDIS at all times.
24 January 2016 at 03:14 #50386…in the rebooted show.
Just a minor technical point – the show hasn’t been rebooted. “Rebooted” implies jettisoning the past stories and starting over.
24 January 2016 at 02:30 #50385An ‘opinion’ is a conclusion or stance arrived at via evidence and argument.
It seems you have leapfrogged over the posts where I detailed my evidence and argument. No problem, it’s all there, just take a moment to review it, please.
The first is that a traditional DEM tends to be consequence free.
That is an opinion. And even if it were proven by a survey of literature – it would not be binding – since the standard definition of DEM does not include “no consequences”. You said it yourself – traditional, not required.
I read the rest of your post, but to be honest, it didn’t change anything that I already said, and I won’t respond further on this subject.
As I said to PIP – We’ve reached an impasse. We can argue until the end of time, but I’ve got Yoga class, so let’s move on.
But at the same time, despite all the accusations to the contrary, it’s a device that’s almost never made a significant appearance in the rebooted show.
And since I would like to end on an agreeable note, let me say – You’re absolutely right about that. We may disagree about which episode finale is a DEM and which isn’t, but we agree they are rare.
24 January 2016 at 01:54 #50384Ob-wan, it really doesn’t matter how often you quote the dictionary, or what your opinion is. You keep phrasing your argument in a way that suggests that you don’t understand the concept you’re discussing.
I could very well retort that you don’t seem to understand plain English – that you’re just trying to complicate a very simple thing for your own amusement. It’s not nuclear power (and I know because I’ve worked in nuclear power). It comes down to one simple point that we don’t need to waste more valuable time on…
Exactly. The only difference appears to be that you want to count the mere mention of the words “Bad Wolf” in other episodes as spoiling the DEM and I disagree.
@bluesqueakpip; Yeeesss…
Close enough for me. That’s the crux of our disagreement, plain and simple. Since you agree with that statement, there’s no reason to belabor the point further. I can just imagine how much RTD and SWM would be laughing at us for spending so much time discussing such a minor point.
I don’t intend to spend my life debating about how many weeping angels can dance on the head of a pin – I am done and done with this repeating of our positions.
I won’t respond further on this subject, let’s move on to something else, PLEASE.
23 January 2016 at 22:48 #50379The Cinderella example is pretty flawed. We’re told well in advance the conditions and consequences. Forgetting the time, while sudden, is neither ” a character or thing that suddenly enters the story”.
I’m actually perfectly happy with the argument that The Parting of the Ways, taken as a single episode, contains a DEM… Within the episode, however, it’s a bit of a ‘the TARDIS can turn people into gods? Since when?’
Exactly. The only difference appears to be that you want to count the mere mention of the words “Bad Wolf” in other episodes as spoiling the DEM and I disagree.
So here is a good place to end. You’re “perfectly happy” and we’ve probably spent way more time on this than it’s worth.
23 January 2016 at 21:18 #50377Which is, Bad Wolf cannot be a Deus Ex Machina, because we expect Bad Wolf to turn up. We just don’t know what it is.
Well, that will probably the point that we’ll have to end on. It doesn’t appear that either of us is going to be able to move past this central point.
In my opinion it doesn’t matter if the words “Bad Wolf” are sprinkled around. It doesn’t matter if the writers announce – “HEY a DEM is coming.”
The Bad Wolf itself does indeed SUDDENLY APPEAR in the last 8-1/2 minutes of the episode to “magically” save the day – just like the definition says.
Beyond that I think we’re at an impasse.
23 January 2016 at 20:01 #50375And your argument is that “they mentioned the words Bad Wolf before”. Along with a reference to the heart of the TARDIS.
If you look at the definition of DEM you will see that there is nothing in it that forbids such vague foreshadowing.
It matters not if the words are sprinkled here and there. And merely mentioning the heart of the TARDIS does not tell us that that heart can merge with a human and turn them into a God.
The actual Bad Wolf suddenly appears to solve the problem when the situation looks impossible – just like the definition says. Just because the writers planned a DEM months in advance does NOT prevent it from being a DEM.
So your argument goes ‘I’ve made up my mind it’s a DEM and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to talk me out of that prejudice’.
It’s rather rude of you to use a loaded word like “prejudice” instead of “opinion” – a little passive aggressive too.
There’s an expression among lawyers – “Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes.”
I repeat – I know what a DEM is and I know that I witnessed a DEM. I don’t need someone to try to talk me out of what I witnessed with my own eyes.
“Canon is whatever the writers say it is until they want to change it. / You’ve just defined the Doctor’s attitude to the laws of time.”
Agreed.
23 January 2016 at 19:09 #50370The explosive properties of Blinovitch Limitation Effect is visibly failing in the Big Bang; it works with the Sonic (to the extent of a small spark) when the universe starts collapsing in the Roman era, doesn’t work at all by the time Amy meets Amelia, and has never been seen since in any of the TV episodes.
Now that I’ll consider. I’m really not obsessive about DW so I’m probably not going to run to the stacks and research it. But I’ll consider that a real possibility.
But that comports EXACTLY with what I was saying about canon. Canon is whatever the writers say it is until they want to change it. Then they come up with some excuse (Big Bang 2) and say “that was then, this is now”.
And then fans spend a lot of time trying to explain how that isn’t re-writing canon or how it isn’t a DEM or how it isn’t some other writing trick.
23 January 2016 at 18:54 #50368Dues ex machina – a character or thing (i.e. Bad Wolf) that suddenly enters the story in a novel, play, movie, etc., and solves a problem that had previously seemed impossible to solve – Merriam-Webster
Sorry Jim, but I know the definition of DEM and I saw the episode with my own eyes. NO amount of lawyer-ing is going to convince me that up is down – no matter how brilliant the argument.
23 January 2016 at 17:08 #50363“…Moffat, if he learnt one thing from Whedon, learnt that events have consequences.”
But even Whedon couldn’t stick to that. Spike dies in a heroic sacrifice full of pathos and grace to save the world – oh, wait, he’s back.
The only thing that Whedon hated about it was that the network announced that Marsters was joining the show Angel too soon. He wanted the fans to live with the consequences of Spike’s death for a few more weeks before he brought him back from being disintegrated.
The only thing that Doctor Who doesn’t have in it’s bag of tricks that Whedon had was “magic”. Whedon could write darn near anything (like regeneration, I mean reincarnation) and then say – It’s magic.
For instance, we are always getting warnings about crossing time streams and not interacting with ourselves. Eccleston warns Rose that touching the baby version of herself would introduce a paradox. All these signs that meeting ourselves is a bad thing.
Unless, of course, you’re doing a Christmas special, then it’s okay for Kazran to hug his younger self without any mention at all of any difficulties.
You should also look for @bluesqueakpip‘s blog post on Deus Ex Machinas to fully grasp how astutely both Moffat and RTD avoided them.
“The Parting of the Ways”, ’nuff said.
22 January 2016 at 20:23 #50328like RTD, he tries not to back future writers into corners – nor be backed into a corner.
But that’s the beauty of a science fiction show – it’s REALLY, REALLY hard to back yourself into a corner without being able to come up with a way out.
I agree with your point, but EVEN IF they declare something as canon, if they want to change their minds later it’s always “time can be rewritten” or “The Doctor lies” or some “Deus ex machina” mechanizations.
Just like the writers came up with regeneration when they were backed into a corner that most shows have never figured a way out of – losing their star.
22 January 2016 at 20:05 #50326Adam, played by Bruno Langley, was the boy genius In DALEK and THE LONG GAME, therefore appeared in the credits
I guess I didn’t really say that very well. I meant in the opening credits BEFORE the “Doctor Who” title card. I wasn’t trying to include guest stars per se unless they got billing in big letters “above the title”, so to speak.
I understand that other people may have other criteria, but those are subjective (How many episodes, how big a part, etc.). I go with people that the producers feature as prominent during the opening theme song. It’s not perfect but it is an objective criteria.
No, I wouldn’t rate either as a companion. The Brigadier had UNIT to run and River spent most of her days in prison.
But what about her nights? We don’t have to agree, but I just can’t go with a wife NOT also being a companion, even if they don’t spend the majority of time together. Maybe I’m just an old romantic.
As for the Brigidier, I mentioned that he was listed as a companion for “The Five Doctors” which was AFTER his time at UNIT and in that story he actually played the role of companion for Patrick Troughton.
That’s my humble opinion for what it’s worth.
22 January 2016 at 03:17 #50315Well, I guess that’s “an answer” for those who can’t live without one. Like ichabod, I never really cared once Danny was removed from the chessboard.
But it’s kind of funny that Moffat would give an answer and then turn right around and say that that answer doesn’t mean anything… “Nothing is actual till it’s in the show.”
Maybe he was just trying to give some peace to those that are driven to distraction by that plot point. Or perhaps he just wanted people to stop asking him about it.
Oh, well, guess I’ll go check my messages.
22 January 2016 at 02:12 #50313A shout-out from “THE BLACKLIST”
Their IT guy just said, (paraphrase) – “I downloaded the fourth series of Doctor Who. Tom Baker is amazing.”
21 January 2016 at 22:43 #50312That’s kind of what I meant when I said…
“Perhaps it’s like people who have a Doctorate who get insulted if you call them “Mr.” Maybe she was saying that she was much more than JUST a companion.”
But my point was that I don’t think that eliminates her from ALSO being a companion.
21 January 2016 at 20:47 #50309On the face of it, that seems a little strange. I mean can you imagine someone saying “She’s my wife, but she’s not my companion”? (And what if she heard you?)
You can be a companion without being a wife, but can you be a wife without being a companion? I know that Doctor Who and River are not a conventional couple and they may not travel together extensively but still…
Perhaps it’s like people who have a Doctorate who get insulted if you call them “Mr.” Maybe she was saying that she was much more than JUST a companion.
I usually go with the credits. When a person is listed in the opening credits, to me, that makes them a companion, even if it’s just for one episode, like Wilfred Mott in “The End of Time” or Craig Owens in “Closing Time”.
Alex Kingston has been in 12 episodes and is credited in the opening 5 times (according to Wiki – not a perfect source, but I don’t have the videos in front of me right now to count them myself). BTW The Brigadier, despite appearing in over 100 episodes is listed as a companion in only one – “The Five Doctors” – and that kind of makes sense. Especially since his previous appearances were as more of a “boss” with The Doctor as his consultant, not his companion.
I’m reminded of a story from Isaac Asimov who heard a fan talking about one of his stories and Asimov challenged him on his interpretation. The fan told him – Just because you wrote it, what makes you think that you know the most about it?. Asimov considered that and agreed that just because he wrote the story doesn’t mean that he had studied it more than someone else might. That once the story was released to the public, it was up to them to interpret it the way they wanted as long as they could explain themselves and their theories rationally – and some of their theories might be just as valid as the author’s.
So I’m going to disagree with Alex, I’m afraid. Even ignoring the opening credits – a wife is, in my mind, by definition, a companion – with the usual proviso that there are exceptions to every rule.
Perhaps some may think that River is an exception – that’s fine, but I don’t agree.
20 January 2016 at 03:55 #50277@puroandson
“Oh, OK. I think I saw Batman when I was very young -the series and I liked it. I was about 5…”
Well, I could read before I went to school because I was reading comic books, like Batman. Even though they were pretty tame back then I still had an appreciation for the Dark Knight. When they brought it to TV I was around 10-years-old (yeah, I’m pretty old) and it was an incredibly silly show. I was devastated and had to wait another 23 years to see Keaton’s Batman. Still a little silly but a vast improvement over the 60’s version.
“But, I think my telly vision improved when I was introduced to Buffy and Wheddon (and you mentioned him) last year by the people on this site?”
That will do it, for sure. There are a lot of episodes of Buffy. It was on for seven seasons with almost 150 episodes.
Have you seen any “Firefly”? There’s only 14 episodes of that and a theatrical movie to wrap up the story. It’s also a Joss Whedon show and a very good one.
“I am sorry about that. I thought I knew you.”
No harm done, nothing to apologize for.
“I mean at 14 I don’t even remember the stories of David Tenant all that much so I don’t have the history people have with it?”
I first started watching Doctor Who episodes regularly in the 1980’s. They were shown on Public Television on Saturday nights. They took the half-hour episodes and put them together to show one story all at once.
Peter Davison was The Doctor and I liked his style. After a year he regenerated into Colin Baker. I felt so ripped off because he was over so soon, but I didn’t realize that because they showed several episodes at once Davison had actually been The Doctor for three years! But I got to see all of him in one.
BTW you may have already heard this, but did you know that David Tennant (the 10th Doctor) is married to the daughter of Peter Davison (the 5th Doctor) and she played David Tennant’s daughter in “The Doctor’s Daughter” (Season 4, Episode 6, New series)? A daughter of The Doctor played The Doctor’s daughter.
“I like to read rather than write -unless it’s little plays and dramaturgy…”
I loved to write when I was in school. I wrote short fiction and started a couple of books that I never finished. I won an award in sixth-grade for a short story in the school’s annual literary magazine. It’s a good hobby. It helps to organize your thinking when you try to share your knowledge and experience with others through the written word. I even asked for a typewriter for a Christmas present when I was about 10 years old.
Nowadays I only write memos and project reports for work.
“(this came after the class where I was told to “be a tree” -very bad drama teacher!)”
You should have asked your teacher “What’s my motivation in this scene? What is it my character is trying to achieve?”
It would have been funny just to see what she said.
Well, speaking of time I’m pretty much out of it right now. Need to get on to others things right now.
Before we get caught for being off-topic, next time you want to discuss general things you should probably message me.
Have a good evening/day whichever is appropriate where you are.
19 January 2016 at 23:53 #50267@puroandson
“you seem really familiar to me? Do I know you? Maybe you’re at school with me?”
LOL. No, young man(?). I’m much closer to the end of my race than the beginning. Oh, to be 14 again.
“Anyway, hallo and welcome to the site. It’s good to have new members all ways . So let me extend my welcomes.”
Thank you. I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner but there was an annoying gnat that was buzzing around and I got distracted with swatting him.
“I’m 14 and so you don’t need to define ‘camp’. Where did you get that definition?”
I think that was a Wiki. You see I remember when American TV pulled a dirty trick on me – they said they were going to bring Batman to the small screen and instead we got a ridiculous clown show (hence the Adam West reference). They said that was “camp” but I thought it was something else with a C and an A and a P in it.
“The second: when an actor comes in on a tank, standing pretty still, then playing guitar in style of calm folk hero, this is still ‘nuanced’.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree about that one.
“I start Year 9 in One Week. Whoo -hoo.”
Lucky you. I remember when the first X-Men movie came out. Opening day, I was reading some comments from people in Australia who had already seen it and one of them said –
I envy you because you get to see it for the first time and I can’t do that again.
19 January 2016 at 23:35 #50265Now that’s more like it.
Take a look back at my first post and see that the very next thing I know I’m being called names and being “instructed” by some *****ss about how to write posts to satisfy his ego.
(Although @puroandson did post a very nice welcome, but I’m afraid it got lost it the crossfire. I should try to make up for that.)
Most boards welcome new members and not with a slap in the face. So I got defensive. And one thing I’m really good at is giving as good as I get.
Responding to insults is easy (especially considering the “competition”) but writing well-thought out arguments is time-consuming. I am serious about not having as much time as I would like, but I’ll try to participate some more.
19 January 2016 at 22:48 #50263Surely there must be someone on this board who isn’t a pompous a**. Know anyone?
19 January 2016 at 22:43 #50262Sack Moffat?! Sacrilege.
I may not be entirely happy with the current episodes but Moffat has certainly proven his worth.
According to tardis.wikia the only mention of prostitutes has been in books and audio, with the exception that “The Next Doctors” companion, Rosita Farisi, was apparently a prostitute before she met HER Doctor, according to the actress that played her – Velile Tshabalala.
One of the characters even says to her – “You can be quiet; I doubt he paid you to talk”.
But back to the point – Doctor Who has taken a ratings hit, but mostly in the live viewing numbers. The final BARB numbers are comparable to past seasons.
I put Moffat right up there with Joss Whedon in terms of their ability to produce enjoyable television stories.
Capaldi has been a distinct change from the most recent Doctors (all three of them) but The Doctor is like taxis – if you didn’t get this one, hang on, there’ll be another one coming along any minute now. No need to get radical and tear down the whole thing.
19 January 2016 at 21:46 #50260Sorry, guys I would like to post deeper, more analytical arguments, but I work for a living and I’m a fan not a fanboy.
I’ll try to make more of an effort if I can find the time.
-
AuthorPosts
