BBC Television programmes  permalink

Doctor Who - The Angels Take Manhattan

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 451 - 500 of 573
  • Message 451

    , in reply to message 450.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Sunday, 7th October 2012

    slight mention of Dr Who on Points of View but not for the departure of Amy and Rory which I think there should have been....especially as Amy got a big final goodbye and Rory went out with a whimper  He didn't just go out with one - he actually maried her! smiley - winkeye

    Congrats on getting your post read out smiley - applause

    Report message1

  • Message 452

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by donthangup (U4619965) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Regrettably I did not like “The Angels Take Manhattan”. Regrettably, because I admire Steve Moffatt as a great story teller with some very clever ideas. Here we have the latter without the former. Indeed, what limited plotting there is makes very little sense.

    TATM is very much a reworking of the premise handled so brilliantly in that first outing for the Weeping Angels, namely Blink. It is about people who need to communicate with each other across a gulf of time and without the benefit of time travel. However there is my first issue. In Blink the Doctor has been separated from his Tardis by a distance of several decades and he needs it back. From that simple idea a wonderful story unfolds. This time both he and River are in full possession of their time travelling capabilities and it becomes necessary to invent a number of contrivances to prevent the most obvious solutions to their problems. This is particularly true in the much vaunted parting of the ways with the Ponds – robbing the finale of much of its dramatic value.

    In Blink the method of communication is a DVD, or rather a message hidden on a number of different DVD movies. This is a classic Steve Moffatt “clever idea” used to excellent effect. TATM reuses this idea but this time using a trashy 1930’s detective novel. A neat idea, which I liked, but again we run straight into plot problems. Surely it is evident to the Doctor from the very first page that he is reading a story about Weeping Angels, and yet this does not seem to strike him as odd. When he does finally realise that he is reading a message from the past, and thus implicitly that he is reading spoilers for the immediate future actions of himself and his companions, he immediately announces some rushed new timey-wimey rules about not reading ahead – except for perhaps peeking at the chapter titles on the contents page. Oh dear – we did not have this trouble with the DVDs.

    It was my third viewing of Blink before I began to unpick some plot flaws, and if anything survives two viewings before the plot holes show up then it’s okay to call it dramatic licence in my book. Unfortunately this is not so for TATM. The episode is constructed from a series of very stylish set pieces, but in each there is a strong feeling of “yes, but how…?” or “yes, but why don’t they…?” The contrivances just pile up on each other.

    I have a suspicion that the creation of TATM was worked backwards from that image of the Statue of Liberty snarling over the roof of the Winter Quay apartment block. Unfortunately it seems there were too many impossible leaps from there to a plausible DW storyline for even a maestro like Steve Moffatt.

    A plea to Mister Moffatt: Now that you are at the helm, please do not feel the need to outdo yourself on every outing. Don’t fall into the “everything including the kitchen sink” plotting that RTD felt compelled to do. Just tell us a good story. Put in a few clever ideas by all means, but don’t force them. Make it less frenetic and more thoughtful please. Sally Sparrow’s “It’s the same rain” scene had massively more emotional impact for me than the Ponds’ entire rooftop drama. Keep that in mind and the odds are (based on your track record) it will be great.

    Report message2

  • Message 453

    , in reply to message 452.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    He suddenly realizes what is going on when he reads direct references to Rory and himself. I am not sure that it is a timey-wimey thing, it seems more to do with the wonderful paradox in quantum mechanics posed by Ernst Schrodinger (known as Schrodinger's Cat which, in the Copenhagen interpretation leads one to the conclusion that a system stops being a superposition of states (cat dead/not dead) and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place, not reading is not observing. I don't know, and I don't care if it is an accurate - or even intended - representation of the paradox, but the similarities are there. It is an interesting hypothesis. It's probably a quantum book, a book, the outcome of which is affected by the observer, in that the print on the page is only certain when you actually read it.

    Report message3

  • Message 454

    , in reply to message 452.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Surely it is evident to the Doctor from the very first page that he is reading a story about Weeping Angels, and yet this does not seem to strike him as odd. 
    Presumably the early parts of the book are more of a straight detective story than the later books?

    I can't help thinking it must have been a pretty strange read for anyone else who bought the book.

    Report message4

  • Message 455

    , in reply to message 453.

    Posted by donthangup (U4619965) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Presumably the early parts of the book are more of a straight detective story  

    Surely the implication is that the narration at the start of the episode are the words that the Doctor is reading?

    It's probably a quantum book, a book, the outcome of which is affected by the observer, in that the print on the page is only certain when you actually read it.  

    I like your thinking. If they had brought such an idea into play it would have been the fist step in improving this tale. Perhaps you should be SM's story editor? smiley - winkeye

    Report message5

  • Message 456

    , in reply to message 455.

    Posted by Glorious Technicolour (U4590479) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Presumably the early parts of the book are more of a straight detective story  

    Surely the implication is that the narration at the start of the episode are the words that the Doctor is reading?

    It's probably a quantum book, a book, the outcome of which is affected by the observer, in that the print on the page is only certain when you actually read it.  

    I like your thinking. If they had brought such an idea into play it would have been the fist step in improving this tale. Perhaps you should be SM's story editor? smiley - winkeye 
    The book was published as one copy only by Amy as requested by Riversong. This sole copy was not bought, the Doctor says in the show it turned up in his pocket. Obviously sneaked their by Riversong at some future point.

    Report message6

  • Message 457

    , in reply to message 456.

    Posted by Dame Bouncy Castle (U1358361) on Monday, 8th October 2012



    All this talk about Rory's dad, but what about Amy's parents. They're still alive. They're going to need to find out what happened to their daughter.

    Report message7

  • Message 458

    , in reply to message 457.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Monday, 8th October 2012



    All this talk about Rory's dad, but what about Amy's parents. They're still alive. They're going to need to find out what happened to their daughter.

     
    Why? Peri's mum and Mel's parents never did.

    Report message8

  • Message 459

    , in reply to message 458.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Because it is right. Just because they didn't do it in Classic Who - where, in many cases, it would have been less relevant - doesn't make it wrong. With the Ninth Doctor, we begin to see that, certainly with the human companions, there IS an impact on those left behind that needs to be resolved.

    Report message9

  • Message 460

    , in reply to message 459.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Because it is right. Just because they didn't do it in Classic Who - where, in many cases, it would have been less relevant - doesn't make it wrong. With the Ninth Doctor, we begin to see that, certainly with the human companions, there IS an impact on those left behind that needs to be resolved.   Why would it have been less relevant then? Why is it more relevant now? realistically, of course people who disappear or die in Doctor Who stories (all of them, not just companions) would leave people behind who'd wonder about their fate. The programme never used to dwell on it, because it wasn't that kind of programme: it was a science fiction adventure series, not a kitchen sink drama. And it still is a science fiction adventure series, not a kitchen sink drama-or it should be, at any rate. So who cares whether or not we see a couple of minor characters we saw in precisely two scenes two and a half years ago sobbing over their lost daughter or not? It isn't relevant to the ongoing story at all!

    Report message10

  • Message 461

    , in reply to message 460.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Tony, as you seen to be a serious Whoite, I was wondering what , if anything you think of Minister of Chance? A friend works on it, but I am not a sci-fi fan, so I have not watched.

    Report message11

  • Message 462

    , in reply to message 460.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Have you looked at the list of companions in Classic Who. In most cases, including Peri, the bonds with their homes were weaker. Note, I said most cases. Susan, Ian Chesterton, Barbara Wright, Vicki Pallister, Steven Taylor, Katarina, Dodo Chaplet, Ben Jackson, Polly Wright, Zoe Heriot, Jamie McCrimmon, Victoria Waterfield and so on down through Sarah Jane Smith, Tegan Jovanka, Vislor Turlough, Perpugillium Brown, all the way to Ace. The way these characters are written, there is less of a need to explain a disappearance in ALL these cases; those for whom it mattered, mostly returned to a time pretty close to that when they left. Victoria, who has lost her father, settles down as soon as she can. But the point is explaining that they are gone, and will never come back to somebody who knows, and cares that they have gone.

    As for your complaining about the saponification of science fiction, that is not the point. It has nothing to do with that, it is down to the way you treat the characters you deal with in your story. Treat them as rounded character, and you can get more out of them.

    As for it being irrelevant, not everything in a story needs to be relevant to the immediate story; but it can be seen as part of the development of the character of the Doctor.

    Report message12

  • Message 463

    , in reply to message 461.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Tony, as you seen to be a serious Whoite, I was wondering what , if anything you think of Minister of Chance? A friend works on it, but I am not a sci-fi fan, so I have not watched.  The Minister of Chance is a bit of an oddity in that it's a Doctor Who spinoff which its producers claim is explicitly not a Doctor Who spin-off. Which is a shame, as in terms of quality I'd rank it alongside the Big Finish audio stories (or better).

    Report message13

  • Message 464

    , in reply to message 462.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Have you looked at the list of companions in Classic Who.  Why would I need to? In most cases, including Peri, the bonds with their homes were weaker. Note, I said most cases. Susan, Ian Chesterton, Barbara Wright, Vicki Pallister, Steven Taylor, Katarina, Dodo Chaplet, Ben Jackson, Polly Wright, Zoe Heriot, Jamie McCrimmon, Victoria Waterfield and so on down through Sarah Jane Smith, Tegan Jovanka, Vislor Turlough, Perpugillium Brown, all the way to Ace. The way these characters are written, there is less of a need to explain a disappearance in ALL these cases; those for whom it mattered, mostly returned to a time pretty close to that when they left. Victoria, who has lost her father, settles down as soon as she can. But the point is explaining that they are gone, and will never come back to somebody who knows, and cares that they have gone.   and Peri and Mel, whom I specifically mentioned? You seem to have ignored the two most relevant (or not, depending on your POV) examples.

    As for your complaining about the saponification of science fiction, that is not the point. It has nothing to do with that, it is down to the way you treat the characters you deal with in your story. Treat them as rounded character, and you can get more out of them. 
    And yet I would say that Ian, Barbara, Sarah Jane, Leela and Jamie-about whose family lives we knew next to nothing-were stronger and more interesting characters than most of the new series companions...
    As for it being irrelevant, not everything in a story needs to be relevant to the immediate story; but it can be seen as part of the development of the character of the Doctor.  
    A character who at least one past Doctor has cheerfully noted, neither gets or needs any such development.

    Report message14

  • Message 465

    , in reply to message 460.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Because it is right. Just because they didn't do it in Classic Who - where, in many cases, it would have been less relevant - doesn't make it wrong. With the Ninth Doctor, we begin to see that, certainly with the human companions, there IS an impact on those left behind that needs to be resolved.   Why would it have been less relevant then? Why is it more relevant now? realistically, of course people who disappear or die in Doctor Who stories (all of them, not just companions) would leave people behind who'd wonder about their fate. The programme never used to dwell on it, because it wasn't that kind of programme: it was a science fiction adventure series, not a kitchen sink drama. And it still is a science fiction adventure series, not a kitchen sink drama-or it should be, at any rate. So who cares whether or not we see a couple of minor characters we saw in precisely two scenes two and a half years ago sobbing over their lost daughter or not? It isn't relevant to the ongoing story at all!  Thus speaks tony ingram, who according to himself is the sole authority on "Doctor Who" and what he says is not to be countered by any differing point of view. I guess anyone who claims that "Doctor Who" is a science fiction adventure series doesn't really know the show at all.

    Report message15

  • Message 466

    , in reply to message 464.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    No, I did not. Firstly, I said most, and secondly I mentioned all the companions up to the departure of Patrick Troughton, and closed with all the way to Ace, which covers the rest (but I DID mention Peri, by the way). Most of these companions fit into two categories, they come from a more stable background, and return to it - Ian, Barbara, Ben, etc, or they come from a difficult background where some or all of the family have died, or, in the case of Perpugillium Brown, where her father has died, and her step-father is of dubious - at best - character. These include Steven and Victoria.

    Jamie and Zoe are a special case in departure, but they went back to where they came from. Yes, I know how each and every companion departed, I even know what they had planned for the departure of Ace in the season that was not broadcast; however, my simple point is that it would have been nice if the Doctor had said something. And, just because someething isn't absolutely necessary, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. It is nice, it is good, it is interesting, it can be beautiful, it can be a break from the intensity of the drama, and so on, and so on.

    Report message16

  • Message 467

    , in reply to message 466.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    And, maybe we can take this discussion over to the general chat thread, where it might be more relevant.

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Report message17

  • Message 468

    , in reply to message 467.

    Posted by dollyperm (U14055598) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    dinosaur in the room, brian why ok excellently acted but why suddenly a dad pops up, why not amy's parents and why wasnt river mentioned to the grandparents ? The old drs whatever but also that aunt ? was in eleventh hour and not talked about again , bit rude unless she scared amy , at least with russell he tied end together , moffatt at times loses ends
    liked the melody dectective link though ax

    Report message18

  • Message 469

    , in reply to message 468.

    Posted by Dame Bouncy Castle (U1358361) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    dinosaur in the room, brian why ok excellently acted but why suddenly a dad pops up, why not amy's parents and why wasnt river mentioned to the grandparents ? The old drs whatever but also that aunt ? was in eleventh hour and not talked about again , bit rude unless she scared amy , at least with russell he tied end together , moffatt at times loses ends
    liked the melody dectective link though ax 

    W.T.F. ????


    Report message19

  • Message 470

    , in reply to message 469.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Dolly is asking why Brian was suddenly introduced with so few Pond episodes left, why the already-introduced Amy's parents were not brought back into the story, why River was not introduced to any of her grandparents. Was the aunt of the Doctor mentioned? Certainly a smelly godmother in the Vincent episode.

    I think that's the gist anyhow smiley - smiley

    Report message20

  • Message 471

    , in reply to message 470.

    Posted by Dame Bouncy Castle (U1358361) on Monday, 8th October 2012



    smiley - snork

    Report message21

  • Message 472

    , in reply to message 470.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    Dolly is asking why Brian was suddenly introduced with so few Pond episodes left, why the already-introduced Amy's parents were not brought back into the story, why River was not introduced to any of her grandparents. Was the aunt of the Doctor mentioned? Certainly a smelly godmother in the Vincent episode.

    I think that's the gist anyhow smiley - smiley 
    Honestly, none of the stuff with the Ponds really felt natural - nor does this whole "Oh, PLEASE DOCTAH! TRAVEL WITH COMPANIONS! OR YOU GO EVIL!"

    But yes, introducing another member of the family seemed silly. He was unnecessary but then that was my feeling with the Ponds, they felt so under utilised and tacked on, hell - even their departure was more like an afterthought!

    Report message22

  • Message 473

    , in reply to message 472.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    I liked Brian. He and Rory humanised the Doctor's story. BUt it did seem a tad odd that he did not already know of the Doctor: wasn't he at the wedding? Y'know - the one where the TARDIS materialised in the middle of the dance floor in front of all the guests?

    And Bouncy - you've been Mustardised! smiley - yikes

    Report message23

  • Message 474

    , in reply to message 473.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Monday, 8th October 2012

    I liked Brian. He and Rory humanised the Doctor's story. BUt it did seem a tad odd that he did not already know of the Doctor: wasn't he at the wedding? Y'know - the one where the TARDIS materialised in the middle of the dance floor in front of all the guests? 
    I don't mind the Doctor being humanised - actually, I think much of the humanising is needed because RTD did his best to make him into this gigantic Mary Sue that everyone loved and who was wonderful and could do anything etc. etc. and realised that he smother him with human interest to make him vaguely relatable... hence the nearly romantic relationship he and Rose had.

    And companions have always been part of the Doctor's life but I really don't care for the off-and-on travelling that the Ponds did with him. It just makes me go "meh".

    Report message24

  • Message 475

    , in reply to message 465.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Thus speaks tony ingram, who according to himself is the sole authority on "Doctor Who" and what he says is not to be countered by any differing point of view. I guess anyone who claims that "Doctor Who" is a science fiction adventure series doesn't really know the show at all.  Of course it's a science fiction adventure series. That's what it's always been categorised as, regardless of what a few people might try to clam in an attempt to pretend that it isn't, presumably in order to distance themselves from those nerdy sci-fi fans. It is an adventure series with a science fiction backdrop even in the early historical stories: a man from another planet who has a time machine. That is science fiction.

    Report message25

  • Message 476

    , in reply to message 475.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Erm, no it hasn't always been categarised as such:

    From the CE Webber and Sydney Newman outline of the format for the new 'Doctor Who' series (Page 2).

    ...

    Evidently, Dr. Who's "machine" fulfils mary of the functions of conventional Science Fiction gimmicks. But we are not writing Science Fiction. We shall provide scientific explanations too, sometimes, but we shall not bend over backwards to do so, if we decide to achieve credibility by other means. Neither are we writing fantasy: the events have got to be credible to the three ordinary people who are our main characters, and they are sharp-witted enough to spot a phoney. I think the writer's safeguard here will be, if he remembers that he is writing for an audience aged fourteen... the most difficult, critical, even sophisticated, audience there is, for TV. In brief, avoid the limitations of any label and use the best in any style or category, as it suits us, so long as it works in our medium.

    ...  


    www.bbc.co.uk/archiv...

    They say that, while it does set out fulfilling many of the requirements for science fiction, it is not being written as Science Fiction. They set out trying to avoid labels, not to avoid nerdy fans, but to give more flexibility to use the best in any style or category.

    Now, having said that, today, most would agree that not withstanding the original intention it falls **very loosely** in the Science Fiction category in a very broad sense, giving it room to breathe, stray out of the genre, and wander back in again. They would see themselves as science fiction writers, but not dreadfully worried about it.

    PS, I personally, don't really think that it matters.

    Report message26

  • Message 477

    , in reply to message 476.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Now, having said that, today, most would agree that not withstanding the original intention it falls **very loosely** in the Science Fiction category in a very broad sense, giving it room to breathe, stray out of the genre, and wander back in again. They would see themselves as science fiction writers, but not dreadfully worried about it.

    PS, I personally, don't really think that it matters.  

    So, it's science fiction that isn't science fiction! No wonder it's once again becoming a parody of itself - a bunch of pseuds have got control.

    If it isn't science fiction, then it's nothing. You might as well simply abandon the Tardis and the Doctor, and just have random adventures with random characters.

    Of course it matters!

    Report message27

  • Message 478

    , in reply to message 477.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    It is in the nature of creative types to claim that their product is something special which does not fall into any pre-existing category and sometimes that they have 'invented' a whole new category smiley - whistle.

    Report message28

  • Message 479

    , in reply to message 476.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    They say that, while it does set out fulfilling many of the requirements for science fiction, it is not being written as Science Fiction. 
    People who say things like that usually seem to be trying to run away from a negative image of the genre, when actually their work often falls quite squarely within it. Some of the people who're more fervent about it make me wonder just what their idea of 'science fiction' looks like.

    Report message29

  • Message 480

    , in reply to message 477.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    No it doesn't. As soon as you label something, it is limiting. That is what they wanted to avoid. They did not want the program to simply be "science fiction", they wanted it to be able to take the best from as much as possible. And, that is NOT trying to put it in any special category by itself, it is a reflection of the desire to be flexible.

    Why should it matter?

    Report message30

  • Message 481

    , in reply to message 477.

    Posted by yellowcat (U218155) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    So, it's science fiction that isn't science fiction! No wonder it's once again becoming a parody of itself - a bunch of pseuds have got control. 

    The memo that Mary-Anne Parsnip was quoting from was I think part of the proposal for the original 1963 series.

    From what I remember I would say that in the early episodes it was more 'hard' SF and over the years it has become more SiFi fantasy.

    Report message31

  • Message 482

    , in reply to message 479.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Nonsense. I have read thousands of 'science fiction' books in my time, across all types, and I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter in the least little bit.

    In any case, all I was doing was making a point about the issue for Tony Ingram, not about whether, or not it is, or ought to be regarded as science fiction. Personally, I couldn't care less. As long as my kids enjoy it, that is all that matters. They don't care if it is science fiction. They don't think in those terms; they simply think of it as Doctor Who; as, probably, do most people. It is also always how I have seen it.

    I have much sympathy with the views expressed by Sydney Newman and C E Webber. If you want to categorise it, fine, if you don't, fine, but do not be surprised when it suddenly strays away from what you think the category means; as, in the case of this episode, where some seem to want the Doctor to go and speak to Rory's dad.

    Report message32

  • Message 483

    , in reply to message 479.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    They say that, while it does set out fulfilling many of the requirements for science fiction, it is not being written as Science Fiction. 
    People who say things like that usually seem to be trying to run away from a negative image of the genre, when actually their work often falls quite squarely within it. Some of the people who're more fervent about it make me wonder just what their idea of 'science fiction' looks like. 
    That's my feeling, as well.

    Report message33

  • Message 484

    , in reply to message 482.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    do not be surprised when it suddenly strays away from what you think the category means; as, in the case of this episode, where some seem to want the Doctor to go and speak to Rory's dad. 
    Thing is, I don't think that strays away from the category at all -- it's still part of a story about people being zapped back in time by a quantum-locked alien, it'd just be fleshing out the impact on the characters involved. The furthest I'd say Who got from science fiction is those early historicals where the fact that there are people from the future wandering around doesn't have much impact on the story.

    Report message34

  • Message 485

    , in reply to message 484.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    do not be surprised when it suddenly strays away from what you think the category means; as, in the case of this episode, where some seem to want the Doctor to go and speak to Rory's dad. 
    Thing is, I don't think that strays away from the category at all -- it's still part of a story about people being zapped back in time by a quantum-locked alien, it'd just be fleshing out the impact on the characters involved. The furthest I'd say Who got from science fiction is those early historicals where the fact that there are people from the future wandering around doesn't have much impact on the story. 
    I'd say the historicals were still anchored in science fiction simply because there WERE characters from the future wandering around, but yes, they are still the furthest Doctor Who has ever strayed from sci-fi.

    And as far as the tedious 'going to see Rory's dad' thing goes: the Ponds' story is over. The next episode will take place in a completely different environment, introduce a new companion, and set the Doctor on course for a new set of adventures. Why on earth would the writers interrupt that in order to provide closure to a minor character seen in only a couple of episodes? It would be like having the second Doctor break off in the middle of his first story in order to pop back to Earth and check up on Dodo Chaplet!

    Report message35

  • Message 486

    , in reply to message 485.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Tagging on.

    Where's the science in Doctor Who?

    Time travel and aliens does not automatically make it science fiction - otherwise Harry Potter and Narnia could be classed as science fiction.

    Report message36

  • Message 487

    , in reply to message 486.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Tagging on.

    Where's the science in Doctor Who?

    Time travel and aliens does not automatically make it science fiction - otherwise Harry Potter and Narnia could be classed as science fiction. 
    Since when are there aliens or time machines in Harry Potter or Narnia? Magic does not exist in the Doctor Who universe. This has been repeatedly stated by the Doctor himself. I'm sorry, but "time travel and aliens does not automatically make it science fiction" is the most bizarre statement I've heard in weeks.

    Report message37

  • Message 488

    , in reply to message 487.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Since when are there aliens or time machines in Harry Potter or Narnia? 
    There's time travel in the third Harry Potter book, and in The Magician's Nephew, the visit to the place that Jadis (aka the White Witch) comes from is described in distinctly parallel-universe terms.

    I'd say aliens and time travel do generally make a story science fiction, with the exception being when they're part of a fantasy story.

    Report message38

  • Message 489

    , in reply to message 488.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Surely the difference is that when strange (normally impossible) things happen in Sc-Fi there is some attempt at explanation by extrapolating/twisting known laws and phenomena and scientific developments whereas in fantasy such events are generally explained by something referred to as "magic".

    Report message39

  • Message 490

    , in reply to message 489.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Surely the difference is that when strange (normally impossible) things happen in Sc-Fi there is some attempt at explanation by extrapolating/twisting known laws and phenomena and scientific developments whereas in fantasy such events are generally explained by something referred to as "magic".  Thank you. And magic, as I said, does not exist in the Doctor Who universe.

    Report message40

  • Message 491

    , in reply to message 489.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Surely the difference is that when strange (normally impossible) things happen in Sc-Fi there is some attempt at explanation by extrapolating/twisting known laws and phenomena and scientific developments whereas in fantasy such events are generally explained by something referred to as "magic".  And I would argue Doctor Who only does this sometimes.

    It makes up its own laws and rules - which it frequently breaks - just like magic systems.

    Report message41

  • Message 492

    , in reply to message 490.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    In Battlefield the Doctor accepts that there are places that operate based on magic, including the one from which Arthur and Morgaine came. The Doctor and Ace discuss Morgaine and the Doctor sees Morgaine and her army as examples of Clarke’s Law in reverse. He flips Clarke's law over to become “Any sufficiently advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from technology.”

    Then we have the Sisterhood of Karn, a group exiled from Gallifrey, who have powers that are overtly religious and magical. The Doctor Who books are willing, not just to concede magic, but also to embrace it in some stories. It is not Harry Potter-like magic, but it is magic non-the-less.

    Report message42

  • Message 493

    , in reply to message 492.

    Posted by KC (U778717) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    I haven't read thread so don't know if this has been mentioned yet.
    Haven't watched episode 5 yet, been avoiding reading anything about.
    Then picked up this weeks radio times (i.e. the one for the week AFTER Doctor Who had finsihed). Plastered across the top of the front cover was:

    "Stephen Moffat: Why Amy had to die"

    Whose idea was this? Not even to put it in an article which I could have avoided reading. Why DW was even in this radio times I don't know, would have been more suitable for previous edition.

    I hope to watch it later this week, but just want to say thanks to the RT for spoiling the episode so massively. Didn't anyone even think some may not have seen the episode yet?

    Report message43

  • Message 494

    , in reply to message 493.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Tucker (U3382697) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    *This* week's Radio Times? As in, the one published *after* the episode was aired? Not seeing the problem ...

    Report message44

  • Message 495

    , in reply to message 493.

    Posted by DragonFluff (U6879248) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    KC, I'm trying not to sound sarcastic here, but exactly how long should the media wait to publish stories like that, to be sure that everyone's seen the programme? I think printing a front cover line like that ten days or so after the broadcast is completely reasonable, seeing as reviews of the programme were published the day after.

    And surely if you're a big fan of the programme, you'd have seen the advance publicity including the fact that Amy was going to die - the speculation was about how it would happen.

    Just another note - the Radio Times isn't published by the BBC any more, so it's no use complaining here.

    Report message45

  • Message 496

    , in reply to message 493.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    I hope to watch it later this week, but just want to say thanks to the RT for spoiling the episode so massively. 
    It doesn't mean what you probably think it means. That's as much as I can say without spoilers.

    Report message46

  • Message 497

    , in reply to message 492.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    In Battlefield the Doctor accepts that there are places that operate based on magic, including the one from which Arthur and Morgaine came. The Doctor and Ace discuss Morgaine and the Doctor sees Morgaine and her army as examples of Clarke’s Law in reverse. He flips Clarke's law over to become “Any sufficiently advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from technology.”

    Then we have the Sisterhood of Karn, a group exiled from Gallifrey, who have powers that are overtly religious and magical. The Doctor Who books are willing, not just to concede magic, but also to embrace it in some stories. It is not Harry Potter-like magic, but it is magic non-the-less.  
    The difference being that even in stories like Battlefield, it's made clear that anything that appears to be magic is simply a form of science unknown to the observer (and in any case, Morgaine is from another dimension where different laws apply). And the Sisterhood of Karn had no magical powers: their abilities were psychic in nature, and psychic power is generally regarded as a scientifically measurable phenomenon in Doctor Who.

    Report message47

  • Message 498

    , in reply to message 494.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    Talking of which, Arthur Darvill wishes he'd been sent back to the 60s:

    www.radiotimes.com/n...

    and a little more off topic:

    www.radiotimes.com/n...

    Radio Times 

    And, I agree that it is not a problem to publish writer comments after the initial airings.

    Report message48

  • Message 499

    , in reply to message 497.

    Posted by I Forget (U15411209) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    No it is not. The Doctor says that it is Magic. The quote I gave - “Any sufficiently advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from technology” - was something that the Doctor actually said in the script. IT IS MAGIC. He flips Clarke's Law over.

    Report message49

  • Message 500

    , in reply to message 499.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Tuesday, 9th October 2012

    No it is not. The Doctor says that it is Magic. The quote I gave - “Any sufficiently advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from technology” - was something that the Doctor actually said in the script. IT IS MAGIC. He flips Clarke's Law over.   "Flips" being, in this case, an indication that he is being flippant. And as I said, Morgaine is not from our universe.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.