Howling:Angels and Paradoxes: Difference between revisions
Shambala108 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (-spoilers_cat) Tag: apiedit |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Archive|The Howling archives}}<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ --> | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ --> | |||
I watched Angels Take Manhattan and I was thinking about the issue with paradoxes. Well they used a paradox to kill them in the episode, but in the novel Touched by an Angel the angels were trying to make a paradox to feed on. I started thinking about that and wouldn't the effects of a paradox on angels depend on where they stood in the situation. In Angels Take Manhattan they were directly involved and thus a paradox in that situation would be like food just disappearing out of your stomach, It would hurt. However, if they're creating a paradox that they are not directly affected by then they would be able to live off of it just as easily as zapping somebody. I just wanted to put that forward given the statements by River and the 11th Doctor in the Episode and the book. Can I get anyone else's take on this? (unsigned){{Unsigned|Pcthomas2}} | I watched Angels Take Manhattan and I was thinking about the issue with paradoxes. Well they used a paradox to kill them in the episode, but in the novel Touched by an Angel the angels were trying to make a paradox to feed on. I started thinking about that and wouldn't the effects of a paradox on angels depend on where they stood in the situation. In Angels Take Manhattan they were directly involved and thus a paradox in that situation would be like food just disappearing out of your stomach, It would hurt. However, if they're creating a paradox that they are not directly affected by then they would be able to live off of it just as easily as zapping somebody. I just wanted to put that forward given the statements by River and the 11th Doctor in the Episode and the book. Can I get anyone else's take on this? (unsigned){{Unsigned|Pcthomas2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:44, 21 June 2017
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.
I watched Angels Take Manhattan and I was thinking about the issue with paradoxes. Well they used a paradox to kill them in the episode, but in the novel Touched by an Angel the angels were trying to make a paradox to feed on. I started thinking about that and wouldn't the effects of a paradox on angels depend on where they stood in the situation. In Angels Take Manhattan they were directly involved and thus a paradox in that situation would be like food just disappearing out of your stomach, It would hurt. However, if they're creating a paradox that they are not directly affected by then they would be able to live off of it just as easily as zapping somebody. I just wanted to put that forward given the statements by River and the 11th Doctor in the Episode and the book. Can I get anyone else's take on this? (unsigned)– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pcthomas2 (talk • contribs) .
Firstly, please remember to sign with four tildes. Secondly, I can't really help you because I can't remember the exact details of the paradox in that episode. To be honest I didn't even have any clue what was going on when I was watching it. But I think maybe the paradox was too big for them to feed on and they died by over-eating...or something. 87.102.91.126talk to me 17:35, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
- The paradox: Rory saw himself dying as an old man in a room of Winter Quay, setting that event in stone, but then he died by jumping off the roof of Winter Quay before he could live the life that lead to the set-in-stone death. The timeline associated with that sequence of events collapsed, undoing all of it, and spit everyone back to where they were before it had started. This apparently "poisoned" the Angels' food source and killed them all, except the one. —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 21:15, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
