Howling:Kazran and child Kazran: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Read: [[Blinovitch Limitation Effect]]. I added it to the production errors section straight after broad cast. I can't see what you intended to discuss on here.--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]] 10:42, December 31, 2010 (UTC) | Read: [[Blinovitch Limitation Effect]]. I added it to the production errors section straight after broad cast. I can't see what you intended to discuss on here.--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]] 10:42, December 31, 2010 (UTC) | ||
Maybe because Kazran had changed so much he was like a separate individual, like how the controls wouldn't recognize him. Even if this was the case, the Moff should've explained it. [[Special:Contributions/66.41.61.132|66.41.61.132]] 06:21, January 16, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:21, 16 January 2011
So the Limitation Effect happens when we touch our past selves, well then i bring up the fact that the old Kazran has touched his younger self with no effects at all. The writers just cant choose to ignore this when it suits their needs. DalekVictor554 21:24, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed; they should have a really good explanation for this (especially since Moffot wrote it), although since Moffat is writing, he may not have revealed the reason yet. --Bold Clone 22:28, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Why is this on here? I already added it to the production errors section.--Skittles the hog 22:55, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's more of a discontinuity or plothole than a producion error.69.124.195.1 23:31, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Why would this be on the production errors section/ DalekVictor554 06:47, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Read: Blinovitch Limitation Effect. I added it to the production errors section straight after broad cast. I can't see what you intended to discuss on here.--Skittles the hog 10:42, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe because Kazran had changed so much he was like a separate individual, like how the controls wouldn't recognize him. Even if this was the case, the Moff should've explained it. 66.41.61.132 06:21, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
