Howling:Angels and Paradoxes: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{forumheader|The Howling}}{{cat|contains spoilers}} | {{forumheader|The Howling}}{{cat|contains spoilers}} | ||
<!-- 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? | 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) | ||
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. [[Special:Contributions/87.102.91.126|87.102.91.126]]<sup>[[User talk:87.102.91.126#top|talk to me]]</sup> 17:35, December 8, 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:35, 8 December 2013
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)
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)