765,429
edits
Howling:River's Timeline in Light of TATM: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Howling:River's Timeline in Light of TATM (view source)
Revision as of 18:47, 21 June 2017
, 21 June 2017-spoilers_cat
No edit summary |
m (-spoilers_cat) Tag: apiedit |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|The Howling archives}}It was pointed out on another board that <i>The Angels Take Manhattan</i> doesn't appear to properly follow the sequence of River moving backwards relative to the Doctor's timeline, as she has been pardoned and is Professor Song. | ||
It was pointed out on another board that <i>The Angels Take Manhattan</i> doesn't appear to properly follow the sequence of River moving backwards relative to the Doctor's timeline, as she has been pardoned and is Professor Song. | |||
I don't have the expertise to speak to this myself (at least, not without a bit more research), but I'd love to hear what others think. [[User:AthertonX|AthertonX]] [[User talk:AthertonX|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:43, September 30, 2012 (UTC) | I don't have the expertise to speak to this myself (at least, not without a bit more research), but I'd love to hear what others think. [[User:AthertonX|AthertonX]] [[User talk:AthertonX|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:43, September 30, 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 141: | Line 140: | ||
::::::Agreed, and very well put. I was only thinking about the first half of that, the "fun" part—even casual viewers get the point of Melody's name, and enjoy it, which isn't true of the equally-clever timey-wimey written by people like Marc Platt or Paul Cornell. But you're right about the second half, too: in a universe where Melody is named after herself, a plot about the Doctor discovering and preventing his own future death feels like it fits. That may not matter much to the hardcore fans who care more about _understanding_ that it fits than _feeling_ like it does—which is why he also gives us things like Good Night—but to the casual viewer, it's all that matters. --[[Special:Contributions/70.36.140.233|70.36.140.233]]<sup>[[User talk:70.36.140.233#top|talk to me]]</sup> 01:24, October 6, 2012 (UTC) | ::::::Agreed, and very well put. I was only thinking about the first half of that, the "fun" part—even casual viewers get the point of Melody's name, and enjoy it, which isn't true of the equally-clever timey-wimey written by people like Marc Platt or Paul Cornell. But you're right about the second half, too: in a universe where Melody is named after herself, a plot about the Doctor discovering and preventing his own future death feels like it fits. That may not matter much to the hardcore fans who care more about _understanding_ that it fits than _feeling_ like it does—which is why he also gives us things like Good Night—but to the casual viewer, it's all that matters. --[[Special:Contributions/70.36.140.233|70.36.140.233]]<sup>[[User talk:70.36.140.233#top|talk to me]]</sup> 01:24, October 6, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::::It's not just the "casual viewer" to whom it matters. Not long ago, although it's been archived now, there was a topic here about the Doctor "murdering" Ganger-Amy at the end of ''The Almost People''. The problem with that event was that, although the narrative logic was there (Ganger-Amy was never an independent entity), the emotional support for the logic was absent, which resulted in many viewers -- not just casual ones -- misunderstanding the situation. The discussion of that topic ended with the conclusion: Logically it's probably OK but it still doesn't feel right. People who start & contribute to discussions here are not what I'd call "casual viewers" -- maybe not the hardest of hardcore but definitely not "casual". How people feel about the Doctor is important, so making sure there's proper emotional support for the narrative logic is almost as important as the logic itself. Episodes misfire if the "feel" is wrong, even when the logic is right. And, for '''all''' of us, the logic's much easier to grasp if it's presented well than if it isn't. (I'm usually 89, sometimes 2, but I seem to be 78 again, this time.) --[[Special:Contributions/78.146.187.111|78.146.187.111]]<sup>[[User talk:78.146.187.111#top|talk to me]]</sup> 10:34, October 6, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You're right. So, in that light, let me revise what I said: The distinction is that fans demand that a story work logically under scrutiny _as well as_ feeling right, not instead of. And actually, Moffat said a similar thing to your point in an interview about his 1996 short story Continuity Errors: He wanted a story that feels like it so obviously works that you don't have to think about it, but it also had to work if you do think about it. --[[Special:Contributions/70.36.140.233|70.36.140.233]]<sup>[[User talk:70.36.140.233#top|talk to me]]</sup> 07:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::He may not always (does not always) hit the target but he's at least aiming in the right direction with that. And I'd agree with you about fans -- the type who frequent sites like this, anyway. | |||
:::::::An aside about formatting: If, where you're putting an underscore on either side of a word or phrase, you put a triple apostrophe on either side of it, it'll show up as bold, like '''this'''. If you use only a double apostrophe, it gives you italics, ''thus''. If you use a quintuple apostrophe, it gives you bold italics, '''''but that's really OTT'''''. (I'm 2 again, for the moment.) --[[Special:Contributions/2.96.17.194|2.96.17.194]]<sup>[[User talk:2.96.17.194#top|talk to me]]</sup> 12:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC) | |||
