?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some Doctor Who thoughts

Where I am in season 1: just finished "The Doctor Dances." I'll just echo kalquessa by saying, "Well, hel-lo, Captain Jack. I've heard so much about you, I feel we've already met." Handsome laddie, much? My, my. And I'm sure I'm only fan #462,931 to say this, but I thought the episode should have ended with Jack cutting in on the dance, to dance with Rose for a few seconds then to set her aside and start dancing with the Doctor. Not saying I'm slashing Jack/Doctor (yet), just that it would have been in character and funny.

Okay, I'll ask the really stupid question now and get it over with: With a time machine on their hands, why don't our heroes jump into the Tardis anytime something goes horribly wrong, go backward in time a bit, and fix the circumstances? Yes, I know: "Because then there wouldn't be a story." But why else? Something to do with it being difficult to end up on exactly the right day every time?

And nanogenes that can fix everything including death--well, that seems to be a pretty big problem-solving device. On the other hand, if you save someone who was "meant" to be dead, giant fell beasts appear and start tearing the space-time continuum apart, so save lives sparingly is I guess what they're saying, eh?

I like Eccleston; I really do. But I'm not crushing on him, which, to judge from photos, I could well do for Tennant, so I look forward to that adjustment. Still, I think I'll miss Nine in a way. He has his fun points.

And uh, did Rose bring enough mascara on her time traveling adventures? Yeegods. I like her too, but yikes. Really.

Tags:

Comments

( 27 comments — Leave a comment )
kalquessa
Nov. 2nd, 2007 06:22 am (UTC)
Yes, I know: "Because then there wouldn't be a story." But why else?

Erm, there's a thing...about crossing their own timeline...and how that's either impossible or very, very bad...or something like that. But mostly, I think it's the "then there would be no story" thing.

And uh, did Rose bring enough mascara on her time traveling adventures? Yeegods.

THANK YOU! It took me longer to like Rose than it would have if her lower lashes didn't make me want to claw my own eyelids off. Gah!
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:16 pm (UTC)
Yes, I guess the fell beast things in "Father's Day" demonstrated the badness of doubling up on their own timeline. But hey, I'm down with the "otherwise no story" thing too!

Gah, exactly, the lower lashes. Upper lashes heavy with black stuff, okay, that can look supermodelish and fun, but lower lashes? It's so Tammy Faye.
madbard
Nov. 2nd, 2007 07:09 am (UTC)
>I like Eccleston; I really do. But I'm not crushing on him,

Humph!
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:16 pm (UTC)
Hehe. He looks too much like a boss I once had, is mostly the problem. Naturally the costume is hot on *you*.
scriviner
Nov. 2nd, 2007 07:16 am (UTC)
There's several reasons given for why they can't just hop back in time and fix things, first is the one that you cited, specifically that the Doctor's Tardis is very old and frequently unreliable, so hitting any specific point in time is pretty much a crapshoot. The major reason tho, is that once they exit the doors and reenter the timestream they become part of events. As I understand it, the fact that they're somewhere and seeing things a particular way means that those circumstances HAVE to be that way when they see them, otherwise there's a paradox. For instance if the Doctor steps out of the Tardis and sees a mustard jar on the table, he cannot hop back in the TARDIS, go back ten minutes and remove the mustard jar, because it needs to have been there for him to see it otherwise causality breaks down. This didn't used to be as much of a problem back in the day when you had the other Time Lords futzing around making sure that time stayed on an even keel, but now with the Doctor the only remaining Time Lord, there's no one left to clean up the mess and those thingees show up.

But, until and unless he enters a future point in time where he KNOWS someone died at a particular moment, then he's generally free to act. I figure all the time changing the bad guys did/do/will do is because since they didn't know how things were supposed to be at the point in time at which they entered, they weren't affected by Paradox. Then again, this explanation is half-fan-wank and half some of the stuff previously stated on the show.

As for the nanogenes, well they were pretty much a one shot deus ex machina, but my guess for why they didn't keep 'em around was probably that they had too great a tendency for abuse if left in untrained hands, so he had to get rid of 'em.
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:18 pm (UTC)
Eh, works for me. Time travel always involves so much paradox that I basically give the stories my approval as long as they make a good attempt at explaining the rules.

Hm, no more nanogenes, then? Guess that's for the best, as you say.
(Anonymous)
Nov. 2nd, 2007 07:40 am (UTC)
Okay, I'll ask the really stupid question now and get it over with: With a time machine on their hands, why don't our heroes jump into the Tardis anytime something goes horribly wrong, go backward in time a bit, and fix the circumstances? Yes, I know: "Because then there wouldn't be a story." But why else? Something to do with it being difficult to end up on exactly the right day every time?

Wihtout saying too much you'll get to an episode soon about interfering with the time, that might answer some of your questions.
bluesound
Nov. 2nd, 2007 07:41 am (UTC)
Hmm... that was me... wasn't logged in.
mikailborg
Nov. 2nd, 2007 10:03 am (UTC)
I thought she should already have seen "Father's Day" before meeting Jack?
kalquessa
Nov. 2nd, 2007 04:06 pm (UTC)
*fangirls your icon*
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:21 pm (UTC)
*nod* Thus the fell beasts. Though I think that was more because of the Doctor and Rose backtracking and being there in duplicate, right? That was the major forbidden paradox.
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:20 pm (UTC)
Hi there. :) Yeah, if you mean the "Father's Day" episode, I've seen the bad things that emerge if you mess around with certain events--but actually I think that was more because the Doctor and Rose were there in duplicate and therefore caused a paradox, which was the major no-no. *shrug*
shebit
Nov. 2nd, 2007 01:00 pm (UTC)
Ah, Nine/Rose/Jack - my ultimate OT3.

Isn't Jack just the most wonderful big, slutty, pansexual hero ever, though?
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:21 pm (UTC)
He truly is. :D He's like young Tom Cruise without the insanity, and even cuter actually.
modmerseygirl
Nov. 2nd, 2007 01:02 pm (UTC)
Ten is totally darling. Totally. I have the biggest crush on David Tennant, but I think you knew that by now. ;-) I can't wait for you to officially meet him!
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 09:22 pm (UTC)
I have a feeling I'm going to fall for him as well. Unruly hair and wide eyes are completely in line with my type. :)
modmerseygirl
Nov. 6th, 2007 04:28 am (UTC)
Aww! I think you'll love him, too. ;-)
allisona
Nov. 2nd, 2007 04:01 pm (UTC)
I must admit I'm enamoured with Nine. I mean he's not conventionally handsome, but when Eccleston smiled it was all over for me. He has the best smile. I'm still getting over losing him at the end of his first season there, though I do like Tennant, too, just not quite as well. It was fun to see Eccleston showing up on "Heroes" last year, though, playing another great character. Hope invisible Claude comes back this season!
kalquessa
Nov. 2nd, 2007 04:09 pm (UTC)
Same here. I think the moment I fell in love with him was when he got all fannishly gleeful over Dickens. And there's something about that huge grin and the big goofy ears. And the chipper-to-angst-to-chipper-again bipolar personality. *sigh* I'm going to miss him so much! (I just finished watching S1 and while I know I'll love Ten, no one can replace Nine.)
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 10:10 pm (UTC)
I do love the grin. Eccleston just resembles a former boss of mine too much. :)

Haven't started 'Heroes' yet, but I look forward to it, especially with Doctors making an appearance.
dirae
Nov. 3rd, 2007 12:21 am (UTC)
From the canon standpoint, the Doctor cannot really control the TARDIS nor does he fully understand it (he is learning as he goes along... he stole the TARDIS btw)

There is an early episode of from the Classic Who series which explains the concept of Time Meddling (the episode is called "The Time Meddler"). The whole future of every year and time on Earth (or any other planet/dimension) will change if one aspect of time is meddled with. Later on in the series, this concept is expanded on as the "Blinovitch Limitation Effect" -- a time traveler cannot "redo" an act that they have previously committed (I think this is connected to the First Law of Time), but if you attempt to do this a dangerous energy discharge will result if two temporal versions of the same person.

/being a geek
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 10:13 pm (UTC)
Now that I think back on the "Father's Day" episode, the winged nasty beasts seemed to be appearing as a result of Doctor and Rose being there in duplicate--big paradoxical no-no, evidently. I gathered it wasn't as much the result of Rose saving someone's life, though that may have figured into it too. They usually do seem to limit their interventions (so far) to erasing the effects of aliens or other time travelers on Earth.

It all makes a good story; I'm game!
naill_renfro
Nov. 3rd, 2007 01:13 am (UTC)
A new fandom! With canon stretching back more than 40 years, I'm afraid there's no hope of consistency -- but any inconsistencies can be explained away as the result of not-quite-paralel timelines. Although the revived Doctor has production values (a shameless attempt to appeal to Americans), I miss the old shows, when it was obvious that the special-effects budget had run to 50 or even 75p!
dirae
Nov. 3rd, 2007 09:44 pm (UTC)
Even as an American (for shame!), I miss the old shows as well. I, however, disagree with your assessment that the new show is a "shameless attempt to appeal to Americans". My greatest fear when first hearing about the new "Doctor Who" was what I call "The Davies Effect"-- and to a point, I was right. The new "Who" happens to fit Russell T. Davies's "design nouveau". This isn't a bad thing per se, but it took me awhile to warm towards his vision which seems more self-satisfying than trying to appeal to a certain demographic (unless one would argue that he's attempting to lure in more female viewers... kind of like George Lucas did with the creation of Ewoks in "Return of the Jedi").
naill_renfro
Nov. 9th, 2007 01:03 am (UTC)
Don't worry, I was just kidding...

Ewoks appeal to female viewers? I can see I still have a lot to learn...

And Lucas shamelessly (well, I don't actually know whether he felt shame, but the man who gave us Jar-Jar must have a pretty high shame threshold) copied the Ewoks from the Fuzzies late H. Beam Piper's "Little Fuzzy" children's novels -- I wonder if he paid any royalties, or if Piper's estate sued?
mollyringle
Nov. 4th, 2007 10:16 pm (UTC)
Heheh. Such as tape and flashlights around a trash can = Dalek? (To judge from the little I ever saw of Old Who.) Well, I admit I appreciate pretty production, but only if it accompanies good writing and acting--which it seems to do well enough so far, for my tastes.
naill_renfro
Nov. 9th, 2007 01:06 am (UTC)
And I never saw the new Doctor until after I'd seen Goblet of Fire, so I keep thinking "Don't trust him! He's a Death Eater!"
( 27 comments — Leave a comment )