Doctor Whom

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Diadem » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:43 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
Spoiler:
How come the TARDIS was able to sustain the paradox for ten minutes in the facility, but couldn't manage a.couple of extra minutes with the Amys inside itself? Remember the season 3 finale where the Master turns the TARDIS into a paradox machine? Clearly it's capable of sustaining some pretty time bending stuff. One little grandfather paradox should be child's play.

Spoiler:
It would have had to sustain the paradox indefinitely. It's not like it ends once old-Amy leaves the tardis. It's gotta be sustained as long as she is alive. And even afterwards if he wants to stop everything she did from not having happened. The master did it, but it's not like that didn't give a lot of problems.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby ArgonV » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:57 am UTC

Spoiler:
The master also needed to heavily modify the TARDIS in order to sustain the paradox. I doubt it was capable of time travelling during that period

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:10 pm UTC

Spoiler:
That heavy modification was to sustain a much bigger paradox though.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Soralin » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:41 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:
Spoiler:
Me: Amy seems pretty angry at having to wait 36 years. How long did Rory wait for her?
My GF: Men can never do enough. Important lesson.
Me: I suppose he didn't have to age 36 years.
GF: He chose to wait, she didn't.


Thoughts?

Spoiler:
Yeah, that Rory was effectively immortal during that time (at least in the not aging sense) does make a bit of a difference there too. Whereas for Amy, the 36 years spent inside would mean 36 fewer years to her life outside.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:53 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:
Spoiler:
Me: Amy seems pretty angry at having to wait 36 years. How long did Rory wait for her?
My GF: Men can never do enough. Important lesson.
Me: I suppose he didn't have to age 36 years.
GF: He chose to wait, she didn't.


Thoughts?

Spoiler:
Yeah, that Rory was effectively immortal during that time (at least in the not aging sense) does make a bit of a difference there too. Whereas for Amy, the 36 years spent inside would mean 36 fewer years to her life outside.


Spoiler:
Which would make sense if we were talking 36 vs 46 instead of 36 vs 2000.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:07 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:
Spoiler:
Me: Amy seems pretty angry at having to wait 36 years. How long did Rory wait for her?
My GF: Men can never do enough. Important lesson.
Me: I suppose he didn't have to age 36 years.
GF: He chose to wait, she didn't.


Thoughts?

Spoiler:
Yeah, that Rory was effectively immortal during that time (at least in the not aging sense) does make a bit of a difference there too. Whereas for Amy, the 36 years spent inside would mean 36 fewer years to her life outside.


Spoiler:
I think you're really undereprisenting what Rory did

Yes, Rory didn't have to worry about aging. Yes, Rory waited willingly. But... he waited for a FUCKING LONG time. Seriously. Even if you say that you're fine with it at the outset, after a few hundred years the amount of willpower someone has to have to stay doing it is just fucking ridiculous. Seriously. NO ONE has a conception of what it's like to wait, constantly doing one thing (guarding someone) for 2000 years. It's just too long a time frame for our minds to handle, no one can make a fully informed decision about that. The fact that Rory did wait all that time and it didn't fuck him up is the whole point... it's the author's proof of Rory's fairy tale like love for a single person forever and ever (because he actually did wait, essentially, forever). In poorer written fantasies that type of love would just be assumed rather than proved, making suspension of disbelief very difficult.

In the end, one of the major concerns that Amy would have had was shared by Rory... not knowing if everything was going to work out. Not knowing if Amy could ever get out of the box. Not knowing if he would survive the wait (from wear and tear). For all he knew every second he spent waiting was wasted on nothing.

I'm not saying that Amy should toughen up or anything, everyone is different and has their own breaking points (aparently Rory is just really badass) it's perfectly fine if 36 years screwed up Amy but didn't affect Rory in the slightest, they're different people.

But trivialising what Rory went through?

Or making it seem like 36 years of uncertainty and aging in an otherwise interesting (awesome gardens, and the other kindness zones) and somewhat exciting (but somewhat dangerous) place was much worse than 2000 years of uncertainty and fucking waiting around doing nothing until having to undergo extreme physical labor under duress to save the box until the last few years where he got to be a security guard while not knowing if any of that waiting or pain was not done in vain? Come the fuck on.

Normal people are would go insane from a few hours of doing nothing let alone the better half of 2000 years.


Edit:

On the topic of paradox sustaining.
Spoiler:
Presumably the reason the Tardis couldn't do it was because, inside the tardis they were localised from the effects of the time engines in the facility, meaning that the Tardis would have to do ALL the work to sustain the paradox while outside the facility whereas while they were not outside the facility the time engines were doing most of the work (this makes sense since the work the time engines seemed to be doing was ridiculous, modifying the timestreams of millions, potentially billions, of entities and keeping them all localised from eachother and linked to the correct instances of visitors etc.) and the Tardis just had to make sure it didn't become unstable. I don't know about any of that series 3 stuff though, I only watch the 11th Doctor.

One question I have, though, is didn't the Doctor seriously risk all the lives of all the infected and the happiness of all the visitors with the time engine sabotage? Or did he just somehow know that they'd all be fine?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Soralin » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:30 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Soralin wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:
Spoiler:
Me: Amy seems pretty angry at having to wait 36 years. How long did Rory wait for her?
My GF: Men can never do enough. Important lesson.
Me: I suppose he didn't have to age 36 years.
GF: He chose to wait, she didn't.


Thoughts?

Spoiler:
Yeah, that Rory was effectively immortal during that time (at least in the not aging sense) does make a bit of a difference there too. Whereas for Amy, the 36 years spent inside would mean 36 fewer years to her life outside.


Spoiler:
Which would make sense if we were talking 36 vs 46 instead of 36 vs 2000.

Spoiler:
But regarding aging, we're not talking about 36 vs 2000, we're talking about 36 vs 0.(in terms of future years lost)

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:34 pm UTC

Tempted to go with my GF's first answer :mrgreen:
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:34 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:
Spoiler:
But regarding aging, we're not talking about 36 vs 2000, we're talking about 36 vs 0.(in terms of future years lost)

Spoiler:
But is there a point here or are we just mentioning observations? If the implication is that 36 vs 0 means "Amy had it worse, Rory's trial wasn't anywhere near as bad" then (1) You're Wrong, see my last post and (2) It doesn't matter anyway because everyone has different psychological break points (it's just that apparently Rory is ridiculously amazing in that regard). If you don't intend to implicate that... then... well, I can make observations too? I did a whole lot of them just before.

Edit: Anyway, it's arguable that it is even 36 vs 0. Rory was still subject to wear and tear and so he had some effective lifespan. If he waited 2000 years then thought "Fuck it, I'm not waiting anymore" then had fun till he was 3,000 and he wore down too much to keep functioning, then it's 36 vs 2000 again because he lost 2000 years helping stasis Amy survive (for no return) similar, but worse, to how Amy would have spent 36 years surviving (for the return of surviving).
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Soralin » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:42 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Soralin wrote:
Spoiler:
Yeah, that Rory was effectively immortal during that time (at least in the not aging sense) does make a bit of a difference there too. Whereas for Amy, the 36 years spent inside would mean 36 fewer years to her life outside.

Spoiler:
I think you're really undereprisenting what Rory did

Yes, Rory didn't have to worry about aging. Yes, Rory waited willingly. But... he waited for a FUCKING LONG time. Seriously. Even if you say that you're fine with it at the outset, after a few hundred years the amount of willpower someone has to have to stay doing it is just fucking ridiculous. Seriously. NO ONE has a conception of what it's like to wait, constantly doing one thing (guarding someone) for 2000 years. It's just too long a time frame for our minds to handle, no one can make a fully informed decision about that. The fact that Rory did wait all that time and it didn't fuck him up is the whole point... it's the author's proof of Rory's fairy tale like love for a single person forever and ever (because he actually did wait, essentially, forever). In poorer written fantasies that type of love would just be assumed rather than proved, making suspension of disbelief very difficult.

In the end, one of the major concerns that Amy would have had was shared by Rory... not knowing if everything was going to work out. Not knowing if Amy could ever get out of the box. Not knowing if he would survive the wait (from wear and tear). For all he knew every second he spent waiting was wasted on nothing.

I'm not saying that Amy should toughen up or anything, everyone is different and has their own breaking points (aparently Rory is just really badass) it's perfectly fine if 36 years screwed up Amy but didn't affect Rory in the slightest, they're different people.

But trivialising what Rory went through?

Or making it seem like 36 years of uncertainty and aging in an otherwise interesting (awesome gardens, and the other kindness zones) and somewhat exciting (but somewhat dangerous) place was much worse than 2000 years of uncertainty and fucking waiting around doing nothing until having to undergo extreme physical labor under duress to save the box until the last few years where he got to be a security guard while not knowing if any of that waiting or pain was not done in vain? Come the fuck on.

Normal people are would go insane from a few hours of doing nothing let alone the better half of 2000 years.

Spoiler:
Ah yeah, I wasn't intending it as trivializing at all, I was thinking of it in terms of, if there was only one that could be taken back, which one to take. If there actually wasn't any aging, and they both still had the same time from then on, the answer I would have taken might have been a different one. And I don't think the older Amy was really broken at all, she had a hard time, and held some grudges, but she still wanted to exist as she was, to keep all of those memories and experiences

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:47 pm UTC

Fair enough. The one to take back is obvious, the one which affected the person more. Rory was somehow, the narrative suggests due to love, generally psychologically unaffected by the wait. So it isn't really about which was the most difficult thing but how it affected them that would decide which one I would take back.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:48 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I was talking about Rory and Amy's initial meeting, before the question of getting either back came up.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
H.E.L.e.N.
Cheesy-tuna-bacon-pickle?
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: the other side of the other river

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby H.E.L.e.N. » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

In Doctor's Wife...

Spoiler:
we had glimpses of old-Rory who'd been abandoned and his HATE AMY KILL AMY scrawls...except Amy'd turn around and it never actually happened. Or did it?

I feel slightly better about this because it shows both Amy and Rory are pretty capable of experiencing that kind of awfulness/grief/turning-on-each-other. So it's not completely heroic waiting-Rory versus terrible waiting-Amy.


I feel like Girl Who Waited didn't cover any new ground, really*. Also I'm really craving a nice bit of whimsy.

*
Spoiler:
except maybe it'll be a point where Rory starts to super-sour on the Doctor, which will perhaps lead to him running off to do other stuff after this season...

Rodion Raskolnikov
Alyona Ivanovna knows what you did last summer
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Rodion Raskolnikov » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Spoiler:
I think you're really undereprisenting what Rory did

Yes, Rory didn't have to worry about aging. Yes, Rory waited willingly. But... he waited for a FUCKING LONG time. Seriously. Even if you say that you're fine with it at the outset, after a few hundred years the amount of willpower someone has to have to stay doing it is just fucking ridiculous. Seriously. NO ONE has a conception of what it's like to wait, constantly doing one thing (guarding someone) for 2000 years. It's just too long a time frame for our minds to handle, no one can make a fully informed decision about that. The fact that Rory did wait all that time and it didn't fuck him up is the whole point... it's the author's proof of Rory's fairy tale like love for a single person forever and ever (because he actually did wait, essentially, forever). In poorer written fantasies that type of love would just be assumed rather than proved, making suspension of disbelief very difficult.

In the end, one of the major concerns that Amy would have had was shared by Rory... not knowing if everything was going to work out. Not knowing if Amy could ever get out of the box. Not knowing if he would survive the wait (from wear and tear). For all he knew every second he spent waiting was wasted on nothing.

I'm not saying that Amy should toughen up or anything, everyone is different and has their own breaking points (aparently Rory is just really badass) it's perfectly fine if 36 years screwed up Amy but didn't affect Rory in the slightest, they're different people.

But trivialising what Rory went through?

Or making it seem like 36 years of uncertainty and aging in an otherwise interesting (awesome gardens, and the other kindness zones) and somewhat exciting (but somewhat dangerous) place was much worse than 2000 years of uncertainty and fucking waiting around doing nothing until having to undergo extreme physical labor under duress to save the box until the last few years where he got to be a security guard while not knowing if any of that waiting or pain was not done in vain? Come the fuck on.

Normal people are would go insane from a few hours of doing nothing let alone the better half of 2000 years.


Spoiler:
I think this is what confuses me about Rory. The guy that did all that awesome stuff you're talking about sounds awesome. So why do I still find Rory so dull? The only thing that defines him is the fact he is in lurve with Amy. I think if they made him do something heroic that didn't involve Amy, I'd find it easier to see him as a badass rather than just some guy who likes kissing the pretty girl.

It also might help if they replaced him with a different actor. I don't like that guy.

Yo Rodja's kind of a dick, those are the facts / He murdered a pawnbroker with an axe
Now Dosoyevsky is here to teach you / About his problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche


~ ahammel

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:48 pm UTC

Oh yeah, the Doctor's Wife.

Neil Gaiman has saved me once again.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:04 pm UTC

Rodion Raskolnikov wrote:
Spoiler:
I think this is what confuses me about Rory. The guy that did all that awesome stuff you're talking about sounds awesome. So why do I still find Rory so dull? The only thing that defines him is the fact he is in lurve with Amy. I think if they made him do something heroic that didn't involve Amy, I'd find it easier to see him as a badass rather than just some guy who likes kissing the pretty girl.

It also might help if they replaced him with a different actor. I don't like that guy.


Spoiler:
Like when he tried to save the flesh girl when Amy was clearly agitated and clearly didn't like the flesh people let alone like Rory assisting them, let alone another female, and was trying to stop him?

Anyway, even if you were right and it was ONLY his love for Amy to define him, it still wouldn't be that bad. I mean, I don't like characters tha are only defined by their love for others, but at least the Doctor Who writers bother to back it up. He doesn't just do "Heroic" stuff for her, he did boring, shitty painful and mindnumbing stuff for her. Addrenaline rushing to save your love from trouble is one thing but sitting around for 2000 years isn't "Heroic" it's willing painstaking torture, so they really did well to prove his love. So while I may not like it, at least it isn't generic fantasy "I'll love you for all eternity (and the only proof of this is my word that I do)" Informed Ability thing.

But anyway, he does do heroic stuff outside the context of helpig or saving Amy.



Edit:

H.E.L.e.N. wrote:In Doctor's Wife...

Spoiler:
we had glimpses of old-Rory who'd been abandoned and his HATE AMY KILL AMY scrawls...except Amy'd turn around and it never actually happened. Or did it?

I feel slightly better about this because it shows both Amy and Rory are pretty capable of experiencing that kind of awfulness/grief/turning-on-each-other. So it's not completely heroic waiting-Rory versus terrible waiting-Amy.


Spoiler:
My understanding of that was that it didn't happen, that it was just an illusion created by the house to fuck with them so be entertained. Rather than Rory actually experiencing that and writing the messages himself and actually hating Amy until the house undid everything that happened in that timeline.

If that ISN'T fake and those feelings were genuine after Rory somehow survived and aged, then it's extremely out of character for Rory and would seriously deminish my enjoyment of the writing. I would consider it a serious character inconsistancy and a problem in the writing.

Anyway I dislike your characterisation of "heroic waiting Rory" versus "Terrible Waiting Amy" because those aren't the options it's "Waiting Rory" and "Waiting Amy" and they were just affected by it differently. The idea that Amy's attitude was bad after going through that difficult (but less difficult) experience smacks of victim blaming to me. It's the whole "Oh, toughen up, your feelings shoudn't feel that way because <logic and objectivity>" thing, which is total bull.

And it wasn't even like she was that angry at them, she had just rationalized that she'd never see them again and the brains way of coping with that is to convince yourself that you don't care about them and they don't matter to you. "I hate you" is just a way of convincing yourself that you don't care and also a way of communicating displeasure with the situation.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Rodion Raskolnikov
Alyona Ivanovna knows what you did last summer
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Rodion Raskolnikov » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:23 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Rodion Raskolnikov wrote:
Spoiler:
I think this is what confuses me about Rory. The guy that did all that awesome stuff you're talking about sounds awesome. So why do I still find Rory so dull? The only thing that defines him is the fact he is in lurve with Amy. I think if they made him do something heroic that didn't involve Amy, I'd find it easier to see him as a badass rather than just some guy who likes kissing the pretty girl.

It also might help if they replaced him with a different actor. I don't like that guy.


Spoiler:
Like when he tried to save the flesh girl when Amy was clearly agitated and clearly didn't like the flesh people let alone like Rory assisting them, let alone another female, and was trying to stop him?

Anyway, even if you were right and it was ONLY his love for Amy to define him, it still wouldn't be that bad. I mean, I don't like characters tha are only defined by their love for others, but at least the Doctor Who writers bother to back it up. He doesn't just do "Heroic" stuff for her, he did boring, shitty painful and mindnumbing stuff for her. Addrenaline rushing to save your love from trouble is one thing but sitting around for 2000 years isn't "Heroic" it's willing painstaking torture, so they really did well to prove his love. So while I may not like it, at least it isn't generic fantasy "I'll love you for all eternity (and the only proof of this is my word that I do)" Informed Ability thing.

But anyway, he does do heroic stuff outside the context of helpig or saving Amy.



Spoiler:
I had forgotten about the flesh girl. I know you are probably right, I'm just trying to understand why I don't like the character. A lot of other people seem to think he's great, so maybe the "fault" lies with me rather than the show.


edit: tidying up quotes

Yo Rodja's kind of a dick, those are the facts / He murdered a pawnbroker with an axe
Now Dosoyevsky is here to teach you / About his problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche


~ ahammel

User avatar
H.E.L.e.N.
Cheesy-tuna-bacon-pickle?
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:53 am UTC
Location: the other side of the other river

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby H.E.L.e.N. » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:25 pm UTC

Gelsamel, I don't actually disagree with what you're saying. I don't really have time to sort thoughts into sentences, but I don't think Amy's actions/feelings were unjustified, I was just meta-complaining because she seems to get trapped a lot while Rory gets to be the hero.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Gelsamel » Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:36 pm UTC

H.E.L.e.N. wrote:Gelsamel, I don't actually disagree with what you're saying. I don't really have time to sort thoughts into sentences, but I don't think Amy's actions/feelings were unjustified, I was just meta-complaining because she seems to get trapped a lot while Rory gets to be the hero.


Spoiler:
Yeah true, but she got to be really awesome badass in this episode and got to really be the hero, although it was technically a different Amy in a character narrative sense. She somehow made a sonic screwdriver and was killing robots with a katana, that is pretty damn fucking awesome. I guess it shows that she is capable of the heroics.

But even if we don't count that, eh, it's unfortunately par for the course in popular writing so I wouldn't complain any more than everyone on xkcd already does about entertainment culture. Just as much complaining about it is fine :-).



Edit:

Rodion Raskolnikov wrote:
Spoiler:
I had forgotten about the flesh girl. I know you are probably right, I'm just trying to understand why I don't like the character. A lot of other people seem to think he's great, so maybe the "fault" lies with me rather than the show.


Well, here is the thing. I've noticed a whole lot of people, in a wide variety of things, seem to 'need' (I guess in terms of a psychology) to find an external objective reason for why they like or don't like things. You see this all the time in movies and music, people who (quite often with no formal filmography or music theory training) try to point out objective qualities (often incorrectly) that makes thing objectively "unenjoyable" (a personal reaction entirely dependant on the reactor) to justify or otherwise rationalise why they don't like it.

This often leads to ridiculous assertions like "Pop/Rap/Country/<Insert derided music of choice> isn't real music" or "Mainstream music/films aren't real art" or "Action movies are for mindless sheep" or "Fantasy is for basement dwelling escapists" or "Progressive/Technical music is has no soul, feeling, or emotion" because the patterns we come up with are way too coarse grain for out almost infinitely complex brains based off the tiniest neurons reaction to the myriad of influences that has to do with your experiences and the atmosphere and the way something is presented to you and what was happening the first time you experienced it and how that colors what you receive in the future and on and on and on and on. Not to mention that the genres and archtypes and sometimes even the individual songs/movies/characters/etc. are just about as complex (being created from someone's brain, afterall).

So really, the real answer is simply that your brain doesn't react favourably to it. Why? The same reason you like the taste of chocolate chip mint icecream but not vanilla, because your brain has a whole lot of complex factors it decides stuff by and it happened to work out like that.

Professional filmographers and music theorists may be able to analyse things to find out whether, measured by technical quality, something is good or not. But I wager essentially all of those people will say--well, maybe they won't say it, but they will--fully enjoy some music or film that is technically terrible. Certainly, I myself am fully able to enjoy movies that I find to be shallow and low quality if they just happen to work for me. You see it in religion a bunch too. For a lot of believers it, for some reason, can't be enough that they just believe they have to try and point to things in the objective science testable world.

I understand why this happens; because, evolutionarily, pattern recognition is good and we seek patterns so as to follow patterns (figure out what I liked in the music so I can find more of the music I like, etc.). But if we're talking about the actual reasons someone enjoys something? Then it's not something that is simply quantifiable in rules like that. The best answer you can come up with is the useless "Because my brain tells me to enjoy it".

So that is my longwinded rant as to why the reason you dislike Rory can be TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY VALID! :D Even if there isn't an objective reason for disliking him!
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby ArgonV » Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:40 pm UTC

Spoiler:
On the subject of Amy's and Rory's respective periods of isolation: Amy was trapped alone, in a medical facility with robots effectively trying to kill her. Rory spent 2000 years on Earth, possibly also interacting with other people during that time line. I don't think he spent 24/7 guarding Amy, right?

User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:26 pm UTC

I don't understand how anyone could object to the Doctor's choice, since the alternative would be to
Spoiler:
"kill" young!happy!Amy, who exists just as much as old!Amy.
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:52 am UTC

Aikanaro wrote:
Spoiler:
I'm sorry, but I disagree: He chose the easy way. He gets to pretend what he did to Old Amy doesn't matter, since she no longer ever existed, and meanwhile he has his happy shiny Young Amy who he protected. Furthermore, in putting Rory's hand on the door lock, he gets to try and absolve himself of a little more guilt, by pretending that Rory is just as guilty of locking her out as he (the Doctor) is. His words at the end are particularly telling: "I said I'd save her, and there she is; Safe." He smiles as he says this, as if to shrug off that anything bad happened at all, since according to the time stream, nothing bad did happen.

EDIT: As I've said, he had two choices: Let someone live in isolation and danger for 36 years (bad), or let someone else have an eternity of being dead (arguably worse). And I strongly suspect that Old Amy, at least, still considers Death to be a worse outcome than the 36 years.

EDIT 2: Really, letting Old Amy in is the hard choice, because his mistake still exists, and he has to own up to it, instead of running from responsibility as is his usual wont.
You are thinking about things too linearly.
Spoiler:
It isn't a choice between one Amy or the other. It is a choice between saving Amy, or letting her suffer for 40 years, then saving her.


That said,
Spoiler:
Locking out old Amy is nowhere near the level of asshole as what the doctor did to Capitan Jack after the bad wolf incident.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Mo0man » Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:33 am UTC

It's just the way the relationship between Amy and Rory works, really. She's always been vaguely dismissive of him, I mean look at the fact that she had a robot named Rory that she kept as a pet. And he's always been vaguely in awe of her, it's just the way their marriage works
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 am UTC

Mo0man wrote:It's just the way the relationship between Amy and Rory works, really. She's always been vaguely dismissive of him, I mean look at the fact that she had a robot named Rory that she kept as a pet. And he's always been vaguely in awe of her, it's just the way their marriage works


Spoiler:
See Lets Kill Hitler.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby AvatarIII » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:43 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
Spoiler:
That heavy modification was to sustain a much bigger paradox though.

Spoiler:
who's to say that paradoxes have size? perhaps any paradox is as difficult to sustain as any other, whether it deals with one person or the entire human race, perhaps there is either a paradox or not a paradox, rather than no paradox and a massive paradox and everything in between?

User avatar
Sytri
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:00 am UTC
Location: Reading, UK

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Sytri » Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:31 am UTC

Spoiler:
The way I saw it was that the paradox created by the master was "easier" as it had involved using humans from nearly the end of time to come back and kill/control their ancestors from millenia ago. Sort of like keeping an engine running idle for a long time, easy as long as the engine is maintained well.

With Amy's problem though, the paradox was more acute. Holding two people with relatively small time differential between them. This would be like maxing out the revs and sustaining it idenfinately.

I say idefinately because any actions caused by Amy1 and Amy2 would have to be held and the butterfly effect would be larger as time went on. This is also the same for the Tardis and the masters plan but he modified it specifically to hold a paradox. And as ArgonV has said, it's doubtful that it would be able to time travel as well as be a paradox machine.

Thats what I took from it anyway.
Apathy will kill us all. Or not. Whatever.

User avatar
thecommabandit
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby thecommabandit » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:42 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I notice with the Young Amy/Old Amy thing, everyone's ignoring the obvious, easy and simple solution: self-destructive transitional timelines. Now I know it might sound complicated, but it's not. It's like in Donnie Darko, where one event created a whole new universe whose only purpose was to loop around properly to allow the main universe to continue on as normal. Replace "universe" with "timeline" and voila, a nice simple but still timey-wimey explanation.
Image

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Xeio » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:48 pm UTC

Uh, does Doctor Who have self destructive transitional timelines? I'm pretty sure we've seen self-sustaining time loops, but never multiple sustained timelines in a single universe (minus the paradoxes sustained by the tardis).

User avatar
thecommabandit
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:25 pm UTC
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby thecommabandit » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:24 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Uh, does Doctor Who have self destructive transitional timelines? I'm pretty sure we've seen self-sustaining time loops, but never multiple sustained timelines in a single universe (minus the paradoxes sustained by the tardis).

Doctor Who doesn't really have any particular ideas of time travel set in stone. How the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey ball of time stuff works varies according to plot.
Image

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby mmmcannibalism » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:44 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Sytri wrote:[spoiler]The way I saw it was that the paradox created by the master was "easier" as it had involved using humans from nearly the end of time to come back and kill/control their ancestors from millenia ago. Sort of like keeping an engine running idle for a long time, easy as long as the engine is maintained well.

With Amy's problem though, the paradox was more acute. Holding two people with relatively small time differential between them. This would be like maxing out the revs and sustaining it idenfinately.

I say idefinately because any actions caused by Amy1 and Amy2 would have to be held and the butterfly effect would be larger as time went on. This is also the same for the Tardis and the masters plan but he modified it specifically to hold a paradox. And as ArgonV has said, it's doubtful that it would be able to time travel as well as be a paradox machine.

Thats what I took from it anyway.

Spoiler:
Here's my intuition

Maintaining a paradox is sustaining a violation of causality. If your trying to keep the same person double existing(with what appears to be a notion that people are special things) you have to completely violate what happened to/around them since the break. However, if you talk about a giant gap in timescale(existing without cause because of an event in far past); you can dilute that single event over the course of billions of years making it easier.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Joeldi » Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:48 am UTC

I do not get all the hate for the scared little boy episode. I thought it was absolutely solid.

Loved 'The Girl Who Waited' I thought the Doctor was a huge dick this episode, but I don't think that's a bad thing as far as the show goes.

Also thought 'well here's a very promising way for there to be two genuine doctors, so that one of them can die.' Anyone think the doctor might contract the 24 hour disease at some point?
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1419
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Link » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:04 pm UTC

Well, damn. I did not expect that!

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby charliepanayi » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:17 pm UTC

I wasn't quite sure about the central plot (plus at times early on they were oddly playing it as almost dark comedy when I think a more serious tone might have been better) but I loved what they had revolving around it. It won't be shared by many here but frankly I think that's three from four now post-break.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Whelan » Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:49 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Is it just me, or was the third nursery rhyme in the 4 episodes since the summer break?
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby charliepanayi » Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:15 pm UTC

Spoiler:
I liked the 1984 references, with the Room 101 nature of the 'hotel' and the 'Here comes a candle to light you to bed...' rhyme.

What did the Doctor see in his room? Himself?
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5943
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Angua » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:05 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Apparently there have been a lot of The Shining references this season, but I've never seen it, so don't know what they are.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Diadem » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:49 am UTC

Spoiler:
I'm not sure about the episode. The idea is awesome, but I'm not sure about the execution. I'd have loved to actually have seen Rory's or the Doctor's greatest fear. And the ending was shit.

Amy's faith in the doctor was getting a bit annoying, so it was very nice that they did something with it. And this combined with the doctor having an epiphany makes the ending make sense. But it was way too rushed. And he didn't even say goodbye to Rory. C'mon, I thought we were past the 'being a dick to Rory' phase. He has earned it.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Triangle_Man » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:01 am UTC

Spoiler:
So...

I guess this means that Amy and Rory will no longer be traveling on the Tardis.

I will say that I enjoyed this episode quite a bit. I like the spin they put on the Minotaur myth and I'd say that while the execution of the concept wasn't perfect, they still did a good job of it.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Diadem » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:44 am UTC

Triangle_Man wrote:
Spoiler:
So...

I guess this means that Amy and Rory will no longer be traveling on the Tardis.

I will say that I enjoyed this episode quite a bit. I like the spin they put on the Minotaur myth and I'd say that while the execution of the concept wasn't perfect, they still did a good job of it.

Spoiler:
Actually both actors signed up for the next season, so they will definitely be back. Judging from the teaser the next episode won't feature them, but I guess they'll be back in some grandiose way in the season final, and rejoin the tardis then.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Doctor Whom

Postby Magnanimous » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:48 am UTC

Spoiler:
Apparently the writers found a copy of House of Leaves...

And I thought Rita was a great character... 'Tis a shame she had to die. Then again, I guess she had to be a great character, so the Doctor's epiphany becomes even more powerful.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests