The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Doctor Who (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters) (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=190042)

SimpleLogic October 4 2012 12:04 AM

Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Why did the Doctor think that doing that to her was a good thing? It seems like a very cruel thing to do myself. I rank it as one of his worst decisions.

Jax October 4 2012 12:20 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Horrible episode of Who and I agree horrible fate for her.

Sindatur October 4 2012 12:24 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
I've skipped this one, or not paid attention to it in rewatches. Can anyone remind me of how she ended up in that condition?

P0sitr0nic October 4 2012 12:27 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Quote:

Sindatur wrote: (Post 7051774)
I've skipped this one, or not paid attention to it in rewatches. Can anyone remind me of how she ended up in that condition?

halfway absorbed into the blob from Klom.

SimpleLogic October 4 2012 12:29 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Quote:

Sindatur wrote: (Post 7051774)
I've skipped this one, or not paid attention to it in rewatches. Can anyone remind me of how she ended up in that condition?

She was absorbed by the Absorbaloff then he melted, and for some reason the Doctor thought it was a good idea to make her a face in a stone tile.

SimpleLogic October 4 2012 12:34 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
I did like Elton and for some reason it does make me laugh when we hear that the twin planet of Raxacoricofallapatorius is Clom.

Valin October 4 2012 12:46 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Quote:

Jax wrote: (Post 7051744)
Horrible episode of Who and I agree horrible fate for her.

I agree on both counts.

Sindatur October 4 2012 01:38 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Quote:

P0sitr0nic wrote: (Post 7051798)
Quote:

Sindatur wrote: (Post 7051774)
I've skipped this one, or not paid attention to it in rewatches. Can anyone remind me of how she ended up in that condition?

halfway absorbed into the blob from Klom.

Well, yea, I remembered that much, I just wanted to know what caused the "slab" condition. I apparently need to watch at least the ending again, because that would be awful of 9 to just randomly decide she should be a stone slab, surely there's more to it than that, he's not a Witch?

ETA: OOPS, based upon the next post, apparently it's a Tennant Episode, not an Eccelston one :alienblush:

wamdue October 4 2012 01:50 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
there was nothing wrong with the episode apart from the end.

yeah ok there was one thing wrong, and that was that LINDA only seemed to focus on the 10th Doctor, and missed all the other Doctors, yet in Time Crash, the 5th Doctor is aware of them, suggesting they are aware of him.

The ending however, was basically the 10th Doctors need to save a life, going badly badly wrong, but the show not quite being able to admit that.

Starkers October 4 2012 09:24 AM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
What made it worse was that literally a few episodes earlier Ten had implied that life as a Cyberman was a living death, yet apparently existance as a paving slab is tickerty boo...I guess it isn't that different from being the face of Boe!

Ah Love and Monsters. RTD at his best and his worst, all in one episodes. There's some lovely stuff in there; Jackie was never better than in this, the notion of people touched by the Doctor wanting to learn more about him, yet deciding they have more in common than just the Doctor, the quite sweet love story between Elton and Ursula.

It's just a shame about the other stuff unfortunately. The comedy Benny Hill chase at the start, the terrible (and not in a good way) villain, and the whole Ursula paving slab malarky.

And let's not get started on the "We even have a sex life" line. Do you? I suspect that Elton has a sex life, probably not much in it for Ursula!

The Mirrorball Man October 4 2012 12:13 PM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
I don't know. She seemed to be happy.

Redfern October 4 2012 01:45 PM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Some viewers have concocted a fannish theory that severals aspects of the story are really just Elton's delusions. Basically, there's was no Absorbiloff, just Elton's jealous perception of Kay's character as he wooed each of his friends. When he finally swayed Ursula, Elton finally "cracked" and perceived Kay's role as some sort of "monster" who consumed his friends.

Problem is, the Doctor makes mention of the planet Clom in a later episode independent of Elton, thus cementing its reality.

Sincerely,

Bill

Alidar Jarok October 4 2012 02:00 PM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Why do people want to reject an episode as a dream or fantasy? It seems like too much work. Just accept that it's a crappy episode and move on.

Anyway, she seems happy. It's not analogous to becoming a Cyberman because she still has self-control and emotions. So I would say it's better than death. Certainly not good, but I think that's at least fair.

Starkers October 4 2012 02:14 PM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Quote:

Alidar Jarok wrote: (Post 7054258)
Why do people want to reject an episode as a dream or fantasy? It seems like too much work. Just accept that it's a crappy episode and move on.

Anyway, she seems happy. It's not analogous to becoming a Cyberman because she still has self-control and emotions. So I would say it's better than death. Certainly not good, but I think that's at least fair.

Given the choice between death and paving slab most of us might choose the more concrete option :) but I imagine it's something that we might regret as time passed (and will she die? Is she immortal?)

Mr. Adventure October 4 2012 10:20 PM

Re: Ursula's fate. (Love & Monsters)
 
Poor Elton's love life never recovered from the injury sustained the night Ursula was taken over by the weeping angels.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.