Waters of Mars Comment & Grading SPOILERS

[Starkers]

He's been told about his pending fate three times actually. The Ood, the psychic woman in PotD, and by the Trickster on SJA. I was wondering when he was going to start getting a little paranoid.

Really though, the shows been dropping little snippets and signs that all that power was starting to go to his head for awhile now. He finally just snapped.

Just hope he can be un-snapped.

And the Ood vision and cloister bell are reminiscent of the Watcher in Logopolis who heralded Tom Baker giving way to Peter Davidson (stated to be Tennant's favourite Doctor).

Peter Davidson isn't Tennant's fave Doctor. In fact he's nobody's fave Doctor...

 

[jbny67]

In fact he's nobody's fave Doctor...

I thought that was McCoy.

 

[Mr Awe]

I think people can affect history. And, those changes can be large from the perspective of the people living in or near those times. But, we're talking the grand course of human history. And, no, I don't think individuals bear much on that. Smaller history, on the scale of a century, sure. Longer than that, the effect of individuals diminishes greatly and continues to diminish with longer time scales.

Mr Awe

I would disagree that the impact of individuals diminishes over time, if anything the potential is for it to increase.

I get what you're saying with your peasant example but I'd disagree with that. Again from the grand scheme of things, sure, the specifics would change. You'd have a different cast of characters but the story would remain largely the same. So, we'd end up with a 20th Century, different individuals in the population in some cases, but essentially the same plot.

But, here's an interesting point. Ok, so Adelaide dying was a fixed point. But, that creates many, many other fixed points. Nothing could happen so as to prevent Adelaide from being born and living in such away as to get her to the base. Also, nothing could happen that could change the timeline for developing that base at that time (The DR said the fixed event was on that day at that time.). So, that casts a wide net for any time change that could prevent that fixed event from happening. Nothing could kill one of her ancestors before creating their progeny. Nothing could kill anyone crucial to the base, etc. So, this specific fixed even implies oodles of other fixed events that are necessary to produce it.

But, obviously no one knows because we can't change time.

Mr Awe

 

[Starkers]

I think people can affect history. And, those changes can be large from the perspective of the people living in or near those times. But, we're talking the grand course of human history. And, no, I don't think individuals bear much on that. Smaller history, on the scale of a century, sure. Longer than that, the effect of individuals diminishes greatly and continues to diminish with longer time scales.

Mr Awe

I would disagree that the impact of individuals diminishes over time, if anything the potential is for it to increase.

I get what you're saying with your peasant example but I'd disagree with that. Again from the grand scheme of things, sure, the specifics would change. You'd have a different cast of characters but the story would remain largely the same. So, we'd end up with a 20th Century, different individuals in the population in some cases, but essentially the same plot.

But, here's an interesting point. Ok, so Adelaide dying was a fixed point. But, that creates many, many other fixed points. Nothing could happen so as to prevent Adelaide from being born and living in such away as to get her to the base. Also, nothing could happen that could change the timeline for developing that base at that time (The DR said the fixed event was on that day at that time.). So, that casts a wide net for any time change that could prevent that fixed event from happening. Nothing could kill one of her ancestors before creating their progeny. Nothing could kill anyone crucial to the base, etc. So, this specific fixed even implies oodles of other fixed events that are necessary to produce it.

But, obviously no one knows because we can't change time.

Mr Awe

Whilst I don't agree I do like your analogy of the plot of the 20th Century happening the same, just with different characters.

You do make a very good point regarding the events that would need to lead up to that fixed point in time, although in abackhanded kind of way you're taking my side in the tiny events impacing the future kind of way

As Miles Edward O'Brien once said: "I hate temporal mechanics."

 

[Mr Awe]

^^ And, it's not that I think the plot would be identical but I think we'd recognize it.

I do think that some effects like the specific people would be different. But, what I'm saying is that the grand effect is not as large. I guess that seems contradictory, if all of the people are different then it must be huge. But, I'm looking at it more from the flow of events, history of humanity point of view rather than a who are the specific people approach.

Take for example WoM. The Dr was talking about how Adelaide and her grand daughter were single handedly responsible for humans colonizing the galaxy. My view is that without Adelaide, the story of humans colonizing the galaxy would be largely the same but the characters would've been different (insert people other than Adelaide and grand daughter).

It's an interesting thought experiment though!

Mr Awe

 

[Lonemagpie]

Somebody should write a book about that.

Oh, wait...

I very much enjoyed The Dark Path, by the way.

It seems to have been fairly popular...

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Take for example WoM. The Dr was talking about how Adelaide and her grand daughter were single handedly responsible for humans colonizing the galaxy. My view is that without Adelaide, the story of humans colonizing the galaxy would be largely the same but the characters would've been different (insert people other than Adelaide and grand daughter).

It's a perfectly valid point of view but within the Doctor Who fictional universe, we pretty much have to take anything the Doctor says about time on face value, considering that he's apparently able to see the big picture. If he's saying that Adelaide had to die in order for humans to colonize the galaxy, then she had to die.

 

[Bacl]

If he's saying that Adelaide had to die in order for humans to colonize the galaxy, then she had to die.

Yes, at first he said that. Then he said he figured out how to save her and keep things on track, which he did.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

If he's saying that Adelaide had to die in order for humans to colonize the galaxy, then she had to die.

Yes, at first he said that. Then he said he figured out how to save her and keep things on track, which he did.

He didn't actually. She died. As if time were fixing itself.

 

[Mr Awe]

Take for example WoM. The Dr was talking about how Adelaide and her grand daughter were single handedly responsible for humans colonizing the galaxy. My view is that without Adelaide, the story of humans colonizing the galaxy would be largely the same but the characters would've been different (insert people other than Adelaide and grand daughter).

It's a perfectly valid point of view but within the Doctor Who fictional universe, we pretty much have to take anything the Doctor says about time on face value, considering that he's apparently able to see the big picture. If he's saying that Adelaide had to die in order for humans to colonize the galaxy, then she had to die.

You may be right about that, or may not as bacl points out. I'm just stating that I don't like that point of view. Yeah, I know, that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But, we've all got our 0.02.

Mr Awe

 

[RevdKathy]

^^^ A lot of this discussion comes down to how you view history. I think there are very few cases where individual people will affect the grand course of human history. I'm talking grand scheme of things.

You mention Armstrong. By switching countries, you're talking a bigger change than just Armstrong. There'd be a lot of other changes necessary for that change. You have to be careful about understand exactly what would have to change to bring about Armstrong not being the first man on the moon. You're talking about another country having the technological, financial, political will combined to get it done faster than the US. That's a lot of people that would have to be different.

Hitler played a large role but he fed upon the existing situation. If not him, someone else.

Someone would've come up with the Theory of Relativity eventually. Sure, delayed. But, again, if not Einstein, someone else. If no Shakespeare, well, you'd be silly to suggest that someone would write the same plays but I'm sure that someone would've written good literature! Good plays! If suddenly people were incapable of writing good plays you're talking about a larger change than just no Shakespeare!

I think people can affect history. And, those changes can be large from the perspective of the people living in or near those times. But, we're talking the grand course of human history. And, no, I don't think individuals bear much on that. Smaller history, on the scale of a century, sure. Longer than that, the effect of individuals diminishes greatly and continues to diminish with longer time scales.

Mr Awe

I would disagree that the impact of individuals diminishes over time, if anything the potential is for it to increase.

Remove some peasant from medeval England, for instance, the initial impact is minimal/ However say he would have fathered two children, now they don't exist. The impact on the next generation is greater. Now obviously those two children would have had children...and so on and so far. Most family trees get wider and wider the further down you go. Now you could remove a peasant and history won't be appreciably changed, but you could remove a peasant-a nobody- and suddenly thousands of people would have never existed. Now imagine all the people whose lives those thousands would have imapcted upon. The people they didn't kill in battle, the people they didn't save, the people they didn't bully at school who went on to make something of themselves, the people they didn't inspire, the people they didn't stifle...I'm not saying humanity would have ground to a halt, but things would have potentially happened very differently.

Suddenly I feel a need to reach for a copy of Mark Twain and murmur that every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.

Time and whether it's alterable (or not) is a staple of Sci-fi. Someone already mentioned City on the Edge of Forever as a related story. Tomorrow is Yesterday would be another one. I'm also reminded of an ep of Quantum Leap where Sam meet Marilyn Munroe: cleverly we are not shown that the future Sam is trying to prevent is not he one we know. The timeline he creates is the one we are familiar with.

Doctor Who has never really set out to be consistent. Personally, while I don't mind a bit of fluidity, I find the amount of it in modern Who challenging. The invention of 'fixed points' feels a little too much like a plot device. For no particular reason we are suddenly told that 'this' is a fixed point, never-to-be-changed despite the fact that for the last however many eps, the Doctor has been cheerfully screwing with timelines like there was no tomorrow.

Either time is tight-woven like a mesh and you can't mess with it without it all unravelling or the Doctor is a Time Lord and can change things.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I've finally watched it. First my thoughts and then I'll go back and read the thread. Hopefully I don't have too many repetitive thoughts...

Very good episode, although not quite as good as I had hoped. I loved the Ice Warriors reference and I was relieved that the infection didn't lead to their creation. Early on, I thought I figured out the ending of the episode, that The Doctor would be responsible for the destruction of Bowie Base One. Instead, I was surprised (and a bit taken aback) by The Doctor's sudden pompous decision to take on time and trying to bend it to his will. And failed. Felt like Chaos Theory and time teamed up and smacked The Doctor across the face.

I loved The Doctor's love/hate relationship with Gadget which felt reminiscent to The Fourth Doctor's relationship with K-9. The Tenth Doctor saying he hated funny robots felt like he was still bitter at K-9 beating him in chess (but maybe that's just me).

As usual The Doctor left me in stitches with his rambling but this one took the cake: "I just open my mouth and words come out. Doesn't make much sense." That's The Doctor in a nutshell far too often.

Small side thought: Was anyone else reminded of 28 Days Later when Roman was infected by a single drop? Seemed reminiscent of Frank's death.

Hm, I thought I had more to say about this episode, but I guess not. Overall very emotional, although not that scary despite the media's claims prior to airing.

I can't wait for Christmas!

 

[Gepard]

I found it a bit... odd!

Disjointed, unconnected, out of sink, loose, lacking continuity - that wasn't right on several levels!

This is exactly how I feel. I haven't voted because none of the voting categories really fit what I feel about the episode.

Ditto. Additionally, once they brought in the "Fires of Pompeii" reference, I knew how the story was going to play out. Disappointing.

And, memo to the Doctor: you have a time machine. No need to drop the survivors on Earth the same day you swiped them. Take them to the year five billion and dump them on New Earth or something; they can live out their lives, the folks on Earth will think they all died, history would carry on as normal, and there will be no need for stupid power-tripping and suicides. Thank you for your attention. (In fact, when they first showed the old-time gas lamp on the showy street, I thought he'd taken the crew back to the 18th century to live in the past. It would have made more sense.)

 

[Captain Pike]

Yes I thought the same thing, and you make a good point Gep.

 

[bismarck_1892]

I enjoyed it very much. But the show isn't for children anymore is it?! They follow the audience. Good for them.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I enjoyed it very much. But the show isn't for children anymore is it?! They follow the audience. Good for them.

It hasn't been "for children" since the 1970's. This is a family show.

 

[bismarck_1892]

I enjoyed it very much. But the show isn't for children anymore is it?! They follow the audience. Good for them.

It hasn't been "for children" since the 1970's. This is a family show.

I'm not sure I see a clear distiction, but when one of the main characters commits suicide it stops being a "family show" as well.

 

[Sci]

I enjoyed it very much. But the show isn't for children anymore is it?! They follow the audience. Good for them.

It hasn't been "for children" since the 1970's. This is a family show.

I'm not sure I see a clear distiction, but when one of the main characters commits suicide it stops being a "family show" as well.

Does it?

I think it depends on the execution of such plot points, not on their mere presence or absence. I mean, The Lion King features murder, Aladdin features slavery, and The Little Mermaid features nudity. That doesn't mean they're not family films.

I agree that "The Waters of Mars" is more intense than most Doctor Who episodes -- which I think is why they included Gadget, to lighten the mood at key points -- but I don't think it's fair to take from that the idea that Doctor Who is primarily for adults now (especially considering that "Planet of the Dead" was obviously intended as a family-friendly romp).

ETA:

And, frankly, I'd just like to note that I get a little bit angry every time I see an adult trying to take something that is obviously meant to be for children as much as it is for adults and appropriate it so that it's only for adults.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Okay, but certainly this was no Lion King, etc... The show was much darker then any other, not because of the scary monsters but because she committed suicide at the end. I'm not "appropriating" just stating what I believe to be a fact. Like it or not, they were hitting at a much darker place then Lion King. I don't think that the show suddenly became for adults though. I doubt that's the case. Dr. Who is meant for the young and the young at heart.

 

[Australis]

Well, whether you're an adult or a kid, a little darkness can come into your life. It's a matter of degree, I suppose. And hopefully a kid can see, or have explained to them, that by committing suicide she was trying to put history back on course.