Weeping Angels and the "boo" ghosts from Super Mario Bros
- Thread starter Whofan
- Start date
Moffat addressed that, in the episode a reference was made that went along the lines of The Doctor saying the ones he met on Earth, were scavengers and had little of there normal power.
YES !! And that's the greatest aspect of Doctor Who...
I've been watching the old Tom Baker episodes on Netflix recently, and just like those episodes the new Who series is following a long tradition of half-baked science, becuase that's not the point. It's about stories full of danger, allegory, and a ton of brilliant fun. It's loose and silly and scary and cool.
No one argues where the bridge turbo-lift is positioned on the TARDIS. If you're looking for continuity and purified canon, watch (then complain about) Star Trek... you wanna have a good fun time, then Who's it!! I've been having the best time watching the classics and the latest incarnations.
Fucking ridiculous? Yer goddamn right !!!
I need a reasonable level of plot logic to find it engaging. Angel pictures become Angels is just absurd, and only really existed so we could have that scene that ripped off The Ring. It's true that old Who was also capable of some dodgy science, but there was an effort there for things to make a reasonable amount of sense. It seems the legacy of the RTD era means that's gone out of the window.
I can respect that.
I've always found your posts to be quite enjoyable; smart and fair, with well thought out opinions.
Last edited:
Fridge Brilliance - Moffat's "that which holds the image of an angel..." neatly explains how the Doctor and Martha ran into the Weeping Angels in the first place by making them the ones that came from Sally's pictures.
Why thank you, that's very kind
I can respect that.
I've always found your posts to be quite enjoyable; smart and fair, with well thought out opinions.
I doubt that's what Moffat intended, and despite what every sci-fi hack would like to pretend, paradoxes aren't inherently clever. Remember The Doctor's Daughter? The reason they were there was because the TARDIS detected Time Lord DNA (or something, it's been a while) but landed earlier and it was that earlier landing that meant the Doctor was cloned etc. That's not clever at all. It's stupid, and so would be a picture of an Angel creating that same Angel.
Eh, I like paradoxes. I don't think time travel works without them.
'Fraid I don't see the stupidity there. I agree it probably wasn't intended, but I don't see how it's stupid that the picture of the Angel became that Angel. I mean, by that theory if Sally never took the picture/s, there probably never would have been Weeping Angels to threaten her; if Skynet never sent back a Terminator, there may well have never been a John Connor.
What if they're meant to be "funny" rather than "clever"? What if it were just a plot-point like the beginning, middle, and end? What if the structure of the paradox made more sense than RTD's entire run? What about if the paradox was written to show that The Doctor was best when it was the Classic Who era? What if this paradox involved naked women and lots of free cash? What if this paradox were the children of your best friends? What then, Bones? I think you would change your tune on paradoxes THEN, pal...................
Well obviously; but why do you think this particular paradox is daft, since you said paradoxes can be good devices?
Mainly because anything with an Angel's image becoming an Angel is too stupidly daft for me to accept in the first place. To then follow on that Sally Sparrow's picture became that same Angel itself (what, did she leave her photos in that garden or something?) - something that I highly doubt Moffat thought of or intended - is explaining something about a great story that didn't need explaining by using the silly idea of a later story. That it's a paradox doesn't give it additional sci-fi credibility for me, but if it makes you squee then I'm happy for you.
Similar threads
