I've never understood this nonsense about "having been written and read it becomes immutable". You can write anything in a book. it doesn't have to be true so why would reading something that someone else could have entirely fabricated make it inevitable?
:rolleyes:
I agree with this. The whole thing with the book was ridiculous because, as you mentioned, anybody can write anything in a book and that doesn't mean it's true. I think it's just lazy writing, that's all.
I think the whole 'immutable' aspect of that book was that it detailed the turn-of-events they were currently going through AS they read it. So to read it means it definitely happen(s/ed).
Which is fine and makes sense whilst you're IN the adventure the book describes. However, after the adventure - and after the book finishes - the reader can do what they like. Enabling the Doctor to go back to 1930's New Jersey, get a cab across the Brooklyn Bridge and rescue Amy & Rory.
In a show that involves time travel they've already mentioned fixed events and a war that was destroying reality. Is it too much of a stretch to accept that the Weeping Angels somehow move you back in time and until you reach the point you were lifted from you can't travel in time again?
In addition it might not be that it's not the Doctor couldn't meet up with Amy and Rory ever again it's that he is never recorded as that doing so and that he might have his own reasons for never doing so. Yes he could sneak them off only to return them in time to die of old age or simply fake the records. However, if those records are to be believed, if he leaves them alone they'll have a long retirement together. Given Amy decided to be with Rory rather than the Doctor it wouldn't respect her wishes for him to try to change her mind.
If Amy wanted the Doctor to come and pick her up, she would have mentioned in the book that he came and picked her up.
She wouldn't lie just for the hell of it - that message was intended for the Doctor. By saying "and I never saw him again" she's either telling the truth (and the Doctor never sees her again) or she's lying (and the Doctor does see her again, but she doesn't want him to know about it).
In a show that involves time travel they've already mentioned fixed events and a war that was destroying reality. Is it too much of a stretch to accept that the Weeping Angels somehow move you back in time and until you reach the point you were lifted from you can't travel in time again?
Well given that did not apply to the Doctor and Martha when they were sent back to 1969 by the Angels yes it is too much of a stretch.
Well given that did not apply to the Doctor and Martha when they were sent back to 1969 by the Angels yes it is too much of a stretch.
Isnt that because their being sent back was also part of future events! Amy and Rory had set up a publishing business that would affect future events for the Doctor, by rescuing them, wouldn't those future events be affected and therefore causing the paradox? If the book had not been published the Doctor would not have known what happened to them so if he rescues them and the book is never published....yada yada!
Isnt that because their being sent back was also part of future events! Amy and Rory had set up a publishing business that would affect future events for the Doctor, by rescuing them, wouldn't those future events be affected and therefore causing the paradox? If the book had not been published the Doctor would not have known what happened to them so if he rescues them and the book is never published....yada yada!
Orri didn't mention anything about the book.
He suggested that once you were sent back in time by an Angel you were unable to time travel until you reached the point you were sent back from.
I pointed out that wasn't the case for Martha and the Doctor in Blink.
I think it's not so much much about the Doctor going back for them, there isn't anything to actually stop him from going to New Jersey and picking them up in a bus, but doing so would mean that Rory wouldn't one day die in New York and be buried in a New York cemetery. Rory not being buried in the cemetery would mean that there would be no head stone to distract a younger Rory long enough to be sent back in time by an Angel, and if Rory isn't sent back to the past, how can he be rescued from the past?
Saving Rory from a fate that only happens because he will fall victim to that fate, which later sets him to fall into that fate forever, would create a paradox. Which would be bad.
Someone mentioned the 'can't they just get a bus somewhere else?' thing to Moffat ages ago. He had an answer (kind of).
So why could Amy and Rory not just travel to Washington (or Boston, or anywhere for that matter) and meet The Doctor there? Had Moffat left a useful plot thread dangling to bring the beloved companions back in a couple of years? Not so, according to Moffat...
“New York would still burn. The point being, he can’t interfere. Here’s the ‘fan answer’ - this is not what you’d ever put out on BBC One, because most people watch the show and just think, ‘well there’s a gravestone so obviously he can’t visit them again’. But the ‘fan answer’ is, in normal circumstances he might have gone back and said, ‘look we’ll just put a headstone up and we’ll just write the book’. But there is so much scar tissue, and the number of paradoxes that have already been inflicted on that nexus of timelines, that it will rip apart if you try to do one more thing. He has to leave it alone. Normally he could perform some surgery, this time too much surgery has already been performed. But imagine saying that on BBC One!”
"Time locked" just means "We hate the Time Lords" in Moffat/Davies speak.
Suuure everyone from Davros to his wicked step sister can get through the "lock" but none of those nasty Time Lords will ever get through. We hate them, they suck.
Sure, let's create a "sorta but not" Time Lord in River Song...but don't ever expect someone like Romana to ever appear, even though her survival would make more sense than the Master's. Time Lords suck, after all.
And let's create a sexy "Time Agency" with those strapping wristbands that travel through time and costumes that look like they were left over from Adam and the Ants...but no Time Lords please, they suck.
That's what "Time Locked" means.
Erm... they did. The Time Lock is more of a way to explain why The Doctor is free to do what he likes, essentially freeing him but when a story is needed they can bring them back. In essence RTD and Moffat want The Doctor to be more like the first Doctor in that aspect.
As for Amy, the Doctor would be re-writing her life, a happy life in her own words... he couldn't go back because of the risks involved not only with the time line but also because Amy would refused causing The Doctor to face up to it rather than do what he usually does and run. Further it would cause issues with River, he knew he could not change the events of her life because of the events which were to come to her and the events which were in his past.
Comments
I agree with this. The whole thing with the book was ridiculous because, as you mentioned, anybody can write anything in a book and that doesn't mean it's true. I think it's just lazy writing, that's all.
Which is fine and makes sense whilst you're IN the adventure the book describes. However, after the adventure - and after the book finishes - the reader can do what they like. Enabling the Doctor to go back to 1930's New Jersey, get a cab across the Brooklyn Bridge and rescue Amy & Rory.
In addition it might not be that it's not the Doctor couldn't meet up with Amy and Rory ever again it's that he is never recorded as that doing so and that he might have his own reasons for never doing so. Yes he could sneak them off only to return them in time to die of old age or simply fake the records. However, if those records are to be believed, if he leaves them alone they'll have a long retirement together. Given Amy decided to be with Rory rather than the Doctor it wouldn't respect her wishes for him to try to change her mind.
She wouldn't lie just for the hell of it - that message was intended for the Doctor. By saying "and I never saw him again" she's either telling the truth (and the Doctor never sees her again) or she's lying (and the Doctor does see her again, but she doesn't want him to know about it).
Either way, she's telling him to stay away.
Well given that did not apply to the Doctor and Martha when they were sent back to 1969 by the Angels yes it is too much of a stretch.
Isnt that because their being sent back was also part of future events! Amy and Rory had set up a publishing business that would affect future events for the Doctor, by rescuing them, wouldn't those future events be affected and therefore causing the paradox? If the book had not been published the Doctor would not have known what happened to them so if he rescues them and the book is never published....yada yada!
Orri didn't mention anything about the book.
He suggested that once you were sent back in time by an Angel you were unable to time travel until you reached the point you were sent back from.
I pointed out that wasn't the case for Martha and the Doctor in Blink.
Fair enough!
Saving Rory from a fate that only happens because he will fall victim to that fate, which later sets him to fall into that fate forever, would create a paradox. Which would be bad.
So why could Amy and Rory not just travel to Washington (or Boston, or anywhere for that matter) and meet The Doctor there? Had Moffat left a useful plot thread dangling to bring the beloved companions back in a couple of years? Not so, according to Moffat...
“New York would still burn. The point being, he can’t interfere. Here’s the ‘fan answer’ - this is not what you’d ever put out on BBC One, because most people watch the show and just think, ‘well there’s a gravestone so obviously he can’t visit them again’. But the ‘fan answer’ is, in normal circumstances he might have gone back and said, ‘look we’ll just put a headstone up and we’ll just write the book’. But there is so much scar tissue, and the number of paradoxes that have already been inflicted on that nexus of timelines, that it will rip apart if you try to do one more thing. He has to leave it alone. Normally he could perform some surgery, this time too much surgery has already been performed. But imagine saying that on BBC One!”
Source: http://doctorwho.livejournal.com/8836482.html (which I think got it from Doctor Who Magazine).
Erm... they did. The Time Lock is more of a way to explain why The Doctor is free to do what he likes, essentially freeing him but when a story is needed they can bring them back. In essence RTD and Moffat want The Doctor to be more like the first Doctor in that aspect.
As for Amy, the Doctor would be re-writing her life, a happy life in her own words... he couldn't go back because of the risks involved not only with the time line but also because Amy would refused causing The Doctor to face up to it rather than do what he usually does and run. Further it would cause issues with River, he knew he could not change the events of her life because of the events which were to come to her and the events which were in his past.