Why? If it is explained, it's explained, and I'm quite prepared to keep pointing that out. Most of the time, of it's explained, it helps to point it out.
The phrase I used was "don't be so quick".
Your initial 2 replies on this thread were short, sharp and rather dismissive of other posters very relevant queries.
It's good to see you have since apologised, but perhaps if posters thought a bit more before dismissing others views so easily then we wouldn't have such bad feeling and arguements on the forum.
But in The Angels Take Manhattan, he clearly does fudge it and it's quite silly that some people don't see that.
The New York problem makes no sense at all, even assuming the Doctor hadn't left New York at the end.
That's my point. When a writer fudges it, there's a bit of dialogue explaining how they're fudging it. We don't know enough about the mechanics of time travel to prove the Doctor wrong, we just have to take his word for it. But his word is there on screen, albeit minus the technicalities. That's different from glossing over it or ignoring it completely.
Your initial 2 replies on this thread were short, sharp and rather dismissive of other posters very relevant queries.
It's good to see you have since apologised, but perhaps if posters thought a bit more before dismissing others views so easily then we wouldn't have such bad feeling and arguements on the forum.
This is in no way an excuse, but I'm currently on pain medication. I misremembered something yesterday, and any dismissiveness is entirely unintentional. However, I am very rarely on any form of medication, and have found my unmedicated memory to be quite dependable!
What, and pay money? You know a man who can travel anywhere in time and space, so of course you're going to use him to visit a holiday destination and be instantly there, no packing, booking, waiting at the airport, etc.
Given his nature of finding trouble I might give it a miss.
That's my point. When a writer fudges it, there's a bit of dialogue explaining how they're fudging it. We don't know enough about the mechanics of time travel to prove the Doctor wrong, we just have to take his word for it. But his word is there on screen, albeit minus the technicalities. That's different from glossing over it or ignoring it completely.
I see what you mean, but I think that's even worse. A handwave without elaboration frustrates me even more than a full-on plot hole, because it means the writer is aware of the issue and has chosen not to attend to it, rather than missing the problem.
I see what you mean, but I think that's even worse. A handwave without elaboration frustrates me even more than a full-on plot hole, because it means the writer is aware of the issue and has chosen not to attend to it, rather than missing the problem.
Agreed - this is one of the reasons people get frustrated with the sonic screwdriver, for instance. Generally small things like that don't bother me. Bigger things that contradict or ignore established rules are more of a problem.
I'm inclined to allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to things that cannot make any sense, i.e. time travel paradoxes. There's no way to make time travel and causality make perfect sense in the same way as we expect (say) gravity to work - all I ask is that the script make some attempt to justify its artistic choices. It doesn't have be scientifically sound, if it fits the theme of the story.
In this case, I don't need to know why the Doctor cannot revisit New York, I can safely assume that any reason I can come up with has already been thought of by the Doctor. I can accept that justification because I know its purpose is to keep them separate.
Agreed - this is one of the reasons people get frustrated with the sonic screwdriver, for instance. Generally small things like that don't bother me. Bigger things that contradict or ignore established rules are more of a problem.
I'm inclined to allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to things that cannot make any sense, i.e. time travel paradoxes. There's no way to make time travel and causality make perfect sense in the same way as we expect (say) gravity to work - all I ask is that the script make some attempt to justify its artistic choices. It doesn't have be scientifically sound, if it fits the theme of the story.
In this case, I don't need to know why the Doctor cannot revisit New York, I can safely assume that any reason I can come up with has already been thought of by the Doctor. I can accept that justification because I know its purpose is to keep them separate.
The problem is that the New York travel issue is established as a key plot point from the start - actually it's the basis of the whole plot, as it's the only reason they can't just keep picking Rory up in the past and not panic about it. The whole business with the Doctor reading the chapter titles is only digging Amy and Rory a symbolically deeper grave, the New York issue is what kills/strands them plot-wise.
So Moffat could have avoided the issue altogether, as he's the one who came up with the problem in the first place. But within that very same episode, just half an hour after he's established that plot point, he lets it get wildly out of control and it no longer makes any sense. And he handwaves it away. The more sensible thing would have been for Moffat to thinks "whoa, hang on, this New York issue is really messing this ending up. Better get rid of that and write something else." Instead he thinks "hmm, this New York issue is messing up the ending, better throw in a line to smooth that over". It's very bad, lazy writing. Shame, because every other aspect of the episode is brilliant IMO.
So Moffat could have avoided the issue altogether, as he's the one who came up with the problem in the first place. But within that very same episode, just half an hour after he's established that plot point, he lets it get wildly out of control and it no longer makes any sense. And he handwaves it away. The more sensible thing would have been for Moffat to thinks "whoa, hang on, this New York issue is really messing this ending up. Better get rid of that and write something else." Instead he thinks "hmm, this New York issue is messing up the ending, better throw in a line to smooth that over". It's very bad, lazy writing. Shame, because every other aspect of the episode is brilliant IMO.
I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all. The 'New York' thing is the ending. Without it, it would be handwaved. He establishes that the ice is thin early on, with the payoff later being that the action of the episode have fractured it so much that he can't go back out on it without it shattering it completely. The bit with Amy's book is just confirmation that he wasn't able to find a way round the problem.
Earlier in the episode River told Rory her vortex manipulator was like "a motorbike through traffic". So why didn't she or even 11 use it to grab Amy and Rory in 1938 New York and take them back to present day ledworth ?. That way they would have kept them safe as 11 promised Brian in the previous episode POT. Amy and Roy deserved better.Only good thing as they never knew the truth about River. Her death and "after life" as a data ghost.
Earlier in the episode River told Rory her vortex manipulator was like "a motorbike through traffic". So why didn't she or even 11 use it to grab Amy and Rory in 1938 New York and take them back to present day ledworth ?
Because no matter how subtle the method you use to get there, the problem (and consequences) of removing Amy and Rory is the same.
Comments
The phrase I used was "don't be so quick".
Your initial 2 replies on this thread were short, sharp and rather dismissive of other posters very relevant queries.
It's good to see you have since apologised, but perhaps if posters thought a bit more before dismissing others views so easily then we wouldn't have such bad feeling and arguements on the forum.
That's my point. When a writer fudges it, there's a bit of dialogue explaining how they're fudging it. We don't know enough about the mechanics of time travel to prove the Doctor wrong, we just have to take his word for it. But his word is there on screen, albeit minus the technicalities. That's different from glossing over it or ignoring it completely.
This is in no way an excuse, but I'm currently on pain medication. I misremembered something yesterday, and any dismissiveness is entirely unintentional. However, I am very rarely on any form of medication, and have found my unmedicated memory to be quite dependable!
Given his nature of finding trouble I might give it a miss.
I see what you mean, but I think that's even worse. A handwave without elaboration frustrates me even more than a full-on plot hole, because it means the writer is aware of the issue and has chosen not to attend to it, rather than missing the problem.
I'm inclined to allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to things that cannot make any sense, i.e. time travel paradoxes. There's no way to make time travel and causality make perfect sense in the same way as we expect (say) gravity to work - all I ask is that the script make some attempt to justify its artistic choices. It doesn't have be scientifically sound, if it fits the theme of the story.
In this case, I don't need to know why the Doctor cannot revisit New York, I can safely assume that any reason I can come up with has already been thought of by the Doctor. I can accept that justification because I know its purpose is to keep them separate.
The problem is that the New York travel issue is established as a key plot point from the start - actually it's the basis of the whole plot, as it's the only reason they can't just keep picking Rory up in the past and not panic about it. The whole business with the Doctor reading the chapter titles is only digging Amy and Rory a symbolically deeper grave, the New York issue is what kills/strands them plot-wise.
So Moffat could have avoided the issue altogether, as he's the one who came up with the problem in the first place. But within that very same episode, just half an hour after he's established that plot point, he lets it get wildly out of control and it no longer makes any sense. And he handwaves it away. The more sensible thing would have been for Moffat to thinks "whoa, hang on, this New York issue is really messing this ending up. Better get rid of that and write something else." Instead he thinks "hmm, this New York issue is messing up the ending, better throw in a line to smooth that over". It's very bad, lazy writing. Shame, because every other aspect of the episode is brilliant IMO.
I'm sorry, I'm not following you at all. The 'New York' thing is the ending. Without it, it would be handwaved. He establishes that the ice is thin early on, with the payoff later being that the action of the episode have fractured it so much that he can't go back out on it without it shattering it completely. The bit with Amy's book is just confirmation that he wasn't able to find a way round the problem.