Rate Flesh and Stone

Rate Flesh and Stone

10
0
No votes
9
0
No votes
8
1
100%
7
0
No votes
6
0
No votes
5
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
3
0
No votes
2
0
No votes
1
0
No votes
0
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 1
User avatar
Kajaboy
 
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:11 am
Contact:

If you completely change the rules by which a monster functions then that monster has no right being there. They could and should have come up with something new.

I seem to be saying that a lot this series.
My next door neighbour mixed up her KY jelly with the superglue. I asked her how she managed that but her lips are sealed.
User avatar
Shaving Foamasi
 
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:51 am
Contact:

Kajaboy wrote:If you completely change the rules by which a monster functions then that monster has no right being there. They could and should have come up with something new.

I seem to be saying that a lot this series.
And my point is that has happened throughout the show's history. You could make a case that RTD did exactly that with The Master. He definitely did with the Macra and he sidestepped it by making the Cybermen come from an alternative Universe but by doing so, they weren't like the Cybermen from the original series at all, IMHO, and might as well have been a different race altogether.

It's just how far you're prepared to suspend your disbelief.
You mean you believed the Doctor would never regenerate into a woman?
User avatar
Kajaboy
 
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:11 am
Contact:

Shaving Foamasi wrote: And my point is that has happened throughout the show's history. You could make a case that RTD did exactly that with The Master. He definitely did with the Macra and he sidestepped it by making the Cybermen come from an alternative Universe but by doing so, they weren't like the Cybermen from the original series at all, IMHO, and might as well have been a different race altogether.

It's just how far you're prepared to suspend your disbelief.
The rules for the Cybermen change with every story so I can believe almost anything.
The Macra were seen for seconds in the new series so it's not really a fair comparison.
And as for the Master, there never really were any rules for him. He's gotten more and more OTT with every regeneration so again I could believe everything that RTD did with him. I mean it's not like he stopped wanting to gain control of people and planets and went to live in a cottage by the sea doing work for Green Peace.
My next door neighbour mixed up her KY jelly with the superglue. I asked her how she managed that but her lips are sealed.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

" I mean it's not like he stopped wanting to gain control of people and planets and went to live in a cottage by the sea doing work for Green Peace"

Sounds like a great story to me!
chap with wings
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
Contact:

rules are made to be broken , logic only constrains imagination.
"It can become a kind of franchise where it's not a real character at all, but just an amalgam of elements that people think are Doctor Who: a scarf, a bow tie... I wanted to be the actual Doctor Who." - Peter Capaldi

Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BlogFinish

My Big Finish Review Archive is here - http://blogfinishplanetmondas.blogspot.co.uk/
Makkabee
 
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:01 am
Contact:

Shaving Foamasi wrote:
What a load of pretentious and patronising drivel.

You do realise that Doctor Who is a family based TV drama don't you and not a James Joyce novel don't you?
You get what you dish out, foamy.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln (attributed)
vindu
 
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:logic only constrains imagination.
That's not true (I quibble with the "only"). Often it is the other way around. Logic empowers imagination: it can take tremendous creativity to work within constraints, and the resulting art can be orders of magnitude more satisfying than art made under very loose constraints.

cheers
Vin
Makkabee
 
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:01 am
Contact:

On reflection, I overreacted to Shaving Foamasi's comment. While I still maintain that the excuse Moffatt wrote for the changes doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, I should have been much more tactful in the way I expressed that. I apologize.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln (attributed)
chap with wings
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
Contact:

vindu wrote:
chap with wings wrote:logic only constrains imagination.
That's not true (I quibble with the "only"). Often it is the other way around. Logic empowers imagination: it can take tremendous creativity to work within constraints, and the resulting art can be orders of magnitude more satisfying than art made under very loose constraints.

cheers
Vin
But why bother setting up the constraints in the first place? Logic should not be a blockade to art.
"It can become a kind of franchise where it's not a real character at all, but just an amalgam of elements that people think are Doctor Who: a scarf, a bow tie... I wanted to be the actual Doctor Who." - Peter Capaldi

Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BlogFinish

My Big Finish Review Archive is here - http://blogfinishplanetmondas.blogspot.co.uk/
vindu
 
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:
vindu wrote:
chap with wings wrote:logic only constrains imagination.
That's not true (I quibble with the "only"). Often it is the other way around. Logic empowers imagination: it can take tremendous creativity to work within constraints, and the resulting art can be orders of magnitude more satisfying than art made under very loose constraints.

cheers
Vin
But why bother setting up the constraints in the first place? Logic should not be a blockade to art.
What I am saying is that constraints can (and often do) enable wonderful art. Sometimes the constraints are inherent in the medium. Let's say you want to write a piano sonata. There are no words, so you have to find a way to express yourself using different variables: pitch, melody, harmony, dynamics, timbre, tempo. You are presumably hoping that people will wish to listen to your sonata. It is helpful to have some consistency in how you use these variables, so that the listener has something to latch onto, and so that the listener can begin to invest in what is going on. But you also need variety to keep them interested. All of this has a logic to it; not an imposed logic, but the natural logic of the interactions between a piece of music and a listener.

If you go to the extreme of being completely programmed and predictable, then, yes, false "logic" has blocked your art. On the other hand, if there is no structure at all then the listener has very little chance of caring about any of it.

cheers
Vin
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Hmm. Well, I haven't scored it yet - if I can squeeze in another viewing first, I will, or if not, when I've made my mind up. Apart from that, I've religiously avoided checking out anyone else's opinions until I've given mine, which, FWTW, are...

I thought this story had quite a lot going for it. The pacing and structure were good, as was the acting - I'm actually getting to quite like River Song now. She seems to me like a person the Doctor would marry - i.e. she's a match for him, in more senses than one. Hopefully all this business about what she is, what she's done and so on will be cleared up in the finale.

We had some crackling tension - the Doctor surrounded by Angels, Amy abandoned in the forest and (in a somewhat ironic reversal) unable to open her eyes. And the resolution to the cliff-hanger was carefully built into the story, and reused later to good effect. (And I have to say it was quite amusing that, about 50 years after it was first invented - possibly in a comic strip, I forget the details - the phrase "with one mighty bound they were free!" actually finally made sense!)

And Moffat did, in fact, address a problem that I and several others noticed last week - if "the image of an Angel becomes an Angel", does that also work with the image in your eye, or your memory? Kudos to Moffat for tackling that rather abstruse point, and even making it central to the story (can you imagine RTD even thinking of that?)
And we were spared "everyone lives!" this time, for which I was grateful.

But unfortunately, there were also some huge let-downs.

First off, we had a "reset switch" ending. Even if it's been foreshadowed throughout the series, that crack in time is still a "get out of jail free card". And exactly what was going on with the crack in time, anyway? We were led to believe that it was erasing people - and later the Angels - from history, which would also - we were led to believe - erase them from the memories of everyone concerned (except for time travellers - i.e. the Doctor, Amy and River Song). So what exactly did the soldier-priests *think* they were doing there, by the end? Why did River Song think she might have earned a pardon, if no one else was going to remember anything of what had happened? I can't help feeling that Moffat was being "too clever by half" here!

[As an aside, a friend of mine (like me a fan of "Doctor Who" but not a member of "Doctor Who fandom") thought the above comment was too harsh. He said: "Oh, I dunno if it's fair to blame the Moff for that one. Surely what he's having to do is to get out of the awful corner that the Who universe has been painted in to by RTD. The situation whereby the whole human race has had so much interaction with aliens simply couldn't continue. The ultimate "reset" was needed, but I quite like the fact that it seems to have become an integral part of the series storyline." I may come to agree with him; it depends on how things develop as the series progresses. However...]

We also had the fudging of the Angels being "quantum locked" by observation. In "Blink" we were given the impression that this was some sort of law of physics at work, but now - apparently - they freeze when they only think someone's looking at them???! I'm afraid that seems so ridiculous that it might have been written by his predecessor...!

(I was, incidentally, expecting some sort of clever resolution for what would happen when the Angels caught up with Amy. My guess - there was a monitor screen in the control room with the Doctor, through which he could see part of the forest. I thought perhaps he'd track Amy with that, thereby keeping her and any nearby Angels under observation. So the Angels would try to pounce on her, but when they appeared on the screen, and hence were being watched by the Doctor, they would freeze at the last moment. That could have been pretty effective, IMHO - him guiding Amy through the forest, her bumping into frozen Angels - with the added worry that this would lead to the Angels eventually seeping out through the monitor screen to get him and River Song...)

But instead we had the utterly stupid idea that they didn't move because they "thought she could see them" - even though one of them was in the process of possessing her at the time! - as though they can't tell the difference between being turned to stone - or, as the Doctor said last week, actually "ceasing to exist" - while under observation, and, er, NOT turning to stone or ceasing to exist. That one point was so absurdly daft that for me it more or less wrecked the whole thing.

Admittedly it was nice - and very, very spooky - to actually see them move. But it was like when you first see the creature inside a Dalek - seeing it isn't half as scary as imagining it. For me, at least, that scene was "a retcon too far". I don't mind Moffat changing a lot of stuff - Angels can get into your mind, Angels can come out of the TV, Angels don't send you back in time, Angels can whip out your brain and use it as a communicator . . . those were all improvements, IMHO. To be a viable threat, the Angels needed to lose their sillier aspects, just as the Daleks needed to escape from relying on metal floors. But tampering with the fundamental thing that makes the Angels what they are - well, that just felt wrong, as though Terry Nation had written a scene in which a Dalek creature hopped out of its casing for a pint and a fag. Ultimately (and I say this very reluctantly, because in many ways this was an excellent story) that ruined my suspension of disbelief.

As for Amy coming on to the Doctor....what? What? WHAT??? was that all about? His response, thank God, was along the lines of "Look, I'm a 900 year old, super-intelligent alien, and you're a . . . human :roll: " But what was she supposed to be thinking? He clearly wasn't interested, so . . . was it the result of shock? Some sort of jealous response to meeting River Song? Explaining what a kissogram is...? I'm afraid that scene needs a decent explanation somewhere further down the line or the effect will be to further detract from her character, which, what with being taken over and then wandering around in a forest surrounded by nasties, has turned just a bit too Susanesque for my liking.

(Mind you, this was written by the same person who thought the Doctor would fall for Reinette because she was good at gardening, and gave us such immortal lines as "The clock on the mantel is broken! It is time!")

Sigh.

Hmm. So anyway - approximately 1000x better than anything by RTD, but that isn't saying much. Fairly good, but should have been a whole lot better - looked like it was going to be for most of the time, but then fell on its face. I'm thinking maybe 6 or 7/10.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:But why bother setting up the constraints in the first place? Logic should not be a blockade to art.
Why did Picasso decide to have his "Blue Period" ?

Art is about constraints. The best feeling after writing a story (or, I suspect, painting a picture - etc!) is that it could not have come out any differently - that it's exactly how it should be. (Someone said that a novel is finished when there is nothing left to take out*, which is kind of similar...)

Anyone who doubts that constraints are good for art might like to compare the first seasons of a certain TV show that was revived a few years ago. The original version had a budget of 2s/6d and gave us alien planets, trips into history, and fantastically imaginative writing. The revived one had a million pounds per episode and didn't leave earth orbit, either imaginatively or literally.

Not mentioning any names. ;)

*OK, the actual quote wasn't quite that! "Perfection is attained, not when no more can be added, but when no more can be removed." – Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Gorkle wrote:I mean, we've all been there, haven't we? Some impossibly young, attractive, bewildered, over-excited person throwing themselves at you and begging you to sleep with them, seemingly out of the blue.
Happens to me most nights.
Image
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

toxicspurge wrote:It's called "Willing Supsension of Disbelief". The author presents us with a fictional scenario. We agree to accept that the basic premises of this scenario. In exchange, the author agrees to keep things logically consistent within the framework of the scenario. We choose (I say "choose", but it's not so much a voluntary choice most of the time) how far the author can stretch the premise before we're no longer willing to accept he or she is operating within the rules he/she has set up. Thus, we "decide" how far we're willing to suspend our disbelief.

Some people have a higher threshold than others. The more "stretches" to the original constraints you're wiling to accept, the more you can stay within the "suspension of disbelief".

I enjoyed Superman; The Movie when it came out. We accept going in that a man can fly, etc. When the "suspension of disbelief" bubble burst for me was when Superman flew around the planet, reversing it's direction of rotation and turning back time. (1. You'd destroy the planet reversing it's rotation. 2. The flow of time has nothing to do with which direction the planet rotates).

I don't think the degree to which you can suspend disbelief, though, is a measure of your critical thinking abilities. It's more a measure of how much you're willing to stuff into the "disbelief" bag. Some people are willing to overlook huge gaps in logical consistency for the sake of enjoying the story. For others, the smallest mistake or chronal anachronism (That model car wasn't made until two years after the year the movie was set) burst their bubble.

One's not necessarily better than the other, they're just different. It doesn't necessarily mean you don't have critical thinking skills if you can suspend disbelief more. Some people can do that for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. Some people can't.
I believe you. :ace:
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20951
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Zenith wrote:I think it's the equivalent of a Dyson Sphere, the planet/surface you are on has its own gravity but if you flew up to the inner shell of the Dyson Sphere you are then subject to it's Gravity instead.... The Doctors stunt enables the crew to swap one gravity's attraction for the one above. It could have been put across better maybe but i definitly got the idea behind it.
You happen to be wrong about that, because the gravity of a sphere is effectively concentrated at its centre, which is why it's called the "centre of gravity" ! :geek: However, I'm only telling you that because of my pedantry addiction. I know what you mean. It worked for me, too, even though it looked like a long way to jump.......but the star ship has an artificial gravity field, and who knows how that works, anyway?

"It's my planet and if I want to rocks to sing, they will!"
User avatar
WHOis007?
 
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:53 am
Location: New England
Contact:

It's.....um...a Dyson Sphere is a hollow sphere built around a star. On which lives people.

You'd never guess...but yes, the things are f'in' huge.
"Beat you, cock."

Oh Tom. You and your double entendres.
User avatar
Shaving Foamasi
 
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:51 am
Contact:

Makkabee wrote:On reflection, I overreacted to Shaving Foamasi's comment. While I still maintain that the excuse Moffatt wrote for the changes doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, I should have been much more tactful in the way I expressed that. I apologize.
Apology accepted. I wasn't having a go at you personally, honestly. FWIW, I don't think Moffat's explanation really stands up to any scrutiny either but what makes that any different to, say the explanation of Davros' survival after Genesis of the Daleks or his escape from the ending of Resurrection of the Daleks? These things happen all the time in Doctor Who.

Some you just let ride because the story is entertaining and gripping - some just make you cringe. It reminds me of Nicolas Parsons' comment on the Curse of Fenric commentary where he says there are many times in Doctor Who where normally you would say nobody in their right mind would do that but as it is Doctor Who and the story is exciting and gripping, you just let it pass.
You mean you believed the Doctor would never regenerate into a woman?
vindu
 
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:34 am
Contact:

LizR wrote: You happen to be wrong about that, because the gravity of a sphere is effectively concentrated at its centre, which is why it's called the "centre of gravity" !
There's a nice calculation, originally due to Newton, which establishes that, for a hollow sphere of mass M:

(i) outside the sphere, the gravitational field is the same as the field due to a point mass M at the centre of the sphere;
(ii) inside the sphere, the gravitational field is zero.

The sudden shift between the inside and the outside has wonderful imaginative consequences. And it means that the "centre of gravity" concept is a bit odder than it might seem at first.

cheers
Vin
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Well, that's not exactly true. If you're at the precise center of the inside of the hollow sphere, the gravity is essentially zero. However, if you're inside the sphere but not at the center, there is gravity. The gravity force and direction would be depended upon where you are in the sphere.
toxicspurge
 
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

It is, however, a moot point since we're talking about a dyson sphere which really isn't a hollow sphere since it has the sun at the center.
Post Reply

Return to “SERIES 5”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests