DW7: Ep 6 - Poooooonds. *sniff*

[janne_d]

Or "The Angels Take Manhattan My Heart"



Ow, ow, ow.

Things I liked:
- the noir introduction with the detective, that was cool
- the book as a guide that they couldn't use for spoilers
- the idea that the Doctor can only change the future (his future?) when he doesn't know what it is, and the lines that time can only be rewritten if it hasn't been read
- (though in terms of fixed points, does that mean they are only fixed because a Time Lord knows about them? Timey-wimey makes my head hurt.)

Things that creeped me the hell out:
- Weeping Angels as non-angel statues
- baby Weeping Angels, ohmygod with the laughing *shudders*
- River saying that the chained Angel was screaming

Things that broke my heart:
- Rory
- Amy
- River's comments about not letting the Doctor see her get damaged or aged
- I started crying at the jump when Amy talked about together or not at all and didn't stop all through the credits
- Amelia in the garden with the voiceover turned me into a complete sobbing mess, even though I loved that the scene wasn't a dream in 11th Hour and that everything went full circle because that was perfection

And I'm done. Brb, sobbing forever while reading OT3 fic.

Comments

[buzzylittleb.livejournal.com]

Hey. Okay the can't can what has been fixed is an oldie from the original series that made absolute sense until I read this entry ;-) Think Schroedinger's Cat - Amy can be alive or dead until the Doctor opens the box. Once he knows, the possibility collapses. I don't think it is a directly time-lord thing, but don't ask me about the "blinovitch limitation effect" either. Since I think they may have hit that part of the old-school time-physics canon as well. It's the bit about meeting yourself. Which is what makes Rory's death in that room inevitable - or at least contributes I think.

Now I think I am going to bother the_dosk about which one is which and "temporal grace" as well.


Who exactly does the observing that makes a photon turn into a wave instead of a particle is something for the philosophical physicist to argue about.

I will say that Jack Harkness is a fixed point - it's one of the reasons the tardis hates him so much. You would not believe how much who discussion betwixt me and the little brother.

i need an 11 icon

[buzzylittleb.livejournal.com]

Leaving Schroedinger's Companion out of this for a moment.

The "blinovitch limitation effect" does exactly what I think it does. It relates to meeting yourself in the same timeline. [They zapped the Brigadier with it, once] beyond giving you the mother of funny turns^* it creates a huge surge of Time Energy. Which means that it is a hell of a Angel Snake Snack.

MY brother now thinks I have amazing powers of deduction. In the first draft of the first post, I did mention that we have been talking about who much too much lately. It's a sort of tennis rally thing. We keep hitting continuity points between the two of us. That and asking important questions like "do the daleks have propaganda?" and "what is it with 11 and hiding under beds?" Those are some of the more reasonable points. I was a huge who fan in the nineties and have forgotten enough who factiods^@ stuff to know better.

Dosk, however, rocks on the Schroedinger's Companion thing. One of the Laws of Time [TM] is that the Doctor can't cross [change] his own timeline (and neither can any other time-traveller, like River) so once he knows or has seen what happens he can't undo it. As Rory and Amy are parts of the Doctor's timeline then it sticks.

The only way he got around it in "The Big Bang" is that the universe was contracting in on itself to the point where it got very easy to jump around a bit. It also did a good job of driving River around the bend (how many times did she slap him in that one?).






footnotes
* [like zapping around five years of the Brigadier's memory, leaving him wondering why he was undercover at a boys' school and hiding out with special pupils in the woods]
@ [factoid doesn't mean what you think it does. It actually means a widely held but inaccurate gobbet represented as fact]^&
& [don't get me on fulsome or decimate]

Re: i need an 11 icon

[janne-d.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I actually had to study the Shrodinger equation and quantum mechanics for a term, so the waveform collapsing is something that vaguely makes sense (I say vaguely because I was taught by one of the worst lecturers in the dept) - I just wasn't sure if it was something that they had made explicit in DW before. I knew about the not crossing his own timeline canon, but after all the "time can be rewritten" stuff in the last few years I was getting confuzzled about whether or not they were sticking to that - and "The Big Bang" didn't help! I liked your explanation of why that doesn't violate the rule.

Btw, if I remember my physical chemistry properly, wave-particle duality isn't an observer effect but a merging of characteristics on the atomic level that is easily provable by experiment, meaning the classical physics concepts where waves and particles are treated separately no longer apply. Hence quantum mechanics.

Re: i need an 11 icon

[buzzylittleb.livejournal.com]

Eh? Everything I actually know about physical chemistry is gleaned from various weirdness and not even real-ish science^&. And then it still makes things a bit wonky, with seems to be a trickle-down effect really --

a) people who don't get it
b) people who don't get it then write about it
c) people who don't get it then write that they don't get it
D) people who might get it but then read what the people who don't get it wrote
e) people who might have got it then read that the people who wrote the book didn't get it
f) people who might have got it then assume they can't get it either
g) wash, rinse, repeat

Footnote
& [there is a great (real) experiment that might be understood as the Schroedinger's Philosophist]