Can anyone quote the definition of time?
the “timey wimey” one ?
[QUOTE=simster]
Can anyone quote the definition of time?
the “timey wimey” one ?
[/QUOTE]
Just make sure it doesn’t get away from you this time.
[QUOTE=simster]
Can anyone quote the definition of time?
the “timey wimey” one ?
[/QUOTE]
Most people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, when in actuality it’s more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey…stuff.
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
That’s something I would have never thought about Moffat. I thought his “Coupling” was brilliant (as was this episode of “Doctor Who”), and found his three female characters on that show to be very believable.
[/QUOTE]
I also don’t agree with it for the most part, but I’ve seen lots of others say so. Mind you, I can definitely do without Mme de Pompedour and her “My Lonely Angel” crap. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=glee]
Who threw the rock?!
[/QUOTE]
The weeping angel. Why? I have no idea. To knock Sally unconscious so it’d be easier to sneak up and touch her?
Scared. The. Bejeebus. Out. Of. Me.
And daHubby too. I don’t think I’ve seen him spooked over a tv show in a long time.
[QUOTE=NailBunny]
Most people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, when in actuality it’s more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey… stuff.
[/QUOTE]
Hence why he needed his timey-wimey detector to go ding! when there’s stuff.
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
Has anyone else noticed the abundance of interracial couples on this show? Mickey and Rose, Martha’s father and girlfriend, and then Billy and his wife Sally. Is this a prevalent in the UK as this show would make it appear?
[/QUOTE]
Not that prevalent, I wouldn’t say. There is a hint of right-on-ness about it.
(Is “right-on” in this sense a Britishism? It means self-consciously liberal and hip, anyway)
[QUOTE=NailBunny]
The weeping angel.
[/QUOTE]
And she told the Doctor about it in the materials she gave him in 2007; he wasn’t there in 2007. :smack:
Regarding the the benevolent way to kill:
I kind of thought of it as benevolent plus, in that I bet many of those folks made some pretty fantastic investments, bets, etc. Of course, it can’t necessarily compensate for being plucked out of the middle of your life, but it sure beats getting turned into a square of asphalt.
Terrific ep IMHO, right up there creepieness-wise with “are you my mummy?”
[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
I bet many of those folks made some pretty fantastic investments, bets, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Without a sports almanac, what bets would you make between 1920 and 1950?
What investments without an encyclopedia? You might be able to help during WWII if your government would believe you. No fair Googling. 
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
Without a sports almanac, what bets would you make between 1920 and 1950?
What investments without an encyclopedia? You might be able to help during WWII if your government would believe you. No fair Googling.
[/QUOTE]
I could bet on the outcome of many World Series, which if placed at the beginning of the year would have a high payout. I could do some betting on the US Stock market. That would be about my limits. I might be able to bet on a handful of fights and high profile horse races.
Besides the Cop went to 1969. He had it easy, he was able to anticipate many trends and investments.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Besides the Cop went to 1969. He had it easy, he was able to anticipate many trends and investments.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, Microsoft would be a pretty good buy.
[QUOTE=Blake]
Regarding the final solution
[spoiler]You are all assuming the angels see in the same part of the spectrum as humans, but the story made it pretty clear that they didn’t. The angels kept freezing in synch with the lights because they freeze when they are watched and the watchers were human. The humans couldn’t see in the dark, and so the angels weren’t watched when the lights went off. When it went dark they moved towards the humans directly, making it quite clear they themselves can see quite clearly in the dark. So whether the lights go off makes no difference at all. They can see perfectly in the dark and can thus see each other.
Next point is that they had all clasped hands when they were frozen looking at each other. They can’t be moved out of their current orientation without destroying the ‘statuary’ and nobody would do that and even if they did it woudl probably kill them. So they are locked for all time, [/spoiler]
Now whether the concept of the creature itself is silly I leave up to the indivdiual, but the plot itself was perfectly internally consistent if not clearly enough spelled out for the whole audience.
[/QUOTE]
There were situations in which more than one creature was present as they moved in the dark, though.
[QUOTE=glee]
Who threw the rock?!
[/QUOTE]
Obviously Martha wanted to take out the new blonde. She knows he has a thing for blondes. Doc had to then go back and fix it.
[QUOTE=Loach]
Obviously Martha wanted to take out the new blonde. She knows he has a thing for blondes. Doc had to then go back and fix it.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll buy that.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
There were situations in which more than one creature was present as they moved in the dark, though.
[/QUOTE]
There were also situations in which more than one creature was present as they moved in the light too. I’m not sure what your point is. Nothing suggested they couldn’t move at the same time, the only proviso was that they didn’t look at each other simultaneously.
[QUOTE=glee]
Now this is the big question (and I’ve watched the episode 3 times):
Who threw the rock?!
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=otto]
It wasn’t a rock. It was the birth of a quantum-locked angel baby.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Loach]
Obviously Martha wanted to take out the new blonde. She knows he has a thing for blondes. Doc had to then go back and fix it.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
Dr. Who traveled to 2007 and did it after he recovered the Tardis.
[/QUOTE]
The first problem with the rock is that the room appeared empty afterwards - no statues, no Doctor.
Why would the Doctor tell her to duck and throw a rock at her? Why not tell her to do something helpful?
[QUOTE=NailBunny]
The weeping angel. Why? I have no idea. To knock Sally unconscious so it’d be easier to sneak up and touch her?
[/QUOTE]
As I said, there was no statue in the room. (If there had been, it could have zoomed up on her while she was totally focused on the message.)
Seriously, people - this is a key part of the episode and yet there’s no sensible explanation. 
[QUOTE=glee]
Seriously, people - this is a key part of the episode and yet there’s no sensible explanation.
[/QUOTE]
Short of saying ‘a wizard did it’, I think it was just a novel idea that was in the short story that this was based on and because of that, they included it into the show. Granted there was no explanation for it in the story either (as I recall), but the scene is still a lot of fun.
If you are going to poke holes into Doctor Who’s logic and writing, this is just one in a long list of items to add.
The rock is an artifact of a time travel contradiction-er, timey wimey thing.
The Doctor read about it in the information she gave him in 2007, so he wrote it on the wall in 1969.
G-d, you’d think this was Trek the way I make excuses…
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
The rock is an artifact of a time travel contradiction-er, timey wimey thing.
The Doctor read about it in the information she gave him in 2007, so he wrote it on the wall in 1969.
[/QUOTE]
No kiddin’. The Doctor didn’t know what threw the rock, he only knew what he’d written on the wall from Sally’s notes, and probably that there was a rock. He was stuck in a predestination paradox himself.
And, gee, rotting old house out in the woods… No chance of anything falling out there. Or kids wandering by tossing rocks through windows. Or tv writers who throw like girls trying to bean internet posters who need to get a life instead of nitpicking Doctor-freakin’-Who of all things, and missing.
But, hey, mystery rocks and evolving stone angels make no sense, while you’re giving time-travel a pass for logic?
[QUOTE=Blake]
There were also situations in which more than one creature was present as they moved in the light too. I’m not sure what your point is. Nothing suggested they couldn’t move at the same time, the only proviso was that they didn’t look at each other simultaneously.
[/QUOTE]
That they covered their faces while it was light but didn’t while it was dark.