Doctor Who: The Girl Who Waited
Sep. 14th, 2011 10:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe problem with any episodic show which raises interesting ideas is that they normally get stuck on one episode, except when there's specific meta-story hints[1] that "this episode matters and has ramifications beyond the episode".
So, on the one hand, I think it's a very good story (with definite low points, but very interesting), provided you take the hint and view it as "what are the moral ramifications of the time travel details in this episode", able to ignore the fact that's it's impossible to make those details match the details in other episodes. You can certainly just bodge them together into a big list of "all the details mentioned in any episode, ignoring a few of the most egregious ones", but it doesn't make it consistent in the sense of "viewing the episode in the light of what solutions are possible and what aren't". Fortunately, Doctor Who is normally pretty sensible and DOES generally provide very clear implicit guidelines on what's possible in the current episode (maybe what's normally true doesn't hold because of some sort of technobabble, maybe it doesn't say WHY the doctor can't just go back in time and fix everything, but it's generally pretty clear he DOESN'T just go back in time and fix everything).
However, within the constraints, it was pretty good. It was a shame there was little chance they would ACTUALLY take old Amy with them. That would be really interesting. I've only seen ongoing interaction with another copy of yourself a few times anywhere, most stories quickly revert it to the status quo, but it would be really interesting.
However, after raising a very very poignant and apposite dilemma of old Amy -- "Would you go back in time and change your past to give yourself a better life? If so, what happens to you?" it doesn't take the cop-out of having her die nobly or recant of her own free will.
I can't say the doctor was right to kill Amy A to save Amy B, but it's the sort of decision he has to make, and it's good to see that his cavalier attitude has downsides as well as just constantly getting lucky.
Minor comments on specific details of the episode:
* I don't think it was especially stupid to push the wrong button. The cinematography lingered a bit too long, making it look more obvious than it was. But even today we see lots of push-to-open doors, it's quite possible that Amy and Rory have seen lots of alien doors with push buttons, enough to make them justifiably blase.
* OTOH, it was a bit stupid, but THAT'S WHAT THE DOCTOR DOES. He ALWAYS walks into a situation he knows nothing about and FIDDLES with it. The REASON he does that varies (malfunctioning tardis, curiousity, repentence, eternal meddling) but it's who he is. He ALWAYS randomly pokes things, and it usually turns out in the end. It's not surprising that it ended badly this time -- just surprising it doesn't ALWAYS end badly! :)
* On the gripping hand, how come Rory pushed the green button and Amy pushed the red one? They grew up in the same place, aren't they both used to green=open, red=shut?
* If you want to nitpick, how come the stupid facility didn't have ANY awareness of aliens if it's the number #2 tourist destination in the galaxy? I mean, ok, real life has situations that are even more Kafkaeque (you just don't notice them because you normally give up, or die, rather than spending your life filling in forms, but there certainly are beurocratic mistakes which can kill you, just not usually so directly or so actively)
[1] What word do I mean here? I mean like, you can normally tell from the cinematography and pacing and so on of a story, whether "the characters are really in danger here" or "this is rousing action-adventure and we assume everyone is fine". It's not whether long-term ramifications do happen, or even might happen, but whether they feel like they may happen. Notably, it's really hard to hit a constant "oh no, they might die" in episode after episode, or people can't help but spot the meta-patterns of "never, except at the end of a series".
Of course, it varies with the viewer too. The first time you see it, or if you're less dissecting in your viewing, you're more likely to take it at face value.
So, on the one hand, I think it's a very good story (with definite low points, but very interesting), provided you take the hint and view it as "what are the moral ramifications of the time travel details in this episode", able to ignore the fact that's it's impossible to make those details match the details in other episodes. You can certainly just bodge them together into a big list of "all the details mentioned in any episode, ignoring a few of the most egregious ones", but it doesn't make it consistent in the sense of "viewing the episode in the light of what solutions are possible and what aren't". Fortunately, Doctor Who is normally pretty sensible and DOES generally provide very clear implicit guidelines on what's possible in the current episode (maybe what's normally true doesn't hold because of some sort of technobabble, maybe it doesn't say WHY the doctor can't just go back in time and fix everything, but it's generally pretty clear he DOESN'T just go back in time and fix everything).
However, within the constraints, it was pretty good. It was a shame there was little chance they would ACTUALLY take old Amy with them. That would be really interesting. I've only seen ongoing interaction with another copy of yourself a few times anywhere, most stories quickly revert it to the status quo, but it would be really interesting.
However, after raising a very very poignant and apposite dilemma of old Amy -- "Would you go back in time and change your past to give yourself a better life? If so, what happens to you?" it doesn't take the cop-out of having her die nobly or recant of her own free will.
I can't say the doctor was right to kill Amy A to save Amy B, but it's the sort of decision he has to make, and it's good to see that his cavalier attitude has downsides as well as just constantly getting lucky.
Minor comments on specific details of the episode:
* I don't think it was especially stupid to push the wrong button. The cinematography lingered a bit too long, making it look more obvious than it was. But even today we see lots of push-to-open doors, it's quite possible that Amy and Rory have seen lots of alien doors with push buttons, enough to make them justifiably blase.
* OTOH, it was a bit stupid, but THAT'S WHAT THE DOCTOR DOES. He ALWAYS walks into a situation he knows nothing about and FIDDLES with it. The REASON he does that varies (malfunctioning tardis, curiousity, repentence, eternal meddling) but it's who he is. He ALWAYS randomly pokes things, and it usually turns out in the end. It's not surprising that it ended badly this time -- just surprising it doesn't ALWAYS end badly! :)
* On the gripping hand, how come Rory pushed the green button and Amy pushed the red one? They grew up in the same place, aren't they both used to green=open, red=shut?
* If you want to nitpick, how come the stupid facility didn't have ANY awareness of aliens if it's the number #2 tourist destination in the galaxy? I mean, ok, real life has situations that are even more Kafkaeque (you just don't notice them because you normally give up, or die, rather than spending your life filling in forms, but there certainly are beurocratic mistakes which can kill you, just not usually so directly or so actively)
[1] What word do I mean here? I mean like, you can normally tell from the cinematography and pacing and so on of a story, whether "the characters are really in danger here" or "this is rousing action-adventure and we assume everyone is fine". It's not whether long-term ramifications do happen, or even might happen, but whether they feel like they may happen. Notably, it's really hard to hit a constant "oh no, they might die" in episode after episode, or people can't help but spot the meta-patterns of "never, except at the end of a series".
Of course, it varies with the viewer too. The first time you see it, or if you're less dissecting in your viewing, you're more likely to take it at face value.