Plot holes and Continuity Errors
soldier4242
Posts: 1,368 Member
First of all I am a huge fan of Doctor Who. It is among the greatest of greats as scifi is concerned. Unfortunately I was never exposed to it as a child. The first episode I ever saw was the one with Christopher Eccleston as the doctor. I felt that first episode was ok. The person that exposed me to did not accept my criticisms of the episode as justified but he did appreciate that I said the show was worthy of continuing to watch. I think my friend is of the opinion that Doctor Who is a show that can do no wrong.
Either way I am glad I kept watching I found the show just kept getting better from there but as great as it is it isn't without its errors. I have found that by discussing these errors I have learned that some of the supposed errors were not errors at all. Some of them have stood the test of time and they are simply minor foibles that I have to forgive because this show is so epic it deserves it.
Since I haven't seen Torch Wood or any of the older episodes it could be that I don't have all of the information yet. I was wanting some fresh perspectives on a few things regarding potential areas of question. If this pans out I have more questions that I would like to hear answers to.
When Christopher Eccleston adsorbed all that energy and knowledge out of Rose to save her life because no human was ever meant to look in to the TARDUS he regenerates in to David Tenant. He was basically out of commission for quite a while after that. It is never explained as to why that was the case. Not one time lord has ever been out of commission for any amount of time after a regeneration. Riversong got right down to business after regenerating she killed the doctor only to save him later. The Master regenerated in to the younger version of himself and he didn't even have to lay down. Dave Tenant regenerated in to Dave Tenant and he didn't even slow down his talking. What was the deal with that one regeneration incapacitating David Tenant?
Either way I am glad I kept watching I found the show just kept getting better from there but as great as it is it isn't without its errors. I have found that by discussing these errors I have learned that some of the supposed errors were not errors at all. Some of them have stood the test of time and they are simply minor foibles that I have to forgive because this show is so epic it deserves it.
Since I haven't seen Torch Wood or any of the older episodes it could be that I don't have all of the information yet. I was wanting some fresh perspectives on a few things regarding potential areas of question. If this pans out I have more questions that I would like to hear answers to.
When Christopher Eccleston adsorbed all that energy and knowledge out of Rose to save her life because no human was ever meant to look in to the TARDUS he regenerates in to David Tenant. He was basically out of commission for quite a while after that. It is never explained as to why that was the case. Not one time lord has ever been out of commission for any amount of time after a regeneration. Riversong got right down to business after regenerating she killed the doctor only to save him later. The Master regenerated in to the younger version of himself and he didn't even have to lay down. Dave Tenant regenerated in to Dave Tenant and he didn't even slow down his talking. What was the deal with that one regeneration incapacitating David Tenant?
0
Replies
-
There are lots of instances in the older series where the Doctor was even more incapacitated than that after regenerating, even having memory loss lasting days a couple of times. His health post-regeneration has a lot to do with how extreme his "death" was and what he consumes to help with recovery after. Tennant explains that all he needed was a cup of tea at the end of his regeneration episode, it just took him a long time to get it. Eleven was mostly fine after his fish fingers and custard. But in the older episodes, when he regenerated into the Third doctor and the Eighth, he had pretty bad memory loss both times, and I believe he actually had a little bit of violent instability when he regenerated into the Sixth. By constast, the master's "death" was simply old age, or a choice to regenerate, and River's was mild as it was a gun shot wound.
Speaking of inconsistencies though, the most recent episode, why did the TARDIS not translate the alien languages for Clara? It's supposed to translate EVERYTHING except Old High Gallifreyan. My theory is that she hasn't been with the TARDIS long enough for it to have fully integrated the translation circuit with her brain, so more difficult languages still sound like gibberish to her as opposed to more human-like languages ^_^
Basically, if they want to change something that has been established as canon, they will. And we may or may not get an explanation as to why and how it changed. It's to be expected in sci-fi, especially in a show that has been running on and off for 50 years.0 -
There are lots of instances in the older series where the Doctor was even more incapacitated than that after regenerating, even having memory loss lasting days a couple of times. His health post-regeneration has a lot to do with how extreme his "death" was and what he consumes to help with recovery after. Tennant explains that all he needed was a cup of tea at the end of his regeneration episode, it just took him a long time to get it. Eleven was mostly fine after his fish fingers and custard. But in the older episodes, when he regenerated into the Third doctor and the Eighth, he had pretty bad memory loss both times, and I believe he actually had a little bit of violent instability when he regenerated into the Sixth. By constast, the master's "death" was simply old age, or a choice to regenerate, and River's was mild as it was a gun shot wound.
Speaking of inconsistencies though, the most recent episode, why did the TARDIS not translate the alien languages for Clara? It's supposed to translate EVERYTHING except Old High Gallifreyan. My theory is that she hasn't been with the TARDIS long enough for it to have fully integrated the translation circuit with her brain, so more difficult languages still sound like gibberish to her as opposed to more human-like languages ^_^
Basically, if they want to change something that has been established as canon, they will. And we may or may not get an explanation as to why and how it changed. It's to be expected in sci-fi, especially in a show that has been running on and off for 50 years.
Season 7 has not made its way to netflix yet so I haven' seen it. I do not think it is ever acceptable to change something that is integral. For example in the Episode "Blink" the doctor explains that the angels cover their faces because they can't risk looking at each other. In fact that is how they end up defeating the angles the doctor tricks them all in to looking at each other. They also had a book with several photographs of angels within it.
Then in the next episode that had the angles they were chasing after people in groups. This would be impossible for a species that can't risk looking at one another. Only the angle farthest away from their target would be able to move forward.
It comes to light that anything that holds the image of an angle becomes an angel. If that is the case then why didn't the angels that were in the photos in the episode "Blink" ever do anything?
While "Blink" was an amazing episode they basically ruined it by creating the next episode simply because they wanted to use the angels as the villains again.0 -
But they can also basically explain away any changes by saying it was a different group of angels, or that they evolved, or that something about them changed because their timeline changed. Also, I just watched Blink for like the 4th time, and I don't remember them ever showing a picture of an angel?
The biggest continuity problem I found in the episide is that the Nightengale brother most definitely looked into the angel's eyes for a good length of time. However, it could also be argued that the angels were behaving much more agressively in the Byzantium, so maybe the angel has to choose to implant in the person's mind.0 -
I don't think saying it is a different group of angels would work. The doctor's explanation of the situation gave us every impression that these were the same angels from blink.But they can also basically explain away any changes by saying it was a different group of angels, or that they evolved, or that something about them changed because their timeline changed. Also, I just watched Blink for like the 4th time, and I don't remember them ever showing a picture of an angel?
The biggest continuity problem I found in the episide is that the Nightengale brother most definitely looked into the angel's eyes for a good length of time. However, it could also be argued that the angels were behaving much more agressively in the Byzantium, so maybe the angel has to choose to implant in the person's mind.
It is in the part where they have that book which explains about the angels out and they actually put a photograph of an angel in to the book.
Nightingale does stare directly in to the eyes of an angel. The only explanation I can think of for this one is that they do in fact send him to the past. So perhaps they did not hop in to his mind because they were feeding off of his potential energy already.0 -
It most likely was a different group of angels. The ones in the Byzantium had been hibernating in a cave on an alien planet for hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of years. They easily could have evolved a different ability from that small group on earth. The book they found on that planet was written by someone who had encountered that group.0
-
I will watch both episodes again but in order for this to be sufficient in plugging the plot hole they would had to evolve in to another species. I know when I watched these episodes I was under the impression that these angels were of the same variety as the ones from the episode Blink. I think that they even mentioned having experience with them in the past which indicates to me that they at least believed that these angels would function in similar fashion to the ones from Blink.0
-
I didn't mean to imply a different species. But it's reasonable to think that a species would develop new abilities over time. The episodes did take place 3,000 years apart and on different worlds.
Anyway, I just like to imagine that is the excuse Moffatt would give if questioned. His philosophy is basically to do what he wants and then make something up to explain it.0 -
Which the doctor has explained is his game plan most of the time. Just keep making things up as things change and act as thought it was your plan all along. In fact I think he out right says that in that one Christmas episode where the trees evacuated that planet.0
-
You have to be pretty forgiving of continuity errors on a show like Doctor Who. It's not necessarily that it's sloppy writing, but more that the writers (Moffat especially) are quite willing to throw away continuity for a good plot device or story line. Whether you think that's good or bad is irrelevant. It is what it is.
At least until the show changes hands again.
Having said that, there are often perceived plot continuity problems which in fact aren't. Much of "The Big Bang" seems incongruous at best, but after discussing and arguing about it for literally hours with another Whovian we decided that it mostly does make sense and works quite well. It took a fair bit of thought though.0 -
Never apply logic to Who
I did wonder about the TARDIS not translating for Clara. When she tried to hide Merry inside and the door wouldn't open, she said "I don't think it likes me." I hope that's the reason, because I would find it interesting if the TARDIS is getting Clara back for calling her a snog box or whatnot. I think it's funny!0 -
Never apply logic to Who
It is imperative that we do apply logic to "Doctor Who." I agree that we should be forgiving. They are taking on a difficult task trying to write stories for a time traveler but we should not let ourselves be so forgiving that we completely free them from the rules of logic all together.
If you say that logic does not have to apply to "Doctor Who" then you are saying that they could write the show in such a way that it doesn't even make sense anymore and it would still be a good show.
If every single plot hole or continuity error is automatically dismissed simply by saying "Oh they don't have to make sense." then it begs the questions. Is "Doctor Who" truly the masterpiece we claim it to be or is it that we are just such forgiving critics that we elevate it above its actual merit.
This show has managed to have success after success with tons of shows that all stand up to scrutiny. I think we are actually paying respect to the show and its writers by delving in to the show and praising it for what it does well and calling out what it does poorly.0 -
Never apply logic to Who
It is imperative that we do apply logic to "Doctor Who." I agree that we should be forgiving. They are taking on a difficult task trying to write stories for a time traveler but we should not let ourselves be so forgiving that we completely free them from the rules of logic all together.
If you say that logic does not have to apply to "Doctor Who" then you are saying that they could write the show in such a way that it doesn't even make sense anymore and it would still be a good show.
If every single plot hole or continuity error is automatically dismissed simply by saying "Oh they don't have to make sense." then it begs the questions. Is "Doctor Who" truly the masterpiece we claim it to be or is it that we are just such forgiving critics that we elevate it above its actual merit.
This show has managed to have success after success with tons of shows that all stand up to scrutiny. I think we are actually paying respect to the show and its writers by delving in to the show and praising it for what it does well and calling out what it does poorly.
I was just making a (what I thought was a pretty well known) joke about Doctor Who.
But I personally am not fussed about it. I'm forgiving because I still enjoy it, which is as all I really require in something I spend my time on. I like discussions about the plot holes, and speculating, but I take it all with a grain of salt. I think having room for these debates is exactly what makes it so successful. Filling in the holes is half the fun!0 -
The show as a whole may or may not be a masterpiece, but I would argue that certain episodes are. Vincent and the Doctor, The Robots of Death and The Big Bang are masterpieces even though they might be flawed. Being perfect is not a prerequisite,0
-
I would go so far as to say the show is a masterpiece as a whole. I think that there are enough episodes that fall in to that category which brings up the average. I think that the show is so good that it manages to hold that title despite the occasional mistake which really makes it all the more impressive. As you stated being perfect is not a prerequisite which I agree with. As nerdyandilike pointed out the mistakes within the show are small and forgivable and they actually give us room to discuss the show with greater depth. I love really digging in to this show because this show is worth digging in to.0
-
I think it is extremely difficult to not have the so called Canon of Doctor Who not change throughout 50 years. After all the original Doctor,William Hartnell was supposed to be just an alien from another world, the whole Time Lord thing hadn't come into it yet.
He was just an alien who had lived a very long life. When the actor became ill and couldn't continue with the shop they invented "regeneration" in order to keep the show going.
Also David Tennant made the Time Lords become quite dark and evil. In the original premise they were nothing of the sort. And let's not get started on the whole Time War thing that Russell Davies created.
And for heaven's sake don't get me going on the 8th Doctor Paul McGann and that dreadful American film where they stated he could only regenerate 12 times and he was half human! Most people completely disregard the film as it didn't really follow the canon at all...
Each new director wants to make the show a little more their own and whilst at times it can be frustrating that there is a lack of continuity, especially if you've been watching for 50 years. I am more than willing to allow a little latitude, it keeps the show fresh.
I do agree, however, it can be a little frustrating at times. The Weeping Angels is a perfect example, they were completely menacing, in later incarnations they lost their edge. In Blink, though when they all died because they looked at each other, they were all surrounding the Tardis and then the Tardis de-materialised, so they ended up looking at each other..
I thought Moffat was great under Davies, but he really does stretch things on his own a little. Anyway, my tuppence worth..!0 -
I'm still really new to Who, so I had no idea about this movie! It just reminded me of the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie and how most fans disregard it's existence vehemently. LOL.0
