Quote:

Randal_Flagg said:
If I might wax philosophically (btw... I AM DRUNK!!!!), I think the charm of "Dr. Who" is its inconsistencies. Whenever a show, movie, novel, comic book, deals with time travel, it seems that there are two possibile approaches: 1) to be logically rigorous and ensure that there are no paradoxes or 2) to say FUCK IT, time travel is weird and strange things happen, if you can't keep up well that is your problem.

"Dr. Who" steers into the curve and doesn't try to explain why things don't add up at the end of the day. Ergo, spoilers aren't that big of a deal....



Absolutely. That's also what I love about the show. It gives you just enough continuity to hang a hat on. But, in the end, it just goes on its merry, crazy little course, and says fuck the rules. It's time travel. There are BOUND to be inconsistencies and paradoxes. Not to mention, patchworking a continuity of a forty-year show must be an impossible task, in the end.

So, Randall, what did you think of the latest two-parter on Sci-Fi? The Moffat written "Empty Child/Doctor Dances" two-parter?