On 9/13/2011 7:27 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
> In article<58GdnU5-fcUtmemail@example.com>,
> Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>> On 9/13/2011 5:17 PM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote:
>>> In article<firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>>> Jon V<***@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Why not? It's apparently how it works, as it did indeed work that way.
>>> It's not consistent with suspension of other metabolic processes.
>> Maybe the facility was able to deal with it somehow. Are you honestly
>> expecting metabolic processes to work as you expect they would in a show
>> with a time machine in it?
> Internal consistency is an important factor in suspension of disbelief.
The problem is that, even in real life, you can't always have internal
consistency. Look at the JFK assassination. You have 50 ways of telling
the same exact story. Some bits are missing here or there. People take
all sides of an issue, and interpret things differently, or to a degree
another person would find implausible.
Your suspension of disbelief depends on what you are willing to disbelieve.
> internal rules are not given, external rules apply. People tolerate some pretty
> wild premises, like a time travelling blue box or vampires and teenager that
> slays them, if the rules of the premise are consistently applied.
> Inconsistencies interfere with suspension of disbelief, and when severe, break
> it completely.
I think the issue here is how stringently you are willing to apply
external rules, or how willingly you are willing to just accept what is
going on without detailed and time consuming exposition. The phrase
"Take it as given" comes into play. You just take it as given that the
things you see are possible within the story.
I understand what you are saying, though. When things make no sense, but
asking questions like "Where did she get food from" aren't about not
making sense. Those are details of things not shown, but are explainable
in many ways, and are unimportant to the story at hand.
> In my case I can't accept Amy was no where offerred to speak to an actual person
> who could recognise the system glitched for her and correct it. That is so basic
> to human systems I can't accept aliens would not consider it.
Planes today can basically fly on their own. All sorts of systems run
automatically. So why not this thing? Maybe all the aliens were afraid
of going into the place. Maybe they were all dead. Anything can be true,
or not true. These details do not interfere with the basic storyline.
>> The metabolic processes were either in some way altered or did not apply.
> What others are caught on is that some processes were alterred and others were
I guess that's how it must work then. Either that, or the system served
her a buffet every evening. Or some other thing.
> If she had a lifetime experience while only aging one day, they wouldn't
> need to have Rory make a terrible choice at the end: so the rules appear to be
> only to give Rory a bad time. It's harder to feel anything for character being
> jerked around by the writers like a Punch or Judy doll.
Characters are always only jerked around by a Punch and Judy doll. John
Cleese once mentioned how on Fawlty Towers how he felt like a god moving
Basil around in a little maze until he came to his unpleasant end each
The easiest thing to do, really, is to say, "this is how it works."
Otherwise, maybe the machine made her sandwiches. In any case, it was
taken care of, somehow, in a manner you did not need to see.
> I laughed at the end of Torchwood series 2 because the premises were so
> ridiculous: a reactor would fail to scram on loss of power; the staff would flee
> the safety of the control room; the containment could vent through the control
> room; that three people would simultaneously enter lockable rooms with nobody
> standing outside in case the rooms somehow did lock. I also cheer the dinosaurs
> in Jurrasiac Park sequels because the humans were such idiot dicks they all
> deserved their fates.
You managed to watch the Jurassic Park sequels? Wow.
> If you're okay with creating expensive, unintentional comedies, ignore the rules.
The rules constantly change. That's one of the rules.
>> Maybe the rules are supposed to change, and since they do all the time,
>> that must be how it works in the Dr. Who universe.
> Drama and good comedy arise from characters coping with restrictions. If the
> writer simply alters the restrictions because they've written themselves into a
> corner, it ceases to be drama and becomes bad comedy.
Yes. Restrictions. And those restrictions change to suit the story.
Honestly, you can't have 50 years of stories without contradictory
instances. You can't even do it with non-fiction. If the rules never
change, and they keep piling on top of one another, the shows would not
be of much interest, as nothing would be able to be done. Can't do that,
can't do this....Dr. Who would consist of people sitting around going
> HG Wells used a deus ex machina ending to War of the Worlds to make a socialist
> point about power of the underclass against the elite of society. However the
> deus ex machina is so ridiculous, it's hard to get that point. (It's much
> clearer in the TIme Machine.) His other point about inflicting on the English
> what they were at that time inflicting on India and Africa does stand. (It's
> hard to tell if Battlefield LA was intended to compare Los Angeles to Baghdad
> and Kabul.)
Battlefield LA was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.