Quote:
Or she got the right person, but Jack the Ripper is like Jack of Blades from Fable. An artifact that possesses the wearer, or some such.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Or she got the right person and someone else picks up where he left off as a copy-cat killer.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
|
That. Is. So. COOOL!
Why couldn't I have had that for my wedding cake!?
oh. yeah.....I didn't have a wedding cake....
But... That's an Imperial Dalek marrying a Rebel commander Dalek? (See:- Rememberance of the Daleks)
Heh. Nevermind.
'You lose more of your femininity every day Doroe. It's very appealing.' - SLEDGEHAMMER!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by welshman_EU
But... That's an Imperial Dalek marrying a Rebel commander Dalek? (See:- Rememberance of the Daleks)
Heh. Nevermind. |
Star crossed lovers. It's like Romeo and Juliet all over again.
"Ro-me-o. Rooo-me-ooo. Where forth art thou Ro-me-oo. Exterminate. EXTERMINATE"
Quote:
The fact that know historical character ARE a limited resource is what says you should treat them as a limited resource, unless you think they can be manufactured and place into time. They didn't KILL Stevie Wonder; had they done so, yes, they would have closed off an avenue to him. The fact that Moff thought this was the way to go about things is precisely the point. If he wasnt interested, he should have left it alone rather than letting his hubris close off a story to someone else, that merely makes him look worse since it comes donw to nothing but ego if that's the case ("If I don't want to use him then no one else should either ever.")|
Originally Posted by Clave_Dark_5
Which is what I was mainly addressing with my comment. Who says that interesting historical figures should be treated like a limited resource and only used "when you're really sure THIS is the best time/way to"? (And did they just ruin Stevie Wonder in that way too?
 ) One might guess that Moffat did think this was the best way, perhaps he's just not very interested in Jack (he is pretty cliche these days). Adding to my first comment about historical period: by letting us know she'd taken out Jack, he's also telling us just what this lizard lady does with herself and her time in London ("crime fighter!, rescuer of humans!"), all in one quick run of dailogue. I call that pretty good writing. All that aside, this isn't the first time the show's stepped on it's own toes continuity-wise; I seem to recall hearing it's had like three different versions of Atlantis, for instance. |
Again, there were better ways to go about it than what was done. It wasn't good writing and would have been one of the first things changed by a ghostwriter called in to clean up that mess. No mention needed be made of Jack AT ALL for the scene to work. It's the sort of thing Sci-Fi/SyFY Original Movies do in order to keep from having to actualy show us the character is a badass rather than tell us they are.
True, the show has occasionally step on it's own history under the old run. However, the philosophy was quite different at that time period. I myself mentioned one of the bigger ones with the two Loch Ness Monsters. However, the NEW run has been handled diferently with an eye towards contunity across all licenses, Thet's where the initial comment came from, the anger by some license holders at what moff did and that the BBC allowed him to do it whereas they consistently stopped things like that from happening in other media.
Of course it exists...