Ganymede & Titan - Doctor Dwarf, Part Two - Comments

(Yes, I've only just seen

Ian Symes — Tue, 17 May 2005 13:47:36 +0000

(Yes, I’ve only just seen the Satellite 5 episode.)

ADAM: What's on Floor 16.
Ian Symes — Tue, 17 May 2005 13:46:20 +0000

ADAM: What’s on Floor 16.
RIMMER: Look, we found a Stasis Leak on Floor 16…

It's bad enough that I'm

Pete Martin — Mon, 16 May 2005 21:52:35 +0000

It’s bad enough that I’m defending an episode from series VII; I didn’t want to sully my reputation any further by complimenting one from VIII!

>For example, in Future Echoes,

Seb Patrick — Mon, 16 May 2005 19:12:17 +0000

>For example, in Future Echoes, Stasis Leak and Ouroborus the boys fufill history.

>However, in Timeslides they change history several times. Personally, since these are all cracking episodes (with the glaring exception of Ouroborus which is a pile of wan), I couldn’t give a toss.

… and Cassandra. Which is, erm, also a cracking episode.

Red Dwarf has never had

Pete Martin — Mon, 16 May 2005 15:06:39 +0000

Red Dwarf has never had a 100% consistent stance on its own Time Travel ‘rules’. For example, in Future Echoes, Stasis Leak and Ouroborus the boys fufill history.

However, in Timeslides they change history several times. Personally, since these are all cracking episodes (with the glaring exception of Ouroborus which is a pile of wan), I couldn’t give a toss.

Okay, so it’s a bit lazy to use two different theories in one episode like Tikka, but The Inquisitor manages to subtley get away with it.

In fairness, though, it's Lister

Phil — Sun, 15 May 2005 15:12:33 +0000

In fairness, though, it’s Lister doing the explaining. And he’s not very much of an expert on cosmic anomaly.

If Kryten were doing the explaining—or scrolling text a la Backwards—it’d be more or less irrefutable. But as it’s Lister, it’s a bit difficult to take seriously.

(Of course, sloppy writing is the easiest answer, and almost certainly the correct one. But I have nothing against trying to rationalize it so that it actually makes some sort of sense.)

Under normal circumstances, the JFK

Seb — Sun, 15 May 2005 08:55:34 +0000

Under normal circumstances, the JFK paradox could be explained away in a similar way to what you outline above - that he needn’t necessarily disappear and thus not have killed himself as soon as he killed himself.

HOWEVER, what completely ruins it is that it happens IN THE SAME EPISODE as it’s explained that the future Dwarf crew were erased from history by doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It’s so unbelievably sloppy you’ve got to wonder if it’s deliberately so.

I can't really comment on

Pete Martin — Sat, 14 May 2005 23:29:29 +0000

I can’t really comment on whether it worked for me in the same way as Tikka. I was a huge Dwarf fan in 1997 (and wasn’t hugely disappointed by this episode), but I haven’t seen enough of Who to call myself a fan.

Can’t believe I’m defending a series VII episode…I agree completely re:characterisation but we’ll have to agree to disagree about the story. Once they got to the church…well, that was it…the story went nowhere. The Doctor being killed off was great but ultimately a little redundant since he was back again moments later. The reapers, an interesting if if barmy idea, were not developed in any great detail. No surprises in this episode, which is indicative of the series. It’s just not clever enough.

And effects? Not too bothered. I wouldn’t say ‘Father’s Day’ were particularly good, but I wouldn’t say it particularly mattered. Both Red Dwarf and Dr Who have had their share of ropey special Effects, and it hasn’t affected their popularity one iota.

I’m finding the series entertaining, just not particularly science-fictiony. I think Fantasy would be a more accurate description. The tone just doesn’t work for me but maybe that’s because I’ve been overdosing on Whedon recently. I was surprised when it was announced this series would go out at 7pm, BBC One, Saturday nights. We’re now half way through the run and it makes sense.

I have no idea whether

John Hoare — Sat, 14 May 2005 22:36:47 +0000

I have no idea whether any of the time stuff makes sense or not, either in Who or Dwarf.

But for me, Father’s Day was a far more successful episode than Tikka. For me, it hit all the spots it meant to - a good story, great acting and characterisation, and properly emotional, in a way that affected me, not mawkish rubbish. It was great right the way through.

Tikka has a good story (apart from the cliffhanger resolution), and is beautifully shot (the JFK assassination stuff is just wonderful). But the comedy stuff, on Starbug at least, mostly just doesn’t work that well for me. And the characterisation is off, both at the start and the end of the ep.

Plus: effectswise, Tikka is a bit crap. Father’s Day was really good.

So basically: Father’s Day does all it set out to do, for me. Tikka just doesn’t. You only have to look at the pre-credit teasers for both episodes to see that.

If you go with the

Pete Martin — Sat, 14 May 2005 22:16:06 +0000

If you go with the theory that when you change history, you’re just fulfilling the history of an alternate universe, there’s no real problem with Tikka in that respect.

Following the *attempted shooting*, the dwarfers and everyone else inhabit a ‘redundant timeline’ (I’ll call it Beta). By travelling back in time and changing it to a *sucessful assasination*, we adopt a third timeline (Gamma). This is our universe we’re there were two gunmen in Dallas.

I realise it’s strongly implied that the Beta JFK dies, but my theory is that he’s just returning to his own (Beta) timeline.

Either way, considering there were pan-dimensional reapers, a car on an endless circuit for no good reason and some seriously bad haircuts, I think Who could have got away with this, admittedly far-fetched, finale. I don’t understand why Rose’s father killing himself 2 hours later ‘makes things better’ when we’ve been warned that the ‘slightest change can drastically rewrite history’. (This may be Doc Brown theory rather than Doc Who).

> Btw, I was assuming

Ian Symes — Sat, 14 May 2005 19:38:42 +0000

> Btw, I was assuming that Rose’s Dad would end up being the hit and run driver. Kinda disappointed when he didn’t.

But… paradox! OK, Dwarf got away with it with JFK killing himself, but do you really want Who emulating that condradictory and nonsensical ending?

Better than Tikka? No way.

Pete Martin — Sat, 14 May 2005 19:21:06 +0000

Better than Tikka? No way. Tikka may not be hilarious, but it’s a clever story that (almost) makes sense. This had a lot of emotion but a story that was full of holes and went almost nowhere. I know these sort of stories aren’t the Doctor Who norm, but I had more faith in Paul Cornell.

Btw, I was assuming that Rose’s Dad would end up being the hit and run driver. Kinda disappointed when he didn’t.

Indeed, and not similar in

Ian Symes — Sat, 14 May 2005 19:08:25 +0000

Indeed, and not similar in the slightest, other than a paradox causing bad things. And Tikka most definitely wasn’t the first paradox story ever.

It was a lot better

John Hoare — Sat, 14 May 2005 19:04:51 +0000

It was a lot better than Tikka.

Why do I think this

Pete Martin — Sat, 14 May 2005 18:05:27 +0000

Why do I think this weeks episode is going to be a rip-off of ‘Tikka to Ride’…

Doctor Dwarf, Part Two

Seb Patrick — Tue, 10 May 2005 17:01:22 +0000