?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Watched WoM

Not sure I have a reaction, frankly.

Yes, that's really all I have to say about it right now. Except:

If the Dalek could sense the young Adelaide was immensely important to the future of the human race, wouldn't that give it an extra incentive to kill her? Unless Davros was also descended from Susie Fontana Brooke, or something like that. (Hmm.)

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
papilio_luna
Nov. 18th, 2009 04:00 am (UTC)
Well I think it's less about it being important for the benefit of humanity and more about the Daleks also being sensitive to timelines and knowing what are and are not fixed points. Though it could just as easily be just a coincidence, that the Dalek got called back to the Crucible right at that moment. The script doesn't actually say one way or the other, it's just implied.
platypus
Nov. 18th, 2009 04:32 am (UTC)
If the Daleks had succeeded in destroying REALITY ITSELF in 2008/2009 (even the production team doesn't seem sure of their timeline anymore), it wouldn't have mattered what her granddaughter did, and the fixed point would have to come unfixed. I am trying not to think too hard about that.

The Daleks actually weren't killing every human they came across in JE, though. They were rounding plenty of them up for experiments as well, and it would take a lot of 'exterminate's to deal with six billion people. So maybe it just saw no reason to kill that particular human.
papilio_luna
Nov. 18th, 2009 01:22 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I think that whole scene was much less about Adelaide's importance to humanity/the timeline/whatever than about a character point for her: she was almost killed by a Dalek, both of her parents were killed by the Daleks, but the experience did not drive her to seek vengeance but rather inspired her to achieve, for the sake of humanity.
np_complete
Nov. 19th, 2009 02:19 am (UTC)
Yes, I guess that's the important thing about that scene -- what an extraordinary person Adelaide is. It makes it seem even more of a shame that she has to die. But it also makes it believable that she can make the choice she does.

earlgreytea68
Nov. 18th, 2009 01:12 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't watched it--it seems to violate by A LOT my policy against unhappy fiction--but that's a story point that confused me, too. Also, I guess I had never really realized that the Daleks knew about timelines or were all that concerned about them.
np_complete
Nov. 19th, 2009 02:21 am (UTC)
Also, I guess I had never really realized that the Daleks knew about timelines or were all that concerned about them.

Yeah! They barely have a sense of self-preservation, let alone an interest in preserving the integrity of the timelines!
glory_jean
Nov. 19th, 2009 07:13 am (UTC)
I'd have to agree that it was Adalaide's perception that was important not the reality. The Daleks wanted to end reality, I don't think the time lines were of much use to them.
capemaynuts
Nov. 19th, 2009 03:37 pm (UTC)
But Dalek Caan (he's the crazy one, right?) He had looked through all of space and time and had actually plotted the downfall of Davros. So if all the Daleks were being controlled by some extent by Caan, then the Dalek would not kill her. Make any sense?
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )