[002]
ShayGuy
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Firstly, the viewer is still piecing together the results of \
to:
Firstly, the viewer is still piecing together the results of \\\"The Pandorica Opens,\\\" in which the TARDIS\\\'s explosion caused every star to have no longer existed. The absence of stars fits in with that, especially since we already saw the scene of Amelia praying (sans Doctor this time), demonstrating, \\\"Yes, Earth exists in this episode, but it\\\'s an altered timeline.\\\" This was the \\\'\\\'second\\\'\\\' thing we knew about the micro-universe of \\\"The Big Bang,\\\" the first being \\\"no stars.\\\"
Second, and more important, is the dialogue leading up to the line in question:
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(in the tone of an honest question, not a prompt)\\\'\\\' \\\"It\\\'s a lovely painting, Amelia, but what are all these?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Stars.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Sharon:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(huffing in an oh-not-\\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\'-nonsense-again manner)\\\'\\\' \\\"A\\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\'lia...\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Tell you what, shall we go outside?\\\" \\\'\\\'(they do)\\\'\\\' \\\"What do you see, Amelia?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"The moon.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"And what else?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Just the dark.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"But no stars. If there were stars up there, we\\\'d be able to see them, wouldn\\\'t we? ...Amelia, look at me. You know this is all just a story, don\\\'t you? You know there\\\'s no such thing as stars.\\\"
There\\\'s nothing special about those last two sentences except in that they serve as a memorable capstone to the rest. The rest of the scene -- two adults not recognizing stars in a painting, an adult expressing exasperation at a child\\\'s mention of stars, and the rational adult demonstrating their absence -- establishes all the relevant details: On this Earth, as you might expect from the end of the previous episode, \\\"stars\\\" are regarded as no more than something a kid made up, like (appropriately enough) an imaginary friend. (The mention of \\\"star cults\\\" a minute later notwithstanding.)
The end of that exchange doesn\\\'t remotely fit the definition. It\\\'s not a sucker punch at all. It\\\'s nothing like the \\\'\\\'Haruhi Suzumiya\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Code Geass\\\'\\\', or \\\'\\\'Narbonic\\\'\\\' examples. It\\\'s the same sort of thing as \\\"I am Godzilla\\\" (see above). Where\\\'s the case for it being a WhamLine?
Second, and more important, is the dialogue leading up to the line in question:
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(in the tone of an honest question, not a prompt)\\\'\\\' \\\"It\\\'s a lovely painting, Amelia, but what are all these?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Stars.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Sharon:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(huffing in an oh-not-\\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\'-nonsense-again manner)\\\'\\\' \\\"A\\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\'lia...\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Tell you what, shall we go outside?\\\" \\\'\\\'(they do)\\\'\\\' \\\"What do you see, Amelia?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"The moon.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"And what else?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Just the dark.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"But no stars. If there were stars up there, we\\\'d be able to see them, wouldn\\\'t we? ...Amelia, look at me. You know this is all just a story, don\\\'t you? You know there\\\'s no such thing as stars.\\\"
There\\\'s nothing special about those last two sentences except in that they serve as a memorable capstone to the rest. The rest of the scene -- two adults not recognizing stars in a painting, an adult expressing exasperation at a child\\\'s mention of stars, and the rational adult demonstrating their absence -- establishes all the relevant details: On this Earth, as you might expect from the end of the previous episode, \\\"stars\\\" are regarded as no more than something a kid made up, like (appropriately enough) an imaginary friend. (The mention of \\\"star cults\\\" a minute later notwithstanding.)
The end of that exchange doesn\\\'t remotely fit the definition. It\\\'s not a sucker punch at all. It\\\'s nothing like the \\\'\\\'Haruhi Suzumiya\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Code Geass\\\'\\\', or \\\'\\\'Narbonic\\\'\\\' examples. It\\\'s the same sort of thing as \\\"I am Godzilla\\\" (see above). Where\\\'s the case for it being a WhamLine?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Firstly, the viewer is still piecing together the results of \
to:
Firstly, the viewer is still piecing together the results of \\\"The Pandorica Opens,\\\" in which the TARDIS\\\'s explosion caused every sun to have no longer existed. The absence of stars fits in with that, especially since we already saw the scene of Amelia praying (sans Doctor this time), demonstrating, \\\"Yes, Earth exists in this episode, but it\\\'s an altered timeline.\\\" This was the \\\'\\\'second\\\'\\\' thing we knew about the micro-universe of \\\"The Big Bang,\\\" the first being \\\"no stars.\\\"
Second, and more important, is the dialogue leading up to the line in question:
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(in the tone of an honest question, not a prompt)\\\'\\\' \\\"It\\\'s a lovely painting, Amelia, but what are all these?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Stars.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Sharon:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(huffing in an oh-not-\\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\'-nonsense-again manner)\\\'\\\' \\\"A\\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\'lia...\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Tell you what, shall we go outside?\\\" \\\'\\\'(they do)\\\'\\\' \\\"What do you see, Amelia?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"The moon.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"And what else?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Just the dark.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"But no stars. If there were stars up there, we\\\'d be able to see them, wouldn\\\'t we? ...Amelia, look at me. You know this is all just a story, don\\\'t you? You know there\\\'s no such thing as stars.\\\"
There\\\'s nothing special about those last two sentences except in that they serve as a memorable capstone to the rest. The rest of the scene -- two adults not recognizing stars in a painting, an adult expressing exasperation at a child\\\'s mention of stars, and the rational adult demonstrating their absence -- establishes all the relevant details: On this Earth, as you might expect from the end of the previous episode, \\\"stars\\\" are regarded as no more than something a kid made up, like (appropriately enough) an imaginary friend. (The mention of \\\"star cults\\\" a minute later notwithstanding.)
The end of that exchange doesn\\\'t remotely fit the definition. It\\\'s not a sucker punch at all. It\\\'s nothing like the \\\'\\\'Haruhi Suzumiya\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Code Geass\\\'\\\', or \\\'\\\'Narbonic\\\'\\\' examples. It\\\'s the same sort of thing as \\\"I am Godzilla\\\" (see above). Where\\\'s the case for it being a WhamLine?
Second, and more important, is the dialogue leading up to the line in question:
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(in the tone of an honest question, not a prompt)\\\'\\\' \\\"It\\\'s a lovely painting, Amelia, but what are all these?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Stars.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Sharon:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'(huffing in an oh-not-\\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\'-nonsense-again manner)\\\'\\\' \\\"A\\\'\\\'me\\\'\\\'lia...\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Tell you what, shall we go outside?\\\" \\\'\\\'(they do)\\\'\\\' \\\"What do you see, Amelia?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"The moon.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"And what else?\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Amelia:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"Just the dark.\\\"
->\\\'\\\'\\\'Christine:\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\"But no stars. If there were stars up there, we\\\'d be able to see them, wouldn\\\'t we? ...Amelia, look at me. You know this is all just a story, don\\\'t you? You know there\\\'s no such thing as stars.\\\"
There\\\'s nothing special about those last two sentences except in that they serve as a memorable capstone to the rest. The rest of the scene -- two adults not recognizing stars in a painting, an adult expressing exasperation at a child\\\'s mention of stars, and the rational adult demonstrating their absence -- establishes all the relevant details: On this Earth, as you might expect from the end of the previous episode, \\\"stars\\\" are regarded as no more than something a kid made up, like (appropriately enough) an imaginary friend. (The mention of \\\"star cults\\\" a minute later notwithstanding.)
The end of that exchange doesn\\\'t remotely fit the definition. It\\\'s not a sucker punch at all. It\\\'s nothing like the \\\'\\\'Haruhi Suzumiya\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'Code Geass\\\'\\\', or \\\'\\\'Narbonic\\\'\\\' examples. It\\\'s the same sort of thing as \\\"I am Godzilla\\\" (see above). Where\\\'s the case for it being a WhamLine?
