Wes Struebing wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:39:58 GMT, Amy Guskin 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:25:49 -0400, thus spake MJB (in article 
>>
>>):
> 
> 
> 
>>>Spoiler space for "the doctor's daughter" might be
required here
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>.
>>>Interestingly enough, my 13 yr old daughter loved the "The Doctor's 
>>>Daughter" and hopes there's  more episodes with her in it
or a spin-off.
>>>So, maybe the "doctor's daughter" (she's not
literally a daughter as she 
>>>was created by a cloning process -- to my way of thinking)
isn't aimed at 
>>>fogies like us?
>>>
>>>Blatent thievery -- or just reuse of an idea they liked and
thought would 
>>>fit in that place?  In this case, it wasn't the genesis machine that 
>>>revived the doctors daughter though, it was her time lord genes.... and 
>>>I'm sure I've read the idea of terraforming processes like that in SF 
>>>novels prior to the star trek movie, so ideas come from all over the 
>>>place.... <<
>>
>>Of course I know the spinoff wasn't aimed at my demographic, but that's not 
>>what bothered me about it.  It was the obviousness of the setup, and a 
>>concern that they're spreading themselves too thin.  I don't want
to lose any 
>>good writers, or good production crew, to a Teen Timelord spinoff!
>>
>>As for the terraforming business reanimating a dead person, are you sure 
>>that's not what saved the Doctor's daughter?  And, I wracked my brain but 
>>couldn't come up with an example in books before that Trek movie.  I'd be 
>>delighted if someone else could.  I'd think the concept -- the
remaking of an 
>>entire planet's ecosphere via machine -- is a fairly new one, and probably 
>>doesn't go back that far (not to the pulp sf days, certainly).
>>
> 
> I never connected it (dumb me) with the terraforming.  I'm not sure
> the connection is really there, but while "blatant thievery" as stated
> above, it would "explain" her reviving after the Doctor said that she
> would not...
> 
>>Amy
> 
> --  
> 
> Wes Struebing
> 
> Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
> 
I thought it had to do with the double hearts.  It didn't seem like 
anyone checked the right side after she got shot.  It's clear to me she 
didn't regenerate as she retained the same body, but it's not clear why 
the Doctor was so willing to let her remain "dead".

And I have to say that her final scene reminded me very much of a 
certain Jedi spinning away in his TIE fighter at the end of a certain 
Episode IV...

Blair
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32