Thread: Doctor Who: The Doctor is back! (Summer 2012) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001173
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Yesss! I've just watched the trailer on the BBC website, and he's definitely back in the autumn (no date given) - but Gordon Bennett, it's chockful of Daleks, dinosaurs, angels... you name it, it seems to be in there ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 17. June 2016, 14:40: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
And they appear to be old-skool Daleks, politely excising "Victory of the Daleks" from history, as is only proper.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Oo, haven't seen that trailer yet. Have any dates been confirmed?
I did wonder about resurrecting this thread the other day, when the news broke of the death (too young) of the lovely Mary Tamm, who played Romana in the Key to Time season. Very sad - I'd only watched one of her stories (the gloriously mad Stones of Blood) a couple of weeks before.
[ 02. August 2012, 10:51: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
No confirmed dates yet, just 'autumn'.
Yes, it's very sad about Mary Tamm - you get to a certain age, and people start dropping like flies...
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
In the UK they have been trailing a new series of Merlin in the Autumn as well. One after the other on a Saturday evening, I guess. Unless they are moving the Doctor to midweek again ...
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
Were there flashes of River Song in the trailer?
I hope not: I liked her but surely her time is over.
[ 02. August 2012, 12:14: Message edited by: The Rogue ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
If the series is as good as the poster and the trailer, we're in for a real treat. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
But the poster and the trailer have lied to us before. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Time to hoover behind the sofa. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Bring.It.On.
Tubbs
[ 02. August 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
*Slightly spoilery alert*
.
.
.
- but only to those who haven't been following the news since the last series.
I've looked at the Doctor Who website front page, and in that picture I can see Daleks that seem to be from The Dead Planet, Resurrection of the Daleks, Revelation of the Daleks (the "Special Weapons Dalek"), the 2005 series and the New Dalek Paradigm. It links to a news story that came out a few months ago. Hmm ...
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
*Slightly spoilery alert*
.
.
.
- but only to those who haven't been following the news since the last series.
I've looked at the Doctor Who website front page, and in that picture I can see Daleks that seem to be from The Dead Planet, Resurrection of the Daleks, Revelation of the Daleks (the "Special Weapons Dalek"), the 2005 series and the New Dalek Paradigm. It links to a news story that came out a few months ago. Hmm ...
What news story where? You can PM me if you think it's too big a spoiler to post.
Tubbs
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
What news story where? You can PM me if you think it's too big a spoiler to post.
Tubbs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That EVERY type of Dalek will be included in at least one episode, including those from the Peter Cushing films.
Which seems odd, as the Cushing films were about a man called Doctor Who who invented a time machine. The BBC TV series is about The Doctor, a Time Lord. No continuity at all.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Which seems odd, as the Cushing films were about a man called Doctor Who who invented a time machine. The BBC TV series is about The Doctor, a Time Lord. No continuity at all.
One of the Cushing props made an appearance in "Planet of the Daleks", so it's allowable.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
I'm looking forward to the new series, but I hope Moffat works a bit harder at making the storylines hang together logically, and avoiding cop-outs like the Tesselecta in the finale.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
In the UK they have been trailing a new series of Merlin in the Autumn as well. One after the other on a Saturday evening, I guess. Unless they are moving the Doctor to midweek again ...
Doctor Who is probably starting on August 25th, and the autumn run is only 5 episodes. Merlin will probably run from the beginning of October to Christmas. The Doctor Who Christmas special introduces the new companion, and then there are 8 more episodes in the spring. And come November 2013, the 50th anniversary celebrations!
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Roll on the autumn, then - not only the Doctor and Merlin, but True Blood is back on FX...if only Sherlock & John return soon then my cup of happiness truly runneth over
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
What news story where? You can PM me if you think it's too big a spoiler to post.
Tubbs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That EVERY type of Dalek will be included in at least one episode, including those from the Peter Cushing films.
Which seems odd, as the Cushing films were about a man called Doctor Who who invented a time machine. The BBC TV series is about The Doctor, a Time Lord. No continuity at all.
Thank you. That's great news. I love the Peter Cushing films.I know they're not strictly speaking canon, but they're the nearest we'll ever likely to get to the lost Hartnell episodes.
Tubbs
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
*engage geek mode*
Actually, the stories on which the Cushing movies are based still exist. The Daleks is a classic - good plot, and great design and direction. The director's trick of making the Daleks look menacing by using really low camera angles was used in virtually every classic series Dalek story thereafter. The city is claustrophobic, the forest creepy. And Jacqueline Hill as Barbara pulls off the near impossible task of making being menaced by a sink plunger look really scary. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is, I think, much less successful. It tries to do action and big scale stuff, and fails. The Cushing movie does those things far better.
*disengage geek mode*
Personally, I think a good Dalek script is a very rare thing. I think the new series has a better batting average than the classic, but let's face it - there's only so much you can do with a bunch of hysterical xenophobic tin cans. Fingers crossed for Mr Moffat ...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I love the Peter Cushing films.I know they're not strictly speaking canon, but they're the nearest we'll ever likely to get to the lost Hartnell episodes.
(Adeodatus has already pointed out that the relevant Hartnell stories do still exist.)
Both Russell Davies and Stephen Moffat have said in the past that everything is canon and if there's a contradiction that's just because you didn't see the adventure in which the Doctor goes back in time and changes it.
Many fans draw the line at Curse of Fatal Death, and nearly all fans draw the line at A Fix with Sontarans and Dimensions in Time.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Personally, I think a good Dalek script is a very rare thing.
If you omit all dalek stories by Terry Nation and all dalek stories by Eric Saward you're left with three of the all time classics of Doctor Who and one not quite classic but still good.
So I think the difficulty of getting a good dalek script in the classic series is more down to the failings of Terry Nation as a scriptwriter when he didn't have Robert Holmes script editing him.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
I was excited about this, but having watched the trailer I feel very deflated. I thought RTD proved to almost universal satisfaction that throwing ever more Daleks at a story doesn't make it better. The Weeping Angels have been ruined as a threat since Blink, ironically by continually giving them more powers and greater numbers, because you just know there's going to be some plot cheat. They were scarier when they had weaknesses, and now it's just getting silly. Less is more.
The significant amount of Wild West imagery and the huge number of explosions leaves me in no doubt that this is another series which will be cravenly chasing the US market, continuing to turn a once-great British icon into another identikit franchise. Dinosaurs on a spaceship sounds interesting, but I have a nasty feeling that it'll turn out to be a story written around that tagline, rather than a good story that happens to have a hook. I hope I'll be wrong, but my hopes aren't high.
If the last couple of series are anything to go by, the best material will be the stuff that barely (if at all) made it into the trailer, because that comes from simple, cheap standalone episodes with small budgets, very little CGI (so no exciting whizzbangs), in fact nothing to hide behind if the script's shoddy or nonsensical. That's where Who belongs, and that's still what it's best at.
As for the hints of catastrophe and death, Moffat has form for crying "wolf", so I'm just not bothered. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. He's pushed it too far with his misdirection, lame resolutions and some outright lies. I just can't bring myself to feel anything about yet another "oh noes teh world is ending" teaser.
Once again, it looks like I'm the Eeyore. Have at me.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
As for the hints of catastrophe and death, Moffat has form for crying "wolf", so I'm just not bothered. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. He's pushed it too far with his misdirection, lame resolutions and some outright lies. I just can't bring myself to feel anything about yet another "oh noes teh world is ending" teaser.
Once again, it looks like I'm the Eeyore. Have at me.
No, I think you're right. I think this is one of the worst things about Moffat. (One of the worst things, that is, about someone who does lots of very good things indeed.) The twisty, windy, multiple-misdirection convoluted storylines have been, for me, quite tedious at times. But I did get the impression at the end of the last series of a possible change of direction - a time during which the Doctor tries to let the Universe believe he doesn't exist any more.
We should probably bear in mind, too, that what was available to go in the trailer was what happened to be finished from a series that's still in post-production. Watching the trailer, I reckoned that the content could be from as few as three episodes. So the Wild West stuff could be only one episode. (It looked to me like they were going for a remake of Westworld!)
I've noticed that with some of the stories of the Moffat era, I've liked them more as time goes on. One example is last season's The God Complex, which at the time I didn't like at all. Now, not only do I think it's very good, I also think it's quite disturbing. This "delayed appreciation" isn't something I got much of with RTD's stories.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
*engage geek mode*
Actually, the stories on which the Cushing movies are based still exist. The Daleks is a classic - good plot, and great design and direction. The director's trick of making the Daleks look menacing by using really low camera angles was used in virtually every classic series Dalek story thereafter. The city is claustrophobic, the forest creepy. And Jacqueline Hill as Barbara pulls off the near impossible task of making being menaced by a sink plunger look really scary. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is, I think, much less successful. It tries to do action and big scale stuff, and fails. The Cushing movie does those things far better.
*disengage geek mode*
Personally, I think a good Dalek script is a very rare thing. I think the new series has a better batting average than the classic, but let's face it - there's only so much you can do with a bunch of hysterical xenophobic tin cans. Fingers crossed for Mr Moffat ...
Sorry, mis-remembered and thought one of the films was based on Dalek Master Plan - which is lost. [My inner geek needs to get with the fact checking!]
Wish they'd revive some of the other monsters from the classic series and give the daleks a holiday.
Tubbs
[ 03. August 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've noticed that with some of the stories of the Moffat era, I've liked them more as time goes on. One example is last season's The God Complex, which at the time I didn't like at all. Now, not only do I think it's very good, I also think it's quite disturbing. This "delayed appreciation" isn't something I got much of with RTD's stories.
Although I liked the show well enough when it aired, I had the same reaction of liking it more the more I thought about it.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
Also, it's a trailer. Are you going to throw in armies of Daleks? Sure! Who doesn't want to see the Doctor get out of that one? Are you going to show that you're bringing back the Mara? Of course not—nobody'd ever see that one coming, so save it for the episode.
Trailers, pre-season publicity, and, well, even last year's first twenty minutes are all about telling lies, misdirecting, and making things look exciting. You know they're not telling you the important parts of the story—that's what they want you to stick around for.
As for Who being consistently good with low-budget, no SFX, plot-driven classics . . . need I say more?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I kinda miss those days, although I admit I haven't seen many of the old eps. It gives a public TV nerd a swell of hope to see the myriad uses of egg cartons and old car fenders.
[ETA: come to think of it, it also appeals to the preschool teacher in me...]
[ 03. August 2012, 19:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
Also, it's a trailer. Are you going to throw in armies of Daleks? Sure! Who doesn't want to see the Doctor get out of that one? Are you going to show that you're bringing back the Mara? Of course not—nobody'd ever see that one coming, so save it for the episode.
Trailers, pre-season publicity, and, well, even last year's first twenty minutes are all about telling lies, misdirecting, and making things look exciting. You know they're not telling you the important parts of the story—that's what they want you to stick around for.
Yes and no. A trailer should excite you, and evidently it's achieved that for most, but I can't get that excited about it. Legions of Daleks haven't been very exciting for years (after Canary Wharf and their bizarre plan to destroy the entire universe - WTF was that about?), and Moffat said as recently as last year that the Daleks were going to be parked for a long time. So much for that.
quote:
As for Who being consistently good with low-budget, no SFX, plot-driven classics . . . need I say more?
Yes, I think you do. I didn't say Who was consistently good with low-budget stuff (although I think it's generally been pretty decent, because that's all it had to work with), but it is what the show's always been about, and over the last few series, that's where the best episodes have come from.
In the last three series, Midnight, Amy's Choice and The Girl Who Waited have been right up there among my absolute favourite episodes, even though they were all very simple. I didn't really get on with Vincent and the Doctor, but lots of people loved it. And that's without mentioning Blink. You don't need masses of CGI to make a decent episode, just a good idea. I feel like that basic truth is being lost under the possibility of panning across several million CGI Daleks.
[ 03. August 2012, 21:12: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Looking at the trailer, and the title, and the fact that we're supposed to be seeing all the dalek models from the history of the program, I suspect that the hook of the episode is something a bit more complicated than oh look lots of daleks. In the same way that Remembrance is more than just a fun run around with daleks. Asylum looks like it could be about the history of the daleks in the program or about what the daleks say about the Doctor.
The trailer finishes announcing that somebody, possibly the Doctor, has killed all the daleks. If it's merely an oh look legions of daleks story, that's a bit skipping ahead to the end.
Posted by The Machine Elf (# 1622) on
:
Given what happened the last time one generation of Daleks met another (the less 'pure' ones were exterminated), having every generation of them in one place might not be the most stable congregations.
I've had it with these dinosaurs on a space-ship.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
Broadcast dates?
Series six opener, "Let's Kill Hitler" was given a preview at the Edinburgh International Film Festival and was broadcast a day later.
"Asylum of the Daleks" is expected to be shown at this years Festival, (August 23 - 25)so if the same pattern in followed to prevent spoilers getting out, expect it to be televised on August 25th.
OTOH I could be wrong.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Far too much Amy in the trailer, but apparently she disappears halfway through the series. Sadly Rory is meant to go as well, but anything is a price worth paying to see the back of her.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Far too much Amy in the trailer, but apparently she disappears halfway through the series. Sadly Rory is meant to go as well, but anything is a price worth paying to see the back of her.
Why? I find ginger hair and Scottish accents quite sexy.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
... especially when they belong to Vincent van Gogh
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Vincent could act.
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Far too much Amy in the trailer, but apparently she disappears halfway through the series. Sadly Rory is meant to go as well, but anything is a price worth paying to see the back of her.
Why? I find ginger hair and Scottish accents quite sexy.
With you on that, only now have got the Season Five boxset at a nice price and loved Amy's wedding speech in episode 13: "AND YOU'RE LATE FOR MY WEDDING-AH!" Wonderfully mad. Do love the Amy/Rory dynamic.
[ 04. August 2012, 23:01: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Um, yeah, don't know if I can be bothered with the new series, really. We've had Daleks to overdose before - what was that one where they all poured through a cleft in the sky and swarmed all over the planet? However, Amy's departure can only improve the series.
Merlin, OTOH, I will definitely be looking forward to and if they bring back Sherlock, my cup of happiness will be complete too, best thing on telly for years.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Apparently there is to be an announcement at midnight re the casting of someone 'iconic' for the new season. Anyone know who it might be?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Ok bizarre triple post. Please could a Host kindly delete the two extras?
(So done).
[ 05. August 2012, 20:30: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apparently there is to be an announcement at midnight re the casting of someone 'iconic' for the new season. Anyone know who it might be?
It's
.
.
.
.
Richard E Grant. Which is lovely. Good actor. Charismatic. But on the other hand, it doesn't do much good if you don't know who he's playing. He's a bit tall to fit inside a Dalek.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
Surely he's playing the Doctor again.
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
Famous actor? Playing the Doctor again? Can it please be Rowan Atkinson?
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Surely he's playing the Doctor again.
The Master is mentioned in the trailer....
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Aren't you getting confuzzed with Paul McGann?
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
As well as a Comic relief special, "The curse of fatal death" Richard E Grant has played the Doctor on the BBCi webcast Scream of the Shalka.So on hearing that Richard E Grant was the mystery celebrity, I can only wonder if he is to play the Doctor in an alternate form.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
OK, I sit corrected. Are these apparitions canonical though?
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on
:
Who cares? (See what I did there ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Seriously, Richard E Grant? Whooohooo!
I hope he plays a baddy, he makes a brilliant baddy.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, I sit corrected. Are these apparitions canonical though?
Scream of the Shalka is canonical. Grant played the 8th Doctor, so I can see where your confuddlement with McGann came from.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, I sit corrected. Are these apparitions canonical though?
Scream of the Shalka is canonical. Grant played the 8th Doctor, so I can see where your confuddlement with McGann came from.
Grant played the Ninth Doctor. So did Eccleston.
Everything is canon in Doctor Who.
Except Noddy. Noddy doesn't exist.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
This is exciting! I won't be able to see any of it till it's available on Netflix, at which point I'll devour it in a few sittings.
Personally, I hate the episodes with threats of the world coming to an end - they usually have too much CGI and some kind of Doctor ex machina resolution. My absolute least favorite was that one where the Master trapped the Doctor in a cage and Martha Jones walked the earth teaching everyone to think, "Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..." until somehow all those people thinking "Doctor" brought him back. That was so terribly, terribly corny.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
HATED. That ep.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The significant amount of Wild West imagery and the huge number of explosions leaves me in no doubt that this is another series which will be cravenly chasing the US market, continuing to turn a once-great British icon into another identikit franchise.
I certainly hope not. I hate what was done to Torchwood (though that wasn't a "once-great British icon"). That season/series that was placed in the US wasn't bad in itself, but it kinda ruined Torchwood, if that makes any sense. Then again, what might have ruined Torchwood was this weird seeming attempt to stitch it onto Christian themes. It doesn't map exactly, of course, but there's a lot of similarities.
In the last season set in the UK, we had Owen cast as a Judas/Peter figure who is forgiven after Jack returns from the dead, and just about everyone who remains loyal to Jack (including Owen) ends up killed. At the end of that season, Jack ascended into heaven, leaving Gwen looking up into the sky. Then, in the next season, he gets Gwen (his remaining crew) to leave family behind and head out into the ends of the earth, where they pick up new followers. And it turns out Jack's blood has the power to grant immortality. Oh, and his blood saves the whole world. (Any themes I'm missing?)
Actually, even though I think they ruined Torchwood, I'd kinda like to see where they would go from there, after what's-his-name (Mekhi Phifer's character) becomes immortal like Jack. Is there any word of whether Torchwood might come back or if it is finished?
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
I've always thought that the reason for an American immortal in Torchwood is so that we can have two series, the Welsh one and the spin off American one.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, I sit corrected. Are these apparitions canonical though?
Scream of the Shalka is canonical. Grant played the 8th Doctor, so I can see where your confuddlement with McGann came from.
Grant played the Ninth Doctor. So did Eccleston.
Everything is canon in Doctor Who.
Except Noddy. Noddy doesn't exist.
"Paul McGann doesn't count." (And that must be right because it's a quote from Queer as Folk!)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
[Gumby voice] My brain hurts![/Gumby voice] ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The significant amount of Wild West imagery and the huge number of explosions leaves me in no doubt that this is another series which will be cravenly chasing the US market, continuing to turn a once-great British icon into another identikit franchise.
I certainly hope not. I hate what was done to Torchwood (though that wasn't a "once-great British icon"). That season/series that was placed in the US wasn't bad in itself, but it kinda ruined Torchwood, if that makes any sense. Then again, what might have ruined Torchwood was this weird seeming attempt to stitch it onto Christian themes. It doesn't map exactly, of course, but there's a lot of similarities.
The last series of Torchwood wasn't bad in itself!?!?!?!?
I beg to differ.
But the US crossover marketing seems to be the way things are going now. What profiteth it a series if it gain some money for a few whizzbangs yet forfeit its soul? The US influence was already noticeable in the last series of Who, and I'm not sure what will be left if they go any further down that line.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
[Without being entirely serious:]
Queer as Folk was first broadcast during the Great Drought; the long period of exile when there was no Doctor Who on our screens, and many of us had given up thinking that there ever would be again. The comment I quoted comes from a True Fan (the equivalent of the Johannine beloved disciple if you will), who spoke for all of us who clung to hope when all hope was lost.
The comment matters because QAF was a great series (at least in its original form, before it went abroad and got soft and fluffy); moreover it was written by one Russell T Davies. I believe he went on to do other stuff on the telly, although names escape me now.....
[ETA Comment addressed to Gumby, who seemed confused by my earlier post.]
[ 07. August 2012, 09:39: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[Gumby voice] My brain hurts![/Gumby voice]
Oh Matt. It's really very simple. There are Strict TV Series Canonists, New Adventures Canonists, BBC Books Canonists, and so on. Then there are fringe groups that really do see The Curse of Fatal Death as canonical (let's face it, it was no more ridiculous than some of the Colin Baker stories), and complete left-field groups like Cushing Canonists.
It's all (or nearly all) about what happened to Doctor Who after Sylvester McCoy's last story, Survival. It began to exist as novels, short stories, radio shows, straight-to-CD audio productions - you name it. Some of these extended and complicated the show's world (the "Whoniverse") to such an extent that some people began asking the hushed question, "Is it really Doctor Who?" Continuity - never really a big concern of the tv show for its first 18 years anyway - became virtually impossible to keep track of with the sheer volume of material coming out from different and competing sources - Virgin Books, BBC Books, Big Finish Audio... The best you could say for it is that at least a lot of it was being produced by people who'd loved the tv show and wanted to do a good job.
But even around 1999/2000, you'd get fans saying "Paul McGann doesn't count!", partly because the tv movie had bollocksed continuity even more with probably the most ludicrous line of dialogue in the history of the show - "I'm half human, on my mother's side." The usual fan response was, "He's the Doctor, he's not Mr flaming Spock!"
Then came 2005, which made things even more complicated. (Was this the first, second or third time Gallifrey had been destroyed? Hm...)
Me, I'm a tv canonist. (And I don't include The Curse of Fatal Death in that!) It keeps things neat and tidy, and anyway, I ignored most of those other media so I wouldn't even know ehere to start with them. But I suspect that when Moffat or RTD or whoever says, "everything's canon", they really mean "nothing's canon" - i.e. it's my show and I'll do what I like with it. Which is not only true, it's also kind of what the great producers like Lambert, Letts and Hinchcliffe did anyway.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's really very simple. There are Strict TV Series Canonists, New Adventures Canonists, BBC Books Canonists, and so on. Then there are fringe groups that really do see The Curse of Fatal Death as canonical (let's face it, it was no more ridiculous than some of the Colin Baker stories), and complete left-field groups like Cushing Canonists.
And then there are those who think that the only canonical Colin Baker stories are audio-only.
Do you want to treat The Twin Dilemma and Trial of a Time Lord as canonical? Of course you don't.
quote:
Continuity - never really a big concern of the tv show for its first 18 years anyway
There is understatement, damn understatement, and saying that classic Doctor Who didn't care about continuity. (Except in Peter Davison's last season and Colin Baker's first. There may be a few fans out there who think those two seasons represent a pinnacle that Doctor Who has never surpassed. There is no opinion so wrong that some Doctor Who fan won't argue for it.)
quote:
But I suspect that when Moffat or RTD or whoever says, "everything's canon", they really mean "nothing's canon" - i.e. it's my show and I'll do what I like with it. Which is not only true, it's also kind of what the great producers like Lambert, Letts and Hinchcliffe did anyway.
Well, yes. Doctor Who: not letting continuity get in the way of a good story since at least The Dalek Invasion of Earth.
[ 07. August 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[Oh Matt. It's really very simple. There are Strict TV Series Canonists, New Adventures Canonists, BBC Books Canonists, and so on. Then there are fringe groups that really do see The Curse of Fatal Death as canonical (let's face it, it was no more ridiculous than some of the Colin Baker stories), and complete left-field groups like Cushing Canonists.
Yes, but they are all Bad and Wrong.
Everyone really knows that what counts is original BBC TV series as actually broadcast, ignoring that thing with Paul McGann in it!
And also that the Time Lords lie. A lot. Including the Doctor. So you can only believe what you see, not what they say...
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
I've always thought that the reason for an American immortal in Torchwood is so that we can have two series, the Welsh one and the spin off American one.
Interesting idea. That would be a good solution, actually - let the original go back to being what it was, if it can. Maybe the ship has sailed, though.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But the US crossover marketing seems to be the way things are going now. What profiteth it a series if it gain some money for a few whizzbangs yet forfeit its soul? The US influence was already noticeable in the last series of Who, and I'm not sure what will be left if they go any further down that line.
I imagine it's 'cause they noticed the huge American fan base. But making the show more American as a result is rather stupid, since the American fans obviously are fans of the British show. They're not going to be impressed by the changes. It's insulting that they assume Americans can only enjoy American-style programming, and it's probably misguided if they think Americanizing the show will bring in a wider US market share.
Oh, and what I meant by the US-based season of Torchwood not being bad in itself was that if it weren't Torchwood, it would've been an interesting show on its own (perhaps with some modifications to make it not a Torchwood rip-off, but still). The fact that it was Torchwood made it a big let down.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I went right off Torchwood once it crossed the Atlantic - it just wasn't the same.
It should come back, be set in Birmingham, lose Gwen Cooper and resurrect Ianto and Owen. Then I'd watch it.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I went right off Torchwood once it crossed the Atlantic - it just wasn't the same.
It should come back, be set in Birmingham, lose Gwen Cooper and resurrect Ianto and Owen. Then I'd watch it.
Why Birmingham?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Far too much Amy in the trailer, but apparently she disappears halfway through the series. Sadly Rory is meant to go as well, but anything is a price worth paying to see the back of her.
I wish Rory could be the travelling companion for the next regeneration of the Doctor, who would be gay. Isn't it time, really?
When I saw the trailer for the new series I got all teary. This is the greatest show in all spacetime -- deeply spiritual, deeply moral, and somehow I think profoundly prescient.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I went right off Torchwood once it crossed the Atlantic - it just wasn't the same.
It should come back, be set in Birmingham, lose Gwen Cooper and resurrect Ianto and Owen. Then I'd watch it.
Why Birmingham?
Something to do with Coronation Street?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Something to do with Coronation Street?
Slight as my acquaintance with these things is, Corrie is a) produced by a commercial channel and not the BBC and b) set in a fictionalised version of Salford - which Is proper northern (Brummagen is Midlands).
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on
:
1. Curse of Fatal Death is canon. Everything else, while nice (I suppose), isn't. If I don't get to have Blackadder as the Doctor, I don't know why I even bother.
2. Just because they're shooting something in an Anachronistic Old West doesn't mean it's getting "Americanized," whatever that means. Sure, it may have been a while, but Who has been West before—am I the only one who's hoping for a "stick it in your pipe and smoke it, Jeremy Bentham*" reference to "The Gunslingers?"
*Okay, so I would rather tell that to the stuffed Bentham with the wax head at University College, but his relative will have to suffice.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Everyone really knows that what counts is original BBC TV series as actually broadcast, ignoring that thing with Paul McGann in it!
And also that the Time Lords lie. A lot. Including the Doctor. So you can only believe what you see, not what they say...
Unfortunately, when we saw the amnesiac Doctor's journal in "Human Nature / Family of Blood", in which he had sketched his previous faces, he quite clearly included McGann. This was the defining moment for the McGann-is-Canon brigade.
Unless of course he was lying about remembering.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firaenze:
Corrie is ... set in a fictionalised version of Salford - which Is proper northern
Tha dun't know what tha's sayin'. It's wrong side o' t' 'ills.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
This was the defining moment for the McGann-is-Canon brigade.
McGann is canon. It's just that sadly he was never in anything on television. Just like Colin Baker.
[ 08. August 2012, 10:47: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
Trial of a Time Lord is the first story I can clearly remember from when I was younger, and despite that (or maybe because of it?), I still didn't like Colin Baker. By rights, he should have been "my" Doctor, but I hated him. The poor man's just doomed to be The One We Don't Talk About.
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
2. Just because they're shooting something in an Anachronistic Old West doesn't mean it's getting "Americanized," whatever that means. Sure, it may have been a while, but Who has been West before—am I the only one who's hoping for a "stick it in your pipe and smoke it, Jeremy Bentham*" reference to "The Gunslingers?"
It's not exactly that there's anything wrong with a Western setting, more that Who seems to be finding excuses to do lots of location filming in the US, have American characters/references, and so on, not because it's necessary or makes for a good story, but to appeal to a different market. It feels forced and desperate, and I can't imagine what the Brigadier would have thought of it.
But I don't think the trainwreck that was the last series of Torchwood had anything to do with the US influence - it was just shit.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I went right off Torchwood once it crossed the Atlantic - it just wasn't the same.
It should come back, be set in Birmingham, lose Gwen Cooper and resurrect Ianto and Owen. Then I'd watch it.
Why Birmingham?
Something to do with Coronation Street?
No, I just like Birmingham.
(There are other places I like as well but Birmingham would be a better setting than most of them. The Weevils could surface in the Bull Ring after dark and chase the cast along the canals. There could be a heroic scene on the flimy metallic bridge to the Mailbox where Jack has a shootout with whoever's currently pursuing him. And Gwen could fall off it into the canal. Lots of possibilities.)
Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The Weevils could surface in the Bull Ring after dark and chase the cast along the canals. There could be a heroic scene on the flimy metallic bridge to the Mailbox where Jack has a shootout with whoever's currently pursuing him. And Gwen could fall off it into the canal. Lots of possibilities.)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
And if you head up the cut towards Dudley then there's plenty of wasteland/warehouses for alien encounters. (Not just with the locals )
Or down under the BT tower to Farmer's Bridge. Birmingham has many Torchwood possibilities!
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
Maybe Torchwood had just jumped the shark the season before the last. Although Dr. Who has jumped a few sharks and managed to come back just fine. Although occasionally Dr. Who only manages to do so through a regeneration of the Doctor. Possibly also because it's got such a long and beloved history.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
What made the American Torchwood more disappointing was that after a poor start (with promising bits) in the first two episodic series, it hit its stride in the third series, being a continuous story.
Hearing that the fourth series was also a single story I had high hopes. Sadly these hopes were dashed.
But Children of Earth showed that Torchwood can work.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Maybe Torchwood had just jumped the shark the season before the last.
Torchwood had jumped the shark before the first season. Children of Earth showed that Torchwood could work by being Torchwood for people who wanted to see Torchwood put out of its misery.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
I liked every series of Torchwood. None of them were perfect in my view but I enjoyed them.
One thing that irritates me about our Who discussions is that some people give their opinion as being absolute fact. Can we remember that we are all different and we all like different things?
Thank you.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
One thing that irritates me about our Who discussions is that some people give their opinion as being absolute fact. Can we remember that we are all different and we all like different things?
Thank you.
I get the horrible feeling that this might be aimed at me, but I hope not. Apart from factual issues of historical precedent and suchlike, I tend to take it as read that we're all just exchanging opinions, so it seems redundant to acknowledge that what I say is just my opinion, even though that's obviously exactly what it is. I think that obvious opposition of different subjective opinions might make these discussions a bit feisty sometimes, though. According to Sayre's Law:
quote:
Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low
I think that applies here as well, but if I'm coming across as dogmatic, I'll try to behave in future. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
One thing that irritates me about our Who discussions is that some people give their opinion as being absolute fact.
Is that a fact?
Still, it is true that there are very few "absolutes" about Doctor Who (and within the context of the story I honestly am having trouble coming up with even one absolute). With regard to the show as a series, there are, of course, historical facts as to such things as broadcast dates, actors who played parts, producers, directors, etc. But apparently even that is going to become the subject of a TV drama.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
What made the American Torchwood more disappointing was that after a poor start (with promising bits) in the first two episodic series, it hit its stride in the third series, being a continuous story.
Hearing that the fourth series was also a single story I had high hopes. Sadly these hopes were dashed.
But Children of Earth showed that Torchwood can work.
Not just with Torchwood, but in general - I prefer the episodic. I think some good shows can ruin themselves even with a story arc (like House - it was much better IMO when it was episodes of medical mysteries). Having a story that spans a few episodes is OK, but my taste is more for the episodic. It tends to keep a season/series from needing to continuously ramp up the drama over the course of a season/series.
Dr Who tends to be episodic, although IMO it suffers when it tries to create a season-long arc that has to culminate in yet another end-of-the-world-averted finale.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
It is true that the premise of Doctor Who, namely a police box that ends up somewhere completely different in time and space every story, is about as completely unsuited to story arcs as any premise I can think of.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
I also prefer the episodic but the Roguelings, whose first exposure to the Doctor was the modern era, like long story arcs.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I also prefer the episodic but the Roguelings, whose first exposure to the Doctor was the modern era, like long story arcs.
Classic Who was never episodic, in the way the new series is. It consisted of stories of typically four to six episodes each. Even then there were occasional series long story arcs.
I'm not a fan of story arcs that run for an entire series myself, but do like stories that are more than episode long.
As for contradicting the Whovian canon. As long as a story has a consistent logic within itself I'm happy. There have always been stories that contradict the back story of previous ones, it doesn't matter.
Is the Doctor 50% human or 100% Time Lord? Whatever fits that particular story best.
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on
:
I have come late to this discussion but, McGann has to be canon as McCoy becomes McGann. I think the TV film is not good but McGann does a great job on audio.
Torchwood was not that great in the first few series. It felt a little teenage (ooo we can be rude and talk about sex). Children of Earth was the best series. The last series was OK but protracted. Too many episodes to story.
Amy has become Rose all over again.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
A question if I may for someone who hasn't seen much of the original series (I have vague memories of it when I was younger but that's all). Which series would people recommend that I get on DVD? Are the revisitation sets worth it or should I stick to individual stories?
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
There must be loads of different stories you can get and no doubt different people here will have different recommendations.
You could get one story from each Doctor and decide which one you like but then again there is no guarantee that another with the same Doctor will be as good/poor. Also that's eight DVDs which will cost a fair bit.
How about scouring the reduced bins and finding something that's cheap and taking pot luck?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
We've seen a lot of classic Doctor Who on DVDs borrowed from the local library. If your library loans DVDs, check it out -- ours has loads of old Doctor Who episodes, so we can watch them for free.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
And, dare I say it, but pretty much everything from the original series has been put online for free. It's an easy way to find which ones are worth the money before plonking down the cash.
That said, Key to Time.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Are the revisitation sets worth it or should I stick to individual stories?
Random list of classic episodes to see, representing a range of periods and styles:
The War Games (black and white)
Carnival of Monsters
Genesis of the Daleks
Brain of Morbius
Robots of Death
Horror of Fang Rock
City of Death
Warriors Gate
Caves of Androzani
Remembrance of the Daleks
Curse of Fenric
Survival
(A lot of people would put on a couple more early Tom Baker, such as Talons of Weng-Chiang and Pyramids of Mars, and take off (probably) Warriors Gate and Survival. With Talons of Weng-Chiang I can see the logic.)
Revisitation 1 has Talons of Weng-Chiang(very good to brilliant), Caves of Androzani (brilliant), and the TV movie (dire). Probably worth it for Caves of Androzani alone; with Talons of Weng-Chiang definitely worth doing unless you can find the two of them cheaper separately.
Revisitation 2 has Seeds of Death (good), Carnival of Monsters (brilliant), and Resurrection of the Daleks (good to dire). The only way at the moment to get Carnival of Monsters I think, and probably worth it for that alone.
Revisitation 3 has Tomb of the Cybermen (very good to dire), The Three Doctors (very good to bad but entertaining), and the Robots of Death (brilliant). Maybe worth it for Robots of Death alone
I haven't thought about in the DVD extras, which were supposed to be the point of the sets.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
If you have Netflix, you can watch quite a lot of it streaming online, and rent DVDs (recommended for the extras sometimes). If you don't have Netflix, you could do a free trial they tend to offer for a month.
When I was starting to catch up on the old series, I started from the very beginning at first, then skipped around based on what looked interesting. Although I did try to catch the first episode(s) of a recurring character's / monster's first appearance if I could.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
I was kinda hoping the Doctor saying he was going to lay low would have meant a return to some more quiet but pointed stuff, less saving of the universe, for the umpteenth time, and more saving a few people as he travels around.
And then we get this thing with another gigantic army of daleks.
And worse, now my wife has told me about one of the more prominent spoiler rumours and although it make sense, it pretty much ruins one of the characters for me.
I think the makers of Who take the Doctor far far too seriously compared to the old days.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Oh and I just saw the interview with the new companion and ...well.......oh dear.......hope she can act better then she interviews.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Thanks for the advice everyone. Will be interesting to see how it affects my viewing of nu-who.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Og - have you got a link for that interview?
A little while ago I tried to organise a day where a few of us got together, each brought our favourite Who adventure, and we spent the day in happy viewing. Sadly it never happened, due to logistics, but my choice was "The Mind Games" (Troughton). Other contributions were going to be "Tomb of the Cybermen" (Troughton), "Spearhead from Space" (Pertwee) and "Genesis of the Daleks" (T Baker). That was as modern as we got - none of us got close to nu-Who - which shows I'm not the only dinosaur out there.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
And worse, now my wife has told me about one of the more prominent spoiler rumours and although it make sense, it pretty much ruins one of the characters for me.
Oh, I wish you hadn't said that. Now I'll be driven mad, torn between my desire not to be spoiled and my curiosity at what this rumour can be.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
it pretty much ruins one of the characters for me.
Colin Baker did that back in the day.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I think the makers of Who take the Doctor far far too seriously compared to the old days.
Yes. And it's a shame. One of the things I really like about Matt Smith is the levity he brings to the character.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I think the makers of Who take the Doctor far far too seriously compared to the old days.
Yes. And it's a shame. One of the things I really like about Matt Smith is the levity he brings to the character.
Personally, I've been thinking that the problem is CGI. It allows them to do huge spectacles (like a screen filled with thousands of Daleks)--and that brings the temptation to write a story to allow the spectacle. The desire for the spectacular image dictates the story. Whether it is the excesses of a thousand burning Daleks; or the excesses of a Dalek-Cyberman War; or the excesses of a sky filled with planets; or the excesses of showing fractured time with pterodactyls buzzing Big Ben...and on and on and on. I can't shake the feeling that they come up with the "cool image" first and then shoehorn a story in to get to the image.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
But CGI can work. In Smith's first episode, hanging on to the edge of an out of control TARDIS, who could not like that?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
I'm also thinking of the CGI work in "The Doctor's Wife," which, granted, happened to have an okayish sort of writer, but also a writer who has experience in using visuals to aid the story. Yes, flashy CGI makes for great opening set pieces (think "Good Man Goes to War"), then gets out of the way, but in the hands of a skilled writer or director, can aid the story immensely.
And really. Have we forgotten that the rubber snake in "Kinda" bore some of the blame for the series' cancellation? Heck, I've heard no mention of Tom Baker fellating the Creature from the Pit, nor the godawful ChromaKey in "Underworld." Misused, off-kilter, and poorly-integrated visuals are something Who has dealt with throughout its tenure. Let it not be thought that visuals are either an inducement to bad writing ("Doctor's Wife," 2/3rds of Key to Time), or the lack thereof an aid to good episodes ("Closing Time," too many classic episodes to list).
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Perhaps I explained myself poorly. Wouldn't be the first time. CGI is not evil in itself. As an aid to a story, it can be quite effective. My concern is that too many stories cross the line--where the story is in aid of the CGI rather than the other way around.
The classic series was not immune to this. I am ashamed to admit that I can't recall the story title, but Ace's first story set on Iceworld: From the moment I first saw it, I was convinced that it was written just to allow them to do the special effect of having the villain melt at the end. The special effect was quite well done, but the story itself was nonsensical and seemed to have been written for the sole sake of doing the special effect.
The McGann movie has a similar problem. There was a lot of appealing "eye candy" in it--more effort seemed to be spent on that that the storyline itself. Which is a pity, because McGann himself showed promise of being an excellent Doctor.
Many NuWho stories (some of which I referenced in the previous posting) strike me the same way--a lot of time and effort spent on the visual effects, not so much about whether the story made any sense.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
Which is a shame, really, since fans of the old series certainly were on board for the stories (and characters?), given that the special effects were so limited. From DVD extras I've watched, it seems the limitations were at least as often budgetary as anything else.
In general (beyond Who), CGI has raised audience expectations in the SFX department, but I'd like to think that audiences still appreciate (and maybe prefer0 a good story. I guess maybe there's too much subjectivity about what makes a good story - some people will actually prefer spectacular action to any other story.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
So, new trailer for the daleks episode. They're not selling it as another daleks try to take over the universe story.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Have we forgotten that the rubber snake in "Kinda" bore some of the blame for the series' cancellation?
Aren't you thinking of the myrka in Warriors of the Deep? The rubber snake was a poor visual in an otherwise brilliant story; the myrka was an obvious symptom of a story in which it wasn't clear why anyone ever thought anything was a good idea.
Warriors Gate may be the best example of the series squeezing stunning visuals out of next to no budget.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Have we forgotten that the rubber snake in "Kinda" bore some of the blame for the series' cancellation?
Aren't you thinking of the myrka in Warriors of the Deep? The rubber snake was a poor visual in an otherwise brilliant story; the myrka was an obvious symptom of a story in which it wasn't clear why anyone ever thought anything was a good idea.
Nope, I was thinking of the snake, but thanks for reminding me about the lumbering underwater dinosaur. I'm pretty sure both got blamed, though.
As usual, the TARDIS Eruditorium has something to say about the "Warriors of the Deep" era and its love of "base under siege" stories; apparently, that's what the hard-core fandom loved. None of the character development or soap opera aspects (which, granted, could have been done better—by the time someone figured out which end was the head, which one the ass, we'd gotten to "Planet of Fire," and #5 stepped in a spectrox nest the very next story) really appealed to this constituency, so it was all besieged bases, all the time!
Which may explain the popularity of "Earthshock." It's a great example of taking a not-that-great story and throwing Cybermen and the death of a pretty annoying and underdeveloped character at it in the hopes people think it's good. I don't care what the fan polls think (seriously, better than anything in Key to Time? Better than any other 5th Doctor story other than Androzani? Heck, better than the deliciously camp "Horns of Nimon?"), "Earthshock" belongs 19 from the other end of that 200 best stories poll, down with "Warriors of the Deep."
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm not sure if the TARDIS Eruditorum mentioned this, but another major problem with Warriors of the Deep was that it was a story where an old enemy was brought back just for the sake of bringing an old enemy back. If you think about it, the story would have worked just as well - probably better - with a whole new enemy. In fact the Silurians and Sea Devils were subjected to so much retconning that they might as well have been a new enemy. Even more irksome, then, that the new series did the same again - and with the same enemy! Rewrote and redesigned the Silurians again! Neither time did the writers or producers notice that even the first time around, the Silurians weren't that great. Their story was magnificent - an all-time classic - but it really said all that ever needed to be said about them.
This is something the show often gets wrong (and got very wrong in the early and mid eighties) - the only good reason to bring a character or species back is that there's more to explore about them. This is why my heart sinks every time I see Daleks, but also incidentally why stories like Genesis and Dalek are so good - because they look at an established character from a whole new angle. However, it doesn't always work: Triumph of the Daleks could have been another one of those stories, but it was just dreadful.
(By the way, according to the forward-planning thingy on my cable tv box, there's no Doctor Who on Saturday 25th. Even though the press preview of Asylum of the Daleks has already happened.)
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I've scrolled through the schedules on the BBC website and there's nothing listed up to 27 August, when the schedule ends. I also used the search button, but only ridiculous stories come up about sport and so on, so I have no idea about the season start, even though it was supposed to be August
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Well, they had a 'coming soon!' ad on the BBC about an hour ago, so I guess it'll be September possibly, or even October??
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
The date I've seen mentioned is 1st September, and they're doing the film premiere on 25th August.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Og - have you got a link for that interview?
....
Here ya go.
Poor interviewer to be honest but...ugh.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
The date I've seen mentioned is 1st September, and they're doing the film premiere on 25th August.
We come home from our camping holiday that day. I guess we will be striking camp at 6.00am to make sure we get back in time. The Roguelings will be keen (until I actually try to wake them up) but Mrs Rogue is not a fan. Any suggestions?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Set to record? Admittedly, this means leaving the TV/box plugged in while you're away, but IME this seldom results in the house burning to the ground.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
The date I've seen mentioned is 1st September, and they're doing the film premiere on 25th August.
I hope not. We leave for two weeks in Spain between 1st and 15th Sept. Hope iPlayer doesn't delete it after 7 days
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
A while back now, Robert Armin posted:
quote:
A little while ago I tried to organise a day where a few of us got together, each brought our favourite Who adventure, and we spent the day in happy viewing.
We did a similar thing back in April. Macarius' cousin wanted to introduce her daughter to Classic Who, as she had only seen the new ones. So we made lots of Whofood (eg, Doctor Hummous, Donna Kebabs, Cheesy Cybermen, Face of Bo bread, Dariole Daleks etc) and spent a happy day watching bits of old Who.
Martin Clunes in Snakedance, dressed in a nightdress and boots, fondling his snake, was a particular favourite.
(For those who saw my sad little confession about our pet logs on another thread, we dressed them up appropriately as well).
M.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Og - have you got a link for that interview?
....
Here ya go.
Poor interviewer to be honest but...ugh.
Didn't think she looked too bad, to be honest. It is a shame that the Beeb have gone for another brainless bimbo, but maybe that's the effect of a time travel series. All of the actresses come from the 1910s rather than the 2010s. Once they find one who has got the vote things might improve.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
My son just checked him out of his hotel in Bristol.
AtB Pyx_e
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
The date I've seen mentioned is 1st September, and they're doing the film premiere on 25th August.
I hope not. We leave for two weeks in Spain between 1st and 15th Sept. Hope iPlayer doesn't delete it after 7 days
They tend to "stack" series (i.e. keep all episodes till the end of the run), so you should be all right. I'm counting on it, too, as I'll be abroad for a while in mid-series...
(It would be sooo nice to have i-player available abroad for British licence payers - I'm sure it's technically possible)
(PS...enjoy Spain!)
[ 21. August 2012, 20:37: Message edited by: doubtingthomas ]
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
The date I've seen mentioned is 1st September, and they're doing the film premiere on 25th August.
PS, and apologies for double post (mind = sieve):
in support of the 1st September date, today's Radio Times promises for the next issue "The Doctor is Back", plus a Dalek wallchart. Seems resaonably conclusive
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
It is the 1st of September
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
Has anyone seen this "Pond Life" ? It might be quite fun - but I'm not sure I'll be able to get it out of the UK...
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
Has anyone seen this "Pond Life" ? It might be quite fun - but I'm not sure I'll be able to get it out of the UK...
This does rather suggest that any fatality encountered by Mr or Mrs Pond isn't permanent and gives the lie to the message of that big teasy Dalek poster - but then, what's new?
(I know they're technically Mr & Mrs Whatever-Rory's-names but even the Beeb refers to them as the Ponds.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
] This does rather suggest that any fatality encountered by Mr or Mrs Pond isn't permanent and gives the lie to the message of that big teasy Dalek poster - but then, what's new?
It would appear that they're all coming out before the new series rather than afterwards, so they don't say anything either way about fatalities encountered during the course of the series.
(I'm guessing they'll end up saved in that computer with River. But now I've said that Mr Moffat is going to film a new ending just to be devious.)
quote:
(I know they're technically Mr & Mrs Whatever-Rory's-names but even the Beeb refers to them as the Ponds.)
Are they? (Apart from that controversial line in the minotaur story.) The implication is clearly that Amy hasn't taken Rory's name. In which case, why not Ponds?
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
[QUOTE](I know they're technically Mr & Mrs Whatever-Rory's-names but even the Beeb refers to them as the Ponds.)
Are they? (Apart from that controversial line in the minotaur story.) The implication is clearly that Amy hasn't taken Rory's name. In which case, why not Ponds? [/QB]
There is a bit during their wedding when the Doctor addesses Rory as "Mr Pond", and he protests that "it doesn't work like that" but the Doctor says "oh yes it does!"
From then on, the Doctor addresses them as "Ponds" when he is talking to both, although I suspect Rory's original protest implies that they officially *are* Mr and Mrs Williams ...
(although it does not entirely preclude separate surnames)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
(I know they're technically Mr & Mrs Whatever-Rory's-names but even the Beeb refers to them as the Ponds.)
Are they? (Apart from that controversial line in the minotaur story.) The implication is clearly that Amy hasn't taken Rory's name. In which case, why not Ponds?
There is a bit during their wedding when the Doctor addesses Rory as "Mr Pond", and he protests that "it doesn't work like that" but the Doctor says "oh yes it does!"
From then on, the Doctor addresses them as "Ponds" when he is talking to both, although I suspect Rory's original protest implies that they officially *are* Mr and Mrs Williams ...
(although it does not entirely preclude separate surnames)
Actually, same episode, just before Amy remembers the Doctor and calls him back into reality, Rory refers to her as "Mrs. Williams."
Meh, something about the way Matt Smith pronounces "Pond(s)" just seems to necessitate keeping it around. It sounds so . . . springy.
(Edited to fix everyone else's code)
[ 23. August 2012, 22:32: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Meh, something about the way Matt Smith pronounces "Pond(s)" just seems to necessitate keeping it around. It sounds so . . . springy.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Hee hee hee hee hee...
That generates a great mental image. Guy had to be a labrador retriever in another life.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Pond Life is five mini episodes to be released online at noon on Monday to Friday next week.
Here's the BBC blog about it.
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
Someone's just pointed me to this Q&A with Stephen Moffat, from the premiere of Asylum of the Daleks in Edinburgh. Might be of interest to some.
I was told that it was "only very mildly spoilery", but I found it even less than that. This is Moffat after all. He only tells us what he wants us to know...
[ 26. August 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: doubtingthomas ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Apologies if this is all wrong or out-of-date, but...
I've seen the trailer for the new season just once here in Oz (where on past trends we'll be around 1 week behind the BBC once the episodes start), and: was it my imagination, or did I see a baby Weeping Angel??
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
did I see a baby Weeping Angel??
Blowing out a candle.
Yup, you sure did.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Great. Now I'm trying to imagine how they reproduce.
For starters, if we take 'Blink' as the more canonical outing it would have to be in total darkness.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Great. Now I'm trying to imagine how they reproduce.
For starters, if we take 'Blink' as the more canonical outing it would have to be in total darkness.
If their clothing is the stone it appears to be it would make reproduction difficult.
I've just watched the first episode of Pond Life. Sixty seconds of frantic pace but nothing much happening. But at least the Doctor is back.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Great. Now I'm trying to imagine how they reproduce.
I thought that it was heavily implied that we saw how they went about it in Flesh and Stone and The Time of Angels.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Great. Now I'm trying to imagine how they reproduce.
I thought that it was heavily implied that we saw how they went about it in Flesh and Stone and The Time of Angels.
Nah. That was them healing with a bit of food after a long period.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I meant the looking them in the eyes and the counting down.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I thought of that. I also thought, "Good Grief, I hope they aren't going to screw around with another one of Amy's babies."
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Great. Now I'm trying to imagine how they reproduce.
It probably involves pebbles. Or maybe garden gnomes.
Is anyone else enjoying "Pond Life"? (Sorry, I can't link to it from my computer at work - BBC Doctor Who website, front page.) I'm one of the vocal (probable) minority who actually like the Doctor's in-laws, and I like these mini-scenes they've been given. I'm not sure they have any significance for the coming few weeks, but they're fun. Also, I quite like the idea of companions who only sometimes go travelling with the Doctor. That's new. (Although I think in the classic series it was implied that Sarah Jane sometimes had to be persuaded to take "just a little trip..." in the TARDIS.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
) I'm one of the vocal (probable) minority who actually like the Doctor's in-laws, and I like these mini-scenes they've been given.
I'm pretty sure we're a majority. It's just that the most vocal section of the fandom are those whose main enjoyment in watching Doctor Who seems to be complaining afterwards about how it's been ruined forever.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
) I'm one of the vocal (probable) minority who actually like the Doctor's in-laws, and I like these mini-scenes they've been given.
I'm pretty sure we're a majority. It's just that the most vocal section of the fandom are those whose main enjoyment in watching Doctor Who seems to be complaining afterwards about how it's been ruined forever.
But I do like the Ponds, even Amy. I need to catch up with this. And then I'm going to be away on Saturday, and will have to wait until Sunday before sampling the new series! It's not fair.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
See, they are gonna punish all the haters by making Amy and Rory absolutely irresistible this season. And then they're going to do something horrible to them.
That's what they did with Alexsa Pallido in "Boardwalk Empire." They were wasting her character, too, which generated a whole lot of hateraid, and then the writers spend an entire season making us love her, only to kill her off in a particularly wrenching fashion.
I'm just saying, get the Scotch ready.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Great. Now I'm trying to imagine how they reproduce.
For starters, if we take 'Blink' as the more canonical outing it would have to be in total darkness.
Maybe they are literally a chip off the ol block. I'm glad to see River back and I hope Kelly is right and that he'll make Amy irresistable this season; Rory already was. My family of Amy haters would welcome the chance to change our tune.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
She was growing on me. For one thing, I made this strange connection between her and (of all people) Buster Keaton; I honestly think she was directed to do a lot of deadpan, and maybe they just overworked that schtick.Because TV folk have a way of taking a good thing and running it into the ground. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But if you pay attention-- one deadpan is never like the other. The deadpan she shows when she realizes her status as "Mother-in-law" is completely different than the one she shows when she is processing the fact that she wsa a giant wooden dolly for a while. And still different for the (truly wonderful) stoneface she shows when she opens the door in the Christmas episode.
I dunno,I'm rooting for her (shut up, Aussies). I want her to shut all the haters up.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Okay, so "Pond Life" is too much fun to resist. Yet another reminder that having a millennium old time-traveling alien for a son-in-law isn't always easy—and really, who doesn't want Cthulu for a butler?
Also, am I the only one anticipating a level of delicious sci-fi b-movie camp we haven't seen since "Horns of Nimon" from "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship?" Seriously. With a title/premise like that, you really can't do anything else.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
The Ponds are growing on me too (ok, Amy's growing on me - I already liked Rory) and an Ood in a pinny is just . And I love Matt Smith - his Doctor is so strangely weird, young yet centuries old. I anticipate tomorrow evening with lots of
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Also, am I the only one anticipating a level of delicious sci-fi b-movie camp we haven't seen since "Horns of Nimon" from "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship?" Seriously. With a title/premise like that, you really can't do anything else.
But can it beat:
quote:
Mickey Smith: What's a horse doing on a spaceship?
The Doctor: Mickey, what's pre-Revolutionary France doing on a spaceship? Get a little perspective!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
The Ponds are growing on me too (ok, Amy's growing on me - I already liked Rory) and an Ood in a pinny is just . And I love Matt Smith - his Doctor is so strangely weird, young yet centuries old. I anticipate tomorrow evening with lots of
That is about as perfect a post written on the subject as I have ever seen.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
In order to get myself in the mood for tomorrow, and because I needed cheering up and Dr Who is usually light-hearted fun, I thought I'd watch the repeat of the last Christmas episode that was shown tonight.
Oh dear. I was in tears by the end. It's a bit silly and the sentiment is laid on with a trowel but even so.
But, it was a good cry - I think.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That was a nice night all around-- The Graham Norton Show preceding the special was wonderful as well. I was sitting with my cousin and nephew in the den watching them while the "adults" talked of boring things...
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on
:
So, who watched it then?
I liked the essential holodeck in a dalek shell.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Wonderful!
Fly Safe Pyx_e
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Loved the twists with Oswyn but not sure how the Moff is going to have Jenna-Louise Coleman pop up again as Clara from Christmas
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on
:
excellent, I loved it a really good start to the series ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 01. September 2012, 19:49: Message edited by: angelica37 ]
Posted by Wayfaring Stranger (# 15081) on
:
Can I be the first to predict that the line "I have had it with these motherf*cking dinosaurs on this motherf*cking spaceship!" will not feature in next week's episode.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
That was a good opening. The Daleks were used well, thank goodness, and hooray for them not being completely wiped out by the Doctor at the end (as seemed to happen every time he came up against them in RTD's scripts).
Oswin's character was interesting... her true nature and fate were suitably creepy, and it will be interesting to see how this pays off later.
Not entirely convinced by Amy and Rory's relationship problems - seemed a bit too abrupt, and then too easily resolved. But on the whole a fun, entertaining episode.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Excellent episode - a very strong opening to the season. There were one or two points where I thought the pace dropped a bit (mainly the relationshippy-wationshippy stuff), but other bits were clever, creepy, and a bit thrilling. Loved the scene where Rory wakes the Daleks up ("E-e-e-e-ex...") and the zombie stuff was brilliant.
So what happens now that the Daleks don't know who the Doctor is? They've been best enemies since The Chase.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
I really liked that the Daleks have got scary again
Other than that, watched this with my bested friend, and neither of us have a clue what's going on ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Have not watched the episode yet, but wanted to report something I've never seen before...
The 1st episode won't be broadcast here in Australia, on ABC television, until next Saturday. But they've put the episode for viewing on the website already! It went up 12 hours ago, with a big banner on the front of the site advertising the fact!
Ain't technology grand...
[ 02. September 2012, 07:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
Erm, didn't hate it. I liked the Pond bits and Oswin but I think I'm still too over-dosed on Daleks from previous series.
Looking forward to Dinosaurs on a Spaceship.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I thought the best bit about the episode was Oswin. It gives me hope for her as the next companion - although how that gets worked out now should be very interesting!
Otherwise, I want to see it again. While I enjoyed it, I'm left with a nagging feeling it didn't quite add up....
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I enjoyed that. Oswin was excellent, and I thought that she would make a good companion - the character, not just the actor. It would be interesting but excellent if they could keep that character, even though some of her genius was because she was a Dalek.
There were some interesting insights into self image there, which is quite interesting in the middle of the paralympics....
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I enjoyed that. Oswin was excellent, and I thought that she would make a good companion - the character, not just the actor...
Seconded, I guess it would be a nightmare to write (especially the historicals). But if it worked...
Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on
:
I was sure I heard a "Seven of Nine" reference from the Doctor last night, which I liked...
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
Did anyone else think the sound quality was bad? I certainly had difficulty following a lot of the dialogue, especially Oswin who I thought spoke very quickly. Or maybe it's just me age ....
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Ah, is it back on again? If so, I missed it - will it be repeated any time soon?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Ah, is it back on again? If so, I missed it - will it be repeated any time soon?
Friday, 7.10p.m. on BBC3. Also on iplayer till 8 September.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Thanks very much, Adeodatus, Friday it is!
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Otherwise, I want to see it again. While I enjoyed it, I'm left with a nagging feeling it didn't quite add up....
Yes, I quite enjoyed the story but a few things were nagging at me. Like, why exactly did the Daleks want to blow up the planet? I think they tried to give a reason, but when I think back on it I can't recall what it was.
And I know the Doctor asked why they couldn't blow it up and the answer was "the force field" which had to be shut off from the planet. Okay, that is remarkably bad planning--rather like creating a prison but leaving the key to the doors in with the prisoners. But more to the point, how good a force field is this, if we can drop three people on to the planet? If they could do that, why could they not drop a bomb?
But that is ticky-tacky stuff. I liked the story and erasing the Doctor from the Dalek memory fits in with the plan for the Doctor to take a lower profile in Universal affairs.
Also: I know that the official sound bite (given by every one of the actors in their interviews shown ahead of time) is that the Daleks have been "made scary again." Now maybe it is the fact that the Daleks always have struck me as rather scary in every appearance (with the possible exception of "The Space Museum"), but how exactly did this episode make them scarier than they have been the last few times they showed up?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
mildly spoilery
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
[/qb]
"something has got in (and stayed there despite the daleks)...therefore everything can get out"
I'm not sure it works...(not least the order of discovery) but I suspect an explanation could be patched. And it's good enough to let the story go on.
I suppose the force field could be energy based, that's been used as an excuse enough times to resolve the same problem. Also it's not a prison so maybe that explains the force field being the wrong way (+ perhaps the practicalities of covering a planet).
But the soufflé clue was good (and pretty much all the plot points were indicated about right). and the atmosphere was good. Not sure about the eye-stalk and suckers effect but it was still dramatic.
[ 02. September 2012, 18:56: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bene Gesserit:
I was sure I heard a "Seven of Nine" reference from the Doctor last night, which I liked...
I'm also reasonably sure the little periscope in the snow was a nod to The Empire Strikes Back
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Reading through the lines:
1) Someone on another internet forum points out that what's worrying the daleks is specifically Oswin playing Carmen. It's possible that the daleks know exactly what is happening and what they're worrying about is not insane daleks getting out so much as Oswin's personality infecting the daleks with the human factor or what not. (And she showed that she could have done drastic things to dalek species psychology if they'd thought of it in time.) In other words, the daleks didn't tell the Doctor they were sending him on an assassination mission.
2) I am developing a theory that Matt Smith's Doctor is the most manipulative Doctor of them all. (Question: how much of The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe was really an accident?) He didn't mention to Amy and Rory that he'd put his bracelet on Amy and so she was perfectly safe, and thereby got them to talk and saved their marriage. This raises the question - with dark implications - of exactly how Amy lost her bracelet in the first place?
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
For some reason I wasn't as grabbed by this episode as I usually am. There were some great moments and youngest Rogueling was nicely scared by the Daleks who had real individual menace rather than global/universal menace. It was a nice touch that the Daleks have forgotten the Doctor (but has Davros?) and I look forward to seeing how the Doctor ends up with a Dalek as companion.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Bene Gesserit:
I was sure I heard a "Seven of Nine" reference from the Doctor last night, which I liked...
I'm also reasonably sure the little periscope in the snow was a nod to The Empire Strikes Back
I thought the Dalek senate lookd like the Imperial Senate from "Phantom Menace".
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
Sorry for double post missed edit window so excuse typo in first post. Dang Ipad.
We are all very excited about the new companion. So, Rose became a warrior after the Doctor, Martha is flat out bad ass and is trying to save the Earth and fighting along side Mickey after the Doctor, Donna continued to help even though she had her mind erased...we even find out Sarah Jane has continued to fight and Amy is a vacuous, pouting model hawking perfume and divorcing the centurion? Why does Moffat hate Amy?
[ 03. September 2012, 01:42: Message edited by: art dunce ]
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I certainly hope there's some continuity between the Oswyn character in this episode and the new companion character as she's introduced later -- I mean the same personality not just the same actress. I love the idea of the Doctor having a female companion who is not just young and pretty but BRILLIANT. It's been awhile. Martha was probably the most intelligent of the new-series companions so far.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Why does Moffat hate Amy?
Finally, someone asks that question.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
haven't been a regular follower of Doctor Who since the Tom Baker days in the 70s. Thought this would be a good time to get back into the show. It was.
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
haven't been a regular follower of Doctor Who since the Tom Baker days in the 70s. Thought this would be a good time to get back into the show. It was.
Only now? What a lot you have missed!
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Why does Moffat hate Amy?
Amy has a life that doesn't involve fighting aliens. ('That stuff that happens while you're not there.') It's likely that it's the life she was planning before the Doctor turned up in her adult life (except for the children which nearly upset everything).
As you point out, none of the previous characters have been allowed a life that isn't defined by the effect the Doctor had on them. Martha could have had a career as a doctor, but she's become a monster hunter simply so Tennant could say goodbye to her and Mickey at the same time. I think Amy's the lucky one.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Hmmm...Oswin Oswald and Clara Oswin...Dafyd's theory may indeed hold some water...
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
OK, I was overly pessimistic about that one - it was surprisingly good. In fact, it was the best Dalek story since Dalek. The set-up was mercifully brief, allowing lots of time for genuine tension, but it covered all the important details, it made sense up to a point, and the story itself worked very well.
I thought it was a little bit too obvious that Souffle Girl wasn't what she seemed, but the only blatant hint was the early comment about milk, which looked enough like an inconsequential quip to possibly get away with it. I could have done without the emotional lovey-dovey bit, and I'd have appreciated some explanation of why the nanothingies didn't seem to have any lasting effect, but overall, it was rather good.
A couple of other thoughts. Is the Daleks' new forgetfulness an attempt to reboot their relationship with the Doctor and make him less of an intergalactic superhero, or was it just an excuse for a cheap joke that will be forgotten by next week? And is it my imagination, or does Moffat have a bit of a thing about memory? False memories, believing you're something you're not, forgetting things including conversations you've just had - he seems to play with ideas like that a lot.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Apart from the other glitches that have been mentioned, how about the ending? From a Dalek PoV an unknown being appears in front of them, and they just ignore him? Surely they would have exterminated him within a few seconds.
As for Moffat hating Amy, I think that's an overstatement. Isn't it more that he hasn't really thought out her character (or Rory's, for the matter)? There are all sorts of inconsistencies that have never been addressed; the biggest, to my mind, Amy trying to drag the Doctor into bed the night before her wedding. While I am happy to put most of the blame on the actress, some must rest with the writers and producer.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
My attention span found it difficult to follow the plot. But the best line was Amy's when (a dalek?) accused her of not being human because she was too angry. 'There's someone who's never been to Scotland.'
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Apart from the other glitches that have been mentioned, how about the ending? From a Dalek PoV an unknown being appears in front of them, and they just ignore him? Surely they would have exterminated him within a few seconds.
He didn't move beyond the TARDIS door, and it was established in the days of Eccles that the TARDIS has a forcefield that will protect him against Dalek fire. On that occasion, Nine stepped out into the midst of a large throng of pepperpots and they all opened fire without further ado, which rather impressed me (on their part).
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
He didn't mention to Amy and Rory that he'd put his bracelet on Amy and so she was perfectly safe, and thereby got them to talk and saved their marriage.
And he relied on Clueless Amy not noticing that a heavy bracelet was suddenly placed on her wrist. But then again, she didn't notice when it fell off her wrist either. Maybe she has some nerve damage so that she has lost feeling in her arm?
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
And is it my imagination, or does Moffat have a bit of a thing about memory? False memories, believing you're something you're not, forgetting things including conversations you've just had - he seems to play with ideas like that a lot.
Maybe he is obsessed with the hope that the fans will forget all the dangling plot lines that he has left in previous seasons.
Posted by soggy_amphibian (# 2487) on
:
I enjoyed the episode.
I wonder why there were so many bronze Daleks in the Dalek Parliament, I'm surprised the Rainbow Daleks (I've heard them referred to as iDaleks) kept them around.
Also, there's a room where there's Daleks from Spiridon, Kembel, Aridius, Vulcan and Exxilon. Only, the Daleks in the room all look like beat-up versions of the bronze Dalek from the new series, with the large speaking lights, and the riveted and indented shoulder slats - none of those features were on the Daleks of those referenced stories. If you're bringing back the old Dalek models, how 'bout putting them in the scene where it actually matters?
It didn't stop me from enjoying the episode, but that seemed disappointing, a missed opportunity.
[ 03. September 2012, 20:25: Message edited by: soggy_amphibian ]
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
I did like the jab taken at the Dalek reboot in Victory—Rory's line about "what color?" seems to be a reference to the Technicolor Daleks introduced there. Yes, I know, it's not Who without Daleks, but seriously, how many times has the Doctor destroyed every single Dalek in existence, only to have the hordes come back?
Also, I think you were supposed to catch on pretty quickly that there was something Not Quite Right about Oswin's situation—I figured that one out as they were introducing her. Seriously, a few boards nailed to a door, stopping the Daleks for almost a year? Of course, I figured the Daleks were playing along, using her to set a trap, giving her access to their systems in order to bring the Doctor in closer—which, um, turned out to not be the case. That, I think, is what this episode hinged on: there's something wrong with this situation, but, no matter what you initially think it is, it's not nearly as shocking as the truth.
Nice to see the Dalek egg beater attachment explained, though. Hopefully a later episode will explain the plungers.
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I thought it was a little bit too obvious that Souffle Girl wasn't what she seemed, but the only blatant hint was the early comment about milk, which looked enough like an inconsequential quip to possibly get away with it.
As far as I can tell there are no inconsequential quips in Doctor Who.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
See, they are gonna punish all the haters by making Amy and Rory absolutely irresistible this season. And then they're going to do something horrible to them.
Season? They did it before the opening credits!
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Reading through the lines:
1) Someone on another internet forum points out that what's worrying the daleks is specifically Oswin playing Carmen. It's possible that the daleks know exactly what is happening and what they're worrying about is not insane daleks getting out so much as Oswin's personality infecting the daleks with the human factor or what not. (And she showed that she could have done drastic things to dalek species psychology if they'd thought of it in time.) In other words, the daleks didn't tell the Doctor they were sending him on an assassination mission.
An assassination mission that worked! She died. (As far as we know). So the Doctor in fact did what the Daleks wanted him to.
Also the idea of Daleks using human girls to inject some genius or imagination into their Cunning Plans goes way back. Remember Remembrance of the Daleks? Which was also the story that put the Time War centre stage. And showed Skaro destroyed! So how did the Daleks get it back? Or is the first scene set in the distant past. (But if it was destroyed in the Time War isn't that as if it never existed in this continuum?)
And, as RotD was a clear reference to and sequel of An Unearthly Child, the very first story, and as this went back to the "Doctor who?" trope, it seems very like a deliberate reboot of the series. One of many...
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on
:
[tangent] Welcome home, soggy_amphibian! Great to see you here! [/tangent]
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I did like the jab taken at the Dalek reboot in Victory—Rory's line about "what color?" seems to be a reference to the Technicolor Daleks introduced there....Also, I think you were supposed to catch on pretty quickly that there was something Not Quite Right about Oswin's situation <snip>
Yes, I giggled at that line, too.
There was something deeply strange about Oswin, but the truth certainly caught me by surprise. And it will be even more interesting when we meet Clara Oswin at Christmas!
Nothing much else to the various erudite comments here, except that I also giggled at the way Oswin called the Doctor Chin-boy - much like the way Donna called Tennant's Doctor Space-boy and the like.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
Are we clear that Oswin is the same character who is going to be "introduced" at Christmas? They're obviously connected in some way, but I don't think it's been absolutely established. I have got a couple of ideas of how it might work, though.
1. The Doctor meets her earlier in her timeline. This has the possible advantage (depending on your point of view - Moffat might like it) of lots of peculiar emoting about changing the past/future because he knows what will happen to her once they go their separate ways and she joins the Alaska. It leaves the question of why she didn't recognise him unanswered, but that could probably be handwaved away as a memory that was lost/suppressed when she was made into a Dalek.
2. She found some way, using her mad 1337 skillz, to upload her consciousness to the Dalek hivemindy thing before the Asylum planet went all explodey-wodey (sorry, but that was just naff), opening up the possibility of making herself a new body using technology similar to the new Dalek drone things. It might also be necessary to make herself forget the past (as with the others), and she may even still be a Dalek underneath.
Bound to be other possible variations, but I think they're the most obvious possibilities if it's basically the same person.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I haven't thought that far ahead at all, and had assumed they were different characters, though with some connection - I've not read anything about the Clara character, have kept away from any spoilers, and have only seen a pic or two of her in Victorian clothes, so it only started to click when Oswin Oswald introduced herself.
Any other theories out there?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I think there will have to be some sort of connection since she has played such a prominet role within the same season. (When Martha "came back" she had been a minor character in the previous season.) Gumby, I like your ideas, but have the feeling the connection will be something even more off the wall.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Gumby, I like your ideas, but have the feeling the connection will be something even more off the wall.
Almost certainly, even though I just suggested a recorded mind inside a dormant Dalek drone as a companion. I do like that as an idea, though, because all the necessary information was there in the episode, so it scores highly for neatness and elegance.
I have ideas that are far more off the wall, but they're too ridiculous to air in public on the off-chance that my wild speculative joining of dots to other characters comes close to matching the way Moffat's mind works. This is definitely meant to be a typical teaser, though.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I have ideas that are far more off the wall, but they're too ridiculous to air in public on the off-chance that my wild speculative joining of dots to other characters comes close to matching the way Moffat's mind works.
Moffat's genius is really misdirection. He's hidden the card in the obvious place up his sleeve - it's just that Moffat gets you to look everywhere else for the card so that you forget to look at the obvious place up the sleeve when the card comes out of it.
I predict that the solution to the Sherlock mystery will have been dismissed as too obvious by most people who have thought about it.
Also, Moffat's not really interested by stories about how the Doctor escapes the Pandorica ; that's just there as an excuse for the bit where the Doctor sits by Amy's bed and tells her that we're all stories in the end.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, Moffat's not really interested by stories about how the Doctor escapes the Pandorica ; that's just there as an excuse for the bit where the Doctor sits by Amy's bed and tells her that we're all stories in the end.
Having just rewatched that episode with my daughter and cried as shamelessly as I always do at that scene, I'd say it was well worth whatever it took to get that moment. He's an excellent writer even if not always an excellent plotter or character-developer.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
[Having just rewatched that episode with my daughter and cried as shamelessly as I always do at that scene, I'd say it was well worth whatever it took to get that moment.
Exactly.
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on
:
A companion who was trapped in a Dalek body could have been very interesting though they couldn't have kept up with all the running I suppose.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I watched it again last night. Oswin's first question when the Doctor tries to talk to her: 'Are you real?' Oh, Oswin.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
[TANGENT] We came across the Vincent van Gogh episode on Watch last night, and I laughed myself silly at the Doctor's comment about meeting Michelangelo: 'what a whinger!' Matt Smith excels at throwaway lines, and with his gangly figure and young-yet-old personality is rivetting to watch.
[/TANGENT]
Ok, carry on.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I watched it again last night and enjoyed it more than the first time. Maybe this is the season where Moff-the-Producer finally comes into his own. Let's hope so.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
[TANGENT] We came across the Vincent van Gogh episode on Watch last night, and I laughed myself silly at the Doctor's comment about meeting Michelangelo: 'what a whinger!' Matt Smith excels at throwaway lines, and with his gangly figure and young-yet-old personality is rivetting to watch.
[/TANGENT]
Ok, carry on.
[Oh, why should you be alone in tangent land? ]
Again ,my heart just sings with agreement, Pine Marten. I can to the realization the other day that a great deal of the hero worship I have for Mr. Smith (see how deferential I am?) is composed of wistful envy-- I wish I had the gift he seems to have of putting smiles on faces. He's so joyful and warm. I got some bit of geek news that he'd been named a patron to some theater school for youth, and all I could think "How perfect, and how lucky." It just made me hugely happy.[/end gush]
As for the Doctor-- I'm really glad a companion is talking some sass to him. That's exactly what was needed. That's exactly what the character of Amy needed, but aside from a couple excellent cracks and a fantastic watergun scene, she was relegated to casting adoring stares and propping the Doctor up, and pitting him against Rory, and occasionally delivering portentous speeches about how he'd disappointed her in various ways. Oh, and hawking perfume.
Poor Karen.She deserved better. I'm confident she will get it somewhere.
But as someone pointed out above, the Doctor is kind of a momzer (about an hour a week is the duration of momzer charm for me), and it's good to have someone who will call him on his mountains of bullshit once in a while. Often, actually.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As for the Doctor-- I'm really glad a companion is talking some sass to him. That's exactly what was needed. That's exactly what the character of Amy needed, but aside from a couple excellent cracks and a fantastic watergun scene, she was relegated to casting adoring stares and propping the Doctor up, and pitting him against Rory, and occasionally delivering portentous speeches about how he'd disappointed her in various ways.
Compared to Rose and Martha and even Donna I don't think Amy's at all slow to tell the Doctor when he's being full of himself. Some of the weaker writers do write her as generic companion (as did Toby Whithouse in the otherwise strong God Complex), but weak writers will write anyone as generic companion. Even Leela and Ace got generic companion stories.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Bene Gesserit:
I was sure I heard a "Seven of Nine" reference from the Doctor last night, which I liked...
I'm also reasonably sure the little periscope in the snow was a nod to The Empire Strikes Back
There was me thinking it was the Teletubbies.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Dafyd-- Yes to Rose, yes to Martha( Now there's an actress that is really owed an apology), but no to Donna. And I don't think it's just the telling off, it a kind of detached telling off that says that person has a limit of their own, and they are going to set it no matter what anyone says. Amy's tell-offs tended to be of a "this is for your own good" variety.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Totally agree about Martha. Why is my favourite new companion the only one to get just the one season? (But, for the number of excellent episodes, I reckon it's the best new season so far.)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Finally caught up with the episode that I missed!
It felt a bit like the Doctor and his companions being stuck in either the Crystal Maze or the Krypton Factor for a bit, which wasn't terribly interesting as they raced from locked room to locked room with someone solving the door-opening codes and giving directions each time. The bit with Oswin was an eye-opener, though. I didn't see that coming and never expected her to be a Dalek.
Oswin is an odd choice of name for a woman - it's a male name for a start and a Saxon one at that. Which immediately put me in mind of Mr Saxon - remember him? What with that and the supreme confidence and geeky cleverness made me wonder if this new companion is all she seems...
Well, obviously, since she's really a Dalek, she isn't, but who knows.
The chill-down-the-spine bit for me was when the guy said "Oh yes, I forgot. I died outside", and carried on. The Daleks were just Daleks, sorry, I think we've had rather a lot of them and it's a bit difficult to tell them apart.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Finally watched Asylum tonight. Very stylish. Not entirely sure what it actually adds up to, apart from the fact we've had The Question asked very explicitly... and a girl who looked at the camera when she said "remember me"...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Hmm...the Doctor killing Solomon in cold blood? Didn't like that. Otherwise a good episode if somewhat at the fun end of the spectrum, with the exception of the first point obviously
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Solomon was a scumbag, who threatened the doctor and killed tricey. I don't feel sorry for him.
Camp argumentative robots? Brilliant. Very Douglas Adams, but they were fabulous. Nefertiti brilliant, and Amys "I'm worth 2 men" fantastic.
All in all, a good fun but very enjoyable episode.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Oh, Solomon totally deserved it. But the Doctor doesn't do that sort of thing
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
pleasantly referential and bizarre. When are they gonna get rid of Pond?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
The Doctor has set people up before - he just never explicitly pulls the trigger/presses the sword home.
That was fun - lovely surprise to see Rupert Graves, one of my favourite actors. Quite made up for the annoying Amy (he should have used the stun gun on her).
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
Ask Cassandra if the Doctor ever kills anyone.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I thought Julian and Sandy had been resuscitated from Round the Horne, to play the camp robots. They were actually Mitchell and Webb. Great!
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
It suddenly struck us about half way through as well. Perhaps a nod to Douglas Adams. Very funny.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
Sigh. My son got so upset that he said he hated Moff for ruining WHO and wanted to punch him, turned it off and declared it a Jurassic Park/Hitchhikers Guide rip off, said that he must think we are all stupid to think Nefertiti would leave her kingdom to live in a tent with that lady hating jerk, put on a DVD of The Stones of Blood with Tom Baker and declared that he wasn't watching again until the Christmas episode.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sigh. My son got so upset that he said he hated Moff for ruining WHO and wanted to punch him, turned it off and declared it a Jurassic Park/Hitchhikers Guide rip off, said that he must think we are all stupid to think Nefertiti would leave her kingdom to live in a tent with that lady hating jerk, put on a DVD of The Stones of Blood with Tom Baker and declared that he wasn't watching again until the Christmas episode.
Allow me to offer your son a career path.
OK, finally caught up with everything. Some comments:
1. (sigh) It like the Great Avocado Divide on the Ship. I love avocados, and the last two eps have only made me fall more and more in love with Karen Gillan*. Y'all go ahead and pass around the Hateraid, I think she is kicking ass. I never thought I 'd say smething like this, but I was actually watching her more in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" that I did Smith.**The only frustrating thing is she's finally doing the stuff (character-wise) that she should have been doing from Season 1.
2. The shows are becoming more ensemble- y! Hooray! It's wonderful! It's like Cheers in Space (the Doctor being Woody.)It's not everybody pointing their faces at one character, it's everybody tossing the ball around! They seem to be enjoying the hell out of themselves!
3. I probably need somebody more informed that me to confirm this for the series as a whole but DiS was the first ep I have seen that totally fulfilled
the Bechdel Test!
(I loved Amy mooning around after Nefertiti. I agree with the kid about her shacking up with Moffatt's version of a Mary Sue.)
4. To whoever it is on the writing staff who is obviously lurking-- thank you for the Doctor/ Rory kiss. I know you did that just for me.
*Of course, my increase in regard might also stem from discovering that she is not a mere companion, but an amazing, fantastic sandbagger. (trans: startlingly impressive bowler. No shit.
** Having said that, he just keeps getting better and better. The ensemble thing suits him wonderfully.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh, one more thing--
3. The USA merch ads were killing me, Absolutely killing me. I swear to God, I'm gonna be tidying a classroom someday and step on Timelord face.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm glad I'm not the only one going so far back that I thought of Jules and Sandy.
And I agree about Nefertiti and the Quatermain clone. (Though is that name still under copyright, after the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?) On the other hand Amenhotep/Akhenaten might well have been a bit of a drag.
But I am a little troubled about the baddy. Or rather, his name. Allied to his characteristics. Since Moffat does nothing by accident. Anyone else noticed?
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
I really enjoyed that.
Was it Douglas-Adams-y? Yes. Although earlier in the day Dave had been showing the Red Dwarf ep with the bird that gets turned into a T-Rex. And next week we have a cyborg Gunslinger.
So the Doctor killed someone. Well he was a genocidal maniac who cared only about money. Plus he hurt Rory's dad (please please let's have more Mark Williams! The trowel, love it!).
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Deep Meaningful conversation Amy and the Doctor had whilst he was fishing out the green glowy thing, about how he'll always keep coming back until the end and she said vice-versa. Obvious foreshadowing I thought.
Nefertiti was a bit kick-ass-heroine by numbers but ok. I think her and Riddell did seem a bit too pat but it could have worked if they'd had more time but there was a lot going on and it was not a two-parter. Showing him becoming her consort in Egypt would have been fun but the budget probably wasn't up to it.
Anyway big thumbs up from me.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Interesting twist that he selected a (diverse) team to help. Does this show a shift toward multiple different helpers in the future? Rather that relying on one. (not that there wont be only one but having a bit of colour thrown in)
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I was thinking next weeks looks a little Westworld. I wonder if there is a deliberate nod to other films this series?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
There were some lovely bits in last night's story, but I didn't get a great overall impression. I think that, as in his story 42, writer Chris Chibnall suffered from having too many good ideas that he then failed to work through properly.
I didn't have a problem with the Doctor condemning Solomon to death - he's been at least as callous many times before, when the mood took him. And I think the best idea of the whole story was the enlightening of Brian Williams - I'd have liked to see more of him, and less of Nefertiti and the Quatermain character (although Rupert Graves is always good value, and very easy on the eye). Brian's "It's better than golf!" was funny, and his final scene, sitting on the TARDIS doorstep looking down at Earth, was a delight.
But. I'm getting really fed up with the running strand of sexual innuendo. It's not even as if it's good sexual innuendo.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Finally watched Asylum tonight. Very stylish. Not entirely sure what it actually adds up to, apart from the fact we've had The Question asked very explicitly... and a girl who looked at the camera when she said "remember me"...
I thought it was all about Doctor Who doing Pincher Martin. For those who've not read Golding's novel, I won't spoil it any more than I've done so already.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
My son got so upset that he said he hated Moff for ruining WHO and wanted to punch him, turned it off and declared it a Jurassic Park/Hitchhikers Guide rip off, said that he must think we are all stupid to think Nefertiti would leave her kingdom to live in a tent with that lady hating jerk, put on a DVD of The Stones of Blood with Tom Baker and declared that he wasn't watching again until the Christmas episode.
Do make sure your son doesn't start watching The Pirate Planet or City of Death. Ripping off the Hitchhikers' Guide is just returning the Doctor Who DNA to where it came from. Douglas Adams' later work is all cast-off Doctor Who scripts. And let's not get onto the relation between early Tom Baker and Hammer Horror.
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship is just one of those things that Doctor Who is there to do. The episode didn't really deliver anything beyond the title and a trailer - (*) - but my inner eight year old didn't care a bit.
(*) actually I liked the use of the Silurians.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Very stylish.
Yeah, that kind of annoyed me. wacky camera angles and surround-shots are starting to actually feel dated to me-- it's the kind of thing Ridley Scott farted around with in the nineties. And the background music had the personality of an attention whore. Dial it down! God's sake.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Earlier this afternoon I was walking over a railway bridge near my house. Someone had chalked the words "BAD WOLF" on the brickwork!
(And yet, how terribly 2005!)
Posted by Robin (# 71) on
:
I thought the robots looked very much like the ones from the Sarah-Jane adventure, "The Empty Planet". Presumably Solomon picked them up at a junkyard somewhere. However, the camp voices are new.
Robin
Posted by Robin (# 71) on
:
Or maybe I'm thinking of the robots from the start of "The Fifth Element".
Robin
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I thought the robots were very Douglas Adams.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
I thought when I saw the series trailer that this looked like an episode that had been written around a tagline, and I didn't see anything to challenge that view. The dinosaurs were fun enough, but they added nothing to the plot except as a reason to save the ship. They were more or less a giant reanimated prehistoric MacGuffin.
I liked some of the ideas, especially Mitchell and Webb's camp robots, but I'm not so sure about the expanded Tardis crew. It runs the risk of creating new characters as disposable plot drivers, which doesn't sound all that great. I could accept Rory's dad, but the others not so much. The trip through time to pick up all those extra passengers also highlighted the question of why a time-traveller chose to jump onto the ship just before it was to be blown up, rather than several days earlier.
But it was fun, and I thought it was nice to see the Doctor being a bit colder and more ruthless than he's been for many regenerations. Consistency would be nice, but given how vile Solomon was, and the extreme circumstances, I can't get too worked up about it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Deep Meaningful conversation Amy and the Doctor had whilst he was fishing out the green glowy thing, about how he'll always keep coming back until the end and she said vice-versa. Obvious foreshadowing I thought.
I couldn't say a word about it because it absolutely gutted me. The look they exchanged made me well up.
Smith has made is very clear in interviews that he is good friends with Gillan and I don't believe there was a bit of acting in that moment-- they just allowed themselves to be friends on camera.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh, and I should add, I think the new companion is going to be fantastic -- she is exactly the geeky, sexually ambivalent tech nut churchgeek and I were praying for on the hiatus thread-- but that doesn't mean I won't mourn Amy.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Well, the script, acting, directing, and effects were good. I'm disappointed. I was almost hoping "Dinosaurs . . . on a SPACESHIP!" would replace "How many Nimons have you seen today?"
More general thoughts, before I go back and watch it again (silly iTunes, I have to wait a day to watch these things):
1. Haven't we tried the whole multiple companion fandango before (albeit with less competent writers) without it working out too well? Hello Nyssa, so glad to see nobody could do anything with your character! That said, when the companion mix was right, and the writers knew what they were doing, it could be brilliant. I'm hoping that, if we see more multi-companion/rotating cast stories, they actually have people write who can pull them off.
2. Well. Hard to get more unique, valuable, and legendary than a time lord, right? Whole empires would tear a planet apart for just one cell, no? Sounds like exactly the kind of thing a slave-trading evil pirate would love. So why doesn't Solomon's scanner recognize the Doctor? I'm guessing that everyone forgetting that the Doctor's alive is going to be a big theme this season—oh, and that an evil pirate might just be the kind of person to strike a deal with the Daleks. It sounds so much more fun than simply killing one and ripping out its memory banks.
3. As for "why Solomon," I was thinking less King Solomon than King Solomon's Mines, which featured the Great White Hunter archetype, lots of incomparably valuable treasure, and started off the whole "lost world" genre—a genre which, surprisingly often, included dinosaurs and, not so surprisingly often, running around and doing heroic adventure-type stuff.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
My first thought was "King Solomon," too, but I shook it off, figuring Nefertiti just sort of put me in an ancient kings frame of mind. Hm.
[ 10. September 2012, 05:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
3. As for "why Solomon," I was thinking less King Solomon than King Solomon's Mines, which featured the Great White Hunter archetype, lots of incomparably valuable treasure, and started off the whole "lost world" genre—a genre which, surprisingly often, included dinosaurs and, not so surprisingly often, running around and doing heroic adventure-type stuff.
... and She Who Must Be Obeyed and is a great queen, impossibly ancient... interesting line of thought, thanks for that.
(Thanks to the Carry On films I can never hear "Nefertiti" without thinking of Kenneth Williams.)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My first thought was "King Solomon," too, but I shook it off, figuring Nefertiti just sort of put me in an ancient kings frame of mind. Hm.
That was what happened to me, too. And I've just been reading a book identifying the guy's mines with the gold fields round Great Zimbabwe.
It's the second time the name has been used - the good guy leader of the Hooverville in the American Dalek story was a Solomon.
But I'm not happy about the name being attached to someone with the characteristics of a Star Trek Ferengi. He didn't need to have an identifiable Earth type name at all. (Except for the Haggard connection.) And I wondered if Riddell's name was roughly composed of RIDer plus ALLan, but maybe I'm getting too complex there.
I read a lot of Haggard in my teens, until I found his co-authored with Andrew Lang sequel to the Odyssey, "The World's Desire." This contained an argument that the reasons which attracted men to hear Helen singing were deep and spiritual and such that no woman could ever understand. I reread the passage several times, reasoning that I was quite intelligent and could probably get a vague idea of what was so important, but found nothing. This either proved Haggard/Lang correct, or that the obvious, that men like leering at beautiful women and imagining making love to them was true. I felt nothing but contempt for the writers stupidity, and gave up on the books for ever.
[ 10. September 2012, 07:32: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
My feeling is that the extra companions might re-emerge later in the series. This was a way of introducing them. In particular, I suspect we might find out what he was doing with Nefertiti at some point. Or maybe not.
And yes, Carry On has a lot to answer for.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
My feeling is that the extra companions might re-emerge later in the series. This was a way of introducing them. In particular, I suspect we might find out what he was doing with Nefertiti at some point. Or maybe not.
And yes, Carry On has a lot to answer for.
Infamy! Infamy! ....
They did pull the extra companions out of nowhere which is always uncomfortable to me. I suppose everyone's got to appear for the first time but when they arrive and clearly have a long history with the Doctor as opposed to meeting him for the first time on screen I am at a disadvantage against the script writer because they know all about the character and I don't. I don't know if that makes sense but I know what I mean.
Someone said earlier that Matt Smith works better with a larger cast. I think that's because he is very good at appearing to be unaware of half of what's going on around him and then whirling round and revealing that he can see everything, he has made unexpected links between incidents and he does, in fact, have a plan.
I think he could carry off more adventures with more companions (Rory's Dad does come back later in the series) and if he does only have Rory and/or Amy he starts treating others as companions anyway.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Going back to Solomon's death, is this the first time we've seen the Doctor murder a human? In nu-Who we've seen him happily destroy thousands of Cybermen when he's having a bad day, but humans have been in a different category I think.
(By "human" I really mean "anything that looks human, no matter what planet it comes from". Sadly there is an inbuilt racism in Who, stretching right back to the first series. An alien that looks human can be reckoned to be good and will get much better treatment than an alien who looks, well, alien. The latter will most often be the bad guy.)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Going back to Solomon's death, is this the first time we've seen the Doctor murder a human? In nu-Who we've seen him happily destroy thousands of Cybermen when he's having a bad day, but humans have been in a different category I think.
He planted a live grenade in the Graf Vynda-K's pocket in The Ribos Operation. He poisoned Solon with cyanide in The Brain of Morbius (although he may not have intended to kill him). If you count Androgums as human, he also poisoned Shockeye in The Two Doctors. I'm sure there must be others.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
To add to Adeodatus' list, the Doctor plans and brings about a human's death in The Robots of Death.
The Doctor's disapproval of killing has always had a streak of casuistry a mile wide. It's possible to argue that the Doctor didn't actually kill Solomon. The Doctor's action could be seen as analagous to switching a runaway trolley from a track where it will kill six people onto a track where it will kill only one. The argument is stretching a bit, but it's hardly as problematic as "it's not killing if it doesn't look human".
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I bet Solomon could have escaped if he'd had his wits about him. A ship that can cruise around nine galaxies must be able to outrun a few Earth missiles, and he might even have been able to eject the polyhedron if he'd thought about it.
Of course, the Doctor didn't give him very much time to think about it.
I love Rory's dad - and I was impressed by how quickly it was possible to care about a tricerotops.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I was absolutely giddy about the pet triceratops, because I have had a thing about them since was six.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Going back to Solomon's death, is this the first time we've seen the Doctor murder a human? In nu-Who we've seen him happily destroy thousands of Cybermen when he's having a bad day, but humans have been in a different category I think.
He planted a live grenade in the Graf Vynda-K's pocket in The Ribos Operation. He poisoned Solon with cyanide in The Brain of Morbius (although he may not have intended to kill him). If you count Androgums as human, he also poisoned Shockeye in The Two Doctors. I'm sure there must be others.
And, if we are talking humanoid life forms and genocide, there is that exchange from The Doctor's Wife:
House: "Fear me, I've killed thousands of Time Lords."
Doctor: "Fear me. I killed them all."
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Going back to Solomon's death, is this the first time we've seen the Doctor murder a human? In nu-Who we've seen him happily destroy thousands of Cybermen when he's having a bad day, but humans have been in a different category I think.
(By "human" I really mean "anything that looks human, no matter what planet it comes from". Sadly there is an inbuilt racism in Who, stretching right back to the first series. An alien that looks human can be reckoned to be good and will get much better treatment than an alien who looks, well, alien. The latter will most often be the bad guy.)
According to one of the Doctor Who novels, "The Oncoming Storm", the name from Dalek legend for the Doctor, actually translates to "Nice guy, if you're a biped".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Someone said earlier that Matt Smith works better with a larger cast. I think that's because he is very good at appearing to be unaware of half of what's going on around him and then whirling round and revealing that he can see everything, he has made unexpected links between incidents and he does, in fact, have a plan.
That's exactly why I made him Woody. In order to be Woody, you have to be surrounded by people who are under the impression that you are clueless.
Come to think of it, Smith seems like a natural Samwise who is playing a Frodo, and the combination is galvanizing.
[tangent]Frodo never was the real hero of the story, anyway, IMO.)[/tangent]
[ 11. September 2012, 16:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
House: "Fear me, I've killed thousands of Time Lords."
Doctor: "Fear me. I killed them all."
In my view the most chilling line from Dr Who. And it was said by the cuddly Doctor.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
That's the really interesting thing about this Doctor. With previous incarnations, you could probably guess how likely they would be to throw a punch (1, 2, 5, and 10 probably wouldn't, 3 and 4 would, and it's hard to see 9 doing anything else); 11, however, seems very silly, very manic, and very friendly—but there's a definite dark, calculating, and cruel side. We get hints of it all the time, granted, and it's pretty clear the Doctor himself is very aware of this fact, but to actually see him be cool and efficient in killing off his enemies? It's still a bit chilling. If 9 was dealing with survivor's guilt, and 10 with having committed genocide, 11 seems coming to terms with the fact that the part of him that has tried to kill off multiple races multiple times is still with him, and a little more ready to come out and go to work than he'd really like to let on.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
It is one of those scenes where I really see how great Smith is in the role. When I first saw it, I thought he was too light-hearted about it and I thought "Tennant would do this better"--because I was thinking of Tennant's approach in "School Reunion" when, with a lot of menace and darkness he says: "I used to be so full of mercy...Now you get one warning. That was it." I wanted the "I killed them all" line to be said the same way.
But then I re-watched the episode. And Smith was right. He says it quickly and tries to be off-handed about it--and fails. Because of how he presents the line, you sense how much it hurts the Doctor that he did what he did. Earlier in the episode, Amy mentions that he is chasing the Time Lord voices because he wants to be forgiven--and she is right. Smith's reading of the line is perfect: A man who wants to be forgiven for what he has done--but can't be, because they are all dead, Dave. He tries to hide it by treating it lightly. Compare with his anger at the Silurian who tried to bluff that she was the "last" of her kind--the 11th Doctor angrily calls her out on it. She is not allowed to claim to be the last because he knows what it means to be the last and it hurts.
The 9th Doctor had survivor's guilt. The 11th Doctor just has guilt, combined with the knowledge (gained when he had the chance to allow the Time Lords to return in his 10th incarnation) that he would do the same thing over again if need be.
When Amy came on board the TARDIS, she suggested that all that suffering just made the Doctor kind--but it didn't. And he knows that it didn't. The 11th Doctor is very much afraid of himself and what he is capable of doing if he needs to. Now wonder that he seems so mercurial in temperament. He is on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
The 9th Doctor had survivor's guilt. The 11th Doctor just has guilt, combined with the knowledge (gained when he had the chance to allow the Time Lords to return in his 10th incarnation) that he would do the same thing over again if need be.
When Amy came on board the TARDIS, she suggested that all that suffering just made the Doctor kind--but it didn't. And he knows that it didn't. The 11th Doctor is very much afraid of himself and what he is capable of doing if he needs to. Now wonder that he seems so mercurial in temperament. He is on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Excellent.
When I saw the title of the Episode "Asylum of the Daleks" I honestly thought he was going to wind up a patient somehow-- And I thought, "Finally."
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on
:
I loved the triceratops, and Rory's dad. Slightly disappointed with Nefertiti ending up with whatsisname in his tent though surely she would have taken him home as as souvenir rather than the other way round.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'm telling myself it's one-night stand (or however that works out in the space-time continuum.)
[ 12. September 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My first thought was "King Solomon," too, but I shook it off, figuring Nefertiti just sort of put me in an ancient kings frame of mind. Hm.
That occurred to me with the Doctor's line: "Solomon, don't mess with Egyptian queens" (or something like that) ... although of course the Queen of Sheba wasn't Egyptian (quite)
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I loved the triceratops, and Rory's dad. Slightly disappointed with Nefertiti ending up with whatsisname in his tent though surely she would have taken him home as as souvenir rather than the other way round.
Apparently Nefertiti really did just vanish from the historical record, and now we know why.
It would be fun to see her being introduced to Edwardian society back home.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
I’ve been enjoying this series of Doctor Who, as well as doing podcast commentaries on each episode over at Impossible Podcasts.
I enjoyed Asylum of the Daleks a lot, but it’s one of those tricky ones to judge in isolation without knowing how things will be resolved with Jenna Louise Coleman’s surprise appearance. I suspect that the entire story was built around her surprise introduction, and certain things that don’t quite add up (such as why the Daleks couldn’t send their own death squad/missiles to blow up the planet) might make sense if they were fully aware of who and what Clara was from the beginning, and the whole thing was a plan by them to assassinate her. But we’ll see…
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship was a fun romp on the whole, but I thought that some of the humour and innuendo was rather misjudged. Ridell and Nefertiti were horribly written, two-dimensional clichés with an anti-sexism “message” that ended up coming across as incredibly crass and sexist. The Doctor leaving Solomon to die was also badly handled: the problem isn’t that the Doctor is above such things, but that it went completely unchallenged in the episode. It was presented without any moral ambiguity, as just the obvious resolution to the adventure, rather than something that the audience is expected to question.
This Saturday’s episode, A Town Called Mercy, is much better though… you can listen to my spoiler-free preview over at Impossible Podcasts. It has some real moral ambiguity, dealing with weighty themes of justice and mercy, and goes some way to making up for the Doctor’s actions last week. It's also a fun sci-fi take on the Western at the same time! Best of the series so far in my view.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Ridell and Nefertiti were horribly written, two-dimensional clichés with an anti-sexism “message” that ended up coming across as incredibly crass and sexist.
Uh-huh. I have a feeling that it's gonna be a learning curve*. Quite honestly, as touching and joyous as I found the Christmas episode, I felt that there was an element of feminist appeasal in that, too (OK, I agree that mothers are strong-- what is the strength, then, of a woman who never wound up a mother? But I thought, "at least they're trying.")
*[also, yes, our geek girl is insanely smart, but please note the insanely short hemline.Yes,viewing public she's smart and that's important (pat pat), but MIND THE HEMLINE!EYES ON THE HEMLINE!
I can't imagine how poor Jenna wrangled that thing with all the tearing around her room she was doing.)
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sparrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My first thought was "King Solomon," too, but I shook it off, figuring Nefertiti just sort of put me in an ancient kings frame of mind. Hm.
That occurred to me with the Doctor's line: "Solomon, don't mess with Egyptian queens" (or something like that) ... although of course the Queen of Sheba wasn't Egyptian (quite)
Maybe that's *why* he went for the Queen of Sheba instead
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I loved the triceratops, and Rory's dad. Slightly disappointed with Nefertiti ending up with whatsisname in his tent though surely she would have taken him home as as souvenir rather than the other way round.
Maybe she did - watching the rerun this evening, all you see at the end is her coming out of a tent which could be anywhere - maybe ancient Egypt?
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Deep Meaningful conversation Amy and the Doctor had whilst he was fishing out the green glowy thing, about how he'll always keep coming back until the end and she said vice-versa. Obvious foreshadowing I thought.
I couldn't say a word about it because it absolutely gutted me. The look they exchanged made me well up.
Smith has made is very clear in interviews that he is good friends with Gillan and I don't believe there was a bit of acting in that moment-- they just allowed themselves to be friends on camera.
It was a very anvilicious conversation, certainly. Reminded me of the oft-repeated Peter Pan/Wendy dynamic the two have.
I'm surprised no-one here has commented on "Spiders! You don't often see spiders in space..." No, unless you're John Pertwee, you don't.
I liked Amy a lot better this week. When she is allowed to be a real person, instead of The Most Kick-Ass Companion Ever, she's fine. But I still care more for Rory than Amy. And oh, I love it when the scriptwriters remember he's a nurse. (Oh, and Kelly - if anyone is Sam, Rory is!)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
They did pull the extra companions out of nowhere which is always uncomfortable to me.
"I've got a gang. Never had a gang before. It's new."
I do love the way Matt Smith delivers some of his lines. He really does succeed in coming off as alien, mad or both.
I think my favourite thing from this episode is the fact that "Ponds" have become a distinct (and expanding) class, even separate from "people".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I liked Amy a lot better this week. When she is allowed to be a real person, instead of The Most Kick-Ass Companion Ever, she's fine.
YES!! And paradoxically, when she's more real, she becomes more kick-ass. ("Are you a queen?" "Yes. Yes I am.")
[ 15. September 2012, 15:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
YES!! And paradoxically, when she's more real, she becomes more kick-ass. ("Are you a queen?" "Yes. Yes I am.")
That was the point at which I wanted to give her a good swift kick. I hope the new companion doesn't have as much of an ego problem.
Rupert Graves is probably a one-off (sadly) but it does open the way for more guest stars. So long as the show doesn't turn into a vehicle for guest celebrities all will be well. I quite like the idea of the Doctor having a gang - when was the last time? The Fifth Doctor, with Tegan, Nyssa and Turlough, or has there been a later one?
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I really enjoyed that.
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Deep Meaningful conversation Amy and the Doctor had whilst he was fishing out the green glowy thing, about how he'll always keep coming back until the end and she said vice-versa. Obvious foreshadowing I thought.
I agree, but there also seems a bit of a strand of this kind of thing running through (at least) New Who - think of the tenth explaining in School Reunion how he leaves companions to save himself from seeing them fade and die, and also the Girl in the Fireplace, where he ends up coming back to Versailles just after his girl's death. The Girl Who Waited can also be seen in this light.
I think Amy and Rory are getting older in the course of this series - he gave his age as (I think) 31 in this ep, so I suspect the theme will become more prominent now (and so we get back to foreshadowing ...)
quote:
Showing him becoming her consort in Egypt would have been fun but the budget probably wasn't up to it.
I actually prefer not to be told - it seems much more interesting that way...
quote:
Originally quoted by orfeo:
"I've got a gang. Never had a gang before. It's new."
...which of course isn't quite true - after all, the first trips we ever get to see are with what a friend calls "team Tardis": Susan, Ian, and Barbara. And then there are the multiple (and occasionally varying) companions of the era of the late fourth and fifth Doctor (as mentioned by Ariel), not to mention other one-offs. But I guess it's been a long time, and he needs to make his new "gang" feel good about themselves - plus, of course he's enjoying it far too much to care... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 15. September 2012, 18:24: Message edited by: doubtingthomas ]
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
That was more like it! Not only was it fun and colourful (cyborg gunslinger!) it also had good characterisation and moral complexity, both of which were completely missing in action last week.
I thought it made a good stab of exploring the themes of justice and mercy - better than Russell T Davies' Boom Town, where the weightiness of the themes was rather let down by the Slitheen as the villain.
More thoughts as usual are on my Doctor Who podcast.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I haven't watched for a while, but this thread piqued my interest. So I watched tonight. I was somewhat disappointed, it seemed a bit simplistic to me and the characters seemed to swing wildly in their thinking. Not just the Doctor, but also the townsfolk.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
That was really rather good. I wanted a little more out of Jex - I wanted him to be a bit more sinister, a bit more guilty, a bit more repentant, just a bit more everything. There didn't seem to be quite enough time to explore who he was, what he'd done and so on, which was a shame. But it cast last week's conclusion in a very interesting light.
This is turning into a very good series indeed. It's just a shame that we've only got two more episodes left before the Doctor disappears off our screens until Christmas.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I haven't watched for a while, but this thread piqued my interest. So I watched tonight. I was somewhat disappointed, it seemed a bit simplistic to me and the characters seemed to swing wildly in their thinking. Not just the Doctor, but also the townsfolk.
Yes. Quite a limp episode, predictable plot, not very interesting really. Definitely a nadir in this new series, let's hope next week will be better.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Definitely westworld inspirations here, which is not bad, but that is two in a row which seem to have film themes in them.
Overall, it was so-so, IMO. The swinging positions of the Doctor didn't make sense - he was all for having Jax killed, and then, shortly after, was keeping him safe.
The Drs trip to the tardis - well why didn't he get his tardis anyway, having gone to the trouble of going outside. He would have had been able to resolve things rather easier then.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
That was okay. The setting made it fun I suppose. However the plot, the moral dilemma, it was very broad strokes.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Definitely westworld inspirations here, which is not bad, but that is two in a row which seem to have film themes in them.
Overall, it was so-so, IMO. The swinging positions of the Doctor didn't make sense - he was all for having Jax killed, and then, shortly after, was keeping him safe.
The Drs trip to the tardis - well why didn't he get his tardis anyway, having gone to the trouble of going outside. He would have had been able to resolve things rather easier then.
Or did Westworld have Dr Who inspirations? You can say anything if time travel is involved.
We did hear one of the best throw-away lines delivered in Matt Smith's inimitable style - the one about Susan.
Was the Doctor ever going to the Tardis or did he set up the whole trip so that he could look at Jex's ship? As Amy said to Jex when he realised: "welcome to my world".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
That was the point at which I wanted to give her a good swift kick. I hope the new companion doesn't have as much of an ego problem.
I took it as a blatant nod to "Ghostbusters" : if someone asks you if you are a god, YOU SAY YES.
Really what other answer to that question wouldn't have been incredibly limp? And I love Amy's ego a lot more than her mooning.
[ 15. September 2012, 21:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Definitely westworld inspirations here, which is not bad, but that is two in a row which seem to have film themes in them.
This is not a problem to those of us who don't watch films - or those of us who can't remember what they've seen from one week to the next
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I will have to say it again: I like Amy. She doesn't always get well written, but when she is not fighting the script, I like her. Sue me.
The Susan comment was perfect, well written and well delivered.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I took it as a blatant nod to "Ghostbusters" : if someone asks you if you are a god, YOU SAY YES.
Really what other answer to that question wouldn't have been incredibly limp? And I love Amy's ego a lot more than her mooning.
I haven't seen Ghostbusters. I would have thought something along the lines of "I'm Rory's wife and that's enough for me/I'm a queen in his eyes" perhaps but that's probably a bit too old-fashioned for Amy.
Well, each to their own. From where I'm standing it's like watching a Valkyrie acting the part of the Doctor's latest companion, more ready to slap than embrace, snap or shout than laugh or smile (when did she last do either?); and having met women like her in real life, they're not a type I usually get on with. But this is fiction, and there won't be too much more of it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Hmm. Wasn't really impressed by A Town Called Mercy.
At first I liked being a little bit disoriented as to what was going on (shades of another episode by the same writer, "The God Complex", which I liked a great deal), but then it turned out that not much interesting was going on at all.
So much of it seemed... glib. I mean, yes we had a spot of moral dilemma in there, but apart from that we just got thrown into a wild west situation with cardboard characters. Amy and Rory were criminally underused.
About the only part I really enjoyed was Amy telling the Doctor off and him explaining his change of attitude - of the things that go wrong when he negotiates. For those who were concerned about his behaviour re Solomon the week before, that was kind of a nice touch.
Otherwise...
I haven't really found any of these first 3 episodes especially marvellous. But I think the first couple were considerably more fun than this one. This had very little in the way of one-liners or someone like Rory's Dad to liven it up.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS The preview for episode 4 certainly looked good!
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I really enjoyed last night's episode and thought it much better than last week's - I found that rather flat.
I put it at the best of the three so far.
M.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
On first viewing, I quite liked A Town Called Mercy. On second viewing I really liked it. The moment when it lit up for me was when the Doctor was sitting in Jex's ship, watching the record of his crimes on the screen. Look at Matt Smith's face in that scene - that man can act!
And I thought we got three excellent guest performances, too - from Isaac, Jex and the Gunslinger. Yes, the moral dilemmas were fairly broadly sketched, but then they only had 40-something minutes to do it in. And I liked the quieter, less action-filled mood, giving the characters time to talk and think seriously for a change. I liked that there was less humour than usual. I liked that the Doctor got to be more alien, more angry and a bit more complex. I liked Amy's line - "This is what happens when you travel alone too much" - perhaps harking back to Hartnell's early moral ambiguity, before he'd got used to travelling with humans. And I liked Jex's "It would be so much simpler if I was just one thing ... the fact that I'm both bewilders you."
In some ways it was a bit like Eccleston's Boom Town, which most people hated but which I liked. In fact I think this was better argued and better executed than Boom Town, which unsuccessfully injected too much humour into the moral debate.
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
On first viewing, I quite liked A Town Called Mercy. I liked Amy's line - "This is what happens when you travel alone too much" -
That reminded me of something I think Donna said - something like: "Sometimes you need someone to stop you."
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I liked that the Doctor got to be more alien
See, if anything I felt he was less alien.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I like it all, Amy, Rory, Doctor, episodes all of it. I just look forward to Saturday nights and enjoy it. Funny, deep, well acted. Good TV.
P
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
I've never watched Dr Who, but I understand that the actor Ben Browder of Farscape and Stargate was a guest star. I've always followed his career so I guess I'll need to see last night's episode. Anywhere one can watch the episode? Thanks.
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roseofsharon:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Definitely westworld inspirations here, which is not bad, but that is two in a row which seem to have film themes in them.
This is not a problem to those of us who don't watch films - or those of us who can't remember what they've seen from one week to the next
I think it is something Moffat is consciously going for this season (cf. the interview I linked to in this thread a few weeks ago).
[ 16. September 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: doubtingthomas ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And I liked Jex's "It would be so much simpler if I was just one thing ... the fact that I'm both bewilders you."
That line only really works for me if you assume that Jex is misreading the Doctor. What ought to be bothering the Doctor is that from an appropriate point of view the Doctor is more of a war criminal than Jex is. Anyway, the Doctor isn't a stranger to ethical ambiguity.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Anyway, someone on the Guardian blog points out that all episodes so far this season have featured mysteriously flickering light bulbs at some point. The blog suggests that this may be symbolic foreshadowing of the weeping angels in two weeks time.
I fear it's not foreshadowing. Weeping angels can drain power from electric lights. All the incidents with flickering lightbulbs happened when Amy was around. Back in The Time of Angels Amy had a weeping angel inside her...
[ 16. September 2012, 14:58: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Yes, this was pointed out on denofgeek, as well. denofgeek also pointed out that in one of the episodes of Pond Life, the Doctor was changing the lightbulb on the top of the Tardis, of course.
I much preferred the Weeping Angels in Blink to those in the Byzantium episodes, though. They were changed significantly, with just a handwavy 'oh, those ones were an isolated stranded bunch' to justify it, which I always found rather disappointing.
M.
Edited to make it clear that it is the draining electricity rather than Dafyd's clever Amy connection that was mentioned on denofgeek.
[ 16. September 2012, 16:49: Message edited by: M. ]
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I've never watched Dr Who, but I understand that the actor Ben Browder of Farscape and Stargate was a guest star. I've always followed his career so I guess I'll need to see last night's episode. Anywhere one can watch the episode? Thanks.
It's on BBC iPlayer until 6th October.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I liked it - neatly done. (It's always a good sign when I start shouting at the screen. Shows I'm properly engaged with the story!)
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Finally watched it, and I'm another one who thinks it was rather weak. Creakingly artifical moral dilemma, all the characters behaving erraticly, and not enough Rory. I may be biased, as westerns have never done anything for me, but I thought this was the weakest episode of this season so far. Still, if we don't get anything worse than this, it won't be bad overall.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
It's on BBC iPlayer until 6th October.
Thanks!
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
New Yorker, I hope you will be able to see it that way. A lot of the BBC on-line stuff can't be accessed in the USA. At worst, you will need to monitor the airing schedule of BBC America to see when last night's episode will re-air -- it will unquestionably be repeated at some point. I didn't find it a very good example of Doctor Who -- I'd say about a third-rate episode, though I'm going to watch it again, as we always record the Doctor, and hope I'll have a better opinion second time round.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I haven't seen it yet, but the best way to watch it online here in Canada is at spacecast.com -- not sure if that's viewable for Americans or not, but might be an option to try if the BBC iPlayer doesn't work in your country.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I've missed all three episodes by being on holiday, but have caught up on the first two.
I was caught by the connection that the Doctor was erased from he Dalek memory in episode one and was not on Solomon's data base in episode two.
Is it me, or were the scenes with thousands of Daleks hardly scary at all, but the scenes with only a few malfunctioning Daleks could be tense.
With Daleks, fewer is better,
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Amy told the Doctor he "gets like this" when he travels alone for too long. Didn't someone say the exact same thing to the Tenth Doctor near the end of his run? (or did he say it himself?) Anyway it seems to be an established fact, at least in the new series, that the Doctor needs companions to keep his moral compass from going astray.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
I think, as Sparrow pointed out, Donna did that, in The Runaway Bride. Granted, that's pretty much straight in the middle of 10's tenure, but, since it's Donna, it seems, in retrospect, later.
Also, did anyone catch that the Doctor is now 1200-ish? In the course of a single season and change, we have him aging 300 years!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Also, did anyone catch that the Doctor is now 1200-ish? In the course of a single season and change, we have him aging 300 years!
Well, there was stuff about that in the Impossible Astronaut at the start of last season. The Doctor seemed to have spent a very long time travelling around before coming back to Lake Silencio to get shot. Wikipedia tells he give his age as 1,103.
[ 17. September 2012, 03:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
I think, as Sparrow pointed out, Donna did that, in The Runaway Bride. Granted, that's pretty much straight in the middle of 10's tenure, but, since it's Donna, it seems, in retrospect, later.
Sorry, I missed seeing that Sparrow had posted that. I remember that too, but I'm thinking of the time period near the end of 10, after Donna's memory-wipe when he was travelling around by himself for like 4 specials or something. I thought the same point was made in one of those episodes.
Regarding his age, someone on the TWOP boards made the very good point that the Doctor probably has NO idea how old he actually is, since he doesn't live a linear life at all, and whenever he gives his age he's only throwing out rough estimates.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And I liked Jex's "It would be so much simpler if I was just one thing ... the fact that I'm both bewilders you."
That line only really works for me if you assume that Jex is misreading the Doctor. What ought to be bothering the Doctor is that from an appropriate point of view the Doctor is more of a war criminal than Jex is. Anyway, the Doctor isn't a stranger to ethical ambiguity.
I think that was a bit of artistic licence. He'd already read the Doctor well enough to know that the Doctor recognised himself in Jex. In fact, I don't think it's fanciful to say that it was that similarity that drove him to throw Jex out of town in the first place. But this line was far more about highlighting the way the typical viewer ought to be feeling IMO.
I don't mind the Doctor being callous and brutal - it's consistent with being a complicated person who can be very nice (or at least charming, or intriguing) but who's also done terrible things which are only hinted at off-screen. What does irritate me is when he quixotically puts people at risk for no reason other than to satisfy his latest sense of what's an appropriate way to behave.
This week, he chose not to hand over a man who had done terrible things, and (it turns out) just wanted to die anyway. As a result, he put the lives of lots of other people in danger. Even if he thought he had a foolproof plan, the scene in the chapel showed just how much danger he was putting everyone else in for the sake of his conscience, and (probably) to silence his own demons for a while. I didn't like that, but I'm probably in a minority.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
Thanks for the thoughts, LSK. I'll keep an eye out for the repeat. Since I've never seen Dr Who, I'll have nothing to compare this episode to.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
As a result, he put the lives of lots of other people in danger. Even if he thought he had a foolproof plan, the scene in the chapel showed just how much danger he was putting everyone else in for the sake of his conscience, and (probably) to silence his own demons for a while. I didn't like that, but I'm probably in a minority.
Maybe we are genuinely not supposed to like it.
Am now envisioning a new end for Amy as companion-- maybe she just (I can barely even type this) begins to not like the Doctor so much anymore. That would be worse than the Weeping Angel thing.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Am now envisioning a new end for Amy as companion-- maybe she just (I can barely even type this) begins to not like the Doctor so much anymore. That would be worse than the Weeping Angel thing.
She's beginning to remind me a bit of Tegan. I don't know if you ever saw her in action (in the Peter Davison days). A lot of people didn't like Tegan but I did: she could be brittle but I always got the sense that she wasn't naturally hard, and vulnerability lurked not very far from the surface. At the end she told the Doctor she just couldn't go on travelling with him the way he was, and that so many people seemed to die, and she ran off and left the Tardis in tears, and he went off without her.
Amy isn't Tegan but she may reach a point where she walks off in disgust and lets him just get on with it.
Also, just wondering if this may be building up to another possible regeneration, as well. In the New Who, the Doctor seems to get a bit callous and godlike then gets his comeuppance and regenerates into someone else; we've had that twice now.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
.
Also, just wondering if this may be building up to another possible regeneration, as well. In the New Who, the Doctor seems to get a bit callous and godlike then gets his comeuppance and regenerates into someone else; we've had that twice now.
(sigh) I've wondered that, too.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
As a result, he put the lives of lots of other people in danger. Even if he thought he had a foolproof plan, the scene in the chapel showed just how much danger he was putting everyone else in for the sake of his conscience, and (probably) to silence his own demons for a while. I didn't like that, but I'm probably in a minority.
Maybe we are genuinely not supposed to like it.
Interesting. I'd be surprised, because I'd expect it to be laid on a bit thicker than that if it was intended to create that sort of response, but I wouldn't rule it out. There's an interesting comparison with Jex, who ultimately blew himself up to end the pain of his own past, but also to save other people from getting caught up in anything. You could make a good case that the Doctor's actions in a similar situation have been much less noble. Maybe it's significant, maybe not.
And something that's been bothering me for a while - does anyone else think Amy's quite a bit rounder in the face than she used to be? Is that a subtle way of showing that she's older (as in Girl Who Waited), has Gillan put on weight, or is it significant in some other way? (Or am I just completely wrong?)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Liked it - best this season. More pathos than humour but the latter was the right sort, great acting from Matt Smith in particular.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I liked it too, but will watch it again as I've been away for a few days - my first thought was the Doc v the Terminator...
Many interesting thoughts and theories here to ruminate on, which is why I read much more than I post! And Matt's acting gets better and better. I just hope he doesn't announce he is leaving any time soon, I want a good long tenure from him.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Ah, time to start my list of characters who will come back for a Completely Pointless Cameo in the season finale (the now traditional "Everybody On Stage" moment). So far, I figure Neffy and What'sisname-In-The-Tent and the cyborg gunslinger are locks.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
While I would love them to spring a change in the Dr on us without news having leaked out beforehand I don't see it happening. I remember when David Tennant got shot by a Dalek and started to go and my reaction was "how did they keep that quiet?". But I still like Matt Smith so don't want a change yet anyway.
And yes: Daleks are much more scary individually than in a group.
eta: Responding to the posts at the bottom of page 6
[ 18. September 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: The Rogue ]
Posted by Saviour Tortoise (# 4660) on
:
I've been thoroughly enjoying this series, but I have the joy of being able to share it with my son for the first time (at 7 years old we've decided he's old enough) and it gives one a whole new perspective.
I would have dismissed Dinosaurs On A Spaceship as being 'all a bit of fun but not really up to much'. Try watching with a 7 year old. He thought it was brilliant!
I reckon I was just a little younger than him when I first started watching (very late Tom Baker) and watching it with him brings back the shear, unadulterated joy of it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I liked it too, but will watch it again as I've been away for a few days - my first thought was the Doc v the Terminator...
Many interesting thoughts and theories here to ruminate on, which is why I read much more than I post! And Matt's acting gets better and better. I just hope he doesn't announce he is leaving any time soon, I want a good long tenure from him.
Someone upthread mentioned his gift for expression-- I hope before we get to twelve, they slide in an ep with no dialogue at all, like that Agnes Moorehead episode of Twilight Zone (It can be done.) I've never seen anyone do the kind of things that man does with his face.
I can't decide whether he'd be brilliant at poker or completely crap at it.
[ 18. September 2012, 23:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
Matt has really grown on me and as much as i like Amy and Rory in Ponds life it doesn't translate to the full episodes. I enjoyed ATCM but mostly because my son did and I see the show through the eyes of a ten year old boy who loves old Who. He had a crush on Martha and doesn't like Amy at all and wishes Romana coluld come back. When watching "The
Stones of Blood" he wondered why "all the girls seem dumber now".
He is a huge fan of Firely/Serenity and so liked the western theme but wished Rory hadn't been turned into the tin dog.
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
[QUOTE]
Regarding his age, someone on the TWOP boards made the very good point that the Doctor probably has NO idea how old he actually is, since he doesn't live a linear life at all, and whenever he gives his age he's only throwing out rough estimates.
It's linear to HIM surely, just not to the rest of the universe! Although all the regenerations probably result in a certain amount of confusion, and after approx 1200 years he probably isn't all that bothered about the exact number.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sparrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
[QUOTE]
Regarding his age, someone on the TWOP boards made the very good point that the Doctor probably has NO idea how old he actually is, since he doesn't live a linear life at all, and whenever he gives his age he's only throwing out rough estimates.
It's linear to HIM surely, just not to the rest of the universe! Although all the regenerations probably result in a certain amount of confusion, and after approx 1200 years he probably isn't all that bothered about the exact number.
Exactly, but how do you keep track? If you live on Earth, a day is a single rotation of the Earth and a year is the time taken for it to orbit the sun. How does that translate to a Gallifreyan who spends his life hopping from planet to planet and timestream to timestream? It starts to fall apart as soon as you look at it.
Best answer is just to assert that the TARDIS looks after it, can translate his age into appropriate units for different cultures, and he tends to use Earth dating because he likes humans.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
Perhaps he isn't using Earth dating and he is actually three in Earth years.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
As long ago as The Ribos Operation Romana accused the Doctor of having lost count of his age. Several times, the Fourth Doctor quoted his age as 749. In The Brain of Morbius, he was interrupted partway through a sentence that was probably going to be, "I'm only 749. Life doesn't begin until 750." Perhaps this implies he once was as vain about his age as some humans, who'll say they're "39 ... and a few months".
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Perhaps he isn't using Earth dating and he is actually three in Earth years.
I've thought that, too, but developmentally I'd say "13".
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Just got round to watching episode #3 - wow! Brilliant - so many layers. Even tiresome Pond (pbuh in advance) had a decent speech.
Well done writers, directors and cast.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I've thought that, too, but developmentally I'd say "13".
Hartnell was about 13 developmentally although pretending to be a lot older. The Doctor has been steadily getting older and steadily pretending to be younger, although there are blips.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Shut the front door, Dafyd.
OK, lest you think I'm barking at you, and just 'cause I've said enough crackpot things on these threads to warrent me saying "What the hell", I will tell you something that crossed my mind out of the blue the other day-- The Doctor reminds me of Grover.
From Sesame Street. Yeah, that Grover.
Now the reason this pertains is,like the Doctor, Grover is of indeterminate age and often displays deep wisdom, but he is written to be four years old, developmentally. No shit. I read somewhere that the people at the Children's Television Workshop who knocked together the puppets assigned them character traits lining up with specific developmental stages (so, Bert and Ernie are about nine or ten, Big Bird is five, Kermit is eight or so, and Oscar is a two-year old. Something like that.)
Just an interesting connection.
Kel// of course, it might just be that Grover is my favorite...
[ 21. September 2012, 04:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh and also? When he hits developmental 2, the shit's gonna get real.
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
On first viewing, I quite liked A Town Called Mercy. On second viewing I really liked it. The moment when it lit up for me was when the Doctor was sitting in Jex's ship, watching the record of his crimes on the screen. Look at Matt Smith's face in that scene - that man can act!
On second viewing I'd agree with you about Matt Smith's face. The other thing I noticed is that he's a dead ringer for the portrait of Richard III on the front of The Daughter of Time (currently being discussed on the September book thread(!
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
You know what I'm really looking forward to in this evening's episode?
.
.
.
Rory's dad! (He was just superb in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship!)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sparrow:
On second viewing I'd agree with you about Matt Smith's face. The other thing I noticed is that he's a dead ringer for the portrait of Richard III on the front of The Daughter of Time (currently being discussed on the September book thread(!
And he's worshipped on Easter Island. (as has already been pointed out to him)
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Well, I'm going to watch that again cos we were having dinner in the middle of it but I must just say that although I was very fond of Wilf, I think I'm in lurrrve with Brian
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Brian was better in this one than the last one and Rory has improved a lot. (Has he lost weight, btw?)
I had a feeling the cubes were going to be assessing people and gathering information, and the lift being a multi-dimensional portal wasn't a surprise (lifts often are), but otherwise an interesting and enjoyable episode. Kate Stewart as Head of UNIT is great! More please.
Looking forward to next week - River Song is back and so are the evil angels! Should be fun.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The dads are just fantastic. I hope they continue to have them, and more.
I liked this week. Fun and mystery. Something odd and the Doctor saving the World. And the Doctors Childhood Bogie Man - fantastic.
I love the idea of boxes that are all identical, but not really. And there was something of an anti-apple thing about the smooth sleek devices that everyone wanted.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
Well they do say An Apple A Day Keeps the Doctor Away
yeah, the dads are great - Wilf and Brian need to get together, go for a pint and Set The Universe To Rights.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
I had a lump in my throat when we heard who Kate's dad was...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I thought the first half was excellent, and then it all fell apart. There were too many ideas thrown in the pot, and nothing really was done with any of them even the good ones (including the new Brigadier). And then we got a magic wand waved to reset everything.
I liked the continuity nod in the Doctor's dislike of defibrillators, but I felt something more could have been done with that too.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I thought the first half was excellent, and then it all fell apart. There were too many ideas thrown in the pot, and nothing really was done with any of them even the good ones (including the new Brigadier). And then we got a magic wand waved to reset everything.
I liked the continuity nod in the Doctor's dislike of defibrillators, but I felt something more could have been done with that too.
I liked it, but I agree with a lot of what you said, Dafyd. Somehow it felt to me like it should have been part one of a two-parter. The resolution was very anticlimactic.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Yes, my son texted me to say he thought the ending anticlimactic. I too felt that there was too much, and the solution too conveniently fixed by the sonic screwdriver.
But oh yes! imagine the scene supping pints down the Dog & Duck with Wilf and Brian...what joy <sigh>
BTW, that was Jemma Redgrave and Steven Berkoff - we've certainly got to the Morecambe & Wise level where everyone vies to be on the show.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
But oh yes! imagine the scene supping pints down the Dog & Duck with Wilf and Brian...what joy <sigh>
The Ood & Angel, surely?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
[Tangent again]
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(so, Bert and Ernie are about nine or ten, Big Bird is five, Kermit is eight or so, and Oscar is a two-year old. Something like that.)
which explains why I never progressed past Big Bird.
And why I'm a Who-iee.
[Edit: and why I can't post plopperly ]
[ 22. September 2012, 22:12: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Yes, my son texted me to say he thought the ending anticlimactic. I too felt that there was too much, and the solution too conveniently fixed by the sonic screwdriver.
Yep.
And really, the camera work is gratingly show-offy and the soundtrack--- which delighted me last season-- is driving me bugfuck this season. Those two items alone are reminding me disturbingly of overwrought NBC crime dramas. Let the story tell itself, let the actors act, and follow them, D.P. And music is a seasoning, not a stock.
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
But...but...there was lovely, lovely Doctor Brian Cox too.
The Doctor and the Other Doctor. Oh, joy is me!!
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on
:
i wonder what the collective noun for doctors who are 'not that sort of doctor' is?
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
If it's those two, perhaps I would say "a swoon of Doctors" - except I'm swooning, not them!
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Yes - Kate Stewart - I forgot to mention her. We want more of UNIT and her.
In the old days, UNIT provided some sense that good people can make a difference. You don't need to be a superhuman Doctor to do fantastic things.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I was a bit disappointed. It was such a good premise and then it all fell apart - just a wave of the magic wand, sorry, sonic screwdriver, and all was put to rights. And the ending? 'The Power of Three' - oh yuck. Did we ever find out why all the people were being sedated and taken from the hospital to the spaceship?
And while at first in 'New Who', I thought it was good to explore what happens to people after the Doctor leaves, now it seems to be getting to the stage of only really being about that.
But Macarius thinks I'm expecting too much and perhaps I am. I've been watching a lot of the older Doctor Who's recently and with a multi parter, there is more time to develop ideas. Mind you, there is sometimes quite a lot of padding, too, particularly in some of the Jon Pertwee six-parters.
But having the Brigadier's daughter was a great idea, my favourite bit of the episode.
I hope next week's is as good as it looks!
M.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
It was such a good premise and then it all fell apart - just a wave of the magic wand, sorry, sonic screwdriver, and all was put to rights. And the ending? 'The Power of Three' - oh yuck. Did we ever find out why all the people were being sedated and taken from the hospital to the spaceship?
I loved it, but it did feel as if they had got 35 minutes into a 90-minute story and then realised they only had ten minutes left to wrap it up.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I loved it, but it did feel as if they had got 35 minutes into a 90-minute story and then realised they only had ten minutes left to wrap it up.
I feel it was more that they got 35 minutes into two or three different 90-minute stories and had to wrap all three up in ten minutes.(**) It wasn't just the cubes that were sonic screwdrivered away - all the relationship between the Doctor and the Ponds ended up going straight back to where it's always been (*) - and UNIT did pretty much nothing except give the Doctor some flashing lights to show off with.
(*) Is there any reason this story couldn't have before or after any of the other stories so far? No. That's a bit bad in a story that says a lot about moving on the relationship.
(**) And that's leaving out the zygons. I want zygons.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
That sonic screwdriver needs a holiday. It's doing too much.
(Though a 21st century sonic screwdriver is probably now as much a sonic screwdriver as a mobile phone is a portable telephone.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
But...but...there was lovely, lovely Doctor Brian Cox too.
The Doctor and the Other Doctor. Oh, joy is me!!
I started giggling with glee when I saw that bit.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(*) Is there any reason this story couldn't have before or after any of the other stories so far? No. That's a bit bad in a story that says a lot about moving on the relationship.
Good call (ken,too) They could have done so much more with the "vacation" the Doctor took. There were lines thrown in about how Amy and Rory were liking real life, and the separation- foreshadowing dialogue was extraordinarily well-acted by both parties , but IMO we could have used a little more "show me, don't tell me." And would it have killed the world's perception of the Doctor if they had shown him actually enjoying some chill time with friends?
Another nod to Smith-- when he is handed one of those way-too-expository speeches (disclaimer-- I don't think the speech I referenced above was necessarily one of those), he seems to know how to saturate it with nuance-- as in that scene, he was acting like it was a struggle to get the words out. It makes a scene where you might go "Yeah,yeah, get to the point" into something that makes you go "Holy cow, this shit is really fucking him up."
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on
:
I think we're going non-linear with the story telling. Was this when Rory left his phone charger in Henry VIII's bedroom?
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
and UNIT did pretty much nothing except give the Doctor some flashing lights to show off with.
Did they not find out where the signals that animated the cubes came from, enabling the Doctor and Amy to get to the hospital and find Rory and Brian?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
This is one of the very, very few NuHu episodes that made me wish it were an Old School 4-parter. The cubes coming to life and shooting at the Doctor? Great 1st cliffhanger. Worldwide heart attack? 2nd one. Who's actually behind it? Rather than that really rushed half-assed exposition, we get a nifty new bit of Time Lord exposition in an ancient enemy—perhaps like the vampires from State of Decay. The Doctor using his screwdriver more as an aid to cleverness, rather than a magic wand to pull a deus ex machina, defeating Ancient Time Lord Enemy by exploiting their arrogance (you know, what the Doctor does best?) Nice ending. Throw in a promise to visit, to be a good son-in-law, and occasionally bring the wife over for tea, rather than taking Ponds with him? That's how you wrap it up. This one had the best 35 minutes and worst anticlimax of any of this season; there could have been so much more, if they'd just taken the space to develop it.
Also, the narration. It works if you're foreshadowing something later in the episode (e.g., Rassilon narrating the intro to "End of Time"), but otherwise? Leave it out.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
You should damn well write for the show, Ariston. I can just feel how great the pacing would be in your version.
P.S. ITA RE: Narration
P.P.S. What did YOU think of the incidental music? It was driving me nuts.
[ 24. September 2012, 01:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hilaryg:
Was this when Rory left his phone charger in Henry VIII's bedroom?
I loved that line
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Kelly, I actually don't notice the incidental music that often, except when it's repetitive . . . which it often is. I realize the soundtrack release will have 70 different tracks, one for each cue in each episode, but they all boil down to "someone's doing action/emotion X again." Which, really, makes it seem as if there's a stock set of emotions and actions.
Okay, there kind of is. Yes, there's "Doctor being hyperactive and silly," "Doctor being clever," "Doctor taking off the gloves," "Doctor being introspective," "Companion(s) in trouble," "Chase sequence," and "Universe is doomed," but there's a whole lot of variation within each of these tropes. Plus, I get tired of hearing the same old "Doctor is Being Clever" themes over and over again.
As to the pacing issue—and the idea that this should be a 2/4 parter—it struck me that this is one of the few instances in which I agree with the idea that an episode is trying to do too much. While I actually like the ambitious episodes that try to get as many ideas as possible (I usually think there's one idea, the others are simply complexity), the problem with "Power of Three" is that, in addition to being a stand-alone episode that fits in with a character arc (like all the other episodes have done), it's also trying to set up the final episode of the season, the end of the Ponds' time on the show, and get the emotional/thematic tension at just the right place before the final episode begins. It's not allowed to just be an episode; it also has to be the prequel to the next episode, which, let's be honest, is going to need a fair bit of pre-staging.
Let's go with what we know. The next episode will see the end of Amy, Rory, and David; at least one of them may die. The episode will be the first one since last season to have River in it—that is, the first one with the Doctor, his wife, and the in-laws. The next episode will have to sate a rabid fan base that has been waiting for more Who since last Christmas, got a five-week reprieve, and has to wait until next Christmas for more. Oh, and it has to be a good finale. That's a lot for one episode to bear, and the more help it can get, the better.
So, they sacrifice the penultimate episode to make the last one work. This isn't without precedent, mind you; they did it last season with "Closing Time," and, some might argue, with "Turn Left," "Boom Town," and, now that I think about it, "Keeper of Traken." The thing about "Closing Time" and "Power of Three," though, is that they were single-episode stories preceding single-episode finales. "Almost People/Rebel Flesh" worked because it played out a story first, then used the allusions to Amy maybe being pregnant make sense in the last minutes—which was exactly what "A Good Man Goes to War" needed. "Closing Time" failed because it was an excuse to set up the Doctor for his death and the writers clearly thought of it that way; the "now I'm going off to die, thanks for the hat" scenes were the best of an otherwise not-the-best episode. "Power of Three" was a great episode that needed to cut the plot/character arc development (which can't be done without sacrificing an important next episode), a great bit of arc development that needed to cut the episode (um . . .), or just be a two-parter, budget be damned. All of these have problems, but the last one doesn't have problems for us.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Kelly, I actually don't notice the incidental music that often, except when it's repetitive . . . which it often is. I realize the soundtrack release will have 70 different tracks, one for each cue in each episode, but they all boil down to "someone's doing action/emotion X again." Which, really, makes it seem as if there's a stock set of emotions and actions.
Okay, there kind of is. Yes, there's "Doctor being hyperactive and silly," "Doctor being clever," "Doctor taking off the gloves," "Doctor being introspective," "Companion(s) in trouble," "Chase sequence," and "Universe is doomed," but there's a whole lot of variation within each of these tropes. Plus, I get tired of hearing the same old "Doctor is Being Clever" themes over and over again.
For me, "Town Called Mercy" was the musical nadir. The music tricked me into thinking people were overacting; I had to tell myself "they can't hear the overwrought hipper-than- thou soundtrack, don't blame them."
The Monster in a Closet/ wooden dolly ep (title slipping my mind) was the best, because somebody crafty worked up a musical Twilight Zone homage, I am convinced. And it added a tingly creepy vibe that worked well with the mise en scene(YEAH! I said mise en scene I'm a film nerd, kiss my ass. )
As for the rest of your post-- food for thought. Several meals worth.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Let's go with what we know. The next episode will see the end of Amy, Rory, and David
David? Who's David?
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on
:
Not terribly impressed with the cube story, it all seemed too rushed in the interesting bits and quite tedious in the waiting around bits. Interestingly there is a letter in this week's Catholic Times about the 'Mercy' episode and the ethics of suicide being seen as a positive conclusion in a children's TV show.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
They didn't do anything to rescue the people on the spaceship before it blew up, did they?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Heh. That question totally reminds me of stuff I've said in role-playing games. "Wait a minute, did anybody state that they let the people on the ship go? Before it blew up?"
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
Worth mentioning that Kate Stewart hasn't only been invented for this story (Since the Brig is no longer available) - she was a major character in two Doctorless UNIT stories which appeared as video spin-offs back in the 90s (which incidently had Nick Courtney and Elisabeth Sladen in - so are are about as canonical as you can be without the Doctor.....)
Chibnall has done his research. A+ for that part. Shame about the ending as it was so good up to that point.
Posted by Lots of Yay (# 2790) on
:
I was thinking about the angels the other day, and preparing myself to battle them (just in case), and I had an idea: when the angels invade my house, I will avoid blinking by alternating left and right eye winks.
But I'm not sure if the field of vision in each eye will be sufficient to ward off the more peripherally located angels. Clearly I will have to start looking at them when they are in the doorway.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
Ariston's bang on the money. This was a story that deserved more time to develop, and didn't even get as much as normal, because this entire episode was a vehicle for more Pondlife. The cubes were an interesting, high-concept plot which got scandalously wasted. Mind you, better that than Torchwood turning it into another bloated series - Episode 1, Jack has breakfast. Cliffhanger: has he got enough milk? Episode 2, Yes he has...
If they'd just made it like a modern two-parter, we could have had a whole episode after the cubes started attacking people for things to be resolved. But that would have involved addressing some awkward plotholes, like how a race could be so advanced as to make intelligent, indestructible cubes that just ping out of nowhere like snowglobes, but also leave everything controlled by an effectively unmanned spaceship with no defence against a quick hack from a sonic screwdriver. Or how they could do all this research on humanity and not notice the time-travelling nutcase who has a bit of a soft spot for them and keeps foiling attempted invasions/destructions of Earth. For starters.
Once again, it feels like a story with lots of potential has been forced into the wrong shape of hole because of external factors. Here, it's the need for a short run to dump the Ponds and make a clean break before Christmas. Can we please just have a single series that starts, runs for a sensible period of time and then stops, with no breaks or hiatuses in the middle requiring added drama, big explosions and yet another cataclysmic event?
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Oh yes, oh yes, please could we have that? I got pretty fed up with the Pond life segments, and gaped when Amy mentioned their acquaintance with the Doctor had been over ten years - ten years? ye gods...
And to Ariston.
[ 24. September 2012, 12:24: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Overall I enjoyed this one, although I agree with everyone who has said the ending was rushed and simplistic. Most of the time it was low CGI, low budget, and concentrated on relationships in a rather quirky way. Having spent two seasons loathing Amy, she is finally getting some intelligent writing, although Rory remains woefully underused. What does strike me (since the whole universe knows next episode is the end of the Ponds - that is more firmly set in stone than the death of the Doctor was) is how much the Doctor likes them, and will miss them when they are gone. It seems to me me he's got more emotion invested in them than in any previous companion (and I'm not forgetting Rose, and the never ending love affair.....).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Loathing Amy is virtually impossible. For a straight bloke or lesbian, anyway.
Moving swiftly on...
I enjoyed this view on the show: http://newsthump.com/2012/03/22/bumper-onanistic-winter-promised-for-dr-who-fans/
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Let's go with what we know. The next episode will see the end of Amy, Rory, and David
David? Who's David?
What I thought Brian Pond's first name was for whatever strange reason.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
OK. I just thought I'd missed something.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
One of the banks (HSBC) has an advertisement about mortgages with a rather astonished cherub on one leg on a gatepost. I wonder how many Who watchers it will attract. (Can't find an image.)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Doctor Who quiz now in the Circus
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
The trailer for next week had a clip of the Statue of Liberty and youngest Rogueling asked if that is a Weeping Angel.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
The trailer for next week had a clip of the Statue of Liberty and youngest Rogueling asked if that is a Weeping Angel.
Now THERE is a plot twist that I had not thought of!
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
The trailer for next week had a clip of the Statue of Liberty and youngest Rogueling asked if that is a Weeping Angel.
Now THERE is a plot twist that I had not thought of!
Somebody did ... and that was before the trailer for this episode aired. When my family was in NYC this summer my kids mentioned the possibility several times.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ariston:
Let's go with what we know. The next episode will see the end of Amy, Rory, and David
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David? Who's David?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I thought Brian Pond's first name was for whatever strange reason.
As well as that Brian's surname is Williams as he is Rory's dad , not Amy's.
So you were in fact completely wrong the first time.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Eeexcept that, once the Doctor calls you a Pond, you're a Pond.
Period.
No, no arguing this one. The Doctor has made it so.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Loathing Amy is virtually impossible. For a straight bloke or lesbian, anyway.
I've read this before elsewhere. How strange to think that everyone shares your subjective opinion concerning beauty or desirability. Neither my husband nor my son nor my lesbian sister find Amy the least but attractive.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
In agreement with you, art dunce. Amy (and Karen) just have never struck me as desirable.
Now if we are talking about Oswin (Jenna Louise Coleman), that is a whole different story....
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
*[also, yes, our geek girl is insanely smart, but please note the insanely short hemline.Yes,viewing public she's smart and that's important (pat pat), but MIND THE HEMLINE! EYES ON THE HEMLINE! I can't imagine how poor Jenna wrangled that thing with all the tearing around her room she was doing.)
She did an excellent job wrangling the hemline while tearing around the room. I paid particularly close attention to how well she was doing. Very talented.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Is this really a cute contest? They're both gorgeous. Yeesh.
[ETA, not you , Hedgehog, that was funny.Porcine, but funny. ]
[ 27. September 2012, 01:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Honestly, I never noticed the hemline. I've also yet to see a companion who annoyed me entirely . . . well, okay, other than Rose the Undying, but that's not her fault.
Also, can we get past the "she's attractive, therefore you must like her" idea? There's a lot more to why even a bloke like me might like a character than that. And yes, I am a bloke.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Hush, Ariston. TV producers have build entire empires on insulting men's intelligence; if you challenge that, you might wind up with a bunch of Time/ Warner suits with brass knucks on your doorstep in the middle of the night.
But that's another thread.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I don't fancy Amy either, The only fancyable assistant in NewWho was Martha. A bloke has spoken.
Not that I disliked the rest (apart from odd episodes of Amy) but that's not Karen Gillan's fault.
I blame the way she was written, as Ms Gillan can do fancyable, as evidenced here.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Karl is obviously right! You folk need to check out what they are putting in the water down your way.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Honestly, I never noticed the hemline. I've also yet to see a companion who annoyed me entirely . . . well, okay, other than Rose the Undying, but that's not her fault.
I suggest you see if you can get hold of an episode with Peri or one with Adric. Then report back and let us know what you thought.
It may be that you're just a very tolerant person.
(Hemline, what hemline? I haven't a clue what she was wearing.)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I blame the way she was written, as Ms Gillan can do fancyable, as evidenced here.
Thank you for that.
I'm with you, Baalam. I think that she was shoved into a straight-woman/ deadpan/ gal Friday type persona that didn't mesh with her gifts. And I understand the actor plays the role, but in an ongoing, tv type situation, doesn't it behoove the writers to figure out ways to draw on the actor's assets?
Positive example: "Dinosaurs in Space" the scene where Amy is noodling around with the computer screen. She was beaming like a schoolgirl, just absorbed in the techiness of it all. That's the girl I wish I'd gotten to know better.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Honestly, I never noticed the hemline. I've also yet to see a companion who annoyed me entirely . . . well, okay, other than Rose the Undying, but that's not her fault.
I suggest you see if you can get hold of an episode with Peri or one with Adric.
This.
quote:
(Hemline, what hemline? I haven't a clue what she was wearing.)
As it turns out, she was wearing a shell of dalekanium armor.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Honestly, I never noticed the hemline. I've also yet to see a companion who annoyed me entirely . . . well, okay, other than Rose the Undying, but that's not her fault.
I suggest you see if you can get hold of an episode with Peri or one with Adric. Then report back and let us know what you thought.
It may be that you're just a very tolerant person.
(Hemline, what hemline? I haven't a clue what she was wearing.)
Yes, fine, I was only thinking NuHu—point Very Much Taken. Why did the first American companion have to be so damn dumb?
[ 27. September 2012, 21:50: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There are some interesting suggestions for the possible removal of the Ponds over on the Guardian blogs on the subject.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
I'm looking forward to tomorrow's episode. I'll be sorry to see Amy and Rory go. It's been interesting to see the Doctor stay involved with his companion's lives - a new slant on the companion relationship. Their personal lives could have been written a bit better though - for example, if The Power of Three had given a bit more context to Amy and Rory's almost-divorce in Asylum of the Daleks.
I've done a speculation episode of my podcast with some theories about what might happen.
Given that River Song regenerated as a child in New York in 1969, might Mr and Mrs Pond end up thrown back in time and able to bring her up, giving them the parenthood they thought they'd lost?
The Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel would be fun, though I'm not sure how it would work logically with so many people looking at it all the time. Perhaps the other angels are trying to kill/displace everyone in New York as a "rescue mission" for it?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
The Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel would be fun, though I'm not sure how it would work logically with so many people looking at it all the time. Perhaps the other angels are trying to kill/displace everyone in New York as a "rescue mission" for it?
I thought the Angels were all made of stone? Ms Liberty's made of copper (I think. Isn't she?).
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Their personal lives could have been written a bit better though
Rory's a fucking nurse. A NURSE. A nurse is hanging out with the Doctor. Anyone who has spent any time in long term care knows that the doctor might hold the title, but the nurse is running a heck of a lot of the show. Boy, if I had that character in my hands I would have worked that dynamic.
Also:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I thought the Angels were all made of stone? Ms Liberty's made of copper (I think. Isn't she?).
As far as we know muahahaha!
(You're right, copper.)
[ 28. September 2012, 14:52: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Given that River Song regenerated as a child in New York in 1969, might Mr and Mrs Pond end up thrown back in time and able to bring her up, giving them the parenthood they thought they'd lost?
Except that "Mel" wouldn't then been raised as a hate-crazed assassin to kill the Doctor, so wouldn't have been shot by Hitler, so wouldn't have regenerated into River, so wouldn't have met the Doctor ... and so on.
So yes, that probably is what will happen. Timey-wimey and to hell with continuity!
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
The Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel would be fun, though I'm not sure how it would work logically with so many people looking at it all the time.
And, in the very dark Invasion HQ of the Weeping Angels, there is the sound of a forehead being slapped and a shout of "D'oh!"
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Just caught up with The Slow Invasion... EDIT: Oh wait, it wasn't actually called that, was it? I genuinely forgot. That's just the title I expected to see, rather than the one I did see that got used in an appallingly lame fashion.
Pretty much agree with what many others said. Found it terribly intriguing, found myself tensing up, PERFECT use of Rory's Dad (who else would diligently keep a log for 361 days? Brilliant!), even liked the villain and the chance to contrast the Doctor's view of humanity with what the rest of the universe probably thinks of them. Us.
And then... the Doctor stops everything at the drop of a hat. Or the wave of a screwdriver.
It really did feel like I'd had the rug pulled out from under me.
Yes, yes, yes to the suggestion of ye olde multi-parter with shorter episodes. It really could have worked in that format.
[ 29. September 2012, 14:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I'm not going to be able to see The Angels Take Manhattan till tomorrow. I think between now and then I'd better try to avoid the internet, tv, radio, newspapers and in fact all forms of mass communication ....
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
The Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel would be fun, though I'm not sure how it would work logically with so many people looking at it all the time. Perhaps the other angels are trying to kill/displace everyone in New York as a "rescue mission" for it?
You'd have to stage some spectacle so shocking that everyone with a view over downtown Manhattan or New York Harbour was looking at the same thing at the same time, and no-one towards Liberty.
I can think of one of those recently. But I doubt if Doctor Who is going to go there.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
It's the feast of St Michael and all angels today. Did the BBC realise this when scheduling?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
We know about the angels from the trailer, but is someone called Micky going to show up, do you think?!
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You'd have to stage some spectacle so shocking that everyone with a view over downtown Manhattan or New York Harbour was looking at the same thing at the same time, and no-one towards Liberty.
I can think of one of those recently. But I doubt if Doctor Who is going to go there.
Not even then.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Given that River Song regenerated as a child in New York in 1969, might Mr and Mrs Pond end up thrown back in time and able to bring her up, giving them the parenthood they thought they'd lost?
Except that "Mel" wouldn't then been raised as a hate-crazed assassin to kill the Doctor, so wouldn't have been shot by Hitler, so wouldn't have regenerated into River, so wouldn't have met the Doctor ... and so on.
So yes, that probably is what will happen. Timey-wimey and to hell with continuity!
Except, hang on; if we accept that Amy and Mels grew up together—that is, are about the same age—and that Amy was born in 1989, then we have 20 years of Melody Pond to account for. We've already established that, for the rest of her life/lives, The Child/Mels/River was, well, if not exactly normal, at least not a murderous psychopath; perhaps, for those twenty years, she was able to be Amy & Rory's daughter, only entering Kill Mode upon regenerating in front of the Doctor.*
Now, narrative loose ends this would tie up:
Where was Melody between '69 and '89?
Don't you want to let Amy and Rory have their family?
You don't have to kill any Ponds this way to write them out of the series; the Doctor just can't have any more contact with them, lest he flip the Bespoke Psychopath switch a bit too early.*
In the end, Melody Pond doesn't kill the Doctor, despite being trained and conditioned to do so. What is it that holds her back, makes her less determined to fulfill her purpose in life, and, in the end, causes her to sacrifice herself and the universe on multiple occasions for him? Maybe good and proper parenting?
Oh, and why, according to the previews, is this the only episode in this half of the season to have River in it? With all this Pond Life stuff, couldn't we have had their daughter play a bigger role?
*Yes, fine, the Doctor encountered Melody in two prior incarnations where she (arguably) didn't try to kill him—both as The Child and as Mels. Of course, there might be some question of why she was shooting a gun in the TARDIS if not to shoot the Doctor, but that's still pretty ambiguous.
[ 29. September 2012, 16:30: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Well that was a GOOD episode! Still glad that Amy's no more, but she went with style. And Rory will be sadly missed.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
The Statue of Liberty as a Weeping Angel would be fun, though I'm not sure how it would work logically with so many people looking at it all the time. Perhaps the other angels are trying to kill/displace everyone in New York as a "rescue mission" for it?
I thought the Angels were all made of stone? Ms Liberty's made of copper (I think. Isn't she?).
Just we had established that she was copper....
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Was it ever established that the angels had to be stone?
Stone or copper, they're still scary,
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Interesting and creepy episode. I like the idea of the little baby angels only being able to move people in space, not in time.
I really thought Rory was going to do it. Also thought right at the end that he and Amy had died and were ghosts who were just about to discover that they couldn't leave the graveyard or get into the Tardis.
Great stuff. Not sure I'll ever feel quite the same way about statues, though.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
I think they did go out in style. I felt a bit uncomfortable at the suicide bit, though. I also felt that as the episode progressed it was rather disjointed but when I looked back near the end it seemed to work pretty well.
Any volunteers to be the next Companion?
Posted by Off Centre View (# 4254) on
:
What a really weird episode; I'm still trying to figure out what I thought of it - there was a bit too much handwaving as to why they couldn't just go back and get them.
The Angels were good monsters in Blink, but I think they should've been a one off - if you think too much about them they just come off a bit silly (and plotholes come in). The Lady Liberty bit just made me laugh (do the events of this episode means it no longer exists in the Whoniverse?)
I'm not sure how I feel about Amy either - sometimes she seemed like a Mary Sue, but other times she went through some absolutely horrendous abuse!
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
Hmmm... there was lots I really liked about the episode - the Angels were creepy; great performances from Matt, Karen and Arthur; the film noir pastiche was fun. But there was too much contrivance for me to really buy into the reality of the situation at the end, so it didn't work for me emotionally. A good episode, but not quite a great one. And the whole committing suicide thing felt a bit weird.
The Statue of Liberty did indeed get Angel-ified! But they didn't even try to make logical sense of it...
My podcast commentary on the episode is up on Impossible Podcasts, if you fancy listening to all my ramblings on the subject.
[ 29. September 2012, 22:33: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Avoids looking up as hasn't seen episode yet)
I can't believe how bummed out I am right now.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
LALALALALAAAAA, have to wait until tomorrow for stupid iTunes to upload The Who.
Either that, or figure out how to make this whole proxy server thing work. Which, let's be honest, would probably take me until tomorrow anyway.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(don't look, A)
*****
*****
NO! Not the Bethesda Angel!
I'm gonna have to watch "Angles in America" after this to reset my dials.
(and the Lady Liberty scene totally trumped "Cloverfield." Totally. Scared the SHIT out of me.)
[ 30. September 2012, 01:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
As a matter of interest, how far behind you are we? We've just had the cubes episode ...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Really? One week.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Okay, as a youngster, I walked up the INSIDE of the Statue of Liberty. If it was a Weeping Angel--well, ummm, that's just wrong.
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
I thought it was lovely.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'm glad they kept it personal rather than pan-galactic. See, guys? The personal is powerful.
***
***
The music was still killing me though. Seriously! The actors were hitting grand slam after grand slam, they didn't need strings to swell up! (Ahh, don't mind me...)
Posted by Off Centre View (# 4254) on
:
Apparently Saturday was the festival of Archangels or the Feast of Saint Michael and All Angels (or Michaelmas)!
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
The Lady Liberty bit just made me laugh (do the events of this episode means it no longer exists in the Whoniverse?)
Yes and no. The Whoniverse has never been a consistent place. It is whatever the next writer wants it to be.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
A few nice touches - Amy calling River 'Melody' when she knew she was unlikely to see her again (unless the plot gods demand it - cf. Bad Wolf Bay...)
Likewise River calling Amy 'Mother'z
And according to the gravestone, both their surnames were Williams, not Pond!
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
That was an excellent episode. Very poignant, very touching. It was sad to see the Ponds go (OK, the Williams, but to the Doctor, they were Ponds).
It does remind me a little of losing Rose, IIRC, who was also alive, but trapped in a part of the continuum that is inaccessible to the Doctor.
It was interesting that the emphasis on him not being alone was made. There is an interesting sense that the Doctor is, as time goes on, losing his grip a little - going slowly mad, because of all that he has been through.
Matt Smith is doing some interesting things with the Doctor character, making him more alien than any other. But at the same time, with some human emotions that he doesn't really know how to handle, so it is an interesting insight into human emotion.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
From the last few episodes I've been left with the impression that the writers have been striving (generally successfully) to undo some of the earlier awful writing of Amy. Both in terms of her general character, but with particular reference to her attitude towards/love for Rory vs. her relationship with the Doctor.
Which is nice on a number of levels - not least to see a(n ultimately) positive portrayal of a life-long relationship on a mainstream TV programme.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I thought it was a good episode at the time, and I think it's getting better as I think more about it. I think it edges it over Asylum as Moffat's best since he took over. It may even beat Blink on everything except straight scares.
(They should get Hettie MacDonald, who directed Blink, back. There were several occasions last night in which characters were having conversations in front of angels and looking at each other.)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Well I thought it was practically perfect in every way. The Angels were used strongly, like they were in Blink; it was well directed, beautifully designed and the acting was brilliant. I'm sure there were lots of plots holes (how could there not be when you get this timey-wimey?), but I don't care - the script was excellent. Good, rather old-fashioned storytelling at its best. The Williams-Ponds were fantastic, and nicely complemented by the ... um ... Song-Doctors. Matt Smith just gets better and better.
And a copper Angel - who'd have thought?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
There was nothing that said the statues had to be stone, I guess. And the appearance of Liberty behind people on the roof was stunning.
There are always plot-holes. That is part of the joy of DW, rather than a lot of more "serious" SF, which tries to be consistent, but often has less of a "wow" and "fun" factors. It works, and, in the end, that is what matters.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Warning! Somewhat spoilery
It was a wonderful episode with all the nice touches that others have commented on. The regulars (including River) were strong. I love River pretending that she didn't break her wrist to try to comfort the Doctor. I loved Amy calling her Melody. I loved Rory staying true to his love of Amy--to a man who was willing to protect her for thousands of years, death is a little thing.
There were silly bits, of course. The concept that the Statue of Liberty could cross from its island to peak over a Manhattan rooftop and NOBODY see it is ridiculous. The Revolutionist pointed out back on Sept. 28 that it is not really practical for something as large as Liberty to be moving around when "not observed."
And the concept of the gravestone adding a name after Amy goes back in time is silly. I mean, the stone was happy to show Rory's name BEFORE he went back--so why wouldn't it have already shown Amy's name as well? But appearing/disappearing writing is a standard time-travel trope. It is something visual for the television medium to show. So, yeah, I give it a pass at the same time that I roll my eyes over how silly it is.
But these are minor points. Over all, it was a strong and entertaining episode.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Having had time to think about it, I thing this was one of the better episodes. Not that there was anything wrong with the others, but this was particularly strong.
(There are no plot holes, the TARDIS is a paradox engine, which covers everything.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And a copper Angel - who'd have thought?
I'm pretty sure the Doctor said something about the angels taking over statues. That would imply it's not actually an angel, merely possessed or controlled by one.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
I won't deny it had it's moments. Alex Kingston is always great. But it felt like a return to the worst excesses of the RTD era - sentimentality dialled up to 11.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
But it felt like a return to the worst excesses of the RTD era - sentimentality dialled up to 11.
I didn't find it that way. Sentimentality is when false emotion is either plastered onto something or genuine emotion is over milked. And I don't think that happened. The emotion here was earned. I think it's partly that the emotional speeches were folded into characters persuading each other to make or not make choices. The worst excesses of the RTD-era were all speeches in which characters told each other about the significance of choices that were already made, or otherwise were pauses in the story when the story stopped and the emotional bits happened.
The other thing is that actually the symbolic weight is earned. When RTD has the TARDIS is meant to be piloted by six people, that's just a fact he's made up about the TARDIS. When Moffat has the Doctor reading the afterword of a story when he doesn't like endings, that's about coming to terms with the death of loved ones. All the timy-wimy stuff is there because it's about reading stories and because reading stories is about being alive, and if you've managed to say something about being alive you're entitled to some emotional reaction.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Why would River be bothered about breaking the Angel's arm? She's never been notable for subscribing to any Peace Testimony.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Warning! Somewhat spoilery
And the concept of the gravestone adding a name after Amy goes back in time is silly. I mean, the stone was happy to show Rory's name BEFORE he went back--so why wouldn't it have already shown Amy's name as well? But appearing/disappearing writing is a standard time-travel trope. It is something visual for the television medium to show. So, yeah, I give it a pass at the same time that I roll my eyes over how silly it is.
The names appear when the death is determined, and a fixed point in that timeline. Rorys death was fixed, but Amys was not until she went back.
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on
:
I've enjoyed the series and found that an emotional ending. Something quite horrific about Rory being trapped in that awful building alone til the end of his life knowing he would only see Amy again for a moment before he died.
I can understand why jumping off the roof seemed a better plan and why Amy took that risk to go after him at the end. For them being together had come to be everything no matter where in time or space they were. There would be no (more) children, just the two of them always.
Something the Doctor can never have.
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on
:
I agree with most of the posts so far. This was a great episode. One of the things I liked most was Amy finally decided who was most important to her. Looking forward to Christmas.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
But are we ever going to understand why Amy tried the shag the Doctor the night before her wedding?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Why would River be bothered about breaking the Angel's arm? She's never been notable for subscribing to any Peace Testimony.
And have you ever tried to break a statue before with your bare hands? Not that I've tried, but I can't imagine it'd be easy.
It's nice to be able to read this thread again. Silly America, making me wait a day . . .
But, a few tropes that seem to have been elaborated upon:
1. The Doctor and River really seem to have no problem at all with defacing priceless artifacts (or even just pulp novels and DVDs) to send messages to one another through time. "This Picture is a Fake" was only the beginning, wasn't it?
2. Being alone. Ever since NuHu started, this has been a theme. Even the Doctor realizes what happens when he travels alone—he becomes the distant immortal god of time and space who sees the universe, not with wonder, but as a plaything. Nobody wants a Doctor who does that.
3. Getting older. Amy and Rory have been portrayed as older several times throughout their tenure, and, really, the gravestone may say Rory was 83, but I'm guessing that's leaving out the 2000 years he was plastic. The Ponds were adjusting to getting older, even if it was at a faster rate than their friends; the Doctor, well, just keeps on acting younger, to avoid admitting the fact he's 1200 years old. The Ponds grew into one another, with Amy changing from a two-man lady early on to Rory's companion, and Rory becoming more than just the useless metal dog, a nurse, into a warrior, a person who would perform feats for Amy, and, in the end, both became someone you could see with the other. The Doctor hasn't got a clue about being married to River, does he? This Should Be Interesting.
On a final note, I'm glad they made it all-but-impossible to bring back the Ponds, a la Rose the Immortal. Sure, we might get the occasional special showing other adventures the two of them had with the Doctor that weren't shown, but the closure in this one, the fact that it is made clear that, really, this is the end, and even the Doctor has to deal with that . . .
The plot and characters can't support a change to that. It better not happen. I'm sure the fanfic and novel writers are going to have plenty to work with for the foreseeable future, but Amy and Rory have been written out for good.
Now then, bring on Soufflé Girl!
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
On a final note, I'm glad they made it all-but-impossible to bring back the Ponds, a la Rose the Immortal. Sure, we might get the occasional special showing other adventures the two of them had with the Doctor that weren't shown, but the closure in this one, the fact that it is made clear that, really, this is the end, and even the Doctor has to deal with that . . .
Except that apparently River, riding her motorcycle through traffic, can make it in to see them. And, if she can make it in, then, in theory they could make it out. But I think the suicide scene makes it clear--they have chosen that they prefer to be with each other rather than with the Doctor.
So is the Doctor going to break the news to Brian (a/k/a David) ?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
On a final note, I'm glad they made it all-but-impossible to bring back the Ponds, a la Rose the Immortal. Sure, we might get the occasional special showing other adventures the two of them had with the Doctor that weren't shown, but the closure in this one, the fact that it is made clear that, really, this is the end, and even the Doctor has to deal with that . . .
Except that apparently River, riding her motorcycle through traffic, can make it in to see them. And, if she can make it in, then, in theory they could make it out. But I think the suicide scene makes it clear--they have chosen that they prefer to be with each other rather than with the Doctor.
So is the Doctor going to break the news to Brian (a/k/a David) ?
Mmmm, two sorts of wibley-wobbly, timey-wimey. One was just "there are so many angels possessing so many statues, sending all these people back in time that it's hard to get there." The other is "you created a paradox. It's not just traffic, it's a wall." Or, it could also be "um, hey writers. Can you cook up a reason why one barely works, but the other doesn't? Thanks!"
And yeah, The Doctor breaking the news would be a great scene. Hopefully he (by whatever name I've rechristened him this time) signs up for more!
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
The Doctor breaking the news would be a great scene.
Is The Doctor up to the task?
Brian did ask, I think, if any of the previous companions had not come back, so he's probably half expecting A & R to just disappear without an explanation.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Matt Smith is doing some interesting things with the Doctor character, making him more alien than any other. But at the same time, with some human emotions that he doesn't really know how to handle, so it is an interesting insight into human emotion.
That's what eventually grabbed me about his portrayal; he added this element of the Doctor really yearning to be more human, or at least to figure humans out. His alienness only sets off how cherishable it is when he finds those moments.
Hey, Pyx, if you're reading-- any Incarnation allegories in there anywhere?
[ 01. October 2012, 03:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
But it felt like a return to the worst excesses of the RTD era - sentimentality dialled up to 11.
I didn't find it that way. Sentimentality is when false emotion is either plastered onto something or genuine emotion is over milked. And I don't think that happened. The emotion here was earned. I think it's partly that the emotional speeches were folded into characters persuading each other to make or not make choices. The worst excesses of the RTD-era were all speeches in which characters told each other about the significance of choices that were already made, or otherwise were pauses in the story when the story stopped and the emotional bits happened.
The other thing is that actually the symbolic weight is earned. When RTD has the TARDIS is meant to be piloted by six people, that's just a fact he's made up about the TARDIS. When Moffat has the Doctor reading the afterword of a story when he doesn't like endings, that's about coming to terms with the death of loved ones. All the timy-wimy stuff is there because it's about reading stories and because reading stories is about being alive, and if you've managed to say something about being alive you're entitled to some emotional reaction.
Fair enough.
I guess I don't see that much of a distinction. "The Doctor doesn't like endings" seems as much a convenient new piece of information shaped to fit this particular episode as "the TARDIS needs six people to operate it" did. I think it's just that less people tend to complain about character stuff than technical stuff - The Doctor suddenly liking Fez's is just a fun new detail, the way the TARDIS works changing is a BIG FAT MISTAKE!
Anyway, I think the thing that makes me feel like it's sentimentality is that in order to get to the point where Amy has to choose Rory over the Doctor (and btw her daughter!) forever you have to really crank out the plot devices - the Angels creating the problems with time-travel, Amy's actions creating "fixed time" that the Doctor can't penetrate (huh?). If that plot works for you then the consequences are emotional and genuinely moving. If you find it a teensy bit contrived as I do, then it all feels like a set up designed to extract the tears.
FWIW I'd much rather be in the "it works for me" camp. I guess I'm just a cynical old sod.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
1. The Doctor and River really seem to have no problem at all with defacing priceless artifacts (or even just pulp novels and DVDs) to send messages to one another through time. "This Picture is a Fake" was only the beginning, wasn't it?
I think I'd probably feel the same way if I travelled in time a lot. The artifact is priceless because it's survived so long and is a rare example of its kind. When you can zip back and see them being knocked out by the dozen (not quite but you get the point) then you start to see that value based on age is somewhat subjective.
Also the Doctor is well known for wreaking all kinds of havoc in people's personal lives just because he wants to go joy-riding around the space-time continuum with some company. Next to that defacing the odd artifact is small potatoes.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I guess I don't see that much of a distinction. "The Doctor doesn't like endings" seems as much a convenient new piece of information shaped to fit this particular episode as "the TARDIS needs six people to operate it" did. I think it's just that less people tend to complain about character stuff than technical stuff - The Doctor suddenly liking Fez's is just a fun new detail, the way the TARDIS works changing is a BIG FAT MISTAKE!
I don't think there is a distinction. Everyone writes hugely convenient things in to help the story in the direction they want to go. The only difference is style, like a conjuror with the necessary misdirection and sleight of hand. If there's enough style, it all flows naturally into one movement. If not, it looks clunky and clumsy. We might be able to broadly agree on which are which, but ultimately it's subjective.
This was a pretty good episode, but there were some huge clunkers. Sloppy production led to unwatched but unmoving angels, the angels seemed to methodically shepherd their victims to the roof for no reason when they could and should have blocked the doorway as soon as anyone went in, they're not nearly as scary in large numbers as they were in Blink, and the Statue of Liberty walking unseen through New York? Really?
But the story was an interesting idea, even if it was just a means to the end of Rory and Amy, and I found their final few scenes genuinely touching in an I've-got-something-in-my-eye way, rather than an artificial emotion-turned-up-to-11 way.
The most annoying thing is that this short run has been consistently pretty good (if you overlook the last few minutes of last week's episode), possibly the best sustained run in NuWho, but now we've got to wait 3 whole months for our next fix.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The Doctor suddenly liking Fez's is just a fun new detail, the way the TARDIS works changing is a BIG FAT MISTAKE!
[TANGENT]According to the commentary and notes on the "An Unearthly Child" DVD, it was actually at the back of the set designer's mind - though never stated out loud - to suggest that the TARDIS was built for a crew of six, hence the console's shape and the fact that the Doctor has to run round and round to make it do anything. RTD was giving a nod to the geeks as well as having a purely gratuitous "let's squeeze everyone in" scene. [/TANGENT]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
TGG: quote:
The most annoying thing is that this short run has been consistently pretty good (if you overlook the last few minutes of last week's episode), possibly the best sustained run in NuWho, but now we've got to wait 3 whole months for our next fix.
Limit that to "best sustained run since Moffatt took over" and I agree with you. The best run, IMHO, was what amounted to a six part finale for the Martha season. Can't remember which season number that was. (And anyone who gives a single figure number should go and sit on the naughty step.)
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
The Doctor suddenly liking Fez's is just a fun new detail, the way the TARDIS works changing is a BIG FAT MISTAKE!
[TANGENT]According to the commentary and notes on the "An Unearthly Child" DVD, it was actually at the back of the set designer's mind - though never stated out loud - to suggest that the TARDIS was built for a crew of six, hence the console's shape and the fact that the Doctor has to run round and round to make it do anything. RTD was giving a nod to the geeks as well as having a purely gratuitous "let's squeeze everyone in" scene. [/TANGENT]
Noted. I wasn't actually referring to that detail specifically, though that's not clear because I didn't provide another particular example. My point was IME fans seem to notice (and care about) the technical inconsistencies more than the character ones.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Limit that to "best sustained run since Moffatt took over" and I agree with you. The best run, IMHO, was what amounted to a six part finale for the Martha season.
I gather that fan opinion of the final two episodes is mixed.
quote:
Can't remember which season number that was. (And anyone who gives a single figure number should go and sit on the naughty step.)
I make it season twenty-seven. McCoy was 22-24.(*)
(*) Pedants may disagree with this statement, but a moment's thought will show that I am correct.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... a moment's thought will show that I am correct.
*Scratches head* Will it? Surely it's
Hartnell 1 - 3 (and a bit)
Troughton (most of) 4 - 6
Pertwee 7 - 11
T Baker 12 - 18
Davison 19 - (most of)21
C Baker (one story of 21 and) 22 - 23
McCoy 24 - 26
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... a moment's thought will show that I am correct.
*Scratches head* Will it?
C Baker (one story of 21 and) 22 - 23
I rest my case.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... a moment's thought will show that I am correct.
*Scratches head* Will it?
C Baker (one story of 21 and) 22 - 23
I rest my case.
Ah, if only wishing could make it so ...
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... a moment's thought will show that I am correct.
*Scratches head* Will it? Surely it's
Hartnell 1 - 3 (and a bit)
Troughton (most of) 4 - 6
Pertwee 7 - 11
T Baker 12 - 18
Davison 19 - (most of)21
C Baker (one story of 21 and) 22 - 23
McCoy 24 - 26
And then there is McGann for---umm, oh, dear. I can't really call one story a "season" now can I?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
But are we ever going to understand why Amy tried the shag the Doctor the night before her wedding?
It was the night before her wedding. Bride panic.
The night before my wedding-- I am not kidding- I had this scathingly erotic dream about waltzing into a auto-shop and frantically consorting with a REALLY ugly mechanic. I mean, Oh My God, What Am I Doing? ugly. Amy was just a little more freaked out than most of us get. And at least she had better taste.
Anyway, you think Rory sat home and played whist with his friends on his stag night?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And a copper Angel - who'd have thought?
I'm pretty sure the Doctor said something about the angels taking over statues. That would imply it's not actually an angel, merely possessed or controlled by one.
I've just seen an interview with Steven Moffat on the BBC website. He pokes fun at the whole Liberty thing, saying it never occurred to him that there might be tourists inside when she went for a walk. He imagines them saying something like "Well, we thought we were just going for a day out, but hey, we're going to terrorise some people on a rooftop."
I've watched the story again, and I just love it. Rory on the roof is beyond magnificent. Amy is at her very best throughout. And that last bit, harking back to - what story was it? - when little Amelia looks up joyfully at the sound of the TARDIS ... I didn't really see that very clearly, I seemed to have something in my eye.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Anyway, you think Rory sat home and played whist with his friends on his stag night?
No he went fighting vampire like lady fish in Venice IIRC.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Good memory, Jay-Emm! I had forgotten that episode, with the Doctor jumping out of the cake (and the conversation going down hill after that)!
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The night before my wedding-- I am not kidding- I had this scathingly erotic dream about waltzing into a auto-shop and frantically consorting with a REALLY ugly mechanic. I mean, Oh My God, What Am I Doing? ugly.
And yet, somehow, this didn't make it to the "Dreams Remembered" thread...
[ETA: Apologies for the double post.]
[ 01. October 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Now that I've finally seen it, I'd have to say it ended exactly the way I knew it would from the moment they announced that Amy and Rory's heartbreaking farewell would be in an episode that featured Weeping Angels. It seemed pretty obvious that the Angels would send one of them back to a point in the past where, for some contrived reason, the Doctor would be unable to fetch them, and the other Pond would go back to them to live out life in the past together.
I enjoyed the execution, found the angels pretty scary. Loved all the Doctor-River stuff -- I am really buying them now as an old, if unconventional, married couple.
The ending felt rushed. I wanted at least one glimpse of Amy and Rory in their lives in the past, not just the Afterword from the book.
Leaving them stranded in the past was pretty contrived. It was very much like Rose's last episode when, amidst all the drama and angst, I was thinking "If this were anything other than Billie Piper's last episode, the Doctor would manage to find a way to keep/get her out of the alternate universe -- he's gotten her out of worse jams than this before!" The only reason it was an unsolvable problem was an actor/director/producer reason, not an in-story reason.
Likewise here -- only the holes were even more obvious, because anyone could see how easy it was for the Doctor to save them. So New York, 1938 is time-locked and the Tardis can never get back in there? When does it become unlocked? Can the Doctor give them a couple of years in the past and then get into New York, 1940 and pick them up? Or if it's just New York, can't he tell Amy to go back, get Rory and get back to England and he'll pick them up there in 1938? The possibilities for solving this unsolvable problem are endless, but as the show decrees the Ponds are leaving, we have to accept that they're somehow unsolvably stuck in the past.
None of this stopped me from enjoying it, by the way.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... a moment's thought will show that I am correct.
*Scratches head* Will it?
C Baker (one story of 21 and) 22 - 23
I rest my case.
Ah, if only wishing could make it so ...
29, therefore, shurely?
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Limit that to "best sustained run since Moffatt took over" and I agree with you. The best run, IMHO, was what amounted to a six part finale for the Martha season.
I gather that fan opinion of the final two episodes is mixed.
Mmm, good call on some pretty decent stories. That series definitely improved from a ropey first half, but Dobby Doctor and Floating Saviour Doctor really ought to result in immediate disqualification from any measure based on quality.
Actually, that's a useful point of comparison with the latest series - RTD tried to create drama and tension by numbers, often literally. It was all about the scale. More Daleks, more Cybermen, more death. In that series, he had a tenth of the Earth's population slaughtered for shiggles, but compassion fatigue sets in, so the next time round the Daleks had to want to destroy the entire universe for some unfathomable reason.
What I appreciate about the latest series is that it's all been more contained, with the Doctor getting into and out of scrapes that are about him, his companions and a few new friends, with the exception of one foiled invasion which was more of a vehicle for character development anyway. There's been no intergalactic catastrophe to avert or foreshadowed death to avoid, so it's been possible to actually care about the situations and personal responses.
I don't mind a sense of scale, or huge overarching purpose, but only if it flows from the story and makes sense, rather than the plot being driven by a need for ever greater spectacle. I've said before that I think the cheap filler episodes have a better-than-average hit-rate, and part of that's because they're forced to be small-scale and to focus on a few people.
If this is a sign that the Doctor's going back to being a cosmic hobo and meddler, without all the messianic baggage, I'll be very happy.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
The possibilities for solving this unsolvable problem are endless, but as the show decrees the Ponds are leaving, we have to accept that they're somehow unsolvably stuck in the past.
The problem is caused by a temporal paradox. Basically if the Doctor nudges it any further the place blows up. (Remember Father's Day.) I assume the problem is that the paradox is as much attached to Rory as it is to New York.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
The possibilities for solving this unsolvable problem are endless, but as the show decrees the Ponds are leaving, we have to accept that they're somehow unsolvably stuck in the past.
The problem is caused by a temporal paradox. Basically if the Doctor nudges it any further the place blows up. (Remember Father's Day.) I assume the problem is that the paradox is as much attached to Rory as it is to New York.
That's a good explanation, I'll buy that. I'll buy almost anything, really, but I'll still maintain that if it wasn't the Ponds' last episode, the Doctor would have found some way to get around the paradox and get Rory back.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
TGG, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially, "If this is a sign that the Doctor's going back to being a cosmic hobo and meddler, without all the messianic baggage, I'll be very happy". The way the Doctor punished the Family of Blood rang alarms for me, even at the time. It sounded great, but when did he acquire the power the power to imprison people in mirrors etc? However, I still reckon the last 6 episodes of Martha* were a sustained high point, because of the way the details linked in together to form an effective finale. And one of the many reasons why Martha is my favourite new companion is that she is the only one to save the day without being given superpowers. Instead of becoming one-with-the-Tardis, or anything like that, she slogged around the world with good old fashioned grit and determination.
* since we can't seem to agree on what number that season was
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
Even if he couldn't go back directly to 1938, couldn't he go back a bit later? In an earlier incarnation he spent a lot of time on Earth in the 1960s and 1970s, surely he could pop over to New York and catch up with them.
I know that was an earlier incarnation and he didn't know the Ponds then, but he could surely go now?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I read it that the angels kept sending them back in time, maybe every year, or even less, so they were permanently stuck in one short period. This is how the angels feed off them.
Because this fractures time, and the interventions, not to mention the paradox, from this episode had brought it close to collapse, any further intervention into this brief period will cause devastation. Although it doesn't entirely explain how Melody got her book out, that seems like less of a problem.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
And, just to settle the dispute before it gets truly Whovian: Series 3, with Martha Jones, is also known as Season 29.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Timey-wimey loopholes I can sort of accept because it's Tradition™ in Who to make that bit up as you go along. What I don't really get is the way Weeping Angels are actually supposed to be dangerous. Creepy, yes. Unusual, yes. Requiring a bit of thought, maybe.
Daleks are dangerous for various reasons. Dalekanium armour and shields make them hard to kill. High tech weaponry, numbers and uniform ruthlessness gives them considerable offensive capability. Despising all other life-forms means you're probably not going to get on very well with any of them. But Weeping Angels? Their one defence is this "quantum-locking" thing that makes them invulnerable when somebody's looking at them. So lob a hand grenade and close your eyes.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
Rory and Amy stayed in New York (presumably) and were buried there. They could have gone back to the UK or anywhere in the world. Spin-off series, anyone?
Am I right in hearing that River/Melody was released because there was no longer any sign that the Doctor had existed so she couldn't have killed him. Is this something that Oswin Oswald did when she made the Daleks forget him?
And will Davros and/or Dalek Caan remember him?
[ 03. October 2012, 12:54: Message edited by: The Rogue ]
Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on
:
I love* the weeping angels and Blink was and still is my favourite episode (hence the sig!), but I still can't quite fathom (remember?) why they went from zapping people back into the past, to breaking their necks while trapped on the ship, and now they're back to doing what the angels are supposed to be known for?
*English really is inadequate sometimes and especially when it comes to the word 'love'!
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Rory and Amy stayed in New York (presumably) and were buried there. They could have gone back to the UK or anywhere in the world. Spin-off series, anyone?
As long as it's not Torchwood ...
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Am I right in hearing that River/Melody was released because there was no longer any sign that the Doctor had existed so she couldn't have killed him. Is this something that Oswin Oswald did when she made the Daleks forget him?
I think it was more an inspiration kind of thing. The Doctor knew he needed a lower profile and then, when Oswin managed to make him a stranger to the Daleks, it struck him that he could go around erasing himself from other databases too. We are told that he has been spending a lot of time traveling alone (in between visits with the Ponds), which would give him plenty of time to be fiddling with databases.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And, just to settle the dispute before it gets truly Whovian: Series 3, with Martha Jones, is also known as Season 29.
That means there were 26 seasons of the original Doctor. 26 is half of 52 - exactly half a year. Could this be reference to the "half a time" of
Revelation 12.14? Is Doctor Who a sign of the Apocalypse?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And, just to settle the dispute before it gets truly Whovian: Series 3, with Martha Jones, is also known as Season 29.
So I was right, then!
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Am I right in hearing that River/Melody was released because there was no longer any sign that the Doctor had existed so she couldn't have killed him. Is this something that Oswin Oswald did when she made the Daleks forget him?
I think it was more an inspiration kind of thing. The Doctor knew he needed a lower profile and then, when Oswin managed to make him a stranger to the Daleks, it struck him that he could go around erasing himself from other databases too. We are told that he has been spending a lot of time traveling alone (in between visits with the Ponds), which would give him plenty of time to be fiddling with databases.
Interesting. I thought the whole point of his faked death in the last series was that he could just "not exist" for a bit so that the entire universe wasn't after him, and have been interpreting everything in that light. But now I think about it, he started this series biting on the hook of a Dalek-drone sent specifically to fetch him for the suicide mission to the asylum, and it was only after his escape that the Daleks didn't recognise him, he wasn't in Solomon's database, and so on. I'm not sure what to make of that.
But I'm still annoyed (probably irrationally) by the careless way River's timelines are sometimes ridiculously tangled, and sometimes neatly linear. She travels in time, he travels in time, but somehow, the first time he meets her after her release (and it appeared to be the first time she met him as well) is just after whatever happened to erase him from history. How convenient.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But I'm still annoyed (probably irrationally) by the careless way River's timelines are sometimes ridiculously tangled, and sometimes neatly linear. She travels in time, he travels in time, but somehow, the first time he meets her after her release (and it appeared to be the first time she met him as well) is just after whatever happened to erase him from history. How convenient.
They are overly casual about things like that--but then, in the classic series, I always wondered why the Doctor and the Master, both traveling in time, somehow always managed to meet up in linear order.
Having said that, and trying to inject a little retroactive continuity, when the Doctor (10th) first meets River in The Library, there is no indication that she is there on prison work release or anything of that nature. For that reason, it could be argued that the Doctor has always known that River would eventually be released from prison. And now he knows why.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But I'm still annoyed (probably irrationally)
Just say "Timey-wimey" ten times quickly and have a few beers. The feeling will soon go away.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That seriously needs to be a t-shirt.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
For that reason, it could be argued that the Doctor has always known that River would eventually be released from prison. And now he knows why.
Like I said, he's a momzer.
I like Smith, and love the heart and passion he's brought to the role. I liked Tennant, too, for that matter. But The Doctor himself is someone who I would have pushed out of the TARDIS long ago if I were stuck with him long enough. He (as a character) is charming and entertaining for exactly one hour, in weekly intervals. After that, the Christ/ Peter Pan complex combined with "Rule Number One" would start to get to me.Hit about three hours and I could see my axe-hand getting twitchy.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
So ... we're NOT voting for Kelly for the next Companion, then?
Too bad. I would so watch that.
Actually I could imagine your tenure as Companion being similar to Donna's, since I think she had many of the same reactions you describe -- which is why she was my favourite Companion by far.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
How about a six-foot big blue bunny with a you-know what, and me doing voiceover?
Kel// it would have to be blue.
//And Donna was my favorite, too, for the above stated reasons.
[ 03. October 2012, 19:51: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But The Doctor himself is someone who I would have pushed out of the TARDIS long ago if I were stuck with him long enough. He (as a character) is charming and entertaining for exactly one hour, in weekly intervals. After that, the Christ/ Peter Pan complex combined with "Rule Number One" would start to get to me.Hit about three hours and I could see my axe-hand getting twitchy.
Reverting to Classic Who, one of the reasons I genuinely love watching the first season of the series with William Hartnell is that the Doctor clearly irritates (and is irritated by) Ian & Barbara. He is dictatorial, which ruffles their feathers (although one or the other usually plays peacemaker with the other). But, under the set-up of the show then, they could not really get rid of the other. The Doctor literally could not get them back home because he couldn't control the TARDIS that well. As such, Ian & Barbara were stuck with him whether they liked it or not because he was the only hope that they could get back home.
And that is what made the end of The Chase so great. Ian & Barbara finally find a way to get home that does NOT depend on the TARDIS, and the Doctor is clearly hurt that they want to leave him because, for all the irritation and arguments, he has grown to like having them around. While he was still a prickly, irritable, cantankerous old man--he had become a much better person because of his time with Ian & Barbara.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Hence Amy's comment of "Don't travel alone for too long."
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Ian & Barbara finally find a way to get home that does NOT depend on the TARDIS, and the Doctor is clearly hurt that they want to leave him because, for all the irritation and arguments, he has grown to like having them around.
Now I feel bad.
OK, my dream companion would be a combination parole officer/ shrink assigned bu UNIT or Torchwood or whoever, and their relationship would consist of the kind of provisional suspension of dislike that allows people who hate each other to function efficiently.
Maybe somewhere around mid-season she cracks a smile at one of his jokes, but he gets so hysterically joyful about it she instantly regrets it.
Not that I think about it much.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Really? One week.
Wow ... we used to be about 6 months - 6 years behind ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Really? One week.
Wow ... we used to be about 6 months - 6 years behind ...
Actually, we're not even one week behind. The episodes have been popping up on iView at about 6am on a Sunday morning our time. One week is just if you wait to watch it on television...
Which I did this time around. I was very good and managed to avoid seeing anything about it all week. Although, really, the general arc was fairly obvious.
Things I loved: River. Absolutely, it was River. Things like her writing books and the Doctor manufacturing vases with YOWZAH on them are just loads of fun, and Alex Kingston can pull off the necessary shifts from mischievous to serious.
Also did enjoy the Angels being back to more like their Blinking selves.
And did also enjoy a lot of the emotional content. However, there were points where they overdid it. Slow motion falls with swelling music are a sign that you don't actually trust your script/actors. And to be honest, they've been laying on the "Amy and Rory love each other" material in a somewhat peculiar fashion for a number of episodes. Yes, sure, they are soulmates. But does that mean they need to express it like sentimental Hallmark cards at times? Sometimes it's convincing, sometimes it simply isn't.
I also didn't love the business with doors opening by themselves and lifts operating by themselves. Do we really need the angels to be doing that? And the Statue of Liberty business was really quite pointless.
A bit of a curate's egg, but it seems so MANY episodes are.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ooh. Just saw that Neil Gaiman is set to write another episode. Hooray!
Also saw that Mark Gatiss is doing another one. Somewhat less keen about that...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Gaiman rocks. There's a guy who can combine good old sci-fi flash with loving attention to character.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Slow motion falls with swelling music are a sign that you don't actually trust your script/actors.
THANK YOU.
(One more Doctor character gripe-- the name dropping. Arrgggh! The name dropping. You tell me, if you were at a party and someone other than a 1000- year -old Timelord were doing that, would you find it pretty? Personally, I don't care what the hell planet you come from, I'm taking my martini and seeking a different conversation.)
(Again, I Love Hiatus. )
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ooh. Just saw that Neil Gaiman is set to write another episode. Hooray!
Also saw that Mark Gatiss is doing another one. Somewhat less keen about that...
Gatkiss is doing two.
Others announced, Steven Moffat, two episodes.
Neil Cross ans Neil Gaiman, one episode each.
Two episodes TBA.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Watching the Angels again.
Was wondering why on earth Rory would wander into that building. Then I realised: unlike Amy, Rory has never encountered the Angels before.
Neat, I thought.
But then a bit of Wikipedia research pointed out that he sorta kinda did, in 'The God Complex'. But not proper ones...
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Anyone tempted to buy this to fill in the long wait until the series recommences? (And is it only available in the States?)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Jesus wept.
(and fuck yeah, I 'd go to that game night.)
[ 10. October 2012, 19:29: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Go on - you know you're tempted.....
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ooh. Just saw that Neil Gaiman is set to write another episode. Hooray!
Also saw that Mark Gatiss is doing another one. Somewhat less keen about that...
Gatkiss is doing two.
Others announced, Steven Moffat, two episodes.
Neil Cross ans Neil Gaiman, one episode each.
Two episodes TBA.
That Neil Cross who did Luther and Spooks?! Ohhhh interesting. I like Mark Gatkiss in Sherlock and Gentleman but his Doctor Who stuff, not so much. Glad too see that Gaiman's back
Tubbs
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
(And is it only available in the States?)
I've seen that in the shops here, although with Matt's Doctor, Amy and Rory on the cover.
[ 10. October 2012, 20:31: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on
:
It is available fro Amazon in the UK (and has just gone on my Christmas list )
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
The BBC has now released an unfilmed piece of script about what happened to Brian: Brian
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Watched the first 15 seconds of that clip. Schmalzy music, Doctor with his arms draped round Amy and Rory making emotional speech, Brian looking uncomfortable - I had to stop it or I would have vomited. Glad the BBC had the sense not to broadcast it originally.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Watched the first 15 seconds of that clip. Schmalzy music, Doctor with his arms draped round Amy and Rory making emotional speech, Brian looking uncomfortable - I had to stop it or I would have vomited. Glad the BBC had the sense not to broadcast it originally.
Yeah, except the first 15 seconds wasn't the unfilmed bit!
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I did wonder about that. However, I won't be going back to see the rest of the clip. While I enjoy trivia about true-Who, my appetite for nu-Who has limits.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Can anyone answer a geekier-than-thou question for me? Do we know why some Timelords are happy to use names (Rassilon, Morbius, Romana) but some only use titles (the Doctor, the Master, the Corsair)?
And why some names are so secret (like the Doctor's, though possibly we are getting into the first question that must never be asked territory here).
M.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Do we know why some Timelords are happy to use names (Rassilon, Morbius, Romana) but some only use titles (the Doctor, the Master, the Corsair)?
It's never been officially explained. All the Timelords seen actually on Gallifrey have names rather than titles, I believe; whereas the Master and the Doctor are largely operating outside official Timelord society. So the implication is that giving up their name is something a Timelord does when they go renegade.
Morbius is a bit problematic for the theory but he started out trying to take over Gallifrey from within so he may never have considered himself a renegade. (Or it's not actually his name.)
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I saw the clip about Brian.
I cried.
It was a beautiful ending, harking back to Blink.
I think Chris Chibnall is a very good writer, and Arthur Darvill read it perfectly.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Seconded ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
[ 13. October 2012, 14:25: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Watched the first 15 seconds of that clip. Schmalzy music, Doctor with his arms draped round Amy and Rory making emotional speech, Brian looking uncomfortable - I had to stop it or I would have vomited. Glad the BBC had the sense not to broadcast it originally.
Yeah, except the first 15 seconds wasn't the unfilmed bit!
Yes, that bit was included, and very good. The extra bit could have done without the music, which was rather overpowering. But the scenes were stunning, and I would have liked to have seen them do that. I suspected that something of this nature might have happened, with or without the grandson.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Ooh, Dafyd, thank you, good thought.
M.
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
I have to say I loved the PS bit. Yes, the music was a bit much, but I found it genuinely moving, and thought Rory narrated beautifully. Slight sob.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
Find out your renegade Time Lord name
I'm sure there are plenty of these about.
My Ship name returns "The Eye".
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Mine is Gormasmus and my previous Ship name translates as Demacrex, which I think I prefer...
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
My Ship Name comes back as "The Mathematician"--which is about as accurate for me as the Meddling Monk being a monk.
Posted by vascopyjama (# 1953) on
:
I'm a bit worried about my renegade status...
The Traffic Warden
Thinks for a minute.... Perhaps the site is not serious. My Niece is now Craig....
[ 15. October 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: vascopyjama ]
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
You should worry - my renegade TimeLord name comes out as The Trouser Meddler!
However, much nicer, my RL name comes out as The Liberator!
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
My Shipname comes out as "The Seer". I can live with that!
On the other hand, my legal name is "The Liberator". Looks like I've got a lot to live up to.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
My real name comes out as Mr Why - wrong sex 'n' all - and my shipname comes out as The Mentor. Gratifying, perhaps, but less enigmatic, I feel.
M.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
My ship name comes out as "Manyetha" - which is great and very cool. My RL name comes out as "The Farmer", which is very tedious.
Call me Manyetha.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I ran the generator, and it gave me stupid stuff, so you know what? Fuck it. I'm Bunny With An Axe.
[WWF](Like I'm gonna let somebody else pick my name for me. Sheeeit.)[?WWF]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Strangely my ship name and wife's real name in the Time Lord name generator are the same. The two become one.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
Oh dear, I appear to be 'The Worm'. Not exactly alluring is it?
My board name is far more celestial.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
My name came out as "The Magician", which is odd, because I thought the Time Lords were supposed to be scientists. Though I suppose a renegade Time Lord who turned their back on science and embraced chaotic forces of magic would be an interesting character!
My ship name would in itself be quite suitable for a renegade Time Lord, I think...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
My real name came back as "The Surgeon". Clearly I outrank The Doctor.
Adding my middle name got "The Seer". And my Ship name translated to "The Eye".
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I appear to be The Administrator.
Which makes an odd kind of sense.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
On the other hand, my legal name is "The Liberator". Looks like I've got a lot to live up to.
Aha! So your real name must be The Great Gumby! (Or just possibly, an infinite number of potential inputs map onto relatively few outputs, but I'm discounting that possibility because it's boring.) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Alternatively, just Gumby returns The Administrator, and my real name gives me Upsilon. I think The Liberator is my favourite.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I never come out as 'The...' anything. I just tried my RL middle name (which so happens to be the name of a recentish Companion of the Tenth Doctor) and it's Borosi. Hmmm...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The fact that they even have "The Administrator" as an option seems damn weird.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Gosh, I'm The Mind Controller (RL).
You will all forget that.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
On the other hand, my legal name is "The Liberator". Looks like I've got a lot to live up to.
Aha! So your real name must be The Great Gumby!
Curses! I've been rumbled.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
So - Romana gets The Venerator.
Susan Foreman gets The Totax.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Tubbs came back as The Torax and my real name came back as Mr(s) Why.
Tubbs
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
You should worry - my renegade TimeLord name comes out as The Trouser Meddler!
So does mine. It's that or Omicrex, and I can't decide whether that's a brand of watch or an exclamation.
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The BBC has now released an unfilmed piece of script about what happened to Brian: Brian
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I have to say, Stumbling Pilgrim, your current .sig takes on a very different meaning in the context of this thread!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I am in fact The Mind Controller! And you WILL be fanatcically devoted to the suitable duties and roles I shall deign to assign to you at a time that shall suit me. While you are waiting you can be making yourselves useful.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I admit that I'm not much into Doctor Who, but I really like this. My brother's in there somewhere.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0