Thread: Doctor Who: Silence will fall - the Doctor Who thread returns 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=001171

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
Unless I am mistaken (and I often am), no thread for the new series has yet been started - so here it is.

Doctor Who returns this Saturday on BBC1 at 6.00 pm, with the Doctor meeting President Nixon (I see myself having to explain Watergate to my daughters). This year, we get two bites at the cherry - seven episodes between now and July, and six more in the autumn.

We also 'know' that one of the main characters will be killed - given that we have already seen two of them die, and a third has this awkward habit of regenerating, does that leave only one possible victim? And what (or who) will River Song turn out to be - mother, wife, mistress, Master?

Ooo-ee-oo...

[Gave in to my inner fan-woman and corrected title - Tubbs]

[ 17. June 2016, 14:40: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Judging from the trailers, this coming season looks like reaching a whole new level of weirdness.

"There are no monsters in the White House..."

"I want a swat team, a pot of coffee and twelve jammie dodgers..."

"My life in your hands...."

And I don't care if I am 48 - I reserve the right to be scared of sad clowns and grotesque dolls.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Well the BBC have issued some spoilers...

1. The first story is a two parter, featuring President Nixon and River Song. (Hello Sweetie.)

2. Stetsons are cool.

3. That's about it.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Time to hoover behind the sofa! [Yipee] I'm excited already!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
By the way - though one hates to be a pedant in Heaven - isn't it "Silence will fall"?

And be thorough with your hoovering, Tubbs - Steven Moffat claims that the bad guys in the first story are some of the scariest we've ever had!
 
Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
You know that series trailer that came out about three weeks ago?

34/35 seconds in. Just saying...
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
By the way - though one hates to be a pedant in Heaven - isn't it "Silence will fall"?

Err... yes [Hot and Hormonal] Hangs head in shame, realises that thread title will now haunt him for the rest of the series

Weather's nice today, isn't it? [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
By the way - though one hates to be a pedant in Heaven - isn't it "Silence will fall"?

Err... yes [Hot and Hormonal] Hangs head in shame, realises that thread title will now haunt him for the rest of the series

Weather's nice today, isn't it? [Waterworks]

No it won't. [Big Grin]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Looking forward to it. I think Moffat probably took on board some of the criticism of the last series, so I am hopeful that this series will be much better.

River Song insights are good. And there seems to be a lot of universal doom coming, which is always cool.
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
Have people seen the news? It's just been confirmed that Elisabeth Sladen has died. Rumour is that she was battling cancer.

[Frown]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sophs:
Have people seen the news? It's just been confirmed that Elisabeth Sladen has died. Rumour is that she was battling cancer.

[Frown]

Oh my goodness. Ms Sladen's Sarah Jane was one of the best, greatest things about the whole of the classic series. She was wonderful. I've never really followed The Sarah Jane Adventures, but she'll be missed, terribly missed.

Requiem aeternam...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sophs:
Have people seen the news? It's just been confirmed that Elisabeth Sladen has died.

That is sad. I'd heard that they were winding up the Sarah Jane Adventures.

I was hoping to see her in the new series of Doctor Who, based on my guess as to who the big bad of the last series might be.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Sad news about Elizabeth Sladen. I thought she looked rather thin and drawn. Great how she kept on working.

J
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sophs:
Have people seen the news? It's just been confirmed that Elisabeth Sladen has died. Rumour is that she was battling cancer.

[Frown]

Oh, that is so sad. Just the other day I was watching the DVD of Planet of Evil and enjoying her commentary track. And the next one I was planning on watching is her (at the time) swan song in The Hand of Fear. I just may cry.

My little car is even named Sarah Jane out of fondness for her. I need to get a black ribbon to hang from the rearview mirror.

Rest in peace, Lis Sladen. [Votive]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I loved her recent work. She took the character to a whole other level. I want to be as awesome as Sarah Jane one day.

Didn't we lose Nicholas Courtney recently too?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... And there seems to be a lot of universal doom coming, which is always cool.

As long as its not that continuous angst about him being alone or mooning over the Doctor by a love lorn companion or the veneration of Rose Tyler I'll be happier.

I liked last season.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I loved her recent work. She took the character to a whole other level. I want to be as awesome as Sarah Jane one day.

Didn't we lose Nicholas Courtney recently too?

Yes we did. [Tear]

My daughters and I were always amazed at how young Lis Sladen looked, and we were all surprised by the news. It's funny how she appealed to both generations thanks to SJA.

I expect some acknowledgement of her death on Saturday after the first episode?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Lis Sladen has had an amazing impact on the lives of at least two distinct generations of Doctor Who viewers, not to mention her popularity in The Sarah Jane Adventures. Last night, one of the DW fan websites clocked up over 1000 posts in their tribute thread withing about 4 hours of the news breaking. It's the number 1 story on the BBC news site, with over 400 comments in tribute there too. It's astonishing.

Yes, Nicholas Courtney, who played the Brigadier, died recently too, a wonderful gentleman by all accounts, though I never met him myself. Elisabeth's co-star, Ian Marter, who played Harry Sullivan, died quite a few years ago now, very young. One comment I read on another site last night quoted one of Sarah Jane's last lines from the classic series, as she's about to leave the Doctor -
quote:
"...And I'll give your love to Harry and the Brigadier..."
[Tear]

I'd imagine there'll be something like a mention in the show's credits either this week or next.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
I'm really quite saddened by this, I have met most of the classic Dr Who cast regulars from the Third doctor onwards but Elisabeth Sladen was always my favourite companion. I shall be watching The Hand of Fear tonight.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Apparently there's going to be a 15 minute tribute to Lis Sladen after The Impossible Astronaut on Saturday.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I'm so sad to hear about Lis Sladen. Sarah Jane was a wonderful companion. I'm glad that there will be the tribute programme after Saturday's Doctor Who, over on the CBBC channel at 6.45pm.

From the trailers and publicity, the new series is looking great. In the latest Doctor Who Magazine, Steven Moffat says that with the previous series, they were still trying to reassure people that it was the same show as under Russell T Davies, but now they've established the new Doctor and new look, they're going to be much more ambitious in terms of building ongoing storylines, and aiming for more scares and creepiness. Sounds good to me!
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I'm really quite saddened by this, I have met most of the classic Dr Who cast regulars from the Third doctor onwards but Elisabeth Sladen was always my favourite companion. I shall be watching The Hand of Fear tonight.

So am I. Sarah Jane was always THE Doctor Who girl to me. [Tear]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I'm really quite saddened by this, I have met most of the classic Dr Who cast regulars from the Third doctor onwards but Elisabeth Sladen was always my favourite companion. I shall be watching The Hand of Fear tonight.

So am I. Sarah Jane was always THE Doctor Who girl to me. [Tear]
Yes I think I agree. There were others, but they were just taking the role of Sarah Jane. I think she epitomised the Doctors companion perfectly - young and attractive, but feisty and capable too - a contrast and yet a match.
 
Posted by maeme (# 16362) on :
 
I was sorry to hear of Liz Sladen's passing. As a Dr Who companion she was great! She had her own personality and intelligence but she never tried to upstage the Doctor. Sarah Jane we will miss you! Best episode "Seeds of Doom"
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Welcome to the Ship, maeme.

There's an introduction thread in All Saints - but it's not obligatory.

Trust you have happy voyaging.

Firenze
Heaven Host

 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
On a happier note, Neil Gaiman has written one of the episodes for the new series - NERDGASM!!! [Yipee]
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
And it's called The Doctor's Wife....
 
Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :
 
So what did people think? My inital reaction is I'm not feeling that hooked. I was expecting to be scared and I wasn't but maybe as the plot develops I will be.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I think there was rather a lot of set-up for things happening in the next episode (or even later in the series) and not a lot of things happening in the episode itself, if that makes sense.
So it both felt busy and at the same time uneventful.
I suppose most sf fans would have seen the big twist about half way through coming as soon as the Doctor said 'Don't interfere'.

I enjoyed it all the way through pretty much, but I agree it never really gripped.

[ 23. April 2011, 21:25: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Moffat has imposed some tricky constraints on future developments, though, hasn't he? 200 odd years of Matt Smith with no companion, no regenerations, followed by a very terminal death.

I wasn't very stressed about the who was going to die, because some of the trailing press releases included thoughts from all four major members of the cast from later in the series.

Penny
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Good monsters - modelled on 'The Scream'

I'm not sure if the characters' lack of reaction to them (due to instant amnesia) will help the suspense 'tho. It's hard to 'look through their eyes' when they see nothing!
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I loved it. A slightly more sombre Doctor than last season, a nicely settles-down Amy and Rory, and River finally being given more to do than timey-wimey stuff and innuendo - her conversation with Rory towards the end of the episode was very effective, especially when she said something like, "One day I know I'll look into his eyes and he won't know me - and I think it'll kill me."

I like the direction Moffat's taking - for the first time in a very long time I genuinely can't see what might happen next, either in this story or in the rest of the series. Though I imagine something will happen so that Matt Smith won't be tied into a 200-year contract.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
It all seemed a bit "time travellers wifey" really doesn't it. And presumably the big awful thing river did was kill the doctor at some point? Or something similar.

I found it a bit boring but thought it might be setting up for later shows so will stick with it.

I remember from a past series he had a daughter - did we ever hear how that happened? I've completely forgotten.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
He got cloned against his will, to produce the daughter, who pinched a spaceship and went off to have adventures of her own.

I thought it was very good - and just because he was companionless at the end doesn't mean he's spent 200 years without a companion. I think he invited those particular companions, and his earlier self, because they needed to go and solve this particular problem. And also because he remembered it happening that way.
 
Posted by Joshua Bell (# 16323) on :
 
Verrrrry interesting. I have to say I always found the space-time paradoxes and puzzles much more interesting than the basic 'army of aliens' themes. Of course the whole idea from last series with the rift has only been half-resolved, so how (if at all) that fits in with the Doctor being dead or not will be interesting to see. I too suspect that Song killed the Doctor, though whether permanently or just to make him regenerate is a good question. I think the thing to bear in mind is that History is never really solid with the Dr. We'll have to see what happens!
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm not sure if the characters' lack of reaction to them (due to instant amnesia) will help the suspense 'tho. It's hard to 'look through their eyes' when they see nothing!

I agree. I think that is part of what makes it less immediately gripping. It gets more scary as you think about it afterwards.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Surfing Madness:
So what did people think? My inital reaction is I'm not feeling that hooked. I was expecting to be scared and I wasn't but maybe as the plot develops I will be.

The closest the plot got to scary was the scene in the Tardis where Amy broke the tension by mentioning fish fingers and custard.

And why can't the BBC do cliffhangers? To show the little girl in the spacesuit after the shooting was the last scene is a spoiler too far.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Good to see Blank Reg, and his son, acting. Always liked Blank Reg. Rest of it...standard Moffat stuff although I wish they would get River off the moping thing bit. Looking forward to Rory having a blow up about him being the Tin Dog.

Watched the Sarah Jane tribute. Got the distinct idea from that that Davies attempted to recreate the love for the character of Sarah Jane in Rose and forced it waaaaaaay too much.


I look forward to a companion that doesn't have to save the universe in order to be considered important. They've painted themselves in a box with that lately and its a little tedious.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Not deeply moved, I'm afraid - too much happened, too quickly at the start. All of that can't stand, as others have pointed out, unless the franchise is going to wind up completely. And I'm still unconvinced by Smith. I watched Christopher and his kind a few weeks ago, and loved all of it, except for Smith's performance. I'm not quite sure what I want a Doctor to do to me, but he's not doing it.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Mmm, ok, am I the only one who watched the Doctor get shot and thought "Oh good" and briefly hoped for a more likeable regeneration?

I'm getting rather turned off by his being full of himself at times. And I know it's Easter but was it really necessary for the Doctor to die, then be resurrected, appearing in an eatery in front of his disciples, I mean companions, after which he has to go and save the planet?

The monsters were a bit like a cross between an Ood without tentacles and a Dementor, but glad to see they were wearing suits for the occasion. The thing to have done would have been for someone looking at them to yell out a description to someone in earshot who wasn't looking at them, take a pic on the mobile phone, then get the hell out of there and then be reminded by the person who hadn't seen them.

Altogether a bit too much going on in the first episode, and really, Amy being pregnant? Again? But River Song is a pleasure to watch as always and the best thing about this series.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm getting rather turned off by his being full of himself at times.

The Doctor is full of himself in every incarnation. I think the Matt Smith incarnation is actually one of the least full of himself, after Peter Davison and Paul McGann (though Paul McGann was never in anything we recognise as canonical *cough*).

quote:
The thing to have done would have been for someone looking at them to yell out a description to someone in earshot who wasn't looking at them, take a pic on the mobile phone, then get the hell out of there and then be reminded by the person who hadn't seen them.
Only Amy saw them for long enough to work out that she couldn't remember them. And she did take a picture on her phone. True, she didn't call out a description to the secret service man outside - but I assume she's been around enough to realise that redshirts are less than useless against aliens in Doctor Who.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
though Paul McGann was never in anything we recognise as canonical *cough*
Indeed. Best to forget that unsavoury little affair methinks.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
I seem to be in a minority here. I found the idea of aliens that you forget as soon as you look away really creepy. Just think, you turn to run away from them and then forget there is anything to run away from, thus allowing them to creep up on you from behind and Oh God I just had to look round then!
Re River, particularly liked 'I can be quite a screamer, now there's a spoiler for you' or words to that effect.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I liked the concept of aliens that you immediately forget. What I hated was, once again, timey-wimey stuff.

Pretty much all last season (and especially near the end) was this playing with time stuff. "He's a time traveller, he can free himself from an inescapable prison so that he can come back and free himself." Followed by the Christmas story: "He's a time traveler, he can jump back and forth to change the bad guy into a good guy." Now we get the new season where, hey, "He's a time traveler, he can arrange for his friends to go back and keep him from dying."

Yes, WE FREAKIN' GET IT! He's a time traveler. Move on to some other plot line for G-d's sake! As I have said before, there are VERY FEW writers who can truly handle the idea of temporal paradoxes and finish with a satisfying logical resolution: AND ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THOSE WRITERS HAVE EVER WRITTEN FOR DOCTOR WHO!

This is why the original series was so brilliant. They set it up that the TARDIS was essentially uncontrollable so that you could not use it to pull crap like this. I miss those days. I miss the days when history absolutely could not be changed. If you died, you died. No cheap escape clause like now.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only Amy saw them for long enough to work out that she couldn't remember them. And she did take a picture on her phone. True, she didn't call out a description to the secret service man outside - but I assume she's been around enough to realise that redshirts are less than useless against aliens in Doctor Who.

True, but I was thinking that a natural human reaction would have been for River to call out to Rory and warn him and give a description of what she was looking at. However, River may not be human and this is all fiction, so I suppose we'll all just have to wait for Amy to make a phone call then discover the picture on her phone.

I agree the "let's just use a different time stream to get round the death problem" is annoying - too facile a way of getting out of any situation. "With one bound, Jack was free."

(And speaking of Jack, I wish they'd bring him back. He, River and the Doctor would be a quite interesting combination - how would Amy cope with that I wonder!)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Loved the aside when the Doctor mentioned visiting Easter Island and Amy(?)'s reply 'They all worshipped you there.' Best appreciated while seeing the Doctor in profile.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
True, but I was thinking that a natural human reaction would have been for River to call out to Rory and warn him and give a description of what she was looking at.

In order to do that you have to know not to take your eyes off what you're looking at. (Is this a Steven Moffat theme?)
I'm not sure that the natural human reaction isn't to get out of there and describe what you saw to the other person once you have the safety of numbers.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I enjoyed the homage to other SciFi TV and films, from the Men in Black suits of the Aliens to the blue torchlight (very X files). The way the astronaught moves was a bit 2001 too. Overall I came away with the impression that although there were pleanty of good bits, the episode as a whole was less than the sum of it's parts. I think Stepehen Moffat was spending too much energy on setting up a story arc, and not enough on the episode itself.

Shame as it could have been a lot better.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
I sort of agree Balaam but I often find that with two-parters. Usually by the end of the second episode I'm hooked on the whole story. Here's hoping it's the same this time.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
True, but I was thinking that a natural human reaction would have been for River to call out to Rory and warn him and give a description of what she was looking at.

In order to do that you have to know not to take your eyes off what you're looking at. (Is this a Steven Moffat theme?)
I'm not sure that the natural human reaction isn't to get out of there and describe what you saw to the other person once you have the safety of numbers.

Agreed. That seemed entirely reasonable. The episode as a whole was unsatisfying (at least at first viewing - I haven't had a chance to revisit it yet) because there was too little clarity about what was going on and too little "clear and present danger" to build up any suspense. The alien things were disconcerting, but not as scary as promised, and too similar (in a less scary way) to the weeping angels. Even at the end, the girl in the spacesuit was revealed too late to create tension, and in the context, it's hard to believe that a real girl has really just been shot with a real gun.

As for the broad theme of the Doctor's death, it didn't do much for me. The very end of the entire series is never going to be revealed like this, and Moffat has plenty of form in the rewriting history stakes, so this is obviously going to be one of those times when, for various handwavy reasons, history can be changed. Even though that's pretty transparent, it could still be OK if he hadn't been so keen on that concept in the past - law of diminishing returns definitely applies here, and it ends up being yet another "X happened, but it's all going to change, so it won't happen" storyline, which leaves one feeling somewhat jaded.

I'm prepared to believe that it'll get better from here, and I'd much rather a slow-burning start that develops over time than a thrilling opening that doesn't ultimately deliver, but so far, the only good thing about this episode is that after several attempts, the tedious River Song finally has a purpose - to provide didactic plot exposition when the Doctor can't because he isn't allowed to know the plot. They should have just shot her instead.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Baddies who turn on/off depending on whether they are being viewed or not just remind me of the Weeping Angels from Blink/The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone - a bit old. I agree with others, very much a *scene-setter* but who cares when the gorgeous and cool Dr River Song is in it? And, with Ariel, why on earth (or other point along the time-space continuum) is it sooo important that the Doctor should know Amy's pregnant - a not uncommon occurrence among the recently-married, I'd have thought. Well, she can plead her belly for a while but I still want to see her killed off.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Both her and river song said they felt sick though didn't they? Whereas she just put it down to preggers?
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
I get the feeling that either
Amy IS pregnant, and also has a nagging feeling that it is really really important that she tells the Doctor something, and has confused the two.
and/or
Both Amy and River are pregnant
In which case I really really hope they haven't been somehow impregnated by the aliens as I would have to stop watching the series forever in protest.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Like many others I felt that there was too much setting up future events and not enough happening 'now'. And also it looks too much like timey-wimey stuff is going to allow the Doctor to escape certain and permanent death (just as he did at the end of the last series).

I did like the line about the Jammie Dodgers and the fez, though.

The 'terrible thing' that River Song says she is going to do - will it be her in the spacesuit killing the doctor?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
It also looked like much of the Richard Nixon aspects of that episode was teased out of the script during a rewrite. His only character development was by others. I suspect that character will get more in the second with a probable showing of him being a nasty dude.

That is in keeping with the hagiographic approach to historical figures. Apart from Victoria, every one of them was troubled but the greatest genius ever and there names will be known for all time, etc. etc. Don't think Nixon is going to get that, somehow.

I hope I'm wrong but right now, if this doesn't change, maybe the series needs a 3 year hiatus, and somebody to run the show who wasn't under Davies. I like Moffat compared to Davies but it is getting predictable, and Dr. Who should never be that.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Don't think Nixon is going to get that, somehow.

Didn't Spock say, "Only Nixon could go to China"?
[Smile]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Like mrs whibley, I wondered whether both Amy and River are supposed to be pregnant - they both started feeling sick after seeing the aliens. I also hope, really hope, that one or both is/are not pregnant by the aliens, that would just be a dreadful plot line (shades of Torchwood!)*. I hope it's all part of the deception - Amy has to tell the Doctor 'what he must know and what he must never know'. I assumed that the 'what he must never know' referred to his 'death'. But perhaps it refers to something else?

I was also slightly surprised that at the beginning of the episode, Amy and Rory weren't travelling with the Doctor, which is where we left them at the end of the Christmas special. And I am getting a bit sick of the 'Doctor being killed but not really' plotline too. There's no tension in it because you know he's not really dead.

But overall the episode did set up a good puzzle and I'm looking forward to next Saturday.

M.

*Perhaps they're both pregnant by the Doctor and one child will turn out to be Susan's mother/father!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I don't know how Amy would be able to know so quickly after seeing the aliens that she was pregnant. Like others, I also hope this isn't another "Gwen"-type storyline.

I'm still wondering whether River is a Time Lord. She did manage to leave a message for him in one episode in Gallifreyan.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm still wondering whether River is a Time Lord. She did manage to leave a message for him in one episode in Gallifreyan.

I have totally wondered about that as well. All her fiddling around with the TARDIS hints at something of that nature.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I also wondered whether Amy was pregnant by the Doctor. Maybe they did more than just kiss in the previous season. Is there any chance she will die in childbirth? She is the most annoying companion (since Adric?), and the sooner she snuffs it the better.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Like mrs whibley, I wondered whether both Amy and River are supposed to be pregnant - they both started feeling sick after seeing the aliens.

The Doctor said that Amy had 'put on a couple of pounds' when they were having their picnic - just before the first sighting of an alien.
I took that to be a hint that she was pregnant.
I hadn't occurred to me that River Song might also be pregnant.
If she is, and by The Doctor, I wonder which of his incarnations might be responsible - the current one seems too innocent and childlike.
Or maybe that's me?

And like many of you, I thought it didn't stand up that well as an episode in its own right, but has set up various stands for the rest of the series.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
It seems that, quite often, the first eposide ( or episodes ) often seem to be poor from first view, but with hindsight, we see that it was necessary and significant.

I suspect that this is the case here too.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I don't know how Amy would be able to know so quickly after seeing the aliens that she was pregnant. Like others, I also hope this isn't another "Gwen"-type storyline.

Well, seeing that they can mess with her head enough to make her forget them the moment she looks away, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for them to implant the "knowledge" of her pregnancy in the same way. I hope that isn't what's going on, but it could be.

I'm hoping that the girl in the spacesuit is a young River Song, and that she'll end up killing herself to save the man she loves, even though he doesn't really know her yet. That would be typical of the noble, emotional self-sacrifice bollocks that Doctor Who seems to be all about these days, and would have the bonus of getting rid of the most annoyingly unnecessary character since Jar Jar Binks.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I hope it's all part of the deception - Amy has to tell the Doctor 'what he must know and what he must never know'. I assumed that the 'what he must never know' referred to his 'death'. But perhaps it refers to something else?

The whole "don't tell the Doctor he is going to die" is odd because the future Stetson Doctor apparently does know he is going to die, even to the point of arranging for the can of gasoline for the Viking funeral. Therefore, River's insistence that they can't tell him he is going to die struck me as illogical. They already know he will know about it in the future, so why not tell him now?
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
The whole thing was a big "meh!" from me. It is all relying on time-travel and gimmicky plot lines rather than the time-travel acting as a way of shifting the scene for each story.

Mind you it probably didn't help watching The Horror of Fang Rock and The Stones of Blood (Tom Baker at his best) just before watching the new episode.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
He's arranged for his own death when he's 1100+ - which leaves plenty of time for him not to know what's going on beforehand, so they shouldn't tell him yet.
By the way, what's happened to the dead Doctor's Tardis? It must be sitting somewhere.
There are some interesting discussions going on at Tor.com blog. They seem to be going through the season episode by episode with a review, and there's an article today about how Stephen Moffat is subverting the laws of narrative which slightly made my head hurt.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
He's arranged for his own death when he's 1100+ - which leaves plenty of time for him not to know what's going on beforehand, so they shouldn't tell him yet.

Why not? Yes, plenty of time for him to find out, but the argument for not telling him is that they can't let him know about his future. But he IS going to know about his future, so the argument for not telling him now is complete bollocks. Yes, they have 200 years to let him know, but there is no logical reason for them not to tell him now since they already know the future Doctor will know about his death beforehand.

Which is an example of what I said in an earlier note--that there are very few writers who can handle temporal paradoxes and gets a satisfying logical resolution. There is no logical reason or argument NOT to tell the Doctor immediately about what they saw.

In fact, staying silent is even more odd when you realize that the only reason River, Rory & the Annoying One know about the supposed death is that the Stetson Doctor arranged for them to be there and then arranged for his younger self to meet up with them later! He deliberately created the very opportunity that they are refusing to use! Their silence should fall--by the wayside!
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
He deliberately created the very opportunity that they are refusing to use!

Either future Doctor wanted them not to let past Doctor know, or he wanted them to let past Doctor know.
If he had wanted them to tell past self he didn't need to go to such trouble to make sure past self didn't know about future self. While if he didn't want past self to know he did need to go to that amount of trouble. The evidence therefore is more consistent with him not wanting past self to know.

In addition to not letting his past self know about his death, future self didn't let anyone know why he was arranging his death or who it was in the spacesuit or so on. So again, that's an argument against telling his past self.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
There is the idea that the knowledge of not telling the Doctor of his impending death is necessary in order to beat the bad monsters.

i.e. he knows in the future that by not telling him earlier, they actually defeat the baddies somehow.

What bugs me more about this is a Doctor not interested in who sent him the letter.

Therefore, I think his younger self sussed it out but also knows if he tells them he knows, they won't do the right things necessary to succeed.

And that would be getting the parodox right.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either future Doctor wanted them not to let past Doctor know, or he wanted them to let past Doctor know.
If he had wanted them to tell past self he didn't need to go to such trouble to make sure past self didn't know about future self. While if he didn't want past self to know he did need to go to that amount of trouble. The evidence therefore is more consistent with him not wanting past self to know.

In addition to not letting his past self know about his death, future self didn't let anyone know why he was arranging his death or who it was in the spacesuit or so on. So again, that's an argument against telling his past self.

Actually, that raises another issue. Stetson Doctor already knows whether they are going to tell him or not. He must have known that before he arranged anything, because he presumably remembers whether they told him or not.

So it follows that whether he "wanted" them to tell his younger self or not is irrelevant because he knows that they didn't--at least, not until they do either next episode or later in the season (depending on how much of a story arc this is supposed to be).

But my point really is not what Stetson Doctor wanted (as I said, it is already a done deal for him). My point is that there is no logic in River's position. She knows that future Docotr knows about his death ahead of time, so her arguing that she can't tell the Doctor that he is going to die in the future simply hold no water from her own perspective.

As you point out, they can't tell current Doctor other things like why he is arranging his own death or who is in the spacesuit--but I'd argue Stetson Doctor arranged it to keep secret things that he felt needed to be kept secret from himself, but let his companions know about the stuff that they could talk about. As the Doctor yelled at the Annoying One last season (in the Space Whale story) "You never get to decide what I should or should not know!" Of course, because AO is such a spacey ditz-brain, I am not surprised she doesn't remember that.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But my point really is not what Stetson Doctor wanted (as I said, it is already a done deal for him). My point is that there is no logic in River's position. She knows that future Docotr knows about his death ahead of time, so her arguing that she can't tell the Doctor that he is going to die in the future simply hold no water from her own perspective.

You're forgetting her actual stated reason:

quote:
Amy: We have to tell him.
River: We've told him all we can. We can't even tell him we've seen his future self. He's interacted with his own past, it could rip a hole in the universe.
Amy: Yeah but he's done it before.
Rory: And in fairness the universe did blow up.

River's trying to minimize the amount of future-past interaction. Sure she knows that at some point the Doctor finds out, but she doesn't know how that happened and recklessly assuming it's ok to tell him when a rip in the universe is possible is risky to say the least.

Or in other words - "Don't cross the streams."

You can only dismiss River's logic if you know precisely how the future-past self-interaction causes a universe-rip and therefore whether it's safe to tell him something he will at some point know. Since we don't know how it works we can't do that. We have to assume - until shown otherwise - that River knows what she's talking about. Or thinks she does. Either way her logic from her own point of view is sound.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Plot logic issues aside - I did enjoy the episode. It's clearly a part 1 of 2 so I wasn't too bothered that there was a lot of set-up. I thought the aliens were nice and scary. I like the idea of forgetting once you're not looking at them. ("They're behind you!") It's always nice to see Mark Shepard in anything. And it feels like River's actually a part of this story rather than just turning up as a familiar face.

Also, I thought Matt Smith was excellent. The scene just before the one I quote above, where he declines to trust River but Amy gets him to trust her with Fish Custard - you can see he's got more that the "mad professor" persona which he plays most of the time.

My one quibble - which is minor - is that the jammie-dodgers-and-a-fez line felt like it was shoe-horned in to make a good clip for the trailer.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:

quote:
Amy: We have to tell him.
River: We've told him all we can. We can't even tell him we've seen his future self. He's interacted with his own past, it could rip a hole in the universe.
Amy: Yeah but he's done it before.
Rory: And in fairness the universe did blow up.

River's trying to minimize the amount of future-past interaction. Sure she knows that at some point the Doctor finds out, but she doesn't know how that happened and recklessly assuming it's ok to tell him when a rip in the universe is possible is risky to say the least.

Or in other words - "Don't cross the streams."

You can only dismiss River's logic if you know precisely how the future-past self-interaction causes a universe-rip and therefore whether it's safe to tell him something he will at some point know. Since we don't know how it works we can't do that. We have to assume - until shown otherwise - that River knows what she's talking about. Or thinks she does. Either way her logic from her own point of view is sound.

I am starting to wonder if this will tie into last season. If the Death Of The Doctor is a season-long plot device (instead of just the first two episodes) then maybe the season ends with the Doctor changing his future so that he does not die--but, instead of blowing up the universe the time distortion from this causes feedback to....blow up the TARDIS, finally explaining why the TARDIS exploded last season. The Doctor has already handled the consequences to Time from the exploding of the TARDIS, but we are left with the season-ending cliffhanger that the TARDIS is now bits of rubble and the Doctor is left without a TARDIS.

Actually, that would be kind of cool--the Doctor caused the cracks in time last season (just as the Daleks, et al. accused him of) by tinkering with time to avoid his own death. But he is willing to do it because he already knows that he has fixed the consequences of that act, but is left with the residue: being marooned in the Annoying One's time. Truly a fate worse than death!
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I really enjoyed it. My theory is that the Doctor's death will somehow turn out to have been necessary to defeating the Silence, but that one of the Doctor's companions will change history to save him, which will allow the Silence to win, the universe to explode and all other manner of cliffhangery stuff for the Doctor to deal with.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Hmmm...I'm beginning to find these 'whole season story arcs' rather tedious. I primarily watch DW for entertainment not to try to remember what appears to be a minor detail in Episode #2 which turns out to be a major detail in Episode #9 or something.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Personally, I find shows that invite close attention more entertaining. I prefer to have some kind of ongoing storyline, rather than just episodic monster-of-the-week stories. And it's a lot more interesting than the Russell T Davies device of just namedropping something that turns up in the finale - Bad Wolf, Torchwood, Mr Saxon and so on.

I don't think you need to spot all the connections to enjoy the stories - stuff like TARDIS-like ship from The Lodger turning up again in the current story, or the future Doctor popping up in Flesh and Stone are nice added extras if you notice them, but the stories don't depend on the small details.

All the important stuff usually gets recapped either in a "Previously on..." montage or within the stories themselves. The Impossible Astronaut included explanations of the Doctor's relationship to River, for example. I don't think it's particularly hard to keep up.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I'm beginning to find these 'whole season story arcs' rather tedious. I primarily watch DW for entertainment not to try to remember what appears to be a minor detail in Episode #2 which turns out to be a major detail in Episode #9 or something.

I must admit that for me, that's the least attractive feature of the post-2005 series. Story arcs were rarely used in the old show - the Key to Time being the main exception, with shorter arcs being a bit more common, such as the E-space stories and the crew's separation from the TARDIS between Ark in Space and Revenge of the Cybermen. I suppose you could think of the Third Doctor's exile on Earth as a story arc, or the First Doctor's inability to get his companions home, but that would be stretching it.

One of the reasons I don't watch much American tv drama is that it's usually into story arcs in a big way, and if I miss an episode I feel I won't be able to catch up. Story arcs are much less friendly to the casual viewer.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
Has anyone else been to see the Doctor Who Experience at Olympia! Excellent, especially the interactive walk-through at the beginning in which you operate the Tardis, meet Daleks, and then a very scary (for the little ones anyway) 3-D bit.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
One of the problems I had with the start of the newer style series is that there seemed to be a focus on a single episode adventure. Whereas the older style would have an adventure over 6 weeks, giving far more opportunity to develop ideas. So the story arc stretching across a whole series is a good compromise.

And whats this about missing any? That is what V+ is for. And Catchup. And the internet. And +1. And the other stuff in the digital TV revolution.

( I am going to be away for the next week including the next two weekends, and I will have SO much to catch up on when I get back. )
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And whats this about missing any? That is what V+ is for. And Catchup. And the internet. And +1. And the other stuff in the digital TV revolution.

The only one of those I've heard of is the internet.

(And I'll have you know that I had to get up super-early to watch this episode on iPlayer, to benefit from "free" download time, otherwise it would have eaten a large hole in my monthly bandwidth allowance. We don't get any freeview channels yet in this area, so repeats on BBC3 or BBC4 are no use to me, and my VCR isn't working. We don't all live in the fast lane.)
 
Posted by Jabber (# 9668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
My one quibble - which is minor - is that the jammie-dodgers-and-a-fez line felt like it was shoe-horned in to make a good clip for the trailer.

Such a good line, even if shoe-horned!

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I'm beginning to find these 'whole season story arcs' rather tedious. I primarily watch DW for entertainment not to try to remember what appears to be a minor detail in Episode #2 which turns out to be a major detail in Episode #9 or something.

I no longer have the memory for small details, so I would much prefer individual episode stories.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
I've just thought, River talked about how her and the Doctor are meeting up out of time and there will come a time when she will look into his eyes and he wont recognise her. She says she thinks that might kill her. But, didn't we see his first meeting with her (although she knew him) in The Library episode? Actually thinking more (should have done that before I started posting) it sort of did kill her didn't it? Have I completely lost my marbly bits or did she end up in the computer?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Actually thinking more it sort of did kill her didn't it? Have I completely lost my marbly bits or did she end up in the computer?

You haven't lost anything. It's dramatic irony.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Actually thinking more it sort of did kill her didn't it? Have I completely lost my marbly bits or did she end up in the computer?

You haven't lost anything. It's dramatic irony.
That's one way to put it, yes.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And whats this about missing any? That is what V+ is for. And Catchup. And the internet. And +1. And the other stuff in the digital TV revolution.

The only one of those I've heard of is the internet.

(And I'll have you know that I had to get up super-early to watch this episode on iPlayer, to benefit from "free" download time, otherwise it would have eaten a large hole in my monthly bandwidth allowance. We don't get any freeview channels yet in this area, so repeats on BBC3 or BBC4 are no use to me, and my VCR isn't working. We don't all live in the fast lane.)

This was also dramatic irony. Or something. I realise that not everyone has access to these, but I suspect a significant proportion of DW fans do, and the internet discussion is an important part of the development of the plot, becasue there are those little teasers that the producers are, I am sure, watching to see if anyone noticed.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Think I will have to watch this one a couple of times...

Came in from busy day as it started and my brain not up to it
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Dull and incomprehensible. Has the series now jumped the shark?

[ 30. April 2011, 18:51: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Why oh why does Rory not get wise to himself and just dump Amy Pond (preferably out of the nearest airlock)? What a doormat.

The storyline seemed a bit fragmented with enough loose ends that it was at times a bit difficult to know which plotline was going where. Still, River Song is still easily the best thing about the episode and the little Time Lady is intriguing so next week might be interesting. If I could remember what it was going to be about.
 
Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
Torches, rain, a mysterious child, an auburn, suited investigator, paranoid aliens everywhere, even the FBI....

Serious channelling of the X files... A great series which disappeared up it's own bottom.

Though, for what it's worth, I liked tonight's resolution for dealing with the aliens. Not so keen on all the relationship stuff - I don't want 2D characters but I really don't want to spend early Saturday evenings wondering who is sleeping with who, and when, in an increasingly convoluted timeline.

I'm assuming some timey wimey stuff will sort out the Doctors death.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I didn't even like the resolution. These aliens have been around for million of years, humans can't detect them but have to obey their orders. And they get destroyed by one grainy TV broadcast? Somehow I don't think so.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Dull and incomprehensible. Has the series now jumped the shark?

I'll give you incomprehensible, mainly because there's apparently still a huge amount to be revealed about the Silence, Amy's baby, the Doctor's death and assorted stuff, but dull?

The Silence, which had been underwhelming on last week's evidence, turned out to be truly scary when the full scale of their ability to mess with your head became apparent. The idea that you could effectively be a slave without knowing it because of their subliminal suggestions is deeply disturbing, and the scene when Amy was in the attic with them sleeping on the ceiling would grace any horror film.

It wasn't perfect - huge time lapses mid-story are rarely a good idea, the Amy and Rory soap opera is very tiresome, and I really hope Audrey Niffenegger isn't overly litigious, or isn't aware of River Song. But it delivered more than I dared to hope for after last week's scene setting, and I've gone from cautious patience to optimistic anticipation of the rest of the series.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Think I will have to watch this one a couple of times...

Came in from busy day as it started and my brain not up to it

ok with rested brain could follow the jumps and even the logic - though feeling abit like after a meal out with a niggling unsatisifed mood, expecting more? better resolution?

Series long story arc is one thing but don't lose the sense of each episode having a beginning middle and end. This seemed all arc. Who is the girl, baby or not, who is River, and how will they stop the spacesuited one killing the Dr. ... too many threads in one go I think. Do they think one or two is not strong enough to hold our interest?
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I think there's still a lot of misdirection going on in there - just because there's a photo of Amy with a baby doesn't mean she's the mother - there's a similar picture of me with my nephew, after all.
But there does only seem to be one Time Lord in the universe (unless the Master is still about somehow).
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
So if the Silence[1] have been around since before the wheel have they been wearing those natty black suits all that time? I guess as well as all the rest of human endeavour - science, commerce, technology - they were influencing fashion too.

Agree about Rory. The only reason we keep getting scenes where Amy declares her undying love is for him ("Stupid!") is because there's no evidence of it in her actions.

Oh and disembodied frightened voices coming from flashing LED devices and mysterious close-visor-ed spacesuits chasing our heroes? Seems like we've been here before.

I must admit I was hoping for a little more closure. I suspected there'd be some stuff left for the rest of the series but I thought we'd find out who the girl is, or more about the Doctor's "death".[2] I do hope we're not going to get lots of scenes in future episodes where the Doctor makes comments about the future/death/whatever and Amy and Rory exchange meaningful, slightly sad glances.

Less satisfying than I hoped based on last week. I wouldn't say we've jumped the shark yet, but we've definitely skipped over the fishpond.


[1]or perhaps that should be "the Silents" as the Doctor tells them at one point to "keep a Silent in your eyeline at all times".

[2]Sorry, it gets scare quotes until I know for sure it's permanent.
 
Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
The scanner seemed to be doing a Wheel of Fortune act on Amy's pregnancy - and just after the Doctor had declared, "You only live once!"
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
Youngest Rogueling found the Silences very scary indeed. Unfortunately our sofa is set right against the wall so she had nowhere to hide!

I loved the solution of having the Silence on the moon landing coverage - very neat.

The Doctor told Amy he was 200 years older when he was killed but doesn't he have a track record for lying?

The child appears to be a Time Lord because she regenerates. Is she a Doctor's child? Is she another Time Lord (The Master or Omega for instance)?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Oh and disembodied frightened voices coming from flashing LED devices and mysterious close-visor-ed spacesuits chasing our heroes? Seems like we've been here before.

We have been here before and I'm wondering if this is deliberate, because it echoes the scene in which River Song first appears, way back in the Donna Noble days, in the Library. There was the Walking Spacesuit of Death, River introducing herself as an archaeologist, and blasting a few creaturoids, if I remember correctly. In which case we may just be about to see the last of River. [Waterworks]
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
That was brilliant! I love Moffat's approach to Doctor Who. Although he perhaps overuses certain concepts and devices, he usually recombines them in interesting and different ways.

It was a clever way for the Doctor to set back the Silence's plans - though there was one around in 2011 in the previous episode, so they can't have been completely defeated. I'm certain we haven't seen the last of the Silence.

There were so many intriguing elements... who was the Eye Patch Woman? What's up with Amy's pregnancy? And who is the child? So many mysteries, it's great.

It did move rather quickly, and required quite close attention and joining of the dots to make sense of the plot. The cliffhanger resolution in particular was filled in rather briefly and oddly. I think I followed it all, just about, but I hope it isn't this dense every week. It's definitely written for the iPlayer/boxset age, designed to reward repeated and attentive viewing. I like that approach, but I don't think Doctor Who should go too far down that route.

But a few quibbles aside, a confident, exciting opener that sets up the rest of the series nicely. Great stuff.
 
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on :
 
Any one else feel that Amy Pond=River Song (or at least a very close relation?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
The Great Gumby (and probably others) - I found it dull because things just didn't hang together. Why were Amy and the-nice-American in the spooky old home anyway? Yes, that whole section looked great, but it was dull for me because it didn't fit - it felt as though it had been inserted at random. Too much happening at once can be as dull as too little. This espisode did not cohere, to me, and I am a long time fan. (Currently thinking about getting two kittens and calling them William and Patrick.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I was reading this thread while the Goons was on Radio 4 Extra. Apart from wanting to moan that they are dirty rotten swine, and River Song has fallen in the water, the disjointed narrative does seem to echo that. Without the jazz passages.

I find the nested flashbacks irritating. Very.

It seems an extraordinary mixture of far too detailed planning (I can imagine charts of each characters' time line) with "making it up as they go along", leading to the incoherence within each episode. And I couldn't understand what the alien said which was broadcast - too garbled.

The old children's home reminded me of something, which I can't quite recall. There's Amy's old home and its invisible alien which has been rewritten out of her life, I suppose. But it seems to be from something totally different. The nearest I can get is a film based on what happened to Dorothy after Oz, which involved a mental hospital.

Penny

[ 01. May 2011, 07:45: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
Now, I willingly admit that I'm the first to miss vital points, BUT from the beginning I was confused... Amy running for her life was "6 months later" - so what had happened in the intervening 6 months? Why were all four in different places? Did they know that Canton Thing was a goody or a baddy? Did they pretend to die when he shot them or not? Were the other Men In Suits with Canton goodies or baddies? When River Song fell out of the high rise did she know the Tardis was going to pick her up? If she didn't why was she calmly drying her hair instead of gabbling like a surprised monkey when we next saw her? Why WAS she in a half constructed high rise building in an evening dress? etc etc.
I was so full of questions that I sort of lost the plot at the beginning!
I enjoyed the episode, but I do seem to find myself being more critical...Or maybe there's more to be critical about?

We watched Confidential afterwards which I felt was a bit self congratulatory. And I find Karen Gillan just as irritating as Amy Pond. There seems to be little to choose between them.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I am glad that when Nixon made an appearance and said "I am President Nixon" nobody said "I know who you are"
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Currently thinking about getting two kittens and calling them William and Patrick.

My first thought was that you were so upset you were going to name them after Messrs Shatner and Stewart!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
When River Song fell out of the high rise did she know the Tardis was going to pick her up? If she didn't why was she calmly drying her hair instead of gabbling like a surprised monkey when we next saw her? Why WAS she in a half constructed high rise building in an evening dress? etc etc.

River Song is carrying on the grand tradition of Servalan (for those of us who remember Blake's Seven). Servalan was always very elegantly dressed - quite inappropriately so most of the time, some may remember her tottering around the sand dunes in a billowing evening frock, high heels and dangly earrings while trying to shoot Avon and Tarrant.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Currently thinking about getting two kittens and calling them William and Patrick.

My first thought was that you were so upset you were going to name them after Messrs Shatner and Stewart!
Please. They are rather late in the day for my tastes.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Yes, there were too many questions,not enough answers for me. It makes it unsatisfying and far from making me feel intrigued to watch the next one, I am starting to have stray thoughts of can I be bothered?* Oh for a companion who wasn't the centre point of the universe!

And I'm getting sick of 'story arcs' that last over whole series.

M.

*Actually, I'm sure I can but - I don't want to have thoughts like that! I remember watching the very first Doctor Who, I don't want to give up now!
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Currently thinking about getting two kittens and calling them William and Patrick.

My first thought was that you were so upset you were going to name them after Messrs Shatner and Stewart!
Please. They are rather late in the day for my tastes.
I thought you meant the captains, too - and wondered about the tenuous sci-fi link...
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
I also got confused by the start.

(Probably a side effect of watching when rather tired) but I did find something stuck in my head, not nightmares, but definitely something.

Didn't mind Riversong and the Doctor, after all there's a very S.F. conceit behind it, her realisation that she's near the end was emotional, (relatively) subtle and fitting.
Not so keen on the Amy plot-line. It seems rather gratuitous, and I'm not quite sure (perhaps had they spread the elements over 3 assistants).
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
What a fickle bunch. I realy enjoyed both episodes very much. The Doctor reacting to the kiss with River was a perfect bit of acting, among many other highlights.

Wasn't the machine Amy was strapped into very similar to the one from "The Lodger" ?

All the best, Pyx_e
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I've just watched it again and enjoyed it more this time, I think. What did the Doctor mean when he said to Amy at the end, 'You only live once'? I mean, I know what most people would mean but the Doctor is in his eleventh regeneration...

I think we will see Clanton Delaware the wotsit again, as there has been nothing (at least that we've seen) about him turning up in 2011.

I still think it was odd that the Doctor seemed so complacent about River killing all those Silents (or Silence?).

So, lots of questions. I still find that annoying, even though I want to find out.

And I thought Alex Kingston's acting after the kiss was great, when she realised that it was the last time she would kiss him.

M.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I saw the similarity and it was confirmed on Confidential that the spaceship was the same as the one in The Lodger. They didn't really explain it and perhaps it was just the ancient Who tradition of re-using sets.

I don't think River Song jumped off the skyscraper expecting rescue in any particular way but she saw it as the only way to go to escape. She did do something similar in a previous story when she jumped off a space ship to be picked up by the Tardis. I laughed when the Doctor gave the order to open the doors to the swimming pool. Then she appeared coolly drying her hair rather than gabbling like a monkey because she is cool.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I rewatched it - and didn't gain much from the exercise, except that the Dr had a brief flash of memory of Amelia's house with the snakey monster which kept from sight. (Which would not have been seen by anyone who blinked at that moment.)

And I suspect the Lodger reference is not just re-use of sets.

Now was the Silence in existence at all in the previous run of the universe, or is it a new creation in this version?

Penny

[ 02. May 2011, 09:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
The snakey things (and other big-tooth types from that series) were all manifestations of some inmate from a pan-galactic prison, iirc. We know River has been/will be imprisoned but unsure of her crime so I guess it may have to do with that.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
I liked it. The Silents are the scariest monsters since my childhood. I wasn't quite hiding behind the sofa, but I was cuddling a cushion and nearly hiding behind it. The fact that at times we didn't see Silents, just that Amy had marked herself for each encounter made it more real. Though I'm still confused by the whole 3 months later 6 months later thing at the beginning.

Carys
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I rewatched it - and didn't gain much from the exercise, except that the Dr had a brief flash of memory of Amelia's house with the snakey monster which kept from sight. (Which would not have been seen by anyone who blinked at that moment.)

And I suspect the Lodger reference is not just re-use of sets.

Now was the Silence in existence at all in the previous run of the universe, or is it a new creation in this version?

Penny

The Silence would have to have been in existence in the previous universe run because
1- The universe was recreated as it was on the eve of Amy's wedding, so if they were not already in the atoms in the Pandorica they could not have been in the new universe
2- The spaceship was the same as in the lodger episode as previously stated and the Doctor recognised it. He seemed to know where he had seen it before and wondered how it had got to the other house.

The girl - I thought at first she was Amy's child, but if she is a Time Lord as well I don't want to watch. I like Rory and would hate Amy to cheat on him with the Doctor.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
The snakey things (and other big-tooth types from that series) were all manifestations of some inmate from a pan-galactic prison, iirc. We know River has been/will be imprisoned but unsure of her crime so I guess it may have to do with that.

Nooooo - I don't want River to turn out to be the snakey thing in human form!!

Re the little girl, it occurred to me she might be Captain Jack's. He got an overdose of Time Lord power through Rose and the Eye of Harmony so maybe this is a possibility? Or maybe she's something to do with The Master.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that the child is either:
1) Amy and Rory's, and being conceived while travelling through time and space has given her regenerative abilities
2) The Doctor and River's, and has inherited the ability to regenerate from the Doctor.
3) Created by the Silence, perhaps from DNA from one or more of the TARDIS crew, or perhaps simply experimenting on an orphan, in an attempt to engineer someone capable of piloting the TARDIS-like ship they're building.

There's no way they would have Amy cheat with the Doctor.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Re the little girl, it occurred to me she might be Captain Jack's. He got an overdose of Time Lord power through Rose and the Eye of Harmony so maybe this is a possibility? Or maybe she's something to do with The Master.

Or something to do with the Doctor's daughter who presumably is still wandering the Universe.

Or something to do with the mysterious Time Lady who was helping during the Return of Gallifrey story line.

Or it could all be a huge coincidence.

I am rather hoping that the reason River is in jail is because she killed Amy--in which case, it is understandable why the prison authorities are being so easy on her. The only problem is that I think it has already been established that she killed a male.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
I like Rory and would hate Amy to cheat on him with the Doctor.

So would I. It's possible that Amy conceived a child with the Doctor while Rory didn't exist. And now Rory exists again, it both didn't happen and did happen.
But I'd rather there was another explanation too. (For one thing, Rory might not ever have existed for Amy, but the Doctor remembered him.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
The snakey things (and other big-tooth types from that series) were all manifestations of some inmate from a pan-galactic prison, iirc. We know River has been/will be imprisoned but unsure of her crime so I guess it may have to do with that.

Oh SHIT! Big teeth! You were right!
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Or something to do with the Doctor's daughter who presumably is still wandering the Universe.

She's a clone, isn't she? Will there ever be a time, do you think, when we shall hear about the Doctor's *original* family, ie his granddaughter Susan and whoever her parents were? Susan stayed on earth, but I don't remember anything about her parents.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Funny clone though. Double X instead of XY. Unless Time Lords have a different set up.

Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Gosh. What a conclusion to the story! The fact that I didn't like it quite as much as part 1 is entirely due to my personal taste on story arcs, no reflection on the incredibly skilful scripting, acting and directing. Doctor Who has grown up a bit, I think - and it certainly expects you to pay attention if you're not going to come away from the episode thinking, "Hang on, why did they...?"

The Silents were pretty creepy, but some of the scenes in the orphanage were downright scary. And what the heck was that bit with the woman in the eyepatch looking out through the door panel? - the seed of another future story arc?

The final shock of the little girl nearly made me fall off my sofa! And next week it's pirates! Arrrr ...
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
Is it just me, or does anyone else think The Silents are distantly related to the Dementors?
 
Posted by Pangolin (# 7728) on :
 
I loved it.

Maybe being really thick with this question - how did the Doctor, Amy et al. remember the Silence after they'd looked away for long enough to set up everythign they needed such as the red palm light, the marks on their arms etc? I suppose it's implied that they see the photo on Amy's phone but wouldnt they forget about that as soon as they looked away?

Exhilarated but confused.

P
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
...maybe the series needs a 3 year hiatus...

You think anyone in the BBC is going to let them miss the 50th anniversary of the show in only thirty months time? Really?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

The old children's home reminded me of something, which I can't quite recall. There's Amy's old home and its invisible alien which has been rewritten out of her life, I suppose. But it seems to be from something totally different. The nearest I can get is a film based on what happened to Dorothy after Oz, which involved a mental hospital.

There was the Doctor Who story in which Ace returns to Perivale: Ghost Light. Most of that was set in a very, very, scary old house.

Ace is of course "Dorothy Gale" and based loosely on Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz!

The last three episodes of the McCoy period (& therefore the last three of the original-format series) were all about rediscovering Ace's past - a concetration on the private life & personal history of the companion that was also something new to the series. In many ways the RTD Who carried on from exactly where the regular broadcasts had left off in 1989.

quote:

Funny clone though. Double X instead of XY. Unless Time Lords have a different set up.

Well, yes. A very different set-up. They aren't human! They are no more closely related to us than we are to mushrooms or oak trees! They are shapeshifting aliens who can look like anything they want. Why do they choose to look human? That's the interesting question.

[ 03. May 2011, 16:36: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Story arcs were rarely used in the old show - the Key to Time being the main exception, with shorter arcs being a bit more common, such as the E-space stories and the crew's separation from the TARDIS between Ark in Space and Revenge of the Cybermen.

There was also The Daleks Cunning Plan or whatever that lost glorious season was really called. And The Chase though as that's six 25-minuters it might get counted as one story and not an "arc" (which we used to call a "plot" in the old days)

And the last few Baker (T) stories and the first Davison stories fit together in a way, with a plot arc that leads up to Castrovalva. They also have a common sort of touch-and-feel to them - all that Escher-topological stuff, and psuedomediaeval high-tech, and wibbling about entropy and decay.


Of course the real long-term plot-arc goes well beyond any one series. The "Dalek Civil War" stories from the 1980s: Destiny/Resurrection/Revelation/Remembrance of the Daleks make a coherent story when watched in order, even though each has a different Doctor. They are also a direct (if unplanned) sequel to Genesis of the Daleks which retconned Davros into the history of Skaro.

But there is yet more - Remembrance, which is one of the all-time great Who stories, is also in indirect sequel to (or tribute to) An Unearthly Child, the first ever Dr Who, broadcast twenty-five years earlier, and has some aspects in common with or reference to The Evil of the Daleks, now lost but often thought of as the greatest ever Who story. (Just as an aside The Evil of the Daleks is part of its own mini-arc because it partly takes place at the same time and in a nearby place to The Faceless Ones and The War Machines)

And to bring it up to date, Remembrance is even more also famously part of the Time War which was so much a feature of the Ecclestone stories.

So, its all, like, really complex, man....

[ 03. May 2011, 16:39: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I saw the similarity and it was confirmed on Confidential that the spaceship was the same as the one in The Lodger. They didn't really explain it and perhaps it was just the ancient Who tradition of re-using sets.

The Doctor did mention having seen one before, and wondering how it came to be abandoned. I assume that we'll find out more about how it came to be abandoned in a later episode - meaning we're not yet done with the Silence (eek)!

quote:
I don't think River Song jumped off the skyscraper expecting rescue in any particular way but she saw it as the only way to go to escape. She did do something similar in a previous story when she jumped off a space ship to be picked up by the Tardis.
I get the feeling she does that sort of thing a lot, knowing the Doctor will always be there to pick her up. And while I like River generally, this reliance on the Doctor to get her out of trouble grates a little.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
I was just checking on upcoming TV on my media centre's EPG when I spotted a couple of interesting things:


 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
I can't remember any of the old doctors indulging in snogging!!
What days did they used to show it on? I've a feeling we used to have to watch McCoy era midweek (the only program we even bothered to try to watch when our ariel got broken in the great hurrican that Ian McKaskil missed) or am I just making it up?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itokro:
I get the feeling she does that sort of thing a lot, knowing the Doctor will always be there to pick her up. And while I like River generally, this reliance on the Doctor to get her out of trouble grates a little.

Strictly speaking, because she thinks that she is meeting the Doctor in reverse chronological order, she knows that, until the Doctor meets her for the first time, she must survive. Now, we know that the Doctor first meets her in "The Silence in the Library"--which explains why River looked desperately afraid when she realized that the Doctor did not know who she was. Only then did she know that there was a chance that she would die. And die she did. Sort of.

So she might not know for sure that the Doctor would rescue her if she jumped off the building, but she knew for certain that she would not die. Something would save her.

Of course, the flip side is true, too. The Doctor cannot die until she has met him for the first time. Which hasn't happened in the series yet. Unless she is the little girl.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Ace and McCoy was in my no TV period - couldn't afford one, so only saw things broadcast while I was visiting my parents, or on weekdays after school so I could use the school TV before the caretaker came round.

Penny
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Strictly speaking, because she thinks that she is meeting the Doctor in reverse chronological order, she knows that, until the Doctor meets her for the first time, she must survive.

In universe, of course, time can be changed.

Out of universe, I don't think Moffat has got straight in his head how River and the Doctor are interacting. River has said at least once now that they're going in reverse directions. If they were just going in reverse directions, there would be no need for their diaries because they'd just know that anything they remembered hadn't happened to the other person. Also, River Song would have realised she was dealing with future Doctor, and therefore something was wrong, when the future Doctor shared some of the same memories.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Strictly speaking, because she thinks that she is meeting the Doctor in reverse chronological order, she knows that, until the Doctor meets her for the first time, she must survive.

In universe, of course, time can be changed.

Out of universe, I don't think Moffat has got straight in his head how River and the Doctor are interacting. River has said at least once now that they're going in reverse directions. If they were just going in reverse directions, there would be no need for their diaries because they'd just know that anything they remembered hadn't happened to the other person. Also, River Song would have realised she was dealing with future Doctor, and therefore something was wrong, when the future Doctor shared some of the same memories.

I'm hoping (really, really hoping) that the "opposite directions" thing was intended as a simplification for the younger audience, to explain why the relationship's so asymmetrical and generally screwed up. My reaction when she said it was the same as you, but on rewatching it, I could see that it might be a crude generalisation. I don't think Moffat has a strong grasp of how this is all meant to fit together, but I'm not sure that this proves it.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
Ken, I bow to your awesome knowledge [Overused] - see? But then I am a mere whippersnapper who only goes back to Pertwee and 'The Three Doctors'.

I think that I remember the series moving to midweek (twice a week) when Davison took over, but his final season - and the following (delayed) season of Baker the Lesser - was back on Saturday evenings. McCoy's series were then on in midweek about 7.00 pm (dragging the depths of my memory for my student days with a B&W portable TV).

There is only one canonical time for Doctor Who, and that is on Saturday evenings right after Grandstand. Sadly, having cancelled Grandstand, it now follows something inane like Total Wipeout...
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In universe, of course, time can be changed.

Except,of course, for those times when it can't.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Obviously there always has to be - and always has been - an element of story arc in DW. Even if you go back to the very first series, we were led to believe that every story from An Unearthly Child and at least up to The Sensorites followed on from each other. They were all also bound by the narrative thread of the Doctor trying to return Ian and Barbara to 1963 London.

Later, from (say) Baker Minor onwards, a criticism sometimes levelled at the show was that it became too self-referential and obsessed with its own internal continuity, to the extent that the actual story-telling suffered. The prime example, I think, would be the abysmal Attack of the Cybermen. Remembrance of the Daleks is so good because it's a rare example of getting the balance right.

I've a friend who writes for a Well Known Soap Opera. He says that even in a programme that's broadcast several times a week, a surprising number of episodes will be "continuity-light", and almost self-contained, so as to provide plenty of stepping-on points for new viewers. I wonder about the wisdom of starting a new season of DW with a story that drew heavily on the previous season and which sets up a number of things that'll need to be resolved over the coming year (or more).

Though I enjoyed this story, one thing that is starting to irritate me a bit is that the TARDIS has become the new "get out of jail free" card - it can now be programmed to the nearest fraction of a second, the nearest few centimetres, so as to rescue someone falling from a building. If you can do that with it, what can't you do? One of the key principles of the old show was to make the TARDIS at least a bit unpredictable, precisely so that it wouldn't become the solution to every problem. One thing you'll notice about the first two episodes of this series is that virtually every turn of the plot was enabled by the pinpoint accuracy of the TARDIS.

As to the Doctor snogging - no, he never did in the classic series. But he was engaged once, to a lovely Aztec woman called Cameca.
 
Posted by The Exegesis Fairy (# 9588) on :
 
I think 'opposite directions' was meant to be a simplification. A general principle rather than in every case. Otherwise somebody's brain would implode.

Man, the awesomeness of the first two new episodes. And do you know what's really brilliant?

I HATE River Song.

Hate her.

The new Doctor has pretty well grown on me. (Tennant's still my favourite, but Time Marches On).

Rory, having become a little more developed and slightly less useless (though I find the uselessness rather endearing considering all the Mary Sues he hangs out with) makes me happy.

Amy Pond has grown on me. Because even though she's a Black Hole Sue, she's somehow less annoying when compared to the nails-on-a-blackboard perfection of River Song.

I don't mind that River Song is beautiful and brave and completely kick-ass. That is fine. I'm all for that. I mind that she's Mary-Suiel of the Rings, and that she's Steven Moffatt's author avatar.

She scares Daleks. She never gets dirty, or messed up, she's never cowardly, she doesn't have to pretend to get shot (which was actually really awesome, but that's my point; she's never not awesome, and unless she's a Time Lady in disguise, honestly...argh.)

Plus, she knows everything. She can fly the TARDIS better than the Doctor (how? HE has to be the one who taught her...argh, stable time loop again...brain...imploding...)

*deep breaths*

And yet, in spite of the fact that I find her immensely irritating about 50% of the time, I loved these episodes. I loved pretty much everything about them, from the creepiness to the confusion to the unanswered questions.

And that's Doctor Who magic.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
A Riversong timeline infographic courtesy of Tor.com

I haven't seen this season (waiting on BBCA to move it along) but am looking forward to it.
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
I was just checking on upcoming TV on my media centre's EPG when I spotted a couple of interesting things:


Ooooooh....

I was just thinking I'd need to find that on i-player because I missed it, and I'd really like to watch that.... and then realised we haven't had May 9th and 10 th yet.

I'd better go and lie down.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Exegesis Fairy:
Amy Pond has grown on me. Because even though she's a Black Hole Sue she's somehow less annoying when compared to the nails-on-a-blackboard perfection of River Song.

OK, I've started a poll in the Circus for anyone who wants to vote on the character they find most annoying. Let's see whether Amy or River gets the most votes.
 
Posted by The Exegesis Fairy (# 9588) on :
 
Hooray, Ariel! Being opinionated on the Interwebs is fun!

Though everyone else seems to find Amy the most annoying. She is in every episode of this season and the last one, so it's not so surprising.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Exegesis Fairy:
Hooray, Ariel! Being opinionated on the Interwebs is fun!

Though everyone else seems to find Amy the most annoying. She is in every episode of this season and the last one, so it's not so surprising.

That's a fair point (as was Pyx_e's miles back on me whining), the Daleks have magically back in force to be magically exinctified,pretty near the limit (though they currently are both alive and quiet).
 
Posted by The Exegesis Fairy (# 9588) on :
 
Jay-Emm, I don't mind alive and quiet. New Who has hit the reset button so many times my head spins, but if they're not on the screen, (or in the finale) I'll be happy.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by Ken:

quote:
But there is yet more - Remembrance, which is one of the all-time great Who stories, is also in indirect sequel to (or tribute to) An Unearthly Child, the first ever Dr Who, broadcast twenty-five years earlier,
This made me & Macarius go back and watch Remembrance, which I agree is great. But I'd forgotten that I find Ace even more annoying than Amy!

M.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Oh, come on - how can Amy or River be the most annoying when we have Adric and Mel in the show's past?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
They're the most annoying in the present series - well, Amy is IMO, I like River.

If we're broadening the field, I'm throwing in Peri, the Fourth and Seventh Doctors and Gwen Cooper from Torchwood.

[ 07. May 2011, 11:11: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Ken:

quote:
But there is yet more - Remembrance, which is one of the all-time great Who stories, is also in indirect sequel to (or tribute to) An Unearthly Child, the first ever Dr Who, broadcast twenty-five years earlier,
This made me & Macarius go back and watch Remembrance, which I agree is great. But I'd forgotten that I find Ace even more annoying than Amy!

M.

I was so intrigued by good things said of 'Remembrance' that I ordered it off Amazon for about a fiver - it plopped through the letterbox this morning [Smile] !

I don't recall disliking Ace much at the time, but Peri - ! She can be tied to Amy and drowned in the same pond, and good riddance.

eta: I like River a lot. Alex seems a lovely person in real life, whereas Karen Gillan (in Confidential, anyway) is as irritating as her screen self.

[ 07. May 2011, 11:20: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
This made me & Macarius go back and watch Remembrance, which I agree is great. But I'd forgotten that I find Ace even more annoying than Amy!

Hah! Ace is the best companion ever. If ane think otherwise I discard him uterly.

Peri was annoying. Mel was even more annoying. I'm told that the Seventh Doctor with Mel was bit disposable, but the Seventh Doctor with Ace was great. (Although even then the scripts were a bit variable.)
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Eheu! Thus am I utterly discarded.

But I still find Ace annoying (I'm not that keen on Peri, Mel or Adric either. I don't like many people much, do I?)

I do like River, though. I would love to be that ballsy.

M.
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
my fav quote:

Captain: I'm confused.

Doctor: It's a big club, we should get t-shirts made.


furthermore, for those of you cross at the TARDIS' reliability, it disappeared this week for no disernable reason. Happier now?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Well that was a lot better than last week! [Yipee]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

Peri was annoying. Mel was even more annoying. I'm told that the Seventh Doctor with Mel was bit disposable, but the Seventh Doctor with Ace was great. (Although even then the scripts were a bit variable.)

The McCoy/Aldred partnership was probably my favourite Who since the Troughton period.
 
Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well that was a lot better than last week! [Yipee]

I thought it was worse, if anything.

My problem is I just don't seem to care about any of the current characters. Except River, in fact I'm only hanging on to find out who that particular plotline turns out.
 
Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well that was a lot better than last week! [Yipee]

I thought it was worse, if anything.

My problem is I just don't seem to care about any of the current characters. Except River, in fact I'm only hanging on to find out who that particular plotline turns out.

I'm with you Ken, the last two weeks i've not really got in to it, that today I put my dinner on while it was on and had to make a mad dash to the kitchen to save it! I usually do prefer the ones based in history, but still think that actual storyline was better.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Very good. Nice set-up, with enough mystery to keep you guessing, and a classic Who approach of adapting and subverting a well-known legend/tradition in a sci-fi light.

If I have a complaint, it's that the resolution was slightly silly, and I didn't understand why the Doctor, Amy and the captain weren't strapped into those intensive care beds like everyone else, but it was enough fun that I wasn't too bothered.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by busyknitter:
I thought it was worse, if anything.

Yes - badly acted, and a lot of unconvincing plot.

Having said that, I quite enjoyed the way the Siren was propelled rapidly upwards like a cork out of a champagne bottle, before sinking to earth like a sort of Mary Poppins with hugely inflated skirts.

Perhaps I'm asking too much. I'm hoping next week will be better.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
You know sometimes you do have to remember that this is mainly for children/young people.
I mean really, pirates, black spot signifier of doom, a green glowy (really beautiful) siren who literally turns red with rage, what's not to love if you're about 10? (Oh alright or 50)
 
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Perhaps I'm asking too much. I'm hoping next week will be better.

It's written by the inimitable Neil Gaiman, so it should be!
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I thought it was really really boring. [Frown]
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
I enjoyed it - maybe I prefer the simpler stories where I don't need to make connections with things I've either forgotten or didn't notice in other episodes! I liked the way we discovered the Siren wasn't a real "baddie" but like whoever, I wondered why the three of them didn't end up in hospital beds too.

And I also agree with whoever else it was who said that Karen Gillan is as annoying as Amy Pond. Quite frankly I can't see much difference between them... I'm not convinced KG is acting. She just seems to be herself. I've liked all the modern companions (although Mooning-After-the-Doctor-Rose got a tad tedious at times) but KG gets on my nerves. Actually, thinking about it, when she and Matt Smith get together on Confidential it's like a couple of giggling schoolchildren. I feel a bit sorry for Arthur Whoosit, who seems a little more sensible.

And while I quite like Matt Smith, I preferred the other two modern Doctors much, much more.

But, generally, despite my moans I'm always happy to watch Doctor Who on a Saturday evening.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
On an overall scale, yes, pretty dull. On a Matt Smith scale, a decent episode. At least it was more or less self contained, apart from the silly woman behind the sliding door slot again. (And is it just my depraved imagination, or did anyone else wonder what a pirate crew of 5 men and 1 boy would get up to, wandering the universe with no hope of ever seeing a human female again?)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
(And is it just my depraved imagination, or did anyone else wonder what a pirate crew of 5 men and 1 boy would get up to, wandering the universe with no hope of ever seeing a human female again?)

funny you should say that. I'd wondered the same thing, and concluded that they'd be spending their time reading books, discovering the wonders of Oriental art, practising Judo, cooking interesting seafood meals, and making sure the boy didn't miss out on his schoolwork. You have to do something constructive with your time while you're becalmed.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I am afraid I was utterly distracted by the terrible CPR. TERRIBLE! Which probably indicates I was slightly turned off by the plot/resolution of the episode which seemed to lack something.
 
Posted by swllwmzn (# 12945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am afraid I was utterly distracted by the terrible CPR. TERRIBLE! Which probably indicates I was slightly turned off by the plot/resolution of the episode which seemed to lack something.

Yes! It was appalling - and after Rory told Amy it had to be her because she would never give up.. How long did she carry on her ridiculous attempt? 30 seconds?

Didn't spoil it for me though - loved the rest of it.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
[Biased]

Tubbs
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
(And is it just my depraved imagination, or did anyone else wonder what a pirate crew of 5 men and 1 boy would get up to, wandering the universe with no hope of ever seeing a human female again?)

The pirates obviously had. Or the scriptwriters. They were going to make Rory and the Doctor walk the plank but keep Amy.

And the Doctor's universe seems to contain a remarkably large number of humans - as well as creatures that look vaguely human but aren't - like the Doctor.

Also one imagines that they would work on persuading the automated medical cabinet that some quirks of human physiology require the virtual doctor to attend to them in certain ways that the dead crew might have not needed. For the good of their health.

At least this one HAD a plot, and one that mostly obeyed the Iron Laws of Plot. The double-parter just didn't. It was deus ex machina all the way down.

[ 09. May 2011, 14:37: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
At the risk of sounding like a complete toady, thanks Tubbs for re-opening this. Some virtual H&As' Day chocs on their way.

I enjoyed this one much more than the two-part opener: it had a followable plot, bit of action, good characters, palpable threat, SFX, a happy ending and only one intrusion by the season story arc. Call me two-dimensional but that's the sort of thing I like.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
BBC 4's Classic Who is not available on iplayer... and I missed tonights first part!!

[Waterworks]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
The five men and a boy were originally a lot more men (The Doctor commented on this when he arrived) but they had been taken by the siren. I don't know how the boy escaped detection for so long with that cough and I don't know how the captain immediately recognised his son who he hadn't seen for so long.

I love plot holes which somehow make Doctor Who whereas in other programmes they detract. Is this because the program has a long history of them? Or is it because there is always a possibility that they get resolved later in the series? Or perhaps it's because fans can speculate on how they could be resolved and this usually brings up some pretty imaginative theories. Or maybe because we can look clever when we are the first to spot them [Biased]

As someone has already said this was more of a children's pirate story because I understand that real pirates were far more ruthless than the romantic images that this story was based on and mutiny didn't happen because the captain would reward any non-loyal thoughts in the crew with death.

The CPR session at the end seemed unreal and it wasn't a surprise that Rory survived.

Did I enjoy it? Dr Who would have to be really awful for me to be disappointed so I guess I did. I liked having a break from the story arc (mostly) but there certainly have been better.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Perhaps I'm asking too much. I'm hoping next week will be better.
(From Itokro)

It's written by the inimitable Neil Gaiman, so it should be!

Oooh!

J
 
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on :
 
Question - how many times has Rory died, nearly-died, or appeared to be dead now? I'm counting 5 (he drowned this week, got shot by Canton last week, appeared to have died in the Blitz when he was a plastic centurion, got shot by Silurians AND erased from history, and got killed by those creepy eyestalks inside the old people in the dream episode). The suspense doesn't really work when you're so used to him coming back.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
The Curse of the Dull Plot - sorry, Black Spot - wasn't a patch on the opening two-parter.

It had all the right ingredients, but didn't quite work for me. I think the main problem was that the pirates weren't interesting or piratey enough, so I didn't care about them. Pirates should be devious, dashing and double-crossing, not moping about whether they're a good dad. If they'd had a bit more personality and had been more suspicious of the Doctor and co it might have held my interest.

By the way, my podcast commentary for the first episode is now online over at Impossible Podcasts. You can also find it on iTunes by searching for it.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Rory is actually Kenny
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
Oh My God, they've killed Rory
[Killing me]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I'm beginning to think it all must be, hideously, some sort of dream. It's just not quite right,is it? The Doctor seems just too scatty - and would he abandon the Tardis? The crown didn't look like a real crown to me. Others have pointed out that the kiss of life was all wrong. When did Amy learn to fight with a cutlass? And eye-patch lady, of course.

I do hope it's more imaginative than that! I'm sure it must be. Mustn't it?

TANGENT - has anyone else been watching The Hand of Fear? I've never seen this one before. I was laughing at Sara-Jane's dungarees until I remembered a pair of pink candy-striped dungarees not unlike them that I had and wore with a matching anorak-style jacket...

M.

[ 11. May 2011, 19:57: Message edited by: M. ]
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
Boring. I couldn't stay awakezzzzzzzzzzzz
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
The Doctor seems just too scatty - and would he abandon the Tardis? The crown didn't look like a real crown to me. Others have pointed out that the kiss of life was all wrong. When did Amy learn to fight with a cutlass? And eye-patch lady, of course.

It's not the first time that the Doctor has been forcibly separated from the Tardis to stop everyone from escaping in a sensible fashion. It's true he didn't seem especially bothered about it.
I agree about the kiss of life. TVTropes has CPR stand for Clean, Pretty, Reliable; which it is only in tv land.
The fight with a cutlass was justified though. Amy was winning because none of the pirates wanted to risk getting scratched.
Yes - on the whole, not an amazing episode. I read an online review suggesting that one of the Doctor's off-hand comments might be half-human level controversial, but I didn't spot anything?
And, yes, I spotted the twist as soon as they found the missing crewmembers. Really, the Doctor's supposed to be clever. He should be keeping up with the audience.

quote:
TANGENT - has anyone else been watching The Hand of Fear?
I saw the last two episodes. The first two weren't on iPlayer, with no warning. Grr...
Somehow, even compared to a comic episode like this week's pirates, it's taking itself less seriously. Also, I think it was the best performance I've seen by Tom Baker as the Doctor.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Ken:
quote:
At least this one HAD a plot, and one that mostly obeyed the Iron Laws of Plot. The double-parter just didn't. It was deus ex machina all the way down.
Agree completly. This wasn't a great episode, but it hung together reasonablly well. And that faint praise puts it well ahead of the first two episodes.

(BTW my comment about five men and a boy wasn't directed at the start of the episode, but the end. I wondered what sort of happy ending it was to put such a small number of men together, roaming the universe, rather than returning them to Earth somehow. Still, it fitted in with the "Boys Own" atmosphere, where such awkward questions are never allowed to intrude!)
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Agree re CPR. We were shouting 'get a seal on his nose!'

Plus, CPR doesn't work like that, but it does on telly, so hey...
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Still loving it and considering not reading this thread anymore, honest to god guys it's a kids show. This thread is like reading the Hobbit and complaining it aint War and Peace.

Pyx_eeee Wix_eeee.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
This thread is like reading the Hobbit and complaining it aint War and Peace.

Is it not? Bugger.
 
Posted by The Exegesis Fairy (# 9588) on :
 
quote:
Agree re CPR. We were shouting 'get a seal on his nose!'

Plus, CPR doesn't work like that, but it does on telly, so hey...

Ah, not just me then. I quite enjoyed the episode. (Well, it had shirtless Rory in it, so y'know.)

The thing is, I keep getting jolted out of my suspension of disbelief with the new series. It happened with Ten (Tinkerbell Crystal Dragon Jesus Ten at the end of S3, anyone?) but not every episode.

Tis weird.

And now I'm wondering if the whole thing is just Amy's elaborate dream world and we're heading for another reset button.

[sings]I've got a theory
That it's a demon
A dancing demom, no something isn't right there

I've got a theory
Some kid is dreamin'
And we're all stuck inside this wacky Broadway nightmare...[/sing]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I really enjoyed The Curse of the Black Spot. A nice, unassuming, more or less stand-alone story. True, I think the plot had more holes than half a ton of Swiss cheese, but it was fun.

I get the impression (mostly from other websites) that the like/dislike battle lines are being drawn up between those who like long story arcs, and those who like continuity-light stories like this one.

As to the CPR, I just thought, "Oh look - Amy's doing television CPR!" It's never done correctly on television and in films - partly, I suspect, because you don't want one of your actors left with broken ribs and internal bleeding. Real CPR is violent. (And hardly ever works anyway.)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Still loving it and considering not reading this thread anymore, honest to god guys it's a kids show. This thread is like reading the Hobbit and complaining it aint War and Peace.

I'll say this, the Hobbit may be a kids' book but it was a lot better constructed. Doctor Who these days has become a fast-paced action show which doesn't seem to care that much for plot construction or details, it's about energy and excitement and they know people are going to watch it anyway. I’m not saying it has to be perfectly worked out in every respect, I just wish some of their plot ideas weren't so wildly far-fetched and the holes so obvious.

"With one bound, Jack was free."
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Comparing with "The Hand of Fear" was interesting. 4 episodes to tell a story which would now be told in one. The amount of time spent following Sarah-Jane around the power station would simply not happen now.
Interesting that the regeneration of Eldrad required a ring which preserved the genetic pattern. And I think I spotted some other ideas seen more recently. (But the Silence has eradicated what they were.)

Penny
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Comparing with "The Hand of Fear" was interesting. 4 episodes to tell a story which would now be told in one.

But each of those episodes was about half the length of the modern episodes. So it's effectively equivalent to a 2 parter.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Real CPR is violent. (And hardly ever works anyway.)

And... I can't believe the TARDIS doesn't have a defibrillator. The contemporary sonic screwdriver should be able to manage that much too, surely.

[ 12. May 2011, 16:04: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Can a Pond turn into a River? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I read an online review suggesting that one of the Doctor's off-hand comments might be half-human level controversial, but I didn't spot anything?

One thing that stood out to me like a sore thumb at the time was the Doctor referring to Earth as "our planet" rather than "their planet" or "your planet" (can't remember the exact context). If one's going to get fannish, one can explain it away with all kinds of sleight of hand, but it sounded like iffy script writing to me rather than either a portentous moment or a cover-story-for-the-context thing.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The CPR was particularly poor. Not least because she stopped far too soon, and he recovered significantly after she had stopped.

Yes CPR rarely works. And when it does, it only works by keeping the body alive until more intensive help arrives. But that is not good TV. It is a known TV metaphor for "urgent and immediate life saving treatment" - a version of deus ex machina.

And it is not a kids program. It is a family program, that should appeal as entertainment to a range of people. Something that it achieves. More Harry Potter than The Hobbit or War and Peace.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I really enjoyed The Curse of the Black Spot. A nice, unassuming, more or less stand-alone story. True, I think the plot had more holes than half a ton of Swiss cheese, but it was fun.

I get the impression (mostly from other websites) that the like/dislike battle lines are being drawn up between those who like long story arcs, and those who like continuity-light stories like this one.


You're about right I think, and obviously count me in the second camp. It's not so much that I have problems following the story arc (although I admit that that gets more difficult as I get older) but more that I'm getting bored with the concept.
 
Posted by Jenny Ann (# 3131) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Can a Pond turn into a River? [Ultra confused]

Ohhh. That's a clever idea.

J
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I didn't dislike The Curse of the Black Spot because it was a stand-alone episode. Many of my favourite Doctor Who episodes are stand-alones, or I like them in spite of any arc elements. I did enjoy the ongoing story in the opening two-parter, but I'd find it tedious every week.

I just didn't think this episode was that good - it was derivative, with characters I didn't care about disappearing through plot holes, and basically a missed opportunity for an exciting, fun pirate story. Pirates should be swashbuckling and devious, not moping around worrying about their families - or if a pirate is a tortured soul, you've got to give me a lot more reason to care than they did here.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Moffatt has said that his youngest son could work out what was happening - don't know how old. He has also said that it is demanding viewing.

I don't like having to be glued to the screen all the time with no time to think or dwell on things, or blink. And I don't like having to remember all the little details - not just eyepatch lady, who is obviously significant. Not everyone is an obsessive fan who can refer back to minor details in obscure episodes in the original series. Not everyone has the time to devote to watching it - even with the frequent repeats, people who go away on holiday, or have relatives in hospital, or have to cope with a child who needs help, or any of the other things involved in "having a life", may miss vital "loose ends", and it looks as though nothing now is ever a loose end.

I don't think it is for the author to "demand" unbroken attention from his audience. It is for him to entice, to seduce, to make them want to pay attention. Not to say - if you look away for an instant, you will miss the vital clue I have inserted almost subliminally.

Penny
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
I disagree.
I think the series is perfectly enjoyable if you miss the added details and the subtle clues. I do, most of the time!
In a way, those who miss these bits experience the adventures more in the way that the central characters do (to whom, one supposes, the future is a closed book and every twist is a total surprise). The point to me is not that the programmes demand total attention, but that they reward it.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I don't remember seeing the woman with the eyepatch in the last episode. I must have blinked and missed it.

I like the teasers but if he's going to construct fine details, I want a script that lives up to it.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I don't remember seeing the woman with the eyepatch in the last episode. I must have blinked and missed it.

It was when they were all holed up sleeping in the cabin that Amy saw her.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
I saw her in last week's, but must have blinked at the vital moment in the previous ones, as I hadn't seen her before.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
DON'T BLINK!!! [Eek!]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
It was when they were all holed up sleeping in the cabin that Amy saw her.


Where was the Doctor in that scene? I remember the captain & his son having a heart to heart and Rory and Amy curled up asleep on the floor. But no Doctor.

And, despite all my grumbles, it's still the best thing on telly by far and I love it really.

M.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
And, despite all my grumbles, it's still the best thing on telly by far and I love it really.
Agreed. And, as a long term fan, I can cope with the series having downs as well as ups. However, I do feel worried about the children. There are several kids I know who are great fans, but only of the new series, of course. They are used to Who being brilliant and these days look vaugely puzzled or hurt if I chat to them. They know, in their heart of hearts, it isn't terribly good at the moment but their loyalty prevents them from admitting that, maybe even to themsleves. Let's hope Gaiman gives us something we can all cheer up about.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roseofsharon:
I saw her in last week's, but must have blinked at the vital moment in the previous ones, as I hadn't seen her before.

It was in the children's home, she looked back at the door and it was different.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
Well, the pirates weren't my favourites, but an ok episode with some good dialogue. I am guessing that the eye patch lady is somehow monitoring or even controlling Amy's dreams, although why is beyond me.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
I disagree.
I think the series is perfectly enjoyable if you miss the added details and the subtle clues. I do, most of the time!
In a way, those who miss these bits experience the adventures more in the way that the central characters do (to whom, one supposes, the future is a closed book and every twist is a total surprise). The point to me is not that the programmes demand total attention, but that they reward it.

Exactly. The ongoing storylines are an added bonus. The appearances of the eyepatch woman, for example, aren't "vital clues", they're just there to tease for an upcoming story. If you notice, it helps tie things together, and if you don't, then it'll all get recapped when it proves significant anyway.

I'm really excited about tonight's episode - I love Neil Gaiman's writing, and he's perfect for Doctor Who. Apparently today's Times gives away the plot, so avoid if you want to avoid spoilers!

Anyway, my podcast commentary for The Curse of the Black Spot is now online. You can also find the Impossible Podcast on iTunes if you fancy subscribing.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
They know, in their heart of hearts, it isn't terribly good at the moment but their loyalty prevents them from admitting that, maybe even to themsleves.

Opinions, opinions. The new series used to be rubbish.
Let's be honest: Father's Day, The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, The Girl in the Fireplace?(*), Human Nature/ The Family of Blood, Blink, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, Midnight, and The Waters of Mars were all worth watching.
The rest I couldn't really care about at all. Even Dalek is overrated.
Now there have certainly been some poor episodes with Matt Smith: The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood was dire, for example. (Although the premise could have been much better, and it was nowhere near as awful as Planet of the Ood.) But there hasn't been anything that has made me think I don't care whether I miss the Doctor this week.

(*) I haven't seen it.

[ 14. May 2011, 12:11: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Robert Armin posted: Agreed. And, as a long term fan, I can cope with the series having downs as well as ups. However, I do feel worried about the children. There are several kids I know who are great fans, but only of the new series, of course. They are used to Who being brilliant and these days look vaugely puzzled or hurt if I chat to them. They know, in their heart of hearts, it isn't terribly good at the moment but their loyalty prevents them from admitting that, maybe even to themsleves. Let's hope Gaiman gives us something we can all cheer up about.
My ten year old son is the biggest fan in the world and I can second this. Between going on about Amy being pregnant to a whole episode where they couldn't manage proper pirates and the Doctor seeming worthless my son has been quietly disappointed as well. He has started re-watching past seasons on DVD. He Is looking forward to tonight's episode and since he loves Neil Gaiman's writing and watched an interview where he said that he wrote the episode for the fans his hope has been buoyed. The whole thing is made more annoying by the fact that here in the states BBC runs an intro where the show starts with an explanation that it's about Amy Pond and her imaginary friend, "the Doctor" which makes my son ( who started watching while we lived in Ireland) yell NO it's not!
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Fantastic!

P
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Dark, interesting, compelling.

More please.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Really??? Apart from the concept of the TARDIS manifesting as a flesh'n'blood person, I found that a total crock. I expected more - a LOT more, from Gaiman and am tempted to Write In And Complain [Frown] [Disappointed]

Ah, well, it'll make Eurovision look like High Art.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
My view: brilliant [Yipee]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
And they've just told us on Confidential that the console that the Doctor and the Tardis built was designed by a Blue Peter competition winner [Yipee]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
So far this season each episode has been better than the one before. Keep it up!

Also I was reminded of "I have no mouth and I must scream" when we met Auntie and Uncle and House - and then a few scenes later...
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I was worried about this episode, as normally when I hope for great things I am disappointed. But not this time. That was great - atmospheric, moving, and self consistent. For the first time I found mysely warming to Smith - and even Pond. She couldn't smooch round the Doctor, and was much better as a result. (And Confidential was worth watching for once - lots of clips of previous Doctors with the Tardis, though I could have done without the big breakfast fry up.)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Also I was reminded of "I have no mouth and I must scream" when we met Auntie and Uncle and House - and then a few scenes later...

The Ellison story?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Incidentally, I noticed the Ood's eyes were green. I could be wrong but thought I remembered them in previous episodes as being red - if I'm right about this, it's probably how you spot a possessed Ood.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
Oooooh I liked that [Big Grin] that was really good and original stuff. (Well I thought so not being an avid massive fan since the shows earlier incarnations) Nice job Who.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Incidentally, I noticed the Ood's eyes were green. I could be wrong but thought I remembered them in previous episodes as being red - if I'm right about this, it's probably how you spot a possessed Ood.

I remember the red eyed as being bad. But that was from the point of view of the ood 'factory' bosses....
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Yes generally impressed. The Dr not knowing what to do and finding this a novel experience was clever.

I quite liked the tardis incarnate helping the Dr - it was quite fun for a change. And they built a really odd tardis. Also seeing all sorts of other places of the tardis was always fun.

But no woman with an eyepatch. Hmm.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
That was much better.
I was beginning to despair of this series, I feel a bit more hopeful now.
 
Posted by The Exegesis Fairy (# 9588) on :
 
LOVE incarnate!TARDIS. She's lovely. Nicely atmospheric too. OK, I liked the earlier seasons better, but I did really enjoy this episode much more than the last few.

'You sexy thing!'

and

'What does it say?'
'Pull to open'
'And what do you do?'
[sheepish] 'Push?'
'EVERY TIME!'

[Killing me]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
So the Tardis thinks she/he/it stole the Doctor and the Doctor thinks he stole (borrowed) the Tardis. Is this the origin of the chicken vs egg scenario?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
It was quite nice to have the subordinate characters have a relative lead for a change.
(particularly when she had to give a message to 'the pretty one' and the door mentioned above)
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
"Bunkbeds are cool"

I love that I watched Dr Who as a kid with my Dad who watched it as a kid and now my kids watch it with me - that's (and BBC4 and specialist radio programs come to think of it) got to be what we pay the license fee for.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
Doctor - She's the Tardis, and she's a woman!
Amy - Have you been wishing really hard?

Just brilliant.

Reminded me a bit of a sci-fi book I read about a house that people got sucked into through a box. Lot's of scary things in it that could kill you. Anyone know it? (It's probably just called The House and I can't even remember that!)
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I enjoyed it and so did my kids. The only complaint was they wished there was less Amy and Rory running around and more Doctor and Idris.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Holy crap, this is scary. I now know the meaning of "hiding behind the sofa."
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Fantastic! It tied in with the old Doctors brilliantly*. Weird and wonderful. I loved the idea of Doctor and Tardis both thinking they stole (sorry, borrowed) the other, too.

M.

*But I have some trouble imagining William Hartnell saying 'You're the sexiest thing I've ever seen'.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
I'm now really looking forward to this episode, despite not liking the one Neil Gaimain story I've read. Shame I now have to wait a week to find out how the Tardis stole the Dr!
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to post spoilers.

M.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
Don't worry about it - I don't mind the spoilers, which is why I read this thread, even though it's a week ahead of us down here. [Big Grin] It's the sheer fun of it I enjoy, as well as seeing how they do what they do.
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
I really, really loved it, and it had some great lines in it - most of which have already been posted.
I found Confidential interesting as the author read some of the script aloud - the descriptions were really poetic. I hadn't realised that scripts are written like this. Also, I felt that he (the author) was thrilled to see the sets & be part of it. And there wasn't much KG being arch and twee and stupid. So that was another bonus.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I've got the CDs of Gaiman reading his own Graveyard Book. He has a fantastic reading voice, and listening to him was an added bonus in Confidential.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The "stealing" thing goes back, I believe, to the very early stories, where the doctor does "borrow" a tardis - this one. I think this was why he always had problems controlling it.

The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".

Didn't the TV movie have something in it about the "Eye of the Tardis"? The Eye being described as like the "soul" of the Tardis?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Holy crap, this is scary. I now know the meaning of "hiding behind the sofa."

Would that be the scene where Rory has been ... y'know ... *gulp* ... writing on the wall? Deeply unsettling, I thought.

I also thought the whole thing was completely, utterly brilliant. Best of the season yet. Suranne Jones's and Matt Smith's performances are the stuff of which Doctor Who legend is made.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Suranne Jones's and Matt Smith's performances are the stuff of which Doctor Who legend is made.

Gosh, the makeup was good - hadn't realised that was Suranne Jones, in fact I spent some considerable part of the show wondering who might be playing Idris

incidentally - anyone remember this?
I drink Idris when I’s dri,
Idris is the drink to buy,
I drink Idris, I drink Idris,
Idris when I’s dri.

 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Idris is the Arabic form of Enoch - who was remarkably long-lived...
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Loved it! The kenosis of the Tardis. Apart from the other quotes posted above, I really liked "I take you not where you want to go but where you need to go."
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
The name Idris is a baby boy name. The name Idris comes from the Welsh origin. In Welsh The meaning of the name Idris is: Fiery lord.
Which is intresting.


Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The "stealing" thing goes back, I believe, to the very early stories, where the doctor does "borrow" a tardis - this one. I think this was why he always had problems controlling it.

The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".

Traditionally, the TARDIS was unpredictable - the doctor nicked it from a place where broken/tempermental TARDIS' went to be fixed. He was always considered a rebel - a criminal? by the other time lords and that's why they marooned him on Earth for the whole of his 3rd incarnation.
Prior to that the TARDIS was operable, but couldn't navigate - the basis of all his adventures in the beginning was the idea that he never knew where he was going to end up.
Presumably whoever released him from Earth fixed the TARDIS too - I missed that series.

I loved yesterday's episode too, but missed large chunks and will have to watch the repeat later this week.

[ 15. May 2011, 15:08: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
It struck me last night that there might be some significance in the names of Amy Pond and River Song. I do wonder if they could be the same person, but I reckon not. There should be something - even if it is just a water-fixation by one of the writers/namers.
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
A Pond may be a pool of stagnant water, while a River is moving, dynamic water?

Just my two-pennorth...I'm looking forward to watching the (recorded) episode.

I'll get me coat....
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I really enjoyed it. It was more character-focused than I expected - the story was rather slight, but that allowed Suranne Jones and Matt Smith to shine in their roles, and for once it didn't feel as if it was trying to pack too much into 45 minutes.

Lots of great lines - "He's a Time Lord. It's just a name, it doesn't mean he knows what he's doing."

Once again, I recorded a commentary with some friends for the Impossible Podcast. You can hear us enthusing over and discussing it here.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Would that be the scene where Rory has been ... y'know ... *gulp* ... writing on the wall? Deeply unsettling, I thought.

YES. That whole segment was incredibly unsettling.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Everild:
A Pond may be a pool of stagnant water, while a River is moving, dynamic water?

The only water in the forest is the river....
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The whole thing is made more annoying by the fact that here in the states BBC runs an intro where the show starts with an explanation that it's about Amy Pond and her imaginary friend, "the Doctor" which makes my son ( who started watching while we lived in Ireland) yell NO it's not!

She said something like "This is our story", right?

Someone else must have complained, because I was waiting for that line in the backstory montage and didn't hear it. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
The only water in the forest is the river....

Indeed. I suppose it's possible that "river" is going to turn out to mean something completely different from the obvious, but I wouldn't put money on it.

[ 15. May 2011, 23:35: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Incidentally, I think I'm glad that the scene in the last episode where the Amy, the Pirate, and the Doctor find Rory, the boy, and the Tardis came before this episode. (Apparently at one stage they'd have been shown in the other order.) The Doctor finding the Tardis worked better if it didn't suggest a change in the Doctor's relationship as a result of this story.
 
Posted by Lots of Yay (# 2790) on :
 
Possibly stupid question, but why couldn't the captain administer tv-CPR to the boy instead of just sitting there twiddling his thumbs all the way to the other side of the universe?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The "stealing" thing goes back, I believe, to the very early stories, where the doctor does "borrow" a tardis - this one. I think this was why he always had problems controlling it.

The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".

Traditionally, the TARDIS was unpredictable - the doctor nicked it from a place where broken/tempermental TARDIS' went to be fixed. He was always considered a rebel - a criminal? by the other time lords and that's why they marooned him on Earth for the whole of his 3rd incarnation.
Prior to that the TARDIS was operable, but couldn't navigate - the basis of all his adventures in the beginning was the idea that he never knew where he was going to end up.
Presumably whoever released him from Earth fixed the TARDIS too - I missed that series.

I loved yesterday's episode too, but missed large chunks and will have to watch the repeat later this week.

Originally, the Doctor said (in An Unearthly Child, the very first episode) that he and his granddaughter, Susan, were "wanderers in the fourth dimension ... exiles", and that they were cut off from their own world. I think it was Susan who expressed a hope that they might someday return.

The First Doctor also sometimes alluded to having invented various bits of the TARDIS, and Susan claimed to have made up the name. The ship was unreliable, but the Doctor claimed that if he knew where he was starting from, and had time to calculate the journey, he could control it.

Much later, in The War Games, we heard about the Time Lords, and the Doctor admitted to having taken the TARDIS because he was bored with the Time Lords' only ever observing the universe, not getting involved in it. They exiled him to Earth, but weren't above occasionally using him for "missions".

Robert Holmes later reinvented the Time Lords as scheming politicians, ostensibly aloof, but secretly interfering in the affairs of other worlds through the CIA - the Celestial Intervention Agency. It was hinted that the Doctor was connected with the Agency.

And broadly, that was all we ever got to know from the classic tv series. There were suggestions in the final couple of seasons that the Doctor was in fact a far more significant figure in Time Lord history than we'd previously suspected. This was the "Cartmel Master Plan", script editor Andrew Cartmel's attempt to reintroduce some "mystery" into the character by only ever hinting at other, deeper aspects of his story.

Almost everything else about the Doctor's family, his reasons for leaving Gallifrey, and his "relationship" with the TARDIS, comes from other sources, which are more or less off my radar.

[ 16. May 2011, 13:27: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lots of Yay:
Possibly stupid question, but why couldn't the captain administer tv-CPR to the boy instead of just sitting there twiddling his thumbs all the way to the other side of the universe?

Because the boy had typhoid; he hadn't simply drowned like Rory. (Although it does beg the question as to whether the captain could take him somewhere where his typhoid could be cured.)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... whether the captain could take him somewhere where his typhoid could be cured.

Assuming he still has an immune system, if he lives through his first month with typhoid he should recover fully. He might be dangerous to others though. Rory ought to know that, and the Doctor might as well.

My guess is that these pirates are being deposited in the Plot Bank for future withdrawl when an idea is needed - ideally in a year or two from now. Along with the Doctor's Daughter. [Smile]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
I do find it interesting that these last two seasons Dr. Who seems to have discovered sexual passion. Where the Saint Rose and Martha arcs had a lot about unrequited love (the tin dog for Rose, Rose for the Doctor, Martha for the Doctor, Sarah Jane for the Doctor, Rose's mum for her husband, the Doctor for Madame Pompadour), this one has a lot about having a passionate love affair.

Through the eyes of a 10 year old, the bunk bed joke is hilarious. "Mummies and Daddies don't sleep in bunk beds, silly Doctor!" And the Doctor, who knows darn well what is going on there, is playing that tension, while recognizing in River Song his future of having such a passionate relationship, and discovering an intellectually passionate relationship with the Tardis (Amy's "Did you wish really hard?" line was priceless). If the physical representation had been able to stick around, they would have been snogging before Amy and Rory go to their bunk beds.

Which might be is what is annoying lots of people about Pond and River. Where prior companions have reacted on an emotional level with the Doctor, they react on a physical level to him - River want to do more then travel the world with him and hold hands - she wants to kiss him as they do it.

Amy loves Rory - physically and emotionally; if anything this last episode nailed that love the most with her utter despair at him being dead. (I almost shouted "Oh my God, they killed Rory!") All three of them know she is physically attracted to the Doctor but has chosen Rory. That's a different tension, and in my estimation a better one to watch then the Saint Rose and Martha tensions.

Unrequited love is too flat for me. I prefer passion. Which is why I like River Song. She gives a darn. She flies into things fast and hard and is just so darn good at what she does. I think a few people are annoyed at that amount of perfection; strange as its a physical representation of the Doctor's mental abilities. Which is why he gets on her nerves, and why I suspect she will get on his nerves as they grow closer together.


***

As for this episode, a good hour of fun. Typical Gaiman stuff about relationships and caring about people moving from hope to darkness to discovery that brings energy into fixing things, with a resigned "you made me destroy you" near the end followed by a familiar domestic discussion. Sounds like almost every single Sandman story arc. Enjoyable.

And, Rory is now definatly not the tin dog.
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
Did anyone else find Uncle reminisant of Richard O'Brien's Riff Raff?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
Did anyone else find Uncle reminisant of Richard O'Brien's Riff Raff?

Not sure about that, but he and Aunty were very Neil Gaiman characters. Weird and yet somehow mundane at the same time. For instance, I read one of his short stories the other day in which an old lady finds the Holy Grail in an Oxfam shop and buys it. She spends the rest of the story being pestered by a knight in shining armour who's on a quest. It's been said he writes fairy stories for grownups, and I think that's a pretty good summing-up.

I watched The Doctor's Wife again last night. I needed cheering up, and sure enough I smiled through the whole thing. It was so good in every respect. I loved Idris's line that goes something like - "Are all people like this - So much bigger on the inside?"
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The "stealing" thing goes back, I believe, to the very early stories, where the doctor does "borrow" a tardis - this one. I think this was why he always had problems controlling it.

The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".

Traditionally, the TARDIS was unpredictable - the doctor nicked it from a place where broken/tempermental TARDIS' went to be fixed. He was always considered a rebel - a criminal? by the other time lords and that's why they marooned him on Earth for the whole of his 3rd incarnation.
Prior to that the TARDIS was operable, but couldn't navigate - the basis of all his adventures in the beginning was the idea that he never knew where he was going to end up.
Presumably whoever released him from Earth fixed the TARDIS too - I missed that series.

I walk among masters [Overused] and watch my step accordingly, but IIRC the Third Doctor was only marooned on Earth until all three of him [Ultra confused] were enlisted to help defeat Omega in order to save the Time Lords ('The Three Doctors', unsurprisingly). Handily, that happened around the 10th anniversary of the first episode [Biased]

After that, Doctor Three was able to use the Tardis as before his forced regeneration, otherwise he couldn't have gone to the Planet of the Spiders where he was fatally injured so as to regenerate into the Fourth Doctor. Not sure if the Time Lords fixed the dodgy circuitry, though - we saw on 'Confidential' almost all the later incarnations complaining about the Tardis' unreliability.

During 'Confidential', Neil Gaiman said that incarnating the Tardis was 'the Doctor's dream come true - and that of almost every man watching'. I would say that any Earth-bound equivalent - my car or boat becoming a real person, especially a woman - would be a very short relationship in which I would be unlikely to survive!

PS Schroedinger's Cat - I can only assume that you are responsible for Amy's pregnancy, as she appears to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time? [Big Grin]

[ 17. May 2011, 12:31: Message edited by: Rev per Minute ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
(Incidentally, I'm sure it's possible to read this story as a parable about incarnation, but also about John's assertion that "perfect love casts out fear". I'm just not quite sure how it hangs together yet ... it's not as clear as Dalek being a retelling of the story of the harrowing of Hell.)
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
PS Schroedinger's Cat - I can only assume that you are responsible for Amy's pregnancy, as she appears to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time? [Big Grin]

I should be so lucky......

Adeodatus - it is interesting to see it as an incarnation story, with all of the oddities of the divine in the human. The comments ( like "Are all humans like this, bigger on the inside" ) all have some important insight into who we are - we are bigger on the inside than on the outside. And something about an incarnated God being the only really suitable companion for the Doctor.

However, I think there is a danger of taking this too far.....

Taliesin and Adeodatus - I bow to your greater knowledge, but I think the basic principle that the Doctor "borrowed" the Tardis has its origins very early. Which was at core, what I was trying to get at.
 
Posted by badger@thesett (# 16422) on :
 
and to think I enjoyed watching the Doctor with Sarah Jane, the Brigader, Betsy and for a while K9 it was just simple fun TV with a bit of fear thrown in to watch after Saturday tea...
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Youtube is your friend if you want to go back to that. Did that a few weeks ago watching the Brigadier in his eye patch.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The "stealing" thing goes back, I believe, to the very early stories, where the doctor does "borrow" a tardis - this one. I think this was why he always had problems controlling it.

The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".

Traditionally, the TARDIS was unpredictable - the doctor nicked it from a place where broken/tempermental TARDIS' went to be fixed. He was always considered a rebel - a criminal? by the other time lords and that's why they marooned him on Earth for the whole of his 3rd incarnation.
Prior to that the TARDIS was operable, but couldn't navigate - the basis of all his adventures in the beginning was the idea that he never knew where he was going to end up.
Presumably whoever released him from Earth fixed the TARDIS too - I missed that series.

I walk among masters [Overused] and watch my step accordingly, but IIRC the Third Doctor was only marooned on Earth until all three of him [Ultra confused] were enlisted to help defeat Omega in order to save the Time Lords ('The Three Doctors', unsurprisingly). Handily, that happened around the 10th anniversary of the first episode [Biased]

After that, Doctor Three was able to use the Tardis as before his forced regeneration, otherwise he couldn't have gone to the Planet of the Spiders where he was fatally injured so as to regenerate into the Fourth Doctor. Not sure if the Time Lords fixed the dodgy circuitry, though - we saw on 'Confidential' almost all the later incarnations complaining about the Tardis' unreliability.

Yes, Rev, your memory of the Doctor's exile to Earth ending on the tenth anniversary is accurate.

As for the Doctor's ability to control the TARDIS, along with the potential for broken bits to be fixed, as the Doctor gets older, he seems to have better control. The First Doctor had almost no control, although he claimed he did (actually, they ALL claimed they did). The Second was not much better. The Third, after his exile, was a bit better, but did have trouble. The Fourth Doctor became even better (especially getting "rather good at these short hops"), to the point where, to evade the Black Guardian, he had to fit a Randomiser so that he wouldn't be able to control where the TARDIS went. The Fifth just didn't seem to bother with getting it right. The Sixth and Seventh both seemed to choose their destinations pretty well with only the occasional mistake. Especially the Seventh.

In short, the older the Doctor gets, the more experienced he gets at controlling the TARDIS. From that perspective, it follows logically that the more recent Doctors would have almost complete control.

By the way, on the "TARDIS sentience" thing, that has been hinted at since at least the Fourth Doctor (where he noted that the TARDIS seemed to like Leela). And, if one could bear to watch the TV Movie, there was a comment there that the TARDIS really liked the Asian child.

So no accounting for taste.

And, although my memory is very very hazy on this, I think the idea of TARDIS sentience was an idea frequently used in the "New Adventure" novels that were being written (and over-written) while we waited for proper televised Who to come back.
 
Posted by badger@thesett (# 16422) on :
 
thought the reason the TARDIS was perpetually a police box was due to it being broken as it should be a cameleon blending into the background of where it landed

in the UK we have the radio adaptations on Radio 4 extra and the iplayer at the moment.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
The Colin Baker Doctor fixed the chameleon circuit temporarily at one time. Although the cybermen still recognised it and managed to break in, so it was a bit pointless. (It's not one of the most highly regarded stories, although I remember the episode I watched with interest.)
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
quote:
I walk among masters and watch my step accordingly, but IIRC the Third Doctor was only marooned on Earth until all three of him were enlisted to help defeat Omega in order to save the Time Lords ('The Three Doctors', unsurprisingly). Handily, that happened around the 10th anniversary of the first episode

well, I don't bloody know - I wasn't born when it happened on screen. I just read some books. [Razz]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
/pedant/

Technically, The Three Doctors was the opening story of the tenth season. Its broadcast date was actually quite close to the ninth "birthday".

-/pedant/ (Oh, who am I kidding? I've always got "pedant" switched on!)

One thing I do know a bit about is the so-called "chameleon circuit". Mainly because I rather like police boxes - beautiful design, don't you think? I was insanely happy when Moffat reinstated the TARDIS's white window frames last year. But the best variant on the design (none of which have been an exact copy of a Metropolitan police box) was in the Peter Cushing movies.

Anyhoo, back to the chameleon circuit. It got stuck while the TARDIS was spending some time in a London junkyard, though why the TARDIS though a significant piece of police "kit" would look inconspicuous in a junikyard has never been explained. When the TARDIS left the junkyard for prehistoric Earth, the Doctor was irritated and Susan was surprised that it hadn't changed.

After that, I don't think much was ever made of it, until the Fourth Doctor suspected he was being pursued by the Master, and decided that looking conspicuous might be a bad idea (Logopolis). His attempt to get the Logopolitans to fix it nearly resulted in the end of the Universe.

As Dafyd said, the Sixth Doctor, in one of his tedious manic upswings, fixed it and in Attack of the Cybermen the TARDIS appeared in several guises before settling back into the police box.

The Ninth Doctor said he just liked the police box.

There's always been something a bit odd about the Doctor's relationship with the TARDIS. Borrowed, stolen, invented ... many people suspect he's never told us the full story.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There's always been something a bit odd about the Doctor's relationship with the TARDIS. Borrowed, stolen, invented ... many people suspect he's never told us the full story.

Really??? You do surprise me!!

/Sarcasm off/

Oi, I said /Sarcasm off/!

Bloody Sarcasm circuit's stuck! Damn!

 
Posted by badger@thesett (# 16422) on :
 
[Overused] [Overused] [Overused] [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

I bow to your vastly superior knowledge
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

By the way, on the "TARDIS sentience" thing, that has been hinted at since at least the Fourth Doctor ...

Since the third or fourth ever story, The Edge of Destruction back in 1964. NOt that I can remember it at all... but going by what it says ofn various websites, when things get weird inside the Tardis, Barbara speculates that the ship itself is trying to warn them of some danger. The Doctor pretends its only a machine, but in the end we know he knows it isn't.

I also have vague memories of the Tardis doing quite clever things to evade or respond to attack in various stories.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Wasn't there a suggestion that the Tardis has a sort of SEP field around it, which means that people tend not to notice it, unless they have their attention drawn to it, or it is impossible to miss.

I am thinking of the episode where the Tardis had to recharge in Cardiff.....
 
Posted by badger@thesett (# 16422) on :
 
thought it was Douglas Adams that, a space ship behind the side screen at Lords
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
That was the real SEP field. I just thought the Tardis had something similar. meaning that most people would not notice it
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

By the way, on the "TARDIS sentience" thing, that has been hinted at since at least the Fourth Doctor ...

Since the third or fourth ever story, The Edge of Destruction back in 1964. NOt that I can remember it at all... but going by what it says ofn various websites, when things get weird inside the Tardis, Barbara speculates that the ship itself is trying to warn them of some danger. The Doctor pretends its only a machine, but in the end we know he knows it isn't.

I also have vague memories of the Tardis doing quite clever things to evade or respond to attack in various stories.

I hadn't thought about that. Yes, in that story a button had stuck that would have sent the TARDIS to the, ummm, edge of destruction. There was not a "fault" in the machine because it was acting as if one of the crew was pushing the button, so the TARDIS tried various ways to warn them. I never thought of it before, but that was a form of sentience for the TARDIS.

On the evasion thing, the Second Doctor once mentioned that the was a hazard avoidance system in the TARDIS which would operate if he remembered to switch it on. I think that was in "The Krotons." I have always interpreted that as being just a machinery function more than a sentience thing, but I can see the argument that there had to be some form of sentience for the TARDIS to know that there was a hazard to be avoided.

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat:
Wasn't there a suggestion that the Tardis has a sort of SEP field around it, which means that people tend not to notice it, unless they have their attention drawn to it, or it is impossible to miss.

I don't recall a SEP field as such for the TARDIS, but that could just be my memory. The Doctor, Martha and Captain Jack used portable fields to avoid the Master, so there really is no reason why the TARDIS couldn't have one of its own.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Really??? You do surprise me!!

/Sarcasm off/

Oi, I said /Sarcasm off/!

Bloody Sarcasm circuit's stuck! Damn!

Quotes file! [Biased]
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I think the Cardiff thing was just people - you know, you stick a blue box down in the middle of the square and people just go "Oh, it's a blue box" and walk on.
When I worked for the Metropolitan Police, we once had to track down a real police box and ask the people responsible for it to measure it exactly, so that a Doctor Who fan could build an exact replica (it was at Hendon Police College).
 
Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :
 
If you put a badly painted Tardis or one serving coffee down in Glasgow it would pass as normal.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
Would any of us particularly notice a Police Box if it weren't for the Tardis?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I think these days we probably might because they're no longer usual.

Poor old Doctor, having to make ends meet by selling coffee from the Tardis in between adventures...
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The "stealing" thing goes back, I believe, to the very early stories, where the doctor does "borrow" a tardis - this one. I think this was why he always had problems controlling it.

The idea of the tardis being the one who did the stealing - or tempting - is just an interesting and fun twist, based on the sentience of the tardis that the new series has "discovered".

Surely it was a knowing allusion to the cliché that men think they chose their wives/girlfriends/significant others because they made the first move, but women know they made the choice, the men were just too stupid to notice it. Especially given the episode's title.

I've been away for the last week, dying to get round to watching this episode, and I wasn't disappointed. The plot was good, but nothing compared to the dialogue and how the characters developed. The Amy and Rory relationship was handled perfectly, and will hopefully keep the anti-Pond brigade quiet for a while. If I was being super-picky, the resolution seemed slightly unsatisfactory, but this was high-quality stuff, and I'll be re-watching it before long.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK - tonight's episode was a total nadir IMO. I lost interest halfway through and went off to do something else, came back and found the Doctor and his companions were still running frantically down dimly lit, acid-puddled corridors, panicking.

More of the same next Saturday? I may give that one a miss.
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Agreed - that was (for me) just odd rather than enjoyable, I think.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
yeah - but great quote

"I should warn you, I have very wide feet"

[Smile]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I've seen worse. It's not going to be an all-time great story on current showings, but it's not yet rubbish.
The cliffhanger was not exactly a surprise based on the foregoing. And if I had to tie up the plot in ten minutes from that cliffhanger I could easily. The real question is whether it has any long term effects, or whether they use it as a tearjerker at the end of the next episode.
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
One of the things I really liked in the BBC 8th Doctor books is where the Tardises "evolved" into a form that looks like a human (or Gallifreyan, ok!) woman. So I was quite pleased when it turned up on the tv show [Yipee]

Next on my wishlist for TV crossover is Iris Wildthyme's TARDIS which looks like a London Routemaster and is sightly smaller on the inside.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I've seen worse. It's not going to be an all-time great story on current showings, but it's not yet rubbish.
The cliffhanger was not exactly a surprise based on the foregoing. And if I had to tie up the plot in ten minutes from that cliffhanger I could easily. The real question is whether it has any long term effects, or whether they use it as a tearjerker at the end of the next episode.

Agreed about the cliffhanger. It was telegraphed a long way off, but I don't feel that was a huge problem. I'm not bothered about the final predictable reveal so much as the overall situation, which is building up nicely and raises some serious sci-fi issues. Yes, there are ways of resolving it all, but some are better than others, and there's plenty of room for exploring serious questions of identity and personhood before that.

A lot will depend on how it's tied up, but regardless, I like the idea, and the way the characters are reacting to the situation.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
plus, one of the dopplery-dudes snuck out in a Snakey-Thing form at one point! [Eek!]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Yes, there are ways of resolving it all, but some are better than others, and there's plenty of room for exploring serious questions of identity and personhood before that.

The Guardian blog seems to have seen the second half and seems to like the two-parter as a whole. Although it concedes that the first part 'looks limp'.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I found it really boring. Hope next week's is better. But I did wonder whether the Doctor's ganger has anything to do with the Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon story.

M.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
OK, I've just read the Guardian blog linked to above and yes, it probably is too obvious.

But I didn't think 'Fear Her' was that bad.

M.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Quote from the Guardian blog:

"But on the parameters it sets itself, this is classy, stylish and nicely unsettling.

"Graham creates a believable world and workplace in that converted monastery, which you buy into from the opening credits."

I couldn't agree less. But it would be a dull world if everyone held the same opinions.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
I don't see how the Doctor's ganger could be the one in The Impossible Astronaut. He *looks* like a ganger, while the Doctor was with Rory, Amy and River before he died, and none of them noticed anything different. Oh, well, time will tell.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I liked it. Not great, but self contained and enjoyable. After the total mess of the first few episodes this season seems to be settling down well. And I loved the old monastry - does anyone know where it is?
 
Posted by phil2357 (# 15431) on :
 
I quite enjoyed it as well. It doesn't have the makings of a classic story, but at least it there's a bit more to it than your usual monster-of-the-week.
 
Posted by Surfing Madness (# 11087) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And I loved the old monastry - does anyone know where it is?

If you watch Dr Who confidential they tell you about the locations, it's a mixture of about 5 different places.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. I liked the smoking boots on their own, a nice throwback to an SF cliché.

The 'ganger in snake form reminds me of something I read years ago in a fantasy book, possibly Elric's wife in Moorcock's Stormbringer. But it was so long ago I cannot be sure.

As for the the Doctor's ganger, this could be on of the worst cliffhangers of all time, as it looks as if he returned to the cauldron of white gunk to deliberately make a ganger of himself. Next episode - Doctor's 'ganger saves the day unless the plot takes a very odd twist.

What I want to know is this: are there any 'gangers of Amy or Rory out there.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Its Caerphilly Castle externally, St Donat's Castle inside the courtyard, Cardiff Castle underground, some bits of Neath Abbey with the glass CGI's back in for pretty windows, and various rooms in all those places and in the studio for interiors. And most actors were playing two characters, who sometimes talked to each other. Must be a nightmare of organisation to shoot.

That story could easily have been a 1960s Dr Who (though the set couldn't!). A Base under Siege, Science that Goes Wrong, icky monsters who might not actually be that bad, uneasy balance between seriously scary situation and the Doctor playing the fool, quite a lot of running around screaming, not that much actual bloodshed (though the first scene must have caused more nightmares than just about any other programs in the revised series other than Blink & The Empty Child.)
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I thought it was framing up to be a good episode, but has not quite made it yet. It may next week. The idea of a set of dopplegangers is good Moffat-type drama, and the questions of what makes personhood are interesting.

And Was anyone else reminded of Missie Elliot "Get Ur Freak On"? No - just me then.

Next week - lets see some quality resolution.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Liked it. Did I read too much but were there hints that the gangers might be proto-Autons or something ("your technology is only at its basic stage" )?
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
I thought Autons too. I didn't really enjoy the episode that much, but was rather excited at the thought of the Autons coming back.
 
Posted by badger@thesett (# 16422) on :
 
bit bemused that the Doctor so easily sided with the murderer who killed one of them, after he goes on about them having a heart etc... surely he should side with the ones being murdered or am I missing something? [Confused]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Not sure they can be Autons, as Autons are plastic. We know the gangers have hearts and seem to be in all respects truly human, just engineered humans.

The Doctor clearly knows more than he is saying (he obviously wanted Rory and Amy out of the way, then when he, Rory and Amy first arrived at the Monastery, I think he mentioned 'almost people' before they actually appeared).

The gangers seem to go back and forth between looking exactly like their humans and looking melty, so you might not be able to tell real Doctor from ganger one all the time.

M.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
The gangers' 'melty' faces are straight lifts from Odo in Deep Space Nine, although he could take on almost any shape. Overall, it felt just like last year's Silurians episode - cut off from the world (in a church/monastery), two sets of people/creatures trying to inhabit the same space, attempts at peaceful co-existence denied by one attacker. Only the ganger Doctor was different. Part 2 has some work to do if its not to fall into the 'pointless' category.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
... Overall, it felt just like last year's Silurians episode ...

It did, didn't it? And I'm not sure I liked it all that much. There was some good filming, great use of the locations, and a very adult feel to it. It also has an old-school Who feel to it - hints of Pertwee and Troughton for me. On the other hand, the gangers seem to be just a way of doing a rather worn-out sci-fi trope - the problem of identity - but in not a very good way (precisely because it is possible to tell the difference between the ganger and the original, because of the melty face thing). I think they're going to have to work hard to avoid the ultimate inevitable demise of some of the key characters being sentimental and maudlin.

Not a great hit with me so far, I'm afraid.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Again a great episode. Clever, funny, bit scary. Good to see Rory getting a bit more real. Was it a "watch twice" episode? No. But hey I don't watch most TV once. Great to have Saturday evenings as a highlight in a dreary world of TV.

All the best, Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Not sure they can be Autons, as Autons are plastic. We know the gangers have hearts and seem to be in all respects truly human, just engineered humans.


I also thought the Nestenes originated from somewhere other than Earth so I may be barking up completely the wrong tree but I was just intrigued by the Dr's comment.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
The flesh thing reminded me of "New Earth" when the cat nurses grew the new humans they also called 'the flesh' and kept insisting they had no thoughts and feelings until ten liberated and healed them and welcomed them into the human family.

Here in the US they're putting part two off for a week which is rotten for them to do.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Liked it. Did I read too much but were there hints that the gangers might be proto-Autons or something ("your technology is only at its basic stage" )?

Maybe such technology underlies the Time Lords regeneration?

The great unanswered question in 45 years of Who is "Why do the Doctor, and all or most of the other Time Lords, look human when they aren't?" After all the Daleks, who are human, or were once, look nothing like us when you open up their little wheelchairs. They are far more closely related to us than the Doctor is.

quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
The gangers' 'melty' faces are straight lifts from Odo in Deep Space Nine, although he could take on almost any shape.

I think its a lot older than that! Must be some written SF with the same idea from long before Deep Spoace Nine ever got invented.

And remember The Faceless Ones from 1967 Who!
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
... Overall, it felt just like last year's Silurians episode ...

It did, didn't it?
Yes, but I found the Silurians story rather weak, while this is a lot of things it should have been. The difficulty of having exact copies who share everything that makes you who you are is a well-worn sci-fi concept, but the audience isn't entirely made up of superannuated SF geeks who've seen it all before, and it was still done with some style, with the exception of the silly and unnecessary snake-neck bit.

The Doctor suggested that it would take time for the Gangers to "set" for want of a better word (I think it was when he did the hot plate trick), so we may yet end up with entirely indistinguishable identical gangs (heh) facing off. He also seems to know far more than he's letting on - about the Flesh, what it becomes in the future, why they were there in the first place, Amy's Quantum Baby, and so on. And Rory's becoming more interesting and developed as a character by the week. I hope something isn't going to happen to him, because his constantly dying thing and the way he keeps being forgotten in subtle ways are... worrying.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I enjoyed that episode - a bit slow moving, but creepy and atmospheric, and it's nice to have a big science fiction concept at the centre of the story, even if it's a familiar one.

A full review and podcast commentary are now on my Impossible Podcasts site as usual.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The great unanswered question in 45 years of Who is "Why do the Doctor, and all or most of the other Time Lords, look human when they aren't?"

You mean, other than the difficulty of writing stories that would have the audience engaging with the Doctor if he looked like Jabba the Hutt?

Ten was always going on about how magnificent humans were and how the Human Empire would span the universe and last billions of years and all that. So maybe we could retcon in an explanation about Time Lord physiology being chosen so as not to stand out from the crowd. You could also argue that they couldn't do a chameleon-circuit job on their biology every time they visited a new planet if only because it would have involved a huge technology redesign.

Landed on Skaro? Check.
Ugly starfish blobby body? Check.
Pepperpot armour? Check.
Got rid of the stairs in the TARDIS? Doh!

[Edit: one day I'll remember to include all the words in a post.]

[ 24. May 2011, 08:24: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"Why do the Doctor, and all or most of the other Time Lords, look human when they aren't?"

Time Lords don't look human. Humans look Time Lord. (I think that's one of the first two Eleventh Doctor episodes?) Ok, a proof-text approach to Doctor Who continuity isn't entirely practical.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The Doctor suggested that it would take time for the Gangers to "set" for want of a better word (I think it was when he did the hot plate trick), so we may yet end up with entirely indistinguishable identical gangs (heh) facing off. He also seems to know far more than he's letting on - about the Flesh, what it becomes in the future, why they were there in the first place, Amy's Quantum Baby, and so on. And Rory's becoming more interesting and developed as a character by the week. I hope something isn't going to happen to him, because his constantly dying thing and the way he keeps being forgotten in subtle ways are... worrying.

Maybe it is my memory malfunctioning, but when the Ganger got the electroshock, did the Doctor ever say that he was "dead"? My memory is that he said "His heart has stopped. He had a heart and you stopped it." That's not quite the same as saying he is "dead."

The reason this bothers me is because of Rory's reaction. At the end of the prior episode, Rory was explaining that he was upset at Idris dying because he is a nurse and she was just lying there and he could do nothing. Or something to that effect. Okay, that makes sense. He is in the medical profession and devoted to keeping people alive. So, if you are a nurse and you hear that somebody's heart just stopped, wouldn't you make some effort at CPR? It is not like the Ganger was lying there for hours before anybody noticed. It had just happened. Plenty of time to restart the heart. Maybe it was just dramatic license because they didn't want to interrupt the Doctor's speech, but it would have made me feel better to have Rory at least say something like "let me see him, maybe I can get the heart re-started" and then have the Doctor say "no, it is too late" or "Too late, the Flesh is dissolving."

So it seems like an inconsistent reaction from Rory. Which then makes me wonder--is that really Rory? After all, he had walked off on his own for a bit. Is there any reason to think that the Flesh didn't somehow copy him as well as the Doctor?Are we going to have Yet Another "Oh my God! They've killed Rory!" moment only to discover that he was a Flesh?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
There was a preview on The One Show of the Doctor talking to himself, wich looked very cool.

I think there is liable to be quite a lot of not knowing who is "real" and who is a ganger will be a major feature of this Saturday, along with a continued exploration of what the difference is. Or rather I hope there will be some of this, because these two provide the farce-like-humour and the serious philosophical exploration.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
How many companions have been Nurses or Doctors? And how many of them have tried to save a hurt being?

The Doctors companions tend to be blank slates who's skills mean little for the story. They are there to scream and run and react and shoot and get all messy and ask him for help and basically move the plot along, not to actually help people with their skills.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
How many companions have been Nurses or Doctors? And how many of them have tried to save a hurt being?

In the classic series, Harry Sullivan was a doctor. And, yes, I seem to recall that he tried to give medical care to a hurt being fairly regularly. In fact, he oversaw several revivals in "The Ark In Space."

In the new series, of course, Martha was a doctor. And I have a vague impression she used those medical skills when she could, but I admit that I can't think of any specific example.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
This is a blog post by Neil Gaiman partly about his episode.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Some companions have had useful skills, but usually those are being good at hitting things (Ian, Barbara, Leela, Ace). This is because the Doctor is better at anything scientific than anything the companions could plausibly be, and has also cornered the market on crazy plans that actually work.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ace

*Ahem*

That's

[Axe murder] [Axe murder] Ace [Axe murder] [Axe murder]

[Hot and Hormonal] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
So now we have two Doctors and one got (will get?) killed in the first episode. The question is which Doctor will it be and does it matter which one because they are exactly the same?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Thinking back on my list of past doctor/nurse companions, I should point out that Liz Shaw was a doctor, too. I left her off the list because she was more a scientist-type doctor rather than medical.

However, last night it occurred to me that when she was introduced the Brig read off a long list of her degrees. Without going back and watching the episode, I can't swear that she did not have a medical degree as well.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
The Doctor has a medical qualification as well. He studied under Lister in Edinburgh in the 19th century. This was revealed by Patrick Troughton's Doctor in the Cyberman adventure which took place on the Moon.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
So now we have two Doctors and one got (will get?) killed in the first episode. The question is which Doctor will it be and does it matter which one because they are exactly the same?

Well, I'm not sure they are exactly the same just at the moment. That may come out this week, possibly related to a significant amount of ostentatious sneezing, particularly in this episode, but also (I think) earlier in the series. And as discussed upthread, it would be really lame and obvious if Dr Ganger was the one shot in ep1, unless that's just a deliberate distraction from an even bigger storyline.
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
So it seems like an inconsistent reaction from Rory. Which then makes me wonder--is that really Rory? After all, he had walked off on his own for a bit. Is there any reason to think that the Flesh didn't somehow copy him as well as the Doctor?Are we going to have Yet Another "Oh my God! They've killed Rory!" moment only to discover that he was a Flesh?

Possibly - but apply your own sig to the scriptwriting, and also consider the likelihood that a Flesh Rory would act like Rory. There was possibly something strange going on with either him or Jen at one point where they were looking for each other and it didn't quite seem right. Without having watched it again, which I must get around to, I thought there was more than one Ganger Jen. Might the Flesh be churning out multiple Gangers on its own, or could the Gangers make copies of themselves - sort of GangerGangers? In fact - here's a thought - could the "real" ones have been Gangers all along without knowing it?
 
Posted by Michael Snow (# 16363) on :
 
What is it with Dr. Who's popularity? How many pages here? And on another Christian board, since the Dr. Whoo thread popped up, it has had 557 replies and over 22,000 views!

AND this on board where the most popular threads get a tithe of Dr. Who's replies and average a couple hundred views.

[it is in the 'Travel forum'! that has three threads and where my photos got 1 reply and 200 views]


I haven't watched it since the guy with the long scarf...who was my favorite Dr...but actually don't think it is on the our local PBS anymore.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In fact - here's a thought - could the "real" ones have been Gangers all along without knowing it?

If Philip K Dick or Theodore Sturgeon were the Dr Who scriptwriters that would be almost worth betting on!

Or maybe even Nigel Kneale - after all we are the Martians!
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
art
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Dont Know how that happened.

Anyway, speaking of great science fiction, don't forget that today is Towel day In honor of Douglas Adams.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I did wonder if the original people were gangers in the first place, and the end of their rotation was when new gangers take their place.

There is a real possibility that the gangers could feature across the series. And Matt did say that there was a real cliffhanger at the end of the next episode.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In fact - here's a thought - could the "real" ones have been Gangers all along without knowing it?

If Philip K Dick or Theodore Sturgeon were the Dr Who scriptwriters that would be almost worth betting on!

Or maybe even Nigel Kneale - after all we are the Martians!

Well, let's see. I just watched it again, and the bit at the end with Rory and Jen looking for each other had two odd aspects. Jen heard Rory calling before we saw him leaving to look for her (continuity/editing error, or more significant? There isn't a Ganger Rory, surely?), and the Jen who was looking for him was being stalked by Ganger Jen. But the one Rory was talking to before, who's the only one I can imagine calling for him specifically, was definitely a Ganger, as she kept changing every time we saw her. So either there's some strange psychic connection between them, or there's more than one Ganger Jen. I still like that theory.

I also noticed that the Ganger who died in the acid at the start said his heart had stopped, just like the Doctor did later when the Ganger was zapped. Relevant, or not?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Ooh! I missed that! So the acid-bath Ganger said his heart had stopped, but he was still talking about it. This supports my suspicion that the Electrocuted Ganger is not dead--his heart has merely stopped and at some point he will pop back into activity.

As for the Rory/Jen thing, this is the problem. As you pointed out earlier, my sig line means that I can't rule out sloppy writing. I often find that I have this difficulty when watching shows like this: is an event suggesting a clever-tricky-brilliant plot twist, or is it just bad writing? I think Doctor Who has earned the right for me to assume that things that look like oversights to me are actually intentionally planned. So if Rory was calling Jen before he left to look for her, then there are two Rories (Rori?) and for the reasons I discussed earlier I bet the one that was with the Doctor et al. was the Ganger. There are also at least two Jens, although whether either one is the "real" Jen is open to question.

Oh, wow. Sudden thought: maybe the "real" Jen will turn out to be the villain of the piece, with everybody else being a Ganger. After all, wasn't she the only one whose "real" body was missing when everybody woke up? That would be a shock that sweet, sympathetic Jen (as a Ganger) turns out to be a baddie. Of course, that leaves open the question of how Ganger Jen could be so mentally different from Real Jen.

But if everybody else is a Ganger, why do we think that Gangers are the same as their Real counterparts? Maybe when a Ganger makes a Ganger they are identical, but when a Real person makes a Ganger they are different. If that is true, then Real Jen could be bad and Ganger Jen good. And that would mean that Ganger Doctor will be evil, along with Ganger Rory. Which would also explain why Ganger Rory didn't bother to try CPR on the Electrocuted Ganger! Dang! That is all starting to fit together! [Eek!]

Or not. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I think one hint was Jen saying that she could remember the excruciating pain of continually being decommissioned. Maybe it's driven her mad.

[ 25. May 2011, 22:13: Message edited by: art dunce ]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Snow:


I haven't watched it since the guy with the long scarf...who was my favorite Dr

That'll be Tom Baker, then ...
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Anyway, speaking of great science fiction, don't forget that today is Towel day In honor of Douglas Adams.

Rats! Ratsratsrats. I forgot my towel today. [Frown]

Sorry for the tangent. Back to Doctor Who.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
So wait, is this Ganger thing shaping up to be a combination of tomato in the mirror , expandable clone ,with perhaps a cloning gambit of some sort and the inevitable clones are people, too or even worse, and then John was a zombie thrown in? I hope that Moffat has something more original to offer us.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Did anyone else giggle in Confidential seeing them show off the piece of kit which duplicates a shot so they can do the ganger/real people shots? So ... it makes gangers then!
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
So wait, is this Ganger thing shaping up to be a combination of tomato in the mirror , expandable clone ,with perhaps a cloning gambit of some sort and the inevitable clones are people, too or even worse, and then John was a zombie thrown in? I hope that Moffat has something more original to offer us.

There wouldn't be much Doctor Who - or indeed much science fiction in general - if it wasn't allowed to reuse existing "tropes".

Spotting "tropes" can be fun, but identifying common elements often ignores all the things that actually matter about a story, such as character, tone and atmosphere. Originality comes from how you use existing ideas, the ways you combine them, the particular flavour you give to them. Pointing out tropes might look clever, but it's not really much of a criticism in and of itself.

I'd agree that this Doctor Who story isn't startlingly original. It also draws the moral questions in broad terms, as one would expect for a family audience at Saturday teatime. But I think it uses the idea of doppelgangers pretty well: it's entertaining and stylish, and the castle setting gives it a nicely gothic atmosphere that sets it apart from your run-of-the-mill industrial bases.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I haven't really figured out the continuity of the ending of the last series but as it's relevant to this storyline, maybe somebody with a bigger brain can have a look at it. Spoilers for those travelling backwards through the series....

Rory is human and relatively normal.
Rory becomes a companion and thus time-traveller which seems to affect reality-status a bit.
Rory gets obliterated from reality.
An Auton who looks like Rory as a Roman soldier turns up.
Said Auton acquires human-Rory's memories and personality in a Heroic Willpower (that's enough TV tropes for me) event that either I didn't grasp or was plucked out of thin air.
From that point on, Rory is treated as human-Rory with Auton powers until...
The rapidly collapsing Universe is restored basically by rebuilding it minus the Doctor, and relatively normal human Rory is again around.
The Doctor is restored to the Universe because Amy - again this is either unexplained or I missed it completely but maybe it's a consequence of being a time-traveller - is able to remember him, and as you can't remember something that never existed that brought him back into reality.

I think that's reasonably accurate so far. But in the current series, contemporary time-travelling Rory is able to remember, if he chooses, being Auton-Rory as well as, presumably, remembering being relatively normal human Rory in the restored universe. This raises all kinds of interesting metaphysical black holes but the one that's relevant right now is, Moffat seems to be arguing not only that a transfer of memory and personality is also a transfer or sharing of individuated identity (Auton-Rory = obliterated Rory = restored Rory*) but a connection so established means that each instantiation of the individual has access to the memories of another, even if that other has never actually existed in the current Universe.

So for as close as you're going to get to consistency out of this mess, any Ganger actually is its real counterpart in essence, they should be able to share memories, and if an original gets killed that's okay because the Ganger is not just a copy but another instantiation in reality of the underlying person.

* This is starting to look like a bad sermon on the Holy Trinity so I'd better stop.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
The Revolutionist posted:Spotting "tropes" can be fun, but identifying common elements often ignores all the things that actually matter about a story, such as character, tone and atmosphere. Originality comes from how you use existing ideas, the ways you combine them, the particular flavour you give to them. Pointing out tropes might look clever, but it's not really much of a criticism in and of itself.
It really wasn't an attempt to look clever, as I'm a dunce. The criticism comes in that the tropes don't seem to be tweaked or combined in an interesting way thus far (something I usually love about Who)but seem to be a bit cut and paste. My son reminded me that this episode was written by Matthew Graham and so perhaps I'm just not a fan.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Jen heard Rory calling before we saw him leaving to look for her (continuity/editing error, or more significant? There isn't a Ganger Rory, surely?), and the Jen who was looking for him was being stalked by Ganger Jen.

I noticed on rewatching that before the storm the Doctor leaves Amy and Rory in one control room. When Amy and Rory wake up after the storm they're lying by the ganger-making vat, which I'm pretty sure was a different room. And how did they get knocked out? So unless there was a continuity error, something happened that's not been explained, and the most likely something is that we're looking at ganger Amy and Rory.

There are problems with that. The main one is that they had even less contact with the vat of flesh before the storm than the Doctor did. The Doctor at least stuck his hand in. And it looks as if Doctor-ganger wasn't created until after everyone had woken up. Indeed, not until after the Doctor scanned the vat with his sonic screwdriver while rushing through (why?). So it's difficult to see how there could have been time.
Also they'd be the only two gangers that have managed to stay stably human-looking for anything like that length of time. Rory's been unobserved for a lot of the time, but Amy's been continuously in company.

[ 27. May 2011, 13:57: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I think it's safe to say that there's more going on here than meets the eye. Or maybe less.

As an ardent avoider of spoilers, I find myself lacking a rather basic piece of information about the current season - how many episodes are left? Is tomorrow the last, or next week?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As an ardent avoider of spoilers, I find myself lacking a rather basic piece of information about the current season - how many episodes are left? Is tomorrow the last, or next week?

Next week. We have tomorrow's episode and then another. The series resumes later this year.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As an ardent avoider of spoilers, I find myself lacking a rather basic piece of information about the current season - how many episodes are left? Is tomorrow the last, or next week?

It is a little confusing. The full season is broken up into a Spring run and a Fall run. There are two episodes left of the Spring run. There will then be a pause until the Fall, when there will be six more episodes. But there is probably no mandate that all the plot threads of these first episodes need to be tied up before the break.

Heck, for that matter, we still have the dangling plot thread from last season--what caused the TARDIS to explode?
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
So if there is just the second part of this two parter and then one episode before the summer (which will have to involve a cliff hanger) does that mean that Amy's Schrödinger's baby will be born at the end of this next episode or not until the next? Certainly they won't drag that out until autumn?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Oh, I think they will drag it out. Personally, I am looking forward to having her flash back and forth between "Not Pregnant" and "Nine Months Pregnant."
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Months are certainly an interesting concept if you're a time traveler. I guess some of the things eye patch lady said made me believe it might be sooner than later.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I guess some of the things eye patch lady said

Said? She speaks?

This really is blink-and-you-miss-it stuff. I remember her clearly from the episode with the Silence but not what she said. Has she been in every episode since?
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Ariel posted: Said? She speaks?
"No, I think she's just dreaming".


"It's fine. You're doing fine. Just stay calm"

It was the second one. Maybe, it's because I've been in the delivery room a couple of times but that rang a bell!
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
watching repeat of rebel flesh - some of the early bits getting me thinking...

The Doctor is anticipating something - enough to suggest dropping the others off for fish and chips. Then when they arrive he says here it is as if familiar, enough for Amy to point out 'what do you mean we came here by accident'... Hmm...

He sounds like he knows to ask after their 'most critical system' and is expecting the Flesh.

Later just before heading up to the weather vane he makes a comment about needing to get there before all hell breaks loose, then pauses to say 'I never thought I'd get to say that again'
(or something similar)

All this before any who's who debate even begins

So what does he already know???
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
The Doctor is anticipating something - enough to suggest dropping the others off for fish and chips. Then when they arrive he says here it is as if familiar, enough for Amy to point out 'what do you mean we came here by accident'... Hmm...

I supposed that he wanted to get advice on Amy's maybe pregnancy. I can't see that he's in the right place for that.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I noticed on rewatching that before the storm the Doctor leaves Amy and Rory in one control room. When Amy and Rory wake up after the storm they're lying by the ganger-making vat, which I'm pretty sure was a different room. And how did they get knocked out? So unless there was a continuity error, something happened that's not been explained, and the most likely something is that we're looking at ganger Amy and Rory.
....
Also they'd be the only two gangers that have managed to stay stably human-looking for anything like that length of time. Rory's been unobserved for a lot of the time, but Amy's been continuously in company.

A rewatch comment was that 'they only remain stable whilst we are plumbed in' so if real Rory and Amy are plugged in somewhere they won't phase in and out ???
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Later just before heading up to the weather vane he makes a comment about needing to get there before all hell breaks loose, then pauses to say 'I never thought I'd get to say that again' (or something similar)

Ah, that - IIRC I think what he said was, "I'd better get there before the cockerel crows or all hell will break loose" which was something that immediately reminded me, for some reason, of Peter denying Jesus, and then of the old belief that the creatures of the night must be back in their places/graves/mounds before the cock crows. Probably neither are related to whatever the Doctor was referring to, but either way, it was the intriguing bit of the episode.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
So Peter was possibly the Doctor? [Big Grin]

I have noticed before that one significant figure the Doctor has never met is Jesus. Do you suppose he will?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
So Peter was possibly the Doctor? [Big Grin]

I have noticed before that one significant figure the Doctor has never met is Jesus. Do you suppose he will?

I don't think they'd be able to get that right, (or indeed with mere mortals like Mohammed or the Buddha).
Even if they specifically targeted just me, I think there'd still be an overlap between making X too good, and not enough.
Should the lord of Time learn from X, or teach X?
Does X know about the Timelords?

After all these issues even arose with someone as mundane as Shakespeare.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
So the Doctor did plan his trip to the flesh place.

Love the swap over for bringing out prejudice bias. Or does the ending change the effect of that affiliation??

And it looks like one cliff hanger will resolve this half series, but what are the implications of secrets told?
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
"Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" - nice to hear that phrase as the unstable flesh Doctor couldn't work out which regeneration he was. Son who it too young to remember the third doctor didn't know why I was laughing.

I also liked the two Doctors talking to himself. As if one wasn't arrogant enough, nice use of humour to dispel the tension.

Ironically it was reverse the polarity (or reverse the Doctors) which was the key to the episode.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Wow... the ending is going to dominate discussion, no doubt! Great twist... I'd heard the episode ended on a cliffhanger, but hadn't guessed that.

The main part of the episode was pretty good too. The two Doctors were fun, and it cranked up the action nicely from last week. We'll have a review up on the Impossible Podcasts blog ASAP.

One quibble about something towards the end. Spoilers...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Why couldn't the real Doctor have held the door with Rory while everyone else got into the TARDIS, and disintegrated the Flesh, and then ran into the TARDIS? If they'd not spent so much time chattering away, they'd have had time to do so before the place exploded!
.
.
.
.
.
Spoilers above!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, that was boring. Ending in Amy's never really having been there/so it was all only a dream sequence and waking up to find herself pregnant. Will she give birth to an alien? [Snore]

Roll on next week, it can only be better.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
So when Amy and Rory get together they'll be able to compare notes on remembering being artificial.

At quite what point did original Cleaves change her mind about the gangers being real? When the one of them tried to save his duplicate's life?

I note that Eleven was getting to Seven levels of deviousness in this episode.

It wasn't a dream sequence. Original Amy was hooked up to ganger-Amy, so presumably she remembers everything ganger-Amy did.

[ 28. May 2011, 20:31: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
I think that waking up and finding that you are "about to pop" is a terrifying idea. [Help]
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Meh!
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
So Amy has not been Amy since the Silence kidnapped her, but has been trapped somewhere horrible, incubating, but in communication with her active ganger. The ganger Dr knows what is going to happen, hence the advice about pushing. But why does the non-ganger Dr terminate the ganger Amy, after all that stuff about treating them like people? (Or, indeed, ganger Jennifer 2 terminate ganger Jennifer 1? Or does everyone go melty?)

Interesting that once the doppel is dropped, the ganger part of the word means something like "goer" with the meaning of a being which goes in someone's place. Which is what they do. (Like the ushabti, or answerers, in Egyptian tombs.)


Penny
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
But Amy saw eyepatch woman looking in during the silence episode 2, so was she replaced between the spaceship and the 3 months later chasing? Or having seen confidential and the trailers could it be before that? Before the Doctor's death??
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
hopefully, Pond will die of post-partum complications - her and her ganger (and any others out there in the multiverse) preferably.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Okay, just watched a downloaded version since BBC American chose not to broadcast part two this week and in the words of my son, the biggest WHO fan in the universe....
" ewww I thought this was a kid's show". [Ultra confused]

He wondered who put the baby In Amy against her will and thought that was scary and mean.

I suspected it was coming but kinda hoped I was wrong.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:

Later just before heading up to the weather vane he makes a comment about needing to get there before all hell breaks loose, then pauses to say 'I never thought I'd get to say that again'
(or something similar)

I thought that was a reference back to the Vampires of Venice episode where he had to get up to the top of the tower to do something or other (can't remember precisely) to stop them?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
And there I was thinking it was a reference to the Maureen Lipmann episode, where she tries to take over the world by TV at the time of the Coronation.

Not sure what to make of this two (three?) parter. It's all right, but the most interesting ideas have come up here, and not been followed up on screen. Looks like some careless writing to me.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
Replying to those people who pointed out how the Doctor destroyed the 'flesh' Amy. Well, the Doctor did say at the end of the episode he'd needed to see the Flesh in 'its early days' so maybe Flesh Amy was a later more sinister evilly type version of the Flesh and so he had to disintegrate it.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
I assumed that ganger-Amy needed to be "decommissioned" so that real-Amy could wake up and be slightly less helpless in her situation. Of course, we have no way of knowing if pregnant-Amy is real.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I found last week's episode boring but the resolution this week really held my attention and I thought it was really good. Jennifer-as-monster was not nearly as scary as Jennifer-looking-like-Jennifer, though.

It's a shame that the episode has been rather taken over in my mind by the end bit about Amy. I'm not sure what to make of that yet.

And I assumed that the Doctors had changed places (or at least shoes), because of the emphasis being put on Amy's reaction to them - although I also wondered whether it was a double bluff - it does all get a bit complicated, doesn't it?

M.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I am sure that we have not heard the last of the Gangers. Just as we had not heard the first of them last week.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
So did Matthew Graham plagiarise himself? Weird lady who you glimpse through walls ... weird characters you see in the TV ... hospital beds, alternate realities...

Maybe Gene Hunt will show up?!
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
My theories about how it will pan out...

1. The Doctor
The flesh Doctor is able to regenerate, but only in the form of the 11th Doctor. It is this that we see being destroyed in the first episode of this series.

2, Amy
The real Amy has not been around since episode 1.
She gives birth to a girl called Amelia who due to a time paradox is transported back to 1989 Scotland and brought up by relatives. Amy dies in childbirth, thus tying Amy in to living an elongated Groundhog day.

At least one of these will be wrong.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
So the preview shows that Amy appears to be in a facility with soldiers wearing the same symbols as Father Octavain and River at the crash.of the Byzantium.

Also if the shoe change was real then Amy has told the Doctor that she had witnessed his death.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Also if the shoe change was real then Amy has told the Doctor that she had witnessed his death.

Indeed -- which the silents told her to do early on.

Carys
 
Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
I'm enjoying this series, though I'm going to have to re-watch that last episode to get to grips with it.

I did notice a couple of clangers. The Flesh is meant to be a military secret (though a badly kept one) but in this episode we learn there's 10 million gangers in India? Bad proof reading? And there was a scene with the two doctors* and (I think) Amy which had the look of a later filmed pickup as all the other characters in the room had vanished.

I've now got no idea how this is going to play out, but to add to the discusion, is it significant that Rory doesn't seem to have a surname? They call him Rory Pond which is more of a joke, but has he ever been given a surname? It was significant last series that Amy didn't have any parents hanging around.

And my bid is that the "good man" is Rory, not the Doctor. Losing Amy will spur him into action.

Anyway, I've not posted here for about 5 years! Good to see this thread is still going. Hello again [Cool]


*Now that's a classic episode worth avoiding. A bored Sontaron, and the 2nd doctor has a very good lunch.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
is it significant that Rory doesn't seem to have a surname? They call him Rory Pond which is more of a joke, but has he ever been given a surname?

Rory Williams.
 
Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
Oh yeh, now I remember [Hot and Hormonal]

I have no theories.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
But Amy saw eyepatch woman looking in during the silence episode 2, so was she replaced between the spaceship and the 3 months later chasing?

I would imagine that it was after she told the Doctor she was pregnant, but before she saw the eyepatch woman for the first time. The confusion when they were all running from the Silence and the astronaut that at the time seemed like an interesting experiment in storytelling would indeed seem to be the likely place. Because we never did find out just what happened then, or just how they decided to form plans against the Silence.

I got the impression from a couple of remarks that the Doctor made that one of his reasons for going there was to find out whether duplicate-Amy would appreciate becoming a real person. Based on Amy's reaction to the gangers, he decided duplicate-Amy wouldn't appreciate being kept alive.

Yes, Amy did tell real Doctor what happened to him. (It would still have been interfering with time had it been ganger-Doctor and ganger-Doctor had been the one that died then.)

Ganger-Jennifer One was I think not quite all there, which was what made her happy to sacrifice another ganger in the cause of ganger rights. (She didn't want to be human, which would be why she was able to reshape herself when the other gangers were stabilising as humans.)
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ganger-Jennifer One was I think not quite all there, which was what made her happy to sacrifice another ganger in the cause of ganger rights. (She didn't want to be human, which would be why she was able to reshape herself when the other gangers were stabilising as humans.)

Actually, I am not sure that Real Jennifer was all there.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
As I understand it, the gangers are aware of their originals - so the Flesh Amy has been on the Tardis for the best part of nine months and never mentioned "By the way, there's another Amy out there who's pregnant and held captive - is there anything we can do about that?"
It's all about trust, and she hasn't been straight with them all that time.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
As I understand it, the gangers are aware of their originals - so the Flesh Amy has been on the Tardis for the best part of nine months and never mentioned "By the way, there's another Amy out there who's pregnant and held captive - is there anything we can do about that?"
It's all about trust, and she hasn't been straight with them all that time.

Would that be because the Originals knew what was going on.
If Amy got drugged and then woke up (with most of) her perceptions from the gangers pov, how would she know?

Whereas if you got into the chair, and felt your consiousness shift, you'd might even be able to recognise original perception.

Supporting that the 2 independent ganger's in the pack weren't aware which they were (although they remembered that there was been a ganger).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Would that be because the Originals knew what was going on.
If Amy got drugged and then woke up (with most of) her perceptions from the gangers pov, how would she know?

I agree with Jay-Emm. There's nothing to suggest that the gangers had any consciousness of being distinct from the originals until the originals disengaged or before the power surge.

As confirmation, Amy didn't know what was going on when she saw the midwife looking through the window. If she'd known she was a ganger she'd have known that she was seeing something that her original was seeing.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Thinking back to the The Sontaran Stratagem when they made a copy of Martha the Doctor immediately recognized that she was not human by her smell. He also knew that they needed to keep her alive somewhere to support the copy. If the Doctor knew that Amy was a ganger this whole time then why all of the adventures and running around and wasting time? And considering the care he's always shown copies (that episode and New Earth) I thought it seemed out of character for him to destroy Amy's ganger like he did.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
Was she actually a ganger? Or was she some other kind of duplicate?
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Isn't it the case that in Who-lore, the technology needed to make something like the Flesh would be child's play compared to the ability to maintain the Original-Ganger link not only time but also when the Ganger was outside the Universe, as in The Doctor's Wife?

This isn't random creepy Alien or twenty-second century human engineering. It's Time Lord level, the difference between the Daleks being rubbish half-scary dustbins and creatures that could fight Gallifrey and hold their own. Or, it's a writing oversight.

Welcome back, GDS.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Not only across time. Obviously. Doh.
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
I can't keep up with all the theorising...I just enjoy each show for what it is and hope I'm reminded of the vital bits when it matters...

But, oh! I watched Confidential last night (we'd recorded it) and thought it was dire! There were some short interesting bits, but mostly it seemed to consist of the three main actors wittering on about what Christmas presents they'd got (and we want to know this why?) and an overlong piece about whether Matt Smith and Annoying KG believe in ghosts (conclusion: they don't really know) It was almost a complete waste of time. Did anyone else see it? Am I being overly critical?
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
No, Dormouse, you're not - I found it very irritating too. The 15-minute version on after the Sunday night repeat episode is better. Short, sharp and to the point.

And I have no coherent theories about Amy's ganger...I'm just [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I've watched it again for the Impossible Podcasts fan commentary, which is now online. Some further reflections...

I enjoyed the episode, but I thought that several of the characters got hit by the Stupid Stick, especially as they were escaping towards the end. I couldn't understand why the real Doctor couldn't just have disintegrated monster-Jen - if they hadn't stopped to chat and hug and say goodbye, there would have been plenty of time. It was for the most part entertaining and stylish, but let down slightly by lapses in logic.

It shows some of the advantages and dangers of a more complex story arc. On the one hand, the cliffhanger was amazing - this is probably the best story arc Doctor Who has done, although a lot will depend on how well it is resolved. On the other hand, it didn't quite fit with the rest of the story, and undermined it as a standalone.

Particularly, melting Amy at the end seemed a bit odd after all the "Gangers are people too" stuff - I think it needed to be explained more clearly. All the pieces of information were there - that the original Gangers were just 'avatars' for the humans until the storm hit; that the version of the Flesh the humans were using is a more primitive version; and that the Doctor was simply breaking the connection between the real Amy's consciousness and her Flesh duplicate. All it needed to make it clear was for Rory to go "You killed her!" and for the Doctor to say why that wasn't the case, just to join the dots.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:

Particularly, melting Amy at the end seemed a bit odd after all the "Gangers are people too" stuff - I think it needed to be explained more clearly. All the pieces of information were there - that the original Gangers were just 'avatars' for the humans until the storm hit; that the version of the Flesh the humans were using is a more primitive version; and that the Doctor was simply breaking the connection between the real Amy's consciousness and her Flesh duplicate. All it needed to make it clear was for Rory to go "You killed her!" and for the Doctor to say why that wasn't the case, just to join the dots.

I agree, the ganger was not independently 'human'. It needed Amy's mind to animate it. The doctor did say something along the lines of 'after what we've learned I will be as humane as possible', that's the way you talk when you are putting a pet down, not killing a person. Amy obviously did not realise that she was animating a ganger, the look of horror on her face when she woke up confirmed that.
It still seems a bit cruel although I suppose the doctor was protecting the real Amy, making her wake up.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
And my bid is that the "good man" is Rory, not the Doctor. Losing Amy will spur him into action.

I agree. A couple of people have said he's a good man this series, while he was being quietly supportive and heroic. Can't quote chapter and verse, but I think Ganger-Jen did at some point. That seems like enough supporting evidence, without making it too obvious.

I'm in two minds about the episode - I enjoyed it, both as a stand-alone and as part of the wider arc, but only time will tell how well it holds together and makes sense of the rest of the series. I'm expecting lots of further discoveries about the Flesh if the link to the main arc is to make sense, and Jen isn't to go down as another unnecessary use of CGI spoiling an otherwise pretty good story, but my hopes aren't high on the latter score. If I had my way, we'd (eventually) get a catch-up on what the Doctor knew and when, and what happened when in That Meeting at the end as a minimum.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
I can't keep up with all the theorising...I just enjoy each show for what it is and hope I'm reminded of the vital bits when it matters...

But, oh! I watched Confidential last night (we'd recorded it) and thought it was dire! There were some short interesting bits, but mostly it seemed to consist of the three main actors wittering on about what Christmas presents they'd got (and we want to know this why?) and an overlong piece about whether Matt Smith and Annoying KG believe in ghosts (conclusion: they don't really know) It was almost a complete waste of time. Did anyone else see it? Am I being overly critical?

The previous week had lots of interesting bits on how to double up actors etc. Problem was that part 2 had the same techiques and no new set or aliens to discuss - so all that was left was the padding, but this bran tub had no prizes in it just the bran...
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
It still seems a bit cruel although I suppose the doctor was protecting the real Amy, making her wake up.


My son thought that was the same reason he let her remain a ganger so long. To protect her from the horrible reality of her helpless situation.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Well, that was Bow Tie-ish.

Pyx_e
 
Posted by swllwmzn (# 12945) on :
 
Well. Didn't see that coming. Great stuff, really enjoyed it.
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
I certainly didn't see it coming...

Even after they named her 'Melody'. I did guess they still had the .<deleted spoiler>

and I loved the way they brought all the old characters back in, but I'm going to have to watch it all the way through to see what the apparent non-sequiteurs may have meant. (I was dealing with dinner through a fair bit)

[ 04. June 2011, 18:43: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Nice enough, in an over the top way.

A nice set of Rory is awesome sections (any more and Amy's turn will be overdue). I'd have preferred it if they didn't play with the cuckoo theme and Rory as scenary theme, but at least when balance is restored you get some good scenes.

A nice set of the Dr is awesome (almost) sections (though he was incorrect about the bloodshed).

Revelation nicely totally obvious in hindsight, and vaguely guessable beforehand (someone did suggest it, but action quick from the final clue-the Williams helped mask it too).

[ 04. June 2011, 18:46: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Jenny Ann (# 3131) on :
 
Oooh. wasn't it star wars-ish?

I enjoyed it - I did see it coming because I read some spoilers, but might have got it anyway due to the naming.

But really, the sets etc were very very stars wars.

Jen
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I'm just relieved River didn't turn out to be some kind of awful people-eating alien, the eyepatch lady, or the Master. The rest of the episode left me somewhat bemused though.

Best bits: the Sontaran nurse, some great lines there.
 
Posted by Lola (# 627) on :
 
Yes - great lines. Also the Doctor being very nurse-like (as opposed to Doctor like) with Lorna - comforting the dying that nothing could be done for.

But if River is the child that was in the space suit then she killed (or believes she killed or killed a flesh avatar of) the Doctor at the start of the series. Also - can't remember the early episodes clearly - why wouldn't she remember that when they turned up at the lake and watched it happen?
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Fantastic! I spotted the Melody Pond - River Song connection, but the reveal was handled magnificently. Loved the supporting characters - Dorium, the Victorian Silurian, the Sontaran nurse and so on. Loads of punch the air moments, and a few to bring tears to the eyes as well.

I can't wait to cover it for Impossible Podcasts - we'll get our review and commentary up ASAP.
 
Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
But if River is the child that was in the space suit then she killed (or believes she killed or killed a flesh avatar of) the Doctor at the start of the series. Also - can't remember the early episodes clearly - why wouldn't she remember that when they turned up at the lake and watched it happen?

You know I'm not too sure that she didn't remember. After she'd unloaded her gun at the disappearing astronaut she seemed to pause as if remembering something and murmured "Of course,"

Which set off a bell in my mind at the time but I didn't pursue the thought further.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I am still not convinced that the girl in the spacesuit is River. I think this is a question for the second part of the series.

And I should point out that I mentioned the River and Pond connection. You can tell me how clever I am later.

Lover the episode - yes some star wars, but seeing Rory become a real warrior was fabulous. The Sontaran nurse was fantastic. As were the headless Monks. The tied up necks were scary and cool at the same time.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
It is fantastic to find out that there will be a female papal mainframe.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
I'm not a huge fan of the "bring together a bunch of old enemies" because haven't we done that three or four times now?

Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Nice lines, but not sure the whole thing adds up.

And the Doctor blows up an entire Cyber Fleet to get information out of them? Don't they count as sentient beings any longer?
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
At last - proper "Who" again.

Loved it!
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
Completely, utterly brilliant.
Will need to watch it at least one more time to come near to understanding it but that's not really the point is it? Who was it who said 'the only water in the forest is in the river'? Was it one of the gangers? When the girl gave Amy the prayer leaf I found myself blurting it out and starting to put two and two together. I love it when I can almost guess the ending. Really, really loved the giggly look on the Dr's face when he realised he'd been snogging Amy and Rory's daughter.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I agree. It was great and I will need to watch it (and probably the rest of the series) again.
 
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Who was it who said 'the only water in the forest is in the river'? Was it one of the gangers?

It was the TARDIS, while in Idris' body.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by itokro:
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Who was it who said 'the only water in the forest is in the river'? Was it one of the gangers?

It was the TARDIS, while in Idris' body.
Of course it was! Thanks itokro, glad someone is more on the ball than me!
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
If River is in jail and working out her penance for 'killing a good man' does this mean that she has been brought up to be the weapon?

On the other hand she escaped the silents and the spacesuit, no reason it had to be her back in the suit 30 years later at the start of the series. When the doctor says he knows where to find her does he mean he needs to go back to 1st/2nd episode timeline to find her?

And if Amy was replaced before the start of the series it was the copy who raised the question about the pregnancy. But he said that her mind and soul were with the copy - are we talking more like the matrix than the early gangers of last week??

Lots of late night thoughts...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
S-cat, I think I was before you on the names - but it was on the irritating character thread.

I'm not sure what I think of this last episode. There's been rather a lot of ganging up on the Doctor and seeing him as a sort of Shiva, but one who must be destroyed, since the start of the new version.

If you watched Confidential, you will have spotted that Moffat has it in for the church, believing that the current non-Militant state is a temporary aberration, and the headless monks are the obvious end of religion. (I think that's what he said.) The conversion process was very, very nasty.

Penny.

[ 05. June 2011, 00:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :
 
The whole 'Church' thing was the only bit that I didn't like.
In my opinion it was gratuitously anti Christian, anti Catholic and also completely unoriginal (Philip Pullman and Dan Brown anyone?)
Moffat has gone down in my estimation I'm afraid.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I haven't see all of all the episodes, so has anything happened that would absolutely rule out the astronaut being, in fact, the Doctor? (given that there were multiples of him knocking about at one point).
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I've got the uncomfortable feeling I'm missing a lot, but have to confess I've been feeling a bit impatient with the Doctor who seems to have developed some immature characteristics he didn't have before (maybe related to River's previous comments about him getting younger as she gets older...?). We watched it as a family, a friend with us as well, and we were all disappointed with who River turned out to be. We thought it spoiled the whole thing.
 
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I thought it was the one that River Song said about her birthdays and there being 2 doctor's!

I really enjoyed it, there were a few twists in the storyline, and some good fun characters - as others have said I also really enjoyed the Sontaran nurse! I do have to say though that the 7 episodes have left me slightly confused - the storyline does not seem to have been that easy to follow. And the doctor suggesting that Amy had been 'swapped' before America was interesting - I had thought that she was swapped during the Silence episode when she was captured.

All in all though I enjoyed the series so far and the episode. It is a shame we have to wait till the autumn now but hey!

Tom
 
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I thought it was the one that River Song said about her birthdays and there being 2 doctor's!

I really enjoyed it, there were a few twists in the storyline, and some good fun characters - as others have said I also really enjoyed the Sontaran nurse! I do have to say though that the 7 episodes have left me slightly confused - the storyline does not seem to have been that easy to follow. And the doctor suggesting that Amy had been 'swapped' before America was interesting - I had thought that she was swapped during the Silence episode when she was captured.

All in all though I enjoyed the series so far and the episode. It is a shame we have to wait till the autumn now but hey!

Tom

Ahhh, I thought it was the Sontaran nurse's comment about breast milk... [Smile]
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I thought it was the one that River Song said about her birthdays and there being 2 doctor's!


Ahhh, I thought it was the Sontaran nurse's comment about breast milk... [Smile]
There are obviously more potentially naughty lines than I realised. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
There were a few such lines [Biased] . I quite liked "We're the Thin Fat Married Gay Anglican couple. Do we need names as well?"

Not too sure about the denouement of River being Amy's daughter (yuk, poor River) but at least she wasn't a shape-changing alien.

However, the whole episode seemed to rush past in a flood of allusions I mostly either didn't get or only got belatedly. I wasn't too keen on the messianic approach to the Doctor who was busy trying to win the Last Battle/Armageddon/Ragnarok without any real explanation or lead-up to what this was about. What the show's intended target audience of children made of all this I can't imagine.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I meant the scene where the Victorian Silurian and her maid/lover are in the control room and she says something about all mammals looking alike. Then she says, "Oh was I being insensitive again? I don't know why you put up with me." At which point her very long, agile lizard tongue flicks out to stop the soldiers escaping. The women exchange a brief meaningful glance.

OK, so I have a filthy mind...
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
The Victorian Silurian is really cool! And very gay.
The bit where the Sontaran is dying and Rory says "Hang on - you're a warrior," and the Sontaran says "I'm a nurse." Since Rory has been saying "I'm a nurse" throughout the season, I thought that was a bit - kind of twisting the knife, but I'm not sure why. But Rory was totally awesome when facing down the Cybermen.
And I did like the return, if ever so briefly, of the Spitfires in Space and the pirates.
The blue guy was rather Sidney Greenstreet, wasn't he?
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:

[/qb]

I meant the scene where the Victorian Silurian and her maid/lover are in the control room and she says something about all mammals looking alike. Then she says, "Oh was I being insensitive again? I don't know why you put up with me." At which point her very long, agile lizard tongue flicks out to stop the soldiers escaping. The women exchange a brief meaningful glance.

OK, so I have a filthy mind... [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well with a tongue like that, what girl could resist?


[Snigger]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
What I want to know is whether Moffat had decided who River Song was back when he wrote Time of Angels/ Forest of the Dead. Because some of the dialogue between River and Amy in that must be interesting with hindsight.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I think Moffat falls far short of Pullman's take on organised church - which is seriously thought out - but I suspect has something more behind it than Dan Brown, who I think is merely silly.

I suspect, from watching Moffat in his interview, that he is one of those who has fallen foul of some representative of one or another of the churches, a representative who has himself (probably male) fallen short of what we would hope such a person to be. Having known something of the sort in my family, and in a friend's life, I know how this sort of thing can rankle (and that's an understatement). He seemed to take the activities of churches more personally than simply extrapolating from the historical activities of Inquisitors and Witch Finders General, modified by observations of the excesses of the Westboro Baptists.

Which is not an excuse.

Penny

[ 05. June 2011, 20:49: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
The Victorian Silurian is really cool! And very gay.

It's nice to see a Silurian who's on good terms with humans after all this time. (I wonder whether Moffat's read Fingersmith or other Sarah Waters?)
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
So, my question; could it be the Doctor killing the Doctor?
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
Checking in for the first time in ages on this thread (or any other for that matter) to place myself in the 'loving it' camp. The characters were great, and the Sontaran nurse seems to be gathering his own fan club. Loved the 'River Song' mystery being largely due to a translation issue, and as someone has said it was beautifully handled. The tiny shake of Amy's head was probably the single best piece of acting we've seen from her. I too wondered why though, if it was River in the spacesuit, she didn't remember killing the Doctor, or whoever - unless something timey-wimey has happened in the meantime to alter her memory.

I know he isn't everyone's cup of tea (or bag of jelly babies), but I have to say I think Matt Smith is coming into his own. He was funny and moving, and I loved the look on his face on 'the only time they were together in the Tardis was on their w... [Eek!] '

I'm sure I didn't dream the little teaser after the end credits (even though it isn't showing on iPlayer), but nobody has mentioned it - if anyone else saw it, what did you make of it?

(Ooh, cross-posted with Firenze - didn't think of that!)

[ 05. June 2011, 21:09: Message edited by: Stumbling Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Having seen it a second time for the podcast commentary (now online, link in my sig!), I still enjoyed it loads. But I did think that the ending wasn't as much of a cliffhanger as it could have been. River Song turning up and saying "It's me, and everything's going to be okay" isn't as dramatic as her turning up and saying "It's me, so unless you find the baby, you'll have never met me", which would have upped the stakes somewhat.

When Moffat hyped up the "game-changing cliffhanger", I thought I'd be gagging to find out what happens next, but I'm not particularly. I'm looking forward to the second half of the next series, but as a cliffhanger, it lacks urgency.

Quibbles aside, still brilliant!
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
quote:
Originally posted by Lola:
But if River is the child that was in the space suit then she killed (or believes she killed or killed a flesh avatar of) the Doctor at the start of the series. Also - can't remember the early episodes clearly - why wouldn't she remember that when they turned up at the lake and watched it happen?

You know I'm not too sure that she didn't remember. After she'd unloaded her gun at the disappearing astronaut she seemed to pause as if remembering something and murmured "Of course,"

Which set off a bell in my mind at the time but I didn't pursue the thought further.

having just rewatched ep 1 & 2 (with subs to be sure!) what she says is 'of course not' which I read as trying to shoot spacesuit but then realising no point - of course it couldn't have happened that way. Which would fit if it was her past/his future???

And at the death Amy or Rory ask about duplicates, plastic etc and Canton thingy 3rd says he knows for sure it is the real doctor.

And as for the silents...they must have got to me, I had completely forgotten Amy's capture by them!! When people referred to possibly swap moments I was thinking about the running and 3 month gap.

Going back with hindsight is great for picking up the hints, from the armies would seek a single timelord cell hence the burning, and the whole army in this week's.

Were the silents entrusted with her safety or did they pinch her from the home where the others had put her?

When Amy was captured by them they said her part was short but that she would bring the silence...
hmmm...
 
Posted by Michael Snow (# 16363) on :
 
NINE pages about Silence?
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Two questions.

At one stage, the Doctor sniffed the baby and then hugged/sniffed Amy and said something like (to the baby), 'Yes, she belongs to you'. But the baby was a ganger (or avatar, as this week's episode called them). So is Amy still not real Amy? My head is spinning.

And we still don't know who Eye Patch Lady is (OK, we know her name, Kovarian or something), but not why she/the Church has a never ending war with the Doctor. Are we before or after the Doctor and the Church co-operated at the wreck of the Byzantium?

I loved the Sontaran nurse, too, and both Macarius and I thought that Dorium was very Sidney Greenstreet, as mentioned above! I liked it, although I'd come across River's identity on the internet a couple of weeks ago, which was a bit disappointing.

One thing that is beginning to irritate (as well as intrigue), is that every answer just opens more questions. Nothing is ever complete - the 'arc' is becoming more important than each episode, and I think it would be good to have an ending at some stage. In 'Confidential', Stephen Moffatt as good as said that it won't end, though.

And I saw the trailer for the next one too!

M.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
PS, Is it just me or do other people read the thread title to themselves in a funny hissy voice?

M.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It's just you.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
As soon as I heard the Thin Fat etc line I said "Ship sig!"

But they are Not Fools, so perhaps not.

They were channelling Nick Pegg/Steve Frost though!

So... is Amy now thinking "Eww, I nearly made out with my son-in-law!"
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
I think I need a badge: 'I'm an Anglican Cleric - I'm armed and dangerous'. I also need to learn the Headless Monks' attack prayer for use at certain times...

Moffat was tweeting on Saturday that he thought the 'evil church' was a dramatic staple rather than a real-life situation - after Paul Cornell ('Father's Day', series 1) complained about the use of the church as the baddies. So he may not be as anti-church as it seems.

And I thought the gay Anglicans and the lesbian Victorian Silurian/human couple were pure RTD - almost as if he had never left - but the return of the 'carnival of monsters' approach to the series 'finale' was a less welcome reminder of the Davies days. What had the blue trader (last seen trying to sell River a Time Bracelet 'straight off the wrist of a Time Agent') ever done with the Doctor that meant he owed him a debt? Why did the Doctor take a month to arrive at Demon's Run - and a month from when? And did the Cybermen have a Cybus Corporation C on their breastplates or not (cousin and I are arguing over this)?

PS Guessed (amongst other theories) the River Song solution when the pregnancy was announced and denied. Became certain at the beginning of this episode when the name was given.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think Moffat falls far short of Pullman's take on organised church - which is seriously thought out - but I suspect has something more behind it than Dan Brown, who I think is merely silly.

I suspect, from watching Moffat in his interview, that he is one of those who has fallen foul of some representative of one or another of the churches, a representative who has himself (probably male) fallen short of what we would hope such a person to be. Having known something of the sort in my family, and in a friend's life, I know how this sort of thing can rankle (and that's an understatement). He seemed to take the activities of churches more personally than simply extrapolating from the historical activities of Inquisitors and Witch Finders General, modified by observations of the excesses of the Westboro Baptists.

Which is not an excuse.

He doesn't need an excuse. Nor does he need your approval. What he has written, he has written. But I do find it amusing that having already watched mind-controlling aliens you can't remember, crazed medical software, a TARDIS-eating monster living outside the universe and acid-mining clones just in this series, people can take this particular concept so seriously and personally.

I found it quite enjoyable at the time, thanks to some sharp dialogue (which has done a lot for flimsy stories this series), but it left me feeling empty. There was just too much that didn't make sense, and the tricks and surprises weren't enough to distract from that. The Doctor was apparently so furious that he was prepared to suddenly start blowing things up for no reason other than to get the Cybermen's attention, but his cunning plan was dancing on a knife edge, and would only have worked with a cool head. Then at the end of the episode, with everything lying in tatters and the baby still missing, he just starts giggling and runs off to do something else entirely? No. Just no.

The "trap" was also rather pointless. They seemed quite happy for the Doctor et al to pop up because of this trap, but it didn't ever seriously threaten any of the main characters (the Doctor wasn't even there), and seeing that the baby was never really there, it only seemed to exist to get rid of the extras who were dragged in to make this feel a bit more epic. Did the Headless Monks (the best bit IMO) conveniently get killed off at exactly the same time as the Extras, or did they just wander off having done their job of depleting the cast back to normal, manageable levels?

The best reason I can think of for the "trap" is from a script perspective - it provided a distraction to ensure that the viewer didn't think too much about Amy's baby, so that the Flesh Baby revelation was an effective shock. The other surprise about the baby, though, was less effective. The River-Pond similarity was obvious waaaaay back, and River as Amy's baby was a clear possibility based on existing knowledge, albeit at the level of "I wouldn't be surprised if..." rather than "I'm sure that..." The lack of surprise isn't the end of the world, but it does make it harder to ignore the weak points in the plot, and causes further problems of motivation and consistency.

There must now be very short odds that the Astronaut is River as a girl. In which case, why did she give no indication in ep1 of recognising the time and place? And why, seeing that she must have known what was going to happen and was willing to shoot at her younger self, didn't she try to do so before the Doctor was shot? The only possible answer I can come up with is that the Doctor had to be shot for some reason, but she didn't want to live with having done it, so why not just shoot her current self? There may be explanations forthcoming and even some concealed twists, but my hopes aren't high on this evidence.

Worst of all, they've made River into some sort of ersatz Time Lord/Lady thing, so when Alex Kingston gets too old to play the ever-younger River, or just wants to move on, they'll have a way of recasting her to keep the character going in an earlier regeneration. I get the horrible feeling we're stuck with her for good. [Frown]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I suppose that when the Dr spoke to the baby, he was speaking to the original, as he had spoken to the original Amy through her avatar. And perhaps Madam Kovarian had done some trick like a shepherd wiping the abandoned lamb with the birth fluids of the dead one, so the ewe adopts it and feeds it. It might be easier to hide a flesh baby - and he didn't have long to work on it, whereas he hid some time to work out what was happening with Amy.

River Song has grown up quite well given that she has been deprived of loving contact in a crucial stage of her development. I remember the work done with monkeys and wire milk stations or soft toy milk stations, rather than actual mothers. And given that the intent of the bringers up is to produce a weapon, bringing her up without love would be a prime factor, I would imagine. But maybe Moffat isn't as up on nurture as on gender bending.

Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
My first instinct on seeing this week's episode was to dislike it strongly. This is because -
(a) I don't like the "The Doctor's this big bad universally famous legend thingy, ooh let's be automatically scared of him" theme.
(b) I didn't like the gathering-an-army theme. Pointless.
(c) I don't like the Nu-Silurians. Not even lesbian ones.

But then I thought, hang on - was this episode actually good at doing what it set out to do? And the answer, I thought, was yes - it was very good indeed. It ticked all the boxes. It was big, loud, spectacular. It gave a large nod to Star Wars (and a little one to Thunderbirds). It had some very funny lines, and, I thought, a genuinely scary performance from Matt Smith, in the "Colonel Run Away" scene. The "reveal" was clever and, as Moffat pointed out in Confidential, did what a reveal should do, which is to create more questions than it answered.

The question I was left with, however - and I have never said this since the show returned - is, was it Doctor Who? How did this episode fit with the man who slips in and out of time and space at random? Who often doesn't know where he is, or where he's going? Whom nobody knows because he says, "Don't mention it", or "I hate goodbyes", or simply slips quietly away when no-one is looking? How did he become a galactic megastar who can turn armies around just by saying, "Basically - run"? And, more to the point, why?

People didn't tell stories and write songs about the old Doctor. The universe is a big place, in which it's a big thing to make a name for yourself, and so his interventions were lost to history. I can imagine his name being written out of the official investigation of the Sandminer in Robots of Death; forgotten in the efforts of recolonising Earth after The Ark in Space; a mere footnote in the private history of the royal family of Peladon. How did we get from there to where we are today? I don't know, and I'm increasingly unsure that I like it.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
So... is Amy now thinking "Eww, I nearly made out with my son-in-law!"

I presume that neither Amy nor the Doctor ever told the Doctor about that.
Expect mother-in-law jokes throughout the next bit of the series.

I thought it was a fun episode taken on its own terms.

Still, coming at it from a nitpicking continuity point of view: If Dorian is killed here, then when River escapes at the Pandorica it must be prior to this episode in her personal timeline. She didn't recognise centurion Rory back in The Pandorica Opens. On the other hand, she didn't recognise Rory this time either. The whole randomly intersecting timelines, or even backwards timelines, is a fun idea, but Moffat does need to get it straight in his own head when River first meets companions from her point of view.
Also, River in the past has been much more emotionally focussed on the Doctor than on Amy and Rory. You'd think she'd have considered Amy and Rory as emotionally significant. 'This is the day the Doctor finds out who I am' - surely with her dad right in front of her she'd be thinking of him finding out who she is as well?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Gumby, you've got good points (aside - haven't read Moffat's tweets, but on Confidential, he seemed more anti-church than that, but then I'm not bothered by Pullman, and there are situations where anti-church is not only understandable but a proper reaction), especially about plot holes.

The identity of River Song (I suppose she ought to be called Song, first) had to be, since if the two mysterious identities were not the same, it would mean introducing a new character. Moffat stated in Confidential that a complex question deserved a complex answer, but he does like referring back and bringing characters back, so the complexity of someone we have never met would seem unlikely.

I think the trap had two parts, the first being the possibility that he could be dealt with on Demon's Run, the second the back up, develop the baby to be his doom.

But I feel a bit like Cassidy and Sundance - who are these guys? Why are they set on his destruction? In the Pandorica, the enemies were the obvious enemies. These are people we have never met. If it is his part in the mysterious Time Wars, why not let us know? Why do they have him as a dark legend? What has he been up to that even River warns him about it? And where are the Time Agents? And how can there be a place which is Heaven-neutral to an evangelising church?

We've seen a lot of futures, and they don't fit together. Not that I can be bothered to check it all out. And the person I watch with can't be bothered to watch Who again at all. He wants proper narrative.

Penny
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'm with Adeodatus - as well as disliking the whole story arc thing (uber-clever though undoubtedly it is), I'm finding myself disliking the character the Doctor is becoming: he's paradoxically being portrayed as more Superhero and more human (less alien, less weird, less other) simultaneously, neither of which I like. It's a bit like the new (Daniel Craig) Bond films versus the 'classic' (Connery/ Moore) films.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Just spotted another hole, I think. Madame K went to get on her ship, but found it occupied by the pirates. How did she get off with the real baby, then?

Penny
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:


So... is Amy now thinking "Eww, I nearly made out with my son-in-law!"

She's probably more Eww over having fed her.


Sorry.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The question I was left with, however - and I have never said this since the show returned - is, was it Doctor Who? How did this episode fit with the man who slips in and out of time and space at random? Who often doesn't know where he is, or where he's going? Whom nobody knows because he says, "Don't mention it", or "I hate goodbyes", or simply slips quietly away when no-one is looking? How did he become a galactic megastar who can turn armies around just by saying, "Basically - run"? And, more to the point, why?

People didn't tell stories and write songs about the old Doctor. The universe is a big place, in which it's a big thing to make a name for yourself, and so his interventions were lost to history. I can imagine his name being written out of the official investigation of the Sandminer in Robots of Death; forgotten in the efforts of recolonising Earth after The Ark in Space; a mere footnote in the private history of the royal family of Peladon. How did we get from there to where we are today? I don't know, and I'm increasingly unsure that I like it.

Agreed.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Just spotted another hole, I think. Madame K went to get on her ship, but found it occupied by the pirates. How did she get off with the real baby, then?

I'm guessing the baby went long before. Even when Madame K was stopped by Rory, she might not have been the real one. They knew the Doctor was coming and would have to be pretty careless to allow any possibility of losing the baby they went to so much trouble to get. That was one thing that seemed to make sense.

I'm going to have to watch this again myself, but I was so unimpressed, I haven't felt at all inclined to do so yet. Moffat's got some serious work to do in order to tie everything up, and the Cult of Song isn't going to help. The series so far is long on action and snappy dialogue, but short on detailed, coherent plot, and with all the arrows pointing in one direction, he needs to produce a genuine surprise which doesn't feel totally forced. Amy having twins, or River killing Rory, or anyone else but River in the spacesuit would work if done well (although I realise I've just nobbled the "surprise" element by suggesting them), but anything involving more Flesh is out.

Before this aired, I nearly posted about Moffat saying that the Daleks were being "rested". If he's got the clout to do that with the BBC's most marketable (and overexposed) baddies, I thought, what was going on with that abysmal episode last series, which seemed to have no purpose except to create some redesigned models to flog to impressionable kids? And then this week, he dragged the bloody Spitfires in Space into it again - the very worst bit of a total clanger of an episode. I know it was just a cameo, but the only proper place for them is encased in lead in a locked filing cabinet at the bottom of the sea, where no one will be exposed to their craptastic naffness.

Moffat's written some brilliant stuff, including just about all the best stand-alone stories of New Who, and he's earned the right to be judged on the series as a whole, but I'm feeling a lot less confident that he really knows what he's doing.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The question I was left with, however - and I have never said this since the show returned - is, was it Doctor Who? How did this episode fit with the man who slips in and out of time and space at random? Who often doesn't know where he is, or where he's going? Whom nobody knows because he says, "Don't mention it", or "I hate goodbyes", or simply slips quietly away when no-one is looking? How did he become a galactic megastar who can turn armies around just by saying, "Basically - run"? And, more to the point, why?

I also dislike the Celebritification of the Doctor, making him into some universally-recognised figure.

But one of the things that I liked about this story is that it calls that into question, and shows the Doctor getting into problems because of it - River Song in particular takes him to task for it at the end.

We also now know that she was created as a weapon against the Doctor. I reckon he might have a big wake-up call in the offing.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I read somewhere that part of this two-parter was a way to get rid of some of the doctor's fame.

Either way though, tick me as another one who was rather disappointed by this episode. Maybe it's because my housemate figured out the River Song thing--even before the Melody Pond name--but I think it's also because there wasn't really much to think about and although there some parts where we got to enjoy the doctor being classically himself, there weren't nearly enough.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
It was the how Madam K left part, rather than the baby, that was exercising me. After all, she's kidnapped someone earlier than expected before. I do think it's a bit of a cheat to have had Amy taken before the series started, though.

Penny
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I also dislike the Celebritification of the Doctor, making him into some universally-recognised figure.

But one of the things that I liked about this story is that it calls that into question, and shows the Doctor getting into problems because of it - River Song in particular takes him to task for it at the end.

We also now know that she was created as a weapon against the Doctor. I reckon he might have a big wake-up call in the offing.

What, like last series? And pretty much the whole of Tennant's run, especially towards the end - Waters of Mars, anyone? That's apparently the way this is heading, but it's been done to death. Now, if it's handled in such a way that you actually see the Doctor as the bad guy, and maybe realise that Kovarian's basically good...
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was the how Madam K left part, rather than the baby, that was exercising me. After all, she's kidnapped someone earlier than expected before. I do think it's a bit of a cheat to have had Amy taken before the series started, though.

Penny

Madame K went cos they marched everyone off the ... rock... and sent them away, didn't they? Hence being left with an empty planet/asteroid to not register life signs on.

But I don't believe the Dr knew Amy was missing much before the last couple of episodes, or how can he justify buggering about and having fun on random planets and not searching for her with a bit more focus?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
If the Doctor is seen as the Big Bad, a dark legend, how come the people opposing him do so using bad methods? To be convincing they'd have to look good, wouldn't they? Like a bunch of Franciscan friars, or non-violent protestors.

What do we want? No Doctor. When don't we want him? Now. Or then, either.

Passive resistance to the Doctor. Wouldn't lead to very dramatic plots, though. Less frenetic, more time to explain. Wouldn't suit Moffat.

Interesting point he made about rules, though. The good don't need them. He has many, so he is not good. But wouldn't seeing the need for self restraint, and applying it against strong urges to abandon it be the action of someone good?

(Doesn't fit with the Cyber elimination, though. Which doesn't fit with the previous behaviour.)

Penny
 
Posted by Wayfaring Stranger (# 15081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I meant the scene where the Victorian Silurian and her maid/lover are in the control room and she says something about all mammals looking alike. Then she says, "Oh was I being insensitive again? I don't know why you put up with me." At which point her very long, agile lizard tongue flicks out to stop the soldiers escaping. The women exchange a brief meaningful glance.

OK, so I have a filthy mind...

I have to say, that one went right over my head.

The Stevie Wonder joke made me laugh out loud though.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Interesting point he made about rules, though. The good don't need them. He has many, so he is not good. But wouldn't seeing the need for self restraint, and applying it against strong urges to abandon it be the action of someone good?

I think Davies brought in that aspect of the Doctor's character, but I'm not convinced it's quite consistent with the classic Doctor. To some extent I think the Doctor never saw a rule that he wasn't prepared to at least bend when human life or happiness was at stake.

The Doctor should be a poster boy for the old-fashioned liberal humanism that was supposedly destroyed by the Twentieth Century: he should believe that everyone is good at heart, that evil results from fear, and that fear is dispelled by knowledge and understanding. Therefore, he shouldn't believe that people need to be kept in check by rules.
That's one reason why the daleks and cybermen are such good villains: not only are they the antithesis of the Doctor's values, they also bring those values into question. Daleks were designed by Davros to not be good at heart.

I don't mind (mild) hostility to organised religion in Doctor Who, because organised religion is one of the things that the liberal humanist tradition has traditionally been hostile too. (Although I think Barbara and Ian must have been practicing Christians: they don't think it would be out of character for them to claim to have been missionaries for two years.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I assumed the many rules are for himself, not those he applies to others.

Penny
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Loved the Silurian, she should work with Sherlock Homes sometime.

Disliked the 'full company onstage' aspect as it's been done to death. It's like a little boy getting all his toys out at once.

Re the celebrity Doctor - have we forgotten Martha's John the Baptist act and Floaty Tinkerbell Jesus Doctor? (I know I've tried to...)
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayfaring Stranger:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Still, a lot of fun overall and some nice lines. Including one very naughty one pitched to go over the kids heads (hopefully!)

Do you mean the one about Amy and Rory spending their wedding night on the Tardis?

I meant the scene where the Victorian Silurian and her maid/lover are in the control room and she says something about all mammals looking alike. Then she says, "Oh was I being insensitive again? I don't know why you put up with me." At which point her very long, agile lizard tongue flicks out to stop the soldiers escaping. The women exchange a brief meaningful glance.

OK, so I have a filthy mind...

I have to say, that one went right over my head.


And when her 'maid' gets mistaken for a boy, she says "Oh, no, she's all woman".
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If the Doctor is seen as the Big Bad, a dark legend, how come the people opposing him do so using bad methods? To be convincing they'd have to look good, wouldn't they? Like a bunch of Franciscan friars, or non-violent protestors.

Would they? The Moff's said that everyone thinks of themselves as good, but consider the next episode, whenever it's due to air: Let's Kill Hitler. That's a staple of rewriting history plots, and the standard example to show that however distasteful war may be, sometimes it's the best thing to do. You'd have to be seriously pacifist to oppose that war. In fact, I strongly suspect that the thrust of the episode will only be tangential to Hitler, and may not feature him at all (I deliberately avoid trailers and spoilers, so the trailers may have already debunked this theory, making me look really stupid). I think the story will either be about rewriting history (or attempting to), particularly in relation to River's history and the Doctor's future-history, or else it'll start to paint the Doctor as the Bad Guy who must be stopped. It might even be about people trying to kill the Doctor or change history to prevent him turning bad/existing.

Much of what's been going on could be seen very differently from the other side of the fence. The exceptions, I think, are the Headless Monks (who might just seem sinister because they're mysterious and alien) and the whole kidnapping thing, but again, we were prepared to do some pretty nasty things in WWII, and I'm sure we would have kidnapped one pregnant woman to take her baby if it would have won the war. After all, the "good guys" bombed Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
quote:
Interesting point he made about rules, though. The good don't need them. He has many, so he is not good. But wouldn't seeing the need for self restraint, and applying it against strong urges to abandon it be the action of someone good?

(Doesn't fit with the Cyber elimination, though. Which doesn't fit with the previous behaviour.)

The "rules" thing is new. Or at least if the Doctor had rules before, they were informal, and applied on the level of Star Trek's Prime Directive, being dragged out occasionally when the plot required it, and cheerfully ignored the rest of the time because they just get in the way. And having rules is one thing, but sticking to them is quite another, as the Cyberfleet would attest. If you need so many rules, and don't always stick to them even then, I'd say that makes you pretty dangerous. Substitute Doctor for knife/gun/bomb and see how safe you feel.

There's been lots about him losing control when he's angry - I wonder if (wild speculation alert) there's a strange timey-wimey thing going on, and he's dangerous because of what he's going to do, but only because he's angry at the things Madame K et al have done to try to stop him. After all, he's zipping about all over time and space, so he may well end up doing Bad Things in our past in his future. Knowing this, he planned the picnic and his death so that Rory, Amy and River would try to rewrite history to prevent it, and in doing so, by a sort of timey-wimey butterfly effect, break the self-perpetuating cycle of aggression, which in itself is quite a neat metaphor for war in general.

That's probably complete bollocks, but I like the idea, so I'll leave it there on the off-chance that some part of it ends up being close to what happens. Apologies for loser-length post.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If the Doctor is seen as the Big Bad, a dark legend, how come the people opposing him do so using bad methods? To be convincing they'd have to look good, wouldn't they? Like a bunch of Franciscan friars, or non-violent protestors.

What do we want? No Doctor. When don't we want him? Now. Or then, either.

Passive resistance to the Doctor. Wouldn't lead to very dramatic plots, though. Less frenetic, more time to explain. Wouldn't suit Moffat.

Now that would be an interesting story! The Doctor, hell-bent on the destruction of some alien menace, finds himself at odds with a passive-resistance protest group.

I don't think it's been done before, at least on tv, though there are parallels. The very first Dalek story saw the Doctor and Ian talking the Thals out of their pacifism. Then there was Professor Jones's commune in The Green Death protesting against the chemicals factory that UNIT had been ordered to protect.

I wonder how the story would work out?

I wonder, also, if the Doctor's "death" (I assume I should be putting "death" in quotes!) in The Impossible Astronaut is his attempt to make the universe at large believe he's dead and, as it were, reset his reputation to zero?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I wonder, also, if the Doctor's "death" (I assume I should be putting "death" in quotes!) in The Impossible Astronaut is his attempt to make the universe at large believe he's dead and, as it were, reset his reputation to zero?

Nice theory. However, if he were arranging his death in that fashion I'd assume he'd have it witnessed by more than three / four trusted companions.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I wonder, also, if the Doctor's "death" (I assume I should be putting "death" in quotes!) in The Impossible Astronaut is his attempt to make the universe at large believe he's dead and, as it were, reset his reputation to zero?

Nice theory. However, if he were arranging his death in that fashion I'd assume he'd have it witnessed by more than three / four trusted companions.
If he's that (in)famous, I'd expect word to get around. And The Silence were watching as well, remember? But I think he wanted those people there for a particular reason, and the reason was presumably to make something happen/not happen. (Actually, does the fact that he thought Amy had been replaced before America have any bearing on this, or is it just coincidence?)

But having said that, I'm also wondering whether this series is building up to some sort of reboot, where the Doctor can stop being an Intergalactic Superstar and get back to pottering around and having crazy adventures - more like Doctor Who ought to be, as discussed above. Not sure how it would work, but it feels plausible, and Moffat's certainly not shy of recreating the universe/rewriting history (there's that theme again) the way he thinks it should be.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I wonder if Moffat's going to try to play with the idea that rewriting history is actually difficult, and that's why a war against the Doctor involves quite a bit more than just shooting him in the head until he runs out of regenerations. If he's already famous throughout space and time, then killing him directly could do anything from rebooting the universe to having the Reapers eat everything again, unless you had your own Time Lord to do it according to protocol.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
Re: the motivation of the church 'baddies'. They are quite clearly the Church Militant and go about serving God as ordered. But what if they encounter tales of someone else so powerful that he could be a god: a man able to alter time itself, even to live outside time in some way: a man who clearly wasn't the God they believed in.

Wouldn't it then be not only important but necessary to try to rid the universe of this man? 'Good man' or not, they would want him out of the way, by whatever means necessary (as long as they were approved by the Papal mainframe herself - does that mean the future is Anglo-Papalist?)

Only question is that, if River Song is kidnapped by the Anglican Army in order to kill the Doctor, why is she then locked up by them for 'killing a good man'? (It was the Clerics who released her - and took her back - in the last series)
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Changing the subject a bit, I've been wondering why River couldn't go and help Rory etc. until the very end. I suppose it was so she didn't meet herself-as-Melody (or at least pretend-Melody), which you can't do without exploding the universe (except when it's necessary for the plot, of course).

OK, so it's taken me a long while to get there.

M.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Changing the subject a bit, I've been wondering why River couldn't go and help Rory etc. until the very end. I suppose it was so she didn't meet herself-as-Melody (or at least pretend-Melody), which you can't do without exploding the universe (except when it's necessary for the plot, of course).

Moffat doesn't seem to worry about that, as seen by old & young miser interacting in the Christmas show and Amy and Amelia interacting during the whole Pandorica thing.

...Unless Amy was already substituted by then! Maybe they snatched her from the Pandorica during the couple-thousand years she was in there, and subbed Flesh Amy. Flesh Amy could then pat Amelia to her heart's content, which the Doctor would notice as odd and be suspicious that she had been switched! After which, he quietly let Flesh Amy marry Rory without any concern and...no, no, there are too many holes in that theory.

We are probably way overthinking this. With all the bits about River killing a good man, we are meant to think she was in the spacesuit and the Doctor was killed, but the "surprise" will be that she kills some other good man (of which Rory is the only current candidate) and the spacesuit person will turn out to be somebody quite different, like the Doctor himself. Then it will turn out that Spacesuit Doctor is the one that arranged for his little group to all gather there and it was a Flesh Doctor who was killed after spending two centuries acting as a distraction for others while the real Doctor secretly worked on some bogus way to erase knowledge of his existence from the Universe, which is why many (such as the tree lady back in Season 1 of the new series) view him as a legend only.

Plotting is easy if you don't care about making sense. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Some good stuff here.

What no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that at some point (presumably series finale) the tardis has to explode. The last series ended with the enigmatic implication that this would be delved into further... that has to fit somewhere.

Those that fear the doctor don't have to be good to see him as bad. They can be just as bad as they think he is, just want to defeat him.

I Did enjoy the episode very much. One lingering fear that it won't all hang together in the end, but I think it will...

AFZ
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
What no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that at some point (presumably series finale) the tardis has to explode. The last series ended with the enigmatic implication that this would be delved into further... that has to fit somewhere.

Er... the TARDIS did explode at the end of The Pandorica Opens. They sorted that out. The question is who exactly it was who made the TARDIS explode. What did the Silence have to do with it? How was it done? Were the Silence involved for their own reasons, or were they working for someone else? What is the connection between them and the lady with the eyepatch? And what happens when the Silence fall?

[ 07. June 2011, 21:41: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:

Only question is that, if River Song is kidnapped by the Anglican Army in order to kill the Doctor, why is she then locked up by them for 'killing a good man'? (It was the Clerics who released her - and took her back - in the last series)

Hang on a minute, I thought that Rory was the 'good man'. He certainly went to war (all costumed up and everything [Yipee] ) and the Doctor made it very clear that he wasn't a good man with his line about good men not needing rules and him having so many.
No...River is totally not allowed to kill her own dad. I won't let her! Rory is the best person in the current series and has been killed enough.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
*News just in*

It's on the BBC website that the next series has been commissioned, and Matt Smith will be in it. They're saying fourteen episodes, so that's presumably a Christmas special plus a season of thirteen in 2012. No news yet as to whether that season will be spring, autumn, or split.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Yay! [Smile]

Arthur Darvill - Rory - is spending the summer at the Globe, playing Mephistopheles in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, which we're seeing in July. He can't get away from a Doctor...
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Glad I'm not the only one to think of Arthur Darvill as best actor in the series (so far).

Other awards, Marshall Lancaster as Buzzer in the Flesh stories for commanding screen presence, he was noticeable even when he had no dialogue.

Best comedic performance award goes to the Sontaran nurse.

And the Alex Kingston award for being Alex Kingston goes to Alex Kingston. (I'm a fan,can't you tell?)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Other awards, Marshall Lancaster as Buzzer in the Flesh stories for commanding screen presence, he was noticeable even when he had no dialogue.

Erm. YMMV: I had no idea he was in it until I saw the credits.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Wouldn't it then be not only important but necessary to try to rid the universe of this man? 'Good man' or not, they would want him out of the way, by whatever means necessary (as long as they were approved by the Papal mainframe herself - does that mean the future is Anglo-Papalist?)

Yes, that's interesting. I was wondering about the Fat-Thin-Gay-Married-Anglicans being in an army under the command of the Papal Mainframe. The fact that they were Anglican seemed to be distinctive from the context, though. Does that mean the head-donation thing was because they didn't fit in some way? Of course, it could just be lazy writing, but this army seemed to have different badges from the ones in the Forest last series. Is that deliberate? I also feel sure that we'll meet Lorna Bucket again in her past in the Doctor's future. There was too much attention on her character for her just to be discarded in a single episode. But will the Doctor tell her to run, or will he do something else and rewrite history?

Hedgehog, I think it's fair to say that Moffat loves misleading us, so on reflection, I agree that it probably won't be River in the spacesuit because that would be Too Obvious. The trouble is coming up with a satisfying alternative. I like the idea of the Doctor being in there, but I have a nasty feeling that there's going to be a bit more Flesh before the end of the series. I'm still not entirely ruling out the possibility that the Dead Doctor was a more advanced form of the Flesh (which he knew was a very early stage of the technology in the Monastery), but it would have to be done very well to avoid looking like a cop-out.
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Those that fear the doctor don't have to be good to see him as bad. They can be just as bad as they think he is, just want to defeat him

Quite so. But nor do they have to be entirely evil to oppose him. At the very least, I suspect there are going to be lots of shades of grey involved.

Incidentally, has anyone looked at the front page of the Doctor Who site recently? (Possible spoiler) One of these people is not like the others, One of these people just doesn't belong. Some more curious things in there if you look. Does this mean something, or does the Moff's red herring factory extend to the website?

(I can't believe I'm this interested after an episode that was so disappointing. Looks like I'm hooked.)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Hedgehog, I think it's fair to say that Moffat loves misleading us, so on reflection, I agree that it probably won't be River in the spacesuit because that would be Too Obvious.

I'm not sure he does love misleading people. I mean, you could probably hear the shout of 'I knew it' from the UK in outer space when River Song was revealed to be Amy's baby. Someone told him that their eight-year old got it, and Moffat responded that eight-year olds were meant to get it. He's included a few red herrings or incidental details that people have built theories around, but usually the right theory has turned out to be something obvious (and if anything less imaginative than some of the fan theories).

quote:
Incidentally, has anyone looked at the front page of the Doctor Who site recently? One of these people is not like the others, One of these people just doesn't belong.
You mean the Doctor, Amy, Rory, and... Jenny? I was just about to post that.
Yes, it needs explaining. Why Jenny and not Vashta for example. Perhaps the website designer got confused by the Cast List Red Herring and thought it was Jenny, 'the Doctor's daughter' back. Or perhaps it means Jenny actually is the Doctor's daughter back.

quote:
Some more curious things in there if you look. Does this mean something, or does the Moff's red herring factory extend to the website?
Ooh.. such as? I haven't noticed anything else...

[ 08. June 2011, 15:06: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Hedgehog, I think it's fair to say that Moffat loves misleading us, so on reflection, I agree that it probably won't be River in the spacesuit because that would be Too Obvious.

I'm not sure he does love misleading people. I mean, you could probably hear the shout of 'I knew it' from the UK in outer space when River Song was revealed to be Amy's baby.
True, but on the other hand, he's spent the whole series trying to make you think that Amy's got a crush on the Doctor / Amy shagged the Doctor / the baby's the Doctor's. I'm sure there are other examples I can't remember just now.
quote:
quote:
Incidentally, has anyone looked at the front page of the Doctor Who site recently? One of these people is not like the others, One of these people just doesn't belong.
You mean the Doctor, Amy, Rory, and... Jenny? I was just about to post that. Yes, it needs explaining. Why Jenny and not Vashta for example. Perhaps the website designer got confused by the Cast List Red Herring and thought it was Jenny, 'the Doctor's daughter' back. Or perhaps it means Jenny actually is the Doctor's daughter back.
She's the second "Jenny" we've had this series, not counting the Gangers. That in itself is unusual. Of course, she's not Georgia Moffett (shame!), but if she is the Doctor's daughter, albeit by unorthodox means, would that mean she can regenerate? At the very least, it appears that she's going to stick around for a while.
quote:
quote:
Some more curious things in there if you look. Does this mean something, or does the Moff's red herring factory extend to the website?
Ooh.. such as? I haven't noticed anything else...
Have a look at the Doctor's profile. I'm pretty sure that used to be more informative.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Have a look at the Doctor's profile. I'm pretty sure that used to be more informative.

I can't remember the earlier version to compare it to, but giving the answers to Planet of Origin and First Appearance as Unknown is indeed an eyebrow-raiser. That would certainly count in favour of the possibility of more than one Doctor in existence.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I think there was a line or two about how the Anglican Marines didn't usually work with the Headless Monks - it was just for this special occasion.

(Totally unrelated - I just got a UNIT cap badge to sew onto my beret. I am Very Happy).
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Joining in the Arthur Darvill appreciation. There was a lovely moment when the Doctor reveals the cradle was his - he blurted out "It's mine" and you could practically see the thought cross Rory's mind that he was talking about the baby.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Joining in the Arthur Darvill appreciation. There was a lovely moment when the Doctor reveals the cradle was his - he blurted out "It's mine" and you could practically see the thought cross Rory's mind that he was talking about the baby.

Yes, one of many moments thrown in to send you briefly down the wrong track, and it was very well done. The significant details and clues, though, have generally been hidden in plain sight in apparently inconsequential dialogue, such as "Time head" and "My old man". More on that in a moment.

I rewatched AGMGTW last night, and it was much better without heightened expectations. It still didn't make much sense as a plot, and seemed to have been thrown together to include lots of things that will be Important in the rest of the series, with a big reveal at the end to paper over the cracks where they joined up, but it was fun enough, and the lack of coherence might be the price we pay for a thrilling second half.

On second viewing, several things leapt out at me as possibly significant. Make of them what you will. When he goes to fetch River, Rory says she's been with the Doctor from a different time, "unless there's more than one". Quickly glossed over with the "whole other birthday" line, but a very strange thing to say. Also, when Rory was rescuing Amy, a sonic screwdriver could be heard outside the door, but only Rory came in, and the Doctor didn't appear until some time later. Both of these could support the Two Doctors Theory.

Madame K, speaking to the Doctor after her escape, said the baby gave them "hope", a sentiment you wouldn't normally associate with a cartoon villain caricature. Admittedly, the hope was of destroying the Doctor, but it still suggests to me that they're not the pure evil they're being portrayed as.

Part of the poem was "Friendship dies and true love lies when a good man goes to war". I don't think we've clearly seen that yet, but I wouldn't completely trust anything that was said towards the end of the episode. Finally, there's definitely a theme of a healer-warrior. The Doctor is seen as a warrior, Rory the Nurse is becoming one, and the Sontaran was bizarrely and amusingly a nurse, albeit one who defined his existence by the defeat he would eventually inflict on his patients in battle. No idea what that means, though.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Jenny (Dr's daughter) did regenerate at the end of her episode, didn't she?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
In rather sadder news, Roy Skelton died yesterday, aged 79. He was principally a voice artist, and "appeared" in seventeen Doctor Who stories, most often as a Dalek voice. But he was also the first Cybermen voice - that weird, sing-song voice they had in The Tenth Planet - the voice of the Krotons, and also had a couple of on-screen acting credits (his Marshal Chedaki in The Android Invasion was, IMO, one of the best things about that rather dull story).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
[Votive]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
In noticed the proliferation of Jennies - but then, in real life, you do get clusters of people with the same name, and Moffat could just have been playing with random, for a joke.

Or, of course, not.

My name does not occur as frequently as Jennifer, but there were three of us in a class of about 14 when I was 7!

Red herring production - presumably the listing of Sydney's parts as the little girl and the named part was one.
Penny

[ 09. June 2011, 10:21: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Jenny (Dr's daughter) did regenerate at the end of her episode, didn't she?

If I remember correctly she didn't regenerate as such (no change in appearance) but recovered because her second heart kicked in. I may be wrong.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
]If I remember correctly she didn't regenerate as such (no change in appearance) but recovered because her second heart kicked in. I may be wrong.

She didn't change appearance. I can't remember how the episode handwaved it.
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
What episodes are running now? Anything anywhere? What are we supposed to watch on Saturday evenings...
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
What episodes are running now? Anything anywhere? What are we supposed to watch on Saturday evenings...

Seems to be nothing, no Dr, no sherlock, no Merlin, no nothing.
I did get prepared but Battlefield got watched on Thursday.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Not entirely no Merlin, there's Camelot starting on Channel 4, with Joseph Fiennes as Merlin. No idea how good this will be though.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Jenny was within 24 hours of her creation when she died, so was able to regenerate in the same body - rather like David Tennant was able to regrow a hand rather quickly when fighting the Sycorax at the beginning of his regeneration. There was definitely the golden breath thing when she woke up.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
What episodes are running now? Anything anywhere? What are we supposed to watch on Saturday evenings...

Come to kiwiland ...
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
Finally seen the last episode. A few thoughts. Firstly, I don't see how Rory can be the 'good man' that River is supposed to have killed. Surely he would not be important enough for the Anglican army to care about; certainly not enough to lock River in the Storm Cage for however many years. Unless, of course, he subsequently does something that makes him important to them, but I can't see that happening.

Secondly, nothing said implied that the Headless Monks were Christian, for those concerned about Moffatt's anti-church bias. They seemed to be just a stock-standard horror villain, it seems to me. I was much more interested in the Anglican general, tbh. A much more interesting and complex character.

Loved the Sontaran nurse, though.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'd like to know how the Headless Monks managed their battle chant. Or indeed how they were powered at all. Proper science fiction would have an explanation for the force driving them.

In Moffat's confidential, there was a definite implication that the headlessness was the logical end of religion and that the religion he had in mind was the one he knew best.

The Dean of King's College London has on the wall of his office a small poster reading "Jesus came to take away your sins, not your brain". The existence of this poster suggests that there are those within Christianity have noted the same tendency that Moffat has.

Penny
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
Fair enough, Penny - We only get about 10 minutes of Confidential, and this one contained no interview with Moffat, so I was just going on the episode itself. I still rather like the Colonel (I think his rank was), as he came across as rather more interesting - his immediate response to the disappearing doctor was to tell people not to shoot, which I thought was interesting.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I thought the not shooting was mostly because of a) the lighting, and b) the chance of shooting the actual Headless Monks, who were their allies, and hosts on the asteroid. Or, indeed, each other.

Like the end of Blake's Seven, with the circular firing squad.

That he needed to tell his people not to fire in a confusing situation, now that was interesting, and suggests a lack of training.

Penny
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I thought the not shooting was mostly because of a) the lighting, and b) the chance of shooting the actual Headless Monks, who were their allies, and hosts on the asteroid. Or, indeed, each other.

Like the end of Blake's Seven, with the circular firing squad.

That he needed to tell his people not to fire in a confusing situation, now that was interesting, and suggests a lack of training.

Penny

Didn't the soldiers shoot the wrong monk before that?
I got the distinct impression that the monks and soldiers were one shot/strike away from forgetting their enemy and slaughtering each other.
I am tempted to wonder if that was a deliberate commentary on religouslike behaviour.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'd like to know how the Headless Monks managed their battle chant.

The "attack prayer"! I think we could do with that at ours.



 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Not entirely no Merlin, there's Camelot starting on Channel 4, with Joseph Fiennes as Merlin. No idea how good this will be though.

Unlike the programmes mentioned, Camelot is definitely NOT family viewing. But it could be, the gratuitous nudity, gore and swearing detracted from the story.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Thanks for that review, Balaam. I had read something in another place which had given me the idea that removing it from the hard drive unwatched might be a good idea. You've confirmed that into a decision.

Penny
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It was quite an interesting version and worth watching for a Morgan who steals the show - charismatic, ruthless, beautiful; Joseph Fiennes plays an intriguingly enigmatic and manipulative Merlin; and Arthur is lacking in self-confidence and comes across as quite a ditherer. It's an interesting take on a familiar story.

Having said that I felt two episodes were simply too long. I lost interest at the end of the first, so am not sure what happened after that. I don't remember a lot of swearing, other than Lot saying "**** it" and walking out of Camelot in disgust.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Are nurses the new Bad Wolf? Besides Rory we had the Sontaran and the pirate ship woman.

Oh, and was I the only one who, when River talked about skating with the Doctor, thought of Hatty in 'Tom's Midnight Garden'? Same idea of meeting someone at different points in time.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Are nurses the new Bad Wolf? Besides Rory we had the Sontaran and the pirate ship woman.

Ooh, I forgot her! And she had a nasty side, as well. So now we have:

Sontaran: warrior-turned-nurse
Medic software: nurse with an apparent vicious streak
Rory: nurse-turned-warrior(?)
The Doctor: "healer" notorious as a great warrior
"Dr" Song: Brought up as a weapon(?), dangerous enough to scare Daleks. Origin of title uncertain, possibly named as a warrior after the Doctor himself?

There's definitely something in this.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I always thought that the Doctor's doctorate, with, more recently, River Song's were the academic sort.

Penny

[ 13. June 2011, 19:54: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Otherwise he'd have done the CPR on Rory, presumably!
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
In a Jon Pertwee story, the Doctor was asked what he's a Doctor of. "Practically everything!" he claimed.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
The Doctor did study medicine in Edinburgh under Lister. The second Doctor revealed this. It was suggested at the time that Lister in the nineteenth century might not have been aware of the kind of things he was coming up against at the time (a nerve infection caused by Cybermen on the Moon when they contaminated the sugar).

Actually, I think I may have already said this. Apologies for repeating myself myself.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
The Doctor did study medicine in Edinburgh under Lister. The second Doctor revealed this. It was suggested at the time that Lister in the nineteenth century might not have been aware of the kind of things he was coming up against at the time (a nerve infection caused by Cybermen on the Moon when they contaminated the sugar).

Actually, I think I may have already said this. Apologies for repeating myself myself.


 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
The Doctor's claim to be a medical doctor has varied. The Second Doctor said he was, the Fourth said he wasn't. I suspect it's just that some incarnations have been more squeamish than others! Or perhaps that TARDIS's translation circuits are confused by the fact that in the UK, most medical doctors don't have an academic doctorate.

I watched the first episode of Camelot at the weekend. Or tried to. I'm a bit of a student of Arthurian literature, and I managed the first hour of the show before deciding I was shouting at the tv too much. What I was watching bore but little resemblance to any version of the Arthur stories from Gildas to T.H.White. Was there eventually a sword in a stone, at some point after I stopped watching?

There was a hint of Arthurian legend in A Good Man Goes To War - the battle that starts by accident. I got the impression that one of the soldiers (the Thin One?) accidentally shot a Monk, and all hell broke loose. Rather like Malory's story of the Battle of Camlann, where the uneasy truce between Arthur's forces and Mordred's is broken when one of the soldiers draws his sword to kill a snake. The flash of steel sets the whole thing off.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
The Doctor did study medicine in Edinburgh under Lister. The second Doctor revealed this. It was suggested at the time that Lister in the nineteenth century might not have been aware of the kind of things he was coming up against at the time (a nerve infection caused by Cybermen on the Moon when they contaminated the sugar).

Actually, I think I may have already said this. Apologies for repeating myself myself.


 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I got the impression in the last episodes that "The Doctor" was a title because he tended to hurts and wounds, his job across the universe was doctoring it. In the same way that The Masters role was domination.

I don't believe that any of the other time lords that we know have such titles - maybe they have to earn them, or maybe they are titles of derision, given when they are sent out.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Adeodatus, thank you for that review. I am now sure I was right not to bother. I was intrigued at first when they referred to the slaughter of boys when Arthur tried to get rid of Mordred, which suggested some scholarship.

I have an odd idea that the old stories have a sort of irreducible core that shouldn't be fiddled with, while the periphery is fair game. So "Merlin" is right out of the story line - pity they didn't just give everyone totally different names, because it would almost work that way. Almost, because viewers are supposed to know that Mordred is going to be a problem.

Yet T.H. White, despite all his humour, isn't off piste. And Robert Newman's Tertius books, and Naomi Mitchison's "To the Chapel Perilous" don't seem to be, either. Or Priestley's "June 31st", or Twain. All of whom had fun in the Arthurian world. There was one bad bit in the stage version of "Camelot". (Arthur was trapped in the forest by the magic of Morgan, to ensure that Lancelot and Guinevere got together - and they did it by bringing a cylinder of perspex up from below stage. I'd have done dry ice and a bit of the dreaded trapped behind glass mime.)

I have a feeling that Moffat has been fiddling with the core, to go back on thread.

Penny

[ 14. June 2011, 20:05: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
My second venture onto the 'Ship' and what do I find? Paradise!
Peter Davison's Doctor met a rebel Time Lord - The 'Rani', as her name was never given, I suppose that counts as a title.

This second Moffat series reminds me a bit of the Baker 'Gothic' era; Remember the Brain of Morbius? It is great stuff, though; intriguing plotlines, good SF and a return to the old days of cliffhangers.
What more could we ask for?
( although the six-year-old me who got hooked on Troughton would have struggled)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
Peter Davison's Doctor met a rebel Time Lord - The 'Rani', as her name was never given, I suppose that counts as a title.

The Rani was introduced while Colin Baker was the Doctor. Maybe your memory refuses to register the costume?
(Colin Baker's Doctor was a worse person than Davison's, but I think he was a better Doctor. That is he was more recognisably a variation on the basic Doctor template (which is Troughton).)
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
This second Moffat series reminds me a bit of the Baker 'Gothic' era; Remember the Brain of Morbius? It is great stuff, though; intriguing plotlines, good SF and a return to the old days of cliffhangers.
What more could we ask for?
( although the six-year-old me who got hooked on Troughton would have struggled)

I do wish Moffat had restrained himself from the grand Everybody On Stage semi-finale, though. I mean, really, the Space Spitfires and Space Pirates? If he is going to call in help, why not, oh, somebody with a proper spaceship and some UNIT troops? They keep doing this Everybody On Stage bit season after season and it increasingly feels like they are just patting themselves on the back. Bad enough to endure it for the season finale, but to have to endure for the semi-finale too? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
So the Doctor said that she had been a ganger since before America so how on earth did her ganger keep it's signal not only outside of the universe but inside of the impregnable dwarf star alloy prison created to hold the Doctor?
 
Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
So the Doctor said that she had been a ganger since before America so how on earth did her ganger keep it's signal not only outside of the universe but inside of the impregnable dwarf star alloy prison created to hold the Doctor?

Well, as "timey-wimey" provides the explanation for some unexplainables, perhaps this is a case of "sciency-wiency"!
It's interesting re-watching for signs of flesh Amy etc - so when all that was left in the home was the flashing, orange recorder - that was killed/melted flesh Amy which woke up the real one, hence the cries through the recorder? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
And how was Ganger Amy substituted at the start of the season if the Gangers were made by the refinery company in a specific period of near-future Earth?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
So the Doctor said that she had been a ganger since before America so how on earth did her ganger keep it's signal not only outside of the universe but inside of the impregnable dwarf star alloy prison created to hold the Doctor?

I would guess that the signal was being routed through the Tardis. That was present in both cases.
I think Rory mentions that the people must have been able to get the signal through the Tardis' security. Using the Tardis to get the signal to the nearby ganger would be the next logical move.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And how was Ganger Amy substituted at the start of the season if the Gangers were made by the refinery company in a specific period of near-future Earth?

That was specifically said to be an early version of the technology. (That was said to be 22nd century I think, while the people who kidnapped Amy were based in something like the 51st century.)
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Ah. Thanks
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Dafyd posted: I would guess that the signal was being routed through the Tardis. That was present in both cases.
I think Rory mentions that the people must have been able to get the signal through the Tardis' security. Using the Tardis to get the signal to the nearby ganger would be the next logical move.

Interesting. I noticed in AGMGTW that there were Tardis corridors in the space station, I thought they must have reused them for budgetary reasons but now I wonder.

One thing my son dislikes about this story cycle is that the Tardis isn't a safe place. I think he always had a sense of relief once the Doctor when back in his Tardis....not this season or last.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
Not only was it my second post, but my first 'senior momment'- and I'm not even a senior, yet. The worst of it is, I HAVE 'Time and the Rani', and all the other Colin Baker DVDs.
Actually ( to cover blushes at my blasphemy ) Colin Baker's Doctor was well casted, and acted. A refreshing change after Davison's 'cricketter' Doctor. The sense of alienness he gave out was great, and Peri's reactions were a great foil. When he and Troughton were together in The Two Doctors ( with Fraser "Hoots, mon" Hines thrown in as a very old youthful Jamie ) there was a great rapport, with non of the self congratulations of the other 'Three' and 'Five' Doctor stories.
Come to think about it, how about an encounter between Paul McGhann and Matt Smith's Doctors for the fiftieth anniversary?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
Come to think about it, how about an encounter between Paul McGhann and Matt Smith's Doctors for the fiftieth anniversary?

I would like to see McGann appear in the new series, if only so that his Doctor has a television appearance the existence of which we don't mind acknowledging. His performance was just about the only good thing about the TV movie. It would be nice to see Eccleston reappearing as well (and Tennant, although Tennant had a longer outing and is more recent).

I agree that, of the things that were wrong with Colin Baker's period, few or none were the fault of Colin Baker.

[ 17. June 2011, 22:16: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Back to the latest series.

I don't think River can be the little girl, because she didn't recognise the space suit. But then why the picture of Amy and the baby in the little girl's room?

In 'Confidential', I think Alex Kingston said something about how many babies had slept in that cot. So it's another related baby?

Or it's all in a different timeline?

M.

Still puzzling about it two weeks later. I will be swivel-eyed by the next episode. Perhaps I should re-watch Time and the Rani!
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I don't think River can be the little girl, because she didn't recognise the space suit. But then why the picture of Amy and the baby in the little girl's room?

Or River was pretending not to recognise it so as not to cause paradoxes in her personal time line. Or River did it and then at some point her memory was erased. Or that River did it and then at some point the timeline was altered so that it didn't actually happen in the timeline that she's living in. Or River was pretty young at the time and her memory was a bit fuzzy. (My wife says she doesn't have any childhood memories earlier than about eight.)
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
I don't think River can be the little girl, because she didn't recognise the space suit. But then why the picture of Amy and the baby in the little girl's room?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or River was pretending not to recognise it so as not to cause paradoxes in her personal time line. Or River did it and then at some point her memory was erased. Or that River did it and then at some point the timeline was altered so that it didn't actually happen in the timeline that she's living in. Or River was pretty young at the time and her memory was a bit fuzzy. (My wife says she doesn't have any childhood memories earlier than about eight.)


Aaaarg! It's all timey-wimey and sciencey-wiencey (as someone coined above) and the Silence have erased all our memories and the little girl is the next regeneration of the Doctor. Or possibly the Master. Now there's a thought...


M.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Moffat's done one thing perfectly - he's made sure we'll all be watching when the series starts up again!
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
Have you listened to some of the many audio adventures McGhann has appeared in? ( many of them have been broadcast on Radio 7/now 4Extra ). They show the Doctor he could have been, and really make you think nasty thoughts involving Michael Grade, Auntie Beeb and a giant blender.
The box tonight was rubbish, so I just sat and watched The Invasion ( Troughton ) again. the animation for the missing episodes was truly brilliant.
Now, I know they have the audio for ALL the missing stories; If they would just animate a couple, it would restore my faith - partially - in Auntie Beeb.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
Have you listened to some of the many audio adventures McGhann has appeared in? ( many of them have been broadcast on Radio 7/now 4Extra ). They show the Doctor he could have been, and really make you think nasty thoughts involving Michael Grade, Auntie Beeb and a giant blender.
The box tonight was rubbish, so I just sat and watched The Invasion ( Troughton ) again. the animation for the missing episodes was truly brilliant.
Now, I know they have the audio for ALL the missing stories; If they would just animate a couple, it would restore my faith - partially - in Auntie Beeb.

Spooky coincidence - I watched the first 4 episodes of The Invasion today. It's one of the few stories you can genuinely point to and say "They don't make 'em like that any more." A classic among classics.

Has anyone among us ever read the novelisations of the classic series, published by Target? I loved my Target books, still have the full set, but they're getting a bit old now. But the good new is, BBC books are starting to reprint them - including editions for Kindle! I would say woo-hoo, if I was the sort of person who says woo-hoo.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
I hope you enjoy the rest of the invasion. That, and a lot of the Hartnell/Troughton stories stand up well as far as scripting is concerned. The acting is great, even Fraser 'och aye' Hines isn't bad in the accent stakes. Troughton was superb.
Kindle is a no go for me as my reader can't deal with it. But if the Beeb have reprinted some of the Target books, I've a gizzmo that can magnify them for me.
By the way, have you seen the Hartnell second Dalek story 'The Dalek invasion of Earth'? It was a hundred times better than the Peter Cushing "Daleks - Invasion Earth 2000AD, even with Bernard Cribbins. Same story, Totally different. I'd pick Black and white coloured Daleks over coloured coloured Daleks any day...
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
Moffat's done one thing perfectly - he's made sure we'll all be watching when the series starts up again!

I'm not sure I'll bother.

I wish they would bring back Doctor Who, though. Proper Doctor Who.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Agreed.

Mind you, I probably will watch it, simply because there is nothing else on TV.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I wish they would bring back Doctor Who, though. Proper Doctor Who.

What counts as "proper Doctor Who"?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I wish they would bring back Doctor Who, though. Proper Doctor Who.

What counts as "proper Doctor Who"?
"Proper Doctor Who" usually means the Doctor Who you talk about in the playground on Monday. Though I admit, since Moffat took over I'm missing the good old-fashioned, straightforward adventures. My old brain doesn't cope easily with multiple overlapping story arcs.

Anchorman - I'll let you into a secret. I like pre-colour-tv Doctor Who so much, I sometimes even turn the colour off when I'm watching a Jon Pertwee story, because that's how I first saw them. A friend of mine calls it "Nostalgiascope".
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Actually, I do think they should broadcast the original series on one of the BBC channels when the new ones are not on. It would give people some sense of the history.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
"Black and white Jon Pertwee"?
Leave it out - That was responsible for my first crisis of faith.
Normally, our Sunday School annual outing was about fifteen or twenty miles from home,. One year, however, for some reason they chose a farmer's field about a mile from home.
We'd run our races, ate our goodies, thrown up, and there were still three hours till home. So my cousin and my nine and three quarter year old self did a bunk, went back home to my gaffe and watched Pertwee in our own little heaven...then the retribution.
The Sunday School teachers were not happy -despite us having told one of them - the most gullible one - where we were off to.
Our parents were not happy.
I received the board of education over the seat of learning.
Oh, no, colour Pertwee for me...the memories, the pain...
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
...I do wish Moffat had restrained himself from the grand Everybody On Stage semi-finale, though. I mean, really, the Space Spitfires and Space Pirates? If he is going to call in help, why not, oh, somebody with a proper spaceship and some UNIT troops? They keep doing this Everybody On Stage bit season after season and it increasingly feels like they are just patting themselves on the back. Bad enough to endure it for the season finale, but to have to endure for the semi-finale too? [Disappointed]

Moffat has this thing for the community of those who are involved. The shared experience gives you a place at the possible ending of all that was, and makes the effort stronger. When a person can't be there, there is vast pain - the cop in Blink and Madame Pompadour come to mind.

He played with this even in Sherlock, with Moriarty becoming even more involved with Sherlock's psyche then we've seen in other versions and with Watson having to figure out his girlfriend's role in all that.

Watch for it in Tintin. Every thing points to a gigantic us vs. them for that movie.

In some ways, Moffat's writing reminds me of David Eddings who basically said "Its the doing it together that makes what is done powerful." Makes a change from boring old Davies who is/was all about the loneliness, the darkness, the pain, the angst - yes, we know, you like to see them suffer Russel, but so does every other hero tv show and movie. Its been done. Move on.
 
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
quote:
Has anyone among us ever read the novelisations of the classic series, published by Target? I loved my Target books, still have the full set, but they're getting a bit old now.
Yes. I had the set, including a first ?edition of the very first book, Dr Who and the Daleks.
And then, being 16 and in a total strop, I took the lot to the local sci fi bookshop and sold them for a pittance (I didn't realie the first one was special til he offered me £4 for that and only 10p each for the others) and I bought a bottle of whisky and two packets of fags. [Hot and Hormonal]

it was probably only a half bottle, actually.
With fairly horrible after effects...
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I wish they would bring back Doctor Who, though. Proper Doctor Who.

What counts as "proper Doctor Who"?
"Proper Doctor Who" usually means the Doctor Who you talk about in the playground on Monday.
Ah, then as I feared it can never be brought back only fondly remembered. As will the current lot, by someone, eventually.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Anchorman - apologies for resurrecting those painful memories! [Big Grin] The first Doctor Who I saw in colour was Planet of the Spiders - just the thing for a young arachnophobe!

BBC books are publishing paper versions (I believe the term is "treebooks") of the old novelisations at the same time as the Kindle versions. At least some of them also seem to have been given new introductions by some of the leading lights in Nu-Who. The first batch are out on 7 July and include some real classics. I'd particularly recommend The Daleks, The Auton Invasion, and The Cave Monsters. The first of those in particular: it's a great read, unique among the novelisations for being a first-person (Ian Chesterton) narrative. It also writes The Daleks as the Doctor's first adventure with Ian and Barbara, presumably because nobody at that time ever thought An Unearthly Child would be written up. It nicely captures the moral ambiguities of that story, with Ian having to learn to trust the apparently untrustworthy Doctor. And of course, the special effects are better! [Biased]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
Have you listened to some of the many audio adventures McGhann has appeared in? ( many of them have been broadcast on Radio 7/now 4Extra ). They show the Doctor he could have been, and really make you think nasty thoughts involving Michael Grade, Auntie Beeb and a giant blender.
The box tonight was rubbish, so I just sat and watched The Invasion ( Troughton ) again. the animation for the missing episodes was truly brilliant.
Now, I know they have the audio for ALL the missing stories; If they would just animate a couple, it would restore my faith - partially - in Auntie Beeb.

Spooky coincidence - I watched the first 4 episodes of The Invasion today. It's one of the few stories you can genuinely point to and say "They don't make 'em like that any more." A classic among classics.

Has anyone among us ever read the novelisations of the classic series, published by Target? I loved my Target books, still have the full set, but they're getting a bit old now. But the good new is, BBC books are starting to reprint them - including editions for Kindle! I would say woo-hoo, if I was the sort of person who says woo-hoo.

I had about 80 Target books of the 'classic' Who. Sadly, my parents, when I left home, did a clear out of my bedroom and junked the whole lot without telling me! [Waterworks] [Mad]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I had about 80 Target books of the 'classic' Who. Sadly, my parents, when I left home, did a clear out of my bedroom and junked the whole lot without telling me! [Waterworks] [Mad]

I was such a fan when I was a kid that my parents knew perfectly well that if they tried anything like that, I'd divorce them!

The first three novelisations - Daleks, Zarbi, Crusaders - were published in the 60s, but then republished when the Target franchise kicked off in 1973. After that, they came along about one a month. I was absolutely crazy about them. It was long before home video, and the BBC tended not to do repeats of the old shows, so it was my only way of getting in touch with the older stories.

The first few dozen were superb, and very well written. Then there was an unfortunate spell in the middle, when virtually the only person working on them was Terrance Dicks, and he was being required to turn out one a month, and it all got very stale (and the books very short). Later, they tended to go back to asking the original scriptwriters to novelise their stories, and the quality picked up again.

They're the sort of children's book that are still a cracking good read for adults. Among my favourites are David Whitaker's Daleks, Dicks's Auton Invasion, Malcolm Hulke's Cave Monsters, and especially Barry Letts's Daemons from the early years; Dicks's Time Warrior and anything by Ian Marter from the middle period; and John Peel's Power of the Daleks, Ben Aaronovitch's Remembrance of the Daleks and Marc Platt's Ghost Light from the final phase (the last being essential reading as it's impossible to understand the tv version without it!)

Ooh look - I can't wait to get home now! *Child-like glee!*
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
"Black and white Jon Pertwee"?
Leave it out - That was responsible for my first crisis of faith....
I received the board of education over the seat of learning.

I almost had to run that through the TARDIS translation matrix to understand what you meant there! [Roll Eyes] I'm still too literal for this board...
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I wish they would bring back Doctor Who, though. Proper Doctor Who.

What counts as "proper Doctor Who"?
Where children can understand what's going on, rather then nobody being able to understand what's going on.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
Well, let's just say that the easiest way to do my homework yes, I know it was Saturday, but it WAS a punishment - was in the upright position,because those were the days when some forms of education were beaten into you...

I'm going to Waterstone's tomorrow, so I expect to return with some good Target reading over the summer,to tide me over until the Autumn batch of Moffat's goodies. While I'm at it, I'll pop in and see what's new in the classic DVD front.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
This is obviously the thread where I gain geek points for knowing Graeme Curry, author of 'The Happiness Patrol' which is even better in book form as the baddie doesn't look like Bertie Bassett...!
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I also remember the Target books with fondness. Perhaps they will be a good way to introduce the Roguelings to some of the classic stories.

Changing the subject entirely: why are the Doctor's Companions nearly always from contemporary (at the time of first broadcast) Earth Humans? Actually I can think of several reasons but two notable exceptions were Leela and Jamie MacKinnon (?). These were both characters for who technology was completely out of their experience before they met the Doctor and this meant they could bring some interesting insights and perspectives to the adventures. Unlike many here I do like Amy (especially Amy & Rory) but what are the chances of being a bit more adventurous next time round?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Changing the subject entirely: why are the Doctor's Companions nearly always from contemporary (at the time of first broadcast) Earth Humans? Actually I can think of several reasons but two notable exceptions were Leela and Jamie MacKinnon (?). These were both characters for who technology was completely out of their experience before they met the Doctor and this meant they could bring some interesting insights and perspectives to the adventures.

I think it comes down to making the storytelling easier. The classic show did try to change things up a bit with non-contemporaries, as you note. Victoria and Jamie were from the viewers' past. Zoe and Steven were from the future. Adric, Leela and Romana were from non-Earth.

I think the problem is that the function of a companion (at least in the classic series) was to ask the Doctor for explanations of things. But you don't want to bore the viewer by asking for explanations of the everyday. If you take somebody from the past, in theory they should be asking about things we take for granted, leading to a lot of unnecessary explanation: "That is called an electric light. And that is an automobile. And over there is a chair with a panda on it."

On the other hand, if you take somebody from the future, some of the high-tech stuff that should be explained to the viewer is considered "normal" for them, so they would not be credible asking the Doctor about it.

It is easiest to use a contemporary human--what is normal for us is normal for them, what looks odd to us will look odd to them, so they should ask the questions that we are asking: "What is it, Doctor?"

All that being said, I agree that it would be nice to have a non-contemporary viewpoint just for contrast. I had not noticed it before, but the Second Doctor had very little in the way of contemporary characters. Oh, he started with Ben and Polly as holdovers from the First Doctor, but after they left he had Jamie (past), then Victoria (past) then Zoe (future) before he regenerated.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Victoria and Jamie were from the viewers' past.

Jamie had the useful trait of interrupting any technobabble that he didn't understand by saying 'aye, that'. Which meant basically that he was just going to go along with it, and usefully implied that audience could do so too.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't believe that any of the other time lords that we know have such titles - maybe they have to earn them, or maybe they are titles of derision, given when they are sent out.

I have a vague recollection that the time lords chose names for themselves as part of their coming-of-age ceremony (which also involved staring into the time vortex?) Didn't Tennant say something about The Master having given the psychologists a lot of work to do when he chose his name? Or did I dream that bit...
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
Some Time Lords had names (chancellor) Borussa, Morbius ( the one with the brain ), Omega ( Three Doctors), Rasselon ( the first?), etc.
It depends on the whim of the writer.
By the way, Why did a previous post mention Adric as a companion? I had to use my sleeve, as I ran out of tissues.
And Nobody mentioned Nissa - the brainy one.
Oh, and was K-9 a companion?
And of course, Captain Jack willbe/was an alien from the future.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Changing the subject entirely: why are the Doctor's Companions nearly always from contemporary (at the time of first broadcast) Earth Humans? Actually I can think of several reasons but two notable exceptions were Leela and Jamie MacKinnon (?).

Also Nyssa of Traken, Turlough, K-9 and Kamelion, and of course Romana. But yes, contemporary humans are easier for the viewer to identify with.

I got rather tired of the London-centric series as well. I know they did go to Amsterdam once (Arch of Infinity) but it would have been nice if just for a change, the Doctor could land in Birmingham or Cornwall instead.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Companions who aren't contemporary humans (*):

Susan (Gallifreyan)
Vicky (future human)
Stephen (future human)
Katarina (ancient Troy)
Sara (future human)
Jamie (18th century)
Victoria (19th century)
Zoe ('21st' century)
Leela (future human from a regressed culture)
Romana (Gallifreyan Timelord)
Adric (alzarian)
Nyssa (trakenite)
Turlough (trion posing as contemporary human)
'Jack Harkness' (future human)
River Song (time travelling human)

Katarina was killed off almost immediately. Sara didn't last much longer. In fact, I think the list includes all the companions who've died.

Of those, Leela, Jamie and Zoe almost certainly feature in the top ten best companions. (Maybe Romana when she was well-written and acted, but being hard to write counts against her.) Adric is perhaps the worst ever companion, with Turlough counting among the bottom five.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

I got rather tired of the London-centric series as well. I know they did go to Amsterdam once (Arch of Infinity) but it would have been nice if just for a change, the Doctor could land in Birmingham or Cornwall instead.

They did go to Paris (City of Death) and Seville (The Two Doctors) as well.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I got rather tired of the London-centric series as well. I know they did go to Amsterdam once (Arch of Infinity) but it would have been nice if just for a change, the Doctor could land in Birmingham or Cornwall instead.

You're just inviting people to make lists, aren't you? [Biased]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Katarina was killed off almost immediately. Sara didn't last much longer. In fact, I think the list includes all the companions who've died.

That's another point I had never noticed before! While the show would occasionally go for the shock death of a companion, we have not yet killed off a "contemporary human."

Although they once were considering killing the Brig. But they didn't. And, well, they have killed off Rory five or six times, but it hasn't really taken.
 
Posted by Anchorman (# 16469) on :
 
One of my proudest possessions is a Dalek Annual, which I had as a Christmas gift, and has remained remarkably unsullied, unscribbled or even unpuked on for all these years...
The heroine was Sara Kingdom.

My first real crush was on a cartoon female.
Sorry.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
So, 14 more episodes of "Doctor Who" have been commissioned, but only a few of them will air in 2012, according to various reports. It seems like they're pushing it back to an autumn/winter start next year.

One of my friends has just written an article on Steven Moffat's story arcs for the Impossible Podcasts blog, titled Arc of Infinity, appropriately enough the Peter Davison fans in the audience. My friend reckons that the current format is an awkward half-way house between a full-blown serial drama and stand-alone stories, plus various other interesting observations and opinions.

quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I wish they would bring back Doctor Who, though. Proper Doctor Who.

What counts as "proper Doctor Who"?
"Proper Doctor Who" is Doctor Who as you watched it as an eight-year old. So just about every era of Doctor Who is "proper Who" for someone, and by the time you're a cynical adult, nothing will be proper Doctor Who again.

(Some of the really die-hard online "fans" seem not to like any actual "Doctor Who", only the version of it in their head that's part nostalgia, part Platonic ideal. I can point you to their blogs if you want to be depressed.)

quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
Now, I know they have the audio for ALL the missing stories; If they would just animate a couple, it would restore my faith - partially - in Auntie Beeb.

There's another animated reconstruction on the way - William Hartnell story The Reign of Terror. Hooray!
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
There's another animated reconstruction on the way - William Hartnell story The Reign of Terror. Hooray!

Oo! Who's doing the animation? Cosgrove Hall, who I think did The Invasion, no longer exist in the form they did then. It's not the first story I'd have chosen, I must admit. After all, there is one notable Hartnell story, from which only one episode is missing, famous for introducing a celebrated bunch of tin blokes and paving the way for the great Troughton ...
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
There's another animated reconstruction on the way - William Hartnell story The Reign of Terror. Hooray!

Oo! Who's doing the animation? Cosgrove Hall, who I think did The Invasion, no longer exist in the form they did then. It's not the first story I'd have chosen, I must admit. After all, there is one notable Hartnell story, from which only one episode is missing, famous for introducing a celebrated bunch of tin blokes and paving the way for the great Troughton ...
I was thinking the same thing! Why animate 2 missing episodes of an Historical when you could animate one episode that every fan worthy of the name would immediately want to buy?

Don't get me wrong. I will snap up Reign of Terror as soon as it hits the shelves. It just strikes me as an odd choice to test the market for such DVDs.

According to this, the animators will be Big Finish and Thetamation.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchorman:
Some Time Lords had names (chancellor) Borussa, Morbius ( the one with the brain ), Omega ( Three Doctors), Rasselon

Also Drax from The Armageddon Factor. Another renegade timelord who like the Dr got bored and left home. Unlike the Dr he was a bit of a clumsy prat.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
lots of timelord names around in the Deadly Assasin with Tom Baker.

I have discovered online episodes and am working through the Tom Baker series, currently at the start of Leela's time as assistant.

Since I started my Doctor Who time with Peter Davidson although some are familar though repeats many are all new to me [Yipee]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
On Time Lord names:

I think the idea that their names are long, unpronounceable and a bit secret goes back to Terrance Dicks's novelisation The Auton Invasion, when at the very end the Brigadier asks his name. The Doctor muses for a moment on the privacy and difficulty of Time Lord names, before opting for "Smith. Doctor John Smith!"

Later on, as others have said, we got lots of names, but I think we were meant to believe they were abbreviated versions, or just not their real names. Look at Romana, who first brazenly announced herself as "Romanadvoratrelundar". And maybe even that wasn't her full name.

I rather like the line taken by Neil Gaiman in The Doctor's Wife - I wish we could've met The Corsair!
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I have discovered online episodes and am working through the Tom Baker series, currently at the start of Leela's time as assistant.

I was just watching Horror of Fang Rock and Leela's definitely one of the best companions the Doctor's had. (No, she isn't wearing that costume in Fang Rock.) Like most of the best companions, she uses her own initiative and doesn't take the Doctor at his own evaluation.
(There's a fine line between some of the best companions like Leela and Ace and some of the worst.)
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I have discovered online episodes and am working through the Tom Baker series, currently at the start of Leela's time as assistant.

I was just watching Horror of Fang Rock and Leela's definitely one of the best companions the Doctor's had. (No, she isn't wearing that costume in Fang Rock.) Like most of the best companions, she uses her own initiative and doesn't take the Doctor at his own evaluation.
(There's a fine line between some of the best companions like Leela and Ace and some of the worst.)

That's what I was watching! Are we stuck in the same time loop...
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
lots of timelord names around in the Deadly Assasin with Tom Baker.


Not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
All the renegade time lords that I can think of use aliases, unless you count Susan and Romana; and I think all the timelords who use aliases are renegades.
It's my theory that Gallifrey could track timelords using their names, so renegade timelords had to not use their names and wipe them from the records.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
At what point in the DW canon did the time war leave the Doctor as the 'only' remaining timelord?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
At what point in the DW canon did the time war leave the Doctor as the 'only' remaining timelord?

Well, the first I heard about it was in the final scene of Christopher Eccleston's second story, The End of the World. It was chilling and shocking, the way he said, "My planet's gone. It's dead...."
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Well, the first I heard about it was in the final scene of Christopher Eccleston's second story, The End of the World. It was chilling and shocking, the way he said, "My planet's gone. It's dead...."

Yes, I think that is right. Certainly, Gallifrey was still up and running when the classic series ended and the Time Lords were still alive and kicking during Paul McGann's TV Movie, so the first time we had any hint about the extinction event would have been with Eccleston--and I don't think he mentioned it in the first story.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
So the loss of Gallifrey is a Moffett event?

To what end? To add some pathos to this lonely traveller identity? To set him free from the call backs and 'interference' from the past?

Although the loneliness and impact of being the last has been used eg the spacewhale/liz10 episode, has it been a closing off of possible plotlines and options more than an opening?

(Just reached the arrival of K9)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
So the loss of Gallifrey is a Moffett event?

It's a Davies event. At the time, Moffatt was wondering whether gas masks were too scary.

[ 05. July 2011, 20:27: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
To what end? To add some pathos to this lonely traveller identity? To set him free from the call backs and 'interference' from the past?

Several reasons, I think. I may be wrong, but I think there are references to the destruction of Gallifrey in some of the novels that were written back in the 90s. I think Davies wanted to acknowledge at least some of those. (In fact, Human Nature / The Family of Blood started off as a novel featuring the 7th Doctor.)

I think there was an element of the "reset button" about it, too. Maybe they thought the Doctor had become too identified with the Time Lords, or that Time Lord culture was just too much baggage to carry over into the new series. Remember, back in the 60s, the term "Time Lord" wasn't even invented until the end of season 6! - the Doctor was just a mysterious alien traveller, cut off from his own people for reasons that were never fully explained.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
To what end? To add some pathos to this lonely traveller identity? To set him free from the call backs and 'interference' from the past?

Several reasons, I think. I may be wrong, but I think there are references to the destruction of Gallifrey in some of the novels that were written back in the 90s. I think Davies wanted to acknowledge at least some of those. (In fact, Human Nature / The Family of Blood started off as a novel featuring the 7th Doctor.)

I think there was an element of the "reset button" about it, too. Maybe they thought the Doctor had become too identified with the Time Lords, or that Time Lord culture was just too much baggage to carry over into the new series. Remember, back in the 60s, the term "Time Lord" wasn't even invented until the end of season 6! - the Doctor was just a mysterious alien traveller, cut off from his own people for reasons that were never fully explained.

The official line of Doctor Who novels blew up Gallifrey in a novel called The Ancestor Cell, published 2000. The books had become bogged down by a storyline about a future (relative to the Doctor's timeline) Time War between the Time Lords and a mysterious Enemy (not the Daleks!), and so Gallifrey was destroyed/wiped from history by the Doctor to stop the war. It was a way of clearing the decks for new storylines in the novels, basically.

But when the show returned to television, the books had to resurrect Gallifrey, so that it would be around to be destroyed in a Time War with the Daleks as per the new series! This took place in The Gallifrey Chronicles (2005). It must be awkward being a Time Lord, and not knowing whether or not you're supposed to exist at the moment, or who your enemy is right now.

There are a number of possible reasons why Russell T Davies got rid of the Time Lords. If they're around, they're a massive safety net for the Doctor - if the universe is in danger, then you've got this race of powerful beings ready to step in if the Doctor doesn't save the day.

Also, they tend to be more interesting when they're off-screen. The legend of the Time Lords as this all-powerful super-species is exciting when it's mythology in the background. When they actually show up they're usually just a bunch of useless old men in silly hats.

Finally, the Doctor being the Last of the Time Lords (tm) means that the actor playing the Doctor can get all teary eyed and emo at least once per season about being the last of his kind, and a bit of angst is apparently obligatory for heroes these days.

I wouldn't want the Time Lords back full-time, so to speak, but I think there are plenty of interesting stories that can be done by introducing other renegade Time Lords - I'd love to see the Meddling Monk as played by Bill Bailey, for example. Or you could have a storyline about a small group of surviving Time Lords intent on reclaiming their control of history.

And then there's always the Master when you need a mad supervillain, which is a handy storytelling device because it saves you inventing a villain with a proper motivation.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have been watching Moffat's series from the start as repeats come up, and there are some interesting features with regard to the later series arc. There is a frequent theme of forgetting and the need for remembering, and not simply with the case of Rory going by proximity to the crack.

But most interesting are other things. The prisoner in the opening story is the source of both the "The Pandorica will open" and the "Silence will Fall" predictions. However, when the aliens in Venice speak of the silence, it is clear they are speaking of a nothingness, the end of everything, and not any sort of entities.

And when River Song is introduced to Amy, she shows no reaction. Not that they have already met in her past. Nor that the name is the name of her mother. Nothing. Zilch. Blank face. Not even controlled blank face. Amy Pond is a meaningless name for her.

I really didn't want to become the sort of person who watches like this. But it does look very much like evidence for making it up as he goes along, which I thought was the one thing he could not be accused of doing.

Torchwood next week. In the good old USA. With lots of money, and Russell Davies' authorship. I wonder if they are synchronising diaries.

Penny
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And when River Song is introduced to Amy, she shows no reaction. Not that they have already met in her past. Nor that the name is the name of her mother. Nothing. Zilch. Blank face. Not even controlled blank face. Amy Pond is a meaningless name for her.

And contrast that to when we first met River, in the Library. When she learned that the Doctor's companion was Donna Noble, she did a shocked gasp ("You're Donna Noble?) before refusing to discuss it any further. So even at the end of her physical life, River wasn't exactly a master of keeping a poker face.
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
Nissa was alien royalty, Leela (one of my first boyhood crushes) was decended from human space explorers. Romana was a Time Lord and (hugal opens a can of worms) the best Romana was Mary Tam, much more of a match for the Doctor.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And when River Song is introduced to Amy, she shows no reaction. Not that they have already met in her past. Nor that the name is the name of her mother.

I suppose you can see that it makes some kind of sense from River's point of view. River's had to get used to her parents not knowing who she is.

But yes, the relationship's generally not been there. Moffatt may have been making it up as it goes along, but it may be that he's been subordinating aspects of it to keeping the mystery going. Even in this last episode, when River says today is the day the Doctor finds out who I am, she's talking to Rory - you'd think your parents finding out who you are would be more significant to anyone than your husband finding out who your parents are. (Even if you were kidnapped as a baby, and the first time you were reunited with your parents was when mummy shot you.)

quote:
Torchwood next week. In the good old USA. With lots of money, and Russell Davies' authorship. I wonder if they are synchronising diaries.
I'm not sure that lots of money and Russell Davies' authorship are necessarily good signs. Children of Men was the best Torchwood so far, but the standard it had to beat wasn't exactly high.
Also, Moffatt apparently wanted Jack to appear in A Good Man Goes to War, and couldn't have him because of Torchwood, which I think is a small pity.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And when River Song is introduced to Amy, she shows no reaction. Not that they have already met in her past. Nor that the name is the name of her mother. Nothing. Zilch. Blank face. Not even controlled blank face. Amy Pond is a meaningless name for her.

And contrast that to when we first met River, in the Library. When she learned that the Doctor's companion was Donna Noble, she did a shocked gasp ("You're Donna Noble?) before refusing to discuss it any further. So even at the end of her physical life, River wasn't exactly a master of keeping a poker face.
From River's point of view Time of Angels is her last meeting with Amy, whereas that was the one and only time she met Donna. So it's not so surprising that when she met Amy (from her point of view after the events of the other Moffat era stories) she's able to keep a poker face to avoid "spoilers". But you might expect something of a reaction when they part company, since she should be able to work out it's the last time she'll see her mum.

Apparently Steven Moffat didn't tell Alex Kingston that River is Amy's daughter until the start of this series, so as to avoid the knowledge affecting her performance and making it too obvious. He also kept River's first conversation with Rory off-screen in The Pandorica Opens for this reason. She's not shown to react to Rory in that story, but does at the beginning of A Good Man Goes to War, which implies she hasn't seen him before, or at least for not some time.

Moffat claims to have worked it all out, so I've still got faith it'll make some kind of sense in the end, even if there are lots of loose ends at the moment.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
John Barrowman on the One Show.

"There will be three brand new Torchwood radio plays on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week before the TV show starts on Wednesday."
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Not having told Alex Kingston fits what I saw, but there's a difference between a poker face and an face innocent of knowledge. She did a double take at being told of her academic status in the future. And that still leaves the Silence as an absence of things rather than a bunch of aliens.

In Amy's Choice, which I saw tonight, Rory is seen looking at a cot and a mobile, clearly longing to care for a baby. It is so sad to think that he and Amy will be deprived of that with their daughter.

Incidentally, Arthur Darvill is playing Mephistopheles in Doctor Faust in London. (Matt Smith is not playing the Doctor.)

Penny
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Sigh.)

So the Starz network in the USA is beginning an American based "Torchwood" series soon. You think all this mucking around with Area 51 and the CIA is a lead up, tie in, whatever?
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I've seen the first episode of the new series of Torchwood - it's pretty good, and I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the series.

Like Children of Earth, it's got a high-concept premise: one day, everyone stops dying. They can still get sick and be injured and grow old, it's just that no-one actually dies.

It's still recognisably Torchwood, despite the shift to America. I've posted my spoiler-free review to Impossible Podcasts, and we'll be posting our audio commentary after UK broadcast.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
I enjoyed it. High concept, but as you say in your blog it's very American in style now.

Not that that's a bad thing, just different.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
it's pretty good

It's still recognisably Torchwood

Are those entirely compatible?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:

It's still recognisably Torchwood, despite the shift to America.

Well, that's a relief. I might just check it out now. I did run across it last night after I posted, but was wrapped up in something else. No worries, beings it's Starz, it will rerun about 180 times in the next week. [Biased]
 
Posted by yellowroom (# 11690) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Incidentally, Arthur Darvill is playing Mephistopheles in Doctor Faustus in London.

And very good he is too. Takes a bit of a mental shift to see him as the agent of the Devil instead of the essentially good Rory, but once you've made it, its fine. Apart from the scene where Faustus quizzes Mephistopheles in the motion of celestial objects in time and space, which was a brief "huh?" moment.

A satisfying play from a Christian perspective too.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Started watching the Peter Davison episodes. I have always had a very strong memory of one of them that involved glass chimes and I found it last night - right at the beginning of his time as doctor. Called Kinda the story had Tegan fall asleep under the chimes and a baddie called the Mara used that to cross into the regular world - marking the host with a snake on the arm.

It was definitely the episode I remembered with all the snakey bit coming back as I watched it, but surprised that it was so early (in my terms) if I was remembering from its first broadcast that would be 1981 - when I was just 6.

I have no idea why a single episode would burn itself into my mind so much - was it perhaps one of the first I watched? Did it give me nightmares at the time?

Does anyone else have memories of specific eopisodes you saw as a child?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Kinda is a great story with a superb script, let down by the fact that the special effects demanded by the script couldn't possibly have been realised within the budget. For a long time the poor effects mean it suffered a bad reputation, but these days it always features in fans' opinion polls among Davison's better stories. Kinda is really all about the words and the concepts. The script has some fine dialogue and prose, and the concepts, which include Buddhism, Taoism, and the occasional nod in the direction of T.S.Eliot, raise it a bit above the normal run of Doctor Who stories.

The sequel, Snakedance, is in my opinion a slightly poorer script, better realised - but again, thoroughly worth watching.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I should also have said that yes, Kinda can be deeply unsettling. Tegan's dream scenes are weird, and the Trickster figure in the dreams is a really nasty piece of work.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
There were some interesting episodes in the Davison series which didn't quite fit the normal run of things - Enlightenment, which also plays with a metaphysical theme (slightly spoilt by the two Guardians sitting there with chickens on their heads, though) and Castrovalva, which has that wonderful Escheresque building. These are my two favourite episodes from the Davison era.

Btw on a different if related note anyone see Torchwood tonight? This feels to me pretty much on a par with the film version of Doctor Who (the Paul McGann version). Not sure I feel engaged enough to watch any further episodes.

(The baby is really cute though.)
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Btw on a different if related note anyone see Torchwood tonight? This feels to me pretty much on a par with the film version of Doctor Who (the Paul McGann version). Not sure I feel engaged enough to watch any further episodes.

(The baby is really cute though.)

Very ininspiring. A lot of running round and trying to find excuses for Torchwood to be in the US, but otherwise just rather ridiculous.

A couple of moments of fail leapt out at me - "It's not a virus, it's malware" could possibly be forgiven as the meaning is fairly clear in context, but adding the people who ought to be dying to the new births to get the rate of population growth? Er, no.

I'll probably watch the next one, but it's definitely on probation. I'll allow for a certain amount of scene-setting given the transatlantic focus, but it's not a patch on Children of Earth at this point.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I'll probably watch the next one, but it's definitely on probation. I'll allow for a certain amount of scene-setting given the transatlantic focus, but it's not a patch on Children of Earth at this point.

On the other hand, none of the supposed good guys have yet used an alien artifact to commit date rape or smuggled a cyberman into HQ without telling anyone in the name of moral ambiguity. Give it credit where credit is due.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... or smuggled a cyberman into HQ...

Cyberbabe I think you'll find.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the other hand, none of the supposed good guys have yet used an alien artifact to commit date rape or smuggled a cyberman into HQ without telling anyone in the name of moral ambiguity.

Yes, I think that's what missing - that and Ianto.

And we're still stuck with Gwen Cooper who will continue to get hysterical, throw her weight around, scream at Jack and Rhys and be altogether thoroughly irritating. [brick wall]
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
it's pretty good

It's still recognisably Torchwood

Are those entirely compatible?
On the basis of Children of Earth, yes. And the problem with the first two series was that they were terribly executed, but it was possible to see the potential for the show to be good if only it was better written and got over it's schlocky "adult" fetish.

Miracle Day could go either way at this point. Russell T Davies' pilot for series 1 wasn't bad but the show nosedived from there, but this seems to be trying to follow the Children of Earth model.

You can listen to my podcast commentary on episode 1 over at Impossible Podcasts.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
it's pretty good

It's still recognisably Torchwood

Are those entirely compatible?
On the basis of Children of Earth, yes.
That would be one where they blew up the secret base and killed off the most popular member of the main cast? And nobody snogged anyone that they weren't supposed to?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I thought the concept of not dying was horrible in its interpretation, especially with regard to the burned head. I'm not sure they are sure what being alive means, since there was a shot of a still alive severed arm in the trail for next week. Apart from being an opportunity for gross-out shots. And, given that Jack knows about what is going on, his total lack of reaction to the crashed copter, with its now horribly not dead incompetent gunmen is dubious. And how come no-one in the landrover got shot? And how come we are supposed to go along with the rendition of Jack and Gwen with the collusion of the British police?

Guess what, I don't like it. It seems to have gone direct to the place in X-files where I stopped watching that.

And I know it is after the watershed, but I think people are going to have problems with younger viewers wanting to watch it.

I did like the lost files on radio this week.

Penny

[ 16. July 2011, 10:25: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
The not-dying thing is an interesting premise, but it's already been done by Saramago in Death at Intervals.

Davies has form recycling recent atheist literature. Doctor Who Season Two ended with Davies recycling the Amber Spyglass (which I would think is rather better known in this country than Saramago). For some reason I've never seen anyone comment on that. Perhaps it's just so obvious nobody else has thought it needed saying.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Could you spell out the parallels with The Amber Spyglass please? I've never been struck by a resemblance, but it's a long time since I read the book, and my memory isn't what it was.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
If I remember rightly it was one of the Living Dead films which had bits of people (and a dog) which still moved as though alive in some way. Torchwood reminded me of that.

The scene in the lab was brilliantly chilling, especially when Jack asked what would happen if the head was removed.

Roll on part 2.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I'm just not that crazy about Jack for some reason. He never won me over like he did so many.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
No, I don't like Jack either. He's the reason I never got into Torchwood at all.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I watched this yesterday evening. I suppose it was OK-ish but it didn't strike me as very much like Torchwood, it was just a bit generic. Some of the gory stuff was a bit gratuitous to my mind.

I noticed some of the stupidities noted up thread as well - giving wotsisname co-ordinates within sight of the house, the hospital doctor wearing killer heels etc etc.

No doubt I will record it next Thursday but if I don't get around to watching it, it won't bother me. Shame, I quite liked Torchwood, once they got over the 'it's grown up, so it's got to be about sex' phase of the very early ones.

M.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I just thought it was all a bit naff. I was really disappointed. Lots of running around, lots of women in high heels, lots of gore for no apparent reason but no real story development or much going on of interest.

Will watch next week just in case but I'm sorely disappointed [Frown]
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I'm also curious to know exactly what "tailored for the American Market" means... ? Are we that different? Does it mean I'm missing something that Americans are thinking is good or that they've just dumbed the show down? No idea why it would have to change for their market.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Watched the second one and well, hmm, it's still just ok. It doesn't have the campness or silliness of the first two series but it's not quite in the same league as Children of Earth.

I think RTD struggles to maintain tone sometimes. A non-spoilery example. They discover something gory - I won't say what it is but it's already been in the trailer. So you have the big shock reveal moment and then the characters present go on to have a 3 minute conversation (which is largely exposition for our benefit) almost as if the gory thing weren't there. It ends up feeling comic.

I've heard Bill Pullman praised for his performance but I think he's chewing the scenery. Plus he's doing this weird accent-cum-vocal tick thing that I find off-putting. It feels like he's self-consciously making Danes 'evil' but I think if he just played it straight and let the evil come through the lines and actions, it would be better.

I liked the woman who played the daughter on Six Feet Under.

Not sure about the stuff on the plane.

I will probably watch to the end to see how it plays out though.

[ 17. July 2011, 12:41: Message edited by: wilson ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I've watched the first part of Miracle Day, and it's okay. Only okay. Really, with only Jack and Gwen, and Rhys as a hanger-on, can it call itself Torchwood now? Or is this story going to relaunch it with a new team?

Children of Earth was exceptional - a shocking, cynical piece of drama with great writing and performances. Miracle Day has a long way to go to catch up.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I'm just not that crazy about Jack for some reason. He never won me over like he did so many.

I thought he was good in The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances as a prospective companion. He had an interesting backstory, charm, and a scoundrel with a heart of gold morality that made an interesting contrast with Eccleston's Doctor.

Torchwood has largely ignored the backstory in favour of making him immortal having gone round history the slow way several times, has largely dropped the charm in favour of a more boring charisma, and has replaced the scoundrel with a heart of gold with angst over some really serious wrongdoing in the past. (Can you imagine the Jack Harkness who's showed up in Doctor Who doing what Children of Men showed him doing in the sixties?)

Personally, I'd have rather had one minute of Moffat writing Jack again in A Good Man Goes to War as a cameo than a series of Torchwood written by Davies.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Oh, and the season trailer showed Gwen punching out Sierra, which I cannot forgive.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
dafyd posted: I thought he was good in The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances as a prospective companion. He had an interesting backstory, charm, and a scoundrel with a heart of gold morality that made an interesting contrast with Eccleston's Doctor.

Torchwood has largely ignored the backstory in favour of making him immortal having gone round history the slow way several times, has largely dropped the charm in favour of a more boring charisma, and has replaced the scoundrel with a heart of gold with angst over some really serious wrongdoing in the past. (Can you imagine the Jack Harkness who's showed up in Doctor Who doing what Children of Men showed him doing in the sixties?)

Personally, I'd have rather had one minute of Moffat writing Jack again in A Good Man Goes to War as a cameo than a series of Torchwood written by Davies.

I completely agree with you until your last sentence. The last thing Moff needs is another thread to weave into this season!

The whole Macgyveresque scene on the plane was too much. [Eek!]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Could you spell out the parallels with The Amber Spyglass please? I've never been struck by a resemblance, but it's a long time since I read the book, and my memory isn't what it was.

I wasn't struck by it at the time, just nauseated by the schmaltz. However, the parallels are fairly blatant - parallel worlds with movement between them, love interest pair having to seal themselves in separate worlds, thereby saving the universe but losing each other.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Could you spell out the parallels with The Amber Spyglass please?

Sorry, missed this, but as The Great Gumby says: two people in love have to spend the rest of their lives in different parallel worlds in order to save the universe (until the end of season finale in two years time).

[ 18. July 2011, 09:21: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Could you spell out the parallels with The Amber Spyglass please?

Sorry, missed this, but as The Great Gumby says: two people in love have to spend the rest of their lives in different parallel worlds in order to save the universe (until the end of season finale in two years time).
Fair do's Dafyd - Rose was getting so simperingly clingy, chucking her into a parallel universe was the only way to get rid of her. Even then, she came back and wouldn't go away till she got her own toy Doctor to play with.
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
I quite enjoyed part one of Torchwood. Not up to the standard of Children of Earth granted, but not bad at all. As it is an opening of a series you need a lot expository stuff to set the scene. I think it will get better as it progresses.

Spoiler Alert

Making CJ human has been on the cards for long time. Could give us some nice plot twists.

End of spoilers.

What it needs is a steady, nice guy who, is not all action but has calming influence on the group. Oh yeah they killed Ianto off in Children of Earth didn't they.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I wonder if this is how the transition of Captain Jack from humanoid (is he human? I can't remember) to giant head begins.
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
That is an interesting question. I was under the impression that the idea had been dropped. It would be easy to explain it away some other way. He is pretty big headed now mind.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
So what did people think of episode 2 of Torchwood?

I thought it was rather silly and padded - did we really need to take an entire episode of Torchwood's transatlantic flight, and did the efforts to kill Jack en route really add anything? As for the way they created the "antidote"... The CIA also seem to spend their time watching YouTube videos, and have useless security.

The bits not involving Torchwood were ironically quite good - Oswald Danes' tv appearance for example, and that doctor's efforts to get to grips with the Miracle. And having watched a preview copy of episode 3, it does pick up a lot next week.

My podcast commentary on the episode, for those of you geeky enough to be interested, is now online: http://tinyurl.com/IP-TWMD02
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I'm getting quite disappointed with it. It just seems like a generic American tv programme just with recognisable characters from Torchwood in it.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Macgyver rip-off! Hee!

OK but not great. Compare it to the repeat of 'Sherlock' which was on the previous evening ... no contest.

And I love me some JB but I liked Flirty Jack. Angsty Jack is dull.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Creating chelation solution from random things on a plane was ridiculous. The idea of taking something made up like that and injecting it into someone was stupid. Adding degreaser because it contains something relevant is just poor.

Not impressed.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
The entire poison/antidote thing was ludicrous, and it seemed to have been crowbarred in for three reasons - some immediate danger (as opposed to the obvious distant kind), clear evidence that the CIA are nasty, and hammering home the "Jack's Mortal" storyline.

Despite that, the eipsode was a clear improvement on the first one, and there are signs of a proper plot emerging from the clunky setup. I can't see it being great, but it could certainly turn into watchable summer trash.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
The bits not involving Torchwood were ironically quite good - Oswald Danes' tv appearance for example,

Seriously? I was embarrassed for Pullman watching that. Also I think it seriously underestimates the public hatred of paedophiles to think merely crying on TV would turn the tide of opinion.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I'm getting quite disappointed with it. It just seems like a generic American tv programme just with recognisable characters from Torchwood in it.
[Frown]

Yes, after last week I didn't bother. I don't feel I've missed it, either.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I was in the same state as Ariel until I read some comments on another site, so I just might watch it. I'd like some repeats of McGyver, though.

Penny
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
At least it's got them all together and all on the run now. And I did like Gwen's answer to the CIA woman's "If this is the best England has God help them" line.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I think it's getting better. Yes, a lot of last week's episode consisted of faffing around in a plane. But remember the second episode of Children of Earth? - mostly trying to get Jack out of a block of concrete. Bits of business like this are just ways of having nothing much happen while the plot thickens. (I loved the airline steward - "I'm not gay ... I'm not gay ... Look, one time ...". [Big Grin]

Having Danes redeem himself by crying on tv is Russell Davies's cynical side coming out again: all it takes to turn you from a monster into a star is a few tears to camera. It's an exaggeration of how Davies thinks the world works, and I'm not sure he's all that far off the mark.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It's all getting a bit George A Romero though...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
And I did like Gwen's answer to the CIA woman's "If this is the best England has God help them" line.

Maybe. I thought the CIA woman's(*) line was obviously set up in order to get the response. The whole thing came off as rather cynically calculated. ("These poor Americans are often confused between English and Welsh.")

(*) or Sierra, as she was in a much better sf show (Dollhouse).

[ 26. July 2011, 09:49: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Back to the Doctor: New trailer.
Comments?
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
Moffatt really does like pulling all the baddies out of the cupboard, doesn't he? And it looks like the Flesh Doctor is going to save the day somehow.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Well, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the Doctor again, especially after watching this week's Torchwood - I missed the first 2 eps but read up on them here and elsewhere. I'm afraid I gave up and went to bed before the end...I'm not loving the American setting, or much else about it to be honest. I miss Ianto, I miss Cardiff and Rhys - hell, I even miss that Tosh girl and Owen. And I've gone right off Jack. Shall I bother tuning in next time? Hmmm.

Btw, Rory was not bad at all as Mephistopheles down at the Globe - mild on the surface, with an underlying melancholy. Could have been more chilling, but not bad. It was good to see him in something more challenging and different.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
I took the silence here after episode 3 of Torchwood as a sign that I am not alone in giving up on it.

When is Doctor back - Sept??
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
Still watching Torchwood, but not really engaged by it. Still, we record it and watch it on Saturday evening when there's really nothing else on that we enjoy.
But yes, I miss Ianto and Wales too. This is just kind of generic US "thrillery" stuff. It doesn't have any of the "charm" (I'm not sure that's the word, really...) that "Torchwood" in Wales had.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
And I did like Gwen's answer to the CIA woman's "If this is the best England has God help them" line.

Maybe. I thought the CIA woman's(*) line was obviously set up in order to get the response. The whole thing came off as rather cynically calculated. ("These poor Americans are often confused between English and Welsh.")

In similar vein I got rather tired of the constant references to differences in American and UK English in Episode 3 - surely everyone in the UK knows by now that Americans call a mobile a cellphone?

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
This is just kind of generic US "thrillery" stuff.

Mm. Yes. I tuned in the other day, because, y'know, Jack Harness and Co., but it held my attention for about five minutes, for that reason-- I felt like I was watching a repackaged episode of Enterprise.

Just a small note to American TV producers-- we really gotta do something about our overuse of soundtrack to cue emotional response in viewers-- we use music in TV series like they used to use it in 1940's radio soap operas. (sorry, pet peeve.)

Back to Torchwood--they are wasting Lauren Ambrose, who is a lovely girl and a brilliant actress (check out the series Six Feet Under for evidence.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I watched up to 3, and am not impressed at all. It felt in structure very much like Flashforward, which I have never watched all the way through. I didn't like all the translation stuff (did they think the US audiences needed it, though?), and I definitely did not like the gay "joke" or Jack's dependency on Gwen (though that does make sense in the circumstances).
The idea that it is all a plot by Big Pharma is weird, as that only seems to apply in the States so far, and there is no suggestion as to the source of the drugs, or the financing of their purchase by people thrust into poverty by needing them. It doesn't make sense. (Even as a satirical comment on the US provision of health services).
The CIA chief's revelation about the source of the controls on him suggested a link with the Silence of Dr Who. I do hope not. I might just keep up with the plot on synopsis sites.

Penny
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I took the silence here after episode 3 of Torchwood as a sign that I am not alone in giving up on it.

No, I gave up after the first episode and haven't bothered since. I miss Torchwood - as it used to be. This new series feels more like a US TV show with two UK guest stars. This doesn't have anything I really relate to and I don't like the current plot. Torchwood's never really been the same since Ianto and Owen died, anyway.

Doctor Who is back not as a series but as specials at intervals throughout the year, I believe.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I was shouting at the TV during the 'cross-pond translation' scene. I was waiting for a smart-mouthed reply from Gwen as a payoff but it never came.

Brits watch enough US TV to know all those things, and any US viewers who didn't know are perfectly capable of figuring them out.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Doctor Who will be back as another half series, starting with "Let's Kill Hitler", which won't succeed. A trailer is available somewhere. It is currently running the first half on BBC3 straight after running last year's, in which it is quite clear that the silence which will fall is the destruction of the universe. Making it up as he went along, definitely.

I quite agree with Ariel, it is nothing like it was, which I miss, and it is like a US series with the odd UK visitor. And it is not like a good one.

I almost suspect this of being Davies' aim all along, and that he used Dr Who as a way of getting to Hollywood for his own original series which he could not get made until he got it slotted into Dr Who like a parasite.

Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Loved the new trailer for the autumn series. It looks totally crazy.

I've also watched part 3 of Miracle Day, and I'm afraid I'm starting not to like it. This one really was rather dull, with lots of faffing around and only one or two moments of serious plot development.

How many parts are there?
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Adeodatus posted: Loved the new trailer for the autumn series. It looks totally crazy.
I only hope autumn series lives up to the promise of the trailer. I think the first part of the series fell a bit short. *crosses fingers*
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Kelly - we really liked 6 feet under too [Smile]

We watched it as I wanted to (I'm rubbish at only half watching a film or half reading a book - I *need* to know how it ends even if it's crap) and thought it really was going downhill, even from its bad start! Oh dear [Frown]

I actually quite liked flashforward, but I was expecting American style series for that I guess. I was disappointed they never finished it as I NEED To know what the heck was going on! When they make shows like that do they genuinely not decide what is going on until afterwards?!

*Sigh* for lack of decent Torchwood. I'm not too keen on this series of doctor who at all either so hoping it might improve in the Autumn. There's just nothing on tv I like anymore [Frown]
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Doctor Who is back on BBC1 on the 27th August!

There's a BFI preview screening of "Let's Kill Hitler" in London on 15th August, and I've got a ticket [Yipee]

The trailer looks very exciting! Moffat said in a recent interview that all the current storylines are going to be resolved this series - they're not going to drag them out indefinitely, which is a relief.

I'm not that taken with Miracle Day so far. I'm going to stick with it a bit longer because I'm covering it for Impossible Podcasts, but I'm not sure I'd keep watching otherwise. The trailer for episode 5 promises some answers about the Miracle, which could be make or break time for me...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Emma Louise, I didn't realise they never finished Flashforward. What a way to treat an audience. I shan't bother watching my recordings then.

Penny
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
Having just re-watched The Impossible Astronaut and Day of the Moon, I was struck by the Silents telling Amy that the Doctor would 'bring the Silence, and that Silence would fall'. I put the subtitles on, and that is definitely how it was spelt. Interesting, or am I reading too much into it? I kept looking for evidence of flesh Doctor and Amy, too...Amy is noticably plumper in the first episodes. I'm going to check out if she stays that way, or returns to super-skinny 'normal'.

[ 02. August 2011, 07:24: Message edited by: Athrawes ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
*Sigh* for lack of decent Torchwood. I'm not too keen on this series of doctor who at all either so hoping it might improve in the Autumn. There's just nothing on tv I like anymore [Frown]

No. I'm holding out for the return of Sherlock (the Cumberbatch and Freeman version) but do find myself thinking that I seem to be paying rather a lot in TV licence fee for very little return.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Emma Louise, I didn't realise they never finished Flashforward. What a way to treat an audience. I shan't bother watching my recordings then.

Penny

I dropped Flashforward after about 3 episodes: was the phenomenon ever explained? Who was responsible, and why?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
As far as I can recall it was a secretive organisation led by one individual, and it generated the whateveritwas field from structures out in Ethiopia. The hobbit actor had been enticed into involvement and given a magic ring which kept him from being affected by the event, and he was picked up leaving a baseball stadium where it was necessary for him to be for the thing to work. There had been a lot of violence and torture by the time I stopped watching, and puzzles about who knew what. As for the why, who knows.

Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Are we allowed to discuss the trailer, or would that be too spoilery for those who haven't watched it? Here goes
.
(*spoiler alert*)
.
.
To start with, there are an awful lot of "monsters", aren't there? And the business with the hotel corridor looks distinctly scary. And at least three people with an eye-patch over their right eye. And just how cool is it (about 37 seconds in) that Rory gets to throw that punch?
.
.
.
(*spoilers gone*)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To start with, there are an awful lot of "monsters", aren't there? And the business with the hotel corridor looks distinctly scary. And at least three people with an eye-patch over their right eye. And just how cool is it (about 37 seconds in) that Rory gets to throw that punch?

It's not going to be a serious study of the man's character like Downfall, is it? Possibly palling around with Richard Nixon was there to soften us up.

Who was the third person with the eye-patch? Are we supposed to think that numbers one and two are the same person?

The lots of monsters is probably just the effect of putting six episodes worth into a couple of seconds. It looks like Silence Will Fall was not put to bed at the end of episode Two, so we might actually get some proper answers for last season. I hope that if we see Weeping Angels again they actually 'weep'.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Also in the trailer there is ...

.

.

.

(spoilers)

.

.

.

... an epitaph to the Doctor who died at Lake Silencio, Utah (though it looks like Lake Powell to me, Lake Silencio not being a real place as far as I am aware) dated to the day the episode where he was "killed" went out.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
*sigh*

Spoilers already, with the Doctor's return still weeks away. I think I'm going to have to decide to either watch the trailer or shun human (or at least Whovian) contact for a while.

As for Torchwood, I actually thought ep3 was a lot better. There's still a fair bit of clunkiness, but there's finally some plot and early signs of people analysing what's going on rather than vaguely thinking it's a bit strange. Mind you, my hopes weren't high and I wasn't paying as much attention as a result, so it might just be that it wasn't quite as obviously bad as I expected.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Moffat said in a recent interview that all the current storylines are going to be resolved this series - they're not going to drag them out indefinitely, which is a relief.

Well, he has to resolve them, doesn't he? After all, the Doctor is going to be dead at the end. That will wrap up the series so that we can move on to next year's Exciting New Series "It's All About Amy!" in which an irritating redheaded Kiss-o-gram saves the Universe by simply remembering how nice things used to be.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Maybe the lake name change is supposed to be a result of the events.

Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Non-spoilery bit:

I'm seeing the date of 27 August being gossiped around a lot. Can anyone confirm this as the start of the half-season?
.
.
.
Spoilery bit:
.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Who was the third person with the eye-patch? Are we supposed to think that numbers one and two are the same person?

The third one is the bloke who looks like a Norse god, playing chess. I'm not sure about numbers one and two being the same person, but I guess it's fairly certain that eyepatches become significant.

[geek] There's a story about the filming of the Pertwee story Inferno. Nicholas Courtney had to play both the Brigadier and the Brigade Leader, his alter ego in a parallel universe. The Brigade Leader wore an eyepatch, and was first seen turning round in his chair to face the camera. When it came to filming the scene, Courtney turned round as planned ... only to see the rest of the cast all wearing eyepatches as a practical joke, to try and make him 'corpse'. But Courtney, the coolest of professionals, carried on with the scene without a flicker while everyone around him dissolved in giggles. [/geek]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Torchwood's never really been the same since Ianto and Owen died, anyway.
.

Owen (aka Burn Gorman) has just died again, as a spy/assassin in The Hour. You'd think he'd look for a better casting director next time.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Yes, 27th August was confirmed at ComicCon. It's on the BBC America website, though oddly not on the official UK site, but that's because UK schedules don't get officially announced as far in advance as US schedules for some reason, but the UK date is pretty certain to be the same.

By the way, a trailer is publicity rather than spoilers, surely?

[ 03. August 2011, 21:16: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
By the way, a trailer is publicity rather than spoilers, surely?

I know, it's just that I'm a nice person. [Big Grin] Thanks for the date confirmation.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
That's during Greenbelt. That's just mean.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I suspect the eyepatches of being a viewing device, like the sort of thing that projects onto windscreens. Probably viewing what an avatar is doing when looking at the original.

Penny

[ 04. August 2011, 14:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Surely if its during Greenbelt - then there will be enough geeks there to arrange a viewing somewhere?!
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The third one is the bloke who looks like a Norse god, playing chess. I'm not sure about numbers one and two being the same person, but I guess it's fairly certain that eyepatches become significant.

Unless it is all a set up for a joke: The Doctor comments on the prevalence of eyepatches and one of the characters says, deadpan, "Eyepatches are cool." Or some gag about "an eye for an eye" and/or "in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But all of that is just me being grumbly. I don't really have any faith that Moffat has planned all this out properly. Last season's cop-out that Amy could restore people back to life simply by remembering that they once existed was just so bad that I have a deep fear that this season will have a similar "clap to keep Tinkerbell alive" conclusion.

All that being said, I rather like Penny S's eyepatch theory.
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Emma Louise, I didn't realise they never finished Flashforward. What a way to treat an audience. I shan't bother watching my recordings then.

Penny

The last episode ended with what was probably a setup for a second series which isn't going to happen. Everything seemed to happen in a frantic hurry, with some things resolved and others not - lots of questions of the (slight spoiler) 'did whatever-his-name-was (the Joseph Fiennes character) survive or not?' kind. Not particularly satisfying, though it was interesting to see how all the characters came to be more or less in the situations they foresaw.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Last season's cop-out that Amy could restore people back to life simply by remembering that they once existed was just so bad that I have a deep fear that this season will have a similar "clap to keep Tinkerbell alive" conclusion.

It was more plausible than the conclusions to series One and Three and more emotionally satisfying that the schmaltzfest that was the ending of season Four. (I haven't seen the ending of season Two although I gather it pours on the schmaltz as well.) It was set up as a rule of the cracks that you could get stuff back out of them if you remembered at the end of the Silurian double-bill. It is not a rule of the TARDIS that it can tow planets.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Scientific pedantry alert. It was a hypothesis, not a theory. It might develop into a theory if observation of the developing plotline provides evidence that it is probable.
It's loose use of the theory word that feeds pseudoscientists, and you all know which sort in particular.
Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is not a rule of the TARDIS that it can tow planets.

In The Creature from the Pit (1979), the TARDIS pulls a neutron star off its collision course with a planet. Sorry. The trouble with Doctor Who is that it's so big and sprawling that, by now, there's a precedent for practically everything.

Actually, I didn't find last season's resolution very satisfying either. It was frustrating because, with a couple of well-placed bits of technobabble, it could have worked far, far better. Bear in mind, however, that it was at least partly unresolved, because we still don't know what caused the TARDIS to explode, scattering cracks all over space and time. If Moffat's promising us a resolution to all the current plotlines, he's going to have to include that, too. I suppose it's just possible that in doing so, he'll make The Big Bang a bit less messy in retrospect.

I think Moffat does have some serious problems with story arcs, the "shape" of individual episodes, and so on. But even when he does, Doctor Who is still the best popular drama show around. And Matt Smith ... well, he's just glorious. An amazing actor.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Scientific pedantry alert. It was a hypothesis, not a theory. It might develop into a theory if observation of the developing plotline provides evidence that it is probable.
It's loose use of the theory word that feeds pseudoscientists, and you all know which sort in particular.
Penny

I'm apologizing.

Dafyd: They ALL pour on the schmaltz. It appears to be the Curse of New Doctor Who that you have to have schmaltz.

Adeodatus: Agreed about Matt Smith. When I first saw him I didn't like him, but re-watching the episodes I am deeply impressed at just how subtle an actor he is. As you say, amazing.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I thought "The Big Bang", the ending to series 5 was quite well-worked out - all the technobabble to make sense of it and enough explanations to plug the apparent plot holes are present and correct, it just rushes through some of them a bit. So the sci-fi logic just about holds together, and as a fairy-tale it's very nice, especially the "Something old, something new..." resolution.

My main problem with that episode was that large chunks of it were predestination paradoxes - that is, the Doctor simply did what he did because his future self had already done it. It isn't until the Doctor decides to fly the Pandorica into the heart of the exploding TARDIS that he makes a meaningful decision. The plot is folded together like fine origami, but it doesn't leave much room for the characters to make choices.

In other news, Torchwood seemed to hang together a bit better last night, I thought. It was still very silly - the Charley's Angels style heist, for example - but it seemed to have a bit more of a sense of purpose. The stuff about "this is always how the West has treated its unwanted" was very unsubtle, but at least it's trying to say something meaningful. My podcast commentary is online at Impossible Podcasts.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In The Creature from the Pit (1979), the TARDIS pulls a neutron star off its collision course with a planet. Sorry. The trouble with Doctor Who is that it's so big and sprawling that, by now, there's a precedent for practically everything.

I gather that The Creature from the Pit is not one of those stories that is held up as an example of the classic series at its best.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Last season's cop-out that Amy could restore people back to life simply by remembering that they once existed was just so bad that I have a deep fear that this season will have a similar "clap to keep Tinkerbell alive" conclusion.

Have you forgotten Floaty Tinkerbell Jesus Doctor already?

(I shake my head at all the crazy stuff in that episode and just enjoy John Simm being bonkers.)

i enjoyed last night's Torchwood a lot more. Not just because of Jack in the delivery boy uniform either...

OK, the 'getting into the building' brought up the same objection as it did in the Mission Impossible movie - don't these places have CCTV? But at least Jack didn't have to dangle on wire.

Not sure about Gwen's Karen Walker-style disguise though.

Danes' Messianic affectations were nicely creepy, and the 'segregation' stuff, although overdone (Look, we'll show you a picture of a black guy while people talk about segregating society!) was rather chilling too.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
GillH posted: Have you forgotten Floaty Tinkerbell Jesus Doctor already?
You know adults may have snickered but my kids found that much more satisfying for whatever reason than the pandorica reboot.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I gather that The Creature from the Pit is not one of those stories that is held up as an example of the classic series at its best.

Not at its best, no. But not at its worse, either. There was some delightful dialogue throughout. ("Like most stars, it lacks a guidance system.") The story's main claim to fame, though, is the Rather Unfortunate realization of the Creature--and its, ummm, protuberance.

Gill H, I did recall the Tinkerbell Doctor after posting. That was pretty bad, too. As was the next season's "Let's reach the Doctor by having every phone on Earth call the same number yet somehow avoid getting the world's largest busy signal."

It says something when, in retrospect, "Rose cracks open the TARDIS and inhales the time vortex in order to wipe out a single Dalek fleet" now seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
I thought I'd set my recorder to take Torchwood - until I settled down to watch this evening.

Bummer. I hope it is repeated soon.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Everild:
I hope it is repeated soon.

It's being shown again late on Monday evenings. I've been watching The Killing (US version) on Channel 4 during the Thursday evening slot, so Monday is when I've been watching.
I gather I got rather more of the sex scenes last week than those who watched on Thursday.

[ 05. August 2011, 22:43: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Thursday torchwood is edited?! There's *MORE* sex in the original...? More violence too? Not sure I'd watch it but I'm curious what I've missed!
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
My attempt to rewatch the current Dr series to pick up any passing clues failed at the outset as the recorder did not think the new series was part of the last series, and the series record option did not work. Drat.
Penny
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Am I the only one who, when Jack was disguised as the delivery guy, was expecting him to whip out his false teeth and suddenly declare "I'm John Barrowman from BBC1's Tonight's The Night and I'm here to make your dreams come true!"

No? Just me who's watching trashy telly on a Saturday night then...
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Just watched last week's episode and I'm about ready to give up on it. I've said that about Torchwood before but mostly it's been down to ludicrous plots that RTD has let run away with themselves (undead Owen for example) or the routine addition of sexual scenes for no apparent reason other than poking the successors to Mrs Whitehouse in the eye. Both are evident in the latest offering but I suppose I'm getting used to it.

Now though he's added abject stupidity to the attributes of all the main characters. If I'd let the kids watch it, they'd have been saying "Oh come on, nobody's that thick."
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Just watched last week's episode and I'm about ready to give up on it. I've said that about Torchwood before but mostly it's been down to ludicrous plots that RTD has let run away with themselves (undead Owen for example) or the routine addition of sexual scenes for no apparent reason other than poking the successors to Mrs Whitehouse in the eye. Both are evident in the latest offering but I suppose I'm getting used to it.
I've seen the next episode, and I think it's worth giving it one last chance, because things start to really happen in it. There are still some silly moments (none of the characters really seems to behave as if they're on the run) but it really begins to kick off story-wise. I've a spoiler free review here.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
OK, that was dark and rather horrible.
I've kind of gone from 'well it's Torchwood, I've got to watch it' to 'Right, I need to know who is doing this horrible thing and make sure they get their just deserts.'
It bloody well better have a satisfying ending.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Ooh noo ... I'm two episodes behind on Torchwood now. Must watch, must watch ...

Is it going to be finished before 27 August, when Doctor Who is due to restart?
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
Torchwood finally got quite exciting last night. Nightmare stuff at times.
 
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on :
 
Far too exciting, bet I'm going to have weird nightmares tonight after that episode.

I'd forgotten how much darker Torchwood was than the Doctor when it came to lingering on the horror moments. Looking forward to the ending - how many more parts are there?
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
That was episode 5 of 10, so we've just reached the half-way point. Which means that Doctor Who and Torchwood will overlap for several weeks (which is a bit annoying for me, since I don't really have time to do weekly podcast commentaries on both shows, so Torchwood will probably be getting the shove once Doctor Who returns!)

Only two days until I see 'Let's Kill Hitler' - I've got tickets to the BFI screening in London! [Yipee] I'll write up a spoiler-free review as soon as I get chance.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that weird nightmare I had last night was Torchwood-induced. [Ultra confused]

I want to know what happens to Vera. Is she really gone? She was the only non-braindead person in the incinerator. Can she come back like Jack did after the explosion? Can she come back as sentient dust?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
OK, I caught up with Torchwood. The last episode really moved up a gear - but was it an episode too late? The pace is really quite slow, and I'm surprised to discover there are another five to go. Can you really sustain a thriller/drama over ten hours? (Which makes me think, are they trying to turn it into a sort of 24? Cos if that's what it is, I don't think they're succeeding.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I watched one of my recordings, and found it really nasty at one point - the car crusher bit. This was the sort of thing that stopped me watching X-Files. I don't want stuff like this in my mind.

Penny
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
So I spent some of yesterday catching up as I seemed to be hearing it might be getting better.

And it is ...sort of.

It does feel stretched out - like they had the idea, did the deal and it was for 10 episodes and then had to make it fit.

I remember feeling somewhat like that with the much better Children of Earth, I said:

quote:
Not sure I agree about "no padding". It certainly zipped along and you didn't get bored but how many of the chases/fights are really integral to the plot. Did Jack really need to be captured/rescued? I suspect once the week's up we'll find the story would condense down quite happily to a single hour or two.

Not that that's such a bad thing per se - the 'padding' is watchable.

Now we have a similar problem, except that the padding is less watchable.

The thing that frustrates me is that there are some good ideas in there but they're not executed as well as they need to be. Some of the dialogue is terrible. And there's a lot shouting standing in for genuine tension and conflict between the characters - Rex is particularly bad for this.

But... I'm half-way through now and I do want to see how it ends.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I watched one of my recordings, and found it really nasty at one point - the car crusher bit. This was the sort of thing that stopped me watching X-Files. I don't want stuff like this in my mind.

Penny

There was another similar rather horrid "dying alive" moment on Thursday. I think they're trying to put one in each episode or something?!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Urgh. Thanks for this. Sounds like it's really turned into a totally different programme - and definitely not one I want to see.

[ 14. August 2011, 13:18: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I saw the first Torchwood episode and part of the second but didn't manage to get back from work in time for the next couple. So yesterday went back to the begining and rewatched it all so far from the start in two chunks.

Its actually rather better when seen like that. Especially if you pop into the kitchen to get some munchies during the credits and you skip the previouslies and next-weeks. Which I suppose are there to pad out the time that US channels would show ads in. So a 45-minute programme - which in the nature of things only has at the most 35-40 minutes of plot development of action - takes a 60 minute slot. Which means the five episodes sp far are 200 minutes of TV stretched to 300 minutes.

Some of the to-ing and fro-ing seems to be done just because they can almost as if they said "Hey, we're taking a crew to Swansea next month, lets find an excuse to get all the cast there - write me another five scenes!" But taken as a whole the first five episodes do have some movement and genuine excitement. And I am looking forward to the next one.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I can't keep away...

So I've noticed a huge NASA sized plot hole. NASA sized, because that is the size of the we didn't go to the Moon conspiracy that didn't leak. Thousands of people who would have known and have never said anything. That plot didn't leak because it wasn't there.

The set up of camps has people who know what the rules are, and can quote them at the Dr, and at Gwen, people who have done the work to set them up and know what is going on, and have never questioned anything, never felt the urge to leak, never been murdered to prevent it. The plot would have leaked. It is too big, and just could not have happened.

I hate it when a plot wouldn't have worked.

Penny

[ 14. August 2011, 19:06: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Well I just watched episode 6 and the pace has stalled again.

There are a couple of tidbits of new info and forward movement in the plot, but there are also scenes of SHOCK, HORROR, REVELATION... of stuff we already know!
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I just got back from the BFI screening of Doctor Who "Let's Kill Hitler", which was great fun - one of the funniest episodes in a long time, with a show-stealing performance from Alex Kingston.

You can listen to my review at Impossible Podcasts or read my 10 spoiler-free teasers. (I mention a few minor details of the set-up for the plot, so if you want to stay completely "pure" you might want to avoid completely).

Anyhow, I can't wait to see it again on TV and be able to discuss it with people. There are some great surprises in store!
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I saw the prequel to Let's Kill Hitler on the official website - it was just an answerphone message from Amy to the Doctor, and the Doctor's silent reaction to her imploring him to save her baby, but it very nearly made me cry.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
episode 6 - filler
 
Posted by swllwmzn (# 12945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
episode 6 - filler

Really? I thought it was a good episode - still some irritating longuers and I reckon they could have got the series down to 6 episodes at the most. But otherwise I really enjoyed it.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Too much ewww, nothing new. But nice to see a bit more Rhys. I like Rhys.

Oh, and is everyone who works in the US camp required to be both racist and gay (interesting combination...)? There are at least 3 men setting off my gaydar there. Including Mr Hooded Claw Soundalike and his over-dramatic sidekick.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Hmmm. I thought it was the worst one so far. Didn't really do anything and unnecessary gory (still think they have to kill/torture one person each week).

Problem is I'm rubbish at stopping half way. I do hope Dr who is better this series I'm getting so bored of tv and I only watch a couple of things a week!
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Anyone else still watching Torchwood? Because episode 7 (last night) was actually not bad. Some nice tense scenes between Gwen and Jack, and a very well done back story from 1927.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
My boyfriend's boss asked him why he was watching gay porn, when he said he'd been watching Torchwood! He replied: "It can't be - it's on the BBC!"
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I thought it a vast improvement, and really quite weirdly Catholic, with the guilt and everything. Angelo was an interesting new character, and I liked the tense scenes with a desperate Gwen, and Jack's mention of his friend the Doctor. I am getting rather lost with the timeline, though, and how it fits in with the Doctor's.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have persisted with it, deapite being bored for most of it. This week's programme was more interesting than most.

Wonder if the new Dr. Who will be any good tonight.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Haven't caught this week's Torchwood, but the previews of tonight's Doctor Who - Let's Kill Hitler - look both very funny and very good. Looking forward to it.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
So it was only me who thought Torchwood was crap this week? A vehicle for John Barrowman to get naked and shag guys?

Basically, 70 years ago, he broke someone into the USA, had a sexual relationship with them, and then dumped them. Now this person wants revenge. It sounds more like Eastenders than Dr Who.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So it was only me who thought Torchwood was crap this week? A vehicle for John Barrowman to get naked and shag guys?

He looks a lot better naked than most of us.
 
Posted by Jenny Ann (# 3131) on :
 
Oooh.

Good Dr Who! Although took me until about 30 mins in to work out what was going on...
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
i watched teh whole episode and I still don't know what it was about! What happened to Hitler?
 
Posted by Jenny Ann (# 3131) on :
 
Spoilers!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
still locked in the cupboard I think...
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK, I'm another one left wondering what that was all about.

Too many fragmented storylines, harkings back, references, and future possible developments all thrown together. Oh for the days of classic Who when they actually had a plotline you could follow. Too many teasers and red herrings - I can't be bothered to try to keep all these multiple strands in mind every time I watch an episode.
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
The twanglets (particularly the older one) were very excited all week leading up to it.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Well I just thought it was FUN.

Plus Alex Kingston should be allowed to wear jodhpurs as much as she likes!

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So it was only me who thought Torchwood was crap this week? A vehicle for John Barrowman to get naked and shag guys?

Well if nothing else it redresses the balance. If that were a man and a semi-naked woman it could be the storyline from 90% of post-watershed TV drama and most of us wouldn't bat an eyelid.

But actually I thought it wasn't just that. It was a really well told, touching love story that happened to be between two men. Also it's relevant to the on-going story but you have to see the next episode to know that.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Not impressed. I mean it is good to have him back, but a little confused I think.

Next weeks looks better.

And leo - true I am sure, but is that really an excuse?
 
Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :
 
Throwing this out here but on catching the trailer recently I'm certain that I saw David Tennant. Near the end of the trailer, where he sort of whooshes* upwards.

As for the episode itself, at least they answered why if River could regenerate, she did not do so at the end of Silence in the Library. Though I smacked myself for not picking up the Mels - Melody Connection.

*Official management term, see Timey Wimey.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Well ...

I can't quite decide whether that was a piece of comedy and Doctor Who genius, or something really quite offensive.

I'm leaning towards genius at the moment.

And yes, I would concur with Jenny Ann's spoiler. And the robot jellyfish were cool.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The Robot Jellyfish were brilliant. "Your termination will commence" "Your existence will continue".

The emotionless and practical terminology was perfect Dr Who.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Dr Who first. I enjoyed last night's episode but, perhaps because I missed an episode or two last time or maybe because the plot is completely doolally, I can't figure put how Rory and Ginger's kid is a Time Lord. Anyone care to explain?

Touchwood second. It now seems like a hybrid of the original Torchwood and a sub X files US TV series and isn't as good as the excellent 4 or 5 nighter BBC 1 series of a couple of years ago but it is watchable.

I did enjoy Jack's backs story. It wasn't pornographic but was quite enjoyably erotic and that's coming from a heterosexual female! [Hot and Hormonal]

J

[ 28. August 2011, 12:40: Message edited by: dorothea ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Bordering on Brilliant.

Plot lines pretty straightfoward, I thought.

All the Best, Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
Totally confused. Many more like that and I'm switching off.

And was I the only person who found Mel immensely irritating? I cheered when she got shot.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The Robot Jellyfish were brilliant. "Your termination will commence" "Your existence will continue".

Yes, those were immediately quotable lines. "Your existence has now been authorized." The robot jellyfish looked like what you'd get if you crossed an Ood with a Dalek.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Yes, Mel was a jerk. I think that was the point - she was a teenage version of River, but not someone that Fred and Ginger would have considered might be their child.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I really enjoyed the episode - and loved Mel. Shame we won't see any more of her (was hoping she would replace Amy-the-dull). At last something has given me hope for this series. The Doctor's death can't be his lookalike any more, so let's hope there is a good and satisfying explanation coming up there. Asking a lot I know, but Hope is a cardinal virtue!
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
I enjoyed last night's episode but, perhaps because I missed an episode or two last time or maybe because the plot is completely doolally, I can't figure put how Rory and Ginger's kid is a Time Lord. Anyone care to explain?

Did you see Demons Run, the last episode of the first half-series? In it, the Doctor and a Silurian friend are trying to figure out what's different about Amy & Rory's baby. The Doctor explains that the Time Lords became what they are (including the regeneration thing) by aeons of exposure to timey-wimey things like "the untempered schism". Silurian asks if the baby could have been exposed to timey-wimey stuff. She asks delicately if there might be any timey-wimey circumstance to how the baby was ... ahem ... "made".

Impossible, says the Doctor. The first time Rory and Amy were ever together for any length of time aboard the TARDIS was on their ... pause ... oh dear ... wedding night.

Hence River being called, in this episode, the "child of the TARDIS". Which could prove to be interesting ...
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I thought the robot jellyfish seemed like a less dynamic version of the sentinels from Matrix. They were like menacing lamp shades.
I thought the pasted on back story involving Mel was a bit of a cheat and then having River start studying Archeology as an add on as well. I think if all the inspired stories that could have been spun about the early life of Dr. Song this one was weak and seemed hacked together to plug up holes in his story arc. How does this fit into her speech about the Doctor falling out of the sky and having a big effect on 'an impressionable young girl'? If the girl in the suit was River how come she acted like she had never seen it? Perhaps there will be answers or maybe he'll just erase this whole time line and reboot again.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The Robot Jellyfish were brilliant. "Your termination will commence" "Your existence will continue".

The emotionless and practical terminology was perfect Dr Who.

I found the emotionless jellyfish voices more menacing than the ranting through a ring modulator that is the Dalek forte.

Actually I found that the comedy moments more than overcame the confusion caused by tying different plot lines together.

Alex Kingston was again superb. Another solid performance from Arthur Darvill and Matt Smith in tails sliding around the floor as his legs gave way - Brilliant.

Yes the plot had holes, but who cares, this is great entertainment.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I still can't decide whether 'Let's Kill Hitler' was very bad or very good. It was certainly very something.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
I was looking forward to _Let's kill Hitler_ with some apprehension ("Oh no, surely this show is above this obsession with the Nazis...").

I loved the episode.
As for the promised (rather than actual) subject matter: I wonder whether someone told the writers to "do" Hitler, and this was their response.
Genius [Big Grin]
I expect someone let him out eventually...
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
PS (sorry for double-post...)

quote:
The first time Rory and Amy were ever together for any length of time aboard the TARDIS was on their ... pause ... oh dear ... wedding night.
I wonder how many parents had to answer difficult questions after this one...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm pleased that I got the tiny people inside the robot before the person watching with me - like an old encyclopaedia illustration of the body's working !

Penny
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The people inside the robot reminded me the Numskulls, from the Beano. Which was brilliant then, and is brilliant as part of DW.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Little People / Catholic Church?
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I was intrigued by him arriving in full top hat and tails. I thnk he went to marry River and whispers in her ear that River is his wife. It would explain her change of heart.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
I wonder if what he whispers to her is the same that she whispers to him in Silence in the Library Pt. 2, just before her death.
He'd know - it's in his past
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I still can't decide whether 'Let's Kill Hitler' was very bad or very good. It was certainly very something.

Yes, I think so. My first impression is very shit.

Tacked-on backstory, snappy wisecracking dialogue in the place of proper plot (as ever), crass insertions of exposition masquerading very badly as plot elements, ludicrous character development, and more plot holes than you can shake a stick at. The antibodies were about the only redeeming feature, and they were entirely incidental to the story.

I can't believe I spent so much time looking forward to the "second half" - the last episode of Torchwood was better than this!
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
"Shut up, Hitler."

Oh Rory, you are awesome.

Liked the way Mels used facial expressions that were very reminiscent of Alex Kingston.

And oh, how I wanted the 'interface' to be Sarah Jane. *sniffle* although Donna would have been fun. "Oi Timeboy!"
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I've watched Let's Kill Hitler again, and while it does have flashes of Moffat at his very best, I think there's also a hint of "Oh crap, I've only got 6 episodes to tie up all the current plot lines." So Melody's childhood is covered in a backstory, and the identity of The Silence is revealed in a pretty crude info-dump.

I also wondered if there have been any cries of how tasteless it is to have Hitler as a supporting character in what's more or less a comedy scene? Although perhaps someone like Mel Brooks might say that comedy is the only way you can deal with Hitler ... Still, it gave rise to one of the funniest lines ever in Doctor Who, as River gives us a lesson in how to annoy a Nazi:
quote:
I was on my way to a gay gypsy barmitzvah for the disabled and I thought, gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think I'll kill the Fuhrer.

 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I wanted the interface to be Sarah Jane too! I'm not convinced either. It was a good romp; Rory is becoming a good character, Alex Kingston acted everyone else off the screen and Matt Smith's physical comedy was great. But Mels-as-River was not in the slightest bit convincing to me (didn't she have any carers as a child?) The change of heart was unbelievable.

I'm also still not convinced that the little girl is River, partly because River doesn't recognise the suit, partly because Mels says she hasn't regenerated since she was a toddler and the little girl was not a toddler, partly because I don't want her to be, I think
(Macarius pointed out that the whole point about River is that she doesn't give up her knowledge easily, the little girl could quite easily be a toddler in timelord terms and also that it would mean that there were 2 timelords running around New York. They're all good points but I'm not really convinced)

The plot holes were too big, even the Hitler thing, funny as it was, was really just an excuse and the whole thing was - unsatisfying. I've been watching a lot of the old Who recently and the plots (well, a lot of them) are just so good compared to a lot of the more recent ones.

M.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm also still not convinced that the little girl is River, partly because River doesn't recognise the suit, partly because Mels says she hasn't regenerated since she was a toddler and the little girl was not a toddler, partly because I don't want her to be, I think
(Macarius pointed out that the whole point about River is that she doesn't give up her knowledge easily, the little girl could quite easily be a toddler in timelord terms and also that it would mean that there were 2 timelords running around New York. They're all good points but I'm not really convinced)

I'm more convinced than ever that River isn't going to kill the Doctor, at least not 4 reals, because there seem to be too many big, flashing arrows saying that she will, and if she'd killed him as a girl, there was no sense in trying to kill him again, although no doubt the Silence could be invoked to explain a memory lapse. She may well take the blame for it or let people think she did it, though, either so the Doctor can hide with everyone thinking him dead, or because she cares about the person who did it (Amy or Rory?), or both. I did think she might kill Rory, but I can't work out a plausible reason for her doing that, and the Numbskulls seemed to be pretty clear about who she's meant to have killed.

Adeodatus, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the bit about the Silence was desperately crowbarred in. I think that was the point when I went from "WTF?" to "this is just crap", although the hilariously low-budget way the tesselatey-man turned into a motorbike did much of the damage.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
For once, it answered more questions than it asked (for me).
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I'm more convinced than ever that River isn't going to kill the Doctor, at least not 4 reals, because there seem to be too many big, flashing arrows saying that she will, and if she'd killed him as a girl, there was no sense in trying to kill him again, although no doubt the Silence could be invoked to explain a memory lapse.

Although it was made very clear, I think, in the last series that the 'good man' was Rory not the doctor. So, who knows?
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
M said:
I've been watching a lot of the old Who recently and the plots (well, a lot of them) are just so good compared to a lot of the more recent ones.

To be fair, New Who may not be as good as the best of the old series* - but it hasn't yet been as bad as the worst of it either...


*although there are one or two contenders
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Ooh - a new series starts in Oz this week. I'm not even sure where we're up to: last time I watched Ace was the Dr's companion!

Though I did see one episode involving Cardiff Arms Park and another involving gas masks.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by Doubtingthomas:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M said:
I've been watching a lot of the old Who recently and the plots (well, a lot of them) are just so good compared to a lot of the more recent ones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair, New Who may not be as good as the best of the old series* - but it hasn't yet been as bad as the worst of it either...


*although there are one or two contenders

Well, yes, I do agree with this. I admit I never actually got to the end of the Gunfighters.

M.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
It is different to the old series. It is a style designed for more modern tastes. I think comparison is difficult. I really enjoyed the old series, but I also enjoy the new series. Often for different reasons.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
The Big Finish have been continuing the old adventures, with the old Doctors and companions, for some years now, as audio plays, and what they do is very good - so if anyone wants more Old Who, that's the place to find it!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is different to the old series. It is a style designed for more modern tastes. I think comparison is difficult.

Much more fast-paced and high-energy. I don't remember the first three Doctors spending a lot of time frantically dashing about gurning and shouting. The regenerations have become all glitzy and sparkly with lots of fire, and the Doctor himself has become messianic and more of a sex symbol. Plots are less well developed. What we have today is eye-candy - very visually striking stuff with some interestingly original ideas thrown in and some quite interesting new aliens, but it doesn't always hold together very well.

With regard to aliens, I'd say the Silence, the stone angels and the gas mask people have definitely had more impact on the national psyche than many of the old foes from the classic series. The Master is also a lot wilder.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
The Big Finish have been continuing the old adventures, with the old Doctors and companions, for some years now, as audio plays, and what they do is very good - so if anyone wants more Old Who, that's the place to find it!

Any recommendations?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Plots are less well developed.

I have just watched The Mind Robber and The Curse of Fenric on DVD. I rest my case.

I think the classic and the new series are about equal when it comes to well-developed plot. The classic series perhaps has more padding and less rushing around hastily trying to tie up plot strands, not that it doesn't have some of that as well.

[ 31. August 2011, 21:27: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Mind Robber is wonderful. And what a great way to get round Frazer Hines being off sick - have a plot device which means he can look different!

The Happiness Patrol is another excellent story with ropey effects (and Evil Bertie Basset). The book - written by a former colleague of mine - is excellent.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Plots are less well developed.

I have just watched The Mind Robber and The Curse of Fenric on DVD. I rest my case.
A fair point. In my view, the difference between Old and New is a question of pacing. And, well, money for special effects. Both Old and New suffered from plot problems at times, with brilliant stories and rubbish stories.

What irritates me most is the tendency (in both) to keep expanding on the threat level. The First Doctor's first story is mainly an issue of the travellers trying to escape from a small tribe of cavemen. That's it. And if you have seen it, you know that it is a nice, tense story that is well worth watching. Marco Polo was similarly an "escape" plot line (actually, most of the historicals ultimately had a plot of just trying to get back to the TARDIS and leaving). But then the threat levels started going up--instead of this small group of people threatened it became a whole civilization threatened;then the whole planet; then the whole solar system; then the whole galaxy and then the whole universe (see Logopolis for example).

The new series also keeps raising the threat level to ludicrous proportions. In the first season of New Who, we had a nice small scale story where the Doctor and company were in danger from a single Dalek, but by the end of the season Rose is wiping out a whole fleet of Daleks. The next season, the space-time continuum is in danger of shattering because of people shifting between dimensions. Oh, and there is a whole army of Daleks and a whole army of Cybermen to deal with.

The series pulled back quite a bit in the next season, with the Master threatening just the future of the human race, but the rest of the Universe was semi-safe. But it was a brief respite as the next season Davros is trying to wipe out all reality!!!!

There then followed the group of specials until we finally killed off the Tenth Doctor with something as "trivial" as saving the planet Earth.

But then the Eleventh Doctor ends up having to reverse the already-destroyed Universe. I guess after having stopped all reality from being destroyed, the next escalation was saving all reality after it had been destroyed...

So, the current high level threat is saving an already destroyed reality. Quite a way to have come from a story where the whole threat was a bunch of cavemen.

Personally, I prefer the stories that have more restricted threats--just because they seem more real. I can't quite get stressed about whether "All Of Time And Space" will be destroyed. On the other hand, the thought of the Doctor being completely possessed by an alien life form (Midnight) or of a statute of a weeping angel that can displace somebody in time is compelling watching.

I just wish we'd stop having the overblown, grandiose story arcs which usually aim for the Ludicrous Level threat.

All that being said, the current season seems a little more restrained (although I fear it won't last) with the focus more on the Inevitable Death of the Doctor. My main gripe with the current season is only (as I have written before) my firm conviction that they will not actually resolve the temporal paradox issues properly.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
Re: well-developed plots:

I don't think it is a coincidence that most of the best New Who episodes are two-parters - roughly equivalent in length to the classic four-parters, which were the usual format for so long. And for someone like me, who likes relaxed storytelling and doesn't mind a bit of unobtrusive padding, some of the finest classic serials are among the 6- and 7-parters of the Pertwee era.
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
I find myself wishing that the progamme would have a "several-year" break again and give me time to start getting excited about it again. I loved the old series and, when it started up again, have loved most of the new ones, but I find myself getting bored by it. It used to be a programme about defeating aliens, now it's a soap opera of relationships with a great deal of "look how clever I can be playing with the paradoxes of time travel in the plot". The daleks and the cybermen and the robot jellyfish (brilliant, but the joke seemed to come straight from Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy) seem tangential these days to the real story - the love triangle of Rory, Amy and the Doctor.

And as for Torchwood. Gay porn summed it up for me - or, as my friend put it, "The John Barrowman show" of gratuitous sex and violence. And yes, I'd have wanted to switch it off just as much if it had been heterosexual sex.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
Re: well-developed plots:

I don't think it is a coincidence that most of the best New Who episodes are two-parters - roughly equivalent in length to the classic four-parters, which were the usual format for so long.

Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. The two-parters probably have a higher hit rate, which may be because the initial concept was better and deemed worthy of more thorough treatment, but they also tend to promise a lot more than they actually deliver, with the second part often a rather lame resolution that falls well short of part 1's promise, as if all the energy went into creating a cliffhanger rather than a coherent story. The Satan Pit was the classic example of this - after the thrills of The Impossible Planet (that sounds familiar), it was all a bit meh.

In contrast, some of the best-received episodes have been complete one-off standalones, Blink and The Doctor's Wife being obvious examples. I'd throw in Dalek as well, despite the obvious connection to a wider plot development, and both Vincent and the Doctor and The Girl in the Fireplace were generally very popular.

I broadly agree that (all things being equal) longer stories allow for more evenly-paced plot development, and the way Moffat's running it, he should definitely be using two-parters much more, but I don't think it's quite as simple as you suggest.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
This series of Torchwood's actually showing up a significant weakness in the fairy-tale aspect of TV sci-fi like this. What I mean is, the writers try to set the story in the ordinary mundane world and ask what would the consequences be if something spectacular and magical and amazing happened.

That's all very well for a self-contained series but the continuity of Doctor Who doesn't permit it particularly since they started introducing the sort of threat scale that Hedgehog's posted about. Although this has been attempted in places, you'd have to constantly rewrite history to avoid the man on the street and the girl in the White House and human society in general changing radically because of the almost constant stream of alien invasions and planetary takeovers and appearance of 52873th century technology and the like.

Torchwood was a large (semi-secret, until it destroyed an enemy spaceship) government-funded organisation. That's plausible for the Whoniverse - in fact it's stretching the bounds of credulity not to have such organisations at the very least. Having Canary Wharf smashed to bits wouldn't have caused that to revert to Jack and a few pals hiding in a basement under a water feature in Cardiff, it would have caused world governments to redouble their efforts to acquire alien tech and built a feasible defence. Even the Brigadier's version of UNIT (what happened to UNIT?) was a sizeable outfit before the days of open Dalek-Cybermen wars and stars disappearing and planets being towed about by police boxes.

Willing suspension of disbelief is fair enough. So is rebooting a fictional universe. But once the fantastical elements about which we're suspending our disbelief are established, writers should try to remain consistent and plausible.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
The Great Gumby said

I broadly agree that (all things being equal) longer stories allow for more evenly-paced plot development, and the way Moffat's running it, he should definitely be using two-parters much more, but I don't think it's quite as simple as you suggest.

I didn't intend to suggest it was simple, but that there was some sort of detectable correlation. I certainly don't mean that all two-parters were good - RTD managed some pretty dire stuff - I was deeply disappointed by part 2 of Daleks in Manhattan to your list.
But I do think one reason stories like The Empty Child, Human Nature and Flesh and Stone were so good lies in the time they had to unfold.
(sorry, I can never remember more than one title per story...)

I concede that there were more good one-parters than I remember (e.g. Midnight, in addition to the ones you list), although some of those are notable for qualities other than plot. Vincent and the Doctor was a psychological study where the (average) plot served as background to what was acually being said, and The Doctor's Wife was just so much fun it didn't matter the plot was a bit daft.

Must go - Torchwood is about to start...
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Back to the Big Finish - I'm not really sure what to recommend, Dafyd - there's so much of it! But there's a whole run of Paul McGann Eighth Doctor, which fleshes out his interpretation of the Doctor far beyond the movie, and I think all the other Doctors have done stories, and so have a lot of the Companions (and the Brig! Mustn't forget the Brig!)
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
Back to the Big Finish - I'm not really sure what to recommend, Dafyd - there's so much of it! But there's a whole run of Paul McGann Eighth Doctor, which fleshes out his interpretation of the Doctor far beyond the movie, and I think all the other Doctors have done stories, and so have a lot of the Companions (and the Brig! Mustn't forget the Brig!)

I've listened to quite a few Big Finish Doctor Who audios - they're really good. I'd second the recommendation of the Paul McGann Eighth Doctor audios, starting with Storm Warning.

Other ones I particularly enjoyed include Spare Parts, a Fifth Doctor adventure exploring the origins of the Cybermen; Ish... with the Sixth Doctor for the way it plays with language (though people tend to love or hate that one); and The One Doctor as a very funny Christmas comedy story in which an intergalactic con-man impersonates the Doctor as a get rich scheme. Anything written by Rob Shearman is especially good, such as the Sapphire and Steel-esque The Chimes of Midnight.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
For a good giggle 'Bang-Bang-a-Boom' which lovingly spoofs Star Trek and Eurovision. Sylvester McCoy is great, but I'm afraid the companion is Mel...!

'Flipside' is a two-parter where the gimmick is you can listen in either order and the story still works.

'Zagreus' is big, weird, and features former Doctors but in different roles. Includes a concept recently used by Mr Gaiman too - can't say more than that...
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
All fair points, doubtingthomas. Having started out wanting more two-parters (and I think Moffat would find it easier to develop his arc without neglecting the plot if he did this), I've come to suspect that one reason why two-parters seem to work better is that you only get half as many dodgy resolutions. Daleks in Manhattan is a good call, although I wasn't trying to list every poor double-header, and I'd add The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood as a story that never even seemed to get going for me.
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
Must go - Torchwood is about to start...

Ah, Torchwood. 8 weeks in and finally, there's a hint that something might be about to happen. I'm still watching, but only while I do something else. Lack of concentration makes the padding less obvious, and I know that anything important will be endlessly repeated and/or hammered home in BIG SHOUTY VOICES.

It occurs to me that the whole thing would be a lot better if cut to 5 episodes and approached from more of a Children of Earth angle. It would be far more interesting to see the government discussions about introducing concentration camps and burning people alive than watching another gunfight.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
A bit of a tangent but I just wanted to say that, having not heard of the Big Finish before, I've been looking at their site and been amazed by how much lovely stuff is on there! Many thanks indeed to my fellow shippies for the all the interesting things I have discovered on SoF over the years! I don't always post, but I certainly read these threads...

OK, carry on. [Smile]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Ah, well, I might moan but I'm still getting excited about Doctor Who tomorrow. It's like a friend that you unfairly expect so much more from than you do from other people...

It's still the best thing on TV!

M.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Just caught up with the latest Dr Who last night. I have to say I loved every minute of it. One of the most fun yet. Now looking forward to the next episode!

Haven't read this thread for over a week because of possible spoilers, so I guess I need to catch up...
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
The trailer for tomorrow's episode looks great fun. Mark Gatiss' writing for the show has, however, been a bit patchy - last year's Victory of the Daleks was dreadful, I thought, but 2005's The Unquiet Dead was very good.

Judging from his Doctor Who work so far, Gatiss seems willing to adopt the approach to the show taken by Robert Holmes in the mid 70s, when the themes - and sometimes entire plots - of the sci-fi/fantasy/horror genre were happily plundered for our delight. Tomorrow's story, from the little I've seen so far, seems to be of this type.

Generally, I think Doctor Who is the most enjoyable thing on tv at the moment, and has been ever since 2005. Both RTD and Moffat have had their good and bad moments, but both seem to have a clear vision for the show and both are extremely good writers.

I think the things I like least about the show - the one-part stories, but also the complex story arcs - are inevitable these days. We're post-Star Trek (in all of its manifestations), and post-Buffy. Stories are short and quick-paced. Story arcs are included for the tastes of the devoted fans. Characters have more complex "lives" and backstories. Rose, Martha and Donna had to have their mums (and other hangers-on), because that's how you write tv characters now. And there have to be emotions - the general stiff-upper-lipness of the show's first incarnation is one of the things that makes it sometimes so creaky to watch now.

The old show, too, had (more than) its fair share of duff stories. And many stories have a far higher reputation than they should have, simply because they don't exist any more and people only know them from audio or slideshow recontructions. (Tomb of the Cybermen is a case in point. While it was "lost", it was hailed as an all-time classic. Then it was rediscovered, published, and many people's reaction was, "Eeew! - Is that it?") Others have acquired their good reputation with age. I remember when Horror of Fang Rock was first shown, one reviewer said the script sounded like something Ernie Wise might have written for Hammer House of Horror - and yet now it's regarded as a classic. We should remember that for every Pyramids of Mars there's at least one Invisible Enemy.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
We should remember that for every Pyramids of Mars there's at least one Invisible Enemy.

Although even Pyramids of Mars has half an episode's worth of padding in the final episode.

Probably about sixty to seventy minutes is the right length for a Doctor Who story. Shorter, as with the new series and it gets rushed. Longer, as with most of the four parters in the classic series and there's too much padding.

[ 02. September 2011, 16:45: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I've just started reading The Writer's Tale by Russell T Davies, which is quite wonderful in explaining the writing process, and early on he mentions a quotation from Robert Holmes:
"We only ever use original ideas on Doctor Who, but not necessarily our own original ideas."
Which is a lovely way of saying that they stole from everywhere!
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I've come to suspect that one reason why two-parters seem to work better is that you only get half as many dodgy resolutions.

Another way of looking at it is that a two parter has twice the chance either to be very good or to go horribly wrong. [Two face]

I agree with most of what you say about Torchwood, although I have been able to watch without needing to distract myself. But there is certainly a lot of padding and gratuitous gunfighting.
Then again, since I have difficulty with some of the American accents, having things repeated at me isn't all bad [Biased]

All in all I still haven't quite made up my mind whether I like it (in which case I will forgive the shortcomings) or not. I think my final verdict will depend on the resolution. So far, it has still managed to keep me interested, if occasionally exasperated...
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
just caught up with ep 1


Most enjoyable.

I'm sure I heard one of the guys in the Control Ship mention *archbishop* so presumably they are the scary church army chaps?

Quote of the series:

"I was on my way to a gay gipsy barmitzvah for the disabled" (River Song)

If Irritating Amy should be finally extinguished by robot jellyfish - well, I'm fine with that [Smile]

[ 02. September 2011, 23:59: Message edited by: Jahlove ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Although even Pyramids of Mars has half an episode's worth of padding in the final episode.

Ah, but that was padding written by Robert Holmes. That's quality padding, that is.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
"We only ever use original ideas on Doctor Who, but not necessarily our own original ideas."
Which is a lovely way of saying that they stole from everywhere!

And on that note, the premise of this story was taken from a classic sf story whose name and author I now forget. Although that story was much darker than this week's episode. After guessing who Mels was last week pretty much before she got out of the car, I saw both twists in this episode in advance.

I'm left feeling slightly so-so about the episode itself. It might have been more scary on repeat late at night. And quite apart from the obvious questions about the boy, that are begging a follow-up, where did the dolls come from or why were they doing what they were doing?

[ 03. September 2011, 19:58: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
On the latest Dr Who (monsters in the wardrobe[*] overcome by Daddy saying "I love you") - Meh!

On the latest Torchwood (episode 9) - not bad at all, but why wait so long to put some actual tension into the drama?


[*]Why did they keep calling it the "cupboard" though?
 
Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :
 
Well, they could have called it a 'closet'... it would have been very apt:
in the end, everyone in the episode did come out of the closet, didn't they... [Biased]

[well, okay, apart from the mother and the dog]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
I thought it was rather good. Good premise, nice amount of suspense and proper scariness, and an actual plot rather than a patchwork of clumsy arc developments.

I will confess that I didn't see the twist coming until quite late, and yes, we didn't get much of an explanation about how the boy did it, but I don't see that it was all that important to the story, so I'd rather be spared the usual technobabble.

One thing that brought me up short - the Doctor saying right at the end "It's good to be all back together again, in the flesh". A very interesting turn of phrase, and one that surely isn't accidental.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Where do the BBC get such good child actors? Well done the actor who was George.

Spoilers below.

.

.

Were the twin girls that answered the door to Amy in the tower block two Amelias? If so is this a teaser for later in the series?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(wiping shirt off)

Little tip. When watching Dr. Who and eating a pizza Hot Pocket, keep in mind that something might cross the screen that creeps you out so bad that you involuntarily squeeze the food item, thus squirting hot tomato sauce all over yourself.

HO.LY.SHIT.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
[Killing me] [Killing me]

with you, not at you, of course ...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Of course.

Re-watching episode-- is it just me, or is the soundtrack deliberately channeling The Twilight Zone?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I got the location at the wooden pan - though it was much too well turned for what it was supposed to be. I think the pre-plastic material was probably cast metal, but that would have not helped the plot much. I'm afraid I was then in Beatrix Potter territory for quite a while.
I also thought it was reminiscent of the little girl with her drawings in an earlier series.
I noticed that last remark of the Doctor's, too. It seemed much too obvious. There was also the recurrent theme of tampered memory.
Penny

[ 04. September 2011, 08:13: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
I find dolls/puppets/ventriloquists' dummies that become animated much more scary than monsters and aliens, so for me this was the best episode of Doctor Who for absolutely ages.

Dafyd - the original dolls would have belonged with the dolls house. As to what they were doing and why, I thought that what they did was the embodiment of George's fear of them.

Just a tiny niggle - what mother in her right mind would use the wardrobe in the child's bedroom as the place to keep all the scary things?
Every child knows that scary things are just waiting to creep out of the wardrobe when you are alone and in the dark, without your mother putting more of them in there.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
the Doctor saying right at the end "It's good to be all back together again, in the flesh". A very interesting turn of phrase, and one that surely isn't accidental.

I thought that was a reference to Amy being dollified.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
[There may be bits further down this post that are a bit spoilery-woilery for some.]
.
.
.

My first reaction to last night's episode was "how the hell were they allowed to show this at 7pm?" Scary. Disturbing. But perhaps more so for adults than for children? The dolls were bad enough, but the landlord was a seriously nasty piece of work.

But I think we've got some problems with structure and resolutions. Structure first: why does Gatiss habitually write short episodes? Last night I was thinking, "Oo good - 7 minutes to go, there could be a really interesting resolu ... oh, it's finished." He did this with Victory of the Daleks too.

Which brings me on to the resolution. It was all so quick that it's tempting to label it as just another "love conquers all" resolution - "Daddy loves you." "Oh, that's all right then. The End." That's how it came across, but actually it wasn't that - it was about overcoming the anxiety of a cuckoo about being expelled from its adoptive nest, which is very different. If they had made more of that point, I think it would have improved both the resolution and the structure.

And I agree with The Great Gumby about the Doctor's line towards the end. Can't be a coincidence. Can it? [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That's how it came across, but actually it wasn't that - it was about overcoming the anxiety of a cuckoo about being expelled from its adoptive nest, which is very different. If they had made more of that point, I think it would have improved both the resolution and the structure.


You're right; we needed to get deeper into the kid.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
All these story arcs are making me see links all over and led me to connect man with dog top the prisoner zero episode.

As for the flesh comment - I remember somewhere hearing that the pirate story was swapped from 2nd half to the first half of the series, could this be the one it was swapped for? Comment would make sense there - they wouldn't do another flesh Amy twist, would they?
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I thought it was the best this series*. Properly sinister.

M.

*By which I mean, this year, not this one and the one before!

[ 04. September 2011, 09:53: Message edited by: M. ]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Sorry, I've just remembered The Doctor's Wife, which I liked just as much.

M.
 
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on :
 
I really enjoyed it - although I wasleft with a few questions...I don't think the origins of George were explained well enough...I'd like to know more about what he is/was. BUT it was creepy, and like Moffat's best stories, took something normal (dolls, dolls' houses) and made it quite disturbing and scary.

Tho' my favourite one so far this series has been the Doctor's Wife, this came a fairly close second.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Excellent again. I have to say I think some of you are spoiling it for yourselves by too keen an eye for detail and an expectation that a "story" be perfect in every detail. It's a story for Pete's sake, enjoy it.

My Missus watched it with me (first ever Dr Who!) even she enjoyed it. Though I suspect it's a ploy to get me to watch Emmerdale in return.

All the best, Pyx_e.
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]And on that note, the premise of this story was taken from a classic sf story whose name and author I now forget. Although that story was much darker than this week's episode.

*racks brain to trace source of distant memory*

How about Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury? I've only a dim memory of seeing the film, but I seem to remember something about a creepy statue, and all the scary stuff only stopping when the father was able to say 'I love you'.

Thoroughly enjoyed it - properly scary, and still not sure whether the dolls were evil or just really wanted to play.
And I was delighted to see Dyrham Park take a bow as itself on Confidential - we enjoyed a visit there this summer, and I was having one of those 'I'm sure I've seen that house before' evenings.

One question left over from last week's episode, which I only caught up with on Friday - 'regeneration disabled'? How and why?
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
I think the reason it left me a bit cold was many of the elements that were good we've seen done better before. That's the third or fourth time we've had doll-like monsters. And I'm really not normally bothered about plot holes etc but it has to satisfy as a story. With the problem being so under-defined and the resolution so easy it didn't do that for me.

I glad it did for others.

Concerning 'arcs' - this was something that came up a lot during my Buffy newsgroup days. Very similar theme to the one here with people feeling that serving the arc story can be a hindrance to telling the individual episode's story. My feeling was and is that both are stories and if they're good stories we'll like them, if not then not. Also that whilst I may or may not be a fan of the "arc" depending on what it is, I am in general a fan of ongoing character development, allowing the characters to grow and change.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
the Doctor saying right at the end "It's good to be all back together again, in the flesh". A very interesting turn of phrase, and one that surely isn't accidental.

I thought that was a reference to Amy being dollified.
The two aren't mutually exclusive...

BTW, Balaam, I had similar thoughts about the twin girls.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
As for the flesh comment - I remember somewhere hearing that the pirate story was swapped from 2nd half to the first half of the series, could this be the one it was swapped for? Comment would make sense there - they wouldn't do another flesh Amy twist, would they?

This story was originally slated as the 4th episode, I think, after The Doctor's Wife, with The Black Spot in at 9, but the change would have happened a long time ago, certainly long enough to insert/remove references as required. I don't believe we've seen the end of Flesh Gangers for one moment, and one persistent theory to explain ep.1 is that there are two Doctors, either crossed timelines, parallel universes leaking into each other (cf The Black Spot) or "Real" and "Flesh". I'll actually be surprised if there isn't at least one more Fleshy twist.
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
Concerning 'arcs' - this was something that came up a lot during my Buffy newsgroup days. Very similar theme to the one here with people feeling that serving the arc story can be a hindrance to telling the individual episode's story. My feeling was and is that both are stories and if they're good stories we'll like them, if not then not. Also that whilst I may or may not be a fan of the "arc" depending on what it is, I am in general a fan of ongoing character development, allowing the characters to grow and change.

(my italics)

That's just the point - Moffat doesn't really seem to "do" characters, or at least not in any sense beyond a useful vehicle for a plot. Look at LKH - Mels turns up out of nowhere (I concede on reflection that this may, considering her non-appearance at the wedding, turn out to be for a good timey-wimey reason, along the lines of people vanishing last season), acts annoying without doing much, gets shot, regenerates into Alex Kingston, spends most of the rest of the episode being flirty and homicidal, before suddenly changing her mind and saving her victim for no apparent reason.

You may find the plot satisfying (I thought it was shit to non-existent, but it would be boring if everyone agreed), but in no way does that qualify as ongoing character development. Despite everything they've been through, the only character who seems to have changed in anything other than a shallow, superficial way under Moffat is Rory, and I suspect even that will turn out in a few weeks to be plot-driven.

I don't mind arcs, and TBH, although I'm getting very tired of River Song, the arc is probably the best aspect of Moffat's tenure, at least in that the arc developments keep you watching even when the actual story's shite, like last week. But it could also be argued that episodes have been weakened by the need to incorporate so much guff to move the arc along, and you have to be careful with that - too much arc at the expense of individual stories ends up with an unwatchable mess like the latter stages of Heroes.

I pretty much agree with everything you say, but I suppose my frustration is that the arc isn't being integrated with the immediate story. It's all about how you do it - some episodes look as if they were written as standalone efforts, then had some clumsy dialogue crowbarred in to move the arc on. I know RTD was much the same, but at least he was only dropping hints about the Big Bad, not seriously trying to make the whole series into a complete narrative arc.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
On arcs I was speaking generally that they aren't per se a bad thing. I think I agree that overall Dr Who hasn't done them particularly well.

I also think that my expectations of Dr Who aren't what they would be for a more adult-oriented show. I expect it to be campy, rompy and occasionally a bit silly and I tend to enjoy it when it plays to those strengths, as it did in LKH imho, regardless of the problems with logic etc. When it takes itself a bit more seriously then it better do the details better.

I think I'm also unusual in this thread for never being a fan of the old Dr Who. Well I was when I was a kid but I've not re-watched old series as an adult (the one time I did it was very disappointing) or listened to the audio adventures etc. So I'm not comparing the show, or perhaps more importantly the character of the Doctor, with the one from years ago.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
DW - Just watched this weeks, and it was a classic Moffatt - except that it wasn't. Excellent storyline and very scary ( living in a council estate in East London is pretty scary by itself ).

I just didn't like the far too quick resolution. Not enough by a long way. It would have been better as two episodes, with more plotwork in it. However, I think we will see some of these characters again - the twins and the boy need more work.

Torchwood - well it moved the story along by another 10 minutes. It would have been far better in a 6 episode series, and is being painfully stretched out. I mean, where have we really got to since it was obvious several episodes ago that there was alien tech involved? And Angelo turns out to be irrelevant - making last weeks episode more of a waste.

I need to see the end to to know the resolution, but I will not be watching another series.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Despite everything they've been through, the only character who seems to have changed in anything other than a shallow, superficial way under Moffat is Rory, and I suspect even that will turn out in a few weeks to be plot-driven.

I have to agree with this. I was sort of half thinking it but you've expressed it well here, and I think that's probably what makes me more dissatisfied with the series. Plot holes up to a point, it is as Pyx_e says entertainment, but when character development is lacking it all starts to wear visibly thin.

I didn't see it last night and I can't say I feel any great sense of loss, nor do I plan to see it next week either. I like River Song, but she's currently the only one with any real personality and is in danger of going the way Captain Jack did - of stealing the show and then becoming over-exposed to saturation point. With any luck, though, she might even get her own spin-off series - now that could be fun.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I liked it a lot but prefered last week as more skiffy.


quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[There may be bits further down this post that are a bit spoilery-woilery for some.]
.
.
.

My first reaction to last night's episode was "how the hell were they allowed to show this at 7pm?" Scary. Disturbing. But perhaps more so for adults than for children? The dolls were bad enough, but the landlord was a seriously nasty piece of work.

That's weird. The landlord was nasty but not horrific. I *know* people like that. I mean, really. One of them even used to work for a criminal landlord. His dog is quite nice though.

But the other... things... despite being over 50 I had to look away from the screen.

There has been a lot of Who which has a kid scared of monsters that turn out to be real. Not quite as common as the Base Under Siege but one of the common Who plots.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
the premise of this story was taken from a classic sf story whose name and author I now forget. Although that story was much darker than this week's episode.

*racks brain to trace source of distant memory*

How about Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury?

I know it wasn't that. The story has a boy born with practically unlimited reality altering powers who uses them to bury anyone who displeases him under the wheat field/ corn field (because everybody has been too afraid to teach him not to). The small town exists in a pocket universe, either because the child put it there when he was born or because he destroyed everywhere else.

[ 04. September 2011, 17:35: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by phil2357 (# 15431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
the premise of this story was taken from a classic sf story whose name and author I now forget. Although that story was much darker than this week's episode.

*racks brain to trace source of distant memory*

How about Something Wicked This Way Comes by Ray Bradbury?

I know it wasn't that. The story has a boy born with practically unlimited reality altering powers who uses them to bury anyone who displeases him under the wheat field/ corn field (because everybody has been too afraid to teach him not to). The small town exists in a pocket universe, either because the child put it there when he was born or because he destroyed everywhere else.
"It's a Good Life" by Jerome Bixby?
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
That was a segment in the Twilight Zone movie, which a little googling reveals was based on a short story called "It's a Good Life" by Jerome Bixby.

I'd link to the Wikipedia entry but it has brackets and the ship doesn't like brackets in links.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
It wasn't that scary, though I did jump a bit when I caught a branch outside the window moving with the corner of my eye. But then I am getting on a bit. I imagine my 10 year old niece would have been really scared, though she refuses to watch since DT left.

Re: some earlier discussions about what separates modern Dr Who from pre Russell T D Dr Who. For me it's the (some might soapy) elements of social realism*: life on council estate, etc as well as higher budgets and production values.

*By which I mean dramatic genre not real real life. Still, I can almost imagine the Dr whipping a couple of rioters off in the Tardis to teach them a cosmically humanitarian lesson on responsibility and respect, though.

J

[ 04. September 2011, 19:04: Message edited by: dorothea ]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
It scared my kids including one older teen who watches real horror movies! I was glad to have a stand alone episode with a solid story.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The scariest Who since the first weeping angel episode**. It is still scary after watching confidential and then re-watching. I loved the quicksand carpet. I think the creepiness comes from seeing things we take for granted (Angels, dolls, shop dummies) used in a sinister way.

I don't care that there are plot holes. So what? In the whoniverse you can contradict yourself. In the classic series the Doctor was revealed to be half human, a regeneration later and he's 100% alien.

Back to this week: Inside the dolls' house all the things were either items you'd expect to find there, including dolls, or things George had sent there. With one exception, the giant glass eye.

One one level you could say it was something that George was scared of and had sent there. But why was it shown? It served no purpose in plot development, I can only think that its significance is something to do with the story arc. LRP thinks the eye is something to do with eyepatch lady.

** In the Whoniverse only Torchwood fairies are scarier.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The story has a boy born with practically unlimited reality altering powers who uses them to bury anyone who displeases him under the wheat field/ corn field (because everybody has been too afraid to teach him not to). The small town exists in a pocket universe, either because the child put it there when he was born or because he destroyed everywhere else.

As others said that one's "Its a good life". A stunning story. I first read it in Edmund Crispin's "Best SF 4" anthology (published by Faber's) which must be one of the best and also scariest anthologies every collected.

As well at that story there are "The Short Life" (Francis Donovan), "A Subway Named Mobius" (A. J. Deutsch), "Flowers for Algernon" (Daniel Keyes), "The Yellow Pill" (Rog Phillips) - after which The Matrix holds no surprises,
and four or five others, all good. Brilliant.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Amazed this has been so well recieved by Shipmates. I found it very dull - over used monsters, repetitive ending, and yet another new alien race thrown away without anything interesting happening. Same old, same old, I'm afraid.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Thank you, phil2357, wilson, and ken.
I must have read the story over twenty years ago.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Back to this week: Inside the dolls' house all the things were either items you'd expect to find there, including dolls, or things George had sent there. With one exception, the giant glass eye.

I thought that a doll's eye was exactly the sort of thing that might get put in a drawer in a doll's house, and regarded it as just another thing telling you that it was a doll's house.

I hadn't thought of a possible eye-patch connection.

M.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Back to this week: Inside the dolls' house all the things were either items you'd expect to find there, including dolls, or things George had sent there. With one exception, the giant glass eye.

I thought that a doll's eye was exactly the sort of thing that might get put in a drawer in a doll's house, and regarded it as just another thing telling you that it was a doll's house.

I hadn't thought of a possible eye-patch connection.

M.

I viewed it as something to scare Amy, who had kept seeing single eyes everywhere. And yes, a glass eye - or dolls eyes - could have been put by George in there.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Mrs B and I liked it: a discrete story (no intrusive series arc to struggle with, monsters drawn from primal fears, a moving ending etc.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Miniaturised people two episodes running.

I hadn't thought about the eye, but it reminds me of the eyes in the wall in the Flesh monastery.

Penny
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
I obviously need to watch it again - I must have missed something, because it didn't scare me in the slightest.

I was annoyed almost from the outset by the parents - what kind of idiot tries to allay a child's fears by putting all the scary things in a cupboard - in the child's room??
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I wondered about a Narnia reference.

Penny
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I wondered about a Narnia reference.

Penny

There are rumours going around that this year's Doctor Who Christmas special (which is just beginning filming) will be somehow Narnia-themed or flavoured. There was a lovely comic strip in Doctor Who Magazine that featured C S Lewis last year, I think, so I wonder if it'll be based on or similar to that.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
On arcs I was speaking generally that they aren't per se a bad thing. I think I agree that overall Dr Who hasn't done them particularly well.

A shortcoming it shares with other shows...

The problem is it is (relatively) easy to do a show that is purely episodic like early Star Trek (original and TNG, which had some character continuity, but each story could stand perfectly well on its own), or one that is primarily arc-driven (like Babylon 5 in the 90s, which was essentially a continuous visual novel with occasional stand-alone chapters).

Mixing the two successfully, however, is very difficult, and I think Who is making a decent job of trying, even though there are obvious problems (mentioned at various points in this thread).
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I wondered about a Narnia reference.

Penny

There are rumours going around that this year's Doctor Who Christmas special (which is just beginning filming) will be somehow Narnia-themed or flavoured. There was a lovely comic strip in Doctor Who Magazine that featured C S Lewis last year, I think, so I wonder if it'll be based on or similar to that.
Didn't see that, but would like to. However, given the current series' attitude to religion, it would be interesting to see how Moffat would use Narnia. There wasn't anything good in there with the Hunca Munca doll's house.

Penny
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
The Eldest Twanglet said "That's the scariest one ever. I'm not going to watch it again on the i-Player ... end of."

Mrs T and I were in stiches.

It did look very much like Hunca-Munca's house didn't it?
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Here, they had a bogus monster special with annoying and unknown US actors. It was unwatchable. We went to a Doctor Who museum at Land's End a few years ago and saw flying Daleks. It was awesome. The last programme I saw was about Hitler and the last war: pretty scary!
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
The problem is it is (relatively) easy to do a show that is purely episodic like early Star Trek (original and TNG...

I went to high school with Michael Dorn who plays Warf, but I rarely watch the re-runs.

I wonder how close the Doctor Who episodes we get here are to the original BBC timelines.
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
I agree about the latest episode being enjoyable and stand-alone, my whole family's been finding it hard to get their heads round the intricacies and weirdness of the main storyline. And I find someone of River Song's age kissing the Doctor and calling Amy "mother" thoroughly squicks me.

None of us was particularly scared by it, apart from Mr Nen who sat making various freaked-out noises and at one point talked of getting behind the sofa - which is, of course, the place from which Dr Who should be watched anyway. [Biased]

I was enjoying Torchwood but had to stop a couple of episodes ago as the violence got to me. I've heard about subsequent episodes and would like to have seen Captain Jack in flagrante but just can't risk seeing the violence. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
squicks

[Eek!] [Confused] [Smile]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Enjoyed this. Way better than Fear Her despite similar ideas.

Mind Robber was mentioned upthread - the soldier in the dolls' house reminded me of that one.

The dad was great. So different from his role in Ashes to Ashes.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Enjoyed this. Way better than Fear Her despite similar ideas.

Mind Robber was mentioned upthread - the soldier in the dolls' house reminded me of that one.

The dad was great. So different from his role in Ashes to Ashes.

Actually, what reminded me of The Mind Robber was the "next time" trailer - the blank white wasteland, the white robots ...

(I'm a big fan of The Mind Robber. It's terribly postmodern, y'know. Its main problems are that it's a four-parter stretched out to five at short notice, because of a gap in the schedules, iirc. And the faffing around with Jamie's identity because of Fraser Hines's sick leave. If you can persuade yourself to think of it as a four-part story without that faffing around, it's really rather good.)
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I like The Mind Robber too. When it was mentioned on this thread earlier I checked it on Amazon and yelled 'Oh, it's that one!' as I remembered it from the first time round, and always wanted to see it again. I particularly remembered the big book and Rapunzel.

I agree with others that this week's ep's ending was too rushed, and the idea of putting scary things in the cupboard! just freaked me. But it's still one of the best programmes on TV, even when it's irritating.

eta: blimey, it's Thursday already - last week's ep. Oh well, Torchwood tonight.

[ 08. September 2011, 10:29: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
squicks

[Eek!] [Confused] [Smile]
Good word, isn't it? A combination of "squirm" and "ick!" [Smile]
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
squicks

[Eek!] [Confused] [Smile]
Good word, isn't it? A combination of "squirm" and "ick!" [Smile]
Sort of... but if you don't know what it is, don't look up 'squicking' on the net. And certainly not at work, near children, or if you're squeamish.
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
Eeeuuwww - that is so gross...
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I knew I recognised the dad, but I couldn't think where I'd seen him! So it's DI Keating from Ashes to Ashes!
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Speaking of squick what did you all make of The Blessing?
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I do hope that the final answer isn't just to chuck Captain Jack's blood at that thing.
 
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
me too. Shall find out tonight!
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
More from the Dr Who Monster Book of Fun Quotes:

"One thing I can tell you, Alex, monsters are real"

"You're not from Social Services are you?"

"First things first - you got any Jammy Dodgers?"



Inside the Doll's House - excellent, really scary concept.

Pond useless as usual.EXTAMYNATE!!

(Nothing has been, or will ever be, better than *Human Nature* imo).
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
I do hope that the final answer isn't just to chuck Captain Jack's blood at that thing.

What on earth was it supposed to be? I know I was watching on a rather small screen TV but all I could see was a big red wall.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
And how's it supposed to go all the way through, anyway - doesn't this planet have a molten core?
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Well I've just watched the final episode of Torchwood. Turns out that despite looking like what the AV Club describes as a "malevolent immortality vagina" The Blessing is actually supposed to be made of rock.

I don't want to spoil anyone who's yet to watch it so I'll just say this. If you've been disappointed at this series of Torchwood and hoped that it would raise its game for the final episode then I think you'll be disappointed again. It had the same muddled tone, the same sense of good ideas insufficiently explored, or not developed in a satisfying way.

I also think that some of the drama depends on us having become convinced that Miracle Day overall was a bad thing and needs to be reversed. I'm not sure they quite convinced me on that.

[ 10. September 2011, 17:42: Message edited by: wilson ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Just wanted to get in first...

What a bloody good episode!

AFZ
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Superb. Absolutely superb. Stylish design, intelligent camerawork, and kick-ass performances. After nearly 48 years, Doctor Who can still surprise, move, and delight.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
It was good. It was indeed very good.

It wouldn't be a Doctor Who thread without some niggles, but did I miss any of the characters alluding to Rory's two thousand years as a Roman? (Something even more similar happened to Rory in The Doctor's Wife, but that was in Amy's head.)
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
Now that's more like it. Great writing with some really thought provoking stuff. Terrific performances from everyone, Karen G may not be everyone's cup of tea but she certainly pulled out all the stops here.

It seems to me that in the non-story-arc episodes (i.e. not the ones with River Song) it is all becoming more and more about Rory and Amy and the Doctor is becoming sidelined. (And why not? for a while anyway).
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
squicks

[Eek!] [Confused] [Smile]
Good word, isn't it? A combination of "squirm" and "ick!" [Smile]
Sort of... but if you don't know what it is, don't look up 'squicking' on the net. And certainly not at work, near children, or if you're squeamish.
So I should have said "creeps me out" to avoid ambiguity. Sorry. [Smile]

Tonight's episode was an absolute corker; great stuff. [Big Grin] We enjoyed Confidential too.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It wouldn't be a Doctor Who thread without some niggles, but did I miss any of the characters alluding to Rory's two thousand years as a Roman? (Something even more similar happened to Rory in The Doctor's Wife, but that was in Amy's head.)

No you didn't but it should have been there.

"36 years? You call that a lifetime? Well excuse me! Try 60 times that!"
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
I went to high school with Michael Dorn who plays Warf...

[Overused]
(apologies for slow reaction - have been off-line for a while...)

quote:
I wonder how close the Doctor Who episodes we get here are to the original BBC timelines.
Do you mean the broadcasting order? Where can I see the US schedules to compare?
Alternatively, the UK ones are on the BBC website.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
The best epidode in a long time.

quote:
Originally posted by Sparrow:
...it is all becoming more and more about Rory and Amy and the Doctor is becoming sidelined. (And why not? for a while anyway).

I had hoped they would get married and stay companions long before it was even likely that it would happen.

This is one of the reasons why.
[Yipee]
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I'm really torn on tonight's DW. Some of the acting and the emotional tweaky bits were done very well. But ... the setup. I mean, FFS. Normal people would not have behaved like that, let alone people who are now used to just how drastic a visit from the cock-up fairy can be. Even Joe Average, having seen two buttons of distinct colour, and pressed one, when asked by their companion what to do, would respond "Press the <colour> button".

Even if they didn't, any normal human being faced with "Press the button" and looking at two buttons would say "Which one?". I've worked with some staggeringly daft people at times, and none of them would have gone through the opening sequence in the way Rory & Amy had to in order to set up the "split up the party" scenario.

That was such a huge CLANG! that it took me a long while to work up to giving a monkey's about the story afterwards.

Add to that: all the bleating about 36 years, compared to Rory's hanging around for two millenia; abandoned Amy who's normally useless other than when acting on instinctive impulse somehow working out how to do all the superhero stuff, including constructing her sonic 'probe'; Amy whose whole history with the Doctor is based on his "in a minute" returns being epic cock-ups and delays getting the grumps about it all; the decidedly relative-ethics version of the Doctor ... only the very well acted bits on loss, love and choice pulled it back from being a throwing cushions at the TV job.

It felt like an episode designed to say, Hey folks, look, Amy isn't useless, she's suddenly pulled all this really cool survival stuff out of thin air. And look, she's got this deep emotional centre, and she really does love Rory, so you know, cut her some slack and like her. I'm not entirely sure it worked.

OTOH, if they're trying to set up a harder, colder, more sinister Doctor, that they're starting to do.

[Edited for the worst of the typos and grammar]

[ 10. September 2011, 21:12: Message edited by: Snags ]
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roseofsharon:
I find dolls/puppets/ventriloquists' dummies that become animated much more scary than monsters and aliens,

Forgot to mention clowns!

Looking forward to next week's episode in a transfixed in terror sort of way.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And they were toying with the idea of two of Amy, one of whom was going to be a lot like River Song. Duplicates again. It was odd not to mention Rory's long wait, though his experience must have been different, as he was not getting older. I didn't notice that.

Penny
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Superb. Absolutely superb. Stylish design, intelligent camerawork, and kick-ass performances. After nearly 48 years, Doctor Who can still surprise, move, and delight.

Agreed! A great episode, although a bleak one - it really makes you feel for Old Amy, and it doesn't pull its punches with the choice that Rory must make. It packs a real emotional punch, but that makes it in some ways more an episode to admire than enjoy. There is in fact lots to enjoy, of course - cracking performances from Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill, sharp dialogue (the line about Christmas dinner was great!) and it looks great as usual.

This episode could be called "Rory's Choice". Whereas Amy had to choose between Rory and the Doctor, it's entirely appropriate that Rory should face the choice between two versions of Amy - for him, it's only ever been about Amy. Like the white-faced robots who would kill Amy with their kindness, it's Rory's kindness to Old Amy that risks killing the Amy he knows. It also reinforces the danger of travelling with the Doctor - he might mean well, but he makes mistakes, and Old Amy's experiences show how costly they can be for those around him.

Questions of identity once again abound: are you the same person after 36 years? For Old Amy, having her timeline rewritten seems like death - the Amy she has become will no longer exist, or ever have existed. It also foreshadows the Doctor's death at Lake Silencio much more subtly than dropping in shots of the details of his death on the TARDIS monitor screen, echoing his problem thematically instead. Will the Doctor tear up the rule book to escape his fate, like Amy? If he does, what will the consequences be for the universe?

Tom MacRae's writing already graced our screens with Rise of the Cybermen. That story was fine, but much more of a conventional monster story. Here he shows he's got the writing muscle to pull off an intense and character-focused piece of drama with skill and wit. It's the best episode of the autumn run so far, and to my mind one of the best of series 6 as a whole.

I've been waiting a long time for an episode that would really show us how much Amy cares for Rory, underneath all her bluster and banter. Like the Doctor and Rory coming to the rescue after 36 years, The Girl Who Waited was worth waiting for.

You can hear my podcast discussion of the episode over at Impossible Podcasts.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I'm really torn on tonight's DW. Some of the acting and the emotional tweaky bits were done very well. But ... the setup. I mean, FFS. Normal people would not have behaved like that, let alone people who are now used to just how drastic a visit from the cock-up fairy can be. Even Joe Average, having seen two buttons of distinct colour, and pressed one, when asked by their companion what to do, would respond "Press the <colour> button".

Even if they didn't, any normal human being faced with "Press the button" and looking at two buttons would say "Which one?". I've worked with some staggeringly daft people at times, and none of them would have gone through the opening sequence in the way Rory & Amy had to in order to set up the "split up the party" scenario.

That was such a huge CLANG! that it took me a long while to work up to giving a monkey's about the story afterwards.

Add to that: all the bleating about 36 years, compared to Rory's hanging around for two millenia; abandoned Amy who's normally useless other than when acting on instinctive impulse somehow working out how to do all the superhero stuff, including constructing her sonic 'probe'; Amy whose whole history with the Doctor is based on his "in a minute" returns being epic cock-ups and delays getting the grumps about it all; the decidedly relative-ethics version of the Doctor ... only the very well acted bits on loss, love and choice pulled it back from being a throwing cushions at the TV job.

It felt like an episode designed to say, Hey folks, look, Amy isn't useless, she's suddenly pulled all this really cool survival stuff out of thin air. And look, she's got this deep emotional centre, and she really does love Rory, so you know, cut her some slack and like her. I'm not entirely sure it worked.

OTOH, if they're trying to set up a harder, colder, more sinister Doctor, that they're starting to do.

[Edited for the worst of the typos and grammar]

You have to remember Amy's an Idiot
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Another very dull episode, I'm afraid. It might have worked a bit if I'd cared at all about Amy - but since I was hoping she would die in childbirth it didn't. And Old Amy's reluctance to help didn't convince me at all. If I could go back 10 years, or 36, to correct something that made me miserable now, I would do it at once. And if my miserable existence evaporated because a happier one came into being - wey hay! What is the problem? The only thing that impressed me was the make up on Old Amy, which was very effective.

On a wider front I have been hearing interesting rumours about the problems besetting this series. According to the rumours (and I have no idea if these are true or not) it wasn't originally planned to be in two halves. But early on two key people in production got sacked, and the whole thing began to fall apart. It was massively behind schedule, and way over budget, so the decision was taken to air what had been made. As a result we were shown 7 episodes out of order - the series was meant to end with the baby being kidnapped, and the search for it would have been the story behind the next series. In addition, there's been a lot less money to throw around, as Matt and Karen have failed to impress the viewing public. Their DVDs have only sold a fraction of what Eccleston and Tennant did, so there has been far less money coming in that was anticipated. Hence you get minimalist epsiodes, like tonight's.

As I said, this is simply what I've heard when chatting to other fans. Anyone here have any thoughts about how (un)likely any of it is?
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
oh god i need a bacon sandwich
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
On a wider front I have been hearing interesting rumours about the problems besetting this series. According to the rumours (and I have no idea if these are true or not) it wasn't originally planned to be in two halves. But early on two key people in production got sacked, and the whole thing began to fall apart. It was massively behind schedule, and way over budget, so the decision was taken to air what had been made. As a result we were shown 7 episodes out of order - the series was meant to end with the baby being kidnapped, and the search for it would have been the story behind the next series. In addition, there's been a lot less money to throw around, as Matt and Karen have failed to impress the viewing public. Their DVDs have only sold a fraction of what Eccleston and Tennant did, so there has been far less money coming in that was anticipated. Hence you get minimalist epsiodes, like tonight's.

As I said, this is simply what I've heard when chatting to other fans. Anyone here have any thoughts about how (un)likely any of it is?

That's pretty much got no resemblance to reality - most of this sounds like it originates in some rumours published in Private Eye a month or two ago, only even more exaggerated and distorted.

There are a couple of elements where the source of the rumour can be identified, but the reality is much more mundane. Firstly, the idea that the series has been reordered and split as an emergency measure due to behind the scenes panics.

In fact, the decision to split the series was mainly based around Steven Moffat's plan to reveal River Song's identity as the mid-series cliffhanger, and was planned as such from the start. There was one change in running order: last week's episode, Night Terrors, was with The Curse of the Black Spot, because the producers decided that it was a better mix visually (they didn't want too many episodes in the dark with torches too close to each other!). They reshot a couple of scenes (the eyepatch woman's appearance, and the Doctor's date of death on the monitor) to fit with the arc, but that's the extent of chopping and changing. The overall structure is just as it has been all along.

Secondly, changes of staff: two of the producers have moved or are about to move on, but they haven't been sacked, and the transition is entirely orderly - outgoing producer Piers Wenger is co-producing the Christmas special with Caroline Skinner, the new exec, to show her the ropes (see this article on the BBC Doctor Who site). Moffat condemned reports in "Private Eye" that producers had been sacked as "nasty, inaccurate rumours".

As for "Matt and Karen have failed to impress the viewing public" - really?! Reviews and reactions have been very positive, especially following a Doctor as phenomenally popular as Tennant. Ratings remain very strong, around 7-8 million in total (though a much higher proportion comes from iPlayer and timeshift rather than overnights compared to when Tennant was the Doctor).

As for budget, even if DVD sales are declining, that has no effect on the production budget of the show. Because the BBC is funded by the license fee, programme-making and commercial activities are separate as part of the BBC's Charter. BBC budgets as a whole are squeezed a bit more tightly at the moment, but each series of "Doctor Who" has had cheaper episodes (though some disguise it more successfully) - last year's The Lodger for example.

So the rumours are a load of rubbish. Some elements might have started out with some grain of truth somewhere in the distant past, but have long since lost any connection to reality.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
A new nadir for NuWho.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
In fact, the decision to split the series was mainly based around Steven Moffat's plan to reveal River Song's identity as the mid-series cliffhanger, and was planned as such from the start.

And, iirc, the idea of moving the show to an autumn timeslot without an almost 18 month gap between series? But you're right, there's no way the show is failing or in trouble. Matt Smith is a very popular Doctor, and I think a lot of people like the Amy-Rory partnership. I must confess to a slight disappointment with Moffat's own writing for the show since he took over, but that's virtually inevitable because the demands on him are very different.

I think there have been some extremely good episodes in the last couple of years - Amy's Choice and Vincent and the Doctor last year; The Doctor's Wife and The Girl who Waited so far this year. But obviously the style of the show is different, even from five years ago. It has to be. I'm also a big fan of large chunks of the "classic" series, but there's no way you could make a tv programme like that now. And I don't just mean the special effects - the pace of the old show is far too slow by modern standards. Every now and then the action would stop for a long, tedious info-dump of explanation about why things were happening the way they were. These days, viewers expect blink-and-you-miss-it explanations, if at all. (Take last night, for example - the Handbots' anaesthetic, and their deadly "kindness" were dealt with in about ten seconds flat.)

Robert Armin, I'd love to ask what, for you, is good Doctor Who? (Ask that on most fan sites and you tend to get very predictable answers. Sine this is the Ship, surprise me!)
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I think it is interesting that Amy's words on waking at the end were "Where is she?". Is there more to come from this story?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Matt Smith is a very popular Doctor, and I think a lot of people like the Amy-Rory partnership.

Seriously? Rory is a doormat (and an aesthetically challenged one at that) who puts up with a brash, hardboiled, unlikeable young woman with seemingly no ability for compassion or kindness, who spends half her time overtly fancying someone else. Rory really ought to dump her at the first opportunity and get a life. There's no on-screen chemistry between them at all and it totally fails to convince, except possibly as TV's Least Convincing Romantic Couple.

And how the two of them are supposed to have produced someone with as much life, personality and spark as River Song I don't know. She certainly didn't get it from either of them.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A new nadir for NuWho.

in what respect?


personally i quite liked it. Sets felt Alien, better running of 'good intentions' than the pirates (incidently that would have been rather odd so Close). Resolution proportionate.
Not sure about the tome streams being the right way round. May have got usethe explanation backwards. But wasn't the idea to match the plague victims (Amy) day with visitors life (rory)?
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
I thought 'The Girl Who Waited' was a really good episode. I actually cared, which I haven't done since Dr Donna actually began to work for me. Arthur Darvell's a very good actor and Karen gave her best yet. I liked the comedy with the two Amies thinking and speaking simultaneously, despite the age - and the rotten life experience - gap.

The only bit that didn't quite work for me (when did the plots ever really make sense, I ask myself, they're so daft they're irrelevant yet madly brilliant so long as logic is suspended: D.T taking the Tardis across several universes with the help of a washing line????) was how come, if the kindness robots were primed to anaesthetise and then end the plague victims' lives, when Amy went through the second door into the main facility, there was an entertainment complex that included the beautiful garden, which appears to have kept the older version of her sane? The roots were keen to kill her with kindness well before she went into the, what I assumed to be, an entertainment holo-suite.

Och, well.... good stuff though.

J

[ 11. September 2011, 14:11: Message edited by: dorothea ]
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Apologies for double post. Roots = robots.

Also, one of the things I love about the daftness of Dr Who are the mad, not remotely scientific props that the Dr uses to solve the most complex time space conundrums: washing lines, bits of plastic, bicycle parts, ancient tape recorders, etc. It's like the director's saying hey guys forget the so called sci-fi realism and let's just get off on this marvellous fiction. [Yipee]

[ 11. September 2011, 14:19: Message edited by: dorothea ]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Adeodatus:
quote:
Robert Armin, I'd love to ask what, for you, is good Doctor Who? (Ask that on most fan sites and you tend to get very predictable answers. Sine this is the Ship, surprise me!)
Fair question but, since I don't hang around on fan sites, I've no idea if I'm going to be predictable or not.

The most essential thing for me - and this applies to any story, be it TV, film, theatre or novel - is characters I am interested in. In this respect Amy is a massive let down, and Smith a minor. Actually I do like Rory, but wish he would dump his wife and find someone better. Which is why, for all its faults, I liked the Kiling Hitler episode because I was drawn to both Mel and River. For me, and most of the people I chat to, Smith has not yet made the Doctor his own, and he's had plenty of time by now. Maybe he's not the dullest Doctor ever but he's near the bottom of the pile (along with Colin Baker and McCoy).

Something else I enjoy, which was very much a feature of NuWho, is strong individual stories that are also part of a wider arc. This has been much discussed earlier, but for me the highpoint of the revival was the end of the Martha Jones series. Not only was she the best companion we've had in NuWho, there was effectively a six-part finale with excellent individual stories (the Family of Blood, Weeping Angels, return of the Master) culminating in a magnificent conclusion. Since Moffat took over there have been many dull episodes, just a couple of good ones (Van Gogh, and the Doctor's Wife) and no sense of a series going anywhere. Most of the episodes could have been shown in any order and they would still make as much (or as little) sense. For a young couple who have lost their baby Amy and Rory are remarkably undistressed. (Yes, they know she is going to be all right, but someone who gives a child up for adoption would know that as well. I think they would still grieve, however.) And the big premise of the season, that the Doctor will die, completely fails to affect me. We all know that there is no way the BBC will allow that to happen, so there is no sense of tension. Well, not for me or the other Whovians I know personally.

Clearly your mileage does vary, as does that of several other posters here. Which is why I do enjoy reading the opinions posted here, even if I am going against the current.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I liked it a lot. The bit that got me was old Amy toying with her lipstick. I felt that Karen Gillan was actually acting: her body language was very good (the hair and eyes were too bright, though). Usually, I find Amy really really annoying (though not as annoying as Karen Gillan in Confidential).

Yes, there were holes - I wondered why no-one mentioned Rory's 2,000 year wait, too (I think he didn't get older because he was plastic, to the person who mentioned that up thread). And my biggest gripe is that Amy and Rory are just not acting like new parents whose baby has been kidnapped.

But I liked it.

M.
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
I suppose this thread demonstrates the way the series appeals to all sorts of people for all sorts or reasons and that's one of its strengths. I agree Rory and Amy aren't behaving like parents who have just lost their baby but I find that storyline quite depressing and am glad to see these stand-alone episodes that, for me, are a lot of what Dr Who is about. I think Amy and Rory are great and wouldn't mind if I didn't see River Song again. [Biased]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
This has been much discussed earlier, but for me the highpoint of the revival was the end of the Martha Jones series. Not only was she the best companion we've had in NuWho, there was effectively a six-part finale with excellent individual stories (the Family of Blood, Weeping Angels, return of the Master) culminating in a magnificent conclusion.
Whereas I, although I loved Family of Blood and the Weeping Angels one (I assume you mean Blink?), found the return of the Master and the conclusion hugely overblown and, even in Doctor Who terms, ludicrous.

And I like Rory a lot! And I think Matt Smith makes a good Doctor, better than David Tennant, at least towards the end. Not as good as Christopher Ecclestone, though.

Good we're all different, ain't it?

M.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK, I've started a Definitive Poll in the Circus to help us settle these important questions.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I loved David Tennant, but I realised the other day that Matt Smith solidly convinces me that he is 900+ years old. I think his performance has raised the Dr. Who bar.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
...how come, if the kindness robots were primed to anaesthetise and then end the plague victims' lives, when Amy went through the second door into the main facility, there was an entertainment complex that included the beautiful garden, which appears to have kept the older version of her sane? The roots were keen to kill her with kindness well before she went into the, what I assumed to be, an entertainment holo-suite.

I don't think the robots were trying to kill Amy. My understanding is that they identified foreign bacteria and wanted to kill that. If they didn't realise* that Amy was also foreign, they wouldn't know that some of the bacteria in her body is supposed to be there.

*Presumably as the entire planet was under quarantine, no-one bothered writing a program that said "check species of patient".
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And I don't just mean the special effects - the pace of the old show is far too slow by modern standards. Every now and then the action would stop for a long, tedious info-dump of explanation about why things were happening the way they were.

I've just been watching the Silurians. It's true that it's much slower. However, it's not because of any tedious info-dumps. Rather there's quite a lot of focus on wranglings between UNIT and members of the nuclear laboratory, each with their own agenda, even well into episode six. Most of those aren't really relevant to the human-Silurian conflict, which establishes its own sense of reality.
Secondly, there are long sequences of the Doctor doing things like silently putting red food colouring into test tubes and noting down results, which although they just about don't outstay their welcome do take up more time than is necessary for their role in explaining the plot. These days, we'd just have someone tell us that the Doctor's done it or is doing it, and if he were to do it on screen he'd just buzz his sonic screwdriver at it.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Even in Moffat's least good episodes (probably The Impossible Astronaut is the least good) there's more genuine emotion than in all of Davies' series finales put together. But Davies' episodes have a hell of a lot more kitsch sentimentality which some people apparently prefer.

Mostly Moffat has been free of kitsch sentimentality. The exception is A Good Man Goes to War. The bits about the Doctor having never risen so high or fallen so far are just hyperbole. And for me the River Song has parents! revelation has rather soured the character.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
The only bit that didn't quite work for me (when did the plots ever really make sense, I ask myself, they're so daft they're irrelevant yet madly brilliant so long as logic is suspended: D.T taking the Tardis across several universes with the help of a washing line????) was how come, if the kindness robots were primed to anaesthetise and then end the plague victims' lives, when Amy went through the second door into the main facility, there was an entertainment complex that included the beautiful garden, which appears to have kept the older version of her sane? The roots were keen to kill her with kindness well before she went into the, what I assumed to be, an entertainment holo-suite.

Och, well.... good stuff though.

J

I thought that the anaesthia was before treating the foreign bacteria after which the patient would live life in the entertainment areas.

And re query above about time lines - it does mess with logic but I took it that visitors are in normal time and the patients with only 1 day to live are speeded up to have a full life in that time - except, that if isolated from other people's timespeed then not much of a life. Speeded up biology that doesn't speed up the plague is the logic gap there.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
DW - just watched it. And I thought it was a great episode - nice to see one with The Dr not taking the main parts, as they generally have one of per series. And I still like Amy - I think the older Any was very like Amy would have become - clever, regretful, and bitter - because she is passionate ( IMO ).

Torchwood - yes I thought "The "Blessing" looked like a large vagina. Which seems to be rather a contradiction.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Rory is a doormat (and an aesthetically challenged one at that) who puts up with a brash, hardboiled, unlikeable young woman with seemingly no ability for compassion or kindness.

...which is pretty much the reverse of your average television drama couple, and IMHO, quite fun for that reason alone. In addition, we have actually learned a few things about them here and there over the past year and a half.


quote:
Originally posted by M.

Good we're all different, ain't it?

Agreed!
I thinks it depends on each of us whetehr or not we like or care about certain characters, it does not necessarily refelct on the quality of writing. Personally, much as I like tennant as an actor, I prefer Smith's portrayal of the Doctor. I can also sympathize more with messed-up Amy than with some others, but I can see that a character-driven episode such as this one just won't work for people who don't, no matter how well it was written and acted.

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:

And re query above about time lines - it does mess with logic but I took it that visitors are in normal time and the patients with only 1 day to live are speeded up to have a full life in that time - except, that if isolated from other people's timespeed then not much of a life. Speeded up biology that doesn't speed up the plague is the logic gap there.

I think that is a flaw in the logic of those who run the establishment, not (necessarily) the writer. The establishment seems to have general problem with the meaning of "kindness", and it is quite possible that this incongruity was meant to reflect of that.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Ariel's dislike of the current Doctor Who is not in itself weird - we all have the odd irrational hatred - but what is strange is the way Ariel seems to want the reassurance that we all share the same rather sour views about Amy and Rory. Well we don't! They are good! And most of the recent programs are good!
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Another good episode IMO. Clever emotions at the end and, whilst I normally dislike timey-wimey stuff, this time it was Well Done, as Mr Knightley might say.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Yes, I knew Rory didn't age because he was plastic, and didn't mention it because I assumed everyone else did, too. I wasn't sure how this would affect his experience of the time - it doesn't seem to have been comparable because he cannot remember it unless he tries.
The endured time that has always bothered me was the episode of Torchwood in which Jack was buried for 2000 years, a sequence of frequent appalling death experiences followed by appalling resurrections. And yet he was sane at the end.

Penny
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...a sequence of frequent appalling death experiences followed by appalling resurrections...

Not dissimilar from John Barrowman's experience of Saturday evening tv appearances in general.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...a sequence of frequent appalling death experiences followed by appalling resurrections...

Not dissimilar from John Barrowman's experience of Saturday evening tv appearances in general.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
The establishment seems to have general problem with the meaning of "kindness", and it is quite possible that this incongruity was meant to reflect of that.

I thought of (a) "killing with kindness" and (b)the way we use the expression "it's a kindness" when putting an animal out of its misery.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
It reminded me of Donna and her getting her memory wiped. She had hard won character development, was a real hero who overcame the short sighted pettiness and ignorance we saw in her first episode to become an incredible person and that was taken from her and she was dumped back without the benefit of any of those experiences. Then we have Amy who goes from the weeping damsel in distress to literally a knight in shining armour...sword and all who has battled her demons, saved herself through bravery and cunning, hacked the system, built a screwdriver and become for the first time as an adult in this series an incredibly compelling character. I saw brave Amelia turned into the hero she should be. I wanted her to get on the Tardis and turn their little paradigm on its ear. Explain to the Doctor that all of time and space meant he was taking her to get her baby, save Melody herself and then forever be a true force to be reckoned with! Instead, they kill her, deny Amy the hard won wisdom of those 30 years (the Dr and Rory both retain the benefit of their experiences) and she is returned to damsel status since apparently an independent, strong, fully actualized less physically attractive Amy is of no value.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
ken said:
quote:
what is strange is the way Ariel seems to want the reassurance that we all share the same rather sour views about Amy and Rory. Well we don't! They are good! And most of the recent programs are good!
I don't see Ariel as looking for reassurance, merely giving people a chance to air their views. As others have said, it is good that we have different views, but the majority opinion here on the Ship is very different from the view I find when I talk to people. Up and down the country I have friends with decided views on Doctor Who. We are not all of one mind, and can have vociferous disagrements on the merits of particular episodes and ideas. However, the people I speak to are all very disappointed with this series and the last, and all find the main pair weak. (One friend was even considering not watching the second half of this season, but I bet he has.)

Views here on the Ship are much kinder than those I have encountered elsewhere. Perhaps this is a Christian website after all?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Art dunce's point had not occurred to me, but is capable of being quite disturbing. That two different male authors have this attitude to a woman functioning as a full hero could be seen as veiled misogyny. We might add River Song's giving up all her future lives to save the Doctor. (Though River had to lose her regenerations because we already knew she would die.)
I suspect it is more a situation of recognising a potential plot embarrassment, where there are too many autonomous active figures, and it is only chance that they are women, because the companions are nearly always women. But then Adric and K9 had to go for the same reason. Too clever by half. Too many independent plot strands.

Penny
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
You don't often see "Adric" and "clever" in the same sentence...

But on to the current stories. As for the recent Amy-centric story, I confess that I felt a wave of nostalgia seeing the white robots in a white room. Very "Mind Robber"-ish. I am sure it was intentional. The rest of the episode was, well, okay. My trouble is that I am just not impressed with Karen Gillan's abilities as an actress. I can never shake the impression that she IS acting--just reading words that somebody else wrote for her. By contrast, Arthur Darvill seems so natural. Much like with Matt, I forget that they are acting. I love scenes where the two of them interact. There is chemistry between Matt and Arthur. There is no chemistry between Karen and Matt or Karen and Arthur. IMHO.

But, seriously, who, when told to "push the button" (a) doesn't ask for clarification and (b) pushes the RED button instead of the GREEN button?? Actually, it would have been more interesting if this planet's culture used green as a danger symbol, and then have Amy assume that pushing green was right because that (in her culture) was "safe." That was a missed opportunity. Instead, this planet went with green-safe, red-danger and genius Amy, given the choice, presses danger without hesitation.

But let's get back to the whole story arc thing. So, courtesy of the Justice people, now the Doctor knows his "historic" death date and place: that bit of information that River kept telling us he can't know because it would implode the universe or something way back in the Impossible Astronaut episode? Except, as I pointed out way back then, we KNOW the Doctor found out about it, because he knew it when he set up the events at the lake. Now, at least,we know how he knew. And he probably recognizes the location as being where he met the gang as the result of a mysterious note left for him in his own handwriting. So he probably now knows that they they know about it, too. Which means he can now take action to handle it (although it apparently is one of those random "fixed" points in time).

So, any bets? Maybe he does change this "fixed" point which causes a huge temporal implosion which (drum roll please) results in the TARDIS blowing up last season, destroying the Universe.

Which we already fixed last season. In other words, the Doctor already dealt with the consequences of the action that he has not yet done, so he now knows that he CAN do the action because he already fixed the consequences.

All he has to do is find some way to funnel the temporal implosion from early 1960s America to "Amy's Time" when the TARDIS blew up. Because, after all, the show is All About Amy. As the voiceover intro to the broadcasts on BBC America keeps telling us: The show is all about Amy and her imaginary friend, the Doctor, who joins her as she has adventures through time and space...
 
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :
 
Something that I thought of while reading the Circus poll thread: the whole arc thing that seems to annoy people. Honestly, I like it, for one simple reason: what happens in one episode actually means something in later ones. Take Star Trek, for instance. You know that Picard isn't going to be killed; that'd be the end of the show! Who gets around this quite nicely with the whole regeneration/ditching companions for the time being thing—point to it. The value of arcs expands on this. I remember in one episode the crew of the Enterprise comes across a Borg that they name Hugh, which leads to all sorts of moral and philosophical questions when Hugh starts becoming self-aware—you know, un-Borg-like. Of course, you know that this can't actually matter; the way the show works, each episode is distinct from all the others, and, except for the occasional meaningless callback (I was *really* surprised to hear Hugh referenced in another episode later), nothing that happens in one episode affects what happens in any other. It's as if the Enterprise is running around, saving planets, resolving conflicts, and not making a whit of difference in the world. Who's story arcs, however loose, help resolve this problem. If something happens in one episode, you know that the characters might just remember it, rather than developing rather odd amnesia in the intervening week. Suddenly, things cease to be isolated events and instead become a whole; characters can grow over time in meaningful ways, as there's a distinct temporal sequence of events that affect them and their world.

[ 13. September 2011, 07:13: Message edited by: AristonAstuanax ]
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And if my miserable existence evaporated because a happier one came into being - wey hay! What is the problem?

Actually, I think Old Amy was right on this one to an extent. One day I'm going to develop my doubtless heretical and unoriginal theological thought that since our identities are tied up with our actual histories, to ask why God didn't make us better (or prevent our falling as far) is to say to God loves not us but an alternative reality version of us. Old Amy and Reboot Amy could have been two different people who shared a common past.

But that's a bit off topic. The interesting pseudo-science question of this episode for me is this. Young Amy and Old Amy can't exist in the same reality because that would be a paradox, apparently. The paradox hasn't been resolved by Rory's choice, though. The reason Young Amy's travelling with Rory and the Doctor in the TARDIS now rather than being stuck in the Kindness Facility, is that Old Amy who actually can't have ever existed, rescued her. So, somebody remind me why Old Amy had to die?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AristonAstuanax:
the whole arc thing that seems to annoy people. Honestly, I like it, for one simple reason: what happens in one episode actually means something in later ones.

I'm not sure. Old Who has occasions on which the events of former episodes are mentioned in earlier ones - the TARDIS crew meet Colonel Lethbridge-Stewart, and then when they come back to 20th century Earth he's a Brigadier, and then when the Doctor returns he's in charge of UNIT.
Arcs are different: arcs are when parts of different adventures tie up into one big story. That's difficult for a program like Doctor Who because the Doctor's a nomad through time and space. The whole format of the program is that the Doctor shows up, pokes about a bit, and then leaves. The only way to have an arc is to have time-travelling opponents. And I'm not a fan of the current timeline's implications that everybody with enough money or connections will have access to time travel in the future.

The closest Who has come to having genuine arcs are The Dalek's Master Plan and The Chase, which are basically both arcs involving the TARDIS crew being pursued by Daleks.
I think Series Five and the current ones are the closest in new Who. The first four seasons don't really have arcs, just a lot of foreshadowing of the series finale.

[ 13. September 2011, 10:07: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
AristonAstuanax - interesting comment. The one Star Trek I enjoyed - apart from the original - was Voyager, partly because there was a degree of development, and the event of the past sometimes did impact the present. There was a sense of cause and effect. And that had one massive story arc across the entire programme.
 
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The closest Who has come to having genuine arcs are The Dalek's Master Plan and The Chase, which are basically both arcs involving the TARDIS crew being pursued by Daleks.

What? No mention of Key to Time???? For Shame! Between Romana's introduction and Douglas Adams, the first half (before they reduced Romana to a DiD/Screamer) was quite delicious, even if K-9 was one of the best actors on the set . . .
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
But, seriously, who, when told to "push the button" (a) doesn't ask for clarification and (b) pushes the RED button instead of the GREEN button??


Yes, the set-up was clunky beyond belief. In fact, it was thoroughly ridiculous, but seeing that the meat of the story was so good, I'll choose to ignore that. This should not be taken as invalidating my perfectly reasonable quibbles over episodes (past, present or future) that I don't like. [Biased]
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
So he probably now knows that they they know about it, too. Which means he can now take action to handle it (although it apparently is one of those random "fixed" points in time).

So, any bets? Maybe he does change this "fixed" point which causes a huge temporal implosion which (drum roll please) results in the TARDIS blowing up last season, destroying the Universe.

Well, there was an interesting throwaway this week, quite apart from the idea that the future can be changed if you know about it (ORLY?) where the Doctor said to Rory "If anyone can defeat predestiny, it's your wife". To me, that looks like a big flashing arrow saying "HINT", but it may come to nothing.

I'd also like to think that Old Amy survived somehow and escaped, even if I can't see how. But I doubt it's relevant, because we don't know any other old women with reddish hair who really don't like the Doctor, do we? *whistles*
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
My spoiler-free* review of the next episode, The God Complex is up at Impossible Podcasts. As the title hints, it's a bit more theological than your average Doctor Who episode. I really liked it - I imagine it'll make for some interesting discussion on here after Saturday night.

* Usual caveats apply - if you're one of those people who turns off the TV before the "Next Time" trailer, then you might not want to read it, but most people won't consider anything given away.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
"Adric" and "clever" were not in the same sentence. I don't know whart it is about supposedly super intelligent fictional teenage boys but there was Wesley Crusher in STNG. Infuriating.

Penny
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But I doubt it's relevant, because we don't know any other old women with reddish hair who really don't like the Doctor, do we? *whistles*

WHOA!

Probably not, but I like the way you think.

[ 14. September 2011, 05:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
S. Cat wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:Originally posted by Penny S:
...a sequence of frequent appalling death experiences followed by appalling resurrections...

Not dissimilar from John Barrowman's experience of Saturday evening tv appearances in general.

[Killing me]

Me too. I always amazes me how the cool Captain ends up singing dreadful songs and being nice to the general public on telly. Still my mum loves John Barrowman as John Barrowman and I guess there's worse ways to earn a living.
 
Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :
 
David Mitchell on Doctor Who
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
But I doubt it's relevant, because we don't know any other old women with reddish hair who really don't like the Doctor, do we? *whistles*

WHOA!

Probably not, but I like the way you think.

Almost certainly not, and I'm actually playing a bit of a wind-up - apart from the accent, she had close enough contact with "our" Amy to break the timeworn Blinovitch Limitation Effect to shreds if it was the case, and Moffat knows his Who-lore. OTOH, established rules have been broken out of simple expediency before, and it would be a pretty cool twist.

Wasn't it Joss Whedon who said you should always make your stories internally consistent unless you have a really cool idea? [Cool]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The "old Amy Pond" in this week's episode annoyed me because they hadn't bothered to make her hands old - and her hands featured a great deal.

Hands age a person more than faces do imo.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Incidentally, I also enjoy Eureka on the SiFi channel, which also does wierd science ( far wackier than DW ), they normally have a major disaster each episode, which will be sorted out and there will be no lasting effects. They do retain storylines across the episodes, with reasonable success.

It's fine if it is entertaining and manages to hang on to making some form of sense within an episode. It is entertainment, and as long as it is not too outrageous, or too damaging to the plot, it doesn't have to make complete sense. It has to be good to watch, which it is.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I enjoy Eureka as well, although I do sometimes wish I could convince the writers that Fargo is Not An Interesting Character, and having dozens of stories based on the plot "Fargo does something stupid" is not well calculated to keep viewers watching.
 
Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The "old Amy Pond" in this week's episode annoyed me because they hadn't bothered to make her hands old - and her hands featured a great deal.

Hands age a person more than faces do imo.

Also 36 years older her hair would almost certainly be silver/grey and not still flame red...
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Greyface:
quote:
Young Amy and Old Amy can't exist in the same reality because that would be a paradox, apparently.
The two Amys were certainly causing the poor old Tardis to have a fit. However, since she can cope with several incarnations of the Doctor at the same time I'm wondering why Amy caused her so much trouble.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Greyface posted:
Young Amy and Old Amy can't exist in the same reality because that would be a paradox, apparently.


But we saw adult Amy and child Amy hanging out in a museum together chatting it up just last season.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
So, Torchwood finally stumbles to a merciful end tonight. Will it be satisfying? Will it explain anything at all? Will it turn out that "The Blessing", aka Enormous Planetary Vagina, just wants Jack to shag it?

And will Torchwood ever recover from the trainwreck that was Miracle Day?
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pheonix:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The "old Amy Pond" in this week's episode annoyed me because they hadn't bothered to make her hands old - and her hands featured a great deal.

Hands age a person more than faces do imo.

Also 36 years older her hair would almost certainly be silver/grey and not still flame red...
She built her own sonic screwdriver I expect she could whip up some hair dye.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
Greyface posted:
Young Amy and Old Amy can't exist in the same reality because that would be a paradox, apparently.


But we saw adult Amy and child Amy hanging out in a museum together chatting it up just last season.
The universe had bigger paradoxes than two Amys to worry about just then. And they weren't on the TARDIS together.
Amy who's been on the planet thirty years and current Amy did exist together - they just couldn't both exist on the TARDIS. While there have been people who've been on the TARDIS in different versions at the same time (the Doctor, the Brigadier), they've all been part of stable time loops. While thirty year old Amy and current Amy's history are incompatible.

[ 15. September 2011, 15:35: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Just got round to seeing the Amy waiting episode. And I think it is one of the scariest Dr Whos ever. Was begging Rory to open the door.

If the scriptwriters have got half a plot-arc to rub between them then the ending has to come back in some way in a future episode. Either by return of character(s) presumed dead or else by its effect onm the relationships of the survivors. They can't have something as emotionally heavy as that happen and then drop it. Well I suppose they can but they ought not to.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
So, Torchwood finally stumbles to a merciful end tonight.


Yep.

quote:
Will it be satisfying?


No.

quote:
Will it explain anything at all?


Anything? Yes. Will that explanation be satisfying? See above.

quote:
Will it turn out that "The Blessing", aka Enormous Planetary Vagina, just wants Jack to shag it?
Everything in the Torchwood universe wants Jack to shag it.

quote:
And will Torchwood ever recover from the trainwreck that was Miracle Day?
From a story point of view? or from a "no-one's ever going to commission another series" way?

Probably not.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The two Amys were certainly causing the poor old Tardis to have a fit. However, since she can cope with several incarnations of the Doctor at the same time I'm wondering why Amy caused her so much trouble.

Because the TARDIS has taste?

But, yes, New Who seems to have no consistency on whether past and future versions meeting causes any problem. Old miser and young miser-to-be met in the Christmas episode with no problem. Amy and Amelia met during last season's finale with no problem. And Amy and Cranky Amy were interacting just fine in the recent episode until they tried to get into the TARDIS. And then, suddenly, there is a problem.

But consistency has never been listed as a major strong point for Doctor Who, Classic or New.
 
Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :
 
And on the note of consistency, if I can go back to the 'Hitler' one when River Song appears...
How is it that she can be shot while regenerating and not only be fine but seem to take strength; whereas when the Doctor is 'shot' while regenerating it kills him? (Which is reiterated at the time - if you're killed while regenerating, then you're killed/dead).
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I seem to remember the Dr being pretty clear that Rose should not touch the infant version of herself..."Father's Day" episode I think. Guess it's cause Rose is so special.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
16 minutes to Torchwood - and I think anyone whose private parts looked like that red edifice should be consulting the Embarrassing Bodies medics.

Penny
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Well thats over. And I was still unimpressed.

I only watched this series because the premise seemed like a good idea, and I was interested in what they would do with it.

The money they have for this series, the actors are good, but they seem unable to produce anything decent out of it all. Which is a pity.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The two Amys were certainly causing the poor old Tardis to have a fit. However, since she can cope with several incarnations of the Doctor at the same time I'm wondering why Amy caused her so much trouble.

Because the TARDIS has taste?
[Overused]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Missed a trick with the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, which is in roughly the right place. But then the sense of geology was just not there, nor the sense of how big the world really is. Or the effect of plate tectonics, the extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and all the interesting stuff going on down in the core and the lower mantle. What they described might perhaps work on Vesta or Ceres, but Earth?

Used the same sort of trick as the nanites with the wartime situation where Jack turned up, trying to find a master template for humanity - but if it was copying Jack, why not copy the healing process?

I do hope they don't make the next series they are hinting at - things get boring when the villains repeat. Though I would like to know exactly how the families a) took over everything in advance and prepared the death camps, b) persuaded the useful idiots to go along with them and be suicide bombers (they couldn't promise paradise). If they could take over the governments so successfully in advance, how come they needed to go through the magic bit? If they could fund all those drugs in advance, why did they need to control the banks? And how could they be certain that the Blessing would work the way it did without testing? This was a very holey plot, and worse than Dr Who things where everything is explained in a very fast gabble in the last five minutes. So much was not explained.

Contradiction with Jack saying the immortality was not in his blood, and then Rex coming back.

I did not like the setting of "The day Thou gavest" and was interested that Rhys and Gwen seemed to pick it up so quickly - I would have had problems with the different note lengths.

Penny
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Watched with subtitles on as late and keeping noise down. Day thou gavest had 'as our mourning hymns ascended' instead of morning!!

As for plot - what plot.

And nicely set up for an American being key immortal alongside the Brit so option to phase out orginalk characters if they want to later?
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
So, Torchwood finally stumbles to a merciful end tonight. Will it be satisfying? Will it explain anything at all? Will it turn out that "The Blessing", aka Enormous Planetary Vagina, just wants Jack to shag it?

And will Torchwood ever recover from the trainwreck that was Miracle Day?

What a waste of ten hours of my life! And it started out so well ..

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chelley:
And on the note of consistency, if I can go back to the 'Hitler' one when River Song appears...
How is it that she can be shot while regenerating and not only be fine but seem to take strength; whereas when the Doctor is 'shot' while regenerating it kills him? (Which is reiterated at the time - if you're killed while regenerating, then you're killed/dead).

That one's fair enough, I think, although it's all based on a classic RTD Made-Up-On-The-Fly Doctrine. When Doctor 9 turned into 10, he was also able (for ludicrous plot reasons) to regrow a hand shortly after regenerating. It was explained at that point that after regenerating (River had clearly finished long before) there's some sort of residual power left in the body for a while (16 hours springs to mind). That's not the same as killing them in mid-regeneration. I don't like it, though, and I wish Moffat had studiously ignored that particular addition to Canon, rather than gratuitously writing that scene because it seemed cool.

As for Torchwood, well, what can you say? The concept was interesting, but beyond that the detail, the plot, the characterisation, the pacing and probably some other things I can't think of right now were all wrong. How can one show lurch from promising (early series) to really quite good (CoE) to this unspeakable waste of airtime?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I forgot to add that the recruiting suit made me think about a cult. I won't suggest any one in particular.
Since last night, I have been catching up on political opinion pieces in the Guardian, and it has occurred to me that the reason the ostensible plot was so dire was that it wasn't the plot. Carrying over the ideas from the woman who initiated Kitzinger and Kitzinger herself, I couldn't place the articles totally in real life. Polly Toynbee on banks: Children hit by banks
George Monbiot on think tanks: Think tanks unnaccountability
Stuart Hall on the neo-liberals: Neo-liberal hegemony
These suggest a world like the one in Torchwood, in which a few self selected people can choose how the rest of us live and die, and intend to change the world so that it can never be changed back. Could Davies have been trying to sneak his politics under the radar by heavily disguising it behind the glitz of a weak SF series? SF was, back in the 50s and 60s, best when it had political roots - I have to admit that I didn't always know what it was on about, because I did not know about the abuses it was exposing. Destructive mining, exploitation of workers and other races - they weren't relevant to me. I'm not sure that the Tea-Party members will have been watching to see the sort of people they support running the death selection committees, though.
And I would have liked to see how people in the various parts of the world would have dealt with the officials who were so assiduous in enforcing the law of sending the living to be burned. And how the existence of the Families would have been exposed. Too many loose ends.
Penny
 
Posted by GeordieDownSouth (# 4100) on :
 
On the why are different people from different times ok/not ok are they making this up as they go along thing, is it that with the Two Amy's* and two Roses time had already been mucked up by someone other than the doctor? So there were two realities co-existing. So the miser in the Sharky Christmas episode is ok because the Dr fetched him in the Tardis, so it could cope.

Maybe the Tardis has strong opinions about who is allowed to muck around with reality.

Or maybe they're making it up as they go along.


*Amys? Amies? Amyes? Could a grammar pedant help me out?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Could Davies have been trying to sneak his politics under the radar by heavily disguising it behind the glitz of a weak SF series?

Almost certainly. The problem is that Davies' politics are hardly more sophisticated than 'they're all the same and you can't trust any of them'.
Compare Malcolm Hulke's Silurians. That was a thinly veiled allegory for the Cold War, (it could equally have been an allegory for a lot of other things). It was grounded in an at least plausible sense of how people work, and it didn't succumb to the pleasures of self-righteousness. (The Brigadier isn't made out to be a villain.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Oh boy, this is not terribly keen on a certain style of religion, is it? "Praise Him"? Terrible loss of faith by the Rapture. Feeding on faith. A representation of a Boschian Satanic demon. (Who turns out to be as much a victim as the others.)

Penny
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
So, the ending - does it take us back to before the Impossible Astronaut? Is it the house they were living in then? At the time, I'd thought it was quite a fancy house for Amy and Rory.

M.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Well I thought that was excellent. I love the surreal stuff, and the recollection of "The Island of Dreams" from Voyage of the Dawntreader.

The ending part was clearly part of the larger story arc. There was something very wrong about the way that Amy was so casual over her River Song. I think it is to get Amy and Rory out of the picture for a while.
 
Posted by Rock Pig (# 14503) on :
 
44 minutes of gratuitious anti-Christian brainwashing followed by a token remark at the end linking it to the story arc. Felt cheated and insulted all at once. It's not a certain style of religion that was being got at, it was using language that everyone "knows" "we" use. And the fact that one person was positively identified as of a recognised religion (Islam) and then seen succumbing to the nasty system characterised bu "Christian" language just rubs it in. Nasty nasty nasty stuff.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I thought it was a superficial use of the language, and I know people who would feel deeply unhappy meeting people using it, because it has been used to victimise them, and drive them from Christianity. I would not be in the least bit surprised to find the writer had met people who patronised him and hid behind their "faith" to do so. Yes, it was nasty - partly why I posted while it was actually running, but I don't think it was more anti-Christian than anti that sort of person, who can probably be found in many walks of life, though the church gives them a particularly nasty channel to do harm. The writer did not use any of the deeper concepts of Christianity as markers of villainy.

I should imagine that the terms "Praise Him" and "worship", or their equivalent in other languages are common to any religion.

I'm wondering where the prison guards are, and what they are going to do next. They are much nastier than the Beast, aren't they? Interfering with the minds of people so they become bait. Vigilantes seem to be a common theme in the arc - the mini-police in the Hitler episode, and the Silence as well as this invisible lot.

Something of a reference to Star Trek and the holodeck episodes, wasn't there?

Penny
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Having seen the TV tropes page on the French/Italian reputation yesterday the alien's portrayal felt very mean spirited.
The similarity to the Champes Elyses joke was beyond coincidence.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Having seen the TV tropes page on the French/Italian reputation yesterday the alien's portrayal felt very mean spirited.
The similarity to the Champes Elyses joke was beyond coincidence.

What the ...?
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
I assume that's a reference to having tree-lined avenues for the invaders to march down.

Personally I rather enjoyed it.

Obviously Rory and Amy will be back, everything's building to a climax where we see the first episode from the other Doctor's pov.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Wilson is right.
In all fairness i probably was in the mood to be over sensitive (Especially if on anothers behalf).
But that line (as i said seeing it so close together, and having in my head a space invasion) did seem to make it shift from these aliens are like the cheese eating stereotype to the French are like this.
I suppose it would be like having an alien race go to war for dodgy reasons that make Iraq look innocent and then having them say 'mission accomplished'.

Hmm or maybe its just late.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It's totally the Overlook Hotel!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This was very satisfying to me, and here's why-- I don't think it is a slap at religion in general at all- I think it is just about the Doctor.

Something that was beginning to disturb me about Tennant- Doctor was the way various characters would moonily refer to him as the most important person in the Universe, and how a couple of times he was invoked in fairly religious ways.. Something that was bugging me about Smith--Doctor was how he would just point at the bad guys and sniff "Fear me." I think swinging that pendulum back from the Doctor's omnipotence was very important-- and this episode does it quite roughly.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Also-- regarding next weeks teaser: Squeee!)

(also-- By "roughly" I think I meant "vigorously.")

[ 18. September 2011, 05:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Miss Madrigal (# 15528) on :
 
I thought it interesting that the Minotaur-esque villain could only feed upon a subverted, corrupted faith. If there was a criticism of faith, it was of its abuse rather than faith per se.

That felt like proper Dr. Who: surreal, thought provoking and slightly disturbing - just where it should be. I'd like to have been at the creative meeting that cross-fertilised Fawlty Towers with The Overlook Hotel.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
The little nods to sci-fi canon please me-- the carpet and hall paint were dead on for the Overlook (as well as the closed circuit TV of the Ballroom), and I am still convinced that for the wooden dolly episode, someone got ahold of the incidental music score for "Twilight Zone." Also dead on.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
You see I was thinking Hotel California. Ah well.

I think the references to faith were about a blind faith - it was The Doctor who was described as having a God Complex. I think it was really a knock to faith in a person who does not deserve it - the Doctor.

In truth, I think the Muslim Girl's faith was given a lot of credit, as it was what kept her and supported her in a difficult time. It was only when that true faith was compromised that it caused her problems.

Butthat is just my take on it.
 
Posted by Rock Pig (# 14503) on :
 
I'd agree that maybe there is an opportunity to slap the Doctor's recent messianic portrayal/ tendencies down a bit,and I would wlecome that.

IMO the whole thing was brilliantly written, photographed, acted and edited. Rita and Howie in particular are characters I'd happily see again.

I don't use the episode's brand of religious vocab in my worship or other dealings. It's just not me. But I know perfectly decent ordinary Christian folk who would and do. The writer would have known the generalised associations that the (mostly non-Christian) audience would make. And the director would have known how powerfully the use and repetition of sounds and images can plant or reinforce ideas.

It's how advertising works, and why some films make you cry. They cannot have not known what stereotype they were putting into people's heads. thiswas far more sophisticated than the headless monks, for example.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
I think there's a logic error here.

Boil it down you have a monster[*] that feeds off faith. Does that mean that having faith is bad? If you had a story with a vampire - a monster that feeds off blood - would that mean having blood is a bad thing?

No. Of course it's done deliberately so they can tell a particular story about faith - Amy's faith in the Doctor - because for on-going plot reasons they want to separate them right now, but that's hugely different from saying faith is bad. They're certainly not saying all faith is bad, they deliberately show a range of different kinds of faiths - some faith is sincere but unhelpful (Amy's), some misguided (conspiracy guy), some cowardly (alien) and some very positive (Muslim nurse).

ISTM we're in danger of doing the Job's comforters thing - a bad thing happened therefore you must have done something to deserve it. In storytelling you make the characters suffer even when, especially when, they don't deserve it, because it makes better stories and more interesting characters.


[*]Yes I know that they played the "monster" as sad, misunderstood creature simply following its instinct - a very Who approach - but it's still the "bad guy" for all practical purposes.
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
It was very Curse of Fenric. I didn't think that the Doctor's 'causing Amy to loose faith in him' was anywhere near harsh enough to actually cause Amy to loose faith in him, but when Sylvester McCoy did it to Ace it was very harsh!

I think I'd have written it so that the Doctor told Amy how it was his fault she didn't raise her child, that Melody was taken from her...

Also, I'd create a support group for companions of the Doctor who have been dumped.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Well I thought it was deep and well written, Not anti faith at all. Anti ill thought out, childish, “make a wish” faith maybe. Anti religious maybe, but sometimes religion should be kicked against. Not sure what if was “for.” But on the whole very thought provoking. Continue to love the series. And the demythologising of the Doctor was well done. Mad old man in a box. The saving of Amy before she dies was important too.

Of course the irony of the “anti-faith” argument is that he did save them but only by killing part of himself. All a bit humble/emptying/ Easter-like. Excellent stuff, good jokes, great script, great acting.

All the best, Pyx_e.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
So that was the real low-budget episode of this season.

My least favourite of the second half so far, though still worth watching. And very much traditional Dr Who. Right down to every set been the same the same two rooms and corridor and staircase seen from different angles, the tedious chases in which the monster runs about as fast as an grumpy old man with gout, and the sudden cuts to different parts of the maze with characters unexpectedly missing. That could have been a Troughton episode.

quote:
Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
On the why are different people from different times ok/not ok are they making this up as they go along...

Of course they are making it up as they go along. They have been making it up as they go along since 1963. This is Doctor Who not Star Drek.

quote:
Originally posted by wilson:

Obviously Rory and Amy will be back, everything's building to a climax where we see the first episode from the other Doctor's pov.

Yes, obviously. We've not heard the last of them. If only because their daughter's story is still to be wound up.

Also the Iron Laws of Plot demand some reference to what happened at the end of the story with the robots. You can't have a highly emotional scene where a man kills his wife on stage - or at least consciously and deliberately leaves her to die - without some sort of future effect on the story. Even if - particularly if - he is thereby trading her in for a younger prettier version who is crashed out on the couch behind him.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I'm afraid I didn't like it at all. I can see it was good - all the ingredients of acting, script, and directing were there - but somehow I just couldn't engage with it. I think one of the problems was that it's very difficult to do the "meet your worst dreams" scenario effectively pre-watershed. Toby Whithouse's writing strengths, judging from Being Human, are very definitely post-watershed, and I just think this didn't work. Ten minutes in, I was glancing at my watch. Sorry.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Very trad: monsters, dummies, chases. Not much to add really. My husband enjoyed it. He watched it all they way through with none of his usual snide remarks about K.G's two dimensional acting.

What a very pleasant street for Amy and Rory to live and, presumably, bring up their less spectacular kids.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I think you can do worst fears pre-watershed, because children's worst fears are not adults'. My nieces were, when very young, variously terrified by the end of a banana (look at one - it's a little distorted face) and one of those shiny helium balloons in the days when they were not printed with stuff. Look at what they really look like - distortions of reality again.
My childish repeated nightmare was a scene of smooth terrain, like pancake batter, on which appeared a hedge drawn in a scribble, which ran across in front of me, and then turned to have two sides of the field running down to where there was not (couldn't see, but knew) a fourth side. Three heads appeared over the hedge in front, and then started to move along, turn down and move to where they would go out of sight and GET IN THE FIELD WITH ME. Except that this simple thing terrified me so much that I always woke up.
Remember George's terrors in the wardrobe? Winston Smith's rats? The giant scissors in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader? Children understand about different terrors than we do, and don't need horror film stuff. And I suspect that most of us have those sort of terrors, which are simple and might not worry others, or make good TV, but really scare us.
And I now wish I had not written that dream down, because although it has not occurred for over 50 years, and I have thought about it with no ill effects on a number of occasions, I have segued from it to the one where the car brakes won't work, and suspect I will have nightmares tonight, from the feel in my stomach.
Penny
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think the references to faith were about a blind faith - it was The Doctor who was described as having a God Complex. I think it was really a knock to faith in a person who does not deserve it - the Doctor.



Bingo.

I gotta admit, I was getting so tired of the Doctor's encroaching hubris that I was actually daydreaming fanfic about him discovering a race superior to the Timelords that ran a sort of "Scared Straight" program for beings that stole TARDIS 's and went on joyrides.

Moffat, if you steal it, you owe me.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:



[*]Yes I know that they played the "monster" as sad, misunderstood creature simply following its instinct - a very Who approach - but it's still the "bad guy" for all practical purposes.

But if we take it as an allegory against blind faith-- excellent post as always, Pyx_e-- then this fits well-- what was Jim Jones, for instance, but a damaged, diseased monster reduced to feeding on other people's chi for his own subsistance?

Sorry, been extraordinarily ill lately, feel like I am jumping logic steps.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Probably just a software thing, but the holographic hotel undid itself in the same way as the tesselator shapeshifting vigilantebot did.

Penny
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
My husband enjoyed it. He watched it all they way through with none of his usual snide remarks about K.G's two dimensional acting.


She actually tiptoes up to subtlety in this one. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
[*]Yes I know that they played the "monster" as sad, misunderstood creature simply following its instinct - a very Who approach - but it's still the "bad guy" for all practical purposes.

But if we take it as an allegory against blind faith-- excellent post as always, Pyx_e-- then this fits well-- what was Jim Jones, for instance, but a damaged, diseased monster reduced to feeding on other people's chi for his own subsistance?

Yes that fits and I don't have a problem with that interpretation.

My point really was that who the victim is - here people with faith - isn't necessarily a good guide to who the author dislikes.

I think too many people - not you - take their definition of fiction un-ironically from The Importance of Being Earnest, without realising Wilde was joking:

quote:
“The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.”
On a completely separate topic I happened to want to look up the episode list for this season so I went to IMDB and they've got the titles and cast list up for the next two episodes. Intriguing! Don't look if you don't want any spoilers whatsoever.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think one of the problems was that it's very difficult to do the "meet your worst dreams" scenario effectively pre-watershed.

I don't think it was actually meet your worst dreams. Amy's worst dream would be to come across Rory really permanently dead. It's meet whatever experience most makes you fall back on your faith. That's why Amy's room just contained her waiting for the Doctor - not because that's particularly scary, but because that would make her think 'no, he didn't desert me and he never will'.
That said, I don't think it's consistent with the way Karen Gillan's played the character, or the character's been written: Amy's not ever been someone who has unquestioning faith in the Doctor, at least not since she hit him round the head with a cricket bat and handcuffed him to the radiator.
For that matter, Rory's remark that he couldn't help thinking Rita was doomed when he saw the Doctor befriending her was much more Tennant era than Smith era. Eleven has pretty much always saved the people he's actually got close to. Ten failed all the time.

According to the internal logic of the story the Doctor must have faith in something, because there was a room in the hotel for him. (Unlike Rory.) We know from Curse of Fenric that the Doctor's faith is in his companions.
It adds an extra poignancy to his dispelling the faith of Ace or Amy in him to realise he still has faith in them.
Speculation about the contents of the Doctor's room: according to the above logic, it contains whatever fear would make him most trust in his companions. So the logic is that it contains Ten in his mad god phase or similar.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
My point really was that who the victim is - here people with faith - isn't necessarily a good guide to who the author dislikes.


Oh, absolutely. In fact I think it was very clear that the author wanted us to like and respect Rita, and to respect those aspects of her faith that were not "Praise Him" based.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Whatever it was, the Cloister Bell was tolling....

I thought it was good. A pity Rita didn't make it to be a Companion - but then the Doctor needs to be alone for a while now.
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
So is the Curse of Fenric worth watching?
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
So is the Curse of Fenric worth watching?

Yes. It's darker than NuWho but is very worth watching.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
So is the Curse of Fenric worth watching?

Oh yes. Although its approach to plot structure and exposition can be described by saying that it sets a precedent for Day of the Moon.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
but then the Doctor needs to be alone for a while now.

He may need to be, but I expect to see Rory and Amy in the next episode (and the next series).

As for this week's episode, even more underwhelming than last week. The premise of the rooms that contain the thing that makes you fall back on what you have trust in had the potential for a really scary episode. It still has that potential if they wish to reuse the idea, but this time it wasn't realised.

And now on to my notoriously inaccurate prediction bit. Cupboards.

Hitler in the cupboard.
Night Terror boy putting his fears in a cupboard.
Camp-scaredey-alien hiding from the weeping angels in the cupboard.

Put together with the eyeball-in-the-dolls-house-drawer and the eyeballs-on-the-flesh-castle-wall, and we have eyeballs and cupboards in the last episode. But I have been wrong before. Most years.

We have seen Mel regenerate into River song, and I think we are supposed to assume that space-suit-girl regenerated into Mel. It is in the nature of Whovian plot twists for this to be a red herring.
I think this is a typical plot hoax, but have no idea who the girl became.

But then Doctor who plots are closer to conspiracy theories than they have to logic - that's part of the fun.

Anyway, a poor Doctor Who episode is still better than most things on the TV. (Big Bang Theory excepted.)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
So is the Curse of Fenric worth watching?

Oh yes. Although its approach to plot structure and exposition can be described by saying that it sets a precedent for Day of the Moon.
Well worth watching. Though even better if you also see the one (or two) previous stories and the one after. Battlefield, Ghostlight, Fenric, and then Survival make up one of the best sequences of Who ever broadcast. Ghostlight is one of my personal favourite stories from the entire history of the programme.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I loved the fact that we had a Muslim character who took her faith seriously and wasn't a loony. That is pretty rare on telly (even rarer than Christians!)

I wasn't as bothered as some by the 'Praise Him' imagery, even though it might be seen as bashing my sort of church. Doctor Who has always had a "science trumps religion" thread running through it (apart from a short period in the Davidson era where they went all mystical). Usually, people who worship something/someone are seen as misguided people who need to be educated (cf Leela).

Faith itself wasn't seen as a bad thing - only faith in things which apparently didn't deserve it. So I guess you could say idolatry? (Although that would mean placing Rita's faith in the same category as believing in conspiracy theories or luck, which would be a big stretch.)

The idea of Amy having this sort of faith in the Doctor was a bit surprising to be honest. She certainly wasn't like that when she first met him as an adult. Admittedly Rory was always more clear-eyed (remember his big rant in Venice about what the Doctor does to those who travel with him).

But I was rather put out by the idea that Rory 'doesn't believe in anything'. Really? More like the writer couldn't find time to think up a room for him. I guess his worst fear would be Amy choosing the Doctor over him.

However, the 'worst fears' thing was already covered with the Dreamlord episode (which makes me think the Doctor saw himself in his room - after all, it was Room 11). So I'm glad that wasn't the main focus.

So what's with the 'Rory using the past tense' thing then? More muddled time-streams?
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I did not like the setting of "The day Thou gavest"
Penny

Yes, that was odd. Do they really sing it like that in Wales or was it a mistake born of ignorance? I would have thought that at least one person in the large number of cast or production team would be a church goer and could point it out.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Rory "doesn't believe in anything" annoyed me too. Everyone believes in something. Everyone has faith in something. It is a necessary part of existence. It would have been better to have said that Rory has not yet been thrown onto his faith. Not so much lazy, IMO, but misunderstanding of faith.

And I love the David Walliams Quitter-race. Yes it was a little bit xenophobic - it might not go down so well in Italy - but the idea of a race who has survived longer than most by simply giving in to all and any invaders is cool. The Doc does tell him that it is a positive survival characteristic, so it is seen in a positive light.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
but the idea of a race who has survived longer than most by simply giving in to all and any invaders is cool
And un-original. Catch 22 has such a character in it (Italian iirc), who taunts Yossarian. I liked the character and the jokes but it is not a new one.

All the best, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
but then the Doctor needs to be alone for a while now.

He may need to be, but I expect to see Rory and Amy in the next episode (and the next series).....
Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hopefully that's a big enough gap. Arthur Darvill let slip in an interview in the Evening Standard that Rory wasn't coming back next season. ( [Waterworks] if that's true). Smith and Gillan are back for next season though.

Tubbs
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
Have now watched Fenric. It was interesting, especially if it's considered a high point of the old series. More on that later perhaps when I have time.

Fish vampires and Nicholas Parsons.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Catch 22 has such a character in it (Italian iirc), who taunts Yossarian.

Well of course. Yossarian is Armenian. Almost everyone conquers Armenia, or part of Aremia, sooner or later. Some countries conquer it quite often - the Persians seem to have done it at least four timess. Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Cimmerians (really - imagine the indignity of having once been conqured by a fictional tribe), Skythians, Medes, Phrygians, Persians, Macedonians, Pontics, Romans, Parthians, Romans, Persians (calles Marzipans in this context. Honest guv), Romans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols, Tatars, Ottomans, Persians, Russians...

I have an atlas of ancient and mediaeval history which misses a small independent Armenian territory off the map sometime in the early middle ages. In the notes apologising for this it says "history hasn't been fair to Armenia for over three thousand years and its too late to start now"
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
but the idea of a race who has survived longer than most by simply giving in to all and any invaders is cool
And un-original. Catch 22 has such a character in it (Italian iirc), who taunts Yossarian. I liked the character and the jokes but it is not a new one.

All the best, Pyx_e

If you are going to be non-original - and most of Who is derivative to an greater or lesser extent - there are few better places to draw from.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I assumed it was an American version of the Day Thou Gavest, not Welsh. (At least it hadn't been de-Thee and Thou'd.)

Penny
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
OK - once again I'm going against the flow here, and saying I really enjoyed this. A thoughtful, intelligent, well executed episode. Really liked all the supporting characters, especially Rita, and on this occassion all the main ones convinced me too. It would be great if Amy bowed out at this point, but I doubt that is going to happen.

In addition, I liked all the faith references, and loved the fact that we were given an intelligent and positive Muslim. To my mind, this was easily the best episode of the second half, and is only beaten by "The Doctor's Wife" in the the first.
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
Hmmm.. I didn't so much object to that episode as just not really see the point. I wasn't scared by any of it (apart from jumping a bit at the weeping angels), it just didn't feel exciting.

I want to like the premise but again it just failed to make me care.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Gill H wrote:Faith itself wasn't seen as a bad thing - only faith in things which apparently didn't deserve it. So I guess you could say idolatry? (Although that would mean placing Rita's faith in the same category as believing in conspiracy theories or luck, which would be a big stretch.)
I agree with Shchroedinger's cat that it is about blind (and misled) faith - Rita fits through her indifference to hell, because she *knows* she's lived a good life - does she now? Or is Allah entitled an opinion in that?

I hasten to add, I loved her character, her sense of humour, and her sardonic acknowledgement of islamophobia. She'd have made a fun companion.

quote:
So what's with the 'Rory using the past tense' thing then?
According to a friend of mine, that may be a foreshadowing of his leaving the Tardis. I think this goes with the Doctor saying "Amy Williams", acknowledging that she belongs with Rory now* (before dopping them both off).

*as far as Amy will ever "belong" to anyone...

quote:
Balaam wrote:I expect to see Rory and Amy in the next episode
I don't, not yet. For reasons of filming schedules, there is usually one episode in which the Doctor does not feature much (last week's), and one in which the companions don't. This is still outstanding, and last year, it was the one with James Corden. I think next week we will see the Doctor genuinely trying to move on, before everyone gets reunited by all kinds of timey-wimey inevitabilities for the finale.

quote:
Penny S wrote:
Probably just a software thing, but the holographic hotel undid itself in the same way as the tesselator shapeshifting vigilantebot did.

I'm sure that was intentional.

Re the monster: I liked it that Nimon was name-checked, even though, in our local fan gatherings, that particluar epidode usually gets watched with the help of quantities of alcohol [Smile]
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
So, The Curse of Fenric.

I'm afraid I found it a bit of a mess. An interesting mess but a mess still. It had some good ideas - like the faith thing - in fact it probably had too many ideas. People have talked about how the modern episodes feel rushed because you only have 50 mins to tell the story as opposed to 4x25mins. Well this really felt rushed because there was just so much in it. I started to list all the different plot strands but then deleted that when the list got too long.

And it didn't help that the writer seemed to think the best way to engage the viewer was to throw as much unexplained stuff at them as possible and leave it as late as possible to finally explain. If you think "timey-wimey" stuff is hard to follow this would give you migraines.

It was also clunky in a way that had nothing to do with rubber suits and 1980s special effects - the acting was very variable (McCoy - good with the one-liners, bad at monologues), the dialogue odd (the most surreal chat-up scene ever), some scenes feel compressed for convenience (Ace befriending too evacuees in about 10 seconds and fewer words), implausible/comical action scenes (monsters conveniently disentangle themselves from grappling their victims so they can be shot at).

On the other hand it did have something. I wonder what the relative budgets between then and now would be if adjusted for inflation. The production values of the modern series are more polished but I couldn't help be struck by the fact that here there was a lot of action filmed outside, on beaches and cliffs, and on location in a real church. Apart from the scenes at the Lake way back at the beginning of this series most of the recent episodes feel like they've been shot on (very impressive) sets and don't have the same sense of real, airy, space.

Also, despite what I said about the plot I quite liked that they expected you to keep up.

But overall I didn't think it was an example of an earlier 'golden age' of Who, I thought it had just as many weaknesses as modern episodes and for my tastes was less entertaining. Obviously YMMV.

Now, tonight I watched Battlefield (I read Ken's post after I'd already watched Fenric) and that was much better IMO. I really enjoyed it. It had witty dialogue and fun characters, a good central idea and proper story-telling (i.e. the plot built suspense but wasn't so convoluted as to have you go WTF? every 2mins). Most of all it just felt like a more confident, smoother execution than Fenric.
 
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :
 
The Hotel reminded me of the impossible arhitecture of the Overlook Hotel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sUIxXCCFWw&feature=player_embedded#!
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I am really not sure what to think of this episode. I'm not sure I agree that it was saying anything about faith other than that faith exists. Where does this theory that it was critical of "unworthy" faiths come from? I mean, the monster (as I understand it) fed on faith. So the monster does not want to destroy the people's faith--in fact, it starves to death (really, really, really fast) when Amy's faith is broken.

So the rooms, while scary, were designed to force people to fall back on their deepest faith so that the monster could feed. I am not sure how that turns into them all saying "Praise him" because why would it make them switch their faiths? But let that bit pass. It was a catch phrase needed to show that the person was doomed.

Also, I am not sure why feeding off one's faith causes somebody to die. But let that bit pass.

And I don't get how the monster species ever survived if even a momentary interruption in its food supply causes it to die. But let that bit pass.

But this gets us to the other points. As others have mentioned, Amy has not exactly been a poster child for faith in the Doctor. In fact, in an earlier episode when she was kidnaped and was telling her captors that "he" was coming for her and would cause them a world of grief--wasn't she talking about Rory?

And, as has been mentioned, it is hard to swallow that the Doctor's quiet little chat was enough to break her faith. Well, normally it wouldn't, but then her faith in him seems a little shallow anyway (see prior paragraph) so maybe it would. But Sylvester McCoy's Doctor was considerably harsher and contemptuous when he was breaking Ace's faith in him.

But I do think the reference to "Amy Williams" was meant as part of shaking her faith. Somehow. Not sure how. Let that bit pass.

When we went to the holodeck at the end, what happened to the bodies of all the others? Did the not-seen guards clear out the corpses? Or were they always projections of the holodeck to force Amy into greater faith? After all, we were told that it was Amy's faith that brought them there, so was the whole thing a sham to get her to believe more? Because, as has been demonstrated time after time, the show is All About Amy!

And I don't get the bit about Rory using the past tense. If it is a foreshadow that he is leaving...why use the past tense at THAT point? Even if he had already decided to leave, it made no sense to speak in the past tense then.

But Rory's manner seemed quite a bit different throughout the episode. Sometimes very somber and at other times kind of chipper (such as when he was presented with his dream car). Almost like there were two of him. I wonder if this is sort of a reprise of last season when we saw the Doctor with and without his coat--and at the end it was explained that it was Doctors from different points in time. Maybe that dialog was with a time-travelling Rory who (for some reason I can't fathom) came back to appear in that scene. Then, for him, it WAS the past tense. It had already happened, what was there for him to be scared of?

So, like I said, I am not sure what to think of this episode. Was it just a good concept that was poorly thought out? Or does it seem half-baked because it IS only half-baked and we won't appreciate what it was doing until we see a later episode that explains what was REALLY going on?
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Could Amy and Rory really be gone? Please let it be true. I hope the next companion(s) create a completely different dynamic. I really thought the Amelia character was great and had so much potential but what they've chosen to do with (and to) Amy is rotten.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Re Tubbs' spoiler,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Amy will be a companion. Just that she'll appear at least sometimes.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I wonder if this sudden attack of humility on the Doctor's part is fulfilling River's words about being higher than ever and then falling so low (from Demons' Run). We know the Silurian lady said he was at his highest on that day, because not a drop of blood had been spilled. Maybe this is the 'low' part coming.

If so, fine, but we've been here before. The whole 'Doctor thinks he's God, finds out he isn't' arc was played out with Tennant, from the Floaty Tinkerbell Jesus Doctor incident through to Waters of Mars and the Ood. OK, new regeneration, but did we really need to go there again so soon?

Having said that - the "I'm just a madman in a box" line was beautifully done.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
The idea of Amy having this sort of faith in the Doctor was a bit surprising to be honest. She certainly wasn't like that when she first met him as an adult. Admittedly Rory was always more clear-eyed (remember his big rant in Venice about what the Doctor does to those who travel with him).

But I was rather put out by the idea that Rory 'doesn't believe in anything'. Really? More like the writer couldn't find time to think up a room for him. I guess his worst fear would be Amy choosing the Doctor over him.

Yes, this all echoes my own thoughts. I can't really settle on a firm conclusion about this episode. The idea was good, suspense was built, but I felt it was rather weak overall and Amy's "faith" in the Doctor was plucked out of nowhere and destroyed with ludicrous ease. As with some earlier episodes, it might be rescued if some of the ideas it raises pay off at the end of the series.
quote:
However, the 'worst fears' thing was already covered with the Dreamlord episode (which makes me think the Doctor saw himself in his room - after all, it was Room 11). So I'm glad that wasn't the main focus.
I'm glad someone else noticed the door number. [Smile]
quote:
So what's with the 'Rory using the past tense' thing then? More muddled time-streams?
Possibly. I'm beginning to find it quite frustrating that in a series which is throwing so many hints about future plot twists all over the place, there seem to be an equal number of simple scriptwriting clangers, with no simple way of telling them apart. This may be significant, or it may not. The same could be said of Rory's apparent lack of belief in anything.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
By the way, the editor of Doctor Who Magazine has [url= http://tomspilsbury.moonfruit.com/home/4554491282/Let's-Kill-This-Myth/195123]compiled the ratings figures from the last few years[/url], in an attempt to dispel the myth that the show's ratings are falling.

The average consolidated ratings year on year:
2005 - 8.68 million
2006 - 8.72 million
2007 - 8.89 million
2008 - 10.20 million
2009 ("Gap year")
2010 - 9.85 million
2011 - 9.77 million (average so far)

[ 21. September 2011, 13:49: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
One thing I've found confusing is River's speech about 'her doctor' in SITL is exactly the doctor he became; even snapping his fingers at the Tardis. Then, in AGMGTW she scolds him for becoming all of the things she claimed to admire in her first episode. When she was lecturing the doctor my son asked why she was saying those things to him since he had become exactly what she wanted him to be.

[ 21. September 2011, 14:48: Message edited by: art dunce ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
One thing I've found confusing is River's speech about 'her doctor' in SITL is exactly the doctor he became; even snapping his fingers at the Tardis. Then, in AGMGTW she scolds him for becoming all of the things she claimed to admire in her first episode. When she was lecturing the doctor my son asked why she was saying those things to him since he had become exactly what she wanted him to be.

But remember that we are seeing River's life in sort-of reverse. SITL was at the end of her life, when she admired those qualities. AGMGTW was earlier in her life, when she perhaps did not value them as much.

I say sort-of reverse because, assuming we and the Doctor see River again, she will have to be older than when we last saw her (just after she regenerated into the River we know). And that will mean that all her prior comments (last season and this) about how she and the Doctor are meeting in reverse order (so, e.g., that his first kiss with her is her last kiss with him) are pretty much garbage because they are not meeting in such a simple reverse-linear fashion.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Did anyone else think the fish in the bowl was a metaphor for Christians?

I guess I don't see why she'd admire those qualities at the end of her life and want a doctor who fills people with fear and then 'swaggers' back to his beloved Tardis and snaps his fingers at her.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I guess I don't see why she'd admire those qualities at the end of her life and want a doctor who fills people with fear and then 'swaggers' back to his beloved Tardis and snaps his fingers at her.

Yeah, that's a fair point. I suspect the problem is that, when the River Song character was introduced in SITL it was intended as a one-off and they really had not thought out a back-story for her. But Alex Kingston was so good, that they wanted to bring her back and, to do that, they needed to build an interesting back story that was not obvious from the comments in SITL--because where would be the surprise if she fit perfectly with what you'd expect from SITL? This led, inevitably, to a character that is inconsistent, as you point out.

But if I allow myself to go much further down that line, I will (once again) start my rant about how TV writers just aren't smart enough to properly handle temporal paradox stories and should just stop trying to do them. But I suspect everybody is bored with me doing that.

May it never be said that I don't respect the feelings of my fellow Shipmates.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
On reflection, a couple of things jumped out at me that I noticed about this episode but didn't take in at the time. First, near the beginning, someone turned the music back on - who? When I first watched it, I saw it as part of the general haunted hotel thing, but I'm not sure because of a few other things I'm still processing.

The Doctor pulled a Rubik's Cube from his jacket at the beginning. I'm pretty sure (but haven't gone back to check yet) that we later saw it completed. But we know from Night Terrors that he "never could do those things". The Doctor lies? Maybe. Which leads me on to the unusual camera angles and quickfire cuts between different scenes - atmospheric, homage to various horror genres, or concealing something in plain sight? I have my suspicions, but need to go back and watch some earlier episodes again before I can be sure.

Amy saw the paper in the corridor, thought it was important enough to pick it up, then forgot about it for what seemed like ages. Was that Amy being ditzy, scriptwriting convenience (but why not have the paper found where they were?), or something else?

And I think we can rule out my theory about Rory's past tense slip being a blooper, because of course it was commented on at the time, which means it's there for a reason, which means... dunno. But he apparently didn't have any fears or beliefs (although the Fire Exit may have been "his" door), and some of his conversations with Amy were very odd on both sides. It's almost as if he's a ghost. Maybe he's bleeding through from another reality/timestream, or only kept alive by Amy willing him to live, or something. Although the baby might take some explaining.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
And that will mean that all her prior comments (last season and this) about how she and the Doctor are meeting in reverse order (so, e.g., that his first kiss with her is her last kiss with him) are pretty much garbage because they are not meeting in such a simple reverse-linear fashion.

Well, yes but we already knew that from them comparing their diaries - if they really were meeting in reverse order then there wouldn't be common entries and whenever River asked if he'd done Incident X yet, the Doctor would smugly yell "Plainly not, since you have!!".

I'm not sure all the scriptwriters have figured this out, though.
 
Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
Well, that was bloody amazing.
 
Posted by swllwmzn (# 12945) on :
 
Wasn't it?! I'm sure there will be all sorts of holes to be picked in it but I loved it. I was quite emotional.. Matt Smith is now definitely my favourite Doctor since Patrick Troughton (revealing my age).
 
Posted by Rock Pig (# 14503) on :
 
Really enjoyed this one. Who spotted the cameo from the TW3 Girl/Our Maurice's girlfriend/Nurse Gladys Emannuel/Auntie Mable* (delete according to age)?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
The cameo with Amy and Rory was moving. I do hope that however they're bringing back Amy next season it doesn't undo the last couple of episodes.
Matt Smith continues to switch brilliantly between comic eccentricity and understated emotion.
At least Gareth Roberts had the decency to send up the power of love solves everything resolution after he'd used it.
The bit at the end with River Song felt just a bit tacked on and just slightly too drawn out.

There were bits that I felt didn't quite come together and bits that I got really caught up in and I'm not entirely sure which was which.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
When I used to write little plays for school, I had the idea that repetition of patterns (as in folk stories) was a good idea. I have gone off this completely. One more plot solved by Dad/son bonding, and without even any change in outcome is getting a bit, well, repetitive. One more buried/abandoned spacecraft/enemy trying to rebuild itself/take over the Earth.
Not exciting.

Penny
 
Posted by wilson (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There were bits that I felt didn't quite come together and bits that I got really caught up in and I'm not entirely sure which was which.

Exactly.

It was good, but not amazing. It traded quite a lot on the likeability of Smith and Corden. Shame Daisy Haggard wasn't in it more.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Anybody else a bit ticked they could only write 4/5th of an episode?

That was a long link sequence.

I like the Dad thing...its not done in TV much. Most Dad's are treated as idiots.

I suppose they had to use the Cybermen but it did seem a little forced.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by swllwmzn:
Wasn't it?! I'm sure there will be all sorts of holes to be picked in it but I loved it. I was quite emotional.. Matt Smith is now definitely my favourite Doctor since Patrick Troughton (revealing my age).

Developing a little crush, I'll admit. The scene with Makeup Counter Lady was note perfect.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh and USA Who fans-- how did you like that episode of The Nerdist after? [Yipee]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Very short on actual plot and originality with a lot of padding. A quite predictable episode (as Penny S says we've had these themes before) where they packed the excitement into the last five minutes with River Song and the eyepatch lady, but no real surprises there either.

On the plus side, it showed that Matt Smith is starting to settle into the part and come across as a more convincing and rather older Doctor than he really is. The baby was a star.

I'm intrigued by the name of the perfume Amy was advertising on the poster: "petrichor" is the smell of the earth after long-awaited rain, but it comes from the Greek for "stone" and "the blood of the gods" ("petros" and "ichor"). "Petrichon" must surely have been based on that. Nice one.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
I want a Cybermat! Just the thing for answering the door to cold callers.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Of course the irony of the “anti-faith” argument is that he did save them but only by killing part of himself. All a bit humble/emptying/ Easter-like.

I was watching the latest ep a second time and at the bit where the doctor shouts, "I believe in you! I believe in all of you!" I flashed on what you said above.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I thought it was OK, and quite fun, which is what I am after really. And some excitement and plot as an extra.

I like the fact that Matt Smith is playing up the non-human aspect of the Doctor, and his social ineptness. That is funny, and gives him that sense of strangeness that some of the doctors have not had.

And I think there are some plot lines that will need to be drawn together somehow, although exactly how I don't know. The end bit was the series arc link, which just didn't fit into the episode, so was irritating.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
And that will mean that all her prior comments (last season and this) about how she and the Doctor are meeting in reverse order (so, e.g., that his first kiss with her is her last kiss with him) are pretty much garbage because they are not meeting in such a simple reverse-linear fashion.

Well, yes but we already knew that from them comparing their diaries - if they really were meeting in reverse order then there wouldn't be common entries and whenever River asked if he'd done Incident X yet, the Doctor would smugly yell "Plainly not, since you have!!".

I'm not sure all the scriptwriters have figured this out, though.

Since the Doctor is a time-traveller, his time-line can't be expected to be linear in either direction with respect to anyone else's, except his companions, surely? Unless River is travelling in the exact opposite trajectory, which she could only really manage by asking him when and where he was last, and then going there! Hmmmm, perhaps that is exactly what she is doing ...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm not sure all the scriptwriters have figured this out, though.

Moffat's the only scriptwriter who has written episodes with River Song. (Unless you count yesterday's episode, but I suspect that last bit was Moffat as well, or brief flashbacks.)
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Very short on actual plot and originality with a lot of padding.

I think the padding was the point of the episode and the plot was really just an excuse.

quote:
The baby was a star.
Most convincing child actor they've had this series.

quote:
I'm intrigued by the name of the perfume Amy was advertising on the poster: "petrichor" is the smell of the earth after long-awaited rain, but it comes from the Greek for "stone" and "the blood of the gods" ("petros" and "ichor"). "Petrichon" must surely have been based on that.
I got the Doctor's Wife reference, but is there any more to it than that?

BTW I'm glad it's finally confirmed that the kissogram stuff was filling time and not Amy's choice of career.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The perfume name - I am sure that I have seen that name elsewhere. Or something sufficiently similar to be relevant. But cannot remember where.
 
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :
 
I really liked this episode, having had so many people not being saved by the doctor gave some added suspense and a real sense that Craig might not make it. I thought the cyberhead closing over his face was a proper scary Doctor Who moment and enjoyed the dialogue with baby 'Stormageddon' as a nice bit of humour.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The perfume name - I am sure that I have seen that name elsewhere.

You mean, elsewhere than The Doctor's Wife?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
I'm intrigued by the name of the perfume Amy was advertising on the poster: "petrichor" is the smell of the earth after long-awaited rain, but it comes from the Greek for "stone" and "the blood of the gods" ("petros" and "ichor"). "Petrichon" must surely have been based on that.
I got the Doctor's Wife reference, but is there any more to it than that?
Not sure. What was the Doctor's Wife reference? I was just thinking that possibly the "blood of the gods" thing might be a reference to the Doctor's forthcoming assassination, but that might be stretching it a bit.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Not sure about last night's episode. Found it very hard to get over the stupidity of taking a baby into dangerous situations. And I found Boring Chap dull when the Doctor stayed with him before; he was just as Boring now, if not more so (can't even remember his name). Smith's emotion was OK, but seemed to have come out of nowhere. With one day left to live I could understand him wanting to go off and see Exeter, or whatever the conjunction was, but to visit Boring Chap? Somehow I don't think so. Hmmm, I'm talking myself into being unimpressed with it, aren't I?

Will there be an episode next week, does anyone know? Or do we have to wait till Christmas now, our knuckles white with tension, to discover if the Doctor really does die?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Petrochor was one of the things Amy and Rory had to imagine in order to get into the old Tardis console room. The Tardis, in Idris, told them what it was to them when she first ran up to them.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:


I like the fact that Matt Smith is playing up the non-human aspect of the Doctor, and his social ineptness. That is funny, and gives him that sense of strangeness that some of the doctors have not had.


Bingo. And in doing so, he seems able to convey a grasping toward connection with the human race that is really moving. If only actual humans appreciated their own humanity as much as the Doctor does.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
In short I am currently thinking (whilst loving the whole series) that this in one of the best theological studies of "how to over come evil without becoming evil oneself" I have ever come across.

At its simplest the desire to not be part of his friends dying and being hurt balanced against the great number he saves by taking part in the sacrifice (of his loyal followers). But he is never the sacrifice, it always those whom he loves. Hence he moves towards his death almost willingly.

For myself I think he is being selfish and should allow his follwers to die by the bucket load to save planet loads of people ....... easy for me to say because I am not in tha position. Just one a bit like it, as we all are.

All the best, Pyx_e.

[ 26. September 2011, 08:31: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
 
Posted by Lola (# 627) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Catch 22 has such a character in it (Italian iirc), who taunts Yossarian.

Well of course. Yossarian is Armenian. Almost everyone conquers Armenia, or part of Aremia, sooner or later. Some countries conquer it quite often - the Persians seem to have done it at least four timess. Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Cimmerians (really - imagine the indignity of having once been conqured by a fictional tribe), Skythians, Medes, Phrygians, Persians, Macedonians, Pontics, Romans, Parthians, Romans, Persians (calles Marzipans in this context. Honest guv), Romans, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols, Tatars, Ottomans, Persians, Russians...

I have an atlas of ancient and mediaeval history which misses a small independent Armenian territory off the map sometime in the early middle ages. In the notes apologising for this it says "history hasn't been fair to Armenia for over three thousand years and its too late to start now"

Except the old Italian man in the brothel in Catch 22 isn't taunting Yossarian (who is the survivor), he is taunting Nately - the all-American youth (who along with almost every other character is not).
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Huh. Seemed like a return to the worst of the RTD era, with the whole thing based around being "family" and love saving the world, tedious modern-day Earth setting, desperate attempt to crowbar a marketable baddie in to gloss over the gaps, and then the ludicrous, overblown sentimental stuff with the kids, before we even got to the tacked-on "oh yeah, remember that thing that happened ages ago, which we've been more or less ignoring for the last few months, well...". Some good lines, quite fun, and it wasn't exactly bad, but generally a wasted opportunity, and the era-specific pop culture references are really grating in a (sort of) socially inept time traveller. Which reminds me:

He's got a day to live, apparently. He knows this - fine. He knows where he dies and when, and even (maybe) his age at the time, but why the precise day in his timeline when he must die? Is it his birthday in two days? In fact, the whole suggestion that he's going to Lake Silencio and sending the blue envelopes because he knows he did in the past/future looks like another one of those very shaky causality paradoxes. Not as bad as being rescued from the Pandorica by his future self, but still...

And where did those 200 years go? Apart from between AGMGTW and LKH, and now before this episode, he's been travelling with Amy and Rory, who aren't 200 years older. Did he spend his last 200 years searching for a baby, or just bumming around sightseeing on a farewell tour, or is there something else going on? I hope it'll be explained, but I'm starting to worry that it's just going to be ignored or handwaved away.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Oh ... congratulations on your thousandth (this time round), you wholigans ...
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
I've been scratching my head and wondering what has gone wrong with the last couple of series of Doctor Who. Moffat wrote the best episodes in RTD's series so why isn't it better? In my view he's a more talented writer than RTD but not as good at producing. He's adopted RTD's approach lock, stock and barrel and it's just not working for him. Too much self-referential stuff, too much messiah-complex and way too much contradictory timey-wimey stuff. I really hope they return to traditional Doctor Who format - more cliff hangers and squarely aimed at scaring and thrilling children.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Moffat wrote the best episodes in RTD's series so why isn't it better?

Trying to do too much at once, perhaps. Wasn't he supposed to be working on the new series of "Sherlock" as well?

[ 26. September 2011, 11:14: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
more cliff hangers and squarely aimed at scaring and thrilling children.
It was the Twanglets first Cyberman episode so that worked well for them!! (6 & 8 repectivley)
The "where have the other 200 yrs gone?" question is a very good one!
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In fact, the whole suggestion that he's going to Lake Silencio and sending the blue envelopes because he knows he did in the past/future looks like another one of those very shaky causality paradoxes.

Like you I'm not expecting much in the way of solid explanations but I admit I'm quite looking forward to seeing how they get around it at all. They've gone out of their way to present this death as inevitable and the only real possible escape hatches we've been presented with are the Gangers (looking increasingly implausible but you never know) and Amy's unexplained ability to do impossible (did you see what I did there?) and self-contradictory things.

I once read in an interview somebody's claim that the difference between science fiction and fantasy was the degree to which you would tolerate plot-solving elements of magic in the broad sense. That is, a hero surrounded by bad guys will survive due to a clever plot twist in the one, but in the other he will snap his fingers and pluck a magic sword out of thin air. There's a dark side of me that would rather see the Doctor actually die and the series end, than have another magic sword like Goddess Rose or Floaty Doctor but I'm still hoping for a clever plot twist instead.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And the whole thing is too much a repeat of the Pandorica idea except with a totally new lot of people trying to get him out of the way. People about whom we know very, very little, apart from their peculiar sort of religious bent. I assumed it was the military priests with the Silents, rather than good old Americans from Area 52. (Somehow, I don't find 52 as negative sounding as 51 - I wonder why. Possibly because it ends with a vowel sound, and hence an openness, which the n sound ending 1 is closed.) Even though the miniaturised hellraisers seemed to be down on River Song for killing the Dr, and they seemed to have some sort of religious set-up. The bunch at the Byzantium didn't seem particularly anti-Dr, did they?
Has Kovarian somehow persuaded a later version of the clerics of the Dr's evil nature in order to use them to kill him? Is she the Master? We don't know anything about her at all. And persuading people wouldn't be a problem,if she can mess with River's mind.
And why block off the dominant eye?
Penny

[ 26. September 2011, 12:58: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
In fact, the whole suggestion that he's going to Lake Silencio and sending the blue envelopes because he knows he did in the past/future looks like another one of those very shaky causality paradoxes.

Like you I'm not expecting much in the way of solid explanations but I admit I'm quite looking forward to seeing how they get around it at all. They've gone out of their way to present this death as inevitable and the only real possible escape hatches we've been presented with are the Gangers (looking increasingly implausible but you never know) and Amy's unexplained ability to do impossible (did you see what I did there?) and self-contradictory things.
There are plenty of ways it could be tied up, especially if you're going to take liberties with timelines, and after the Pandorica business, we know Moffat isn't worried about that. Without resorting to doubles, gangers or split timelines, one obvious option is to do something subtle as part of the process of being killed in order to create a paradox, causing a temporal loop/rift until the paradox is resolved by not killing him. Swapping places with 900-y-o Doctor, so that 200 years of important historical world-saving stuff never happened, might be a way of doing that.

I said the Gangers were way too obvious at the time, and I stick by that (I think), but I repeatedly said the same about River Song being the astronaut, and while I'd love it if there was a final twist, it looks like I need to admit defeat on that one. I think the broad themes of identity, parallel worlds and changes with time have been running through this series, and I'll be very surprised if they don't play a part, but with only 45 minutes of screentime to sort it out, I'll be very impressed if we get a proper solution without it feeling rather rushed.

There are lots of loose ends and strange events that would benefit from a few answers, but the first thing we need from any reveal is an explanation of where those 200 years went.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Moffat claims to have worked it all out, so I've still got faith it'll make some kind of sense in the end, even if there are lots of loose ends at the moment.

Are we still taking bets on this? [Roll Eyes]

[For those who are wondering, the snip comes from a posting back on July 6...]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
One thing I wonder about...Riversong & stranger tell them that the Dr won't regenerate.
Is that an opportunity for her to remember younger her seeing/doing something after, but only because they left?
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
What bothered me about the last episode was the way they got rid of the woman again, so the blokes could go off together and have the adventure.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
Disjointed ramblings, days after the fact...

quote:
quote:
The baby was a star.
Most convincing child actor they've had this series
Well, he had no lines, which is an unfair advantage [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by swllwmzn:
Matt Smith is now definitely my favourite Doctor since Patrick Troughton (revealing my age).

No need to admit to your age [Biased] He's my favourite after Pertwee, but I didn't encounter the third Doctor till long after the actor's death..

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I like the fact that Matt Smith is playing up the non-human aspect of the Doctor, and his social ineptness. That is funny, and gives him that sense of strangeness that some of the doctors have not had.

I like his alienness, too, and also how he can be funny (as you say, even though I think he sometimes overdoes it) and quite dark more or less at the same time.

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've been scratching my head and wondering what has gone wrong with the last couple of series of Doctor Who. Moffat wrote the best episodes in RTD's series so why isn't it better?

I think you've answered your own question - he is not actually *writing* all thatmuch of it, and show-running is a very different skill.
Having said that, I quite like having my mind messed with, and have enjoyed these last two seasons despite their shortcomings.

quote:
Penny S wroteOne more plot solved by Dad/son bonding, and without even any change in outcome is getting a bit, well, repetitive.
Yes, that bothered me too. I think it might not have been as bad (or perhaps even provided some balance) if the previous one had been in the first half-season, where I think it was originally planned to be. Having said that - that would of course have bunched the crashed space-craft together.

quote:
The Great Gumby wrote:...but the first thing we need from any reveal is an explanation of where those 200 years went.
yep...

As for things being too obvious, I suuppose that may be necessary for a family show, since even smaller kids need to be able to follow (that said, kids can be quite canny that way). I think that aspect of the Ganger story was quite well-done. But I do agree that it would be brilliant if it wasn't River after all.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
One thing I wonder about...Riversong & stranger tell them that the Dr won't regenerate.

The Doctor's said to have 12 regenerations and his 13th body is supposed to be the last. Matt Smith is the 11th Doctor, so I don't think the series can really end just yet. [Biased]

(Unless you count Paul McGann and Peter Cushing, of course, in which case the Doctor has probably had it.)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
]The Doctor's said to have 12 regenerations and his 13th body is supposed to be the last.

One of the vital points to get straight about Dr Who is that [b]Time Lords lie about themselves[b]. All the time. Especially about their (real or imaginary) superior powers and galaxy-changing technology. The only safe thing to say about how many regenerations any of them get is that no-one knows! After all we still don't know whether being a "Time Lord" is a matter of species, status, rank, role, or job description. We're reasonably convinced that all Time Lords are Gallifreyan (or were until River Song started regenerating) but we have no evidence at all as to whether or not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords (I suspect not, personally, but we really don't know).

Also, over the decades, we've seen Time Lords remove the ability to regenerate from people they don't like, grant extra regenerations to people they do like, steal regenerations from another and use them themselves, and force a premature regeneration on someone who wasn't ready yet. So it seems that it is at least partly a matter of Time Lord technology rather than basic Gallifreyan biology.

And the Doctor broke the rules and ran away, so they might not all apply to him in practice..

And who is in charge of the Time Lord's system these days anyway? Or enforcing the rules? Where is the main current repository of Time Lord technology? That's right - the Tardis. As long as she wants to keep the Doctor alive I suspect she'll be rewriting the rules as she goes along.

So I think its fair to say that the business of 10 - or was it 11 or 12? - regenerations, having served The Force, sorry The Plot, when it was first mooted, is now utterly null and void and to be forgotten - unless of course it is of use to The Plot once more.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Ken posted: And who is in charge of the Time Lord's system these days anyway? Or enforcing the rules? Where is the main current repository of Time Lord technology? That's right - the Tardis. As long as she wants to keep the Doctor alive I suspect she'll be rewriting the rules as she goes along.
What a lovely thought.
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
]The Doctor's said to have 12 regenerations and his 13th body is supposed to be the last.

So I think its fair to say that the business of 10 - or was it 11 or 12? - regenerations, having served The Force, sorry The Plot, when it was first mooted, is now utterly null and void and to be forgotten - unless of course it is of use to The Plot once more.
The issue is far from forgotten and was brought up in a recent(ish) Sarah Jane adenture, where one of the kids (having seen a regenerated Doctor for the first time) asks how many times he can do it, and Matt Smith cites a random-looking number (507, I think) in reply. My personal take on this is that he isn't really lying outright, but covering up for the fact that he does not actually know. The 12 regenerations were nearly true for the Master at some point, but managed to get round it. The Doctor is now so far outside Timelord Society, that it is quite likely he has no idea what is going to happen.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
What bothered me about the last episode was the way they got rid of the woman again, so the blokes could go off together and have the adventure.

Puzzled by this comment as getting rid of the woman has not been a problem of Nu-Who. Agreed, it is a staple failing of classic adventure stories, but ever since Eccleston we've been drowning in romance and girly mush. I wasn't impressed by the two blokes in this episode, but would love to get back to something like the Second Doctor and Jamie - mates who can have fun saving the world, without falling in love with each other.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
Disjointed ramblings, days after the fact...

quote:
quote:
The baby was a star.
Most convincing child actor they've had this series
Well, he had no lines, which is an unfair advantage [Biased]
Remove the word "child" from the central quote here, and the sentence remains perfectly correct!
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Not quite true, he said 'Doctor'!

I just loved the bromance, can Craig be a companion please? They work so well together.

So, a father's love for their child saves the day again. Oh Rory, I think this is your cue...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The Doctor's said to have 12 regenerations and his 13th body is supposed to be the last. Matt Smith is the 11th Doctor, so I don't think the series can really end just yet. [Biased]

(Unless you count Paul McGann and Peter Cushing, of course, in which case the Doctor has probably had it.)

11 includes Paul McGann, who was officially number 8 between McCoy and Eccleston, even though he wasn't actually in any television adventures. If he had been in anything he would have been very good despite the atrocious script.

Nobody counts Peter Cushing, except in trick questions in pub quizzes.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
But Cushing didn't play The Doctor, he plated a human called Doctor Who who invented a time machine.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:
Disjointed ramblings, days after the fact...

quote:
quote:
The baby was a star.
Most convincing child actor they've had this series
Well, he had no lines, which is an unfair advantage [Biased]
Remove the word "child" from the central quote here, and the sentence remains perfectly correct!
The baby absolutely nailed the part. Now I simply can't imagine any other actor playing the part of Stormageddon.

I am clearly in the minority about the 200 years. I have no problem with the thought that the Doctor left Rory and What'sername after the last episode and just wandered the Universe for 200 years putting off his predestined end (running away, as he said back in Impossible Astronaut) but now has decided that it is time to see it through. I need no explanation as to what happened during those years.

Otherwise, yes, getting bored with love saving the day yet again, although (as Dafyd pointed out) at least Gareth Roberts did try to send it up a bit at the end. That's Proper Who.

I also like Kelly's catch that the Doctor shouts "I believe in you! I believe in you all!" as it does tie in with the legend from "Curse of Fenric" that what the Doctor truly believes in is his companions. And I suspect that, next episode, it is that firm belief that saves him. Rather like it did last season when he trusted entirely that Amy would magically restore him by remembering him.

[Tangent: I say "legend" because, while the novelization states very clearly that the Doctor was reciting his companions names as a sign if his faith, the actual show is not as clear. He might very well be doing that, but we can't hear what he is saying and it is never expressly stated that that is what he is doing.]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Eigon posted:
What bothered me about the last episode was the way they got rid of the woman again, so the blokes could go off together and have the adventure.

Especially after the same thing was just done in "Night Terrors". Mothers have been given short shrift this season. Amy has apparently forgotten her child and in NT and CT the mother wanders in the front door at the end of the episode oblivious and confused having no part in the adventure with a *wink* what she don't know won't hurt her nod.

[ 27. September 2011, 03:40: Message edited by: art dunce ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I just loved the bromance, can Craig be a companion please? They work so well together.

Oh, good lord, that idea just reduced me to a squealing five- year- old at a Wiggles concert.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
On the number of regenerations problem - possibly when River revived the Doctor at the end of Let's Kill Hitler, we are told she gave him all her regenerations, so if she had 12 like the other Time Lords, maybe the Doctor now has all of those>
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I've enjoyed the last 3 stand-alone episodes (and the last one was more or less stand-alone, despite the tagged on end bit and the various doomy comments and looks that Matt Smith does so well).

I've discovered that while I really want to know how this ends (and, frankly, want it to be over), I don't like River Song much any more. It was Let's Kill Hitler and the unconvincing Mels thing that put me off, despite Alex Kingston. We haven't heard about this essential third friend to Amy & Rory and she didn't go to her best friends'/parents wedding because she 'doesn't do weddings'? Really? Though I suppose Amy has lots of different streams to her life (one by herself young, one with aunt but no stars, one with parents, one growing old abandoned by herself...) so Mels could be in one stream but not others, perhaps?

And I want to know how, in Impossible Astronaut, did the older Canton Wotsit Wotsit the Third know that this was undoubtedly the Doctor and that the Doctor was undoubtedly dead? What did his invitation say - 'Come to a picnic, bring bottle and paraffin'?

M.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
and the era-specific pop culture references are really grating in a (sort of) socially inept time traveller. Which reminds me:


Oh, by the way, if that damn Pop Idol contestant winds up a key player in the finale, I'm gonna be fighting River for the use of that gun. The way the camera lingered on the front page of that newspaper made me nervous.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
RE: the baby. Confidential revealed there were a number of them, not all very alike, and two were dummies. More multiples!

Penny
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And I agree with the problem with the elimination of the mother/child relationship. (And I have had intermittent worries about Amy's health during her non-experienced pregnancy, during which she seems to have spent all the time lying down.) I suppose her failure to feel particularly maternal about her lost baby may be due to her not having experinced the normal precursors to birth. But taken with all the father/child relationships having been in the absence of the mother, it seems even more odd.
There was one mother/child relationship, previously, where the mother killed the Silurian. Excess of Kipling perhaps.

Penny
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
I spotted the different babies during the episode. Mr shrew was quite confused by the fact I saw differences, i think they all just looked like babies to him...
I want to put it down to ease of filming, though it is possible it could be some kind of crazy plot -but i really hope not.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
quote:
Penny S posted:
I suppose her failure to feel particularly maternal about her lost baby may be due to her not having experinced the normal precursors to birth.

Except the scenes on Demon's Run show us an Amy who is completely devoted and when the baby turns to liquid flesh she is completely heartbroken and despondent over the loss. Then you have the voicemail promo where she tells the doctor she cannot bear the thought of not raising Melody. We get to LKH and there's the contrived back story about Mels and she seems to say, oh well, she was kidnapped, brainwashed, pretended to be my friend and now is a weapon; guess that'll do. It just doesn't follow. The father in NT battles for his son even though he's an alien cuckoo in the nest and Craig destroys the cybermen (with much talk about the power of parental love) while Amy in the GTW asks at the end of her life to see earth and seems to have no thought of her child out there somewhere.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I also like Kelly's catch that the Doctor shouts "I believe in you! I believe in you all!" as it does tie in with the legend from "Curse of Fenric" that what the Doctor truly believes in is his companions. And I suspect that, next episode, it is that firm belief that saves him. Rather like it did last season when he trusted entirely that Amy would magically restore him by remembering him.

Oh God, no! Not again, please! I've still got the scars from Last of the Time Lords, with the little Pixie-Tennant becoming all-powerful because Everyone Believes in Fairies. But there's a definite whiff of Fenric about, isn't there?
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
And I want to know how, in Impossible Astronaut, did the older Canton Wotsit Wotsit the Third know that this was undoubtedly the Doctor and that the Doctor was undoubtedly dead? What did his invitation say - 'Come to a picnic, bring bottle and paraffin'?

You mean Canton Everett Delaware III? Another thing that really needs to be resolved, I think. And if it's not too much trouble, I'd also like to know what happened to the 3 months at the start of the series, and it would be nice to see how all the timelines fit together, because I'm not sure how long was meant to have elapsed between dropping Amy and Rory off and seeing them in the shop, for instance. I don't ask for much.

I hope Moffat knows what he's doing, because there's a lot riding on a decent resolution to this arc. If it falls flat, it's going to end up looking like hype, hot air and little substance.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The perfume name - I am sure that I have seen that name elsewhere.

You mean, elsewhere than The Doctor's Wife?
I don't know. Something niggles in my brain*. It may just be The Doctors Wife, but something suggests somewhere else.

* Its probably the earwigs.
 
Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
RE: the baby. Confidential revealed there were a number of them, not all very alike, and two were dummies. More multiples!

Penny

So could this mean that River's a ganger? [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I've still got the scars from Last of the Time Lords, with the little Pixie-Tennant becoming all-powerful because Everyone Believes in Fairies. .

Preach it. That's exactly the sort of thing I was bitching about earlier.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
RE: the baby. Confidential revealed there were a number of them, not all very alike, and two were dummies. More multiples!

Oh, i thought those were just stunt babies--you don't want to risk the star doing some tricky stunt, like spitting up on demand....

There were a couple of times when I suspected there was just a dummy wrapped up in the blanket, just from the way the "baby" was being handled.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've been thinking about the problem of resolving everything in 45 minutes, and it may not be so much of a problem as it seems. I think we think it is one because we are so used to everything being resolved in the last five minutes atsuchapaceofdialoguethatsubtitlesarerequired and even they don't help because they miss stuff out (and it's really difficult to write without gaps, thank goodness the Irish monks invented them).

Based on my experience with school playlets, when I was told they had to be no more than 10 mins but always arrived at 15, when the children did not gabble, I think it is possible to get quite a lot of plot into a short span. And that's including setting the whole thing up in order to get to the resolution.

However, as Moffat seems to be about to introduce some totally new characters (or possibly old characters drawn on again.), it may be a little more difficult.

Radio Times said it should be satisfying. It had jolly well better be.

Penny
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That would be a refreshing switch-- a plot device where the characters had to resolve the problem very, very slowly, with every step of the process being crucial.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It would but it would then be too interlectual. Children's telly is supposed to go at a frantic pace. (I don't know why.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Spoiler Alert, but from stuff now freely available.

The cast list has been published. On different sites, Mark Gatiss is listed under two names. One refers back to a time when I did not have a TV, when the companion was Ace. The plot of that four parter (on Wikipedia) would be relevant to part of the current situation. The Wiki article had a reference to a Sarah Jane episode, which would also be relevant. Parental stuff, time loops, and so on.

None of it really helps with the Dr dying or not. Or Kovarian.

Anagrams for Madame Kovarian - I didn't read all the way down the list, but picked out a few.

Naiad karma move
Karma aimed nova
Karma maiden ova
Karma via daemon
karma avoid amen
a drama vein amok
a dark mania move
a karma omen diva
a karma vain demo
a mama ova kinder
a diva make roman

Penny
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Make Romana avid?
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
There were a couple of times when I suspected there was just a dummy wrapped up in the blanket, just from the way the "baby" was being handled.

He has a name you know. There was a bit of dialogue in the house where Craig held Stormageddon in such a way that the lamp shade obscured Stormy's head from the camera. When I saw that scene I suspected a doll.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
As tempting as it is to continue with silly jokes about Stormageddon and the actor(s) that played him, time to move on. I have been going through all the posts on this thread and trying to compile a list of dangling plot lines that I'd like to have answers for. Feel free to add or subtract:

(1) Why did the TARDIS explode last season, and why at that particular time and place (you know, "Amy's Time" just prior to her wedding)?

(2) What was the Doctor up to for 200 years prior to his apparently fated Death Day? I put that in for those of you who expressed concern about it. As I wrote above, it doesn't really bother me.

(3) There was also some concern back at the start of the season about the gaps in the first 2 episodes. IIRC, jumps of 3 months and 6 months. Which, of course, add up to 9 months. Possibly that was the point. Real Amy was snatched early on/prior to Episode 1, so maybe they wanted to make sure there was a 9 month gap to explain why she was giving birth a few episodes later. Except, of course, this is a show about time travel and we could have jumped forward 9 months in a blink of an eye. Still, because they didn't make a big point about the 9 month gaps, it may have just been a gentle hint that the Amy we were seeing was not the real pregnant Amy. So I consider this a non-issue now, but YMMV.

(4) Who did River kill? Okay, it is set up for her to be in the spacesuit to kill the Doctor at the commands of Madame K and her religious military. But if that is right, then why does the religious military then arrest her and lock her in prison for having killed him? Are there 2 religious militaries wandering around (and, really, why not)? Or does River actually kill somebody else (perhaps in addition to apparently killing the Doctor)? If so, who could she kill that would be described as A Good Man that the religious military would feel it merited imprisonment? Or maybe the Doctor is the Good Man she killed (but not fatally, presumably) but she is imprisoned because she also killed an Evil Woman (Madame K, take a bow!)

(5) If River is in the spacesuit, shouldn't she have known it all along--even when, in the first episode, she was shooting at the astronaut? Of course, she would also know that that wouldn't kill her, but if all that is true, all of River's distress at the apparent death of the Doctor and all the emoting she did about it was just play-acting. Feasible, but kind of cheating to the viewer isn't it?

(6) While we are at, why was the Little Girl in the spacesuit anyway? It was theorized at the time that it was a life support suit, but why? What happened to her to require the suit? This is before Amy shoots her, after all. And why was she there then anyway? Was she escaping from Madame K and, if so, how? And how did she get out of the suit? Remember, it was torn open--did she have the strength to do that? How? River hasn't shown any particular signs of superhuman strength (assuming that it was young Mels in the suit).

(7) While we are still on the first two stories, the solution was that the Doctor put a video feed of a Silence telling people to kill them all on sight onto the video feed of the Moon Landing. This wasn't just to condition the then-living humans. He very clearly states that that tape will be played over and over throughout time and, as humans spread across the galaxy they will all have seen it and be conditioned to kill the Silence on sight. Okay, so why didn't Amy & Rory do that? They grew up and presumably saw the moon landing tape before they ever started traveling with the Doctor. They had the conditioning. So, when they first saw the Silence, why did they not make any particular attempt to kill them? Amy sees one in the bathroom and, rather than kill it, engages it in conversation. (Okay, it was Ganger Amy, so maybe some of the conditioning was lost in translation, but the point still stands. )

(8) Who is Madame K and why does she have such a hatred for the Doctor? I kind of like the idea of her being the older, bitter Amy from the 2 Amys episode, but that theory raises questions of how that would even be possible since Current Amy did NOT spend her life in the hospital zone. (I won't re-raise the point of how Old Bitter Amy could touch Current Amy because it has been established that Amy can cheerful touch other incarnations of herself without destroying the time stream, even though Rose could not.)

(9) Why was the Silence spacecraft Amy was held captive in in Episode 2 the same type of craft as was marooned in The Lodger?

(10) What is it about Rory? There is the "past tense" bit in the episode where (allegedly) fears were staying in the hotel rooms. Back in the Flesh storyline, there was a bit where a ganger apparently heard Rory calling her before we saw him leave to search for her. At the end of the Flesh episode, the Doctor melts the Ganger Amy (after spending all episode explaining how the gangers are real people and should be allowed to live) and Rory doesn't react at all. Almost like he knew she was a ganger or knew what was going on. Is there a time-displaced Rory who has been wandering through all these stories?

(11) If Mels was the child seen in the 1960s in IA, then how was she able to grow up with Amy & Rory in more contemporary times (you know, "Amy's Time")? Sure, we don't know how she ages with her Time Lordish abilities, but she grew older with them in what appeared to be a human-appropriate way.

There are more plotlines/open questions, but I got tired after identifying all of these. Feel free to add your own. But it still strikes me as an awful lot of things to resolve in one episode.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Well, maybe I was just in the wrong mood but I found last Saturday's episode very irritating. Matt Smith's antics got on my nerves and I ended up reading a magazine for half the episode.

J
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
I recall Mels in regeneration saying needed to concentrate because last time this happened ended up as a toddler. So was that a shift from opening child to a toddler Mels - but as for travel to Amy's time and place we may have to invoke the Madame and team.

Ageing with them would be fine - when not travelling a day for the doctor is a day for the humans too.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

(1) Why did the TARDIS explode last season...

Maybe the impossible astronaut is an older Doctor, and the paradox of him killing his younger self explodes the Tardis.

quote:
(5) If River is in the spacesuit, shouldn't she have known it all along--even when, in the first episode, she was shooting at the astronaut? Of course, she would also know that that wouldn't kill her, but if all that is true, all of River's distress at the apparent death of the Doctor and all the emoting she did about it was just play-acting. Feasible, but kind of cheating to the viewer isn't it?
We already know that the Silence are good at wiping people's memories.

quote:
(6) While we are at, why was the Little Girl in the spacesuit anyway? It was theorized at the time that it was a life support suit, but why? What happened to her to require the suit? This is before Amy shoots her, after all. And why was she there then anyway? Was she escaping from Madame K and, if so, how? And how did she get out of the suit? Remember, it was torn open--did she have the strength to do that? How? River hasn't shown any particular signs of superhuman strength (assuming that it was young Mels in the suit).
Perhaps the spacesuit is a means to control her, rather than keep her alive. If she regenerated after Amy shot her, that could bust open the suit.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
Maybe the impossible astronaut is an older Doctor, and the paradox of him killing his younger self explodes the Tardis.

It is going to take some doing to convince me of this. The Doctor who got shot WAS the 200-year-older Doctor, so you have to have an EVEN OLDER Doctor to make this work.

quote:
We already know that the Silence are good at wiping people's memories.
Okay, I'll buy that. There was a Silence present on the hilside at the time, wasn't there?

quote:
Perhaps the spacesuit is a means to control her, rather than keep her alive. If she regenerated after Amy shot her, that could bust open the suit.
I'll buy that the suit was meant to control her, but she busted out before she regenerated because we saw her walking around before the regeneration. Still not sure why she was there at all. To kill the Doctor? She didn't try all that hard to do so. Of course, neither did Mels. It was only after she regenerated into the Woman-We-Recognize-As-River that she then started trying to kill him repeatedly. But I guess we do know that Mels did shoot a gun in the TARDIS, so maybe she tried much harder to kill the Doctor than we were allowed to see.

Anyway, as I said, a clear plot thread that really needs to be tied up in the final episode.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It would but it would then be too interlectual. Children's telly is supposed to go at a frantic pace. (I don't know why.)

I thought about it, and realized "Twilight" kind of fits that description.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have just caught up with episode 3 - clever Freudian stuff with dreams about rooms in houses
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I just caught Closing Time and I'm afraid I didn't much like it at all. It seemed like just another excuse for Moffat to bang on about how fantastic it is being a dad, and about how Love Conquers All. Yadda, yadda, yadda ... (Yes I know Moffat didn't write it, but he commissioned it.) The constant wisecracking sank to new levels, the sonic screwdriver seemed hardly ever out of the Doctor's hand, and the Cybermen seemed tangential to whatever the plot was rather than central to it. (That's a point, now I think of it - did the Cybermen actually get less screen time than the sonic screwdriver? Hmm ...) The "let's make a joke about the Doctor and Craig being gay" thing was laboured and heavy-handed, and Amy and Rory's cameo was pointless. The last couple of minutes were pretty good, though. Result - I'm afraid I don't have very high hopes for this weekend's episode. I really hope I'm pleasantly surprised.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Result - I'm afraid I don't have very high hopes for this weekend's episode. I really hope I'm pleasantly surprised.
Agreed and agreed. (Or should that be Amen and Amen? I was told this was a Christian website....)
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
(2) What was the Doctor up to for 200 years prior to his apparently fated Death Day? I put that in for those of you who expressed concern about it. As I wrote above, it doesn't really bother me.

It bothers me because there's no plot-driven need for it. He could have been a year older, or 6 months, or something. 200 years is a lot of time to be spent "backstage" without further explanation. There may be no explanation beyond emphasising that it was in the future, but that seems clunky to me, and I can't easily believe that he'd spend 200 years travelling on his own, doing nothing of any significance. YMMV.
quote:
(3) There was also some concern back at the start of the season about the gaps in the first 2 episodes. IIRC, jumps of 3 months and 6 months. Which, of course, add up to 9 months. Possibly that was the point. Real Amy was snatched early on/prior to Episode 1, so maybe they wanted to make sure there was a 9 month gap to explain why she was giving birth a few episodes later. Except, of course, this is a show about time travel and we could have jumped forward 9 months in a blink of an eye. Still, because they didn't make a big point about the 9 month gaps, it may have just been a gentle hint that the Amy we were seeing was not the real pregnant Amy. So I consider this a non-issue now, but YMMV.
This is a fair point, but the gap before the series started could have been emphasised to be 9 months or whatever - I think the Doctor said Amy was switched before America? Again, the 3-month gap between eps 1 and 2 may be just to move the story on, but it would be very unsatisfying because it leaves so many unanswered questions, such as what happened after the gunshot, what happened to Rory and River in the tunnel, whether they knew Canton was still on their side and how. That makes me think it should be important, but again, YMMV.
quote:
(7) While we are still on the first two stories, the solution was that the Doctor put a video feed of a Silence telling people to kill them all on sight onto the video feed of the Moon Landing. This wasn't just to condition the then-living humans. He very clearly states that that tape will be played over and over throughout time and, as humans spread across the galaxy they will all have seen it and be conditioned to kill the Silence on sight. Okay, so why didn't Amy & Rory do that? They grew up and presumably saw the moon landing tape before they ever started traveling with the Doctor. They had the conditioning. So, when they first saw the Silence, why did they not make any particular attempt to kill them? Amy sees one in the bathroom and, rather than kill it, engages it in conversation. (Okay, it was Ganger Amy, so maybe some of the conditioning was lost in translation, but the point still stands. )
That's a damn good point, and probably just a plothole, but you could at a stretch explain it by reference to timelines, saying that Amy and Rory hadn't made that happen yet in their timeline, so in that timeline they hadn't seen the message and therefore hadn't been conditioned like that. Messy, but I could live with it.
quote:
(9) Why was the Silence spacecraft Amy was held captive in in Episode 2 the same type of craft as was marooned in The Lodger?
I was hoping we'd get a hint at that last week, but I'm starting to worry that it will never be explained, except possibly as a way of saving money by reusing a set.
quote:
(10) What is it about Rory? There is the "past tense" bit in the episode where (allegedly) fears were staying in the hotel rooms. Back in the Flesh storyline, there was a bit where a ganger apparently heard Rory calling her before we saw him leave to search for her. At the end of the Flesh episode, the Doctor melts the Ganger Amy (after spending all episode explaining how the gangers are real people and should be allowed to live) and Rory doesn't react at all. Almost like he knew she was a ganger or knew what was going on. Is there a time-displaced Rory who has been wandering through all these stories?
Ooh, I'd forgotten the bit about Rory in the ganger episodes, despite mentioning it at the time. I think time displacement nicely explains the anomalies, but how and why?
quote:
(11) If Mels was the child seen in the 1960s in IA, then how was she able to grow up with Amy & Rory in more contemporary times (you know, "Amy's Time")? Sure, we don't know how she ages with her Time Lordish abilities, but she grew older with them in what appeared to be a human-appropriate way.
Yes, we don't know how Time Lords grow up, or how regenerations are affected by their age, and there's a big "if" at the beginning, but I don't think she could have ended up with Amy and Rory by chance, and she wouldn't have known who they were without being told. Considering her actions since then, I'm assuming she was conditioned by the Silence, but if she was the girl in the spacesuit and escaped, that makes no sense because that would appear to mean they couldn't make her fulfil the original plan, but could somehow influence her to try again once she'd escaped. So maybe she was put there at an appropriate age by someone (Silence? Doctor?) with time travel capability, either as a sleeper or for protection.

There's also 12) the question of why they're so hung up on River doing the deed - is it because it has to happen like that, or it did happen like that in a different timeline, or what? If there isn't a very particular reason for needing her to do it, it seems unnecessarily complicated to create a flesh avatar, kidnap Amy and then the baby, bring the baby up, wait around for an opportunity, all the time risking an unfortunate accident which might blow her cover, and then when that fails go after her again long in the future. And 13) why wasn't Mels at the wedding? I know she said she "doesn't do weddings", but really???

One possibility is that Amy shooting the astronaut created a paradox in some way, and everything we've seen since then, especially the small, unexplained anomalies, has basically been strands of time flapping around and trying to reattach into a consistent, coherent pattern. Hence Mels wasn't at the wedding because she didn't exist at that point (or at least not in that timestream). I quite like that as an idea, but that probably means it's complete drivel.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Apologies for loser-length post. One more thing:

14) What is the oldest question, hidden in plain sight? Is "Doctor Who?" too obvious?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Considering her actions since then, I'm assuming she was conditioned by the Silence, but if she was the girl in the spacesuit and escaped, that makes no sense because that would appear to mean they couldn't make her fulfil the original plan, but could somehow influence her to try again once she'd escaped. So maybe she was put there at an appropriate age by someone (Silence? Doctor?) with time travel capability, either as a sleeper or for protection.

Yes, I have been struggling with that whole bit, too. If she was escaping from them in her spacesuit, then why was she doing their bidding later; but if she was under their control the whole time, why was she there at that time in the first place?

quote:
There's also 12) the question of why they're so hung up on River doing the deed - is it because it has to happen like that, or it did happen like that in a different timeline, or what? If there isn't a very particular reason for needing her to do it, it seems unnecessarily complicated to create a flesh avatar, kidnap Amy and then the baby, bring the baby up, wait around for an opportunity, all the time risking an unfortunate accident which might blow her cover, and then when that fails go after her again long in the future.
Yes, it is a horribly complicated and inefficient plan. But all that might prove is that Madame K and crew are part of the government.

quote:
And 13) why wasn't Mels at the wedding? I know she said she "doesn't do weddings", but really???
Agreed. Although River was there (albeit just walking past the windows). In a sense, the reveals of this season have sort of explained what she was doing there back then. I admit when I first saw the episode, I was wondering why River was there at the wedding, especially if the memory of the Doctor was allegedly wiped from everybody's mind when he went through the crack. But she might go just to see her parents get married.

Minor side quibble: If memory of the Doctor was wiped when he went through the crack, I can see where Amy & Rory had their memories revived when he came back and they saw him--but why did that restore the memories of all the other beings in the Universe? That could of wound up this season's plot quickly--these virtual unknown people who have a big hate on for the Doctor would no longer be a threat because they forgot that he exists, which restores him to being the unknown wanderer through time and space that he started out being. I wonder if that is still the plan to wind up this season--universal forgetfulness kicks in.

quote:
One possibility is that Amy shooting the astronaut created a paradox in some way, and everything we've seen since then, especially the small, unexplained anomalies, has basically been strands of time flapping around and trying to reattach into a consistent, coherent pattern. Hence Mels wasn't at the wedding because she didn't exist at that point (or at least not in that timestream). I quite like that as an idea, but that probably means it's complete drivel.
Oooh. I quite like that! The reason we did not see the results of the shot is that Amy actually did kill the little girl (in such a way that she could not regenerate), such that River could never have existed and she is a living temporal paradox.

quote:
14) What is the oldest question, hidden in plain sight? Is "Doctor Who?" too obvious?
I am really hoping that it isn't, although it certainly is the "oldest question" in the life of the series. But it is just too self-referential for me to stomach. The characters really shouldn't know the name of the show.

Besides, it is a question that I don't want answered. The classic series lost a large chunk of its charm when it de-mystified the Doctor's origins.

Irrelevant aside: in case anybody was wondering, it was a complete fluke that my list of points stopped at eleven and we are at the Eleventh Doctor. I didn't realize that I had done that until well after I posted. The awkward thing about coincidences is that they happen.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Well, we shall see, it's nearly time.

One of two things will happen;

Either the final conclusion of the show will be an excellent plot and it will be very enjoyable

or they tying-up of loose ends will be badly done and very unsatisfying....

I find myself very excited and a little nervous... I hope it is as good it needs to be.

AFZ
 
Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just caught Closing Time and I'm afraid I didn't much like it at all.... (Yes I know Moffat didn't write it, but he commissioned it.)

The difference being that had he written it himself, he might have been able to pull it off [Biased]

quote:
alienfromzog pointed out
One of two things will happen;

Either the final conclusion of the show will be an excellent plot and it will be very enjoyable

or they tying-up of loose ends will be badly done and very unsatisfying....

yes...

Although I am now avoiding all the clever speculation by The Great Gumby and others in case they are getting it right to a spoilery extent.

Under 24 h to go

[ 30. September 2011, 20:26: Message edited by: doubtingthomas ]
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I'm nervously awaiting the finale tonight. I've enjoyed the series generally, but it has seemed rather convoluted with various plot holes and loose ends. But I'll be able to forgive Steven Moffat a lot if he gives it a satisfying ending.

Over at Impossible Podcasts, I've rounded up some of the theories and speculation doing the rounds about how the Doctor survives, from "he's a Ganger!" through to "time can be rewritten" and "The Power of Love™". I doubt that any of my guesses are close enough to spoil anything!
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
With only minutes left to go let me risk making a fool of myself by saying that the Doctor who dies isn't going to be a Ganger, as that would be too simple. If Gangers appear at all there'll be several of them - perhaps a room full of "Doctors" at some point?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
It kept it's mood quite well.
A few funny bits (Amy, Rory, Area 52) fairly subtle.
The framing narrative thing helped mask many of the issues, and seemed to work quite well.
Solution marginally weak if by itself but tied into the story relatively well*.

How many ways were you right Revolutionist?

*As well as any timey whimey thing more complex in terminator can be.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
That wasn't a great episode, but it was satisfying. Seven or eight out of ten? The incidental society with everything happening at once allowed for some nice surreal visuals of the sort that Doctor Who does better than any other sf series. And the get-out clause worked in an, I should have seen that coming way. (I see it was one of the options in Revolutionist's get-out list.)

(Oh, and Karen Gillan's flicker of expression just when Amy is leaving Captain Williams/Rory to hold off the Silence is perhaps the finest half-second of acting in the series so far.)

[ 01. October 2011, 19:43: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That wasn't a great episode, but it was satisfying.

Yeah, I think that's a good summary.

7.5/10.

AFZ
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Pacing worked well, the twist of using Silent technology backfiring was good. I was initially satisfied. But the use of the Tesselator was a big plot problem, which has left a whopping great hole.

Earth after Dr dies will have time flowing normally. As we see through most of the episode. But the Dr does not die. So the impression of his death is enough? How can that be?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Earth after Dr dies will have time flowing normally. As we see through most of the episode. But the Dr does not die. So the impression of his death is enough?

The events that we saw in the first episode (the astronaut shooting the Doctor) had to happen. But what actually happened didn't have to be what everybody thought they were.
 
Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :
 
And presumably the Silent/ce being there to observe those happenings by the lake was sufficient as it was part of their plan.
 
Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :
 
What happened to the ganger Doctor?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Looked GREAT. Otherwise, rather vacuous.

If the Doctor had to die, or even appear to, why drag some of his closest friends along and make them suffer for months to no purpose? Why are the Silence trying to kill the Doctor, especially if the appearance of his death is all that is needed? Who are the Silence? Is there something terrible about the Doctor's name? And so forth.

Still, if the Doctor is married, and if we see more of River in the future, maybe we can start having companions who don't fall in love with him.
 
Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :
 
Really enjoyed that.
Loved the marriage. River totally convincing in her refusal to let the doctor die.
The next series will have to have the doctor being a little more low-key in terms of the rest of the universe so as not to give away that he didn't die. Hmmm. Wonder how that'll work. Maybe more historical stuff like Dickens or Shakespeare?
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
Much more low-key than the usual series finale, and all the better for that (though we had all the fireworks in A Good Man Goes to War). I love it when it leaves me feeling thoughtful rather than just exhausted. River was fantastic (and I never thought I'd say that, I was getting a bit fed up with her), and some lovely moments with Amy and Rory. And an actual chuckle from my hubby for 'Pond. Amy Pond.'

Lots to process and think about, but I must just say this: When Matt Smith was announced as the new Doctor, I remember saying something like 'poor kid, he's got a mountain to climb'. He has well and truly conquered that mountain - as far as I'm concerned, he IS the Doctor. He is 900 plus years old, and has seen the furthest reaches of space and time. (Needs a haircut more than ever, though.)

(ETA - what a joy to see Dickens on Breakfast talking about his new 'Christmas special'!)

[ 01. October 2011, 22:01: Message edited by: Stumbling Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
The next series will have to have the doctor being a little more low-key in terms of the rest of the universe so as not to give away that he didn't die.

(Off the cuff remark while wondering if producers of show are lurkers)

Makes you wonder how many timelords are out there pretending they didn't die, doesn't it?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Great, loved the whole year, can't wait til Christmas. Only thing on TV I watch every week and have not been dissapointed once.

All the best, Pyx_e
 
Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :
 
Many thoughts, but #1: am I the only one who thinks that #11 with long hair looks like the oh-too-very-short-lived #8? In a way, I thought the shot of him on the train was a chance at giving 8 a new lease on life, if only for a short while.

#2: Rory makes about the greatest easily flustered badass ever. "Let's get drinks." "Alright." "Let's get married." "Sure"
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I quite enjoyed it, and I thought that it did tie up the problems quite well. I did wonder whether he was going to use the tesselator - which was a good move.

I think the requirements was that The Doctor had to be there, and River had to shoot the Doctor. The necessity for the Doctor dying seems to have been evaded somehow.

I was disapointed by The Question - Doctor Who? But it might have some interesting developments.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I liked it very much. On another sire, I rated it 9/10. That's 9/10 for Doctor Who - which translates to about 27/10 for any other tv show.

It was all very stylishly done, but I think what I liked most was the ultimate resolution. Does this signal a change of direction from here on in? I hope so. Matt Smith was awesome, and the reference to the Brigadier was beautiful.

I think any dissatisfaction I have wasn't with this episode but with the whole story arc. I think the arc was so up-front and complex that some of the arc-lite episodes (such as last week's) were very obviously "filler" episodes and a bit dull as a result.

But I'm now very, very much looking forward to what happens next.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
A good episode, all the better for being lower key than other recent finals. Sure there were plot holes, but who cares, it is, after all, fantasy.

And just enough loose ends to keep you wanting more.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
and the reference to the Brigadier was beautiful.

Oh yes, that was stylish.
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
Re yawning plot holes:

1. it's just a silly TV show, where the writers can do whatever they like;

2. who IS 'The Doctor'?; perhaps what he reveals is simply what he wants people to see, and behind that off-hand front there is a much deeper story being played out.

Take your pick, or draw your own conclusions; after all, there's more to life than meets the eye.

[Biased]
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
](Off the cuff remark while wondering if producers of show are lurkers)

Makes you wonder how many timelords are out there pretending they didn't die, doesn't it?

oooooh, now there's a thought ...

One thing I forgot to say - dunno about anyone else, but I think the pit of skulls devouring that poor guy (yes, I know he was about to kill the Doctor, but still) was one of the creepiest things I've ever seen on TV. I've never quite had a can't-bear-to-look moment with Doctor Who, but that was about the closest I've been. [Eek!]

And yes, a lovely salute to the Brigadier. [Tear]
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Off the cuff remark while wondering if producers of show are lurkers)

Makes you wonder how many timelords are out there pretending they didn't die, doesn't it?

oooooh, now there's a thought ...

One thing I forgot to say - dunno about anyone else, but I think the pit of skulls devouring that poor guy (yes, I know he was about to kill the Doctor, but still) was one of the creepiest things I've ever seen on TV. I've never quite had a can't-bear-to-look moment with Doctor Who, but that was about the closest I've been. [Eek!] What with that and the Silents hanging from the ceiling, I've had to write a note reminding myself never to eat while watching this programme again.

And yes, a lovely salute to the Brigadier. [Tear] [/QB]


 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
gah, sorry, rubbish coding AND hit reply instead of edit in the same post! [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:


Lots to process and think about, but I must just say this: When Matt Smith was announced as the new Doctor, I remember saying something like 'poor kid, he's got a mountain to climb'. He has well and truly conquered that mountain - as far as I'm concerned, he IS the Doctor. He is 900 plus years old, and has seen the furthest reaches of space and time. (Needs a haircut more than ever, though.)


Oh, I totally agree. Matt Smith really has the "old soul" thing going on. I've only really been through Tennant and Smith; Tennant was a hell of a lot of fun, but Smith just breaks my heart. In a good way.

For those who are interested, Television Without Pity has the recap of "Closing Time" up, and it's hilarious. Among other things, JoeR points out that Craig took a rather long time to tell the Doctor he was "spoken for", and wishes that a Doctor/ Cyberman assimilation would involve steel men with drapey hair.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I too was moved by the reference to Nicholas Courtney and liked the episode generally - loose ends more or less tied up, Amy and Rory more coming into their own, excellent performance by Alex Kingston and Matt Smith.
 
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on :
 
Well that was great fun, full of colour and moments. When's it back again?
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Next will be the Christmas special unless there are any mini episodes for Children in Need.
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
After a slightly too trisky start, settled down well. Like a few others, 'satisfying' was went through my head as the end credits and music came on.

J
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Enjoyable in parts, but complete nonsense and massively inconsistent. It's good that we appear to be moving towards the Doctor being rather low-key instead of taking on everyone in sight like a drunk chav on a Friday night, and the opening sequence was awesome, even if it was nonsense, but that's about it.

The Doctor apparently had to die at that time on that place, so this is achieved by, er, pretending to die. And this had to happen because the Silence want to make sure he doesn't do various things in his future - so bearing in mind that they have time travel capability and can tell that those things still happen, how exactly is this lame subterfuge meant to work?

Why didn't he just explain his plan to River much earlier, to save all the danger? How could Canton have been so sure it was him and he was dead, when everyone else wasn't? Why are even the Silence noticing that Rory keeps dying? Aren't we tired of Amy somehow remembering things that haven't happened yet? Why were the tesselector crew so happy to help, even making the offer themselves, when the Doctor had chewed them up and destroyed their machine the last time they met? Bearing in mind that the Doctor was wearing the stetson throughout, this all happened after Closing Time, so what happened to "I die tomorrow"? That looked like a lot more than one day's work, even with a TARDIS. Did he really bum around touring the universe for 200 years, then spend his last 24 hours trying to sort it out like a student cramming for an exam he'd forgotten about?

Like the whole series in microcosm - lots of spectacle, some nice lines, but basically completely nonsensical and empty underneath it all, and especially too much River Song. There may eventually be explanations forthcoming for some of the huge mass of unexplained events, but I'm not confident. It's beginning to remind me of Lost.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I'm probably too big a fan of disc world but it would seem that Mr Moff could at least be consistent in this universe he has created. I gave up hope for continuity after the flimsy back story about Mel in LKH but honestly he's just taken another mulligan. Even my kids thought it was a cheat and one called Moff a stupid liar. My young son commented that if Moff, the doctor and River were all liars why should he watch their show? This is from a guy who sleeps in a K-9 t-shirt and who has watched almost all of old who.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I am pretty much in accord with everything the Great Gumby said. Including:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
There may eventually be explanations forthcoming for some of the huge mass of unexplained events, but I'm not confident.

No, I have no confidence in that either.

Is my memory totally wrong? In the last episode of the last season, didn't the Doctor himself say "we still need to find out why the TARDIS blew up"? And here we are, a whole season later and nothing has been done about that. It seems to me that addressing it next season is too late.

So, yeah, in the last episode this season, we are given this teaser about the Plains (or planes? [Smile] ) of Whatzits when the Doctor will tell somebody his name which somehow brings the Universe to an end or something. But I have no hope that that will actually be followed up on. And probably just as well.

But I agree with others that the nod to the Brigadier was wonderful and unexpected. I'm willing to forgive a lot for that.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(Oh, and Karen Gillan's flicker of expression just when Amy is leaving Captain Williams/Rory to hold off the Silence is perhaps the finest half-second of acting in the series so far.)

I quite disagree. I even went back to look and felt the same way I did the first time I saw it. IMHO, KG fails to convey any sincerity in her acting. She strike me as very mechanical in her reactions. But I guess one's reactions to another's acting is very subjective. In other words, YMMV.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Great Gumby:
quote:
Like the whole series in microcosm - lots of spectacle, some nice lines, but basically completely nonsensical and empty underneath it all
Agree completely. And with Art Dunce and hedgehog. Lovely moments, crap overall.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK - I haven't given the previous three episodes 100% concentration and (thanks to a headache) I dozed off partway through the last one. I woke up bemused and thinking that it isn't easy for someone coming into the series without previous background to pick up what's going on. I'm afraid I have no idea what happened, except the Doctor married River and saved the universe (as he always does).

It did seem pretty much that monsters from the previous episodes were being brought in for a Grand Finale - which has come to be a defining note of final episodes now. I found the whole thing too fast-paced and convoluted to make much sense of. I don't think that's due to the headache as I've felt that way for the past three episodes, but this does seem to have been a series that requires complete concentration to follow (otherwise you miss lots of details) and I haven't put that in.

The normally wonderful Alex Kingston seemed to be over-acting at times, while Karen Gillan was in her usual unemotional mode. The start of the new series of "Merlin" which followed immediately after came as something of a relief and something I altogether enjoyed much more, and would definitely stay in to watch.

Things change, we move on. I don't like the way the Doctor has become so messianic, or his companions. It was better when it was simpler. YMMV.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
this does seem to have been a series that requires complete concentration to follow

Probably best not to, judging by the amount of over-thinking and complaining that has been going on here throughout the current run.
Still, at least that was better than being confused by the Torchwood tangents.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Apparently Mr Moffat has said in interviews that next season he's going to "throw the lever the other way", away from big-scale stuff with complex story arcs. So that's good news for some of us, especially those whose brains go all fuzzy at the complicated stuff.

I think there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that we'll ever actually find out the Doctor's name. There might be revelations about why we won't find it out, but I don't think any showrunner would dare take it further than that. Apart from anything else, they'd have to change the name of the show, wouldn't they?

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Did he really bum around touring the universe for 200 years, then spend his last 24 hours trying to sort it out like a student cramming for an exam he'd forgotten about?

The Doctor's turning point came with the phone call to the Brigadier. After Closing Time, he had been on a "farewell tour", but being a bit like Ten in Waters of Mars - "The laws of time are mine!" and all that - forever cheating death by putting off going to Lake Silencio.

Then he has his rant at Dorium, about how Time "has never laid a glove on me!" - only to be told a moment later that one of his oldest friends had died. (On another site, someone commented that "the Brigadier put the Doctor in his place one last time".) That's when it came home to him that the Silencio moment was inevitable, and he submitted to it.

I think you've got to bend things a bit to make the get-out plan actually work, though, and I think that was a weakness. You have to believe that the plan made things "close enough" to satisfy Time, while also achieving the main objective which was to convince the Silence and the rest of the universe that he had really died.

I think he resisted telling River about his plan earlier because initially he didn't want anyone to know, not even her. He wanted his removal from the universe to be complete. It was only when it became obvious that River was willing to sacrifice the universe rather than kill him that he let her in on the plan.

Finally for now, on something that Stumbling Pilgrim said - yes, the bit with the skulls was seriously scary - another of those "I can't believe they're showing this at 7pm" moment. I wonder if Mark Gatiss (who was under all that Viking make-up) had some input there? - that sort of scene is very like him.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that we'll ever actually find out the Doctor's name. There might be revelations about why we won't find it out, but I don't think any showrunner would dare take it further than that. Apart from anything else, they'd have to change the name of the show, wouldn't they?

Yes - depending on what it turned out to be, the show might well end up being renamed "Doctor WHAT???"

(I don't imagine we'll ever know - and am happy not to know - but hope it isn't something like Endeavour!)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
(I don't imagine we'll ever know - and am happy not to know - but hope it isn't something like Endeavour!)

It's probably Trevor.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Did he really bum around touring the universe for 200 years, then spend his last 24 hours trying to sort it out like a student cramming for an exam he'd forgotten about?

The Doctor's turning point came with the phone call to the Brigadier. After Closing Time, he had been on a "farewell tour", but being a bit like Ten in Waters of Mars - "The laws of time are mine!" and all that - forever cheating death by putting off going to Lake Silencio.

Then he has his rant at Dorium, about how Time "has never laid a glove on me!" - only to be told a moment later that one of his oldest friends had died. (On another site, someone commented that "the Brigadier put the Doctor in his place one last time".) That's when it came home to him that the Silencio moment was inevitable, and he submitted to it.

He said at the end of Closing Time that he was "going to die tomorrow". He knew when it was going to happen, and