# So, who wants to talk about new Doctor Who (spoilers likely)



## Plane Sailing (Sep 2, 2012)

So, I recorded Doctor Who and kept off the whole internet until I'd watched it - and was glad that I did.

I felt it was a strong start to the new series, although one obvious question is this - where have all the daleks come from -this- time?

After all, originally I thought the point of the time war was that it finished off both the daleks and the time lords. Sure there was one old dalek on Earth, and a bunch of 'nearly-daleks' and then some others hidden in non-dimensional spaces. But rather foolishly in those circumstances they didn't really let them escape and rebuild at the end. Yet here they are!

Anyway, that's just a minor niggle. I loved the detailed elements of the story here.

What did you think?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Sep 2, 2012)

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA--- plugs ears----

Airs in the US tonight...
LA LA LA LA LA!


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 2, 2012)

I've stopped keeping track of how many times, and in what times, the Daleks themselves have been "exterminated".  I don't find them scary, I don't find them interesting, I think they usually make crappy villains, and in case it's not clear, I just didn't care.

Well, I just checked the internet and saved myself from a gigantic case of foot-in-mouth, as Oswin will indeed be back in some form or another (personally, I'd really like it if she actually moved forward from this point, otherwise it's just another River Song sort of thing).


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 2, 2012)

Spoilers for series five.

[sblock]In series 5, there were a handful of Daleks on earth in World War II who needed the Doctor to validate their existence so they could create new Daleks from some sort of egg thingy.

Not that that mattered, of course, because the universe was recreated and shaped by Amy's recollections at the end of that series, which opens the door for any sort of ret-con they need.[/sblock]

Oh, and I think the Daleks can't ever be legitimately scary as a race because we know too much about them. You never fear things you know so thoroughly. So it was great to encounter some insane ones in an asylum, where you didn't know what to expect.

And Jenna-Louise Coleman -- Oswin -- is adorable.

I loved the episode. The show is not meant to be taken very seriously. You're supposed to revel in the campiness of hovering boxes with suction cups being the space stand-in for super-Nazis.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 2, 2012)

Starts here 13 September, I'll let you know then

and yeah I agree with RW, Daleks aren't scary anymore but they are fun in a campy nostalgia way


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 2, 2012)

Just watched this. Liked it. My impressions:







WARNING! SPOILERS BE AHEAD!







*Episode 1: ASYLUM OF THE DALEKS*

LIKES

- Daleks back in form. The last couple of Dalek stories have been kind of dissappointing, but leave it to the Moff to make em scary once more. I'm quite fond of the idea of the brand new Dalek agents. Pretty neat.

- The Asylum. The idea of an insane asylum for Daleks too crazy even for the regular ones, well that's quite a creepy idea when you think about it. And it was implemented quite well. 

- Matt Smith. One of his better performances. Really liked the part where he expresses his disgust at the thought of Daleks having mercy for their own kind, hence the asylum.

- Jenna Louise Coleman. Wow. Quite a looker. And a delight to hear. But her appearance begs a lot of questions. Isn't she the new companion? But how can she be since we all saw her fate at the episode's end? Or is this another case of a patented Moffat Timey Wimey ball? I guess we won't know until the Christmas special.

- The Daleks forget the Doctor. Woohoo! Now even his greatest enemies don't know who he is! So glad that Moffat is getting rid of the oncoming storm stuff and returning him to his roots as a mysterious traveler.


DISLIKES

- Amy and Rory marriage troubles. Ugh. Enough of that Moffat! We don't need another roller coaster of emotions between these two! Let them be settled down for once! But it looks like it was resolved by episode's end.


----------



## hopeless (Sep 2, 2012)

*Okay...*



Spoiler



The asylum has defences in the form of nanoclouds that in some cases turns any non-dalek in to an actual dalek which in itself would explain why the doctor has failed to wipe out all the daleks since Rose & the time vortex can't wipe out everything the dalek's created and all it would take is for one very stupid humanoid opening the wrong artefact and start creating new daleks again...


----------



## delericho (Sep 2, 2012)

I thought it was okay. Not the best ever, not bad. Just okay.

I really wish the BBC would stop messing about with the format, though. Thirteen episodes in a sequence starting around Easter, plus the Christmas Special, is the right format. No breaks, no delays, no gaps. Leave it alone!



RangerWickett said:


> Oh, and I think the Daleks can't ever be legitimately scary as a race because we know too much about them.




That's not the problem. The problem is villain decay - they've shown up so many times, and been beaten so many times, that there's no question _if_ The Doctor will win; just _how_ he'll win.

If I were running the show, I would make it a rock solid rule, "if you use the Daleks, a 'named' character dies."


----------



## Mercutio01 (Sep 2, 2012)

The Asylum was cool.
Daleks forgetting the Doctor was an interesting development.
Oswin was fun.

I liked Pond at first, but I'm tired of her now. I'll be quite happy when she's done.
Never been a fan of Rory. And I'm still not.

Overall, I feel very meh.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 2, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> The Asylum was cool.
> Daleks forgetting the Doctor was an interesting development.
> Oswin was fun.
> 
> ...




I like Rory a lot more than I like Amy.  Amy seems stuck in some kind of manic mood, and unable to converse in normal tones.  Everything she says has a question mark or exclamation point!


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 2, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Amy seems stuck in some kind of manic mood, and unable to converse in normal tones.  Everything she says has a question mark or exclamation point!




That's because she's a red headed Glaswegian, they really do talk like that

plus Amy's had a few traumas in her life, she can justify being manic


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 2, 2012)

By default, I like anything Dr. Who and anything involving Stephen Moffat, so I was predisposed to like this episode, and did!

Until I started to think about it a little bit, and then a few things began to sit poorly with me, not least was Oswin's transformation into a Dalek. Granting that you can always handwave this stuff, it seems as though the episode decided to treat Daleks as though they were Cybermen, able and interested in making other creatures into versions of themselves.

Yet the whole point is that a) Daleks are the little green critters in the suits, not the suits themselves. So how exactly is it that they can "transform" Oswin into a Dalek? They're not just putting her into the suit, they've got to make her a little green critter, or she's not really a Dalek. The "puppet" Daleks can at least be explained by the nano-transformation. They're not "really" Dalek, but have some Dalek features.

More importantly b) the whole point of Daleks is that they're genocidal psychopaths. They have no interest in enslaving or incorporating other races, they want to eliminate them. They are the Nazis of the Who universe, convinced of their own superiority above all other species. In that regard, neither their assimilation of Oswin nor their use of the puppets made much sense.

As for the Amy-Rory romance, it seems like that may have been too easily resolved, and from a character perspective, I hope that's not the last we hear of it. That said, Rory is right, he's always loved Amy more than she loved him.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 2, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> As for the Amy-Rory romance, it seems like that may have been too easily resolved, and from a character perspective, I hope that's not the last we hear of it. That said, Rory is right, he's always loved Amy more than she loved him.




Too easily brought on, and too easily resolved.   It's the old saw: if there's a gun in the first act, you must fire it in the third act.  Or conversely, if there's a shooting in the third act, there must be a gun on the wall in the first act.

This was all shooting, no gun.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 3, 2012)

I think I liked it. There was a whole lot of "WTF ARE YOU DOING MOFFAT?!?!?!?!?!?". I may need to re-watch it, ala "Let's Kill Hitler" to really appreciate it. 

Oswin was fun, Moffat's a liar (as he likes to remind us)  and there's a whole plethora of ways to use stuff from this episode if he decides to do so. I would expect him to want everyone to equate Oswin's demise with River's just so he can try and left-turn us with whatever he has in mind.


----------



## elawai (Sep 3, 2012)

Some Daleks have the ability to use an emergency temporal shift as an escape (Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks).  Perhaps Oswin emergency shifts to the Victorian era?  How she manages to transfer to a human looking body is a still a mystery to be solved.

I doubt that they'll use the "meet her earlier in her timeline" again because  we are still in middle of the River Song story.


----------



## Richards (Sep 3, 2012)

Did I miss it, or did they somehow counter the nanocloud effects that should otherwise be well on its way to transforming Amy and the Doctor into puppet Daleks?  Each one went for some time in the Asylum without the protection of those anti-nano bracelets.

Johnathan


----------



## Herschel (Sep 3, 2012)

That's still likely to come in to play at some point. Moffat planting a seed. He likes messing with people who pay attention to details, especially the pedantic, "gotcha" crowd. Remember the coat bit from The Crash of the Byzantium/Time of Angels?


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 3, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> More importantly b) the whole point of Daleks is that they're genocidal psychopaths. They have no interest in enslaving or incorporating other races, they want to eliminate them. They are the Nazis of the Who universe, convinced of their own superiority above all other species. In that regard, neither their assimilation of Oswin nor their use of the puppets made much sense./QUOTE]
> 
> There is a "history" of Daleks using and "assimilating" other species.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 3, 2012)

Interesting. I suppose that the 6th doctor episode is most relevant here, since apprarently it means they can change the genetic material of other species to enable them to "become" Dalek, though I haven't seen the episode so maybe it doesn't apply.

I do however seem to remember that the other members of the Cult of Skaro were horrified by Dalek Sec's "Human Dalek."


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 3, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Too easily brought on, and too easily resolved.   It's the old saw: if there's a gun in the first act, you must fire it in the third act.  Or conversely, if there's a shooting in the third act, there must be a gun on the wall in the first act.
> 
> This was all shooting, no gun.




I think you are misusing Chekhov's Gun.

But if you mean the central conceit of their divorce completely 180s two seasons of constant reinforcing that Amy and Rory will go through anything, even the end of the universe and the end of time, in order to be together and thus prove their undying love, then I totally agree.

I would have been fine with them fighting or hitting a rough patch, but to have fallen so out of love to file for divorce stuck me as a little ham-handed.


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 3, 2012)

Sure the Daleks are racist and xenophobic, but they're also survivors. Yeah, maybe assimilating humans isn't their standard MO, but they've been known to compromise their admittedly twisted standards if it means the survival of their race. And they've come close to extinction many times what with the Doctor being very good at what he does.

Perhaps that makes them a bit hypocritical, but would they care if people thought them as such? These are Daleks after all. They don't give a damn what people think of them.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 3, 2012)

Unless I misunderstood something, it was Daleks _in the Dalek insane asylum_ that turned a human into a Dalek. Pretty sure all bets are off in terms of "what Daleks do".


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 3, 2012)

I think my point was that throughout the history of both old and new Doctor Who, the Daleks have been attempting to merge human material and Dalek material.

Ah! Another episode! In the 2nd Doctor's The Evil of the Daleks, they are actually attempting to isolate the "Human Factor" to combine with the "Dalek Factor" to improve the Dalek race.

In that 7th Doctor ep I mentioned, there are actually two factions of Daleks fighting each other, both convinced of their own superiority, one made from dead human genetic material from the 6th Doctor ep, and the other made from the original genetic stock from Skaro.

I know way too much about Doctor Who...


----------



## Felon (Sep 3, 2012)

Amy, Martha, Donna, and Rose seem like minor variations on the same companion. Pert, sassy, and full of chutzpah one minute, then scared and vulnerable the next. That's the spirit of the show now and I'm kind of desensitized to it, mercifully.

The twist with Oswin seemed heavily telegraphed. Are we still actually supposed to be scared of Daleks? I mean, they still have toilet-bowl plungers sticking out of them. Maybe they're scary to younger kids, who don't have our tendency to over-analyze. As for Oswin, I saw that twist coming from miles away. "Egg-sterminate" indeed.

Enjoyed the show though. Still nothing really like it on TV anywhere else.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 3, 2012)

lin_fusan said:


> I think you are misusing Chekhov's Gun.



It's a metaphor.



> But if you mean the central conceit of their divorce completely 180s two seasons of constant reinforcing that Amy and Rory will go through anything, even the end of the universe and the end of time, in order to be together and thus prove their undying love, then I totally agree.
> 
> I would have been fine with them fighting or hitting a rough patch, but to have fallen so out of love to file for divorce stuck me as a little ham-handed.




Rory & Amy are getting a divorce!  Bang, that's a shooting.
Amy forced Rory away because she can't have kids! Bang, that's a shooting. (and...wtf?  My wife & I have done the infertility diagnosis & treatment thing. They test both of you, and it's not like a 5-minute finger-prick, either - she's had to have been sneaking off for a long time and a lot of appointments to be that certain of it. Plus, wtf is wrong with adoption?)

Rory and Amy are getting back together after 8 scintillating seconds of therapy!  Bang, that's a shooting.

No lead up, no hints, just bang, bang, bang.  Shooting, no gun.  Ham-handed is perhaps the most gentle way one could put it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 4, 2012)

Yeah, it could have been handled better. I mean, I would have understood it if she'd been un_willing_ to have kids after what happened to Melody, and they were living apart because she was stressed. But an actual divorce seems too big of a stretch.

I'll ignore it for now, though, because it's a fun show.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 4, 2012)

Oh, and the Daleks have been around for a long long time, right? Think of how much human civilization has changed in just a hundred years. I'm okay with Daleks having different motivations and opinions on the world in different episodes. I mean, they can apparently show up at both ancient Stonehenge and WW2 London and whenever the end of Eccleston's season took place.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 4, 2012)

One thing about the Amy and Rory story, it would probably not be wise to assume that this was a self-contained storyline for this episode.  More likely it's setting up things to come later in the series.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 4, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> No lead up, no hints, just bang, bang, bang.



I'd argue that Amy and Rory's breakup --particularly Rory's flat-out stating he's always loved her more-- has been sufficiently led up to by their entire on-screen relationship. 

Amy *did* forgive him for that line a little quickly, though. We'll see how it all plays out.

BTW, I liked the episode. Not my favorite Moffat script, but clever, well-acted, and well-directed. Also, Oswin was great (though sad).


----------



## lt_murgen (Sep 4, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Amy forced Rory away because she can't have kids! Bang, that's a shooting. (and...wtf? My wife & I have done the infertility diagnosis & treatment thing. They test both of you, and it's not like a 5-minute finger-prick, either - she's had to have been sneaking off for a long time and a lot of appointments to be that certain of it.





THat bothered me more than most.  Say you are Amy, and you just get the news from your fertility doctor that you cannot have children.  Do you convienently forget that you have this real close friend with a machine that can take you anywhere in time and space?  Maybe 21st century medicine says you cannot have children, but what about 10,000th century medicine? Heck, you watched them create entire people out of goo.  

Also, how did both Skaro and the insane asylum planet escape the time war?   I could buy Amy being partially responsible for re-booting the daleks from memory when she rebooted the universe, but not necesarily Skaro or a planet she had never heard of.  If her re-boot brought Skaro back, why not Gallifrey?


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 4, 2012)

I never read that the universe rebooted from Amy's memory, but that Amy's memory of the Doctor allowed the universe to be rebooted, essentially as it had always been. I didn't take it as license for an enormous degree of retconning, but maybe I just missed a memo somewhere along the line.


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 4, 2012)

lt_murgen said:


> THat bothered me more than most.  Say you are Amy, and you just get the news from your fertility doctor that you cannot have children.  Do you convienently forget that you have this real close friend with a machine that can take you anywhere in time and space?  Maybe 21st century medicine says you cannot have children, but what about 10,000th century medicine? Heck, you watched them create entire people out of goo.




Yeah, in fact, I would have bought it more that perhaps her experience from Demon's Run scarred her emotionally and made her reluctant to have children, instead of being physically unable to have children.  That would have given their split a little more emotional weight.

I'm a little concerned that their story arc will be about Amy becoming fertile again. 

That said, despite my complaints, the episode itself (if you remove it from the context of character history) was well written, well executed (except for the slow mo parts), and well acted.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 4, 2012)

It will be very interesting to see how Moffat writes Amy and Rory out of the story.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 4, 2012)

Mallus said:


> I'd argue that Amy and Rory's breakup --particularly Rory's flat-out stating he's always loved her more-- has been sufficiently led up to by their entire on-screen relationship.



Oh heck yeah.  I have no issue with that.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 5, 2012)

Felon said:


> Are we still actually supposed to be scared of Daleks?




I thought Russell T Davis did a good job with his Eccleston episode 'Dalek', where he expressly wanted to bring fearful back to them again.

Unfortunately everyone forgot this in all subsequent Dalek episodes (including Davis).

Mind you, it is somewhat the way of things - Weeping Angels were terrifyingly brilliant in the episode they first appeared. However, subsequent outings have completely destroyed their premise and weakened them enormously (IMO).

Cheers


----------



## Felon (Sep 7, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Oh, and the Daleks have been around for a long long time, right? Think of how much human civilization has changed in just a hundred years. I'm okay with Daleks having different motivations and opinions on the world in different episodes. I mean, they can apparently show up at both ancient Stonehenge and WW2 London and whenever the end of Eccleston's season took place.



Personally, I think the fact that the Daleks have been around a long time means that it's okay for them to undergo some cosmetic changes that make them look a little less like a production for a high-school drama club. They're a little more polished now, but the basic rubbish design is still at the core. 

It's a sleeker toilet plunger, but it's still a toilet plunger.


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 9, 2012)

Just watched episode 2. 





Again, SPOILERS so skip my post if you don't wan't any...





*Episode 2: DINOSAURS ON A SPACESHIP*

LIKES

*Guest stars galore.* Arthur Weasley (Mark Williams), Walder Frey (David Bradley), and Inspector Lestrade (Rupert Graves) all in one episode? Nice.

*Dinosaur FX.* Wow. Even for a high budget scifi show like this, I didn't expect the visual effects on the dinos to be so good. Really great stuff.

*The Doctor's ruthlessness. *I like my Doctor to be compassionate whenever possible, but it certainly doesn't hurt to see him be a cold killing bastard once in awhile. Just goes to show what happens when the bad guy pushes him to far.


DISLIKES

*The Doctor recklessness.* After last season's realization that he was endangering their lives with his traveling, the Doctor suddenly decides to drag Rory and Amy back in again, this time with the latter's dad in tow? WTF? Come on writers. Don't make him so bloody thoughtless!

All in all, kind of a meh episode but enjoyable enough. Let's hope nxt week is better.


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2012)

Terrible pacing pretty much ruins what should have been a real whopper.

Worst time-travel, dinosaur, giant mech, Egyptian queen TV show episode evar.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 9, 2012)

Felt a bit like old school Doctor Who, in that it felt more targeted towards (older) kids. Which is fine, I expect them sometimes.

This must have been bloody expensive. Lots of space CG, dino CG, dino puppetry, and robot suits and puppetry.

_Loved_ the robots. If I had the time, I know precisely what my Halloween costume would be.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2012)

horacethegrey said:


> *Guest stars galore.* Arthur Weasley (Mark Williams), Walder Frey (David Bradley), and Inspector Lestrade (Rupert Graves) all in one episode? Nice.




And best of all - David Mitchell and Robert Webb as the robots!


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 9, 2012)

Ah, I knew I recognized their voices, thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 9, 2012)

So far I am really liking both episodes of the new season. I know a lot of folks don't like Matt Smith, but I think he Is one of the better Doctors. 

With Rory and Amy, I think they have taken them about as far as you can take characters in a show. Definitely looking forward to the doctor having a new companion. It is time for a change.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 9, 2012)

From the first episode, I'm glad to see that they seem to have realised what a colossal mistake the new Dalek Power Rangers were. Though they haven't done away with them entirely, the few that were present in the Parliament were kept well to the background. Long may they diminish.

I agree that the second episode's pacing felt off. Too many ideas thrown at the screen in great profusion, too fast to be explored in any depth.

I don't think it warranted a double episode, but a single episode with slightly less going on would have been a little better. Maybe hold off the historical guest stars for another time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 9, 2012)

On the pacing issue i do think there were some problems with the initial set up of the second episode (a little bit confusion in te first few moments in my opinion) but once it got a few minutes in it was fine.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Sep 9, 2012)

I still don't really understand why the Doctor chose the two historical people to go along with him. I'm vastly more interested in the idea that the Silurians had a spaceship loaded up with dinosaurs escaping from an asteroid (presumably the K-T extinction event).


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I still don't really understand why the Doctor chose the two historical people to go along with him..



Should you ever write for Doctor Who, remember this one simple tip: if you want the Doctor to do something that seems utterly contrived, have him start to act all giddy and frenetic. If you can get him to start grinning while spouting glib non sequitors, then the audience will accept what follows as yet another instance of the Doctor's mental processes ranging beyond our ken.

I mean, he doesn't need Rory and Amy either. He doesn't need companions at all, at least as far as we know.

Did Rory really take Amy's last name?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Sep 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> I mean, he doesn't need Rory and Amy either. He doesn't need companions at all, at least as far as we know.




See, I understand why he takes companions (he's lonely AND he needs pawns for his elaborate chess games), but there is generally a lot more to it than, "Hey, I need an African Queen and a Big-Game Hunter for this one specific mission."


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2012)

Felon said:


> He doesn't need companions at all, at least as far as we know.




Heh, do you follow the series in detail like some of us nerds? 

That's been covered time and time again to the point of repetitive nausea. He goes mad without companions. They ground him and keep him from doing bad things. This has been an ongoing theme since the 2005 reboot - from Donna getting him to stop murdering the red spider babies to him going all "Time Lord Victorious". It's referenced a couple of times every season.  They're his conscience, almost.



> Did Rory really take Amy's last name?




No, it's an ongoing "we know who really wears the trousers in that relationship" joke since the episode with the wedding when Rory admitted that they might technically be Williams, but they'd always be Ponds. Since then, The Doctor has always referred to him as Rory Pond, despite that not being his name.


----------



## Richards (Sep 9, 2012)

Plus, they needed Melody's last name to be "Pond" so they could have it mistranslated into "River Song."

Johnathan


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 10, 2012)

I liked this episode more than the first one.  Less frentic Pond, no daleks, and a villainous villain.  As for the extra companions, I figured the Doctor had some kind of idea of what might be going on, and brought along a big game hunter for assistance and Nefertiti...as a distraction?  to act as a matchmaker?  for kicks and giggles?  for fun?  Doesn't the Doctor always get erratic about companions while he's transitioning between them?


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 10, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That's been covered time and time again to the point of repetitive nausea. He goes mad without companions. They ground him and keep him from doing bad things. This has been an ongoing theme since the 2005 reboot - from Donna getting him to stop murdering the red spider babies to him going all "Time Lord Victorious". It's referenced a couple of times every season.  They're his conscience, almost.



Plus they help keep the program watchable even if the Doctor is turning audiences off. I remembered thinking that Catherine Tate's performance as Donna was the only thing that kept me watching Season 4, after Tennant's 10th Doctor suddenly decided to become an unlikable prat. 

Going further back to the series, after Lis Sladen (God Bless Her) left the TARDIS, Tom Baker thought the Doctor didn't need companions and preferred him to travel alone. The showrunners weren't having that though, so Tom decided to make his costar's lives hell (Note though that he's since apologized to many of them for his behavior, particularly to Louise Jameson).


----------



## Herschel (Sep 10, 2012)

We got to see The Doctor's vindictive side again, ala Family of Blood ending. But I think there's more to it this time. I feel as if it's leading up to a "this is why you need us" moment again for the companions, probably Amy as Rory's more the "this is why you're dangerous to those around you" guy. 

It was a fun episode. Meeting Rory's dad was a nice touch.


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 11, 2012)

My girl and I really liked it for some reason. 

I think it's 'cause all of the human characters actually did things and had attitude. And it was a fun action piece, so it's like watching a B-movie, but a good one.

But I still have no idea why he brought Queen Nefertiti along. The Big Game Hunter had a tiny genre-flavor reason with hunting dinosaurs. And Rory's dad because the writers thought it was funny?

Like the first episode, there were quite a few things I had to take with a grain of salt, a large grain of salt, but it still was fun.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 12, 2012)

lin_fusan said:


> But I still have no idea why he brought Queen Nefertiti along. The Big Game Hunter had a tiny genre-flavor reason with hunting dinosaurs. And Rory's dad because the writers thought it was funny?




I could have sworn that they implied that the doctor was having some fun with Nefertiti unrelated to the happenings in the episode, and that when he wanted/needed to leave she forced him to take her with.

And Rory's dad was there because the Doctor thought it would be fun to surprise the Pond's by materializing around them, making the quirky assumptions that they would 1) be home, and 2) no one else would be there. Not completely out of character for comedic effect.


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 12, 2012)

Oops, I mean "he" as in Moffat and Chibnal, not the Doctor. I was wondering what narrative reason brought about bringing these extra characters along.

The only thing I can guess is that it's supposed to show that the Doctor is trying to move on to new companions


----------



## Morrus (Sep 13, 2012)

I have a theory that we're not seeing events in the correct order from Amy and Rory's POV.  Dinosaurs on a Spaceship - to them - could well have happened before Asylum of the Daleks. 

I don't know why I think this.  It's just a nagging feeling I have.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 13, 2012)

Because it's Moffat?


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 14, 2012)

Should we assume that the Silence were actually present in other episodes, and we just don't remember them.

I mean, The Silence in the Library seems like a good candidate. If there wasn't at least one Silence in that place, I'd be a little disappointed.


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 16, 2012)

New episode come and gone. As always...







SPOILERS! Skip ahead if you don't want any.







*Episode 3: A TOWN CALLED MERCY*

LIKES

*Interesting morality play* The Doctor clearly wants to save the day by giving up the bad guy to the killer cyborg. Only the bad guy isn't strictly one since he did help the town. And the killer cyborg doesn't want to kill innocents in his quest for revenge. All in all, it's a nice tangled mess that puts into question what is right and wrong. I don't think though it was played out as well as it could be, but the resolution seemed fitting.

*The Gunslinger* Really well done prosthetics and makeup on Andrew Brooke make him look like an otherworldly killing machine.

*Amy calls out the Doctor* I thought it one of her finest moments, telling the Doctor how unhinged he was becoming. Letting his anger overcome his normally compassionate nature. Which leads me to my first gripe-


DISLIKES

*Ruthless Doctor yet again* Man they are really laying it on thick how much of a merciless prick the Doctor is becoming when he travels alone for an extended period of time. While I liked this aspect of his character in the last episode, I really hope they don't drag it on and resolve this issue soon. It ruined David Tennant's last season for me and I'd hate to see it happen to Smith.

*Ben Browder* This is not a dig at the man himself, whom I've been a fan of since _Farscape_. But his guest role here felt too brief. A wasted opportunity for such a noted scifi actor. 

Again, not a bad episode, but still kind of meh. It's kind of a disappointing outing from Toby Whithouse, who wrote last season's brilliant _The God Complex_.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2012)

Broken lightbulb for the third week running - Amy's dressing room, their house, and in the street in Mercy. What's what all about then?


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 16, 2012)

Also three references to Christmas in a row.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Also three references to Christmas in a row.




I remember the second two.  What was the reference in Asylum?


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 16, 2012)

He looks around the Dalek parliament and is like, "Okay, go ahead. It's Christmas! Here I am! What are you waiting for?"

Also, a bit of a reach here: 

* Eggs-ter-min-ate.
* Dinosaurs lay eggs.
* The alien doctor's ship looked like an egg.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Also, a bit of a reach here:
> 
> * Eggs-ter-min-ate.
> * Dinosaurs lay eggs.
> * The alien doctor's ship looked like an egg.




Hmmm. Yeah, I'm inclined to think that's too much of a reach unless something else shows up next episode. The dinosaurs is the weak link there.


----------



## Richards (Sep 16, 2012)

I thought the ship looked like a giant Tic-Tac breath mint.

Overall, I thought this episode was kind of sub-par.  And there wasn't much for Amy and Rory to do, except argue with the Doctor (Amy) and run around as an alien doctor decoy (Rory).

Johnathan


----------



## Mercutio01 (Sep 16, 2012)

The best line from this episode:

"Frightened people... Give me a Dalek any day."

Yes, of course. Because dealing with the black and white simplistic morality of space Nazis is much simpler than the reality of any human situation. I think this is partially why I like spaghetti Westerns more than traditional Westerns--because the morality plays of the traditional are subverted by the ambiguity and nuances of something more realistic.

The play on the scene from "The Three Amigos" was entertaining.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 16, 2012)

It looks to me like Moffat has decided to simply ignore the Time War backstory that was so much a part of Eccleston's and Tennent's doctors. That he should be so outraged at the attrocities committed by the alien doctor, without even making a reference to his own similar actions against his own people in the time war struck me as a false note. 

I'm assuming that it was a conscious decision on Moffat's part to ignore that material, since it was so obviously available and applicable. I wonder why?

My wife suggested that the when the alien doctor talked about the rage in the Doctor's eyes and compared the two of them, he was making just such an allusion, but I thought it was a pretty thin attempt, and wasn't followed up upon as it absolutely should have been.


----------



## Felon (Sep 16, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> It looks to me like Moffat has decided to simply ignore the Time War backstory that was so much a part of Eccleston's and Tennent's doctors. That he should be so outraged at the attrocities committed by the alien doctor, without even making a reference to his own similar actions against his own people in the time war struck me as a false note.



???

The whole "mirror" element was brought up. The Doctors' outrage was specifically fueld by his own self-loathing.


----------



## Felon (Sep 16, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Broken lightbulb for the third week running - Amy's dressing room, their house, and in the street in Mercy. What's what all about then?



Also inside the sheriff's office.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 16, 2012)

Felon said:


> ???
> 
> The whole "mirror" element was brought up. The Doctors' outrage was specifically fueld by his own self-loathing.




I mentioned that above, but I thought it was a pretty thing reference, if at all. It was more of a generic "you understand me because you've done bad things" kind of speech, leading to no insight on the Doctor's part or insight into his character, something that would have been unthinkable if it had been Tennent's Doctor.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 17, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> It looks to me like Moffat has decided to simply ignore the Time War backstory that was so much a part of Eccleston's and Tennent's doctors. That he should be so outraged at the attrocities committed by the alien doctor, without even making a reference to his own similar actions against his own people in the time war struck me as a false note.
> 
> I'm assuming that it was a conscious decision on Moffat's part to ignore that material, since it was so obviously available and applicable. I wonder why?
> 
> My wife suggested that the when the alien doctor talked about the rage in the Doctor's eyes and compared the two of them, he was making just such an allusion, but I thought it was a pretty thin attempt, and wasn't followed up upon as it absolutely should have been.




The suggestions of similarity were far more than a thin attempt - they were blatant.  Moffat pretty much spent half the episode talking about the Time War and The Doctor's actions in it and the guilt he feels for them.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 17, 2012)

Well maybe I need to go back and watch the episode more closely, because except for that one scene, I missed anything resembling a reference to the time war. To my eyes it was a missed opportunity to link back to the RTD era, when it was central. But I'm willing to admit I may have been out of the room when these things were mentioned and missed the linkage.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 17, 2012)

I liked the episode and it looked great. Something about it felt a bit.....thin though, maybe clipped. The episode could have been about 10 minutes longer to give the Sheriff and others  more time on screen. I'm also totally on board with things happening out of sequence. The Doctor is 1200 again in this episode, which (in theory) is where he was in The Impossible Astronaut, but rule #1  may also be in play. Also, time jumping may lead in to the Weeping Angels Amy/Rory finale.


----------



## lin_fusan (Sep 18, 2012)

Something about this episode was a bit off. I think we needed more screen time with Ben Browder's Sheriff (to really nail down the Doctor's responsibility to him), and we needed another scene (or a meatier scene) between Kahler-Jax and the Doctor (to better illustrate their similarities and differences).

I also agree that it was heavy handed in regards to the Doctor "needing" a companion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 18, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Hmmm. Yeah, I'm inclined to think that's too much of a reach unless something else shows up next episode. The dinosaurs is the weak link there.



Actually, there were dinosaur eggs in the dinosaur episode. I believe when they find the sleeping Tyrannosaurus Rex, their are eggs there and they briefly mention them.

Not saying I am convinced.

Instead I am saying I want more Ben Browder. Maybe I have to rewatch Farscape.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 18, 2012)

Herschel said:


> The Doctor is 1200 again in this episode, which (in theory) is where he was in The Impossible Astronaut, but




I'm always expecting someone to bring up his age at some point and then Amy or someone to ask "... in Earth years, right?" and the Doctor to reply "Eh?  No.  What would be the point of that?" 

Esentially saying that most of the age references throughout the series are meaningless.

Moffat did once say on Twitter that the Doctor actually has no idea how old he is, and just makes it up.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 18, 2012)

So my wife has a theory; one to which - I'd like top be clear - I do not subscribe. But I thought it interesting enough to share.

She thinks they never left the Asylum. The Doctor is a Dalek and is dreaming all this.  The Daleks did, indeed, want a genius - and they got one.  But it wasn't Oswin.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 20, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Felt a bit like old school Doctor Who, in that it felt more targeted towards (older) kids. Which is fine, I expect them sometimes.
> .




when they ran from the Pterodactyls into a cave and encountered the robots my mind immediately went "OMG It's got the plot of a Choose Your Own Adventure!"


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2012)

Morrus said:


> So my wife has a theory; one to which - I'd like top be clear - I do not subscribe. But I thought it interesting enough to share.
> 
> She thinks they never left the Asylum. The Doctor is a Dalek and is dreaming all this.  The Daleks did, indeed, want a genius - and they got one.  But it wasn't Oswin.




That is an awesome theory and it actually would explain quite a bit.


----------



## Richards (Sep 21, 2012)

Morrus said:


> So my wife has a theory; one to which - I'd like top be clear - I do not subscribe. But I thought it interesting enough to share.
> 
> She thinks they never left the Asylum. The Doctor is a Dalek and is dreaming all this.  The Daleks did, indeed, want a genius - and they got one.  But it wasn't Oswin.



Wow, that is really--

*HEAD EXPLODES*

Johnathan


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 23, 2012)

I enjoyed tonights episode - the year of the slow invasion.

At least up until the big reveal at the end, anyway. I loved the frustrating slow introduction of the cubes, and the subdued menace they created.

I don't think they explained at all why some people got carried off to the spaceship though, and I found the ultimate big reveal a little lacking.

Overall 7/10 for me though.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 23, 2012)

Also, if they can make an android kid realistic enough to stand around a hospital for a year unremarked, why do the orderlies who actually abduct people have the scary-hole-mouth face and zero personality?

And, as with every time they use the "loads of people get knocked out / hypnotised / etc. but they all wake up fine in a few minutes" trope, my reaction is "Yeah, that's great, but what about the ones who were piloting planes or driving cars at the time?" Any time something like that happens, it must catch tens of thousands of people in situations where being suddenly incapacitated, even momentarily, will have fatal consequences.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Also, if they can make an android kid realistic enough to stand around a hospital for a year unremarked, why do the orderlies who actually abduct people have the scary-hole-mouth face and zero personality?
> 
> And, as with every time they use the "loads of people get knocked out / hypnotised / etc. but they all wake up fine in a few minutes" trope, my reaction is "Yeah, that's great, but what about the ones who were piloting planes or driving cars at the time?" Any time something like that happens, it must catch tens of thousands of people in situations where being suddenly incapacitated, even momentarily, will have fatal consequences.




Eh, it's Doctor Who, not Torchwood. It's on at peak time and watched by a lot of kids.  I forgive them for washing over the darker side of things. We as adults can still just assume that's going on in the background.

I've no idea why those scary mouth things were kidnapping people though. I must have missed that.

Overall a weak plot, but some decent character stuff.  

No lightbulb theme this week, unless I just didn't notice it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> No lightbulb theme this week, unless I just didn't notice it.




But Eggs and Christmas made it in. We were trying to decide if the Christmas lights counted or not, but it was hard to tell if they were flashing correctly or flickering.


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 23, 2012)

*Episode 4: THE POWER OF THREE*

LIKES

- *Kate Stewart*. The new head of UNIT, and the Brigadier's daughter to boot. Delightful character played well by Jemma Redgrave. Hope to see her again.

- *Slice of Life*. That's what this episode felt like, rather than a adventure. It gives us a nice insight into Amy and Rory's life adjusting to the Doctor's erratic visits and how they're ready to move on.

- *Brian*. Another solid guest appearance by Mark Williams as Rory's dad. It's too bad though that we may never see him again once Karen and Arthur leave the show.

- *Silly Doctor*. Some of Matt's most bizarro acting moments yet. Great fun.


DISLIKES

- *Lack of suspense*. You never get the sense that the Doctor and his mates we're in any danger of losing at all. That's about the only negative I can think of.

All in all, nice episode. And an obvious improvement over the last two eps which were slight disappointments. But now have to brace for Amy and Rory's farewell next week when the Weeping Angels return once more.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2012)

So <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@Eridanis <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->has a theory he posted on Facebook. I think he should get in here and discuss it, because his evidence is compelling. It's the "we're watching these episodes in reverse order" theory.


----------



## Richards (Sep 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> No lightbulb theme this week, unless I just didn't notice it.



Well, the lights did go out in the UNIT lab under the Tower of London, and the Brigadier's daughter commented how that should be impossible, as they have generators that should have kicked in.  That might count.

Johnathan


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2012)

Richards said:


> Well, the lights did go out in the UNIT lab under the Tower of London, and the Brigadier's daughter commented how that should be impossible, as they have generators that should have kicked in. That might count.




True; I'd forgotten about that.  Was that just the lights, all all power?  were the computers still running?


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 23, 2012)

We also learned this week that apparently they've been adventuring with the Doctor for about 10 years now, but they can't be sure.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 23, 2012)

Morrus said:


> So <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@Eridanis <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->has a theory he posted on Facebook. I think he should get in here and discuss it, because his evidence is compelling. It's the "we're watching these episodes in reverse order" theory.




How does that square with the fact that the Doctor didn't recognise Rory's dad two episodes ago, but they're well known to each other this episode?


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 23, 2012)

Out of sequence I can buy. Reverse order may not work. But I'm sure that whatever timey-wimey-ness Moffat has in store for next week, I'll wind up being surprised by it, even if everyone else saw it coming a mile away.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 23, 2012)

MarkB said:


> How does that square with the fact that the Doctor didn't recognise Rory's dad two episodes ago, but they're well known to each other this episode?




It doesn't.  But it does square with the fact that Rory left his phone charger in Henry VIII's bathroom last week, and was under Henry's bed this week; and that Amy said she was a queen in_ Dinosaurs_ and accidentally said "yes" to Henry VIII's wedding vows this week.

And I'm told that the ads you're getting in the US say "every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end - but not necessarily in that order." 

Not a perfect theory, to be sure.  But it has some compelling "bits".

My wife is obsessed that the Doctor has looked through a clear glass computer display n every episode so far.  Not sure how or if that's relevant.  I don't think it is.  She's also convinced that Amy and Rory saying they'll wait "for the rest of their lives" is very important in _Asylum_ while they stand on the teleporter pad, and that when the Doctor returns they do not see or acknowledge him; and that they aren't present in the TARDIS on board the dalek ship at the end.  Finally, there's been a recurring meme of "remember me" or "make them remember you" etc. this year.  Remembering is clearly important somehow.

Yeah, lots of random stuff.  Somewhere in there are important clues, I reckon, and somewhere is a bunch of misdirection.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 23, 2012)

I really like the Eridanis theory.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 23, 2012)

It's a shame we had the Zygons back only as a passing off-screen reference. They were one of the more unique alien races of the original series, both visually and conceptually - the whole "living technology" thing was ahead of its time back then. I'd love to see what the new series would do with them.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 25, 2012)

Morrus said:


> It doesn't.  But it does square with the fact that Rory left his phone charger in Henry VIII's bathroom last week, and was under Henry's bed this week; and that Amy said she was a queen in_ Dinosaurs_ and accidentally said "yes" to Henry VIII's wedding vows this week.
> 
> And I'm told that the ads you're getting in the US say "every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end - but not necessarily in that order."




Another plausible explanation I've seen for the phone charger bit is that A Town Called Mercy actually takes place while they're off travelling during the course of this episode, shortly after the Zygon-invaded Savoy and Henry VIII's bedroom.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 25, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Another plausible explanation I've seen for the phone charger bit is that A Town Called Mercy actually takes place while they're off travelling during the course of this episode, shortly after the Zygon-invaded Savoy and Henry VIII's bedroom.




That's how I understood it: The last few episodes have been taking place _during_ this episode.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 25, 2012)

That may well be, but if so, then I hope that the next episode gives some kind of payoff for that structure. It should serve some story purpose if that's in fact the way we ought to be viewing them, rather than just being timey-wimey for the sake of timey-wimeiness.

Of course, that will assume that Moffatt will make it clear to us that this is in fact what's happening, rather than just allowing us to (quite legitimately) interpret it that way.


----------



## Eridanis (Sep 29, 2012)

Sorry; busy week, and I'm just catching up now.

Here's what I posted on my FB page, for reference:

"Here in the States, BBCA is running promo ads for this season that say "every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end - but not necessarily in that order." I think that's the key. This season has been running backwards. Episode 1 is last chronologically, but first in broadcast order. Last night in ep 4, we saw the three of them under Henry VIII's bed. In ep 3 last week, the Doctor mentions Rory leaving his phone charger in Henry VIII's ensuite. In ep 2, Neffi asks Amy if she's a queen, and Amy says yes - because she said "yes" to Henry VIII by accident in ep 4. We know the Angels send people back in time; I think that has something to do with the episodes going back in time."

Followed by: "Plus, at the end of ep1 when the Doctor isn't recognized by the Parliament of the Daleks, WHERE ARE THE PONDS? They are not there when he's twirling around the console. In ep 4, the Doctor says "I'm running to you before you fade. I've known it for a long time." And we know we'll see River next episode; the Doctor knows when River is going to die (even though 10 does not), and it's something similar with River's parents. Moffat was right; Amy and Rory both die next episode. Or something mind-warping will happen."

It's not perfectly linear; indeed, Brian definitely meets the Docotr in ep2, and is comfortable around him in ep4. Another interesting thing I noticed when I rewatched ep4 is when they come back into the TARDIS and Brian is still watching the cube. The Docotr says something along the lines of "you've been here three days," and Brian says something like "time flies when you're concentrating." I'm wondering if there's a time gap in there; what if Brian's really only been there for a short while (maybe a few hours)? Or does he know the TARDIS well enough to find the nearest loo? Something about his reaction there, and his reaction when he tells Amy and Rory to go adventuring at the end, just screams out that he knows more that he's letting on, even to the Doctor. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

At any rate, I've really enjoyed the common threads through all the episodes so far. (Lights off/eggs/Christmas/memory and "remember") There's too much for there not to be a payoff, either Saturday or further down the road in Season 7.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 30, 2012)

Well, we've had the last episode with Amy and we now know that the Eridanis theory isn't true.

Pretty sad episode all told.


----------



## Herschel (Sep 30, 2012)

Maybe.... we weren't supposed to see the new companion until Christmas either and there were no dates on the headstone. Although if Moffat's not careful it could end up like RTD's bringing back Rose after her departure. 

River is awesome and despite the way they broke the paradox "originally" being kind of hinkey, it was a great, Moffat-style send off for Amy and Rory. It also highlighted The Doctor's two choices: face excruciating lonliness or incredible pain.


----------



## horacethegrey (Sep 30, 2012)

Wow. What an episode. Here be my thoughts.



SPOILERS AHEAD!




*Episode 5: THE ANGELS TAKE MANHATTAN*

LIKES:

- *The Weeping Angels back in form.* I wasn't sure of the Angels appearing again. Season 5's two parter, while good didn't exactly reach the level of _Blink_. But by God did the Moff pull through with this outing. Not only are they creepy as always, but the 'farm' at the Winter Quay shows what a bunch of evil sadistic bastards the Angels are. They're worse than the Daleks.

- *River Song*. Unlike many, I like Alex Kingston's guest appearances as River. And it's fitting she shows up, as it brings her story with Amy and Rory full circle.

- *Amy and Rory's farewell*. I have to say, I wasn't sure if Amy and Rory's exit would move me so, but this one certainly did. And I'm surprised how that went down. Very good writing by Moffat there.


DISLIKES:

- I really can't put anything here. That was a perfect sendoff for Amy and Rory. I really can't complain.

Final word. Awesome episode. And looking forward to the Christmas Special.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 30, 2012)

Flickering lights were back again. Didn't notice any eggs or references to Christmas. But I might have been out of the room.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 30, 2012)

It was good except for two plot flaws that are so major that they just ruin the episode for me:

1) Nobody in New York looked at the Statue of Liberty as it strode down the streets? Nobody? I went into this episode having seen the spoilery image of the statue with it's teeth bared, so I knew it was an Angel - but I was expecting something (very mildly) clever like "It was always an Angel; the French wanted it put in that location as it is one of the only spots on the planet where it will have somebody looking at it every second of the day, 24/7/365"; and then some clever reason why nobody is looking at it right now. But no. Nothing.

2) No logical reason The Doctor can't see Rory and Amy again. Sure, I'll accept that 1938 New York is inaccessible to a TARDIS now (but not River's bracelet, since she can go back and get Amy to write an afterword and act as publisher for her). 1938 Boston, Rio, London, Chicago, Moscow - they're all accessible still, right? So catch a bus. OR if 1938 is just out completely everywhere, try 1939. They'll still be there. They're around until, what, the 70s? The 80s? 

The first thing I can ignore more easily than the second. That just doesn't work logically. 

Oh wait - plus the new "rule". If you read about it you can't change it. OK.... so The Doctor should travel far into the future where Earth is happy and intact, read a newspaper headline, and need never have to save the world again. Simple!

Good points - the Angels were nice and creepy. And I'm glad to see the Ponds go - I think they'd run their course. I'm hoping the new companion brings out a diffeent side of The Doctor; manic child is wearing a little thin.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 30, 2012)

Yeah, I wasn't really sold on this episode. I mean, why would you assume the book was telling the truth? A video recording of events, sure, maybe (or it could just be an elaborately staged TV show about time travele- . . . anyway). But a book? What kind of fool time traveler write a book about her own past and tries to make it true? That's just asking for trouble.

I wasn't creeped out by the angels, even. They didn't really play around with the challenge of keeping them in line of sight. But at least they're still inscrutable. The moment one of them starts talking (like the ghost soldier in the wreck of the Byzantium), they become much less interesting.


----------



## Nellisir (Sep 30, 2012)

Morrus said:


> 2) No logical reason The Doctor can't see Rory and Amy again. Sure, I'll accept that 1938 New York is inaccessible to a TARDIS now (but not River's bracelet, since she can go back and get Amy to write an afterword and act as publisher for her). 1938 Boston, Rio, London, Chicago, Moscow - they're all accessible still, right? So catch a bus. OR if 1938 is just out completely everywhere, try 1939. They'll still be there. They're around until, what, the 70s? The 80s?




I already repped you for this, but...exactly.  As soon as I started thinking about this episode, I thought.."so he can't reach New York...what about Brooklyn?  Long Island?  New Jersey?  How do they make a living?  Can the Doctor pop into Chicago and wire them funds?"

Also, what about Brian's dad?  The complete lack of wrap-up there is disappointing.  And there's still the "beginning-middle-end: but not necessarily in that order" issue I don't feel is satisfied.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Sep 30, 2012)

Well we may have seen the last of Amy and Rory, but that doesn't mean we've seen the end of their story. There may be wrapping up to be done in future episodes.


----------



## Krug (Oct 1, 2012)

I enjoyed it, despite the plotholes, but just wondering about the Angels apartment complex. Do they cook? (Stone soup must be a favourite). Do they order take out for their prisoners? Make the bed? Do they have intercourse so you get those weeping cherubs?


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Oh wait - plus the new "rule". If you read about it you can't change it. OK.... so The Doctor should travel far into the future where Earth is happy and intact, read a newspaper headline, and need never have to save the world again. Simple!




Not a new rule: River Song insisted that The Doctor must not read her diary due to "spoilers", that doing so will lock them in.

It's a Moffat thing, yes, but it's four years old.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Oct 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> It was good except for two plot flaws that are so major that they just ruin the episode for me:
> 
> 1) Nobody in New York looked at the Statue of Liberty as it strode down the streets? Nobody? I went into this episode having seen the spoilery image of the statue with it's teeth bared, so I knew it was an Angel - but I was expecting something (very mildly) clever like "It was always an Angel; the French wanted it put in that location as it is one of the only spots on the planet where it will have somebody looking at it every second of the day, 24/7/365"; and then some clever reason why nobody is looking at it right now. But no. Nothing.
> 
> ...




i agree with this assesment (though to be honest plotholes like this don't really ruin a movie or film for me as they just make discussion afterwards more fun--i find i can overlook them while watching and after it starts to eat at me). One bothered me, but I figured if there was a black out or something (cant recall if there wasat that exact moment) then I suppose that is a kind of explanation (not a particularly good one, but at least there would be one).  Still, the statue of liberty wasn't as gaping a flaw as him not being able to see rory and amy again. I really can't see how that works.

But that said, i very much enjoyed the episode. Great noire feal. The book was a cool element. Statue of liberty aside the angels worked for me. Got to see Rory and Amy take out twice. Managed to remove them in a way that satisfied both te side of me that likes them and the side that has gotten tired of them.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 1, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Not a new rule: River Song insisted that The Doctor must not read her diary due to "spoilers", that doing so will lock them in.




She refused to share spoilers, yes, but she didn't say that would lock them in.  

Two years ago Moffat couldn't stop saying "time can be rewritten".  Now he's saying "time cannot be rewritten".

Why was The Doctor worried when the Daleks turned up in WW2? He's seen writing in time periods post-WW2; ergo, the Daleks can't change anything.  He should just leave them to get on with it.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 1, 2012)

Here's a thought (while agreeing with Morrus that the Doctor must have read about many things that he subsequently seems to care a great deal about making sure dont' change): Maybe the Doctor can't see Amy and Rory again because the chapter title said it was "Amy's Last Farewell." This would also explain why River can see her again. It wasn't her last farewell to River, just the Doctor.

Of course, that would seem to imply that the Doctor could see Rory again any number of times, since he wasn't in the chapter title.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 1, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> Here's a thought (while agreeing with Morrus that the Doctor must have read about many things that he subsequently seems to care a great deal about making sure dont' change): Maybe the Doctor can't see Amy and Rory again because the chapter title said it was "Amy's Last Farewell." This would also explain why River can see her again. It wasn't her last farewell to River, just the Doctor.
> 
> Of course, that would seem to imply that the Doctor could see Rory again any number of times, since he wasn't in the chapter title.




But the chapter title didn't say "Amy's last farewell to the Doctor" any more than it didn't say "Amy's last farewell to River".


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 1, 2012)

True, but the Doctor read it! Hey, I'm workin' with what I've got here!


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> She refused to share spoilers, yes, but she didn't say that would lock them in.
> 
> Two years ago Moffat couldn't stop saying "time can be rewritten".  Now he's saying "time cannot be rewritten".
> 
> Why was The Doctor worried when the Daleks turned up in WW2? He's seen writing in time periods post-WW2; ergo, the Daleks can't change anything.  He should just leave them to get on with it.




Stop making my brain hurt.


----------



## Padril (Oct 1, 2012)

The way I see it the Doctor took it as a way out. He could let them go knowing they grew old together and would never have to say goodbye to them. So maybe he could've gone to 1939 but that would mean he would eventually have to say goodbye or watch them grow old. Plus if I remember correctly didn't River regenerate in New York as a little girl after Amy shot her? If it was in the right time period then maybe the Ponds got to raise their child after all.


----------



## Felon (Oct 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> It was good except for two plot flaws that are so major that they just ruin the episode for me:
> 
> 1) Nobody in New York looked at the Statue of Liberty as it strode down the streets? Nobody? I went into this episode having seen the spoilery image of the statue with it's teeth bared, so I knew it was an Angel - but I was expecting something (very mildly) clever like "It was always an Angel; the French wanted it put in that location as it is one of the only spots on the planet where it will have somebody looking at it every second of the day, 24/7/365"; and then some clever reason why nobody is looking at it right now. But no. Nothing.



Well, apparently somebody started looking at it real hard as soon as it arrived at the hotel, because even when the characters came onto the roof and were oblivious to it, it just stood there like a dope.

Also, note that our obligatory bald-headed, repugnant villain was able to damage one of the angels. I thought the point of the quantum-lock ability was that they were essentially invulnerable in that state? Not a very good defense if you can just take a sledgehammer to them.

Which brings us to the matter of the angel that the Doctor lets off scott free after it time-shifts Rory and Amy. Pull out your screwdriver and rattle it to pieces or something.


----------



## Iosue (Oct 1, 2012)

Felon said:


> Well, apparently somebody started looking at it real hard as soon as it arrived at the hotel, because even when the characters came onto the roof and were oblivious to it, it just stood there like a dope.



Well, FWIW, aside from one brief moment in "Time of Angels", it's been pretty well-established that the camera counts.  Even if the characters don't look, if the camera is on an Angel, it can't move.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 1, 2012)

Morrus said:


> It was good except for two plot flaws that are so major that they just ruin the episode for me:
> 
> 1) Nobody in New York looked at the Statue of Liberty as it strode down the streets? Nobody? I went into this episode having seen the spoilery image of the statue with it's teeth bared, so I knew it was an Angel - but I was expecting something (very mildly) clever like "It was always an Angel; the French wanted it put in that location as it is one of the only spots on the planet where it will have somebody looking at it every second of the day, 24/7/365"; and then some clever reason why nobody is looking at it right now. But no. Nothing.
> 
> 2) No logical reason The Doctor can't see Rory and Amy again. Sure, I'll accept that 1938 New York is inaccessible to a TARDIS now (but not River's bracelet, since she can go back and get Amy to write an afterword and act as publisher for her). 1938 Boston, Rio, London, Chicago, Moscow - they're all accessible still, right? So catch a bus. OR if 1938 is just out completely everywhere, try 1939. They'll still be there. They're around until, what, the 70s? The 80s?




Both those points bothered me intensely too, in the 'doesn't really make sense' way.

At least the angels were back to doing what they did in Blink, rather than the weird and IMO stupid excursion we had in that two parter.

Oh yes - one other thing that bothered me. That River has on her wrist a more powerful/capable time machine than the tardis? Come off it.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 1, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Oh yes - one other thing that bothered me. That River has on her wrist a more powerful/capable time machine than the tardis? Come off it.




That bothered me back when Jack had one. Who's the Lord of Time in this show?


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 2, 2012)

But the vortex manipulator gives you career cancer. Captain Jack vs. Doctor Who: which one has his own TV show?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 2, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Oh yes - one other thing that bothered me. That River has on her wrist a more powerful/capable time machine than the tardis? Come off it.




Not necessarily more powerful/capable - just better suited to a particular task.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 2, 2012)

Yeah, it's like having a jumbo jet for taking trips around the world but only that little puddle jumper can land in the Alaskan wilderness.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 2, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Not necessarily more powerful/capable - just better suited to a particular task.




What, time travel?  What other task is there for a time machine?

If the bracelet can go to more time periods than the TARDIS, it's a more capable time machine.


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What, time travel?  What other task is there for a time machine?
> 
> If the bracelet can go to more time periods than the TARDIS, it's a more capable time machine.




Containing a swimming pool?  Being bigger on the inside than the outside?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 2, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> Containing a swimming pool? Being bigger on the inside than the outside?




Those aren't functions of a time machine.

That's like saying a car isn't a better transport vehicle than an apartment, because, hey "has a car got a bathroom in it?"

Sure, it's a better HOUSE than the bracelet. I won't argue that it isn't a superior living space. It's a worse time machine though.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 2, 2012)

But is it a better device for The Doctor? That's really the question, isn't it?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 2, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> But is it a better device for The Doctor? That's really the question, isn't it?




The question?  Is there one, other than whatever one we want to ask? That's your question, I guess.  _My_ question is "is it a better time machine?"


----------



## Nagol (Oct 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The question?  Is there one, other than whatever one we want to ask? That's your question, I guess.  _My_ question is "is it a better time machine?"




Which is a better ground vehicle: a dirt bike or a SUV?

The TARDIS seems to have range, power, defences, passenger/carrying capacity, and a host of other advantages -- much like the SUV.

The bracelet seems to have subtlety and ability to penetrate a form of obstacle the TARDIS can't -- much like a dirt bike.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 2, 2012)

Nagol said:


> Which is a better ground vehicle: a dirt bike or a SUV?




A dirt bike. A dirt bike is better at traversing ground. A time-bracelet is better at time travel.

The fact that a TARDIS and an SUV are good at other things is immaterial. A microwave is good at cooking things, but that doesn't make it qual to the dirt bike at traversing ground.



> The TARDIS seems to have range, power, defences, passenger/carrying capacity, and a host of other advantages -- much like the SUV.




Exactly - things which _aren't time travel_. The TARDIS is a better house. The time-bracelet is a better time machine.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The question?  Is there one, other than whatever one we want to ask? That's your question, I guess.  _My_ question is "is it a better time machine?"




I think it's the question that matters, yeah, based on your complaints. If it was a better time machine but couldn't do everything else the Doctor wanted it to, would that somehow make him less of a Lord of Time and Space?

If I was the world's best brain surgeon and there was a laser scalpel that did a certain part of my job better than my other tools, but wasn't what I actually needed the vast majority of the time, assuming I can't easily switch tools, am I now no longer the best brain surgeon?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 2, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What, time travel?




No, travel through serious time distortions. River says as much, as I recall - it's better at getting through 'traffic' - so the dirt bike / SUV comparison is an apt one, though I'd suggest that the time bracelet is more closely analogous to a bicycle.

The only aspect of time travel the bracelet has been shown to do _better_ is slipping through time distortions, and to some extent that makes sense - smaller object, less easy to get caught up in things. The fact that it can handle one single, specialised aspect of time travel better than the TARDIS is no reason to assume that it does a better job in general.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 2, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> I think it's the question that matters, yeah, based on your complaints. If it was a better time machine but couldn't do everything else the Doctor wanted it to, would that somehow make him less of a Lord of Time and Space?
> 
> If I was the world's best brain surgeon and there was a laser scalpel that did a certain part of my job better than my other tools, but wasn't what I actually needed the vast majority of the time, assuming I can't easily switch tools, am I now no longer the best brain surgeon?




There's some weird anology-switching giong on there.  You should be asking about what is the best laser scalpel, not whether you're the best surgeon.  We're not asking whether The Doctor is the best Time Lord; we're asking whether the TARDIS is the best time machine.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 2, 2012)

MarkB said:


> The only aspect of time travel the bracelet has been shown to do _better_ is slipping through time distortions, and to some extent that makes sense - smaller object, less easy to get caught up in things. The fact that it can handle one single, specialised aspect of time travel better than the TARDIS is no reason to assume that it does a better job in general.




What other aspects of time travel are you imagining there are?

There's one - getting from time A to time B. The bracelet does that successfully in more cases than the TARDIS. It is therefore better at time travel.

The TARDIS may be better at other things (as is a microwave and a bicycle and a blue whale) but it isn't better at time travel. A ladder may be great at getting people up trees, but that doesn't make it a better time machine than the bracelet.

Being able to do something which isn't time travel better than the bracelet doesn't make something a better time machine than the bracelet.


----------



## Iosue (Oct 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What other aspects of time travel are you imagining there are?
> 
> There's one - getting from time A to time B. The bracelet does that successfully in more cases than the TARDIS. It is therefore better at time travel.



No, it does that successfully in _this particular case_, when time distortions make landing a large, extra-dimensional space difficult.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What other aspects of time travel are you imagining there are?




Safety?

Even back when it was first introduced, the time bracelet was said to be a highly risky form of time travel, and have you seen what the Time Vortex looks like in the current credits? I wouldn't want to be flying through that unprotected.



> There's one - getting from time A to time B. The bracelet does that successfully in more cases than the TARDIS. It is therefore better at time travel.




We've seen one instance of it being able to go somewhere the TARDIS can't. I see no reason to generalise from that single example.

We know little about how, or how often, the bracelet is fuelled, what it can do when up against temporal phenomena other than the time distortions we saw in the last episode, how well it does at plotting courses to destinations the wearer doesn't already know about, etc.

Really, given all the timey-wimey stuff the Doctor's been involved in, I'd hardly call time travel as simple as going from point A to point B. It frequently gets a lot more complicated, and I'd bet that in 90% of those situations, you're better off with all the resources of a TARDIS than with a vortex manipulator strapped to your wrist. We just happened to get a glimpse of the other 10% this time.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 3, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Safety?
> 
> Even back when it was first introduced, the time bracelet was said to be a highly risky form of time travel, and have you seen what the Time Vortex looks like in the current credits? I wouldn't want to be flying through that unprotected.
> 
> ...




Heh. Sometimes I guess we have to accept that we're not going to agree. I don't want to get into one of those endless line by line rebuttals, so let's just say I disagree with your viewpoint completely and leave it there.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 3, 2012)

Iosue said:


> No, it does that successfully in _this particular case_, when time distortions make landing a large, extra-dimensional space difficult.




Exactly! Thank you!


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 3, 2012)

Morrus said:


> There's some weird anology-switching giong on there.  You should be asking about what is the best laser scalpel, not whether you're the best surgeon.  We're not asking whether The Doctor is the best Time Lord; we're asking whether the TARDIS is the best time machine.




Not as I understand your argument. What I read you saying is that he is the master of time and therefor should have the very best time machine. I'm saying that "best" doesn't necessarily mean "travels to times another machine can't", that the bracelet is the laser scalpel, utterly the best for certain things but not for every thing. That it travels to the most times doesn't automatically make it the best for the master of time.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 3, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> Not as I understand your argument. What I read you saying is that he is the master of time and therefor should have the very best time machine. I'm saying that "best" doesn't necessarily mean "travels to times another machine can't", that the bracelet is the laser scalpel, utterly the best for certain things but not for every thing. That it travels to the most times doesn't automatically make it the best for the master of time.




I honestly can't face repeating my position on the limited criteria I would require for ranking time machines again; needless to say, as my previous posts indicate, that position is not aligned with yours.  

But my part of the conversation's devolved into me just repeating myself in different ways which is a long way removed from fun - and I'm sure you guys don't want to keep reading the same thing in different words any more than I want to keep typing it; so like I said a couple of posts back it's time to accept there's going to be no agreement on this.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 3, 2012)

Agreed that we can but disagree.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 8, 2012)

I want to re-watch "Asylum of the Daleks" because there's a couple of nagging bits in it I want to reconcile. 

1. I remember a bit where Oswin delivers a line and gives the camera a sly look, but I don't remember the line or the context.

2. There's also the bit about where she hacked in to their consciouness stream.

3. The line about removing Love and replacing it with Hate actually leads to it and "A Town Called Mercy" actually being in chronological order, if the Daleky-Waleky stuff has any import.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 9, 2012)

Does anyone remember that Capt Jack was a Time Agent, and his primary mode of travel was the arm bracelet? The ship was just something he happened to pick up.

And, if you want to step way outside the series, in the target novels written in the dark times of the mid 90s, The Doctor gives Bernice Summerfield and her husband their wedding rings, which allow them to travel in time.

Of course, River Song, as far as I'm concerned, was just a rip-off clone of Bernice Summerfield anyway...

Since taking over, Moffat has ruined Doctor Who. It is sad, because he was responsible for about 6 of the best episodes ever written. Now, it's a pathetic imitation of itself. I can only hope he retires soon, and turns the show over to someone who actually cares.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 9, 2012)

"Rip-off clone of Bernice Summerfield"? Really? Have you ever actually seen/read/listened to them? That's just ridiculous. They're both profs at some point and that's about it.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 9, 2012)

Both time-traveling archeologists who have had intimate relations/sex with the doctor?
Yeah, nothing in common whatsoever.

Actually, you're right. There is one very major difference.
When I first ran into the character of Bernice, I found her very irritating and annoying, but she grew on me. I realize not that the problem was with the early scripts more than the character.
When I first ran into River, she was mildly interesting, and I was looking forward to finding out who she was. Now, I'm sick to death of her, and would like the character to simply disappear.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 9, 2012)

Well, this is clearly the thread to crap all over Stephen Moffat's contribution to the Dr. Who cannon. Honestly! Ruined? C'mon. We can all have our disagreements on what are and aren't strong episodes or what's happened with the Doctor during the Amy/Rory arc, but it's produced some of the best Who and most fun television in the past decade.

And, as importantly, I remember some of the abominations Russell T. Davies produced. The worst of Moffatt is light years better than RTD on a bad day.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 9, 2012)

RTD did some brilliant work. On the other hand, he also did some horrible work, especially toward the end, when he was obviously burned out. Like John-Nathan Turner, RTD was a better producer than ideas person--he knew how to get hype on his side. During RTD, Moffat wrote 6 excellent episodes.

Since taking over, well, Series 5 was so bad that after watching the show for 25 years I was ready to stop. Still, I gave it a chance, and series 6 was slightly better. Only slightly.

Under RTD, NuWho had a lot of soap-opera. Under Moffat, logic gets pushed aside for emotion and fairy-tale flavor, with River Song shoe-horned in whenever possible, whether she's needed or not.

But hey, that's just my arrogant opinion. Empty Child/Doctor Dances, Blink, and the Library 2-parter will probably remain the top stories of NuWho, and among the top of Doctor Who in general for a very long time.

But Greatest Show in the Galaxy in no longer the worst.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 9, 2012)

I will grant you that I could stand seeing precisely zero more of River song. Her story is pretty well played out.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2012)

The worst of modern Who is RTD's Slitheen nonsense.  Farting aliens running round Downing Street. I tried to get a friend into the show, and those episodes (unfortunately near the beginning) just made him vow never to watch the show.  

Moffat is different to RTD, but he's never done anything that bad.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 9, 2012)

Yes, the Slitheen... The only thing worse than their initial concept was their being re-used so many times.

Moffat turned the Daleks into Danish Modern kitchenware. On the other hand, he got rid of the oh-so-tired "these are the last daleks in the universe...until next time we bring them back".

Unfortunately, the daleks will be used, in some capacity, at least once per series. That was the deal struck with Terry Nation's estate for them to be used.

Now, the crack in time arc--not only did it not make sense, but it was never resolved. And the final episode... Amy pats her younger self's hair. Think about that for a second. If you can't see the problem, then watch Father's Day and Mawdren Undead. If Amy has to remember things for them to come back, then only the places she remembers come back. If she didn't encounter it, it doesn't exist anymore. How much of the universe did she actually see? How could she remember River in order for River to show up at her wedding? On the other hand, if everything comes back, whether she remembers or not, which makes a lot more sense, what was the point of this whole thing? And the Cracks are still there. But it seems that the entire story line has been abandoned.


But I'm a cranky old guy. What do I know?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yes, the Slitheen... The only thing worse than their initial concept was their being re-used so many times.
> 
> Moffat turned the Daleks into Danish Modern kitchenware. On the other hand, he got rid of the oh-so-tired "these are the last daleks in the universe...until next time we bring them back".
> 
> ...




Sure, I'll give you some logical inconsitency there; and then raise you magical fairy telekinetic glowing flying superpowered David Tennant when everybody says his name at the same time....


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 9, 2012)

And concentrates on the shriveled up troll they've seen on TV, and the story told to them by Martha, and The Doctor has had a full year to tap into the planet's emotional field. And yeah, it still is kinda naf. On the other hand, it was followed shortly after by the death of the Master (we actually get to see it this time, instead of all the accidents he has between appearances), and the best piece of music the show has ever produced as the background of a a childhood reminiscence of Gallifrey.


----------



## lin_fusan (Oct 9, 2012)

Herschel said:


> "Rip-off clone of Bernice Summerfield"? Really? Have you ever actually seen/read/listened to them? That's just ridiculous. They're both profs at some point and that's about it.




Well, to be fair, Gatiss, Moffatt, and Cornell, who have written for the novelizations, did create/develop Bernice Summerfield, so I can see bits of those ideas in River Song. 

As for rip-off, can you rip-off yourself? I'm guessing that they liked the idea of the character enough that they wanted to bring something of her onto the small screen. 

Is 3rd season's "Human Nature/Family of Blood" a rip-off? Paul Cornell wrote those two episodes and the plot's lifted from the Doctor Who novel "Human Nature" also written by Paul Cornell.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 9, 2012)

There were _so many_ terrible RTD episodes that I often had to push myself through to continuing with the show. While there have been plenty of things that were nonsensical in Moffat eps, none of them have felt out-and-out _bad_ to me.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 9, 2012)

I can count the nuWho episodes I didn't care for on one hand: The Idiots Lantern (Mark Gatiss), Fear Her (Matthew Graham), The Lazarus Experiment (Stephen Greenhorn), Last of the Time Lords (RTD) and Midnight (RTD). That's only two of teh RTD-written episodes. 

The Slitheen were there to appeal to 12-year-old boys who love fart jokes. Not my favorites, but my eight-year-old nephew absolutely loved them and gave me a new appreciation of them.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Oct 9, 2012)

Even as silly as some of those RTD episodes might have been, I still actively looked forward to new episodes. I just don't feel that kind of enthusiasm at all this season. I'm hoping that most of that malaise is because I'm just extremely tired of the Ponds and Matt Smith's interaction with them, but I'd be lying if I said I really believed that. I might just need to give new episodes a pass for awhile and come back to them later.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 9, 2012)

Yes, you can rip yourself off. Though in this case, the rip-off is more at the audience's expense.
The problem with River vs Bernice is the same one I have with most of the stories and story elements that NuWho has borrowed from Big Finish: They are inferior copies.

I was able to forgive the worst of the JNT era's atrocities (like Greatest Show in the Galaxy). Series 5 and 6, however... I did rewatch 5, just to see if it was my attitude that was at fault. The exercise only confirmed my opinion. I could not bring myself to rewatch 6. Aside from the first 2 episodes of 5, nothing in the Moffat era is worth a second look.


----------



## lin_fusan (Oct 10, 2012)

Then "Blink" was a rip-off too. It was based on a short story by Moffatt in Doctor Who magazine about a girl named Sally Sparrow who found a videotape from her in the future to her in the present (had no Weeping Angels though. It was definitely a kid's piece).


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 10, 2012)

I don't mind a ripoff that improves on previous material. It is when the ripoff goes downhill (virtually everything copied from Big Finish, Douglas Adams later work when he was repurposing Doctor Who for HHGTTG and Dirk Gentley's) that I find a problem, and generally insulting to the audience. If you are going to quote from anything (even your own work), you should be making something better than the original.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> I don't mind a ripoff that improves on previous material. It is when the ripoff goes downhill (virtually everything copied from Big Finish, Douglas Adams later work when he was repurposing Doctor Who for HHGTTG and Dirk Gentley's) that I find a problem, and generally insulting to the audience. If you are going to quote from anything (even your own work), you should be making something better than the original.




Some of us do not feel that the later works were in any way worse.  You're in danger of mistaking your personal taste for universal fact.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 10, 2012)

No, that's my standard procedure.
Whether it is a mistake or not is purely subjective.
I find the biggest drawback is that often the other people do not have the frame of reference to know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 10, 2012)

I suspect that's not the case here. This is a pretty Who-savvy group.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> No, that's my standard procedure.
> Whether it is a mistake or not is purely subjective.
> I find the biggest drawback is that often the other people do not have the frame of reference to know what I'm talking about.




What is this frame of reference to which you refer?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 10, 2012)

I disliked Amy almost from the start(but love Rory) I just don't get the whole feel of mofit. It almost seams like he doesn't care for continuity or rules from one rap to another.

This whole "I read it in a book" rule that comes out of nowhere bugs me

I mean really how many companions know and read how WW2 ended... But the dalek can thirteen earth in that time... No wait that would be solid time :/


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 10, 2012)

Remus Lupin said:


> I suspect that's not the case here. This is a pretty Who-savvy group.



Most fans I've run into are unaware of the Big Finish cannon. Or while they might have heard of it, they don't know the details.
Which is rather funny, because of how much cross-pollination there is between crew, cast, and stories. Several of the best ideas within NuWho were pioneered in BFP. Heck, Tennent's first Doctor Who role was in Dalek Empire II.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 10, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Most fans I've run into are unaware of the Big Finish cannon. Or while they might have heard of it, they don't know the details.
> Which is rather funny, because of how much cross-pollination there is between crew, cast, and stories. Several of the best ideas within NuWho were pioneered in BFP. Heck, Tennent's first Doctor Who role was in Dalek Empire II.




There's an interesting legal twist to canonicity where the BBC is regarded.  Because its funded by the TV license fee, the BBC is bound by a stict charter. That charter _requires_ that all BBC television dramas must be whole unto themselves, and must not require extra purchases [ESPECIALLY from third parties] that ‘complete the story’ - in other words an externally legally proscribed declaration that only what appears on the TV screen is canon. Having a book or audio play be canon would actually violate the BBC's charter; it's actually _illegal_ for the Big Finish stuff to be canon.

Of course, no _Who_ fan cares a whit about that. In fact, RTD famously said that 'canon' in Who was 'whatever you can remember; different for everyone'. He also said that he refused to be 'bound by' anything that had come before, in a sense rendering everything non-canon. Or equally canon. Certainly there are plenty of contradictions, and in a 50-yr old TV series, how could there not be?

In the end, there's no single authority to declare what is canon and what is not, and anybody attempting to claim that authority is just plain wrong. 

Canon is what you want it to be, and everyone gets to choose their canon.  That's kinda beautiful.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 10, 2012)

Yeah, Who canon is wibbly wobbly at best. After all, he does keep messing with the timeline. Moffat and RTD at least gave comic book explanations (Amy's crack eating time/Great Time War = Superboy Prime punching reality) for their changes. Classic Who writers just didn't give a damn and rewrote canon as they pleased.

Doctor Who basically runs on Hypertime.

I must agree, though, that Moffat's Who never gives me that same butterfly feel of WHOAH as RTD's. But overall I find Moffat's run to be both more emotionally satisfying and more consistent in quality.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 11, 2012)

Interesting. By that logic, though, shouldn't series 1 be know as Series 27 or 28?
Alternate realities make a great explanation for the inconsistencies between stories, but NuWho has specialized in having series-long arcs, which, by necessity, MUST be consistent. Thus the conflict.
This can never happen again--until next time.
Rose is gone forever--until next series finale.
These are the last Daleks in the Universe--until next time.

I know, I'm just a cranky old guy totally out of touch with modern viewer expectations. I prefer substance over emotion. The fault is mine.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 12, 2012)

This is interesting:

BBC One - Doctor Who, Series 7, Doctor Who: P.S.

On the BBC website; I final 'epilogue' scene by Chris Chibnall. You find out what happens to Brian, Rory, and Amy after _Angels Take Manhattan_.

Edit - found it on Youtube too:-

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWU6XL9xI4k[/ame]​


----------



## Morrus (Oct 12, 2012)

And this is amusing - is Doctor Who a religion?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Csjr8bXvPw]Is Doctor Who a Religion? | Idea Channel | PBS - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Nellisir (Oct 12, 2012)

Morrus said:


> On the BBC website; I final 'epilogue' scene by Chris Chibnall. You find out what happens to Brian, Rory, and Amy after _Angels Take Manhattan_.




Well that's a much better ending than what was shown.  :/


----------



## Herschel (Oct 12, 2012)

Now that's a Moff ending.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 12, 2012)

Wow, wish they'd filmed that. Crazy powerful, and agreed, much more satisfying. 

Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 13, 2012)

Morrus said:


> This is interesting:
> 
> BBC One - Doctor Who, Series 7, Doctor Who: P.S.
> 
> On the BBC website; I final 'epilogue' scene by Chris Chibnall. You find out what happens to Brian, Rory, and Amy after _Angels Take Manhattan_



_

What a sweet final scene._


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 13, 2012)

Glad we get a resolution to that. Brian was who I first thought of after the episode finished. I teared up watching this, I must admit.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Oct 15, 2012)

Eridanis said:


> Glad we get a resolution to that. Brian was who I first thought of after the episode finished. I teared up watching this, I must admit.




You're not the only one. I have a real thing about family, it seems. I found that very emotional - the mixture of deep sadness at knowing you'll never see your son again combined with the unexpected joy of finding out you had a grandchild.

I can picture that final, awkward hug perfectly in my mind. I wish they'd filmed it. Maybe wtih enough positive responses they will. After all, they've already got Rory's voice-over - they'd only need to get Brian in the studio and cast someone as his grandchild.


----------

