# [TV] Doctor Who



## Krug (Apr 18, 2010)

The first ep didn't quite work for me, but I really enjoyed the second ep. There's a very deliberate low-tech look to the series so far; not too sleek like in US series. Episode two though the dear Doctor seemed like a supporting actor... in his own series.

Well really looking to Episode 3. 



Spoiler



Winston Churchill and Daleks??


 WOOOT!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 19, 2010)

I enjoyed all three so far. The first episode already convinced me of the new Doctor.


----------



## Pseudonym (Apr 19, 2010)

The first three we good.  I'm really excited about next week.


----------



## Krug (Apr 25, 2010)

Man... great fourth ep. Can't wait for the continuation.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2010)

Yup, The Time of Angels was superb. I can't wait for the second part next week.

So far I'd rate them:

The Eleventh Hour:  8/10
The Beast Below: 5/10
Victory of the Daleks: 6/10
The Time of Angels: 9/10


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 25, 2010)

I actually got bored during "Time of angels", I think that part of the problem for me was that River Song was 'too good', especially with respect to flying the tardis. I really disliked the interplay about the traditional tardis noise being because the doctor always lands with the brakes on.

It just rubbed me up the wrong way (and there were numerous facets of that in the early part of the episode)


----------



## Quantum (Apr 25, 2010)

Yeah, I think the low tech approach is simply to save money. I'm not opposed to it, though it is a funky approach. Then again, the Brits always do things funky.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Apr 25, 2010)

Quantum said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think the low tech approach is simply to save money.



Pretty sure I heard that the budget was cut back for this season. 

I still feel like the actor for the new Doctor is still finding his footing. Frequently it seems he's falling back on Tenneman's interpretation and style.

Liking the companion, so far. A character how had to go through therapy due to her initial contact with him!


----------



## Redrobes (Apr 25, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> ...I really disliked the interplay about the traditional tardis noise being because the doctor always lands with the brakes on...



Agreed - esp if in future episodes this season he lands it with the noise now he knows it can be done without. Its crazy to think he doesn't know about brakes on his own tardis. Wish they would stop treating him like a retard or trashing decades of historical precedent.

Anyway, regardless, I liked the ep in general.

I have to dive away at the end when they almost instantly cut to practically the whole next episode as a teaser spoiler tho. Whats with that ? Does any extra viewers tune in because they saw those few seconds and is it worth the spoiling for the millions of those who have already committed to watching it anyway ? Surely the number ratio doesn't make it a good idea. In the old days when we usually had 4 episodes per story I don't recall any teasers. I think they would have cut it just *before* he states/shows what he's going to do to fix the situation on the cliffhanger too.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Apr 26, 2010)

Episode three airs next week on BBC America, so it appears we're 2 weeks behind y'all in Europe.  So far the new Dr reminds me a lot of Tom Baker, America's favorite Dr.  And that bit o' fluff Amy Pond is the hottest sidekick since Romana, now if they would just bring back K-9...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 26, 2010)

Redrobes said:


> I have to dive away at the end when they almost instantly cut to practically the whole next episode as a teaser spoiler tho. Whats with that ? Does any extra viewers tune in because they saw those few seconds and is it worth the spoiling for the millions of those who have already committed to watching it anyway ? Surely the number ratio doesn't make it a good idea. In the old days when we usually had 4 episodes per story I don't recall any teasers. I think they would have cut it just *before* he states/shows what he's going to do to fix the situation on the cliffhanger too.




They've been doing it since the reboot with Christopher Eccelston, and yes, it is incredibly annoying. The first one they did it with was with the slitheen, and the end of the episode shows the doctor and everyone being electrocuted. Oh no! Then the next week trailer shows everything just hunky dory and no more worries. Doh! When will programme planners get with the, uh, programme? Cliff hangers GOOD, encouraging people to tune in next week. Eastenders doesn't end with a cliffhanger then show you how it gets resolved in the teaser for the next episode, does it?

Also, what on earth was with the talent show ident coming up animated over the closing seconds of the Doctors dramatic shouting? Gah! This is supposed to be the BBC, not some trashy third rate digital channel!

Oh, I feel so ranty!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 26, 2010)

Really enjoyed it this weekend, great show. Time of Angels - best ep yet for me this season.

River Song is...interesting...and I'm looking forward to seeing what they're going to do with her.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 26, 2010)

Some fantastic lines in this one.

"What would be really nice is if we could all be calm in the face of decor."

"Well it's just boring now. They're boringers! Blue Boringers!" 

'River. Hug Amy.' 
"Why?"
"Because I'm busy."

"Space teeth!"

"Sorry, Bishop, no offence meant."
"Quite a lot taken, if that's all right, Doctor."

"We should visit them sometime."
"I thought they were all dead."
"So's Virginia Woolf; I'm on her bowling team." 
<!-- / message -->


----------



## nerfherder (Apr 26, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Also, what on earth was with the talent show ident coming up animated over the closing seconds of the Doctors dramatic shouting? Gah! This is supposed to be the BBC, not some trashy third rate digital channel!




Over 5,000 viewers have complained to the BBC.



Morrus said:


> "Sorry, Bishop, no offence meant."
> "Quite a lot taken, if that's all right, Doctor."



Lovely Aliens homage 

Time of Angels was my favourite episode so far.  Ep 1 was pretty close.  Ep 2 & 3 were a bit disappointing, to be honest (other than the khaki coloured daleks).


----------



## Morrus (Apr 26, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Really enjoyed it this weekend, great show. Time of Angels - best ep yet for me this season.
> 
> River Song is...interesting...and I'm looking forward to seeing what they're going to do with her.




The conversation between her and Father Octavian was interesting.  He asked if the Doctor "knew yet", and indicated that if he found out who River was he wouldn't help them.  Then she said she'd do her part because she didn't want to go back to prison.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Apr 26, 2010)

Morrus said:


> 'River. Hug Amy.'
> "Why?"
> "Because I'm busy."
> 
> ...




Dialogue continues to be excellent in this series, lots of quotable lines.

Amy, again, shows her abilities to actually solve problems (with the 



Spoiler



Angel in the monitor screen


) that would have beaten most Companions.


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2010)

Enjoyed the episode, and most of the banter. I do find somewhat cloying that the Doctor has to constantly pull out his laurels and say stuff like "There's one thing you never, never, ever-never, never put in a trap........................ME!" It's getting a mite predictable.


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 27, 2010)

I eat that stuff up, and never mind it a bit!


----------



## Morrus (Apr 27, 2010)

Felon said:


> Enjoyed the episode, and most of the banter. I do find somewhat cloying that the Doctor has to constantly pull out his laurels and say stuff like "There's one thing you never, never, ever-never, never put in a trap........................ME!" It's getting a mite predictable.




He's only done it twice.


----------



## nerfherder (Apr 27, 2010)

Morrus said:


> He's only done it twice.




It's a shame they used it in the trailers.  I'd heard the line a dozen times before the show, so it lost it's impact (that and Graham bleedin' Norton!).


----------



## Morrus (Apr 27, 2010)

nerfherder said:


> It's a shame they used it in the trailers. I'd heard the line a dozen times before the show, so it lost it's impact (that and Graham bleedin' Norton!).




Heh, there was no Graham Norton on HD!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 27, 2010)

Felon said:


> Enjoyed the episode, and most of the banter. I do find somewhat cloying that the Doctor has to constantly pull out his laurels and say stuff like "There's one thing you never, never, ever-never, never put in a trap........................ME!" It's getting a mite predictable.



That is the part of New Who I'm most sick of. The Doctor's kind of a dick now, he's always bigging himself up.


----------



## Felon (Apr 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> He's only done it twice.



He does it all the time. That bit towards the end of the pilot where he tells the eyeball-ships to look him up and then tells them to "basicallly...run", for instance, echoes him doing the same thing "Forest of the Dead" with the Vashta Nerada.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 28, 2010)

Felon said:


> He does it all the time. That bit towards the end of the pilot where he tells the eyeball-ships to look him up and then tells them to "basicallly...run", for instance, echoes him doing the same thing "Forest of the Dead" with the Vashta Nerada.




This Doctor, I meant.

Anyway, I don't mind a bit of arrogance from the Doctor.


----------



## Fast Learner (Apr 28, 2010)

I love the occasional arrogance: he quite literally is probably the most powerful and capable being in the universe, as demonstrated by having repeatedly overcome whole armies again and again. As long as it doesn't make him cocky too much, I find it refreshing. So far so good.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 28, 2010)

"The Time of Angels" is one of my favorite episodes ever. Of course I love River and the Weeping Angels. 

And as for the Brakes and 'blue boringers', they are great. It gives even more of the impression that the doctor doesn't always know what's really happening or how everything actually works.  Most everything he does is by the seat of his pants and doesn't allow for planning. He doesn't decide where they go in many cases, he ends up there when stuff hits the fan.


----------



## Felon (Apr 29, 2010)

Fast Learner said:


> I love the occasional arrogance: he quite literally is probably the most powerful and capable being in the universe, as demonstrated by having repeatedly overcome whole armies again and again. As long as it doesn't make him cocky too much, I find it refreshing. So far so good.



Powerful in some abstract sense of the word. Not powerful as in "the alien with the big claws or disintegration can't just annihilate him on the spot". If he keeps playing that card constantly, viewers will gradually start to come around to that not-terribly-subtle distinction.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 29, 2010)

Time of the Angels was essentially Doctor Who meets Coupling, with the Doctor channeling Steve, and then later, Jeff (now who could have seen _that_ coming?). 

It had a spaceship crash into a labyrinth-filled castle. 

Not to mention a woman in killer heels escape a tuxedo-clad man by blowing an airlock and leaping unprotected into outer space. 

But only after blow-torching a text message --"hi can u pick me up?"-- into an intergalactic flight-safely recorder, meant for her boyfriend 12,000 years in the future. 

In other words, it was the perfect hour television.


----------



## Atlatl Jones (May 3, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Not to mention a woman in killer heels escape a tuxedo-clad man by blowing an airlock and leaping unprotected into outer space.
> 
> But only after blow-torching a text message --"hi can u pick me up?"-- into an intergalactic flight-safely recorder, meant for her boyfriend 12,000 years in the future.
> 
> In other words, it was the perfect hour television.



And this week's episode was possibly even better.  Certainly a lot scarier.

And at the end, 



Spoiler



we learned the reason why she was so confident about it working: she already knew it worked, because she was a part of events in the Doctor's near-future in her past.  I love mind-bending time travel plots.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 3, 2010)

Another disappointing episode for me. 

I hate it when they take a creature and dramatically change its premise, almost beyond description. It is even worse when it is something from one of the best ever Dr Who's (Blink). Back then the angels fed on temporal energy by displacing people in time, now they break necks. Back then, the WHOLE POINT was that they couldn't move when being observed and this was the point of the final finishing them off - the tardis disappeared, leaving them watching each other, thus freezing them stone for ever. This episode we see angels looking at each other, eyes open all the time.

Pah.

Foolish re-writing of an excellent concept.


----------



## Morrus (May 3, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Another disappointing episode for me.




I thought it was fantastic!


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Another disappointing episode for me.
> 
> I hate it when they take a creature and dramatically change its premise, almost beyond description. It is even worse when it is something from one of the best ever Dr Who's (Blink). Back then the angels fed on temporal energy by displacing people in time, now they break necks. Back then, the WHOLE POINT was that they couldn't move when being observed and this was the point of the final finishing them off - the tardis disappeared, leaving them watching each other, thus freezing them stone for ever. This episode we see angels looking at each other, eyes open all the time.
> 
> ...



I liked the episode, but I agree that it was unnecessary to reneg on the concept of the weeping angels. The whole scene where they're not attacking Amy while her eyes were clearly closed was nonsensical.

But other bits, like using gunfire to create split-second illumination, and the bit where the captain got grabbed and there was nothing they could do about it, were brilliant.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 4, 2010)

While it was a shame they changed the angels, I loved the episode.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 4, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I thought it was fantastic!




Even with the utter change to the weeping angels, so that they in no way matched their original conception?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 4, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I hate it when they take a creature and dramatically change its premise, almost beyond description. It is even worse when it is something from one of the best ever Dr Who's (Blink). Back then the angels fed on temporal energy by displacing people in time, now they break necks. Back then, the WHOLE POINT was that they couldn't move when being observed and this was the point of the final finishing them off - the tardis disappeared, leaving them watching each other, thus freezing them stone for ever. This episode we see angels looking at each other, eyes open all the time.
> 
> Pah.
> 
> Foolish re-writing of an excellent concept.






Felon said:


> I liked the episode, but I agree that it was unnecessary to reneg on the concept of the weeping angels. The whole scene where they're not attacking Amy while her eyes were clearly closed was nonsensical.
> 
> But other bits, like using gunfire to create split-second illumination, and the bit where the captain got grabbed and there was nothing they could do about it, were brilliant.






Fast Learner said:


> While it was a shame they changed the angels, I loved the episode.




I agree with pretty much all the comments above, including Morrus! 

I really enjoyed the episode - using gunfire, the final save was clever (although it could have done with final reminder to keep watching the Angels so they couldn't escape whilst falling) and the death of the priest was great too.

Did NOT like the Angels moving in stone form - it totally negated the ending of Blink as pointed out above. 

And Amy leaping on the Doctor was priceless. No moping around, Rose-style. She knows what she wants and she wants it now!


----------



## Mallus (May 4, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Even with the utter change to the weeping angels, so that they in no way matched their original conception?



I think it depends on if you're in it more for the characters or the concepts. I favor the former, mainly because a life of reading/watching science fiction has taught me neat concepts rarely, if ever, hold up under any real scrutiny, especially when writers use them more than once. 

This is probably because the writers create the rules that their fantastic creations operate under depending on the needs of the particular story. So long as things remain close enough, I'm okay w/it. 

Really, so long as we get good guest characters like River, Octavian, even Angel Bob, and the Doctor has lines like "A forest in a bottle in a spaceship in a maze. Have I impressed you yet Amy Pond?" and "If I always told you the truth, I wouldn't need you to trust me", I'll keep eating this shi stuff up.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Even with the utter change to the weeping angels, so that they in no way matched their original conception?




I thought it was fantastic!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2010)

Pratchett vs Who


----------



## Herschel (May 4, 2010)

I loved it also. River became a favorite from the Library Episode and hasn't diminished in my eyes. The Angels are nifty and though I liked the time displacement attacks better, they were still pretty darned menacing.

When Matt Smith had the moment explaining to May she couldn't open her eyes I could see David Tennant in that sequence which really makes teh transition/regeneration seem natural and fitting.

And Octavian's "farewell" wa stremendous. Amy is rounding out in to a great companion also. 

As for changes in "canon", does anyone really think there will be only 13 doctors if teh show is still successful? The Master was supposedly out of regenerations when Eric Roberts faced Paul McGann.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 4, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Pratchett vs Who




Good insight from Sir Terry, with a solid explanation of why I still love the show and, likely, why some folks don't.


----------



## lin_fusan (May 4, 2010)

I got too distracted by the "changes" to really appreciate the episode. The part that got my brain into the twist was:



Spoiler



When Amy was walking blind through the field of angels. The Doctor says to her that they are too busy running to notice her, and I thought, "But... they aren't moving on the TV screen..."

Then I thought, "Wait a minute... They have a psychic link to her and her eyeball, how could they not know she's around?"



And that's when the ep stopped making any sense to me.

With River Song, her character changed from the doomed romance of the Library eps to menace, and since I was very wedded to the doomed romance, the change felt jarring. (Oh, and for those who read the "New Adventures" novels with the 7th Doctor, does River Song seem more like Bernice Summerfield now with her archeology and mysterious past?)

As for Amy's aggressiveness, I found it both hilarious, and cringe-worthy since we had already gone through with this with Rose and Martha. So that was a wash.

And did anyone else find the Doctor's solution/climax to the episode a little anticlimactic?

I liked the first part, but I'm "eh" on the second part. Moffet's Library two-parter was a much stronger story.


----------



## Felon (May 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> As for changes in "canon", does anyone really think there will be only 13 doctors if teh show is still successful? The Master was supposedly out of regenerations when Eric Roberts faced Paul McGann.



The Master's regenerations leave room for canonical explanations. Check out Wikipedia.

But that's not the same kind of canonical inconsistency that we're talking about with the weeping angels. The angels had specific rules for how they worked, and working within those rules were a big part of what made "Blink" such an entertaining episode. Renegging on those rules cuts into suspension of disbelief, and that mental bump in the road substracts from entertainment. 

If you're watching a TV show about vampires, and in one episode they're burned by crucifixes and holy water, and then a few episodes later they laugh off that stuff as being made up by the church, that screws up how previous episodes played out. It's a cheat. Whimsical dialogue and colorful characters are great, but unless we're talking about stream-of-consciousness poetry, a writer should use both halves of his brain. In other words, try to be consistent.

That's why I really don't like the sonic screwdriver all that much. It's a magic wand that allows the writers this huge get-out-of-jail-free card because it has no rules. 

"_Oh dear, the Doctor's trapped, I'm biting my nails, how's he gonna  get outta this one? BZZZT. Oh OK, he used the sonic screwdriver to make the problem go away. That'll never get old_."


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2010)

Fast Learner said:


> Good insight from Sir Terry, with a solid explanation of why I still love the show and, likely, why some folks don't.



Pratchett's attitude to New Who is very similar to my own - ambivalence. Overall I like the show a lot - it's Dr Who only with high production values and a fast pace - you can't not like it. There have been some wonderful big, modern ideas such as daleks fighting for Churchill. But some aspects - the handwavium, the doctor-as-god, the smugness (both on the part of the writers and the Doctor himself) - I rather strongly dislike.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2010)

Felon said:


> That's why I really don't like the sonic screwdriver all that much. It's a magic wand that allows the writers this huge get-out-of-jail-free card because it has no rules.



Yeah, as Pratchett says there are, or ought to be, rules to these things. RTD was particularly bad for this but it's still present even now he's gone. Dr Who has never been, and should never be, hard SF. It shouldn't follow the rules of physics. But it should follow some rules. Solutions should be foreshadowed. Or at least make some kind of conceptual sense. The writing has got so very lazy in terms of making up whatever is needed to solve a problem on the spot.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 4, 2010)

It's like we read completely different articles. I don't see anywhere that Pratchett indicates that he thinks there should be rules for these things. He says there aren't rules, and the sheer fun of the show allows him to ignore the lack of rules, but no indication that there ought to be some.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> As for changes in "canon", does anyone really think there will be only 13 doctors if teh show is still successful?




Nope. Nobody on the planet thinks that. 

The BBC will not drop it's flagship drama worth millions and millions of pounds because of a bit of technobabble 30 years ago.  One line of technobabble and the problem is fixed. I doubt anyone at the BBC even sees it as a problem. "I used to have 13 regenerations, but the Time War changed all that" [or any of a thousand other possible lines]. Fixed in under 3 seconds; say line, move on, never mention it again.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2010)

Felon said:


> But that's not the same kind of canonical inconsistency that we're talking about with the weeping angels. The angels had specific rules for how they worked, and working within those rules were a big part of what made "Blink" such an entertaining episode. Renegging on those rules cuts into suspension of disbelief, and that mental bump in the road substracts from entertainment.




I'm not really all that bothered by it. There were two "inconsitencies" that folks seem to cite:

1) Neck snapping. Explained by "they need the bodies for something", which turned out to be to talk to the survivors to lure them in.

2) The vision thing. Explained originally by the statues having no eyes due to decay, which is a fine explanation. Latter explanation, I agree, was a bit weak ("they're focussed on running away from the anti-time wave, and so will instinctively _act_ as though they can be seen if they believe they can be") - not a strong explanation: basically they're so used to unwillingly freezing when seen that they actually act like that anyway if they're distracted by something else. But I can let it go.


----------



## Morrus (May 4, 2010)

Felon said:


> That's why I really don't like the sonic screwdriver all that much. It's a magic wand that allows the writers this huge get-out-of-jail-free card because it has no rules.
> 
> "_Oh dear, the Doctor's trapped, I'm biting my nails, how's he gonna get outta this one? BZZZT. Oh OK, he used the sonic screwdriver to make the problem go away. That'll never get old_."




That's an interesting viewpoint; I'd never noticed that. He does use it as a shortcut in action and narrative sequences, but I don't recall it used as any kind of climactic solution or as a deus ex machina. As far as I can recall, he uses it where it doesn't really matter, and they want him to use a Doctorish way of doing something (e.g. unlocking a door - he could pick the lock, but he uses his sonic screwdriver; accessing a computer - they could show him tapping away at a keyboard or twisting wires, but he uses his sonic screwdriver).

Just seems to be a stylistic choice to me - a choice to have him use it rather than show him doing something else, but never where he couldn't _do_ the other thing.


----------



## lin_fusan (May 4, 2010)

The sonic screwdriver MacGuffin reminds me of how the TARDIS should/shouldn't be used:

My girlfriend and I were watching "Seeds of Death" on netflix streaming the other day. (It is based on old VHS/magnetic tape copies, so it has all the flaws of age; occasional skips, scratches, and background hiss...)

There was a line where Jamie asks the Doctor, "Why can't we take these people to the moon in the TARDIS?"

Zoe answers, "Because we'd be bound to miss the moon by a million years."

And the Doctor says, "Or by a million miles."

I remember this to be an elegant solution to the question of why the Doctor can't use the TARDIS as a "get out of jail free card". In this new series, however, there has to be plotty reasons why that can't happen, ie. the Doctor is cut off from his TARDIS, such as in "The Impossible Planet" and "The Satan Pit".

New viewers always ask me why the Doctor doesn't zip back in time or space to fix whatever problem happens to be in front of him. They generally don't buy the "cross my own timeline" explanation ('cause they do it in "Father's Day" and "Smith and Jones") or the "timey-whimy" explanation (because that's pretty much handwavium).

I sometimes wish that this new Doctor didn't have the sonic screwdriver. In that Children in Need mini with Peter Davidson, I thought Moffat was going to make a statement about how it was a too strong of a MacGuffin.

But I keep expectantly wait for the next episode to air.


----------



## Felon (May 5, 2010)

Morrus said:


> That's an interesting viewpoint; I'd never noticed that. He does use it as a shortcut in action and narrative sequences, but I don't recall it used as any kind of climactic solution or as a deus ex machina. As far as I can recall, he uses it where it doesn't really matter, and they want him to use a Doctorish way of doing something (e.g. unlocking a door - he could pick the lock, but he uses his sonic screwdriver; accessing a computer - they could show him tapping away at a keyboard or twisting wires, but he uses his sonic screwdriver).



See, the fact that the screwdriver's effect is expedient is what makes it matter. For instance, if a monster's chasing the Doctor, there's suspense. It's breathing down his neck. He doesn't have time to pick a lock. BZZZT! Open door. BZZZT! Seal door. Monster escaped. 

 If someone's captured, restrained, and in some kind of peril, there's tension. Only moments to act. How can the Doctor possibly rescue them with the bad guy right there? BZZZT! Restraints gone. Victim saved. Turn attention to foe. He can even due this to non-mechanical stuff like webbing. 

For these very reasons, the sonic screwdriver was actually removed from the series during Peter Davison's run, pretty early on. 

P.S. I keep thinking Bill Murray whenever I see that picture you're using.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2010)

Felon said:


> See, the fact that the screwdriver's effect is expedient is what makes it matter. For instance, if a monster's chasing the Doctor, there's suspense. It's breathing down his neck. He doesn't have time to pick a lock. BZZZT! Open door. BZZZT! Seal door. Monster escaped.
> 
> If someone's captured, restrained, and in some kind of peril, there's tension. Only moments to act. How can the Doctor possibly rescue them with the bad guy right there? BZZZT! Restraints gone. Victim saved. Turn attention to foe. He can even due this to non-mechanical stuff like webbing.




Fair enough; I guess everyone's "line" is different. The sonic screwdriver falls below the line for me - I just find it a convenient narrative device to move the story along rather than have him circumvent a computer for 10 minutes or pick a lock or what-have-you. But I can appreciate that it may bug other people!  

Of course, one should bear in mind that you are watching a kids' TV show.  The target audience is 12 years old.



> P.S. I keep thinking Bill Murray whenever I see that picture you're using.




That's a picture of me drawn by Claudio Pozas.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 5, 2010)

Morrus said:


> One line of technobabble and the problem is fixed. I doubt anyone at the BBC even sees it as a problem. "I used to have 13 regenerations, but the Time War changed all that" [or any of a thousand other possible lines]. Fixed in under 3 seconds; say line, move on, never mention it again.




They could do that. They probably _will_ do that.

But it's not the route I want them to take. I'd rather the Doctor believe his 13th incarnation is his last... Only to have him regenerate a 13th time, and have no idea how he did it! Then tie in his efforts to figure out what's happened, and what's changed, to the ongoing plot of that particular season of the show.

(Heck, if they _really_ want to showcase that something truly unnatural/bizarre has happened, let him regen back into a previous incarnation--something that's _obviously_ not supposed to happen, and perhaps suggests something _really_ temporally funky going on--for just the one season. It'd be an excuse to bring back an old favorite for a "limited engagement"--Tennant's the obvious choice, but I'd love to see a little more of Eccleston--and then move on from there to a brand new regen under whatever the newly discovered "new rules" are.)


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> They could do that. They probably _will_ do that.
> 
> But it's not the route I want them to take. I'd rather the Doctor believe his 13th incarnation is his last... Only to have him regenerate a 13th time, and have no idea how he did it! Then tie in his efforts to figure out what's happened, and what's changed, to the ongoing plot of that particular season of the show.




That could be interesting, as long as they come up with a strong storyline and good resolution for it.  



> (Heck, if they _really_ want to showcase that something truly unnatural/bizarre has happened, let him regen back into a previous incarnation--something that's _obviously_ not supposed to happen, and perhaps suggests something _really_ temporally funky going on--for just the one season. It'd be an excuse to bring back an old favorite for a "limited engagement"--Tennant's the obvious choice, but I'd love to see a little more of Eccleston--and then move on from there to a brand new regen under whatever the newly discovered "new rules" are.)




They won't get Eccleston; Tennant might be willing to do it if he's not busy, but he seems fairly determined to forge a new career now. Either way, it's a couple of Doctors away yet, so who knows what those actors will be doing in ten years' time?


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 5, 2010)

Morrus said:


> They won't get Eccleston; Tennant might be willing to do it if he's not busy, but he seems fairly determined to forge a new career now. Either way, it's a couple of Doctors away yet, so who knows what those actors will be doing in ten years' time?




Oh, it's quite some time away, so this is all just speculation and wishful thinking on my part. 

That said, do you know something I don't regarding Eccleston? I know he only signed on for the one season, but is there some reason to assume he'd never even consider doing it again?


----------



## Felon (May 5, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Of course, one should bear in mind that you are watching a kids' TV show.  The target audience is 12 years old.



You really think so? I'd say the show is family-oriented, but there's a lot of material that wouldn't be there if your target audience was prepubescent. 

Sarah Jane Adventures was the show for kids.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2010)

Felon said:


> You really think so? I'd say the show is family-oriented, but there's a lot of material that wouldn't be there if your target audience was prepubescent.
> 
> Sarah Jane Adventures was the show for kids.





SJA is for even younger kids.  It's on the CBBC schedule, which is all for the under-10s, and surrounded by shows with puppets and talking animals.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 5, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I'm not really all that bothered by it. There were two "inconsitencies" that folks seem to cite:
> 
> 1) Neck snapping. Explained by "they need the bodies for something", which turned out to be to talk to the survivors to lure them in.
> 
> 2) The vision thing. Explained originally by the statues having no eyes due to decay, which is a fine explanation. Latter explanation, I agree, was a bit weak ("they're focussed on running away from the anti-time wave, and so will instinctively _act_ as though they can be seen if they believe they can be") - not a strong explanation: basically they're so used to unwillingly freezing when seen that they actually act like that anyway if they're distracted by something else. But I can let it go.




You're forgetting the one which is the real biggie for me - that angels who are looking at each other are forever stone (the conclusion of _Blink_). These angels all look at each other all the time without problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> You're forgetting the one which is the real biggie for me - that angels who are looking at each other are forever stone (the conclusion of _Blink_). These angels all look at each other all the time without problem.



I always understood that "forever" only meant "until the light goes out". The Doctor did notice that these Angels were different in that they weren't mere scavengers, so maybe that changes also how well they can recover from it.


----------



## Morrus (May 5, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> You're forgetting the one which is the real biggie for me - that angels who are looking at each other are forever stone (the conclusion of _Blink_). These angels all look at each other all the time without problem.




You misunderstand me; I'm not trying to sell it to you or convince you you're wrong.  I'm just saying that I liked it, and why.  I'm cool with the fact that those things bothered you.

However, since youa sked, I'll  give it a go:  the ones in the tombs had no eyes. They didn't have eyes until they got to the forest. At that point, they only moved when the lights were out (wich is why they were disabling the tree-borgs); most of the time they were all looknig the same way.

As I recall, anyway. I'd have to rewatch it to make sure that none of the Angels were looking at each other post-eye-growth.  I could be wrong.  But, like I said, I still thought the episode was fantastic.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 5, 2010)

It did encourage me to dig out Blink and rewatch it. The story was just as nrlliant as the first time, with the mystery, suspense etc. I'd still rate Blink as one of my all time favourite episodes. 

I'm looking forward to seeing flashes of brilliance like that episode again in this series - for me, there are normally 1-3 stand
out episodes in each series. I wonder which they will be this tome round?


----------



## TanisFrey (May 6, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Pratchett vs Who



Dr Who often crosses the line between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 6, 2010)

I'd argue that it spends nearly every moment in science fantasy and only strays into science fiction accidentally.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 6, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I wonder which they will be this tome round?



I think the historical episodes are generally the best, particularly the ones where the Doctor meets a famous person from history - The Shakespeare Code, The Unquiet Dead (Dickens), The Girl in the Fireplace (Madame de Pompadour), Victory of the Daleks (Churchill). No coincidence that two of these were written by Gatiss, and one by 'the Grand' Moff, the two best New Who writers.


----------



## Morrus (May 7, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think the historical episodes are generally the best, particularly the ones where the Doctor meets a famous person from history - The Shakespeare Code, The Unquiet Dead (Dickens), The Girl in the Fireplace (Madame de Pompadour), Victory of the Daleks (Churchill). No coincidence that two of these were written by Gatiss, and one by 'the Grand' Moff, the two best New Who writers.




Interesting (_Girl in the Fireplace_ aside) that's a good list of some of my least favourite episodes.


----------



## Herschel (May 7, 2010)

Yeah, _Girl In The Fireplace_ is one of my favorites but _The Victory of the Daleks _was kind of a stinker for me. The other two I enjoyed well enough (as well as _Tooth & Claw_).


----------



## horacethegrey (May 9, 2010)

Well… rather late to the party here. Chalk it up to being busy enjoying the new season before giving my two cents. But now seems as good a time as any to post my thoughts on Steven Moffat’s first season on _Doctor Who_.
Let’s start with the characters then:

*The 11th Doctor* – Brilliant. Just brilliant. Matt Smith has certainly won me over with his mad professor take on the last Timelord. There’s a gleeful mix of elderly wisdom and childlike wonder in his performance that reminds me of Tom Baker and Patrick Troughton, but with more youthful energy (not surprising, considering he’s only 27). He also carries himself with a quiet confidence that we can relate to, unlike the smugness and overbearing arrogance David Tennant displayed in much of his run. While those brief flashes of anger he showed in Ep 2 and 3 were quite good, as was the anguish he displayed in Ep 5, it’s nice to see that his portrayal won’t be mired in the same emotive drivel that mired much of Tennant’s later seasons. 

I know it’s too early to tell, but I’m already enjoying Smith’s take on the Doctor much more than Tennant at this point. If he keeps it up he may even exceed my favorite, Chris Eccleston.

*Amy Pond* – Well, at least she’s hot.  Kidding aside though, Amelia Pond has turned out to be an interesting new companion. Much credit should be given to Karen Gillan, who’s a surprisingly better actress than I realized.  Aside from her feisty nature, she also has a surprising duality, struggling with her childlike innocence despite her grown up sensibilities. Not surprising, due to her history with the Doctor (having met him as a child then again as an adult). It gives their relationship a unique dynamic unlike any other in the show’s history. I look forward how it develops in the future.

Now for the episodes

*The Eleventh Hour* – A wonderful debut for the 11th Doctor, and IMO a better new series introduction story than Rose (the 9th Doctor) and The Christmas Invasion (the 10th Doctor). Full of fun whimsical moments (young Amy feeding the Doctor), and some genuine frights (Prisoner Zero’s introduction), it hits all the right notes. A nice intro to new characters (Amy, Rory), and new threats (the crack in Amy’s wall), it’s a near perfect Doctor Who story and a good appetizer for what is to come in the season. Bravo to Steven Moffat to an excellent start to his run.

*The Beast Below* – I really don’t get the dislike for this story. I think it’s a great tale with a difficult moral choice for the Doctor at the end. Save the whale or save the humans? Neither choice appeals to him of course, so you can understand his brief anger at all humanity near the end. But it’s Amy who makes the choice in the end which saves everyone in a very moving resolution. Remarkable.

*Victory of the Daleks* – I don’t think this story is as bad as everyone says, but even I had to raise an eyebrow at the Mighty Morphin Daleks.  Still it’s a bit of disappointment from Mark Gattis, who gave us the wonderful The Unquiet Dead in Season 1. I did enjoy Ian McNiece as Churchill though.

*The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone* – Blink was my favourite Moffat episode from the RTD era and the Weeping Angels are the best monsters ever created IMO in the show’s history. That said, while this two parter doesn’t quite achieve the same quality of Moffat his best, it’s still an excellent ride with some genuinely scary moments. And really, I don’t get the all the complaints of the Angels being ruined now that they have new abilities to play with. In my estimation this story wouldn’t have been as frightening if the Angels weren’t able to surprise us once in awhile. Smith and Gillan are again in top form, but the guest stars nearly steal the show. Iain Glein is great as Father Octavian, as is the returning Alex Kingston as River Song (another character whom people hate, which I don’t get either. I think it’s great that the Doctor has a relationship with a character that isn’t in linear time. Makes for some genuinely interesting scenarios.)

And as for tonight’s episode:

*The Vampires of Venice* – Judging from the previews I knew this episode wasn’t going to be scary (despite the “vampires” in the title, and really, can you top the Angels in terms of scaryness? In a follow up no less?). What I didn’t expect was how funny this week’s episode would be. There are some genuinely hysterical moments here, particularly between Rory (the excellent Arthur Darvill) and the Doctor. And may I say, although I know I’m probably going to be lynched for this, the sheer comic timing Matt displays here shows what a better actor he is than David Tennant (who at times forced his comedy and often mugged for the camera). The monsters may not be that remarkable, as is the plot, but it’s still fun. Plus, you can't beat that wonderful Venetian scenery (Assassin's Creed 2 FTW!).


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> *Amy Pond* – Well, at least she’s hot.  Kidding aside though, Amelia Pond has turned out to be an interesting new companion.



She just seems like the same pert little woman we've seen over and over again. That scene from yesterday's "Vampires in Venice" where the Doctor and Amy are all giddy as schoolgirls about encountering something that should rightfully terrify them....We've had that scene before.


----------



## Herschel (May 10, 2010)

I'm liking Amy a lot. She's a little more "active" in coming up with solutions than a lot of companions are. "Vampires of Venice" was another good episode and I'm liking Mat Smith more and more all the time. He's still not Tennant or Eccleston, but he's getting there quickly. I like him better than most of the older doctors already.


----------



## talwynor (May 10, 2010)

Morrus said:


> They won't get Eccleston; Tennant might be willing to do it if he's not busy, but he seems fairly determined to forge a new career now. Either way, it's a couple of Doctors away yet, so who knows what those actors will be doing in ten years' time?





I came to the new Dr Who run during Tennant's run after being "somewhat" familiar with the program from back in the day.  Why is Eccleston definitely out?  I know he only did the one season but wasn't watching at the time to know why he didn't come back.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 10, 2010)

talwynor said:


> I know he only did the one season but wasnt watching at the time to know why he didnt come back.




Well, I know that he very specifically only signed on for one season, with the understanding that he'd regenerate at the end of it. It was (I believe) mostly a way to give the new version of the show some legitimacy--by casting a well respected, "real" actor--and it was supposed to be a major surprise, but the news that he was only there for one season leaked early.

However, I don't know what makes Morrus so certain he couldn't be talked into coming back for a season under my proposed (admittedly fanciful and unlikely) scenario.


----------



## Morrus (May 10, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> However, I don't know what makes Morrus so certain he couldn't be talked into coming back for a season under my proposed (admittedly fanciful and unlikely) scenario.




He made some less than complimentary comments after he left.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 11, 2010)

Morrus said:


> He made some less than complimentary comments after he left.




Aw, that's a shame. 

Do you happen to remember any links, or any quotes? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to the substance of his complaints.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 11, 2010)

RTD did claim later that CE's departure was planned from the start as it happened, but it contradicts both his own and others' earlier comments. We don't know exactly what happened, but we know some things.

CE has refused to comment much upon it, other than it was his decision and that he doesn't like to do any one thing for too long.

There's a lot of good (and even more bad, of course) discussion on this around, like this thread on Gallifrey Base.


You need to register to read the thread, so I'll quote one post which summarized the most widely believed theory:



			
				Gallifrey Base user Wilf said:
			
		

> CE was signed up for one year with an option for a second.
> 
> It is believed he was unhappy about the quality of the first three episodes he filmed, and it is believed he had family problems to deal with shortly afterwards.
> 
> ...


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 11, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Aw, that's a shame.
> 
> Do you happen to remember any links, or any quotes? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to the substance of his complaints.




The first series had a lot of production issues which made him and others very frustrated. He also complained of the quality of the first few scripts ("Rose" & "Aliens of London/WWIII"). I don't think he's commented more upon it than that, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Morrus (May 11, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Aw, that's a shame.
> 
> Do you happen to remember any links, or any quotes? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to the substance of his complaints.




It was nearly 5 years ago, I'm afraid.  But I recall that he didn't take the show seriously and seemed to consider it beneath him (which was odd since he then went on to guest-star in Heroes).  I think the basic tenor was that he didn't want to be remembered as Doctor Who.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 11, 2010)

Morrus said:


> It was nearly 5 years ago, I'm afraid.  But I recall that he didn't take the show seriously and seemed to consider it beneath him (which was odd since he then went on to guest-star in Heroes).  I think the basic tenor was that he didn't want to be remembered as Doctor Who.



See, I've heard differently. Chris said that working on Doctor Who was an honor and that he had nothing bad to say about the program, just the BBC and their mucking up the PR about his departure. He also said that he was touched by the response from children when he played the Doctor, and that he'd treasure it for a long time. 

I do get the sense that he and Russel T. Davies parted on less than amicable terms, which is a shame. As Chris said, the fact that Davies was working on the program was what got him interested. 

And yeah, Chris has no right to talk that Doctor Who was beneath him, as he did went on the star in GI JOE.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 11, 2010)

Well, if Chris and Davies were unhappy with each other, it is possible that he might go back if Steve Moffat approaches him. But there are so many ifs and uncertainities it seems pointless to really speculate further. Especially if there is no such script requiring him back.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 11, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> See, I've heard differently. Chris said that working on Doctor Who was an honor and that he had nothing bad to say about the program, just the BBC and their mucking up the PR about his departure. He also said that he was touched by the response from children when he played the Doctor, and that he'd treasure it for a long time.



He's also said that. And it doesn't really contradict the perceived reasons for him leaving: He may have great respect for the program and love having been the Doctor, but still have not enjoyed making it.

My feeling is that whatever problems he had with his time on DW, he's over it.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 16, 2010)

Well, new episode review here.

*Amy's Choice* - Wow. I honestly didn't expect much from the previews, but this episode was cracking. Great suspense filled yarn with some great character development for the 3 leads. [sblock]And it's nice to see that Rory and Amy's relationship won't be on standby for the duration of their stay in the TARDIS. As the title of the episode suggests, Amy made her choice, and I feel it was a particular triumph of Karen Gillan's acting that she gave that moment real weight. And Rory continues to grow on me as a companion, look forward to seeing more of him as the season goes on.

As for the revelation of the Dream Lord's identity, well, I personally liked it. And c'mon, I think we all know that for all his heroism, the Doctor can be as vicious and cruel as any of the monstrosities he's faced. There are numerous examples throughout the series long history of the Doctor's hidden darker depths. It's just never been given a voice until now. [/sblock]


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 16, 2010)

Best episode of the season so far. Brilliant stuff, really mythic and epic in scope.


----------



## Morrus (May 16, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Best episode of the season so far. Brilliant stuff, really mythic and epic in scope.




I wouldn't agree with that.  It wasn't bad (certainly better than _The Beast Below_ or_ Victory of the Daleks_), but far from brilliant or epic.

I also disagree with the premise of characterisation that the Doctor hates himself more than anyone else in the universe does - that seemed off-character to me.  Sure, during Tennant's tenure they delved into the loneliness and anger frim time to time, but self-loathing is a new one which I don't like at all.  _Doctor Who_ has always been a joyous, fun show to me.

So - if I understand this - it was all caused by those hallucinogenic seeds which he found in the TARDIS at the end, and the whole episode was a dream (both realities.  They were perfectly safe, just suffering a 45-minute shared hallucination.  

Did they explain where those seeds came from, or were they just random detritus from some unseen previous adventure?  Rory referred to "the TARDIS days" as though he'd experienced more than just _Vampires of Venice_ which suggests there was a time gap between the two episodes.

Also - where does Amy (and companions before her) get her clothes from?  She's wering something different in each episode.  Does the TARDIS wardrobe contain clothes enough for anyone who might find themselves on board?


----------



## nerfherder (May 17, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Also - where does Amy (and companions before her) get her clothes from?  She's wering something different in each episode.  Does the TARDIS wardrobe contain clothes enough for anyone who might find themselves on board?



I was under the impression that the interior of the TARDIS is _massive_, containing loads of rooms that we never see in the new DW episodes.

I really liked Amy's choice.  Good story & acting from everyone.


----------



## Pseudonym (May 17, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Also - where does Amy (and companions before her) get her clothes from?  She's wering something different in each episode.  Does the TARDIS wardrobe contain clothes enough for anyone who might find themselves on board?




I seem to recall there being a wardrobe room in prior seasons.  I remember Romana trying on several outfits after her regeneration, including one that looked like Tom Baker's iconic outfit complete with scarf, as well as Peter Davidson looking for a change of clothes in the TARDIS shortly after his regeneration.  Granted, it's been a long time since I saw those, so I may be mistaken.


----------



## Morrus (May 17, 2010)

Oh, there's certainly tons of rooms, and one if those is certainly a wardrobe (and a library, a swimming pool, living areas, and much more) - that's been clear for decades!

My question was more about the contents of that wardrobe. Does it contain a massive variety of womens' clothing in various styles and sizes?


----------



## Fast Learner (May 17, 2010)

One would think such women's clothing would be important both for companions and, I assume, if The Doctor incarnated as a woman.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (May 17, 2010)

nerfherder said:


> I was under the impression that the interior of the TARDIS is _massive_, containing loads of rooms that we never see in the new DW episodes.
> 
> I really liked Amy's choice.  Good story & acting from everyone.




It would be nice if they showed us some more interior areas of the Tardis but they most likely don't want to fabricate a whole new set for that.


----------



## nerfherder (May 17, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Oh, there's certainly tons of rooms, and one if those is certainly a wardrobe (and a library, a swimming pool, living areas, and much more) - that's been clear for decades!
> 
> My question was more about the contents of that wardrobe. Does it contain a massive variety of womens' clothing in various styles and sizes?




Evidently yes 

Either that, or there are shopping expeditions that don't warrant a TV episode - Dr Who and the Next dimension, for example.


----------



## Gog (May 17, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Oh, there's certainly tons of rooms, and one if those is certainly a wardrobe (and a library, a swimming pool, living areas, and much more) - that's been clear for decades!
> 
> My question was more about the contents of that wardrobe. Does it contain a massive variety of womens' clothing in various styles and sizes?




In the first epsode with Rose the Dr. told here he had clothes for every sort of occasion. That isn't the exact wuote but it was similar to that.


----------



## Herschel (May 17, 2010)

I liked the episode, but found it a bit lacking after the Weeping Angels and even Vampires. I liked the premise, but the payoff was lacking for me.


----------



## Felon (May 18, 2010)

Morrus, you have a lot of questions about this latest episode. I have one for you: did you see him do it? Did you see it do what I said it did? Do you see what I'm talking about? Don't pretend not to know.


----------



## Morrus (May 18, 2010)

Huh?


----------



## Felon (May 18, 2010)

C'mon, you're telling me when you saw the scene with the Doctor sealing himself up in the meat locker, that didn't ring a bell of our discussion about the sonic screwdriver?


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2010)

Personally I don't see that as a problem - any more than if he had just had a bolt on the inside of a room to throw. It wasn't central to the plot, it was just a minor bit of 'run away' excitement.


----------



## nerfherder (May 19, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Personally I don't see that as a problem - any more than if he had just had a bolt on the inside of a room to throw. It wasn't central to the plot, it was just a minor bit of 'run away' excitement.



Yeah, the sonic screwdriver has long been a lockpick/universal key.  It didn't register with me as being out of place at all.


----------



## Morrus (May 19, 2010)

Yeah, it wasn't a dramatic note, it was just scenery - like a bolt on the door or a chair he pushed up against it or something.  Just in Doctor Who the scenery is sci-fi.


----------



## MarkB (May 21, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I wouldn't agree with that.  It wasn't bad (certainly better than _The Beast Below_ or_ Victory of the Daleks_), but far from brilliant or epic.
> 
> I also disagree with the premise of characterisation that the Doctor hates himself more than anyone else in the universe does - that seemed off-character to me.  Sure, during Tennant's tenure they delved into the loneliness and anger frim time to time, but self-loathing is a new one which I don't like at all.  _Doctor Who_ has always been a joyous, fun show to me.




It's hardly the first time we've seen the Doctor's dark side or self-loathing - he spent most of the first season of 'New Who' angsting over his actions in the Time War, and in 'Dalek' he was prepared to kill the eponymous creature despite it being chained up and helpless.

Going back to previous seasons, there's at least one example of the physical manifestation of the Doctor's darkest impulses, in the form of the Valeyard, from the (admittedly pretty awful) Trial of a Time Lord season. The Valeyard is supposedly an incarnation of the Doctor's darkest nature, from between his twelfth and final incarnations. In any meaningful way, the Dream Lord is that same person.


----------



## Morrus (May 22, 2010)

MarkB said:


> It's hardly the first time we've seen the Doctor's dark side or self-loathing - he spent most of the first season of 'New Who' angsting over his actions in the Time War, and in 'Dalek' he was prepared to kill the eponymous creature despite it being chained up and helpless.
> 
> Going back to previous seasons, there's at least one example of the physical manifestation of the Doctor's darkest impulses, in the form of the Valeyard, from the (admittedly pretty awful) Trial of a Time Lord season. The Valeyard is supposedly an incarnation of the Doctor's darkest nature, from between his twelfth and final incarnations. In any meaningful way, the Dream Lord is that same person.




Yes, I agree - except that I don't see the degree of the Doctor's dark side extending so far that he hates himself more than anybody else in the universe does.  He has regrets and anger and some pretty dark moments, but I don't think _that_ much.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 23, 2010)

Well, new show again today:

*The Hungry Earth* - It's 2020 in South Wales, and the Silurians return. To be honest, I never really cared for the lizard men from the old series, but the way they're reintroduced here was quite good. Nice build up of suspense up to the moment they appear, and some props must be given Neve Mcintosh for some fine acting under some great makeup and prosthetics (and a definite improvement over the silly rubber masks from their first appearance). Matt Smith is still in top form, as is Arthur Davill, while Karen is relegated to the sidelines playing the damsel in distress. Shame really.  Anyway, good start to this two parter, hope the follow up doesn't disappoint.


----------



## Morrus (May 23, 2010)

It was _very _old-school Who.  Aside from the special effects and the 45-minute episode lenght, I felt I cuold have been watching an old Tom Baker episode.


----------



## Herschel (May 23, 2010)

As the episode opened, I felt like I was watching an episode of Torchwood. Then I saw the writer was Chris Chibnall and all was explained.  Pretty solid episode. 

Oh, and Morrus, FAR better than Tom Baker.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 23, 2010)

Nothing's better than Tom Baker. RESPECT THE THING!


----------



## Herschel (May 23, 2010)

There needs to be a *hurl* emoticon for Tom Baker.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 23, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Nothing's better than Tom Baker. RESPECT THE THING!




Eh. Honestly, I prefer all three of the "modern" Doctors to _any_ of the older incarnations.

Baker was certainly one of the best of the prior crowd, I'll give you that. But "nothing better"? Yeah, not so much.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 24, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Eh. Honestly, I prefer all three of the "modern" Doctors to _any_ of the older incarnations.
> 
> Baker was certainly one of the best of the prior crowd, I'll give you that. But "nothing better"? Yeah, not so much.




I must respectfully disagree. A number of the classic series serials trump the new series episodes in many ways. For all his brilliance, Moffat has yet to craft something as ingenious as _City of Death_ or _Shada_ (both written by the late Douglas Adams and both Tom Baker stories). And nothing in the new series has matched the darkness of the old series' grimmest outing , the Fifth Doctor story _The Caves of Androzani_.

Yeah, the production standards and effects look crap by today's standards, but _Doctor Who_ is a rare gem of a scifi series where a good story can overcome said limitations. Which is probably why for all special effects razzle dazzle, I didn't care for Russell T. Davies season finales after season 2.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 24, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> I must respectfully disagree. A number of the classic series serials trump the new series episodes in many ways.




Keep in mind, I'm talking the Doctors specifically, not the episodes they were in. I'm less a fan of old Who than some, but I'm not claiming every modern episode is better than every old episode.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 24, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> I must respectfully disagree. A number of the classic series serials trump the new series episodes in many ways. For all his brilliance, Moffat has yet to craft something as ingenious as _City of Death_ or _Shada_ (both written by the late Douglas Adams and both Tom Baker stories). And nothing in the new series has matched the darkness of the old series' grimmest outing , the Fifth Doctor story _The Caves of Androzani_.
> .




I'll admin that I've not seen the episodes you quote there (although looking up references to them it seems that City of Death wasn't all that well recieved at the time, and Shada wasn't even finished!)

From my Doctor Who viewing over the years, the scariest 'old' Who stories for me were the green death (with the maggots) and the Planet of the Spiders, and I always liked the twist in the tale of The Mutants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, I can't think of anything which matches up to the power of "Blink" and "The Empty Child", which were for me the apex of the reborn Who stories.

Cheers


----------



## horacethegrey (May 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'll admin that I've not seen the episodes you quote there (although looking up references to them it seems that City of Death wasn't all that well recieved at the time, and Shada wasn't even finished!)



You haven't seen _City of Death_ yet?  That's a shame, as I still think it's the greatest Doctor Who tv story ever broadcast. As for _Shada_, yes I do realize it wasn't finished, which is unfortunate. It would have easily topped _City of Death_ and been Tom Baker's finest outing. As such I had to content myself with listening to the audio version starring the Eighth Doctor (Paul Mcgann), but it's still brilliant either way. 



Plane Sailing said:


> From my Doctor Who viewing over the years, the scariest 'old' Who stories for me were the green death (with the maggots) and the Planet of the Spiders, and I always liked the twist in the tale of The Mutants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'm afraid you misunderstood me, _The Caves of Androzani_ isn't a scary story, though it does have a number of suspenseful moments. It just happens to be the bleakest and most dreadful (in a good way!) story in the show's 40+ year history. When I first watched it, I was shocked by it's dark tone that I thought I was watching the wrong program. It didn't feel like _Doctor Who_ at all! Aside from the rather crap monster, there's nothing to laugh at here, it's as grim as they come. The only other story I think that can match it's dark tone would be _Midnight_.

Though I agree with you, as much as I like the classic series, no classic story has scared the piss out of me as much as _Blink_.


----------



## Felon (May 24, 2010)

Yep, lots of the old episodes were great. Pyramids of Mars is a personaly favorite. The new episodes kind of efface themselves with the characters' rather inane cheekyness and bickering when the credible response is apprehension.  

In this most recent episode, we don't get too much of that, with the almost singular exception of "Did you shush me? Are you shushing ME?" And then Amy does correctly respond with fear when her defiance gets her gassed. That's how it works.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 24, 2010)

Felon said:


> In this most recent episode, we don't get too much of that, with the almost singular exception of "Did you shush me? Are you shushing ME?" And then Amy does correctly respond with fear when her defiance gets her gassed. That's how it works.




That was something I really appreciated.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 24, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'll admin that I've not seen the episodes you quote there (although looking up references to them it seems that City of Death wasn't all that well recieved at the time, and Shada wasn't even finished!)



Did you read Douglas Adams Dirk Gentley books? The story is similar to one of those (not sure if it was the first or the second - the one with time travel.)

It was definitely a stand out episode. Lots of witty and smart dialogue. Fantastic. Definitely one of my favorite Doctor Who episodes.

So glad a co-worker of mine got a ton of Doctor Who DVDs.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 24, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> You haven't seen _City of Death_ yet?  That's a shame, as I still think it's the greatest Doctor Who tv story ever broadcast.




I think it was in the Romana years, which was when I stopped watching Dr Who. I couldn't stand K-9 and Romana as assistants!



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Did you read Douglas Adams Dirk Gentley books? The story is similar to one of those (not sure if it was the first or the second - the one with time travel.)




I read Dirk Gentlys Holographic Detective Agency, but unfortunately it made no impression on me at all, and I can't remember *anything* about it


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I read Dirk Gentlys Holographic Detective Agency, but unfortunately it made no impression on me at all, and I can't remember *anything* about it




Even the title!  "Holistic", not "Holographic".


----------



## horacethegrey (May 30, 2010)

Aw hell... 

*Cold Blood* - Really felt a bit by the numbers for the most part, but was made up by the last 10 mins. I do like the resolution between the Silurians and Humans though, didn't feel like a copout. Smith is again in top form, and it's nice to see his Doctor won't be much of a arrogant and judgemental prat like Tennant was. Supoorting cast also shone, particularly Meera Syal as Nasreen and Nia Roberts as Ambrose. But-

[sblock]Why oh why did they have to kill Rory?  He was great! I really hope whatever end the season reaches has him returning in some form. [/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (May 30, 2010)

Apologies for the cross-post.

He found a piece of the TARDIS in the crack. My predictions are correct. I know what's going on, and this whole series is not what it appears to be.

Go watch _Coupling_. Observe Moffat's writing style, especially the episodes where he plays with sequential alternate viewpoints of various scenes showing how the scene is utterly different to what you thought it was (which he LOVES to do). Then think about _Doctor Who, _and consider how _all_ his previous episodes (_Blink, Girl in the Fireplace, Libraryx2_) _all_ involve a look at the time travel concept and manipulaton of that concept. He's never told a linear story in his life, in _Doctor Who_ or any other show. The man's schtick is to show you things which are utterly not what they appear to be, and then later show you how it really is; and now he gets to do it in a show which actually has_ real time travel_ in it as the core concept. The whole series is a bluff (and not in a Dallas-style "it was all a dream" kind of way, but in a "when I add these salient details later you'll see it in an entirely differently way" kind of way).

We're in for a real shock. This whole series is a time travel story, and the reveal is gonna make us view all these episodes totally differently, because whatever we thought was going on wasn't going on. The "jacket" theory* (_Time of Angels_) and the other random theories are just pointers to that.

Watch_ Coupling_.

Or watch the rest of this series of_ Doctor Who._

Basically he plays with the idea of showing scenes from one point of view, and then showing them from another and they're completely different yet identical, and tell an entirely different story. I can't really explain it, but it works and it's very clever. 

The best explanation is to watch _Coupling_, see him do it frequently _without_ the benefit of time travel as a plot point, then watch his _Who_ episodes over the last 5 years, understand that for the first time he's responsible for an entire series' story arc, and realise it's_ all_ gonna be a time travel/perception reveal. Things we've seen aren't as we think they are.

This _entire season_ is one time travel story.  And we'll put it together later and wonder how we didn't figure it out earlier.


*Big spoilerific theory from fans who rewatch episodes a lot. Let's just say that it's fairly certain that there's more than one Doctor in this series, that we've seen evidence of such and probably not noticed it, but it will seem obvious later on in a _Sixth Sense_ kick-yourself kinda way.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 30, 2010)

So the whole season 5 is just one big Timey Wimey ball by the Moff? 

Not that I'm complaining. As I said before, Steven Moffat is the only writer in the new series who seems game to mess about with the notion of time, which is perfect for _Doctor Who_! As he said  in a recent interview, "the Doctor doesn't just travel in a time machine, he lives in one." The character doesn't look at time the same way we mere mortals do. 

One thing though...



Morrus said:


> He's never told a linear story in his life, in _Doctor Who_ or any other show.




I thought _The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances_ were pretty linear stories IMO. Not being a smartass, but just worth a mention is all.  Can't comment on Coupling or any other show Moffat has written.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 30, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> Can't comment on Coupling



Fix that. Seriously. It's worth that. And it are 3 British TV seasons of an half hour format. One weekend, and you're through (you might be wanting for more...  )


----------



## Fast Learner (May 30, 2010)

Coupling really is great. IIRC it was originally sort-of billed as the British answer to Friends, but it's so very much better.


----------



## Morrus (May 31, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> I thought _The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances_ were pretty linear stories.




True; I hereby revise my theory from "all" to "most of".


----------



## Felon (May 31, 2010)

Oookay, was the use of the screwdriver in *this* episode sufficient to quality as magic-wandy? Preventing point-blank death by firing squad by disabling all their guns isn't playing a get-out-of-jail-free card?


----------



## Morrus (May 31, 2010)

Felon said:


> Oookay, was the use of the screwdriver in *this* episode sufficient to quality to qualify as a magic-wandy? Preventing point-blank death by firing squad by disabling all their guns isn't playing a get-out-of-jail-free card?




Yeah, I gotta admit it went to far with it this time - enough to bug me a bit! I'm fine with it unlocking doors, scanning stuff, and interfacing with computers, but making guns explode goes past my personal line.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (May 31, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I gotta admit it went to far with it this time - enough to bug me a bit! I'm fine with it unlocking doors, scanning stuff, and interfacing with computers, but making guns explode goes past my personal line.




Really? Looked like he was simply overloading the guns circuitry to me..


----------



## Wycen (May 31, 2010)

Morrus said:


> This _entire season_ is one time travel story.  And we'll put it together later and wonder how we didn't figure it out earlier.




Only this weekend have I gotten to watch any of the newest episodes with the new doctor, (oh, except last week with the aliens in Venice), but the space whale-city episode and the Churchill-Dalek episodes both ended with v-shaped glows in space, so it seems obvious to me the whole series is leading up to something, like the previous Bad Wolf clues.  I wasn't able to watch the whole stone angel arc so I'm not sure it manifest in those episodes.

But I will say the Churchill episode just about tops my list as a bad episode for Dr. Who.  I know a lot of the pre 21st century episodes may count, but those are distant in my memory.  The Churchill character broke the 4th wall for me.  He looked like the farting green alien guy.  The ones who wear humans as suits.  IMDB says they aren't the same person, but I kept seeing a big green farting alien smoking a cigar. 

Then throw in the spitfires in space.  Cool, except....(others I think have said it better).

But the real kicker is the Daleks.  I used to love them, but frankly, I don't care anymore.  Depending on how I parse the "new paradigm" and "Progenitor device" that creates a paradox philosphers would enjoy debating.  

How about a new race, using salvaged Dalek material?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 31, 2010)

Morrus said:


> It was _very _old-school Who.  Aside from the special effects and the 45-minute episode lenght, I felt I cuold have been watching an old Tom Baker episode.



I was thinking the same thing. Enjoyable but pretty much an exact duplicate of 70s Who. We must move on, we can't just copy the past.


----------



## Morrus (May 31, 2010)

Wycen said:


> Only this weekend have I gotten to watch any of the newest episodes with the new doctor, (oh, except last week with the aliens in Venice), but the space whale-city episode and the Churchill-Dalek episodes both ended with v-shaped glows in space, so it seems obvious to me the whole series is leading up to something, like the previous Bad Wolf clues. I wasn't able to watch the whole stone angel arc so I'm not sure it manifest in those episodes.




Very much so.  It's featured in every story this year, and was a major plot point in the three of those stories.


----------



## nerfherder (May 31, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I gotta admit it went to far with it this time - enough to bug me a bit! I'm fine with it unlocking doors, scanning stuff, and interfacing with computers, but making guns explode goes past my personal line.



Same here - it suddenly makes a lot of threats non-threatening.


----------



## nerfherder (May 31, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> Well, new show again today:
> 
> *The Hungry Earth* - It's 2020 in South Wales, and the Silurians return. To be honest, I never really cared for the lizard men from the old series, but the way they're reintroduced here was quite good. Nice build up of suspense up to the moment they appear, and some props must be given Neve Mcintosh for some fine acting under some great makeup and prosthetics (and a definite improvement over the silly rubber masks from their first appearance). Matt Smith is still in top form, as is Arthur Davill, while Karen is relegated to the sidelines playing the damsel in distress. Shame really.  Anyway, good start to this two parter, hope the follow up doesn't disappoint.



The thing I found jarring with this episode was that the deepest mining drill in the world seemed to be being operated by one family and a scientist in Wales.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 1, 2010)

nerfherder said:


> The thing I found jarring with this episode was that the deepest mining drill in the world seemed to be being operated by one family and a scientist in Wales.




They made it pretty clear that there was an on-shift team manning the drill most of the time, who were stationed in a nearby town. It was only off-shift that the personnel were restricted to the handful who actually lived on-site.

What I disliked was that it didn't just take its tone from older stories - it recycled whole plot devices from them. The big drill is right out of Inferno (to the extent that you have to wonder, assuming the events of Inferno are in-continuity with the new series, who thought it would be a good idea to drill that deep again, after the last such project threatened to engulf the world in magma death). The new-look silurians do look good, but this story brings nothing new to the ethical debate that wasn't covered in their previous outings, instead re-hashing those plot lines.

What I'd dearly love to have seen is a capping scene that we seemed to be heading towards, to the extent that I tend to wonder if it had been part of the original script, and been squeezed out by the space-crack ending - a visit to the Earth of a thousand years hence, to show us whether the mooted peace actually worked out. As it was, the voiceover only hinted at a successful resolution.


----------



## Felon (Jun 1, 2010)

BrooklynKnight said:


> Really? Looked like he was simply overloading the guns circuitry to me..



The point being, if he can overload the circuity of a device pointed at him, how big of a threat are such devices?

Ostensibly, the Doctor is a miraculous entity that fends off the most dangerous menaces that the universe has to offer armed only with his marvelous brain. When he uses the screwdriver to dispel problems with a flick of the wrist, that cheats the premise. He's not some brilliaant problem-solver when he does so, he's just some guy with a magic wand.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 1, 2010)

MarkB said:


> They made it pretty clear that there was an on-shift team manning the drill most of the time, who were stationed in a nearby town. It was only off-shift that the personnel were restricted to the handful who actually lived on-site.



Yes, but the off-shift was one man, and the drill kept operating during that shift.  I just expected the deepest drill in the world to require more than one person to operate it.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 1, 2010)

Felon said:


> The point being, if he can overload the circuity of a device pointed at him, how big of a threat are such devices?




Right, and it introduces the question of why he can't just disable Dalek guns, Cybermen everything, etc.

Don't make it disable guns, period.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2010)

Not that I am a fan of the sonic screwdriver disarming Siluarian weapons, but...

Silurian weapon might just have a weak spot...


----------



## Felon (Jun 2, 2010)

Yes, it could very well be that some weapons are more vulnerable to "sonicking" than others, but my preference would be not to to open that door in the first place (metaphorically speaking). Rather, have the Doctor--and, by extension, the writer--get out of a jam by thinking of something clever rather than something easy like "he zaps all their guns with the sonic screwdriver".


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 3, 2010)

Seems odd that the Silurian warrior was killed by two shots from a taser.  I kept expecting either her to be bluffing or for some sort of handwavium to occur to bring her back to life.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 4, 2010)

Yeah, the Sonic Screwdriver didn't bother me a wole lot, but the Warrior going down to two Tazer bursts I thought was a bit weak. The ending was also a precursor rather than an actual..."ending" of someone's story methinks. Especially not looking at spoilers but the last episode is named "The Big Bang".


----------



## Morrus (Jun 5, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> Seems odd that the Silurian warrior was killed by two shots from a taser. I kept expecting either her to be bluffing or for some sort of handwavium to occur to bring her back to life.




That didn't bother me.  Silurians have a different physiology to humans; maybe tasers are especially dangerous to them.  They might be more resistance against some other things.

Perhaps they have Resistance 10 poison and Vulnerability 10 lightning.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> Seems odd that the Silurian warrior was killed by two shots from a taser.




I never thought it was only two. I'd gotten the impression that there had been a whole lot of shocks other than the two that we saw.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 5, 2010)

I liked today's episode a lot. Was glad for the space-crack theme taking a back seat, thought Tony Curran as Vincent was excellent, nice cameo by Bill Nighy, and it seems that at least one writer has as much dislike for the "sonic screwdriver as magic wand" trope as some of the posters here.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 5, 2010)

MarkB said:


> it seems that at least one writer has as much dislike for the "sonic screwdriver as magic wand" trope as some of the posters here.




They hung a lampshade on that one, but it was nice to see.

I though this episode was great, especially the last ~10 minutes or so.  Interesting the few little callbacks to the last episode.

Overall on of the best of the newest Doctor.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 6, 2010)

Good episode. I was almost expecting the crack in the museum but glad it didn't go that way. Next week is the last "regular" episode of teh season already, then the two part finale.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 6, 2010)

Excellent episode, indeed. With my favorite Doctor Who type of bittersweetness at the end. 



> *Kathy Nightingale*: What's good about sad?
> *Sally Sparrow*: It's happy for deep people.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 6, 2010)

Yep, enjoyed that episode. The ending was beautifully written. And no magic screwdriver! 

I almost feel they could have gotten away with leaving out the monster as a metaphor for Van Gogh's depression, but I guess the kids like to see a monster. 

Loved Vincent asking Amy if she was from Holland too. Neat way to handle the Scottish accent as an aside.

Down to three episodes now - The Lodger next week, followed by the two-part final story which will hopefully let us know what's been going on for the last three months!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2010)

Yeah good episode. Historical setting + Dr Who + meeting a famous person from the past = win, usually.

I particularly liked the posters covering up the Tardis door, it was a great little touch.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 7, 2010)

Really enjoyed that one.  Lots of nice touches, as people have pointed out, especially Van Gogh's ability to see Amy's pain, and the Doctor accidentally referring to Rory.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 8, 2010)

I LOVED THIS EPISODE.  It was less a Doctor Who story and more of a tribute to  a man unappreciated in his lifetime, only for him to realize (through the miracle of time travel ) how great his legacy would be. My eyes welled up at the scene in the museum. Tony Curran was excellent as Van Gogh. And Matt Smith continues to show that remarkable gift for physical comedy. Neat.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 8, 2010)

I really enjoyed Vincent and the Doctor, too. It felt fresh, like new ground for Who, despite the familiar trappings, almost like a romcom with an undercurrent, make that 'surface current', of severe melancholy.

Good stuff!, and nice change from the familiar and, well, familiar escapades with the Silurians and the most understaffed drilling project in Britain.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 9, 2010)

Agreed, I really loved this episode, and Tony Curran was freakin' brilliant. First Dr. Who in a long time that I've wanted to watch a second time.


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 9, 2010)

Fast Learner said:


> Agreed, I really loved this episode, and Tony Curran was freakin' brilliant. First Dr. Who in a long time that I've wanted to watch a second time.




It's one of the first episodes where my girlfriend has wanted to watch Dr Who Confidential.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 10, 2010)

I was really sad to see Rory go at the end of the Silurians episode.

I've never seen Coupling, but I hope Morrus is right about the plans for the series, as that could be excellent.

I think the Van Gogh episode was excellent. The melancholy and whole air of it was excellent.

This might be sizing up as my favourite series in a long while.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 13, 2010)

*The Lodger* - Dear me, that was all rather silly wasn't it?  Still, I thought it was a pretty funny episode and a good showcase of how much of a loopy madman the 11th Doctor can be. It's hilarious to watch his attempts at being "normal" fail spectacularly. Good double act with Matt Smith playing the fool to James Corden's straight man. Though the plot wasn't original by any stretch (the Doctor encounters another time device? Pft. Done numerous times), it still played off well.

Looking forward to next week, that preview was awesome.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 13, 2010)

It was simply a fun and entertaining episode with lots of funny scenes.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 13, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It was simply a fun and entertaining episode with lots of funny scenes.




You see, I disagree. I think it's potentially quite an important episode. Lots of questions.

Who built the time ship and how did it end up on top of that building? I'm under the impression that apart from the Daleks "temporal jump" escape mechanism that no other race apart from the Time Lords even HAVE time travel? Plus, it looked an awful lot like a TARDIS on the inside.

Who exactly is this "Mark", who oh-so-conveniently disappeared just before this all kicks off, allowing the Doctor time and space to arrive, solve the problem etc? 

What's the significance of the numbers on the display on the TARDIS? they started at 9, went down to 5, and then into the minuses, and the Doctor (whilst not saying anything to Amy) did look pretty worried by that.

Also - those cracks in the wall aren't following Amy. They're following the Doctor, surely.

Spoilers for next week for those that haven't seen the trailer:



Spoiler



River Song! Yay! Plus the "most feared creature ever to have existed". Mouseferatu, on his LJ was speculating that this could actually be...the Doctor himself? Very interesting thought.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 13, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Plus, it looked an awful lot like a TARDIS on the inside.




I thought I heard the Doctor say "someone  is trying to build a TARDIS" or something to that effect when they went in. When they had a figure shooting lightning off-screen for a second I thought we would see yet another return of The Master.




Mathew_Freeman said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> River Song! Yay! Plus the "most feared creature ever to have existed". Mouseferatu, on his LJ was speculating that this could actually be...the Doctor himself? Very interesting thought.




I had that same thought.


----------



## Volaran (Jun 13, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Who built the time ship and how did it end up on top of that building? I'm under the impression that apart from the Daleks "temporal jump" escape mechanism that no other race apart from the Time Lords even HAVE time travel? Plus, it looked an awful lot like a TARDIS on the inside.




Captain Jack had time travel capabilities back in series 1, and had previously worked for a 51st century-based Time Agency of some sort.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 13, 2010)

Plus, in addition to the Time Agency, the Daleks have time travel capabilities far in excess of the Emergency Temporal Shift. At least back during the old series, they had time machines that were basically very TARDIS-like: bigger on the inside, capable of traveling anywhere at any time. I'm currently watching a (mind-numbingly awful) six-part story of the first Doctor, in which the Daleks are chasing the TARDIS through time.

(I _think_ the official cannon is that they stole some of that tech from the Time Lords, but I think that had more to do with the "bigger on the inside" bits than the actual time travel. But even if it _was_ the time travel, they've had it for ages.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 14, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Who exactly is this "Mark", who oh-so-conveniently disappeared just  before this all kicks off, allowing the Doctor time and space to arrive,  solve the problem etc?



I figure the Doctor "created" this uncle (remember - psychic paper) so that someone in the building would go away and he could do his thing.




> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> River Song! Yay! Plus the "most feared creature ever to have  existed". Mouseferatu, on his LJ was speculating that this could  actually be...the Doctor himself? Very interesting  thought.



Some speculation (which is also based on the trailer for next episode, therefore spoiler tags)

[sblock]
If the terrible creature is indeed the Doctor, we might have seen "him" already in "Amy's Choice". The dark part of his personality surfaces.
Names dropped in the trailer seem to include the living plastic monster in the first episode of the new Doctor Who series in 2005 (?).
Over the course of the last few seasons, there have been several mentions of races that were displaced, lost their homeworlds and similar experiences. Maybe this is all the "dark doctor" doings? I mean, the Doctor was certainly... displeased with all these aliens trying to destroy/conquer earth, so his dark self acts on this anger, thereby creating the problem in the first place...
[/sblock]


----------



## Herschel (Jun 14, 2010)

I liked teh episode, but am really Hype  for next week. River rocks and the trailer was almost as awesome as the long one for Season 4. That might be my favorite TV trailer ever. It was probably the only one that ever game me goosebumps of anticipation (even though I'd already seen most of the episodes!). This one was fairly close.

As for the Doctor's anger, they touched on it at the end of the _Family of Blood_  two-parter and maybe they'll go back to that premise for the season round out..


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

Going back a bit (because less of the season has aired here than there):  Am I the only one saddened by seeing that the Daleks now buy their casing from IKEA?  Like the old Dr. Who RPG:  The IKEAan Menace?  

Some theories:



Spoiler



Rory will be back.  Amy will have another choice, either to undo the timequake, and thus her time with the Doctor, but also preventing Rory from being killed....or some other way for the Doctor to survive the TARDIS's apparent destruction.

Without seeing the episode, is it possible that a future Doctor, past the TARDIS's destruction, is trying to recreate it in The Lodger?

Wouldn't the dark side of the Doctor be the Valeyard?


----------



## Mallus (Jun 14, 2010)

OK... so this week's episode was a proper rom-com, with real comedy and no ashy core of sadness --well, until the very end, and only briefly-- like last weeks. Matt Smith is a very talented comedic actor. I wouldn't have enjoyed a story like this half as much if Tennant were playing the Doctor.


----------



## Felon (Jun 15, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> I LOVED THIS EPISODE.  It was less a Doctor Who story and more of a tribute to  a man unappreciated in his lifetime, only for him to realize (through the miracle of time travel ) how great his legacy would be. My eyes welled up at the scene in the museum.



Great episode. I liked the way the curator summed up Van Gogh. Throughout the history of creative media,  there persists the popular conception that it's fresh and innovative to depict ugliness in as raw a state as possible. Fans gobble it up. But real genius isn't deconstructive. Also, it is touching to see Van Gogh's reaction, because the real Van Gogh probably went his whole life without feeling that anyone ever quite got him. 

The one thing that made me cringe was the trite music swelling up like I was watching the end of a Grey's Anatomy episode (actually, the end of every Grey's Anatomy episode, come to think of it).


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 15, 2010)

Felon said:


> The one thing that made me cringe was the trite music swelling up like I was watching the end of a Grey's Anatomy episode (actually, the end of every Grey's Anatomy episode, come to think of it).



It was written by Richard Curtis, so what did you expect?  Most of his films (_Four Weddings and a Funeral_, _Notting Hill_) end on a musical montage. Sure it's manipulative, but damn if it isn't effective.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 15, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Aw, that's a shame.
> 
> Do you happen to remember any links, or any quotes? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious as to the substance of his complaints.






horacethegrey said:


> See, I've heard differently. Chris said that working on Doctor Who was an honor and that he had nothing bad to say about the program, just the BBC and their mucking up the PR about his departure. He also said that he was touched by the response from children when he played the Doctor, and that he'd treasure it for a long time.
> 
> I do get the sense that he and Russel T. Davies parted on less than amicable terms, which is a shame. As Chris said, the fact that Davies was working on the program was what got him interested.
> 
> And yeah, Chris has no right to talk that Doctor Who was beneath him, as he did went on the star in GI JOE.




Dragging up an old point, but I just found this:

BBC News - Christopher Eccleston talks about Doctor Who exit

_"I was open-minded but I decided after my experience on the first series that I didn't want to do any more," he said.

"I didn't enjoy the environment and the culture that we, the cast and crew, had to work in.

"I thought if I stay in this job, I'm going to have to blind myself to certain things that I thought were wrong."_


----------



## Felon (Jun 15, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> It was written by Richard Curtis, so what did you expect?  Most of his films (_Four Weddings and a Funeral_, _Notting Hill_) end on a musical montage. Sure it's manipulative, but damn if it isn't effective.




I have avoided both of those movies assiduously, and now feel all the more validated for having done so.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 16, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Dragging up an old point, but I just found this:




Huh. Now I'm curious as to what he was objecting to.

Either way, it's too bad... But I wonder if, now that there's been a change in showrunners, if he'd be willing to come back for a multi-Doctor story. I'd really love to see him in the part again.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 16, 2010)

Bah, Eccleston isn't even the "real" Ninth Doctor, it's Richard E. Grant "Doctor Who: Scream of the Shalka" (2003)  Apparently, revenous Who fans should have know Professor Yana was The master when he first showed up in Utopia. 

I found it interesting that Bill Nighy was in consideration to replace Eccleston (even though it appears Tennant was the favorite, maybe even already in the minds of the producers before Eccleston announced his departure). I love Nighy, but the whole Rose thing would have turned a bit....awkward (though Jackie probably would still have tried to jump him  ) They made the right choice, methinks.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 18, 2010)

Doctor Who: The Pandorica Opensâ€“ what's the crack? | Television & radio | guardian.co.uk
New trailer/clip for tomorrow's episode

I also read that Matt Smith's contract is a minimum three years and Karen Gillan is under contract for at least one more.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 18, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Doctor Who: The Pandorica Opens– what's the crack? | Television & radio | guardian.co.uk
> New trailer/clip for tomorrow's episode.




I know it's hardly an original thought and everyone already thinks this, but I'm so convinced that 



Spoiler



the Doctor is the "most feared being in the universe" contained within the Pandorica.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2010)

The Pandorica will open in just over an hour!  Can't wait!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2010)

Holy crap that was good!


----------



## talwynor (Jun 19, 2010)

I SO hate it that we are episodes behind you in the states.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 19, 2010)

OMG

is it 6.40 on 26.06.2010 yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2010)

talwynor said:


> I SO hate it that we are episodes behind you in the states.




That's OK.  We're a year behind you on all your shows.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2010)

TheNovaLord said:


> OMG
> 
> is it 6.40 on 26.06.2010 yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




June 26 2010 is my birthday.

Yes, that's right.  My birthday is the base code of the universe.  I always knew I was special; I'm glad it has been confirmed.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 19, 2010)

Morrus said:


> June 26 2010 is my birthday.
> 
> Yes, that's right.  My birthday is the base code of the universe.  I always knew I was special; I'm glad it has been confirmed.




AAAAAAAAAArrrrrghhhhhh

spoiler 



Spoiler



we need a 2nd Pandorica just for you


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 19, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Holy crap that was good!




Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes. Awesome stuff. Brilliant.

Not even going to post stuff under a spoiler tag, as I don't want to run the slightest risk of spoiling it for others!

The one thing I will say is that there was no trailer for next week - they're keeping it VERY close to their chests.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 19, 2010)

Most excellent.

I think about a third of the way in I twigged what was going to happen, and the way it panned out was excellent.

Can't wait for next week!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 19, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Most excellent.
> 
> I think about a third of the way in I twigged what was going to happen, and the way it panned out was excellent.
> 
> Can't wait for next week!




Unfortunately I have a habit of reading spoilers - so I twigged a couple of weeks ago.  But I'm going to avoid any spoilers at all before next week.

I still wonder though - why imprison him?  Why not just blow him away?


----------



## Pseudonym (Jun 20, 2010)

Well now, that was interesting. Can't say as I saw that coming.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 20, 2010)

Gah! No trailer for next week?!?!?!??! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But freaking AWESOME so far. The SO hates waiting for the second parts and I thought she was going to kick MY butt when there was no trailer even.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 20, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I still wonder though - why imprison him?  Why not just blow him away?




1. because they have tried that many times and it never ends well for the species

2. their alliance would fall apart as each one would want the glory OR not want to take the risk of pulling the trigger

3. some reason not yet revealed.

4. secretly they all want the tardis. keep the dr on ice, tell they can grab it and then maybe use the doctor in some way at a later date


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 20, 2010)

Good episode. Last ten minutes were amazing. Heckuva cliffhanger.

"You lot, working together. An alliance. How is that possible?"


----------



## MarkB (Jun 20, 2010)

Much as I did like the cliffhanger and am waiting in eager anticipation for the finale, I do wish a "New Who" series would manage to end on something smaller-scale and more personal just once. It feels like the series is in an arms race with itself.

"Ooh, what could possibly be bigger than the Daleks trying to destroy Earth, combined with a regeneration crisis? I know - Daleks _and_ Cybermen fighting over the Earth!

But then, how do we top that? Easy - the Doctor's arch-nemesis actually successfully taking over the world!

Well, can't get much bigger than that, can we? Oh yes we can - Daleks stealing the Earth and trying to destroy everything in not only this universe but every other universe as well. Nothing could top that!

Ooh, well something might. We'll bring back the Master _and_ the Time Lords and have them try and stop time itself.

Okay, something bigger than Time Lords? How about _every major enemy the Doctor's faced_, and an explosion that'll rip the universe to shreds from start to finish!"​
At this rate, they're going to need to build extra bits of universe next season, just so they'll have something bigger to threaten to blow up at the end of it.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 20, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Good episode. Last ten minutes were amazing. Heckuva cliffhanger.
> 
> "You lot, working together. An alliance. How is that possible?"




Watching it again, they say "The Pandorica was created to maintain the alliance" (or words to that effect).  So if they just killed him there'd be no reason to maintain the alliance, and they'd all turn on each other and suffer massive casualties.  While he's imprisoned, there's a reason to maintain that alliance.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 21, 2010)

Explanations/theories?

[sblock]Okay, so I get that the cracks in time were caused by the Tardis exploding. And I get that the Pandorica was created to trap the doctor, and all the tales/legends of it were seeded to get his attention, and that the ideas were formed from the mind/memories of Amy Pond.

But what are people's thoughts on where the personality of fake Rory came from? Amy hasn't lived in the house since Rory died, so it can't have come from the "psychic snapshot" the Doctor suggested. Any other thoughts?[/sblock]


----------



## Herschel (Jun 21, 2010)

Spoiler



I wouldn't be surprised if it was all the Dream Master again and this whole thing is a premonition of Amy's potential future. Rory's persona is there because an adolescent Amy saw/created it in her mind when the Doctor didn't come back right away.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 21, 2010)

Just thought of something else!

[sblock]The Doctor tells Amy that he needs her to remember something he told her when she was seven.

The trap scenario is based on Amy's memories.

Therefore, ergo, and to wit, could the Doctor have effectively told her something to essentially "seed" an escape--or other detail of which he could take advantage--into the scenario? It would have to be something subtle, something the Alliance would make use of without realizing they were giving him a tool of some sort...[/sblock]


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 21, 2010)

Morrus said:


> June 26 2010 is my birthday.
> 
> Yes, that's right.  My birthday is the base code of the universe.  I always knew I was special; I'm glad it has been confirmed.



Sorry to break it to you, but you were not born on June 26 2010, right? 

So you're not that special after all.

Mustrum "Of course if you were born in June 26 2010, you are definitely special, since you're owning a forum before you were born" Ridcully


----------



## Morrus (Jun 21, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sorry to break it to you, but you were not born on June 26 2010, right?
> 
> So you're not that special after all.
> 
> Mustrum "Of course if you were born in June 26 2010, you are definitely special, since you're owning a forum before you were born" Ridcully




That's what TARDISes are for, duh!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 21, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Just thought of something else!
> 
> [sblock]The Doctor tells Amy that he needs her to remember something he told her when she was seven.
> 
> ...




Yeah, we were saying the same thing.  Sounds plausible.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 21, 2010)

One minor niggle - what were the Rhino-head people doing in the 'alliance'? They were galactic peacekeepers, and were not really a foe of the doctor - it was the plasmavore which was the real foe in that episode.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 21, 2010)

I think that there are some inter-relationships that I've not seen much discussion about yet. I'll put it in a spoiler block

[sblock]
OK, we've got the alliance who want to trap the doctor in the pandoricum, and they used a snapshot of Amy's memories to provide the stonehenge-based trap for him. All well and good.

But do we know what is going to cause the tardis to explode? What is the actual significance of the 26/6/10 date? (apart from the air date, natch).

Are the cracks in time/universe following the doctor - or following Amy? (the first one turned up in Amy's bedroom when she was tiny, after all. Is Amy going to be something a bit more special than just a pretty human?

Where does the 'tardis someone is trying to build' in the lodger episode fit in?

Why are there cybermen, when the cybermen were from a sealed off alternate reality (and even all the ones that made it into this one were sucked off into the void?)



[/sblock]


----------



## Herschel (Jun 21, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> One minor niggle - what were the Rhino-head people doing in the 'alliance'? They were galactic peacekeepers, and were not really a foe of the doctor - it was the plasmavore which was the real foe in that episode.





I was wondering that too, but thought maybe the Judoon were foes in an older episode. They were at the Shadow Proclamation when 10 and Donna zipped away to find the missing planets but that doesn't seem to qualify.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 21, 2010)

Morrus said:


> That's OK.  We're a year behind you on all your shows.




Yeah, but let's be honest here.  A lot of our shows suck.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 21, 2010)

Thinking aloud...



Spoiler



Didn't the Doctor query what was doing on with the ducks in the opening episode? Something along the lines of "how do you know it's a duck pond if there are no ducks?"

This little nugget, combined with the name of AMY POND, is causing me concern.

The Doctor also said something along the lines of "Do you ever consider, Amy Pond, that your life makes absolutely no sense?"

I think that Mr Moffat has about twenty balls in the air right now, sowing confusion all over the place, and when they start coming down I'm going to be gobsmacked.

And who the zark was that talking to River in the TARDIS? "Silence will fall"?


----------



## Volaran (Jun 21, 2010)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Thinking aloud...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




On that topic 

[sblock]
I sort of wonder if the entire town of Leadworth might have been a construct (Auton or otherwise).  You have the duck pond with no ducks, and Amy's big, empty house.  Prisoner Zero was the first one to mention the Pandorica, so the entire scenario with it and the Atraxi could have been a setup to get that ball rolling.  All the world-saving the Doctor did in the first episode was done from Leadworth, so we have no way to confirm if anything was actually world-wide.

Amy never hearing about the Daleks could have been an oversight on the part of her creators, rather than something to do the memory of them being erased by the cracks.

Rory might be an Auton now because he was always an Auton, and if Amy is also an Auton, it would give an easy way out for her bring shot last episode.  One might say that the knockout dart should not have worked on her if she is an Auton, but River's lipstick worked on the Roman-Autons.

Ah well.  It seems like a long week to wait in any case 

[/sblock]


----------



## Herschel (Jun 21, 2010)

[sblock]Since the cracks are supposed to be where instances of time and space that were never meant to meet do, there will obviously be some sort of re-set when things are put "right", but will it be like the end of the Martha series where nobody (maybe nobody at all this time) "remembers" anything because time does a reversal?

A total mind frak would be if Amy "dies" and wakes up as her child self, setting the whole series back in potential motion again, ala "Groundhog Day". [/sblock]

As for not remembering the Daleks, etc. that's easy: Torchwood was blown up. Their entire stash of amnesia pills was vaporized and went airborne.


----------



## Felon (Jun 21, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> One minor niggle - what were the Rhino-head people doing in the 'alliance'? They were galactic peacekeepers, and were not really a foe of the doctor - it was the plasmavore which was the real foe in that episode.






Herschel said:


> I was wondering that too, but thought maybe the Judoon were foes in an older episode. They were at the Shadow Proclamation when 10 and Donna zipped away to find the missing planets but that doesn't seem to qualify.



Regardless of their feelings for the Doctor (or lack thereof), they probably don't want him destroying the universe.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 21, 2010)

To answer a couple of Plane Sailing's questions...

[sblock]







Plane Sailing said:


> One minor niggle - what were the Rhino-head people doing in the 'alliance'? They were galactic peacekeepers, and were not really a foe of the doctor - it was the plasmavore which was the real foe in that episode.




Well, they were galactic _mercenaries_ as much as peacekeepers. But to that extent, if they were approached to be part of an alliance to keep the Doctor from destroying the universe, I can certainly see them hopping on board.

Heck, the Atraxi weren't "enemies" of the Doctor, either. And Weevils (not mentioned, but appearing in the crowd) are from the Torchwood series. While the Alliance _includes_ all the Doctor's worst enemies from among the various races, at no point is it said to be _limited_ to them.



> Why are there cybermen, when the cybermen were from a sealed off alternate reality (and even all the ones that made it into this one were sucked off into the void?)




Did you see the Tennant special entitled "The Next Doctor"? They clearly weren't all sucked back.[/sblock]


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 22, 2010)

Good answers!


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2010)

Is it just me, or does River have a little Han Solo going on? The white-ish shirt, brown pants and blaster pistol slung low on the right hip and the swagger kind of reminded me of Harrison Ford's Corellion Captain.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> [sblock]Where does the 'tardis someone is trying to build' in the lodger episode fit in?[/sblock]




[sblock]I would say that was fairly obvious, even without seeing the Pandorica episode yet.  That was the Doctor's TARDIS trying to rebuild itself after it exploded.  Which is why the TARDIS couldn't land, and why the Doctor was the correct pilot.[/sblock]



Mouseferatu said:


> [sblock]And Weevils (not mentioned, but appearing in the crowd) are from the Torchwood series.[/sblock]




[sblock]Weevils?!?  Are you sure?  I wouldn't expect the Weevils to be able to travel intentionally through either space or time based on their Torchwood appearances.  I rather thought the Weevils were an evolutionary offshoot of us, from the far future.

There was an alien in _Love & Monsters_ that looked something like a Weevil.  It also appeared in a Torchwood episode (can't remember which).  It was called a Hoix.  Having Hoix in the crowd might make sense; having Weevils makes rather less sense......Though I'd love to see a Dr. Who story based around Weevils or the Bane........?

Again, not having seen the episode yet, I'd like some clarification on that.  Pretty please and thank you.[/sblock]

RC


----------



## Morrus (Jun 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> [sblock]Weevils?!? Are you sure? I wouldn't expect the Weevils to be able to travel intentionally through either space or time based on their Torchwood appearances. I rather thought the Weevils were an evolutionary offshoot of us, from the far future.
> 
> There was an alien in _Love & Monsters_ that looked something like a Weevil. It also appeared in a Torchwood episode (can't remember which). It was called a Hoix. Having Hoix in the crowd might make sense; having Weevils makes rather less sense......Though I'd love to see a Dr. Who story based around Weevils or the Bane........?
> 
> ...




Yes, they were weevils.

A biggish spoiler from Matt Smith: 



Spoiler



During filming, every single episode from 1-12 contained an extra scene for the finale in the script.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2010)

[sblock]I don't think that's a huge spoiler as we've already seen a number of them (for example: The opening Van Gogh scene and the Churchill bunker scene.)  [/sblock]


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> [sblock]I would say that was fairly obvious, even without seeing the Pandorica episode yet. That was the Doctor's TARDIS trying to rebuild itself after it exploded. Which is why the TARDIS couldn't land, and why the Doctor was the correct pilot.[/sblock]RC




[sblock]Except the time machine in "The Lodger" was killing people for energy, which I doubt the actual Tardis would do. Now if Prisoner Zero were trying to build a time machine, then that makes sense that his would do so. But then it seemed to be a time machine trying to repair itself instead of being created. If the Tardis were actually rebuilding itself, why not over the rift in Cardiff? Then again, it rebuilt itself last time from Amy's back yard. [/sblock]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yes, they were weevils.
> 
> A biggish spoiler from Matt Smith:
> 
> ...




[sblock]That seems odd to me, based upon what little has been established about Weevils in _Torchwood_.  

And, of course, there were no Weevils in episodes 1-12 that I am aware of.

(Shrug)

I guess I just have to wait and see.[/sblock]



Herschel said:


> [sblock]Except the time machine in "The Lodger" was killing people for energy, which I doubt the actual Tardis would do. Now if Prisoner Zero were trying to build a time machine, then that makes sense that his would do so. But then it seemed to be a time machine trying to repair itself instead of being created. If the Tardis were actually rebuilding itself, why not over the rift in Cardiff? Then again, it rebuilt itself last time from Amy's back yard. [/sblock]




[sblock]It was looking for the correct pilot, if you will recall.  When the Doctor arrives, it says "Correct pilot has been found."  Or words to that effect.

One must assume that the TARDIS was more damaged by exploding than it has been in previous stories, as previous stories do not include an explosion large enough to wipe out the universe from damage sustained by the TARDIS.

Going back to earlier Dr. Who, _The Two Doctors _includes the idea that "Rassilon Imprimature" is needed to initialize a TARDIS.  After the explosion, the TARDIS could well have been so damaged that it needed to be re-initialized.  We have also seen the 10th Doctor give up a portion of his life in order to re-energize the TARDIS in Pete's World.  And, after all, TARDISes exist in symbiosis with their pilots.

Re:  The Rift in Cardiff.  When the Vortex Manipulator exploded in _Children of Earth_, did that seal the Rift?  Or is the Rift now running wild and free?  Enquiring minds want to know![/sblock]


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Yes, they were weevils.






Spoiler



Huh.

The episode wiki confirms.  Blowfish, too, apparently.

I wonder what this means about the Weevils themselves.  Are we seriously underestimating them in Torchwood?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The episode wiki confirms.




You believe a wiki and not us?  Hah!


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> [sblock]It was looking for the correct pilot, if you will recall. When the Doctor arrives, it says "Correct pilot has been found." Or words to that effect.
> 
> One must assume that the TARDIS was more damaged by exploding than it has been in previous stories, as previous stories do not include an explosion large enough to wipe out the universe from damage sustained by the TARDIS.
> 
> ...




[sblock]I had forgotten about that line. That would make more sense then. But why there? It was there before him, but did it draw him there and the Tardis couldn't land in fear of "meeting" itself? [/sblock]

Come on Saturday!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2010)

Morrus said:


> You believe a wiki and not us?  Hah!




(Shrug)

Weevils seemed unlikely.  Of course, the wiki also said they threw in one of the insect guys from the Sarah Jane Adventures, too.

That all of these species can, apparently, travel through time to be there at the right time and the right place is, let me say, more than a little strange.  


RC


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2010)

[sblock] Oooo! Amy had a Weeping Angel in her mind! Could their ability to make someone "live to death" be coming in to play with Rory? She's made up the stories in her head, and Rory was a constructed fantasy maybe....eh, maybe not. But that has to com ein to play, one would think. Man, so many threads that make partial sense. Moffat is a turdwad!  [/sblock]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2010)

Herschel said:


> [sblock]I had forgotten about that line. That would make more sense then. But why there? It was there before him, but did it draw him there and the Tardis couldn't land in fear of "meeting" itself? [/sblock]




[sblock]The semi-sentient TARDIS was diverted due to its own (future) distress causing ripples in the Space/Time Vortex.  It couldn't maintain itself in the area while its future self was there due to the Blinovich Limitation Effect.

The Time Lords, pre-Time War, included a lot more safeguards to prevent this sort of thing from happening.  For instance, the "bleed" from future events (from the Doctor's personal future) was extremely limited.  Also, safeguards prevented TARDISes from meeting each other out of sequence.  This is demonstrated in _Time and the Rani_, where the Doctor can know the Rani's age by knowing his own age.  Likewise, in _The Ribos Operation_, Romana can state the Doctor's age with confidence.

I imagine that, even post-Time War, some of those safeguards are still operational.  There has been some indication in the new series that the resolution of the Time War has placed new restrictions on the TARDIS, such as making it far more difficult to enter alternate universes.  Certainly, the destruction of a TARDIS never seemed likely to destroy the entire universe before, so this in and of itself might be a result of the TARDIS being limited to a single four-dimensional frame (as opposed to the five-dimensional frame of the earlier series).[/sblock]

And, yes, I have given this far too much thought.  


RC


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That all of these species can, apparently, travel through time to be there at the right time and the right place is, let me say, more than a little strange.




You're assuming they all did so under their own power. All it takes is _one_ of the Alliance races being capable of time travel to bring them _all_ to the right place/time. And we already know that some of them (i.e. 



Spoiler



the Daleks


) can do just that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2010)

I realize that it's part of the fun of being a fan--I do it myself, constantly --but I think a lot of people are overthinking this.

I don't pretend to have the slightest clue what Moffat's going to pull out of his hat, but I know this:

Moffat, while very much a Doctor Who fanboy from back in the day, is also a professional storyteller. And I guarantee, he's well aware of the requirements of a TV program and audience.

In other words, the solution to what's going on is _not_ going to require the sort of in-depth knowledge of Dr. Who history that many fans are delving into. It's going to draw on the mythology introduced in the _modern_ series (Eccleston and onward), and/or on information that can be _clearly and succinctly_ communicated in the course of the single remaining episode of the season.

And no more. There's absolutely no way he's going to start pulling out obscure characters/historical details that will leave half the audience scratching their heads and wondering where the hell that came from.

If a theory as to what's happening next episodes _requires_ that the viewer be a die-hard fan of the _older_ Doctor Who series in order to undestand, than I can all but guarantee that theory's wrong.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 22, 2010)

I think we can all agree on that, Ari.

Also, Moffat said (as I recall) that the Big Bad was in _every_ episode this year.  Which, as far as I can tell, means it's the Doctor, Amy or the TARDIS.  Even the crack itself hasn't been in every episode.   There are a lot of theories running round about the TARDIS, some sillier than others.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 22, 2010)

Indeed.  But there are some really nice throw backs this season to some older material, including a lot of Harnell-era stuff.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 23, 2010)

Lots of spoilers and lots of speculation inside spoiler blocks. I want to hear speculation, I don't want to hear spoilers. That makes it difficult to decide what to read, might be helpful to add a hint when a block merely contains speculation. Or just not spoiler any speculations at all?


----------



## Herschel (Jun 23, 2010)

There really isn't much of anything for true spoilers for teh finale, but numerous people (ie: most of the people of the western hemisphere) haven't seen "The Pandorica Opens" yet.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 23, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Lots of spoilers and lots of speculation inside spoiler blocks. I want to hear speculation, I don't want to hear spoilers. That makes it difficult to decide what to read, might be helpful to add a hint when a block merely contains speculation. Or just not spoiler any speculations at all?




Problem is that most speculation here revolves around spoilers or depends upon spoilers to some extent


----------



## Morrus (Jun 23, 2010)

Herschel said:


> There really isn't much of anything for true spoilers for teh finale, but numerous people (ie: most of the people of the western hemisphere) haven't seen "The Pandorica Opens" yet.




99% of the potential audience has, though.

No spoiler tags are needed for already aired episodes. That way lies madness - there will always be someone somewhere who hasn't seen it.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2010)

CLIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doctor Who: The Big Bang Preview and Trailer – HEAVY SPOILERS!!! | Anglotopia - For People That Love Britain
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfYIJXN4loc]YouTube - BBC - Doctor Who The Big Bang Exclusive![/ame]


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 24, 2010)

Morrus said:


> 99% of the potential audience has, though.
> 
> No spoiler tags are needed for already aired episodes. That way lies madness - there will always be someone somewhere who hasn't seen it.



But if we were to do this:  I still haven't seen Soylent Green. Please stop spoiling it.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 25, 2010)

As for the speculation about the pseudo-TARDIS in "The Lodger", I thought that the hologram of the old man version of the neighbour that appeared looked an awful lot like the First Doctor.  I wondered if that had something to do with the origins of the pseudo-TARDIS.  In searching for a pilot, perhaps it uses the image of its most suited pilot in his first incarnation.  Tomorrow will tell, I guess...


----------



## dravot (Jun 25, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But if we were to do this:  I still haven't seen Soylent Green. Please stop spoiling it.




Soylent Green is the name of his sled.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 25, 2010)

Mark Hope said:


> As for the speculation about the pseudo-TARDIS in "The Lodger", I thought that the hologram of the old man version of the neighbour that appeared looked an awful lot like the First Doctor. I wondered if that had something to do with the origins of the pseudo-TARDIS. In searching for a pilot, perhaps it uses the image of its most suited pilot in his first incarnation. Tomorrow will tell, I guess...




Except Susan was quite a little older than the young girl image if it was taking images from that period. Yes, she may have been younger when she boarded teh Tardis, but that's getting rather arcane, I think.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jun 25, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Except Susan was quite a little older than the young girl image if it was taking images from that period. Yes, she may have been younger when she boarded teh Tardis, but that's getting rather arcane, I think.




The young girl was taken in from the street while passing by, I thought, and not an image from anywhere else.  The old man seemed to be the "original" neighbour.  Anyway, just an idle thought.  Just struck me as interesting that he had hair and clothes like Hartnell's, was of a similar age, and yet his face was always in shadow.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2010)

I suspect that the TARDIS has been there for no more than three weeks, and that Mark was the first victim.  The TARDIS percepton filter gave Craig a story about why Mark was gone.  The timeline is based upon the number of victims the TARDIS said it tried as pilots, and the rate of victims seen during the three days of the Doctor's lodging.


RC



-


----------



## Herschel (Jun 26, 2010)

In "The Eleventh Hour", while the Doctor over-shooting is nothing new, there may be something to it. When he and Amy are outside and she slams his tie in the car door, he gives her the face-carved apple to prove it's him. When the realization really hits, there was a blue light that kind of came across the screen, but it was also when the force field sealed in the planet. Before that they mentioned all the cartoons Amy had drawn of 'The Raggety Doctor' and he had to sit and ponder on that.

My brain started to go somewhere but hit the wall. Only about 15 hours to go.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 26, 2010)

And on the view screen was a picture of the crack when they got in teh Tardis after another two-years jump..


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jun 26, 2010)

FINAL EPISODE

awesomely clever

..tommy cooper indeed..


----------



## MarkB (Jun 26, 2010)

TheNovaLord said:


> FINAL EPISODE
> 
> awesomely clever
> 
> ..tommy cooper indeed..




Oh, yes indeed - excellent finale.

It's going to be a long wait 'til Christmas.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 26, 2010)

Excellent, although with some questions deliberately left unanswered.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 27, 2010)

And when River says 'you'll know soon' it's a double whammy with time travel.

River freakin' ROCKS!


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 27, 2010)

HOLY CRAP. 

Brilliant is all I can say. Brilliant.  This is the best season finale of the new series of Doctor Who. Steven Moffat should be proud. He's trumped Russell T. Davies in every way. He may have even the late Douglas Adams with this yarn.
Matt, Karen, Arthur and the lovely Alex Kingston were all wonderful. 

Looking forward to next year.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 27, 2010)

What Horace just said. Wow. And also wow.

Some lingering questions...

[sblock]Okay, so the two questions that they obviously/deliberately left hanging were "What's about to change with River?" and "Who blew up the Tardis/was the voice talking about silence falling?" Presumably, these are both going to be major plot points next season.

But there are a couple of other questions I have, and I'm not sure if they were left deliberately, or if I just missed something in all the wibbly-wobbly timey-whimey stuff.

1) Why didn't Amy remember the Daleks in the WWII episode? Nothing about resetting the universe should necessarily have changed her memories, or those of everyone else on the planet, regarding the various alien invasions/events.

2) How did River keep her memory (at least enough to know to deliver the journal)?

Either way, I'm absolutely _delighted_ at the idea of both Rory and Amy being companions for next season. It's about time they got back to having multiple long-term companions.  Now if they can just add one down the road who's either an alien, or from a different period of Earth's history, I'll be absolutely ecstatic. But it's going to be all but impossible to wait for the next season. [/sblock]


----------



## Remus Lupin (Jun 27, 2010)

Dang! Weeks I have to wait for the finale! And I don't even get a new Who next week on BBCA!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 27, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> What Horace just said. Wow. And also wow.
> 
> Some lingering questions...




Regarding your question about Amy - I imagine that it is [sblock]related to the issue about her missing parents - effects on her brain as a result of growing up next to the crack in the universe. One of those tell-tales about Amy Ponds' strangeness.[/sblock]


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 27, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Regarding your question about Amy - I imagine that it is...




Can't be, though. Or can't be _just_ that. Because...

[sblock]It's not just Amy. In the WWII episode, the Doctor makes a comment about how "It's been happening all around me, and I haven't noticed." He then goes on to reference the giant cyberman rampaging through London (from _The Next Doctor_), and how nobody remembered/recorded it. IOW, it's not just Amy who's forgotten. The whole world seems to be moving on blithely unaware of at least some of the major alien events from the past few seasons/series.

So _something_--maybe the cracks, maybe something unknown, maybe just Moffat not liking some of what RTD did --has altered Earth's history, and not just in Amy's mind.[/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (Jun 28, 2010)

The things were being erased from time at_ every point in time_. I feel they mad eit clear that this wasn't consistend or anything - something might be erased while something else might not, especially since it was happening unevenly across the universe. The Dalek invasion was erased. Amy's parents were erased. Probably a million events we don't care about were erased, too. Ducks in the duck pond ("If it's a duck pond, where are the ducks?"). We _saw_ some things being erased (Rory, the Angels) but things were being erased the whole time. 

The whole "time being erased at every point in time" means there's no point in thinking about _when_ things happened. Any event was equally likely to be erased, from a Dalek invasion to Amy's parents, to penguins (thus their disappearance from the museum). The TARDIS didn't explode in that episode, it was exploding _at all points in time_ - for the entire series. And for every previous series, but they didn't reshoot every previous Doctor's episodes to show us.

The Doctor remembers because he's the Doctor.  There's a reason the word "Lord" is in "Time Lord" - it's his area of expertise!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> The things were being erased from time at_ every point in time_.  I feel they mad eit clear that this wasn't consistend or anything - something might be erased while something else might not, especially since it was happening unevenly across the universe.  The Dalek invasion was erased.  Probably a million events we don't care about were erased, too.
> 
> The whole "time being erased at every point in time" means there's no point in thinking about _when_ things happened.  Any event was equally likely to be erased, from a Dalek invasion to Amy's parents, to penguins (thus their disappearance from the museum).




[sblock]So Amy, when talking to the Daleks, didn't remember the Daleks, because the Daleks had been erased from reality, but that erasure hadn't yet reached the Daleks in the time period they were currently in, which is why those Daleks could still exist, even though the Daleks had been erased from history.

*brain explodes*

(You forgot to mention the ducks among the list of unimportant things that were erased.)

Edit: Except that you remembered them and added them as I was posting. Thus, in our own little way, emulating the whole question at hand. 

Okay, I _think_ I get it, but man, it's a brain-bender. But does that mean that, when they reset everything that the Dalek invasion (and the Cyberman rampaging through London, etc.) went back to having happened, or are they going to find some way to gloss over them, do you think? Because I really got the impression that Moffat was trying to tone down the "alien influence on Earth is now public and well-known" vibe that existed throughout the last few seasons.[/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (Jun 28, 2010)

(I edited while you posted).

I'm not sure what his intentions might be; I think he's left it vague enough that he can decide next year what still happened in history.  But it still happened in the Doctor's and our (the viewers') memories, though.

What I find interesting is the River Song bit at the end.  "But beware - it all changes now."  I reckon we're going to see an adversarial relationship between them.  I bet when they first meet, they're enemies, and will be for some time.  But he'll remember her future then, and she won't (instead of the other way round) because we're moving earlier in her life and later in his.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 28, 2010)

Oh, and I think "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue" was a perfect description of the TARDIS!  Brilliant!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> What I find interesting is the River Song bit at the end.  "But beware - it all changes now."  I reckon we're going to see an adversarial relationship between them.  I bet when they first meet, they're enemies, and will be for some time.  But he'll remember her future then, and she won't (instead of the other way round) because we're moving earlier in her life and later in his.




Oh, absolutely. (Or, well, as "absolutely" as any guesses can be regarding Moffat's plans.) I'm interested to see how they can make her a believable villain, yet still keep her sympathetic enough that it'll be believable for the Doctor to later go through all the trouble to keep her mind alive at the end of the "Silence in the Library" two-parter.

And I still believe that the "great man" she kills won't be the Doctor; way too obvious.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Oh, and I think "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue" was a perfect description of the TARDIS!  Brilliant!




Yep. George (the wife) and I were talking about that immediately afterward. I'm convinced that has to be one of those revelations that one has, and then simply holds it in reserve waiting for the right time to use it. (IOW, I'm willing to bet that Moffat realized the description was apt long before he wrote this episode. It's the sort of observation that one holds onto.)


----------



## Morrus (Jun 28, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yep. George (the wife) and I were talking about that immediately afterward. I'm convinced that has to be one of those revelations that one has, and then simply holds it in reserve waiting for the right time to use it. (IOW, I'm willing to bet that Moffat realized the description was apt long before he wrote this episode. It's the sort of observation that one holds onto.)




Yep, probably.

I loved the way he pretty much described it as that to the 7-year old Amy. He didn't say "SOSBSBSB" but he described it as ancient, stolen, brand new, and very blue; and then, of course, told Amy in the forest on the Byzantium that it was important that she remember that. And that's what brought him back. It was very well done!

And the Jacket theory was proved correct!  Two Doctors?  Oh, yes!


----------



## lin_fusan (Jun 28, 2010)

There is one thing I will say about Moffat and this series/season: he does deliberately choose ideas, images, and plot threads with care. It may or may not work in whomever's opinion, but I don't get the same "throw the kitchen sink" feeling I get with Russell T Davies. 

Overall, I liked this year's series. I like Matt Smith, Karen Gillian, and Arthur Darvill. This series didn't have awesomely standout episodes like previous series, but I think it might be because Moffat planned his awesomeness to be threaded throughout all 13 episodes, which might dilute his impact. 

I hope the next series will prove that Moffat and his team are only warming up!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Oh, and I think "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue" was a perfect description of the TARDIS!  Brilliant!



So, have you already found an old police box for the coming August?


----------



## elawai (Jun 28, 2010)

*Glastonbury - Matt Smith/Orbital*

YouTube - Matt Smith & Orbital - Glastonbury 2010

For those that are interested, youtube video of Matt Smith with the band Orbital at the Glastonbury Festival 2010 - Doctor Who Theme


----------



## Gog (Jun 28, 2010)

For no particular reason and with no hint from anywhere I am convinced that Amy Pond = River Song. Yeah I know it makes no sense but it got into my head and I can't shake it. 

Obviously there would need to be something else going on for that to be true, maybe she's a Time Lord that somehow got left behind.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2010)

So on the one hand, River being a Time Lord is one way for certain details to make sense--the fact that she seemed to remember Amy and the Doctor at the wedding; the fact that the Doctor made some convoluted efforts to keep her alive in Silence in the Library (despite her presumed villainous past).

But I really, really hope she isn't. After the whole storyline with the Master, it'd really feel like a bit of "been there, done that" if River was also a TL. Plus, it'd reduce the whole impact of the Master having been the last TL besides the Doctor.

And I'd also just like to see something more unexpected.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 28, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> So on the one hand, River being a Time Lord is one way for certain details to make sense--the fact that she seemed to remember Amy and the Doctor at the wedding; the fact that the Doctor made some convoluted efforts to keep her alive in Silence in the Library (despite her presumed villainous past).
> 
> But I really, really hope she isn't. After the whole storyline with the Master, it'd really feel like a bit of "been there, done that" if River was also a TL. Plus, it'd reduce the whole impact of the Master having been the last TL besides the Doctor.
> 
> And I'd also just like to see something more unexpected.




Plus she died.  She didn't regenerate.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 28, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Plus she died.  She didn't regenerate.




Yeah, I meant to mention that. 

I mean, there are ways to explain it, but I'm hoping it does, indeed, suggest that she's not a TL.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 28, 2010)

I highly doubt she's a time lord. I also had the momentary inkling she was Amy, but dismissed it outright as silly. I absolutely love the character though and was extremely happy Moffat brought her "back". If she stays as a character for too many more years though, at some point they may have to reboot to her younger years with a new actress.

I hope at least not for a while though, Alex Kingston is smokin' and hella cool.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 28, 2010)

And the scene with the fez was brilliant.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Alex Kingston is smokin'



Yeah, hard to believe she's 47. She looks at least ten years younger.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 29, 2010)

Herschel said:


> And the scene with the fez was brilliant.




I think it's safe to say that a fez is NOT cool.

Bowties, however, are still cool.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2010)

The fez _was_ cool. 

And the finale was pure television, no, make that storytelling, magic.


----------



## Krug (Jun 29, 2010)

Finally caught up with the season. Quite a wild, fun ride. 

Love the fez but would get tired of it if it was around too long.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jun 30, 2010)

[sblock="Spoilery stuff"]
River Song seems to be the Doc's wife/SO at some point, she knows his real name!
Maybe Amy is his daughter..,
HE said if you remember hard enough they can come back, well if River is his wife....
[/spoiler]


----------



## nerfherder (Jun 30, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, hard to believe she's 47. She looks at least ten years younger.




I remember thinking she was smokin' in Moll Flanders, before she did ER.

Checking IMDB, she was in a couple of episodes of Grange Hill when she was 17!


----------



## SolitonMan (Jul 1, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> I LOVED THIS EPISODE.  It was less a Doctor Who story and more of a tribute to  a man unappreciated in his lifetime, only for him to realize (through the miracle of time travel ) how great his legacy would be. My eyes welled up at the scene in the museum. Tony Curran was excellent as Van Gogh. And Matt Smith continues to show that remarkable gift for physical comedy. Neat.




+1

Here in central Pennsylvania, I watch the eps on BBCA, so I only just caught this one this past Saturday (June 27th).  The Lodger isn't coming up until July 10th, so I suppose the season is a foregone conclusion for most of you lot, eh?  

Really enjoyed Vincent and the Doctor, everyone gave a great performance, especially Tony Curran and Bill Nighy.  I thought Dr. Black's speech about how he thinks Van Gogh is the greatest artist ever was awesome, and his facial expressions as he's thinking "did I just meet Vincent Van Gogh? - no, couldn't be!" were terrific.  For me this ep ranks with Blink as one of the best stand alone episodes of the new series.

I'd love to ask opinions on the finale (assuming it's aired by now) but I want to avoid spoilers, so I'll come back and check in again at the end of July.


----------



## talwynor (Jul 4, 2010)

SPOILERS BELOW

Couldn't stand that it was at least another 2 weeks til we saw the finale here after reading this thread so I caved and downloaded the last 2 episodes.


Count me among those believing Amy is River.  I know it seems like a red herring, BUT

She is given the screwdriver and the spoliers book and I can see an older "pond" changing her name to "river" as she gets older.  That, plus the doctor asking if she is married (which, yes I know, makes it too obvious, but still). I haven't even mentioned the red hair (love the red hair).  SO - either Amy becomes River at some point, or, as someone mentioned earlier - they are related.

Regardless - loved the season and the season finale.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 5, 2010)

There's a bit of an empty spot in my weekend where a new episode should have been.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 5, 2010)

Herschel said:


> There's a bit of an empty spot in my weekend where a new episode should have been.




Yeah, it sucks.

If it's any help - Matt Smith is guest-starring as The Doctor in two _Sarah Jane Adventures_ epsiodes this year, there will likely be a Children-in-Need 5-minute quickie, and there's the Christmas Special to look forward to on Christmas Day (admittedly that's 6 months away).


----------



## horacethegrey (Jul 5, 2010)

I too felt a tang of disappointment to find that no _Doctor Who_ is there to entertain me on the weekends. Still, it's not all bad. The season finale was spectacular enough for me to look forward to next season. Unlike say, the finales to season 3 & 4, where Russell T. Davies seemed to pile on everything but the kitchen sink with no regards to any sort of plot. It's a testament to Steven Moffat's skill that he's able to make the program fresh and exciting again.


----------



## Felon (Jul 6, 2010)

So, no new season until 2011? That's a long, painful wait. I guess the Christmas Special will resolve the cliffhanger?


----------



## horacethegrey (Jul 7, 2010)

Felon said:


> So, no new season until 2011? That's a long, painful wait. I guess the Christmas Special will resolve the cliffhanger?




 What cliffhanger?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 7, 2010)

horacethegrey said:


> What cliffhanger?




Why did the tardis explode?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 7, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why did the tardis explode?




I'm not sure that qualifies as a "cliffhanger".

Anyway, in asnwer to Felon's question - I very much doubt the Xmas special will resolve that.  As far as I'm aware, that's the series arc for next year - what is "the silence"?; who took control of the TARDIS?; why did the TARDIS explode?

I expect the Xmas Special will be a one-off romp.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jul 7, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure that qualifies as a "cliffhanger".
> 
> Anyway, in asnwer to Felon's question - I very much doubt the Xmas special will resolve that.  As far as I'm aware, that's the series arc for next year - what is "the silence"?; who took control of the TARDIS?; why did the TARDIS explode?
> 
> I expect the Xmas Special will be a one-off romp.



True that. Moffat has also said that aside from the Silence one more mystery will be resolved next season. I refer of course to River Song. Who she is and how she first meets the Doctor (from her perspective).


----------



## SolitonMan (Jul 26, 2010)

Well, finally got through The Big Bang this weekend here on BBCA.  Great season, lots of fun eps, totally cool story.  I like that while the "minor" problem of the destruction of the universe was resolved, the larger issue of who is responsible is ultimately still unknown.   Great fodder for speculation.

One thing that really brought home to me that this is ultimately a kids' show was the fact we didn't actually see River just blast away the revived Dalek in the museum.    I've always found the Daleks' and Davros' sense of moral indignation to be frustratingly amusing.  Like in Journey's End, where Dalek Caan was going on and on about the "Doctor's soul will be revealed," and then Davros is lambasting the Doctor over the people who've died in his name.  And then boasts about creating the Daleks, and chastises the Doctor for his destructiveness...it's like, "Dude, you're trying to ERASE REALITY!  Get some frikkin' perspective!"  

I'm totally looking forward to the Christmas special, which I guess we'll see over here what, some time soon after the New Year?


----------



## MarkB (Jul 27, 2010)

SolitonMan said:


> I'm totally looking forward to the Christmas special, which I guess we'll see over here what, some time soon after the New Year?




Could be worse - over here, we generally end up getting the US shows' Christmas episodes around October.


----------

