# Doctor Who series 7



## PlaidDragon (Mar 26, 2012)

I know there's a S6 thread, but thought it'd be nice to get a new one going for S7. What with the new assistant news, and this:



It's looking a good 'un!


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 26, 2012)

"What we know": http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-series-7-2012-what-we-know-27371.htm


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2012)

I like the idea of Benedict Cumberbatch as the master. John Simm was shit.


----------



## Spod (Mar 27, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I like the idea of Benedict Cumberbatch as the master. John Simm was shit.


We must have watched different episodes as I thought he was great! John Simm hasnt been replaced yet anyway according to that link.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 27, 2012)

I spy Alex Kingston in that trailer


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2012)

Simms was good when he was half mad. When he went full on batshit and got special powers he was not as good


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Mar 27, 2012)

They should have kept Derek Jacobi as the Master for that series and not done a regeneration on him straight away. It would have been good having an older Master and younger Doctor. Plus Jacobi is a heavyweight thesp and I think he would have made a good Master


----------



## andy2002 (Mar 27, 2012)

QueenOfGoths said:


> They should have kept Derek Jacobi as the Master for that series and not done a regeneration on him straight away. It would have been good having an older Master and younger Doctor. Plus Jacobi is a heavyweight thesp and I think he would have made a good Master


 
I enjoyed John Simm in the role but agree it would have been great to see more of Derek Jacobi. The bit where he changed from the kindly old professor into his real self was one of the most genuinely sinister things I've seen in DW.


----------



## FiFi (Mar 27, 2012)

andy2002 said:


> I enjoyed John Simm in the role but agree it would have been great to see more of Derek Jacobi. The bit where he changed from the kindly old professor into his real self was one of the most genuinely sinister things I've seen in DW.


 
That was proper acting 
I was quite disappointed when he regenarated, I really wanted to see more of him as Master.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 27, 2012)

We all know it's just going to be shit again.


----------



## pigtails (Mar 27, 2012)

I really liked Jon Simm  as the Master and can't wait for this series to start!




ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> We all know it's just going to be shit again.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 27, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> We all know it's just going to be shit again.


 
Aw, aren't we just a ray of fucking sunshine today


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 27, 2012)

It's always the same. Yay, christmas who. No matter how much whiskey is in me I am always disappointed.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 27, 2012)

do you think, suplex, that if you'd been the age you are now watching old who, you'd have liked it any better?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 27, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Simms was good when he was half mad. When he went full on batshit and got special powers he was not as good


 
Yup. But the spin-off set in the 80s, and without him, was really, really bad.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm coining that as the 'Gandalf Effect'

A powerful character comes back from what lloked like oblivion, dons the white clothing and then isn't as good as he was when he still had an element of dangerous queer attractive evil. Give me the indifference of Pilate over the orgiastics of Caligula every day. One is just sybarite expression of of power cos you can. The other is an evil of a far scarier kind.

also it was shit that the toclophane turned out to be humans at the end of the universe. Ah look at your vauted humans Doctor, are they not all you had hoped. With this I crush you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 28, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> It's always the same. Yay, christmas who. No matter how much whiskey is in me I am always disappointed.


 
I maintain that the Dickens one was brilliant. The rest have been pretty shit though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 28, 2012)

So far we know that there is going to be some cowboy bullshit and they are going to ruin the Weeping Angels for a second time, as if they hadn't enough to start with ("oh what people like Blink let's take the baddies from that and not understand why it was good at all").

I'm honestly not sure I can be cocked with more Dr Fez.


----------



## ginger_syn (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm going to wait until I've seen series 7 before I decide if I like it or not, but I am looking forwards to it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 28, 2012)

ginger_syn said:


> I'm going to wait until I've seen series 7 before I decide if I like it or not, but I am looking forwards to it.


I'm just going on historical trends.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So far we know that there is going to be some cowboy bullshit and they are going to* ruin the Weeping Angels for a second time*, as if they hadn't enough to start with ("oh what people like Blink let's take the baddies from that and not understand why it was good at all").
> 
> I'm honestly not sure I can be cocked with more Dr Fez.


 
church militant were quite cool


----------



## PursuedByBears (Aug 2, 2012)

New trailer on BBC 1 at 8pm tonight
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012/aug/02/doctor-who-first-official-picture


----------



## mwgdrwg (Aug 2, 2012)

PursuedByBears said:


> New trailer on BBC 1 at 8pm tonight
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012/aug/02/doctor-who-first-official-picture


 
that picture is great!


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 2, 2012)

That trailer is the first Dr Who I've seen since Sylvester McCoy....

hmmm not convinced atm tbh.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 2, 2012)

PursuedByBears said:


> New trailer on BBC 1 at 8pm tonight
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012/aug/02/doctor-who-first-official-picture


 
Looks like the Doctor is allying with the Daleks!


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 2, 2012)

here you go

http://bbcamerica.tumblr.com/post/28538269658/doctorwho-doctor-who-new-fall-season-series-7


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 2, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> We all know it's just going to be shit again.


^^^^
This.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 2, 2012)

We've seen that quarry-face before.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2012)

The ever more elaborate means of ressurecting the master are getting silly, but I suppose they had already reached that point by the time he was looking to pinch that life giving thing in Keeper of Traken and was basically a deformed blob of very special old school blue peter style Who sfx


----------



## fogbat (Aug 2, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> ^^^^
> This.


You'll still watch it all, right?


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 2, 2012)

I agree with Aomic Suplex, and I may be tempted to watch it on iplayer but I know I'll be disappointed 90% of the time.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 2, 2012)

When's it on?  It's been ages since Dr Who was on.  At the end of the last series they wrapped up that whole unsatisfying dead doctor thing, right?


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> When's it on? It's been ages since Dr Who was on. At the end of the last series they wrapped up that whole unsatisfying dead doctor thing, right?


 
I missed the end of the last series.

eta 

which means the last series finished early September last year so it's been a year with no who (apart from rubbish Christmas one)


----------



## andy2002 (Aug 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> When's it on?


 
There's been no official word yet but I'm guessing Saturday, August 25th.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 2, 2012)

andy2002 said:


> There's been no official word yet but I'm guessing Saturday, August 25th.



Woot   Thanks.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm looking forward to being disappointed at how badly this series will fail to let me down.


----------



## andy2002 (Aug 2, 2012)

DW's always enjoyable, although it's possible to drive a truck through some of Moffat's plot holes. I probably prefer the show under RTD for its consistency (he rewrote loads of the scripts) and because nearly all my favourite episodes of New Who (Blink, Utopia, Girl In The Fireplace, Human Nature/The Family of Blood) come from that era.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 2, 2012)

8115 said:


> When's it on?  It's been ages since Dr Who was on.  At the end of the last series they wrapped up that whole unsatisfying dead doctor thing, right?


Unsatisfyingly.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 2, 2012)

Thank god I'm not the only one who gets irritated with Moffat's plot holes and generally unsatisfying conclusions to things.

You'd think you'd tried to stab a kitten, the reaction you get sometimes if you dare to criticise the God-Moffat.

Looking forward to this season, nonetheless. Also looking forward to a new doctor and someone to replace Moffat.

The next doctor should, of course, be Sue Perkins.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The next doctor should, of course, be Sue Perkins.


The next everything should be Sue Perkins.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 2, 2012)

Although I'll allow Tamsin Greig.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 2, 2012)

As much as I like Tamsin Greig and Sue Perkins and think they're both ace, and oppose sexism, and transphobia - I do not want a female Doctor it just would not work.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The next everything should be Sue Perkins.


 

I'd make a good doctor !


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 2, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Although I'll allow Tamsin Greig.


 
This is precisely the reply I got when I stated my preference for Sue Perkins on io9 >_>


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 2, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is precisely the reply I got when I stated my preference for Sue Perkins on io9 >_>


We need a Perkins/Greig combination for doctor/companion. But who would be who?


----------



## ginger_syn (Aug 3, 2012)

The trailer looks good, I'm looking forward to the new series and also a visit to the Dr Who Experience later this month


----------



## ginger_syn (Aug 3, 2012)

oops


----------



## agricola (Aug 3, 2012)

The trailer looks awful.  Didnt they notice that _Cowboys and Aliens_ was shite?


----------



## Quartz (Aug 3, 2012)

I want the next doctor to be Alan Rickman. Having a hot female companion would be a fine in-joke as Rickman is gay.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 3, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Having a hot female companion would be a fine in-joke as Rickman is gay.


 
Alan Rickman's gay?


----------



## BoxRoom (Aug 3, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Alan Rickman's gay?


I had to look it up, but he ain't.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 3, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I want the next doctor to be Alan Rickman. Having a hot female companion would be a fine in-joke as Rickman is gay.


 
oh dear

You made one good post the other day, opening the door to the idea you might not be a weird div, you have since slammed it shut again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2012)

I wanted Patterson Joseph to play new doctor, but then I didn't go to school with Patterson Joseph so you win some you lose some.

and yes I will shoehorn it into every doctor who thread.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 3, 2012)

Who is going to play Iris Wildthyme in this series?


----------



## Quartz (Aug 3, 2012)

BoxRoom said:


> I had to look it up, but he ain't.


 
I stand corrected.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 3, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Alan Rickman's gay?


has any one  told Rima Horton


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 3, 2012)

fogbat said:


> You'll still watch it all, right?


Of course.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 3, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I want the next doctor to be Alan Rickman. Having a hot female companion would be a fine in-joke as Rickman is gay.


 
Works from a tiny box that looks far too small. Indian.
Does things not normally provided by NHS doctors. Indian.
Works extraordinarily unsocial hours. Indian.
Doctor Who. Indian.

Kulvinder Ghir MUST be the next Doctor.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Aug 3, 2012)

Michelle Gomez please.


----------



## Corax (Aug 3, 2012)

When's it starting?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 4, 2012)

ericjarvis said:


> Works from a tiny box that looks far too small. Indian.
> Does things not normally provided by NHS doctors. Indian.
> Works extraordinarily unsocial hours. Indian.
> Doctor Who. Indian.
> ...


 
The first suggestion on this thread that I can actually picture in the role.


----------



## andy2002 (Aug 23, 2012)

Series 7, episode 1 confirmed by BBC for Saturday, September 1 at 7.20pm.


----------



## jannerboyuk (Aug 23, 2012)

Oh god not the fucking daleks - AGAIN!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2012)

It's doctor who, of course there will be daleks, again.


----------



## fogbat (Aug 24, 2012)

And that bloody TARDIS. Bet that thing turns up _ yet again_.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 24, 2012)

might even be some time travel


----------



## ginger_syn (Aug 25, 2012)

I'm looking forward to pond life too


----------



## jannerboyuk (Aug 26, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> It's doctor who, of course there will be daleks, again.


yet but not almost every series, it was great in the first new series but since then they've squeezed it dry. just plain lazy


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 26, 2012)

jannerboyuk said:


> yet but not almost every series, it was great in the first new series but since then they've squeezed it dry. just plain lazy


 
Isn't there something odd about the rights to the Daleks ie it resides partly with Terry Nation's estate, and partly with the BBC, with the result that there's a bit of "use it or lose it" pressure on the BBC? 

Not that I care - I like the Daleks, and this one promises to be a bit more original than usual


----------



## 8115 (Aug 26, 2012)

Compared to River Song, the Daleks could be in every episode, I still wouldn't complain. She's not going to be in this series, right? She's dead?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2012)

nobody is dead in a science fiction series about time travel. Thats how it works. MollFlanders will be back, with her enigmatic smile and womanly figure.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 26, 2012)

Say it ain't so.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2012)

I'll be glad to see the back of Amy and Rory. I have enjoyed a lot of their stint on there, but, idk. The companion is surely meant to be there to bring balance. I liked it when ten's companions would reign him in, hold a light up to when he was over-stepping his position, becoming too big for his boots. The Amy/Rory/Eleven love-fest has felt far too cliquey and "omg we're all just best friends on an adventure!" for my liking. It's like, you know they are all great mates off set, and have their little in-jokes and what not, but that's leaked into the show as well.

I mostly just want Moffatt to fuck off though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2012)

I swear to god the rapport between pond and the doc is close enough that one suspects boffing- even in the doctor who extra bits (never got them back in the day) they are close as thieves!

I think it is time for a new companion tho. Even if its a shit robot dog.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2012)

The new companion looks about 12. I'm vaguely interested to see what the big surprise twist is as to how they meet, though.


----------



## andy2002 (Aug 27, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I mostly just want Moffatt to fuck off though.


 
And replace him with who though? Toby Whithouse (Being Human) would probably get my vote or Howard Overman (Misfits).


----------



## AverageJoe (Aug 27, 2012)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/d...rooves-to-dizzee-in-mini-adventure-video.html


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 31, 2012)

Not long to wait now.


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 1, 2012)

I am a little bit excited now


----------



## Kuso (Sep 1, 2012)

countdown is on...


----------



## Kuso (Sep 1, 2012)

Kuso said:


> countdown is on...


 
as in the countdown to doctor who, not countdown the show


----------



## cesare (Sep 1, 2012)

NOW!


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 1, 2012)

Kuso said:


> as in the countdown to doctor who, not countdown the show


There's no real reason why they shouldn't combine the two. I still eagerly await the episode where the Dr meets Wu-Tang clan.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 1, 2012)

Here we go


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 1, 2012)

Argh, slownet. Bugger bugger bugger, going to have to wait till I get in or even tomorrow.


----------



## agricola (Sep 1, 2012)

I havent laughed so much at a Doctor Who for ages, and its only ten minutes in. 

_"Where did you get the milk?"_


----------



## Kuso (Sep 1, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> There's no real reason why they shouldn't combine the two. I still eagerly await the episode where the Dr meets Wu-Tang clan.


 
that'd be ACE!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 1, 2012)

Eggs


----------



## agricola (Sep 1, 2012)

Aside from the "Doctor who?" bit at the end, I thought that was quite good.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 1, 2012)

Kuso said:


> that'd be ACE!


There are at least two tracks with Dr Who noises, I think the producers are missing a trick.

eg


----------



## Kuso (Sep 1, 2012)

that was rather good!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 1, 2012)

I enjoyed that! Thought it was a good solid start to the series


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 1, 2012)

Glad to see the i-daleks taking a backseat


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 1, 2012)

Self-contained enough to indicate that there might be less obsession with story arcs this time round and more focus on actual stories. Although if Oswin is the new companion there's some explanation to be done.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 1, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> ..Although if Oswin is the new companion there's some explanation to be done.


Wouldn't complain. 

Dr Who? *Dr Who? DR WHO?*


----------



## Balbi (Sep 1, 2012)

Moff has said theyre self contained stories, no huge arcs - individual compressed storytelling.

JLC is both  and . Wonder how she is going to get in as the companion? Although Doctor never saw what she looked like, interesting.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2012)

I enjoyed that.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 1, 2012)

Cue Grumpasaurus Suplex.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 1, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Cue Grumpasaurus Suplex.


'I don't get it'


----------



## agricola (Sep 1, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Cue Grumpasaurus Suplex.


 
I hope that isnt in next weeks show.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 1, 2012)

I'm not sure it was an entirely good idea to watch that whilst thoroughly psychoenlarged.


----------



## Espresso (Sep 1, 2012)

I liked it. The new girly looks like she can act a bit. Though I wonder how she's going to be deDaleked.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 1, 2012)

It's Noo Who tradition for significant female characters to make their entrance their exit. We'll meet an earlier, alive version. Otherwise it'll be deus ex nanobot.

More disturbed by the Daleks having a parliament. Not right, that. The sort of thing that Cybermen would do.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 1, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> It's Noo Who tradition for significant female characters to make their entrance their exit. We'll meet an earlier, alive version. Otherwise it'll be deus ex nanobot.
> 
> More disturbed by the Daleks having a parliament. Not right, that. The sort of thing that Cybermen would do.


 
Oooh, I'd love to see a Cyber parliament populated with the many, many different Cybers from the last 50 years


----------



## agricola (Sep 1, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> It's Noo Who tradition for significant female characters to make their entrance their exit. We'll meet an earlier, alive version. Otherwise it'll be deus ex nanobot.


 
I hope not. Personally I hope she remains a dalek, and the Doctor covers her outer shell up with some kind of psychic wallpaper.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 1, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Oooh, I'd love to see a Cyber parliament populated with the many, many different Cybers from the last 50 years


 

They would have interminable and, I suspect, reasonably courteous sub-commitee sessions to define the optimum template to which all of them should be upgraded.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 1, 2012)

i am pretty sure that the bbc broadcasts live from the cyber-parliament everyday on sky504


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 1, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> i am pretty sure that the bbc broadcasts live from the cyber-parliament everyday on sky504


No, that much contempt and hatred - pretty sure it's Daleks


----------



## spirals (Sep 1, 2012)

I really enjoyed that


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 1, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> Oooh, I'd love to see a Cyber parliament populated with the many, many different Cybers from the last 50 years


----------



## Quartz (Sep 1, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> It's Noo Who tradition for significant female characters to make their entrance their exit. We'll meet an earlier, alive version. Otherwise it'll be deus ex nanobot.


 
She didn't recognise him, so he's in her future. She didn't make it to the teleporter, so she's dead. Unless the Doctor goes back in time and rescues her just before the missiles hit. The Doctor having a pseudo-Dalek companion could be very interesting.


----------



## agricola (Sep 1, 2012)

Quartz said:


> She didn't recognise him, so he's in her future. She didn't make it to the teleporter, so she's dead. Unless the Doctor goes back in time and rescues her just before the missiles hit. The Doctor having a pseudo-Dalek companion could be very interesting.


 
Not necessarily, Daleks have managed to temporally shift away from certain death in the past.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 2, 2012)

The other thing is that she caused the Daleks to forget all about him. Since she's a Dalek, that includes her. And the Doctor hasn't seen her, so he won't recognise her.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 2, 2012)

[quote="Quartz, post: 11483998, member: 43858"...She didn't make it to the teleporter, so she's dead...[/quote]
She'd already shown she can take over all of the systems.


----------



## Kuso (Sep 2, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> [quote="Quartz, post: 11483998, member: 43858"...She didn't make it to the teleporter, so she's dead...


She'd already shown she can take over all of the systems.[/quote]

"a genius" according to the Doctor himself


----------



## Kuso (Sep 2, 2012)

Ah, the sign of a good doctor who episode, only one episode in and already there's theories and speculation,


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2012)

Quartz said:


> She didn't recognise him, so he's in her future. She didn't make it to the teleporter, so she's dead. Unless the Doctor goes back in time and rescues her just before the missiles hit. The Doctor having a pseudo-Dalek companion could be very interesting.



She didn't remember lots of things, including being turned into a dalek. 

I'm going with him meeting her in the past and feeling an obligation to show her the time of her life before she ends up being caught by the daleks. The twist... She have never had met them if he hadn't taken her traveling in the Tardis.


----------



## Kuso (Sep 2, 2012)

just have to wait to christmas to find out, eh?


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 2, 2012)

I am a happy bunny, it was good. I'm glad I've managed to stay spoiler free, it was an enjoyable adventure with surprises


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 2, 2012)

That was pretty decent, even if the twist at the end was screamingly obvious.


----------



## pigtails (Sep 2, 2012)

I really enjoyed it! 
.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 2, 2012)

I might criticise Moffat's handling of clumsy story arcs and character development, but he does have a knack for weaving little threads of genius through his stories. The soufflé - eggs - eggsterminate thing was one such. He's clearly at his best when writing standalone stories, of which he seems to posess an unlimited supply.

Great fun though. Pity about the schmaltzy stuff with Amy and Rory, quite looking forward to them fucking off now.


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 2, 2012)

fluffy and enjoyable, a good opener - emmerdale girl did well.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2012)

I liked emmerdale girl at first but then she slowly got on my tits.

Too full of herself and overbearing. She'd make for a good evil timelord (female Master) but not a good companion imo.
Like Riversong but with very little of her charm that offsets her arrogance.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 2, 2012)

The bit where she gets converted is horribly nasty. And the reveal of her being a dalek. Ugh.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 2, 2012)

Thats was pretty good. And probably the best dalek stroy of the new Who. I liked the special needs daleks - they were more scary than the fully functioning ones.

But if emerdale girl was a dalek - why did they hear her voice as that of a saucy young  lady?

I note confusion over BBC broadcasting the dalek parliament. I certain that they do not.
However they do broadcast the nothern ireland assmebly - and with your eyes shut it is often hard to distinguish between a dalek in full rant and the likes of Ian Paisley and co.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 2, 2012)

Hold on a minute was that a new episode?
I went and did some work in the other room. Rats.
When is it on again?


----------



## Balbi (Sep 2, 2012)

You wouldn't have liked it. It was good.

I only, on the rewatch, realised that Daleks got what they wanted by lying. They wanted Oswin dead, as she'd hammered the crap out of the Asylum and probably , eventually, would have escaped somehow. The Doctor made it happen, and the Daleks a safe. That's twice they've got what they wanted now.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 2, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Hold on a minute was that a new episode?
> I went and did some work in the other room. Rats.
> When is it on again?


 
LOL 

I've only just this minute finished watching it and came onto urban to post the following words....

Well, I thought that was excellent, an absolutely brilliant start to the new series, but I am prepared to be corrected by Atomic Suplex.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 2, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> LOL
> 
> I've only just this minute finished watching it and came onto urban to post the following words....
> 
> Well, I thought that was excellent, an absolutely brilliant start to the new series, but I am prepared to be corrected by Atomic Suplex.


 
Actually I have just figured that it was an old episode on Friday and I watched the Saturday one blind drunk and got them both mixed up.
Actually I didn't figure that out, my wife explained it to me.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 2, 2012)

What's the Pond Life thing on iplayer?  I can't watch it as the broadband is too slow.

I really liked yesterdays episode, although, not very much really happened.  I wasn't really concentrating when they went down on the other planet though, so I might have missed some of it.  Liked the souffle.  Sad stuff.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 2, 2012)

That new girl was horribly overwritten, if 'overwritten' is a thing.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 2, 2012)

Ben Browder from Farscape and Stargat SG1 is in episode 3.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 2, 2012)

I'd completely forgotten about Farscape. That was brilliant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2012)

what happened to the multicoloured daleks


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd completely forgotten about Farscape. That was brilliant.


 
Most under rated sci-fi show ever. It was a work of brilliance once you'd got past the muppet thing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2012)

rory is a maggot tho


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> what happened to the multicoloured daleks


There were a few. Officer class or something.

I reckon they had a civil war and then a truce. Someone send that to Moffat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2012)

Also, where was Dalek Khan the maddest of mad daleks in this asylum?


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 2, 2012)

Balbi said:


> You wouldn't have liked it. It was good.
> 
> I only, on the rewatch, realised that Daleks got what they wanted by lying. They wanted Oswin dead, as she'd hammered the crap out of the Asylum and probably , eventually, would have escaped somehow. The Doctor made it happen, and the Daleks a safe. That's twice they've got what they wanted now.


Bet she still escapes, and just because she doesn't let on in this episode that she knew him doesn't mean that she hasn't met the Dr in his future and her past. Remember that she is a genius who has been very bored sat there all that time with full access to the Dalek archives.

So I reckon that's another vote in favour of him 'showing her the universe' before her fateful crash...and some paradox-based moping as the Dr realises that he has to let her go to her death for him to ever have met her in the first place, for Rory & co's marriage to be saved, and to have been basically handed an epic win against the Daleks on a plate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Also, where was Dalek Khan the maddest of mad daleks in this asylum?


 
Didn't he get killed, or sucked into the void between dimensions, or he lost all his memories and now thinks he's a Pakistani greengrocer in Wolverhampton or something?

How many times does every single dalek in the universe have to get killed before there stops being any daleks?


----------



## Greebo (Sep 2, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> <snip>How many times does every single dalek in the universe have to get killed before there stops being any daleks?


Word, but it's the same with the cybermen, and The Master; baddies will return, no matter how convoluted the excuse.  That's what makes them scary.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2012)

did anyone else think it was a little far-fetched that the Daleks would have a Parliament? I really don't see Constitutional democracy as the likely organisational model for such a species. Imperial daleks like in 'Hand of Omega' are more realistic.


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 3, 2012)

Espresso said:


> I liked it. The new girly looks like she can act a bit. Though I wonder how she's going to be deDaleked.


It'll be her ancestor, or something.


----------



## andy2002 (Sep 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> did anyone else think it was a little far-fetched that the Daleks would have a Parliament? I really don't see Constitutional democracy as the likely organisational model for such a species. Imperial daleks like in 'Hand of Omega' are more realistic.


 
Perhaps there's a new 'Revolution of the Daleks' story waiting to be told in which the Imperials were overthrown.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> did anyone else think it was a little far-fetched that the Daleks would have a Parliament?<snip>


Yes, if you understand "parliament" as being similar to the House of Commons instead of "a parliament of rooks".


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 3, 2012)

Oswin (Oswyn) is a boy's name! I have a good friend by that name!


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 3, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Didn't he get killed, or sucked into the void between dimensions, or he lost all his memories and now thinks he's a Pakistani greengrocer in Wolverhampton or something?
> 
> How many times does every single dalek in the universe have to get killed before there stops being any daleks?


Actually that was one reason I liked this story – the Daleks didn't have any universe-threatening doomsday weapon and they weren't all wiped out at the end.

The only threat the Asylum presented was to the Daleks and their society, not to the universe at large – people expecting armies of insane Joker-style Daleks were misguided, because a Dalek's definition of insanity would be very different from ours. It'd be a nice Dalek, basically. Oswin.

The only threat the Doctor faced was _from the Daleks_ – he was basically Kurt Russell in Escape from New York.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Also, where was Dalek Khan the maddest of mad daleks in this asylum?


 Indeed, I wish the asylum was explored more. Sleepy Daleks aren't really that frightening, come to think of it...


----------



## belboid (Sep 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> did anyone else think it was a little far-fetched that the Daleks would have a Parliament? I really don't see Constitutional democracy as the likely organisational model for such a species. Imperial daleks like in 'Hand of Omega' are more realistic.


Parliament is (literally) just a talking shop, no need for it to be democratic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Also, where was Dalek Khan the maddest of mad daleks in this asylum?


 
Exactly the same question I asked. He was lovely, was Dalek Khan, all demented laughter and the good looks of a dessicated bogey. He deserved to be there, ruling the roost on his little pedestal!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2012)

andy2002 said:


> Perhaps there's a new 'Revolution of the Daleks' story waiting to be told in which the Imperials were overthrown.


 
Hasn't that already happened to the Imperials at least once in canon?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2012)

mwgdrwg said:


> Oswin (Oswyn) is a boy's name! I have a good friend by that name!


 
A good friend that you can now take the piss out of for having a girly name!


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Also, where was Dalek Khan the maddest of mad daleks in this asylum?


 
He died in the Crucible in series four whilst Ten was too busy trying to save Davros.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 3, 2012)

Nine Bob Note said:


> He died in the Crucible in series four whilst Ten was too busy trying to save Davros.


Yeah what a twat.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 4, 2012)

Just watched, not bad at all.  Where were the promised Special Weapons Daleks?  Do I have to watch again?

The missus came in at 25 mins, watched for a couple of mins, then insisted we watched it from the start.  This is real progress, she hasn't watched an episode since half-way through David Tennant's run...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hasn't that already happened to the Imperials at least once in canon?


 

indeed but only in that Davros created a new breed of white daleks with gold studs who battled with the imperials in 'Remembrance of the Daleks'.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 4, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> indeed but only in that Davros created a new breed of white daleks with gold studs who battled with the imperials in 'Remembrance of the Daleks'.


 
Davros' white and gold Daleks were the imperials - they fought _the_ Daleks (the greys, those of the Supreme Dalek) in Revelation who had been reduced to RENEGADES by the time of Remembrance (Davros having gained the upperhand and conquered Skaro between the serials). The result of the civil war is never confirmed - Russell T. didn't chose bronze for his new Daleks because he liked the colour - he just didn't want to decide upon grey or white/gold.


----------



## Kuso (Sep 6, 2012)

so dinosaurs on a spaceship..? we gonna see a cameo from samuel l jackson?


----------



## Pingu (Sep 6, 2012)

dinosaurs on a spaceship...

thats nearly as good as:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 6, 2012)

It was an okay episode. Moffat's very, very good at putting on a spectacle, but I don't like the chaotic, fragmented nature of his writing a lot of the time.

The bit where Amy gets all angsty and it has to be about not being able to do her womanly duty in the baby department annoyed me. 1) I couldn't give a shit. 2) Rory's fucking excellent and it's annoying that it always has to be about her. 3) Why revert to something like "I can't give you a baby" when you've already built up a strong character, and give us something to grumble about? Amy's raison d'etre was already tenuous as anything other than 'the mother of River.'

The new companion-to-be was annoying as all hell and I agree with spookyfrank that she was 'overwritten.' Is 'flirty' shorthand in Moffat's Big Book Of How To Write Women for 'strong female character?'

Strong = sex, flirty, gobshite, or stoic in the face of unfortunate issues with motherhood. Boring.

Anyway. I'm looking forward to see what happens with the companion-to-be in the future. I'm hoping the death he keeps saying that will happen will be Amy. I hope Rory is still around for possible future cameos. And all that's left to say is bring back Donna.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

belboid said:


> Parliament is (literally) just a talking shop, no need for it to be democratic


 
Just look at our parliament. Nothing democratic about that fucker. It's just a place to sling mud about before the boss man gets his way.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 6, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> It was an okay episode. Moffat's very, very good at putting on a spectacle, but I don't like the chaotic, fragmented nature of his writing a lot of the time.
> 
> The bit where Amy gets all angsty and it has to be about not being able to do her womanly duty in the baby department annoyed me. 1) I couldn't give a shit. 2) Rory's fucking excellent and it's annoying that it always has to be about her. 3) Why revert to something like "I can't give you a baby" when you've already built up a strong character, and give us something to grumble about? Amy's raison d'etre was already tenuous as anything other than 'the mother of River.'
> 
> ...


*applauds*

donna was ace because there was no mooning over the doctor, or innuendo etc.  which might be why i also really like rory as a companion.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 6, 2012)

If it is Amy who dies she will probably just be touched by an angel.


----------



## belboid (Sep 6, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> donna was ace because there was no mooning over the doctor, or innuendo etc. which might be why i also really like rory as a companion.


 
Rory (or rather Arthur) does this weird thing that the others barely do. He actually _acts_,


----------



## magneze (Sep 6, 2012)

Watched it last night. Excellent episode, even if Rory reprised his normal Kenny from South Park schtick. Oh Rory's in danger alone, again.

Quite liked the humanoid daleks - has that happened before? Could be some interesting stories out of that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2012)

No, although in hand of omega there was a creepy little girl who controlled the daleks.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> The new companion-to-be was annoying as all hell and I agree with spookyfrank that she was 'overwritten.' Is 'flirty' shorthand in Moffat's Big Book Of How To Write Women for 'strong female character?'
> 
> Strong = sex, flirty, gobshite, or stoic in the face of unfortunate issues with motherhood. Boring.
> 
> Anyway. I'm looking forward to see what happens with the companion-to-be in the future. I'm hoping the death he keeps saying that will happen will be Amy. I hope Rory is still around for possible future cameos. And all that's left to say is bring back Donna.


 
A friend raised the point the other day that Moffat can't really write interesting female characters. The one exception we could think of was Sally Sparrow, who was only in it for one episode and had the distinct advantage of being played by obvious-huge-star-in-waiting Carey Mulligan. 

The women in Coupling were pretty one-dimensional and irritating as well, but then everyone in that show was one-dimensional and irritating and that was kind of the point. Friends but with filthy jokes and characters it's OK to hate.


----------



## belboid (Sep 6, 2012)

Sophia Myles in  Girl in the Fireplace too, but otherwise I quite agree


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2012)

magneze said:


> Watched it last night. Excellent episode, even if Rory reprised his normal Kenny from South Park schtick. Oh Rory's in danger alone, again.
> 
> Quite liked the humanoid daleks - has that happened before? Could be some interesting stories out of that.


----------



## FiFi (Sep 6, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> A friend raised the point the other day that Moffat can't really write interesting female characters. The one exception we could think of was Sally Sparrow, who was only in it for one episode ...


 
Well that's 1 more interesting/funny/strong female than most TV writers can manage!!


----------



## Balbi (Sep 6, 2012)

He's no Whedon.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 6, 2012)

I don't rate Whedon on that aspect much either.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 6, 2012)

Dollhouse ffs


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 6, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> A friend raised the point the other day that Moffat can't really write interesting female characters. The one exception we could think of was Sally Sparrow, who was only in it for one episode and had the distinct advantage of being played by obvious-huge-star-in-waiting Carey Mulligan.
> 
> The women in Coupling were pretty one-dimensional and irritating as well, but then everyone in that show was one-dimensional and irritating and that was kind of the point. Friends but with filthy jokes and characters it's OK to hate.


 
I agree. They just keep falling back into some really old and tired cliches about women needing to be flirty or bolshy and gobby, a little bit 'threatening' to men, in order to be somehow strong and interesting. So many times, his female characters end up being defined by their relationship to the male characters, in terms of whether they are sexually interesting, whether they can be fallen in love with, etc.

I'm not a total, blind-with-seething-rage hater though. I'm one of those rare beasts who quite likes River. And like you and everyone says, Sally Sparrow was a great character (I have a couple of half-thought-out issues with The Girl in the Fireplace as well, which are related in theme to my problems with his girl in the literal fucking refrigerator xmas episode). But time and time again, he keeps falling back into characterisations which are nigglingly annoying (and he's a rather rude shit when it comes to dealing with his criticism as well).

Not that Davis was without sin in this area either. Donna was a breath of fresh air in that she wasn't trying to get into ten's pants, but even then she was somewhat defined by her relationship to men. The Runaway Bride, figuring her as the mouthy bride from hell; her fiance turning out to be a traitor; and then at the end, after all the tragedy, she gets her Mr Right, and while he doesn't appear to define her, we're back to bookending her entire character by her relationship status, and it's used as a way of providing a 'sweet' to the 'sour' of her forgetting everything--because her getting married was all she ever wanted? Or what? That said, of all the companions she's certainly had the best treatment in terms of this sort of thing, and she was shown to be strong on her own terms--although again we're back to the problem that in the absence of sex appeal, that strength ended up having to come from her being a bolshy git.

Who wrote Michelle Ryan's character and Jenny? They were clusterfucks as well. Ryan for the same reasons as the companion-to-be in last week's episode, and Jenny because even though she's his freaking daughter there's still some latent sexuality written in there, because she can't just be a kick-ass person, she has to be a "hello boys" freaking piece of hot stuff to boot. And then there's the TARDIS.

RahRahRahRantRantRant.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

I get the impression Moffat keeps trying to write the character of Buffy; forgetting that Buffy's manifold weaknesses and insecurities were what made her so compelling, not the wisecracks or the superpowers.

Mind you, men struggling to write women convincingly is more the rule than the exception. Even the mighty Joss Whedon has a patchy record in that regard.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 6, 2012)

And Buffy, from what I remember, seemed to have far more interesting relationships with the men in the programme than any of Who's characters. There was plenty of angst when it came to Angel and Spike and the other one I can't remember the name of because he might as well have not existed, but she felt far more independent than Moffat's characters. She was sexy without being eye candy. She was strong without _needing_ to be sexy. In fact, it was her being strong on her own merits that made her sexy.

Sometimes I really miss the way the 90s didn't sexualise women as par for the course. It was there, obviously, and there were some really dodgy gender politics going on, but even simply in terms of the way women were dressed in these sorts of shows it seemed to be far less about "look at my body, are you looking at my body? My tits and ass are here for you to stare at, guys." Maybe that's just faulty perception on my part, though. I don't know.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 6, 2012)

I should own up that I'm highly biased against Moffat and I've never forgiven him for his annoyingly punchable face spewing his little anecdote about when he was casting for Amy and he saw Gillan and thought she could act really well but it was a shame she was "so wee and dumpy" on tape, until he turned the corner and saw her walking down the corridor towards him and was all "oh wow, she's gorgeous" and all doting and shit in the way only a dirty lecherous shit can.


----------



## cesare (Sep 6, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I should own up that I'm highly biased against Moffat and I've never forgiven him for his annoyingly punchable face spewing his little anecdote about when he was casting for Amy and he saw Gillan and thought she could act really well but it was a shame she was "so wee and dumpy" on tape, until he turned the corner and saw her walking down the corridor towards him and was all "oh wow, she's gorgeous" and all doting and shit in the way only a dirty lecherous shit can.



Fucking hell.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 6, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And Buffy, from what I remember, seemed to have far more interesting relationships with the men in the programme than any of Who's characters. There was plenty of angst when it came to Angel and Spike and the other one I can't remember the name of because he might as well have not existed, but she felt far more independent than Moffat's characters. She was sexy without being eye candy. She was strong without _needing_ to be sexy. In fact, it was her being strong on her own merits that made her sexy.


 
Also that. You got to see how much Buffy's independence pissed off certain male characters as well, which was fun.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 6, 2012)

Oh, errr, so that's the new companion 

But she's dead now


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 6, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh, errr, so that's the new companion
> 
> But she's dead now


 
Bah. Timey-wimey. Moffat's not one to let time paradox's and possible plot holes get in the way of a gripping yarn!


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 6, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> RahRahRahRantRantRant.


 
I thought the mission commander character in the Mars special episode was good though. Managed to sidestep most of the criticisms you make, and in a RTD penned story to boot.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 7, 2012)

Mhm. There have been some very good characters, no discounting that. When they shine it's when they're written in such a way as the plot is driving the story and testing their characters, but when the character is a companion, or a more important (oh god, I wanted to say NPC, I've been playing too many computer games lately) secondary character, things seem to get a bit wobbly.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 7, 2012)

Yup. There have been some excellent one-episode characters, male and female. Even river song was awesome to start with.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 7, 2012)

http://paintdoktahwho.tumblr.com/


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

> "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking dinosaurs on this motherfucking spaceship!"



I have become quite obsessed with this whole idea now


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Anyone want to say Fifth Element?

Via David Mitchel  (Well, other way round, actually )


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Oh, and Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

This has been full of film references!


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2012)

Well they certainly cranked the zany level up to maximum, and Nefertiti was lovely.


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

I reckon loads of people will have hated that but I LOVED it, had me in stitches, when do you ever laugh watching something on your own?  Pure entertainment.

Wasn't expecting the doctor to let yer man die though...


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> I reckon loads of people will have hated that but I LOVED it, had me in stitches, when do you ever laugh watching something on your own? Pure entertainment.
> 
> Wasn't expecting the doctor to let yer man die though...


 
What's not to love? Robots, dinosaurs, Silurians and Neferititi  it had all you could ask for


----------



## spirals (Sep 8, 2012)

I enjoyed it  Genuine lol at metal tantrum machine


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> What's not to love? Robots, dinosaurs, Silurians and Neferititi


 
my opinion exactly, and don't forget the lots of running! can just imagine some people thinking it was too *wacky* or something


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Via David Mitchel



thought that was his voice!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> thought that was his voice!


And Webb


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2012)

Well, Moffat wasn't writing it, which meant: the women could save themselves; a nice overt dig at dodgy gender politics; it wasn't a fragmented, chaotic pile of bilge.

(I don't hate him really. Well...I say "don't hate him," I mean not completely. Well...I say "not completely," I mean...)


----------



## dessiato (Sep 8, 2012)

Loved the humour of this episode


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

krtek a houby said:


> And Webb


 
 didn't catch that, shame on me.  suppose I was too engrossed in the dinosaurs and Queen Neferititi_  _


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> I reckon loads of people will have hated that but I LOVED it, had me in stitches, when do you ever laugh watching something on your own?  Pure entertainment.
> 
> Wasn't expecting the doctor to let yer man die though...


Theres a bit in the trailer where he's being talked out of killing someone. No second chances this week though. Pity really best villain in a while.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2012)

This was just brought to my attention: http://www.scotsman.com/news/time-lad-scores-with-sex-and-daleks-1-1394833

A couple of choice quotes:


> There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands.


 


> Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.


 
I didn't like him before I read that. Now? What a horrid little shitweasel.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 8, 2012)

I miss companions that are not from present day UK.
It never used to be like this.

I liked Neferititi.


----------



## cesare (Sep 8, 2012)

I liked the Mitchell and Webb touch, but it was a bit of a fill-in until the next edge of seat scary one.


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

Liked for this:



Vintage Paw said:


> What a horrid little shitweasel.


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

CNT36 said:


> Theres a bit in the trailer where he's being talked out of killing someone. No second chances this week though. Pity really best villain in a while.


 
But he definitely had it coming, was glad he got it, just wasn't expecting it


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

I was a bit bored (aside from spotting the film references ).


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

cesare said:


> I liked the Mitchell and Webb touch, but it was a bit of a fill-in until the next edge of seat scary one.


 
That was WAY more than just filler, IMO a brilliant episode.  They don't _all _have to scary, fun and ridiculous works too!


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I was a bit bored (aside from spotting the film references ).


 
I'm a bit dim when it comes to things like that, what all references were there?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> But he definitely had it coming, was glad he got it, just wasn't expecting it


He was a nasty piece of work but the Doctor even tried to save Davros from the crucible. He wouldn't even kill the master when it was him or humanity.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2012)

CNT36 said:


> He was a nasty piece of work but the Doctor even tried to save Davros from the crucible. He wouldn't even kill the master when it was him or humanity.


 
Moffat's doctor seems to have less problems killing people. I think that side of the doctor left with Davis and ten, tbh. He doesn't get all "big bad I said no!" when he has to hold a gun, or whatever, either.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2012)

Iplayer streaming kept cutting out- why was indiana jones involved and also why was queen nefirtiti involved. Shit didn't make sense. And the explanation for the robots being so human, what was that about. This episode made nonsense whatsover


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Moffat's doctor seems to have less problems killing people. I think that side of the doctor left with Davis and ten, tbh. He doesn't get all "big bad I said no!" when he has to hold a gun, or whatever, either.


 
This, plus of course Solomon had to die - or at least his ship had to be blown up - in order for the Doctor's plan to work.  I did think however that when he made that offer to get him anything he (the Doctor) wanted, that we might end up seeing the character again.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 8, 2012)

I missed the first few minutes, but I thought the adventurer references were to Brendan Fraser & The Mummy & The Mummy Returns rather than Indiana Jones - ties in with Queen Nefertiti better as well. The hat was obviously a shout-out to Indiana Jones, though.


----------



## cesare (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> That was WAY more than just filler, IMO a brilliant episode.  They don't _all _have to scary, fun and ridiculous works too!



Wasn't as good as the Van Gogh one, imo.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> I'm a bit dim when it comes to things like that, what all references were there?


Probably missed some, but I counted:






(Fifth Element)






(Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan - this is a bit of a long shot really, but Solomon reminded me of _someone __ )_

_



_

(Jurassic Park)






(2001: A Space Odyssey)

And they say my degree was wasted


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Probably missed some, but I counted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There was a _Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference_ as well.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Quartz said:


> The hat was obviously a shout-out to Indiana Jones, though.


Not necessarily (see above).

Actually, if you throw the Egyptian angle into the mix this was very much Fifth Element crossed with Jurassic Park. And 2001


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

agricola said:


> There was a _Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference_ as well.


Bugger, where?!


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Bugger, where?!


 
The bit where Rory's dad went on about the importance of always having a trowel on ones person?


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

the fifth element and jurassic park ones are well obvious when pointed out  and don't forget snakes on a plane... (have had that stuck in my head since I seen the preview last week and it won't go away lol)

I've never seen 2001: A Space Odyssey so wouldn't have got that


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

agricola said:


> The bit where Rory's dad went on about the importance of always having a trowel on ones person?


I missed him say that  My mind may have wandered on occasion...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Oh, and I literally switched over from a (terrible) episode of Red Dwarf that featured a T-Rex on a spaceship


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oh, and I literally switched over from a (terrible) episode of Red Dwarf that featured a T-Rex on a spaceship


 
after doctor who I flicked over to an episode where rimmer was hosting a 'have a happy period' party and asking a lady to model a tampon


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I missed him say that  My mind may have wandered on occasion...


 
It went over my head at first as well, until I read the millions of pounds in debt Guardian liveblog of the episode when someone pointed it out on there.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> after doctor who I flicked over to an episode where rimmer was hosting a 'have a happy period' party and asking a lady to model a tampon


It was Kryten, and the woman was Kochanski


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> It was Kryten, and the woman was Kochanski


 
I am actually useless with names of characters/ actors/ films etc


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2012)

According to my niece the robots are left overs from some cbbc dross called mission 2110.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Well your niece clearly hasn't seen Fifth fucking Elephant _Element* _


* that'll teach me to try and post while watching The Thick of It


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

fifth element, that's the one with sylvester stallone yeah?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> fifth element, that's the one with sylvester stallone yeah?


Are you my last two girlfriends?


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Well your niece clearly hasn't seen Fifth fucking Elephant _Element* _
> 
> 
> * that'll teach me to try and post while watching The Thick of It


I think the niece wins


----------



## Kuso (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are you my last two girlfriends?


 
oh, it must be stevan segall then?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 8, 2012)

Kuso said:


> oh, it must be stevan segall then?


 
Steven Seagull, obv.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 8, 2012)

I didn't get a 5th Element vibe out of the two robots. To me they were more like 2x C3PO.

And was that a Firefly / Serenity reference at the end with the device on which the missiles were homing?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I didn't get a 5th Element vibe out of the two robots. To me they were more like 2x C3PO.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


>


 
It was the way they spoke. They were the comic relief, like C3PO.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 8, 2012)

If you want talking listen to the radio 

(But yes, that's exactly what they were )


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 9, 2012)

agricola said:


> There was a _Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference_ as well.


The robots definitely had Genuine People Personalities, were they Sirius Cybernetics Corporation products?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 9, 2012)

Was this episode the first time Amy has done anything useful?

Anyway, brilliant episode. Light hearted, uncomplicated, funny, little flashes of cleverness instead of a constant effort to be clever, proper entertainment basically. I know it's early days but this series is already benefiting from a lack of ponderous story arcs...


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 9, 2012)

yesterday's episode I will award 4/10, mainly for its recycling efforts.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2012)

Moffat left twitter. His wife says it's because it was becoming distracting and he's a very busy man. His fans say it's because "HATERS ARE EVIL FUCK OFF HATERS," and the usual suspects on that twitter are providing the more high profile version of that as well.

I'll never, ever understand why so many people don't understand that it's possible to enjoy some of someone's work and yet still criticise them, or critique their work, when it falls shy of expectations or is perceived as dodgy in some way or another. I'd say it's critically important to be able to critique your idols, because otherwise not only are you blind to so much, but also they will never be held accountable for what they do. Surely only allowing things to be met with praise, and stifling any and all criticism is a dangerous path to go down?

People, eh?


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 9, 2012)

can i please have some of the drugs the people who like this series are having. thanks.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 9, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> can i please have some of the drugs the people who like this series are having. thanks.


 
Sure, just google the Crazy Chemical Cartel, I've been off my head on their products today. 

Although, TBH I haven't seen this week's episode, just went to watch it on the iPlayer and it only has the HD version on there, which is hopeless with the internet connection speed we have in the village. 

So, I tried to download it for later, but it says I have to install iPlayer first, which I've already got, clicked OK anyway, then it tells me there's an error in installing it and would I like to try again, and repeat, and repeat  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2012)

I've been having an interesting conversation with glinner on that twitter about it. It seems he specifically objects to people sending criticisms directly to Moff via the @ function. He says it's unsolicited criticism, and it's rude. That if people have criticisms, it'd be better writing them up and sending a link, because then the person in question can choose whether to read them or not.

It's an interesting argument. I'm all for a bit more politeness when it comes to critiquing things, if you are wanting someone to take you seriously, at least. But that said, since twitter is what it is, is it really reasonable for someone to expect to be able to put work out there to be watched by the public, and then be active on twitter and _not_ solicit opinions on that work? It's fair enough to ask not to be spat bile and venom at, but to tell people they're not allowed to even offer a calm, rational criticism directly? It's a bit much, isn't it?


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 9, 2012)

TBF twatter is a bit much, I wouldn't blame anyone from leaving it, esp. if they are 'well-known'.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> TBF twatter is a bit much, I wouldn't blame anyone from leaving it, esp. if they are 'well-known'.


 
Well, I'd agree there, definitely. It's one thing to try to promote better manners if you are on there though, and quite another to expect to be able to be a high profile person and _not_ solicit any kind of attention.

Before twitter, I expect people would send emails, and letters, detailing their issues. They would have been far less in volume, obviously. Twitter brings an immediacy to that communication, and allows people to give their opinions immediately, even as they are still watching something on tv. The point glinner was making, however, was that even something like "@Moffat, I liked the episode but I don't like how you portray women so often" shouldn't happen, because it's unsolicited and therefore rude. I'd argue, however, that as soon as you introduce something you've created into the public domain, you've already solicited opinions on it. How people give those opinions will depend on how you make yourself available to them, and the technologies available to those with the opinions.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 9, 2012)

What a peculiar argument. "My blog post about @moffat problems writing women re: latest Who - t.co/sdfsdfs" is OK whereas "Didn't think much of @moffat's writing of women in last Who" isn't?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 9, 2012)

Incidentally I just watched the latest Who and just thought "@moffat needs an editor". There was a solid basic concept there but way too much fluff and running about with that bloody Dramatic Who Running-About music. It could have been trimmed down and made a lot tighter and more internally plausible (even for Who). And Pond is starting to annoy even me now.

eta: I did also think "what the hell are this cartoon Nefertiti oh-I-am-queen-off-with-his-head character and this cartoon big game hunter doing here?"


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2012)

He didn't write the dinosaur one though, did he? I have no idea what kind of input he has on the ones he doesn't write, just how collaborative it is in terms of scriptwriting, or whether it's limited to direction and production in how he then interprets that script and applies it?

I believe it may have been in an episode of Confidential, one of them was saying that individual/guest scriptwriters are told where their episode will begin (in terms of any arcs/the whoniverse), and where the characters should end up (again, likewise), and if there are any specific points relating to grander schemes that should be included, but other than that they are given free reign. Not sure how accurate that is or how it works in practice though.

Moffat said these 5 eps would all be stand alone and 'blockbusters' so he obviously decides the tone and roughly where he wants it to go. I agree about that running about music. It's there constantly. It doesn't have the same awesome effect when it's used so liberally. It (or other bits of music and atmosphere like it) tended to be used when there was something particularly important happening in the doctor's story, in key episodes, but now it's in every single one. It's hard to have the same emotional reaction to it when it's used like that.

And I agree about the lack of internal plausibility. The whole of the last series just felt like internal logic didn't matter, because regardless it was all going to neatly come together, even if there were glaring problems with how it all happened. But that's often overlooked because it's painted over in his trademark gloss.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 9, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> He didn't write the dinosaur one though, did he?


No, you're right, it was Chris Chibnall apparently. I take the @moffat part back then.

The internal consistency stuff annoys me particularly because to a great degree it's all that science fiction _has_. It's given huge freedom to define its own plot constraints in terms of technology and history and even the laws of physics, and if it can't keep to those plus basic logic and believable characterisation, it might as well be making it up as it goes along (which is something I remember saying I've been regularly feeling about Who in recent series).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 9, 2012)

Yep, that "making it up as they go along" thing perfectly describes how I've felt about it. Less so with Davies, actually, but that's probably because he didn't have such obvious arcs that informed the majority of episodes, but still even then a little too much reliance on 'timey-wimey' was there even with him. Moffat seems to eat, sleep and breathe timey-wimey as his get out clause to avoid having to worry about creating an internal logic, so he can focus on spectacle and 'splosions.


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 10, 2012)

I thoroughly enjoyed that lovely bit of nonsense.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2012)

criticism is healthy for any writer to keep him/her on  toes etc, but how in depth can one get in 140 characters? is twatter really the medium for anything other than shallow end oneliner crit?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2012)

Daft but reasonably enjoyable. I prefer my who darker and more serious rather than self conciously 'whacky' but there you go. Interesting that he killed soloman though - ususally we get a load of liberal handwringing in those situations.

So its a westworld pastiche next week then?


----------



## ringo (Sep 12, 2012)

ginger_syn said:


> I thoroughly enjoyed that lovely bit of nonsense.


 
Same here. Mitchell & Webb as the robots were very good.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2012)

I thought it was very enjoyable, as was the previous episode.  This was better, though.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Yep, that "making it up as they go along" thing perfectly describes how I've felt about it. Less so with Davies, actually, but that's probably because he didn't have such obvious arcs that informed the majority of episodes, but still even then a little too much reliance on 'timey-wimey' was there even with him. Moffat seems to eat, sleep and breathe timey-wimey as his get out clause to avoid having to worry about creating an internal logic, so he can focus on spectacle and 'splosions.


 
Bad Wolf


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 13, 2012)

Yeah, but that didn't feel quite so obvious as Moffat's stuff. The massively obvious panning and zooming to the cracks in stuff, for example. Don't Who nitpickers prefer it when they can uncover that stuff for themselves, maybe even after 2 or 3 viewings of the same episode, or even having it become obvious once the big bad has been revealed later on?

I remember the reading some forums after the first Eleven/Pond episode, and they were going over every single little thing, down to the date on Rory's hospital badge and the colour of the pens in his pockets. And none of that was relevant, because it was all about the big crack in stuff. That was always there, and always pointed out.

With the Bad Wolf stuff, some of it was blink and you'll miss it stuff, that if you didn't know you were looking out for you'd not notice. It was only when the season progressed quite far that the direction ever started really drawing your attention to it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 13, 2012)

Although in terms of the Bad Wolf Bay stuff and Rose and Alt.Ten, I completely agree. I fucking hated that Rose got her perfect ending. Should have left it with her and her family being stranded there without the doctor. She already got her dad back. It's the one thing about that season that makes me grouchy.


----------



## agricola (Sep 15, 2012)

"Why would anyone want to kill you, unless they have met you?"


----------



## agricola (Sep 15, 2012)

Well that was a bit crap, tbh.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 15, 2012)

Awful beyond belief, that one. Struggling to think of a more leaden episode, ever.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 15, 2012)

Heh, I liked it. It was a refreshing change from the timey-wimey confusing mental gymnastics ball of confused logic they've favoured of late. A good, simple, straight up story.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 15, 2012)

Show, don't tell.

So much exposition in that episode. And that hackneyed bloody thing of cyborgs with a superfluous internal GUI which spells out their cyborg principles. Ugh.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2012)

Better than last week, I thought.

But then, it was cowboys


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2012)

For a pretty simple story there were too many plot holes. Some of the bits that weren't stupid were pretty good though.

That Toby Whithouse bloke was a few pretty average episodes to his name. Seems like they're still struggling to find enough writers to fill a whole season with good stories, which strikes me as pretty daft. I'd have thought everyone and his mum would want to write scripts for Doctor Who. More Neil Gaiman for a start.


----------



## agricola (Sep 15, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> Show, don't tell.
> 
> So much exposition in that episode. And that hackneyed bloody thing of cyborgs with a superfluous internal GUI which spells out their cyborg principles. Ugh.


 
The worst part was the knowledge that the cyborg, instead of just switching its targetting systems to manual and going into the town and shooting the doctor in the face,  spent its time building a very low pile of debris round a small village and shooting people in the hat if they crossed it. How did its kind win an interplanetary war in a week?


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 15, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Toby Whithouse bloke was a few pretty average episodes to his name. .


 
He gets a few brownie points for the minotaur in the hotel last season, and for the resurrection of Sarah-Jane in School Reunion. The vampires were a bit iffy, granted.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> He gets a few brownie points for the minotaur in the hotel last season, and for the resurrection of Sarah-Jane in School Reunion. The vampires were a bit iffy, granted.


 
Yeah the minotaur one was pretty good. Mostly because lots of people got killed, like in the good old days of Doctor Who.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 15, 2012)

Not seen it myself yet, but judging by the crap/not crap posts above it sounds like another example that reinforces the words of John Lydgate - you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 15, 2012)

Not as good as last week, but I liked it.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Not as good as last week, but I liked it.


 
*waves*

Welcome back, mate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 15, 2012)

Thanks.  Hi.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 15, 2012)

Well, I enjoyed it more than the previous two - I was looking forward to seeing Ben Browder. He's 49 now. He's not the sweaty half-mad Crichton of series two of Farscape, but I still would.

Anyway, I'm still not happy about this half-season shit. Who is one of the biggest shows in the world, and it's being dicked around for the sake of Moffat's CV. Grand Moff Steven, if you can't do the job, it's time to go. I don't care how wonderful your Sherlock side-project is, I expect my thirteen episodes a year.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 15, 2012)

I don't like this split season bullshit either. Isn't that what them Americans do? I thought that might be why it started, because of when they got syndicated over there (and it got shown over there days before we got it. HERESY. )

The 'younger generation' are lapping up his shit though. I can't see his leadership being challenged* any time soon.

(Just been watching The Thick of It. I can only think in one sort of terms at any one time.)


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 15, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't like this split season bullshit either. Isn't that what them Americans do? I thought that might be why it started, because of when they got syndicated over there (and it got shown over there days before we got it. HERESY. )
> 
> The 'younger generation' are lapping up his shit though. I can't see his leadership being challenged* any time soon.
> 
> (Just been watching The Thick of It. I can only think in one sort of terms at any one time.)


 
Who's to say 'split-season,' though? Are we guaranteed that 'part 2' won't be in lieu of season eight?

As for the younger generation, I imagine they were the loudest to complain about how complicated the River Song arc was. Personally, and I've said this many times, I believe Moff was 'doing a Chris Carter' (i.e. making-it-up one episode at a time) and that most of the smoke-and-dagger conspiriloon stuff that hasn't already been explained will be quietly forgotten about.

And his leadership, well, us Who fanboys can shout very loudly. Eventually our mothers will write strongly-worded letters on our behalf...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 15, 2012)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Who's to say 'split-season,' though? Are we guaranteed that 'part 2' won't be in lieu of season eight?
> 
> As for the younger generation, I imagine they were the loudest to complain about how complicated the River Song arc was. Personally, and I've said this many times, I believe Moff was 'doing a Chris Carter' (i.e. making-it-up one episode at a time) and that most of the smoke-and-dagger conspiriloon stuff that hasn't already been explained will be quietly forgotten about.
> 
> And his leadership, well, us Who fanboys can shout very loudly. Eventually our mothers will write strongly-worded letters on our behalf...


 
Well, our mothers can't take to twitter any more to tell him off....


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 16, 2012)

that was an enjoyable episode,very well written 'though I wasn't too sure about susan.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 16, 2012)

It didn't hold my attention.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 16, 2012)

I thought it was pretty decent, and definitely better than the last one - plot consistency, lack of deus ex machina/absurd coincidences, and no fucking running about. Some awful accents but hey. 

The bit that annoyed me (and there has to be something) wasn't about the actual episode.


Spoiler



The alien war criminal doctor character was an obvious plant to continue exploring the running trope of Doctor-as-destroyer and its effect on his character - including, recently, that he's become a flat-out face to face killer.

However, this is hampered by Matt Smith's portrayal (and the script written to go with it too - this isn't a "Matt Smith is ruining Who" post) which makes it impossible to tell what the Doctor is actually feeling or thinking. He does the wacky manic child thing all the time in the same way, until he gets "emotional", which means sticking his jaw out, frowning a lot, shouting at people and doing something angry and irrational. Then he's back to normal.

You can't really explore psychological aspects of a character when they're portrayed with the depth of Bugs Bunny, and that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that objectively the Doctor really has changed over the last series or two in what he does as a routine part of the episodes. If that's not noticed and explained it just feels like inconsistent writing, that a committee somewhere said "hey the Doctor needs to kill more people to show he's not just some kid".


----------



## cesare (Sep 16, 2012)

I suggested giving the gunslinger the marshal's badge as soon as he turned up, so I ruined the ending for us from the outset. I enjoyed it more than last week's though, but still prefer the darker ones.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2012)

the minatour in the hotel was fucking shit


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't like this split season bullshit either. Isn't that what them Americans do? I thought that might be why it started, because of when they got syndicated over there (and it got shown over there days before we got it. HERESY. )
> 
> The 'younger generation' are lapping up his shit though. I can't see his leadership being challenged* any time soon.
> 
> (Just been watching The Thick of It. I can only think in one sort of terms at any one time.)


 
According to _Private Eye_, the split season crap is less to do with Moff, and more to do with Beeb beancounters revising budgets after last season had started shooting, so that Who had to stagger production in order to get the full amount of episodes out within budget, rather than producing _en bloc_, and this has carried through to the current season.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2012)

ginger_syn said:


> that was an enjoyable episode,very well written 'though I wasn't too sure about susan.


 
Respect Susan's life-choices, you bastard!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 16, 2012)

I hope we're not going to have a repeat of all that "I speak baby" bollocks. I mean, there is whimsy, and then there is stupid and bizarrely recurring shite.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2012)

was that the james corden episode? at risk of turning into Atomic Suplex, that was also shit


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I thought it was pretty decent, and definitely better than the last one - plot consistency, lack of deus ex machina/absurd coincidences, and no fucking running about. Some awful accents but hey.
> 
> The bit that annoyed me (and there has to be something) wasn't about the actual episode.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with everything you say. In fact, I so often do when it comes to Who, I think I'm just going to fill my subsequent posts with "What Fridgey said or is about to say."


----------



## 8115 (Sep 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> the minatour in the hotel was fucking shit


 
The minotaur was great.  Low budget, genuinely scarely and food for thought concept.

That guy last night, he was out of the minotaur episode too, wasn't he?  Made my blood run cold just seeing him.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 16, 2012)

in last night's ep - the doctor said he was 1200 years old.  is this related to the two versions of the doctor in episode one of the last series?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2012)

Doc 's age is one of them constant non continuity pleasing things. He's quoted upwards of 50 different ages over the years!


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 16, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> in last night's ep - the doctor said he was 1200 years old. is this related to the two versions of the doctor in episode one of the last series?


 
Almost certainly.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> in last night's ep - the doctor said he was 1200 years old. is this related to the two versions of the doctor in episode one of the last series?


 
I think we can safely say the age thing is a red herring put in to wind up fanboys.

e2a: How would someone who has spent centuries travelling through time and lived in eleven different bodies have the first fucking clue how old he is?


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 16, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> e2a: How would someone who has spent centuries travelling through time and lived in eleven different bodies have the first fucking clue how old he is?


 
Clearly Dr Who is si-fi, but if you want a real life reply to that question, you'll need to ask sass.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Clearly Dr Who is si-fi, but if you want a real life reply to that question, you'll need to ask sass.


 
Poor old Sass. It can't be any fun to keep regenerating into a body that's basically the same as the previous one only older and grumpier


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2012)

I thought he was 900-something, or 1003 or something if being the other doctor in the stupid fucked up timey-wimey bullshit of last season.

How did he age another 2-300 years?

*sigh*

Fuck off, Moffat.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2012)

Well, so it might not just be a Moffat thing: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor's_age

But regardless. Fuck off, Moffat.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I thought he was 900-something, or 1003 or something if being the other doctor in the stupid fucked up timey-wimey bullshit of last season.
> 
> How did he age another 2-300 years?
> 
> ...


What's the problem? It makes sense that he disappears and ages a few decades between series. Otherwise each incarnation would only last for as long as the TV adventures we see.


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Respect Susan's life-choices, you bastard!



That would be bitch ,I have no problem with his life choices, I just don' t like the name susan.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 17, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I should own up that I'm highly biased against Moffat and I've never forgiven him for his annoyingly punchable face spewing his little anecdote about when he was casting for Amy and he saw Gillan and thought she could act really well but it was a shame she was "so wee and dumpy" on tape, until he turned the corner and saw her walking down the corridor towards him and was all "oh wow, she's gorgeous" and all doting and shit in the way only a dirty lecherous shit can.


Jesus, did he really admit to that. What a fucking twat.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 17, 2012)

Santino said:


> What's the problem? It makes sense that he disappears and ages a few decades between series. Otherwise each incarnation would only last for as long as the TV adventures we see.


Indeed.  And between programmes, too: we know that he gets up to other stuff that isn't made into programmes, because those excursions are referred to in the shows.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

Santino said:


> What's the problem? It makes sense that he disappears and ages a few decades between series. Otherwise each incarnation would only last for as long as the TV adventures we see.


thusly thwarting auntie of the opportunity to flog endless new adventures of doctor who books (was it Virgin who had the franchise)

Chris /kwedge in close contender for shittest companion since adric. good job he only appears in print


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

Well, apart from all the Amy/Rory/Doctor relationship stuff, that was a great episode.

Until the last 2 minutes.

Seriously, was that it? Reverse the fucking polarity, restart everyone's hearts, ignore the medical reality of brain death, and be on your merry way.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 22, 2012)

Brig: The Next Generation



Mark Williams was as comfortable as ever.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

And I did a little vom at the power of three crap.


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 22, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, apart from all the Amy/Rory/Doctor relationship stuff, that was a great episode.
> 
> Until the last 2 minutes.
> 
> Seriously, was that it? Reverse the fucking polarity, restart everyone's hearts, ignore the medical reality of brain death, and be on your merry way.


 
And not even a mention of the polarity of the neutron flow 

(yes I know that belongs in the same category as "beam me up Scotty" and "we don't need no steenkeeng badges")


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm proper disappointed by that last 2 minutes. Hmmph.


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm with you on that, was proper good until then. Dunno why, but I want one of those cubes.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 22, 2012)

The trailers around for next week indicate some timey wimey stuff going on across the whole five episodes. Like perhaps they're not being viewed from the point of view of the doctor, but of the ponds.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

Balbi said:


> The trailers around for next week indicate some timey wimey stuff going on across the whole five episodes. Like perhaps they're not being viewed from the point of view of the doctor, but of the ponds.


 
What, like they are in order for the Ponds but not for the Doctor? If that is the case, does he already know what's going to happen to them next week?

So we've been told there will be death. Proper death. Which will probably just mean death by angel. Who do we think it'll be? All the obvious stuff points to Amy. The Angels coming for her in the hotel episode. All the talk of dying, and the poster that had the Doctor carrying Amy (even though that was for something else, but it was kind of dangled there like a big bad badge of foreshadowing doom). I reckon they'll be boring and it'll be Rory's dad instead.


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 22, 2012)

Rory's dad selflessly sacrificing himself to save the ALL CONSUMING LOVE OF AMY AND RORY, OMG NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LOVE THE PONDS HAVE FOR EACH OTHER, IT'S LIKE TOTES AMAZEBALLS AND NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN MORE IN LOVE.


Sorry, don't know what came over me there


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

You know, you're probably right.


----------



## AverageJoe (Sep 22, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> What, like they are in order for the Ponds but not for the Doctor? If that is the case, does he already know what's going to happen to them next week?
> 
> So we've been told there will be death. Proper death. Which will probably just mean death by angel. Who do we think it'll be? All the obvious stuff points to Amy. The Angels coming for her in the hotel episode. All the talk of dying, and the poster that had the Doctor carrying Amy (even though that was for something else, but it was kind of dangled there like a big bad badge of foreshadowing doom). I reckon they'll be boring and it'll be Rory's dad instead.


 
I think Rory gets turned to stone. And Amy turns into a dalek. And then fights against the Dr in the last episode.

And if you have seen the Canadian trailer, which I wont share as it has a couple of massive spoilers in it, next weeks has some nice ideas, especially about a certain statue


----------



## Balbi (Sep 22, 2012)

I reckon the Doctor did the slow invasion first, then angels - and then mercy, followed by the other two. He was fucking furious in mercy, about something - and his sad look and conversation with amy about being there at her end in dinosaurs is telling too.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 22, 2012)

That's a spaceship exploded in the last couple of minutes of every single episode so far, although this time there wasn't a significant character left inside.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 22, 2012)

All those unconscious people got killed though.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 22, 2012)

I thought the Doctor told the Ponds to get everyone out. But if you're right it look like even more of a motif for this series, if not a terribly surprising one for a children's show set in space.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

AverageJoe said:


> I think Rory gets turned to stone. And Amy turns into a dalek. And then fights against the Dr in the last episode.
> 
> And if you have seen the Canadian trailer, which I wont share as it has a couple of massive spoilers in it, next weeks has some nice ideas, especially about a certain statue


 
Do you have a link to the trailer?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2012)

It was alright as a whimsical, will they die, will they get a proper life thing.  Spent so long on that though that the crap villain at the end was just squeezed in.  Naff as it was, the idea of a time lord legend, judging humanity for what it will do in the future (actually a common theme in SF) needed longer.  Bad story telling - and as VP has said, just pressing a button to reverse everything was really naff.  Mind I'm probably just grumpy because it was Steven Berkoff and can remember his strike breaking days.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 22, 2012)

Wilf said:


> It was alright as a whimsical, will they die, will they get a proper life thing. Spent so long on that though that the crap villain at the end was just squeezed in. Naff as it was, the idea of a time lord legend, judging humanity for what it will do in the future (actually a common theme in SF) needed longer. Bad story telling - and as VP has said, just pressing a button to reverse everything was really naff. Mind I'm probably just grumpy because it was Steven Berkoff and can remember his strike breaking days.


 
A rather staunch Zionist as well, apparently. ((((wiki))))


----------



## Wilf (Sep 22, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> A rather staunch Zionist as well, apparently. ((((wiki))))


 I've just been on there as well (trying to see if my memory about breaking an actor's strike - to do McD commercials - was right)! 

Didn't realise he'd got quite this bad:



> In a _Daily Telegraph_ article he wrote on Israel (10 June 2007), Berkoff expressed his support for the Melanie Phillips book _Londonistan_, calling it "gripping" and "quite overwhelming in its research and common sense."


----------



## Epona (Sep 23, 2012)

That episode was... filler... IMO.

There was no one element of it that shone through or that I'm likely to remember 3 months from now.

Greatly looking forward to next week though!


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 23, 2012)

Steve Berkoff was good.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2012)

Ich bin ein Mod said:


> Rory's dad selflessly sacrificing himself to save the ALL CONSUMING LOVE OF AMY AND RORY, OMG NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LOVE THE PONDS HAVE FOR EACH OTHER, IT'S LIKE TOTES AMAZEBALLS AND NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN MORE IN LOVE.
> 
> 
> Sorry, don't know what came over me there


 
The contents of some amazeballs, by the sound of it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I've just been on there as well (trying to see if my memory about breaking an actor's strike - to do McD commercials - was right)!
> 
> Didn't realise he'd got quite this bad:


 
He's always been a contrarian and a controversialist. Old habits obviously die hard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2012)

Epona said:


> That episode was... filler... IMO.
> 
> There was no one element of it that shone through or that I'm likely to remember 3 months from now.
> 
> Greatly looking forward to next week though!


 
I'm not so sure. I think it was meant to clue us into the idea that there are some things in the universe even beyond the ken of the Time Lords.
At least, I hope so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2012)

maldwyn said:


>


 
Sass is looking good for a 5,000-year old.


----------



## Epona (Sep 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not so sure. I think it was meant to clue us into the idea that there are some things in the universe even beyond the ken of the Time Lords.
> At least, I hope so.


 
Yeah if it ties back into some story arc this season then I might change my mind, it wasn't as if I hated it, I just think it was a bit mediocre compared to the last 2 episodes.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 23, 2012)

If Smith is signed up for another series, he'll pass Tennant as the longest serving modern Doctor. Eight more episodes in Spring. Huzzah.


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 23, 2012)

Amy-Rory are so fucking tiresome - whine, whine, whine.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 23, 2012)

I wonder whether it's time for Moffat to move on. Or for a change in the roster of writers. Why hasn't Paul Cornell written anything since Moffat took over, for instance?


----------



## 8115 (Sep 23, 2012)

I didn't think that was very good.  Another adios type epsiode, they've done quite a few of these. Not very scarey.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

Smith's around until 2014 I believe. I reckon that'll be pushing it to the absolute limit. It's the kind of show that needs new blood on a relatively regular basis to avoid becoming stale and repetitive (although it is pretty repetitive as it is, but I guess that can't be helped when you keep revisiting the same enemies and sets time and again).

I do like Smith a lot, I think he's a great actor. I've never really gelled with his doctor though. He plays him really well, but I don't really like how he's written.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> I wonder whether it's time for Moffat to move on. Or for a change in the roster of writers. Why hasn't Paul Cornell written anything since Moffat took over, for instance?


 
I'd love for Moffat to go when Smith does, but I'm doubtful he will. Who has seen a massive increase in popularity since he took over (budgets went up, it was pushed massively in America and gained a whole host of new fans as a result, younger ones too because of Smith), and the BBC are on to a right winner with him in control. Which isn't that great for those of us who don't particularly like him or his 'vision'.


----------



## Iguana (Sep 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Who has seen a massive increase in popularity since he took over


 
Has it? I though I read last year that ratings fell a lot last year and the main reason they improved in the US was because they aired the episode the same day on BBC America so got more love viewings as fans didn't have to download torrents or wait.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

You can't move on that there tumblr or livejournal for the expansion in Who fandom over the past couple of years. It was thriving under Tennant, but it's exploded even more under Smith.


----------



## Iguana (Sep 23, 2012)

I think it's losing the family audience though. Which has always been Who's core fanbase and the ones who are more likely to buy the merchandise.

I just really wish he'd go. I really liked most of his episodes in the Eccleston/Tennant era but have found the show increasingly charmless since he took over. It could be rubbish at times under Davidson but it was never smug rubbish which is what it mainly is now.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 23, 2012)

Iguana said:


> It could be rubbish at times under Davidson .


 
Nonsense. The 5th Doctor was the high water mark for quality.


----------



## Iguana (Sep 23, 2012)

Yeah, that was meant to be Davies. I plead pregnancy brain.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

I agree though. I loved some of his Davies-era episodes. But in charge of the whole show, and having creative licence over its tone and essentially _what it is_, it feels like a chaotic shambles most of the time. There were plenty of duds when Davies was around, but under Moffat it feels like all mouth no trousers. It's all superficial window dressing that doesn't really provide that warm glow of fulfilment at the end.


----------



## AverageJoe (Sep 23, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Do you have a link to the trailer?


 
Here you go  - but remember SRS SPOILRZ!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

AverageJoe said:


> Here you go - but remember SRS SPOILRZ!




Okay, that was pretty awesome. Loved the bit right at the end. It didn't give too much away that wasn't already in the 'on next week's show' thing after this last episode though, just a couple of extra shots/scenes. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 23, 2012)

And who would have believed, just after Blink first aired, that a few years later they would be groaning "Oh, not the Weeping bleeding Angels, not _again_..."?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

I still like them. They weren't as good in the forest episode thing, but I'm certainly not bored of them, not at all.


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 23, 2012)

What A&E Department wouldn't notice a little girl had been in the waiting room for six months?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 23, 2012)

Bloody NHS waiting lists


----------



## AverageJoe (Sep 23, 2012)

Yep. That end bit is what I love about Who. Its a real 'oh that's clever/cool/inspired moment


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 24, 2012)

I didn't enjoy that episode as much.  It started well, and had a couple of funny lines, but it pretty quickly felt like it was aimless and padded.  Cool idea, but ran out of steam.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 24, 2012)

The idea was quite good - but the way the doctor resolved in it in about 30 seconds was shit - find spaceship controlling cubes, point sonic screwdriver and its all better. (the power, versatility and frequnecy of use of the sonic screwdriver is fucking nonsense as well). Really lazy writing that.

And the whole Amy and Rory smug IKEA soap opera is really really nauseating. Old Who never bothered with exploring the development of emotional relationships between the characters - it concentrated on the plot and the ideas with each story a self contained unit and was all the better for it. You think of Who at its best and you dont think of 'that one where they explored the dilema facing x and their feelings for y' - you think 'when the shop window dummies came alive!' 'when the sea devils apperaed out of the waves!' 'the weeping angels!' 'the climatic encoutner between tom baker and davors in _genises of the daleks' _'the bloke being eaten by a chair!' 'the cybermen attacking the posh party!' 'Derek Jacobi turning into the master!' - I could list a hundred classic who moments and none of them would involve martha, rose, amy et al getting all eastenders.

Dont say - 'But what about _my_ feelings Doctor?'

DO say - EXTERMINATE!


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> The idea was quite good - but the way the doctor resolved in it in about 30 seconds was shit - find spaceship controlling cubes, point sonic screwdriver and its all better. (the power, versatility and frequnecy of use of the sonic screwdriver is fucking nonsense as well). Really lazy writing that.
> 
> And the whole Amy and Rory smug IKEA soap opera is really really nauseating. Old Who never bothered with exploring the development of emotional relationships between the characters - it concentrated on the plot and the ideas with each story a self contained unit and was all the better for it. You think of Who at its best and you dont think of 'that one where they explored the dilema facing x and their feelings for y' - you think 'when the shop window dummies came alive!' 'when the sea devils apperaed out of the waves!' 'the weeping angels!' 'the climatic encoutner between tom baker and davors in _genises of the daleks' _'the bloke being eaten by a chair!' 'the cybermen attacking the posh party!' 'Derek Jacobi turning into the master!' - I could list a hundred classic who moments and none of them would involve martha, rose, amy et al getting all eastenders.
> 
> ...



Yes, except for me, Bernard Cribbins was the exception to that.  His sadness and anger as the Italian family were taken away in Turn Left, and his stuff with tennant in the last two DT episodes was genuinely moving.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 24, 2012)

Wotsisname from the Fast Show is like a second rate Cribbins with the 'dim but knowing' concerned parent act (not his fault, but the script).


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 24, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> I wonder whether it's time for Moffat to move on. Or for a change in the roster of writers. Why hasn't Paul Cornell written anything since Moffat took over, for instance?


Well, Cornell's a bit busy writing comic books and novels now.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 24, 2012)

You know what feks me off?
All the new who assistants are all from contemporary earth, (unless you count Jack) and all english.

It's fun when they have people from different places in time and space. I keep seeing people who would make interesting companions and story lines, but it's always some fawning young lass from London.

His daughter would have been interesting, someone older like cribbins or Jessie's diets, tree woman, roman solider, whatever.


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 24, 2012)

Amy's English?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 24, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> Yes, except for me, Bernard Cribbins was the exception to that. His sadness and anger as the Italian family were taken away in Turn Left, and his stuff with tennant in the last two DT episodes was genuinely moving.


 
Yes - but you can still have - and need -  genuninely strong, emotional moments within the drama, along with the suspesne and humour and philosophical dilemas, observations etc.

But its the crowbarring in of the heavey handed 'development of relationships - resolving our interpersonal issues' guff which gets in the way of the actual story and fucks me off. It has no place in an adventure seires unless it serves the plot. What we get too often with new who is the plot/action/monsters merely serving as a backdrop to the soap opera. I blame Buffy.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yes - but you can still have - and need - genuninely strong, emotional moments within the drama, along with the suspesne and humour and philosophical dilemas, observations etc.
> 
> But its the crowbarring in of the heavey handed 'development of relationships - resolving our interpersonal issues' guff which gets in the way of the actual story and fucks me off. It has no place in an adventure series unless it serves the plot. What we get too often with new who is the plot/action/monsters merely serving as a backdrop to the soap opera. I blame Buffy.


 
Hmmm, Whedon taking over from Moffat....


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 24, 2012)

Stigmata said:


> Amy's English?


Oh for goodness sake don't be so petty. Earth is a big planet.


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 24, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Oh for goodness sake don't be so petty. Earth is a big planet.


 
Were there any good non-human/non-British companions ever? In the TV show I mean.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 24, 2012)

Stigmata said:


> Were there any good non-human/non-British companions ever? In the TV show I mean.


 
I liked Romana, the return of Susan would be interesting, Jamie from the mid 18th century, Leela, Kamelion was a cool idea. Zoe?

I'm not sure there were any great ones (though I love Romana 2), I just think I would like to see more interesting assistants. That ep the other day was interesting, but we have companions that only last one episode, I'd like longer companion arcs.


----------



## Stigmata (Sep 24, 2012)

Jamie was the only one I could think of that I liked. I wouldn't mind if they brought back that big game hunter from the dinosaur episode, or the Victorian Silurian woman.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 24, 2012)

Just anyone who is at least slightly more interesting that a sexy 20 year old female.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Just anyone who is at least slightly more interesting that a sexy 20 year old female.


 
Donna was at least a bit of a reprieve from that model. She's my favourite companion from new Who so far (barring excursions with Wilf, who was magnificent, but I suspect if he had been a permanent companion for a whole season we wouldn't have liked him as much). She wasn't there to promote any kind of sexual/romantic tension, she wasn't there to be pretty, she was there to have a go at the doctor when he was getting out of hand, to act as his moral compass. I like it when that's what the companions are for.

Really though, aren't the companions meant to stand in for us? They are the audience's link to the doctor, and can enunciate the things we are thinking, the moral and ethical issues we might have in a situation, and whatever. That's probably why they are from Earth. They are us, and that works well from a narrative point of view.

All that goes out the window when you start making the companion into some fucking soap opera character though. The past 2 seasons (and the most recent 4 episodes) haven't been about the doctor. They've been about Amy, and then Amy and Rory, and more and more the doctor has just been someone they know who impacts their life. Fuck that shit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 24, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Really though, aren't the companions meant to stand in for us? They are the audience's link to the doctor, and can enunciate the things we are thinking, the moral and ethical issues we might have in a situation, and whatever. That's probably why they are from Earth. They are us, and that works well from a narrative point of view..


 
Yes they are, but does it always have to be like that? Do we always have to follow someone new down the rabbit hole from our point of view? We have seen it a million times.
Really, the companions are a plot device, something that gives the doctor someone to talk to, to tell us what is going on. After a while people like Amy are not really people with our point of view, they take all the scares and weirdness for granted. I have enjoyed wilf and Rorys dad, not that they had much to work with.
I also don't think the new who is being daring enough with the history of who. I would like to see his granddaughter again, (I mean would she have gone off to time war? Doesn't sound right to me). The idea of his daughter was interesting too but came to nothing.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 24, 2012)

Historical companions would be interesting - dealing with the culture shock of 21st centuary earth - useing their historical skills in modern and/or sci fi settings kind of thing.

You could have an georgian libertine fop given to arch quips and outrageous behaviour.
A non-nonsense victorian housekeeper - she wouldnt take no shit from upstart aliens - and would insist on the doctor behaveing correctly. 
A medieival monk - a smart one like him from name of the rose - but deducing things using medieval frames of reference.
A fiery female san-cullotte from the french revolution - gullitineing a cyberman and shouting 'viva la revolution!'

Sort of horrible histories in a TARDIS.

the list is pretty endless and they wouldn't have to stick around too long and it would be infinitely more intersting than 'pretty girl from modern day britain.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 24, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes they are, but does it always have to be like that? Do we always have to follow someone new down the rabbit hole from our point of view? We have seen it a million times.
> Really, the companions are a plot device, something that gives the doctor someone to talk to, to tell us what is going on. After a while people like Amy are not really people with our point of view, they take all the scares and weirdness for granted. I have enjoyed wilf and Rorys dad, not that they had much to work with.
> I also don't think the new who is being daring enough with the history of who. I would like to see his granddaughter again, (I mean would she have gone off to time war? Doesn't sound right to me). The idea of his daughter was interesting too but came to nothing.


 
Oh, I agree it would be great to have someone who isn't from Earth. I was just commenting on why they probably do it that way. But no, it doesn't have to be like that, as long as the alien companion is relateable enough, it wouldn't matter. It's just easier for them that way, I guess. Davies introduced the whole thing about us being bloody amazing humans and how wonderful we are (which, quite frankly, gets really fucking annoying because no, we aren't that amazing, we're fucking psychopaths and I think half the aliens out there who want to wipe us out before we do more damage have it about right - it's fucking American exceptionalism on an international scale, and that's not something we should aspire to) so that's probably why it was always a human under his reign, and Moffat just followed suit.

I'm hopeful this new companion will be a bit different, in terms of her circumstances, but from what we've seen of her so far, it appears that she will be drawn from the same "Moffat's Big Book of What Women Are Like" and she'll be an aggressive flirt with precious little else to her character.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes, that "Humans are great" really grates on me too. I can see why he did it, it was a lazy reason for him to always hang out with humans.
I would quite like a reveal that he hangs out with humans for vanity reasons. They make him look good.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 24, 2012)

I take we're discounting the "half human on his mother's side" bit from the fillum on the grounds that the eighth doctor isn't proper canon?


----------



## AverageJoe (Sep 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Historical companions would be interesting - dealing with the culture shock of 21st centuary earth - useing their historical skills in modern and/or sci fi settings kind of thing.
> 
> You could have an georgian libertine fop given to arch quips and outrageous behaviour.
> A non-nonsense victorian housekeeper - she wouldnt take no shit from upstart aliens - and would insist on the doctor behaveing correctly.
> ...


 
Good idea. They could recruit people like Napoleon, Socrates, Billy The Kid, Ghengis Khan and Sigmund Freud, Joan of Arc and a couple of others and whisk around in an old phone box. And they could all be excellent to each other.



Oh. Hang on.....


----------



## youngian (Sep 24, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> You know what feks me off?
> All the new who assistants are all from contemporary earth, (unless you count Jack) and all english.


 
And the new assistant featured in episode one appeared as inexperienced as Karen Gillan and reciting exactly the same style of psuedo clever dick dialogue.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 24, 2012)

Hmmmm, really not getting this series. There's nothing grabbing my attention, just all seems a bit meh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm hopeful this new companion will be a bit different, in terms of her circumstances, but from what we've seen of her so far, it appears that she will be drawn from the same "Moffat's Big Book of What Women Are Like" and she'll be an aggressive flirt with precious little else to her character.


  True.

But maybe she'll stay a Dalek.  I'd like that.  A flirty Dalek.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I take we're discounting the "half human on his mother's side" bit from the fillum on the grounds that the eighth doctor isn't proper canon?


If you are going to worry about what's canon in Dr Who you are going to be in for a bit of a struggle.
This is easily fixed with "The doctor lies".

It's true that in real life people sometimes explain away difficult explanations with more palatable ones.  Let's just assume that's what happened.

Sometimes the Dr has had many more regeneration previous to the 1st doctor, then sometimes he hasn't, sometimes his granddaughter isn't actually a relation, sometimes she is.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> True.
> 
> But maybe she'll stay a Dalek. I'd like that. A flirty Dalek.


 
What, is the new assistant the girl that was a Dalek?
Yeah I Dalek assistant with a naughty lady inside would be interesting.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 25, 2012)

Would make the running from peril scenes a little tricky.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Would make the running from peril scenes a little tricky.


They can hover now.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Would make the running from peril scenes a little tricky.


 
Daleks can still run from peril, they also might not be able to protect people outside of their own Armour.


I did think that ep did borrow a little from source code.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What, is the new assistant the girl that was a Dalek?


Yes: souffle girl.

Which is good, because Tennant Doctor (for some reason) was wont to quote from A Bout de Souffle.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes: souffle girl.
> 
> Which is good, because Tennant Doctor (for some reason) was wont to quote from A Bout de Souffle.


I don't think I understood one bit of that.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 25, 2012)

i am not really feeling this series so far tbh


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I don't think I understood one bit of that.


In the Dalek episode, the Doctor (and then Amy and Rory) called her "Souffle Girl".  This is because she said she was making souffles to pass the time.  The Doctor wondered aloud several times where she was getting the eggs.  Souffle is a French word meaning "breath".  It refers to the way the famous egg dish puffs up.

There is a nice coincidence of sorts here, since this Doctor will have a companion he calls Souffle Girl, whereas the last Doctor was wont to make reference to (and quote from), the iconic 1960 film by Jean Luc Godard, "A Bout de *Souffle*" (known in English as "Breathless"), and from "Pierrot le Fou", also by Godard.  I don't know why he did this, but he did.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2012)

Here's the Doctor making Godard allusions:


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 25, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> In the Dalek episode, the Doctor (and then Amy and Rory) called her "Souffle Girl". This is because she said she was making souffles to pass the time. The Doctor wondered aloud several times where she was getting the eggs. Souffle is a French word meaning "breath". It refers to the way the famous egg dish puffs up.
> 
> There is a nice coincidence of sorts here, since this Doctor will have a companion he calls Souffle Girl, whereas the last Doctor was wont to make reference to (and quote from), the iconic 1960 film by Jean Luc Godard, "A Bout de *Souffle*" (known in English as "Breathless"), and from "Pierrot le Fou", also by Godard. I don't know why he did this, but he did.


 
OK I guess I missed all that. I don't even remember the new girl talking about cooking apart from the doctor wondering where she got all the eggs.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 25, 2012)

You clearly aren't paying enough attention, young man. You're missing a great many layers. Your criticisms are therefore invalidated.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 25, 2012)

For a lot of that episode I thought that "making soufflés" thing had just been another smart-alec response, as in "I'm stuck in a room that's constantly under attack by Daleks, I've just been sitting around making soufflés ". Thought it rather odd the Doctor took it literally to be honest.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 26, 2012)

Might be rewatching my favourite Pond episodes.

Amy's Choice, Cold Blood, The Pandorica Open/Big Bang, A Good Man Goes To War, Let's Kill Hitler, The Girl Who Waited.

Sod Amy though - I will miss Rory  His character actually developed.


----------



## FiFi (Sep 26, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Sod Amy though - I will miss Rory  His character actually developed.


 
This x100
I think he is one of my favorite characters of the recent series. 

Although bringing back Big Game Hunter, and Nefi would be good fun too!


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 27, 2012)

Rory is, at last, available in 5" form. After a personal intervention from Grand Moff Steven, Character Options have finally released an action figure of Rory.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 27, 2012)

Just had a read of this over at io9 http://io9.com/5945991/why-time-travel-stories-should-be-messy

I think she sums up incredibly well why I never feel satisfied with the way Moffatt chooses to write. Interesting that she cites 'Blink' (although I completely agree with what she says) since it's generally regarded as such a brilliant episode (and it still is). I'd have thought the whole of the last season was the bigger crime, but I suppose it serves to illustrate the point, since it's essentially the same argument.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 28, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Yes, that "Humans are great" really grates on me too. I can see why he did it, it was a lazy reason for him to always hang out with humans.
> I would quite like a reveal that he hangs out with humans for vanity reasons. They make him look good.


 

or maybe he just likes attracive 20 year old girls...  how old is the Dr again?


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 28, 2012)

Pingu said:


> or maybe he just likes attracive 20 year old girls... how old is the Dr again?


 
And didn't once play the role of being a teacher?


----------



## Pingu (Sep 28, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> And didn't once play the role of being a teacher?


 
the plot thickens...


this weeks episode finds the Dr in 21st C France evading....


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 28, 2012)

I think we should take this to the How to spot a paedophile? thread.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 28, 2012)

indeedy


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2012)

Entirely dry-eyed here, I must say. Bring on the Dalek bint and please, please let her have no comedy family or other baggage.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 29, 2012)

Hmm.

Well. I did enjoy that episode quite a lot. However...

No one was looking at Liberty when they were standing on the edge of the building. Bit of a fucking oversight. Also, I wish Amy hadn't gone back in time to be with him. It all gets a it fudgey because of it. Amy dies after Rory in this new timeline for them (he died at 82 (or 83), she died at 87). Amy clearly wasn't around when old Rory died in the room. And old Rory was, as the doctor pointed out, glad to see young Amy, suggesting he'd been there alone. So, yeah, they created a paradox, but seeing as though it still happened, it didn't create the paradox they expected, that timeline is locked off from time forever (hence why the doctor can't go visit or fetch them back), and yet somehow Amy was able to be zapped back there even though she never had been before and the gravestone didn't say she had been (at first) and, and, and... It felt a bit... fudgey.

Not ashamed to say I did get a bit of grit in my eye as Rory was doing his "I'm going to jump" thing. But Amy ending up with him felt like a bit of a cop-out. Not as much as fucking Rose getting her own version of happy families with her own doctor to boot, but still. Not as tragic as it could have been. And Moffat's timelines confuse me so much I can't work out how River is supposed to be sending that transcript to Amy to publish in the new, old New York, since it's supposedly cut off from the rest of time.

I liked it, but it was confusing, but not as confusing as it could have been.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 29, 2012)

It does rather undermine the emotional impact of a character's departure if you're just desperate for them to get on with it.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 29, 2012)

Watched both episodes - i.e last week and this and, well, I enjoyed them and there was some quite scary bits (I am a wuss!) in tonights episodes but they are just not as 'vital' as they somehow used to be 

A bit less faffing with emotional ties and more 'doctoring' for a bit please!


----------



## 8115 (Sep 29, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Amy dies after Rory in this new timeline for them (he died at 82 (or 83), she died at 87)


 
Isn't Amy older than Rory though?  But he did seem to have died alone earlier on.



Lord Camomile said:


> It does rather undermine the emotional impact of a character's departure if you're just desperate for them to get on with it.


 
Yes 

Although I did get a little bit choked up at one point, it went on for too long.

Also, weeping angels good, River Song, bad, although not as annoying as usual.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2012)

Her timelines really don't make sense and it doesn't help that Kingston is not ageing well.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 29, 2012)

The moment on the roof was actually mildly affecting, but I've long been bored of Amy and Rory.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2012)

Dusty Bint said:


> That's a spaceship exploded in the last couple of minutes of every single episode so far, although this time there wasn't a significant character left inside.


 
No exploding spaceship in this one. So it's just the flickering lights to hang on to.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 29, 2012)

Well I enjoyed it, like most of the series, I only ever click on this thread to make sure there's plenty of people moaning about it, just to reassure me that urban isn't broken.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 29, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Her timelines really don't make sense and it doesn't help that Kingston is not ageing well.


'Never let him know how old you are'. That was an older river. Long after the byzantium. Probably has work in some future or other before popping to the library.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 29, 2012)

Anything with Riversong in gets my vote, but overall this series has been a bit of a letdown.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 29, 2012)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anything with Riversong in gets my vote...


 
Same here, I've never understood why people bitch about her so much.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 29, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Same here, I've never understood why people bitch about her so much.


 
Yeah. I think she's great. Love her to bits. And that's coming from someone who's one of those "Moffat is a misogynist cuntweasel" types


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Sep 29, 2012)

I could never really get into it. This five episodes now, the rest later cobblers has got to stop. I believe I may have already shared my views on this


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 29, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Her timelines really don't make sense and it doesn't help that Kingston is not ageing well.


 

a lie. She is more beautiful than ever.


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 29, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Her timelines really don't make sense and it doesn't help that Kingston is not ageing well.


 
Oh shut up. "Not aging well". She may be older, but I think's better for it. She's pretty much the dictionary definition of "saucy". And that's coming from someone who finds the character of River Song intensely annoying.

***

And screw you cynics, I had a proper sob at Rory's departure. I love Rory.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> a lie. She is more beautiful than ever.


 
Yes, sorry, you're absolutely right.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 29, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, sorry, you're absolutely right.


 
What about that guy in the back. Let's find a picture of him when he was younger and rip him to pieces because he did something that should never happen ... age in any way shape or form.

Oh, wait...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2012)

It's merely a point about the continuity and timelines. And the chap in the picture is Mike McShane, whose dreadful improv stuff on Channel 4 20 years ago is far more shreddable than his present gravitas.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 29, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's merely a point about the continuity and timelines. And the chap in the picture is Mike McShane, whose dreadful improv stuff on Channel 4 20 years ago is far more shreddable than his present gravitas.


 
He's aged though. Almost unrecognisable.

I'm not exactly sure how you're supposed to stop the actors ageing in between seasons just to uphold the continuity. It's one of those moments when you're better suspending your disbelief instead of slagging them off for, you know, nature.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> ...I'm not exactly sure how you're supposed to stop the actors ageing in between seasons just to uphold the continuity. It's one of those moments when you're better suspending your disbelief instead of slagging them off for, you know, nature.


But she has aged in the timeline, The Dr got younger by regenerating.  He may come back as an 80 year old before they get it on.

btw there's nothing wrong with the older, non-airbrushed one.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

Well that was...

the angel stuff wasn't bad. not as good as blink but better than the spaceship one. 
the plot was messy but forgiveable. 
the big exit was surprisingly small. and only slightly overplayed.

best line was rory commenting on his inability to stay dead.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> ...the angel stuff wasn't bad. not as good as blink...


Shippou nothing is going to be as good as Blink, we were lucky to have it.    Comparing other episodes to it is a bit daft.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> But she has aged in the timeline, The Dr got younger by regenerating. He may come back as an 80 year old before they get it on.
> 
> btw there's nothing wrong with the older, non-airbrushed one.


 
Well, that brings up the clusterfuck that is River and the Doctor's story. I keep trying to get my head around it, but it just doesn't make sense.

When we meet her, it's the first time he sees her, the last time she sees him. Okay, that's fair enough. We know that the first time she meets him should, therefore, be the last time he sees her, because they are moving in opposite directions. And they state that very clearly, that they are moving in opposite directions past each other. That's all well and good if she remains an occasional character who pops in and out, somewhere along the doctor's timeline, but once they started sharing a story arc, they started sharing a timeline, and they were both going in the same direction. Case in point: she's been pardoned for killing him - and she 'killed' him in the past, the past for both of them. They are both moving forward at the moment. It just doesn't make sense in relation to the logic and explanation that was first given. If that's changed somehow, then what's the new explanation? Or how can their currently converging timelines be explained in the framework of that original logic? Because I just can't wrap my head around it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Well, that was pretty good considering. A nice enough ending, not horribly overplayed like Tennant's departure. Alex Kingston looking as fuckable as ever no matter what anybody says.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Shippou nothing is going to be as good as Blink, we were lucky to have it. Comparing other episodes to it is a bit daft.


i didn't expect it to be as good  but   given it's  the angels again it would be a bit daft to not compare it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, that brings up the clusterfuck that is River and the Doctor's story. I keep trying to get my head around it, but it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> When we meet her, it's the first time he sees her, the last time she sees him. Okay, that's fair enough. We know that the first time she meets him should, therefore, be the last time he sees her, because they are moving in opposite directions. And they state that very clearly, that they are moving in opposite directions past each other. That's all well and good if she remains an occasional character who pops in and out, somewhere along the doctor's timeline, but once they started sharing a story arc, they started sharing a timeline, and they were both going in the same direction. Case in point: she's been pardoned for killing him - and she 'killed' him in the past, the past for both of them. They are both moving forward at the moment. It just doesn't make sense in relation to the logic and explanation that was first given. If that's changed somehow, then what's the new explanation? Or how can their currently converging timelines be explained in the framework of that original logic? Because I just can't wrap my head around it.


No idea...however I have read that there is a bible, a basic tenet that new writers to a story...they don't have to follow it but their story must not break the rules of the bible.   It's in lots of shows, apparently.


----------



## Epona (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, that brings up the clusterfuck that is River and the Doctor's story. I keep trying to get my head around it, but it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> When we meet her, it's the first time he sees her, the last time she sees him. Okay, that's fair enough. We know that the first time she meets him should, therefore, be the last time he sees her, because they are moving in opposite directions. And they state that very clearly, that they are moving in opposite directions past each other. That's all well and good if she remains an occasional character who pops in and out, somewhere along the doctor's timeline, but once they started sharing a story arc, they started sharing a timeline, and they were both going in the same direction. Case in point: she's been pardoned for killing him - and she 'killed' him in the past, the past for both of them. They are both moving forward at the moment. It just doesn't make sense in relation to the logic and explanation that was first given. If that's changed somehow, then what's the new explanation? Or how can their currently converging timelines be explained in the framework of that original logic? Because I just can't wrap my head around it.


 
Completely agree, honestly IMO River's character was introduced a bit after when "The Time Traveller's Wife" was a really popular read (and I really enjoyed the book, haven't seen the film) and was to all intents and purposes an identical plot to that book, with them kind of moving in different directions in the same timeline.  When River was first introduced I sort of went 'OMG it's the Time Traveller's Wife', but continuity has sort of fallen apart on that score if you scrutinise it closely!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Moffat created her though - those episodes were his. So he wasn't having to stick to someone else's rules, or break them. They were his own. Which he disregarded as time went on. I can understand that a writer won't necessarily know exactly what they are going to do with something when they first create it, and that it grows and changes, but it's nice when they at least try to stick to the original logic of their own creation, at least a little bit.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2012)

8115 said:


> Isn't Amy older than Rory though? But he did seem to have died alone earlier on.


He died alone right up to the point where she decided to go back in time to be with him - also there is no guarantee that the angel sent them to exactly the same time so she may have had to wait a couple of years for Rory to appear in the 30s.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 30, 2012)

Also, couples don't die at exactly the same time...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Also, couples don't die at exactly the same time...


 
No, but she wasn't there when he died. If she wasn't there because she died first, her age wouldn't be older than him on the gravestone. If she had been there in the past with him, she would have either been with him, or he wouldn't have been so excited to see young Amy when she arrived (as per the doctor saying Rory was alone). So that part doesn't add up.

The problem with Moffat-Logic is that you end up having to make half of it up yourself in your head and jump through several implausible hoops of twisted what ifs to get it to fit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

So, if Rory and Amy jumping off the building did indeed cause a paradox, but clearly not the one they expected, then just what exactly did the paradox create?

It's clear that the angels' NY still exists for people to be sent back to, otherwise Rory and Amy wouldn't have been able to still get zapped back there. So, are we to take it that nothing at all changed, and the angels are still using Winter Quay as their time energy battery?

But, the doctor says that they ripped that NY apart when they created the paradox, and that's why he can't go back there to fetch Rory. This presents a couple of problems. If that NY is locked off from 'regular' time now, how did the angels manage to send Rory and Amy back again at all? There's clearly still some kind of link between it and the real 'now' world. But, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and do some mental gymnastics to sort of make it kind of fit in our heads, and we assume that Rory still had to be zapped back because it had, indeed, already happened, and *does some elaborate hand-waving* somehow Amy tapped into that residual energy that existed in that angel that touched Rory, we're still left with the doctor's claim that there is no way to get to that NY any more through conventional (i.e. time travel) means. So how is River meant to send her manuscript to Amy, and ask her to write an afterword?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> No, but she wasn't there when he died. If she wasn't there because she died first, her age wouldn't be older than him on the gravestone. If she had been there in the past with him, she would have either been with him, or he wouldn't have been so excited to see young Amy when she arrived (as per the doctor saying Rory was alone). So that part doesn't add up.
> 
> The problem with Moffat-Logic is that you end up having to make half of it up yourself in your head and jump through several implausible hoops of twisted what ifs to get it to fit.


 
The point was, they got to spend their lives together after all, in some way we don't know about. 

I thought it was quite cleverly done in a way, the ambiguity introduced by the different ages on the gravestone (and lack of birth dates) giving us a glimpse of the Doctor's perspective and the anxiety he must have felt at not knowing what had happened to Amy and Rory and not being able to find out. The 'last page' bit kind of spoiled this of course, but pretty much every episode of this series has had a soppy bit tacked onto the end unnecessarily so it hardly came as a surprise.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> But, the doctor says that they ripped that NY apart when they created the paradox, and that's why he can't go back there to fetch Rory.


 
I think he was saying that trying to save Rory by using the Tardis to create _another _paradox would rip New York apart, the previous paradox having nearly done so already.

As far as Moffat's timey-wimey nonsense goes I think that episode made slightly more sense than usual, but maybe that's because I was deliberately trying not to pick holes in it...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

If we give that theory the benefit of the doubt, how does River get the manuscript to her?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

I reckon that io9 article I posted a page or so ago is worth a read for anyone who hasn't done so already. The part I found most interesting was where she linked 'Blink' to the type of story that she says 'ties everything up with a neat little bow.' Whereby the whole story ends up being a series of events that play out in order to ensure that the series of events can play out to begin with. I realised just how much of Moffat's storytelling relies on that mechanic. It's almost like he doesn't know how to write anything other than that. That kind of story is all well and good for a one-off, as a neat trick, but when it's all you've got, it rapidly becomes clear it's a really lazy, cheap way of trying to look clever. They all become non-stories.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> If we give that theory the benefit of the doubt, how does River get the manuscript to her?


 
go to the same time period  but in london and post it to them?

go to an earlyer time period and leave it for them

use her vortex manipulator  which she implied  got her in there in the first place.  somehow less of an issue   than the tardis


----------



## Santino (Sep 30, 2012)

The death of Rory that we saw no longer happens. He now dies happily, probably in Amy's arms.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> go to the same time period but in london and post it to them?
> 
> go to an earlyer time period and leave it for them
> 
> use her vortex manipulator which she implied got her in there in the first place. somehow less of an issue than the tardis


 
If they can go to the same time period and send stuff, then surely the doctor can go to the same time period and phone them? Or get on a boat and sail to NY and go and say hi? If the post can make its way to them, why can't he? NY presumably isn't trapped in a bubble that's inaccessible from the outside, or everyone in NY would starve. It still functions as a part of the rest of the world. If the only problem is that he can't time travel directly to it, then park in New Jersey and take a cab.

Or, if it's the vortex manipulator thing, why can't the doctor borrow it to go and see them? It's not attuned only to her DNA or something. Other people used Jack's, I seem to remember. And if she can use it to go back and see them, why does she have to send the manuscript, instead of just knocking on their door? The doctor also implies after they've been zapped back that River will never see her parents again either.

So we're left with the earlier time period thing? Then if the doctor wanted to see them so badly, why doesn't he fly back to a few months earlier, and just hang around for them to turn up? He's done plenty of waiting around in the past.

Too many problems.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

hey i didn't  say it was perfect  just an explanation of how  some thing  can reach them

the  whole once you see it  it's  fixed is bollocks.   

i guess it's all down to blinovitch limitation


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Well, the wiki article on the Blinovitch Limitation has a good run down of it in new Who, and Moffat doesn't come out of the whole thing very well. He seems to have decided it's a pesky piece of lore that gets in his way.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

new who threw everything out the window with roses paradox episode.

fucking time paradox monsters

where were they  this  time.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Isn't it that the monsters were flying in through a rift that was created because of the energy let off by the paradox she created? That seems to be a perfectly acceptable way to interpret what that energy will do. It doesn't have to mean there will always be monsters, only that the release of energy from the paradox will do unpredictable things, and in that case, it ripped open a hole that let the big uglies fly through.

In this instance, we have no fucking clue what the time paradox actually did, because all explanations given in the episode contradict themselves and contradict what actually happens.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

i'm not saying this one is perfect  i just think it's on par  with new who  time travel logic.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Doctor Who has always played fast and loose with science facts and consistency. That's part of its charm. It's mindless entertainment first, actual sense second. But there's a limit to how much of that they can reasonably get away with before it becomes so ridden with plot holes it starts to fall apart right before your eyes. A couple of things here and there, where you can say, "well, that doesn't really all add up, but it's not a big deal, and anyway, fun!" are fine. But Moffat's entire reign seems to hang off these holes and inconsistencies. They are the only way he can get his stories to work.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> No, but she wasn't there when he died. If she wasn't there because she died first, her age wouldn't be older than him on the gravestone. If she had been there in the past with him, she would have either been with him, or he wouldn't have been so excited to see young Amy when she arrived (as per the doctor saying Rory was alone). So that part doesn't add up.
> 
> The problem with Moffat-Logic is that you end up having to make half of it up yourself in your head and jump through several implausible hoops of twisted what ifs to get it to fit.


No. She wasn't there before she changed history to be with him. She wasn't there until she let the angel take her and her name appeared on the grave.

I'm _never_ going time travelling with you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Her timelines really don't make sense and it doesn't help that Kingston is not ageing well.


 
In comparison to whom/what?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

I'm not saying these things aren't strangely artificial this time but i really  don't think it's worse than the rest of new who.    frankly  all the time lines are  kinda fucked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, sorry, you're absolutely right.


 
Lighting and makeup, dear boy, can hide a multitude of sins, as can camera angles and soft focus. If the DoP and director had wanted AK to look like she does in the first photo, they could have done so. As it was, they've been attempting to convey an important-ish part of a story-arc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> He's aged though. Almost unrecognisable.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how you're supposed to stop the actors ageing in between seasons just to uphold the continuity. It's one of those moments when you're better suspending your disbelief instead of slagging them off for, you know, nature.


 
He's lost his ginger mop and beard, for a start.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> btw there's nothing wrong with the older, non-airbrushed one.


 
Totally agree. If she'd have me, I certainly would!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> No. She wasn't there before she changed history to be with him. She wasn't there until she let the angel take her and her name appeared on the grave.
> 
> I'm _never_ going time travelling with you!


 
I understand that. But, following the logic that the doctor himself stated at the beginning, when reading the book in the park - once they experience their future, it's fixed, it happens. That's why he told her to stop reading. "What if you read that Rory dies?" And so when she sees him die in the apartment, it becomes something that will always happen. That's the logic the doctor spells out for us at the beginning of the episode. It's fine to say that there are no fixed points in time, and that history can be rewritten, but not when the episode specifically says otherwise itself.

So we come back to the paradox. Did the paradox make it possible for Amy to go back as well? It's clear the paradox didn't stop history playing out as they saw it play out, because Rory was zapped back. That was fixed, just as the doctor said it was. But the paradox made it not quite as fixed as they thought? Okay, let's go with that then. We're left with having to make it up in our heads because the episode contradicts itself, and we have to perform mental gymnastics to make it fit. But, let's say that's what happened.

We're left trying to work out just exactly what the paradox did then, other than something that meant Amy could become part of the angels' big time energy battery experiment as well. It doesn't clear up any of the problems with River's manuscript.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Well, that brings up the clusterfuck that is River and the Doctor's story. I keep trying to get my head around it, but it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> When we meet her, it's the first time he sees her, the last time she sees him. Okay, that's fair enough. We know that the first time she meets him should, therefore, be the last time he sees her, because they are moving in opposite directions. And they state that very clearly, that they are moving in opposite directions past each other. That's all well and good if she remains an occasional character who pops in and out, somewhere along the doctor's timeline, but once they started sharing a story arc, they started sharing a timeline, and they were both going in the same direction. Case in point: she's been pardoned for killing him - and she 'killed' him in the past, the past for both of them. They are both moving forward at the moment. It just doesn't make sense in relation to the logic and explanation that was first given. If that's changed somehow, then what's the new explanation? Or how can their currently converging timelines be explained in the framework of that original logic? Because I just can't wrap my head around it.


 
I just use the diverging/converging parallel universes theory beloved of Stargate SG-1 to keep it all straight in my head.

Okay, that means accepting a premise that the Doctor is interacting with a series of slightly-different River Songs, but I find the idea of multiple River Songs "intriguing".


----------



## Santino (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I understand that. But, following the logic that the doctor himself stated at the beginning, when reading the book in the park - once they experience their future, it's fixed, it happens. That's why he told her to stop reading. "What if you read that Rory dies?" And so when she sees him die in the apartment, it becomes something that will always happen. That's the logic the doctor spells out for us at the beginning of the episode. It's fine to say that there are no fixed points in time, and that history can be rewritten, but not when the episode specifically says otherwise itself.
> 
> So we come back to the paradox. Did the paradox make it possible for Amy to go back as well? It's clear the paradox didn't stop history playing out as they saw it play out, because Rory was zapped back. That was fixed, just as the doctor said it was. But the paradox made it not quite as fixed as they thought? Okay, let's go with that then. We're left with having to make it up in our heads because the episode contradicts itself, and we have to perform mental gymnastics to make it fit. But, let's say that's what happened.
> 
> We're left trying to work out just exactly what the paradox did then, other than something that meant Amy could become part of the angels' big time energy battery experiment as well. It doesn't clear up any of the problems with River's manuscript.


They DID change the timeline, but in the new timeline Rory was zapped back in time again.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I understand that. But, following the logic that the doctor himself stated at the beginning, when reading the book in the park - once they experience their future, it's fixed, it happens. That's why he told her to stop reading. "What if you read that Rory dies?" And so when she sees him die in the apartment, it becomes something that will always happen. That's the logic the doctor spells out for us at the beginning of the episode. It's fine to say that there are no fixed points in time, and that history can be rewritten, but not when the episode specifically says otherwise itself.


Well quite possibly, but the whole of the 'angels' timeline was erased by the paradox so of course it's gone. I'm saying it's logical but it sort of follows Whovian logic - a paradox pretty much trumps most things in the Whoniverse as we know from previous episodes.



ViolentPanda said:


> I just use the diverging/converging parallel universes theory beloved of Stargate SG-1 to keep it all straight in my head.
> 
> Okay, that means accepting a premise that the Doctor is interacting with a series of slightly-different River Songs, but I find the idea of multiple River Songs "intriguing".


Shippy probably has that manga...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> If we give that theory the benefit of the doubt, how does River get the manuscript to her?


 
Go back before that time, leave the manuscript with a lawyer, with instructions for delivery to Amelia Williams after _X_ date. Sort of a reverse dead drop.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Shippy probably has that manga...


 
If he does, I hope he gives me a lend...


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Doctor Who has always played fast and loose with science facts and consistency. That's part of its charm. It's mindless entertainment first, actual sense second.


 
Indeed.



> But there's a limit to how much of that they can reasonably get away with before it becomes so ridden with plot holes it starts to fall apart right before your eyes.


 
Only if you over scrutinise it too closely, the vast majority of people don't do that, they are happy with it as a bit of mindless entertainment/escapism on an early Saturday evening that they can enjoy with their kids, without getting all worked-up by any 'holes and inconsistencies' related to story-lines they have long since forgotten about anyway.



> A couple of things here and there, where you can say, "well, that doesn't really all add up, but it's not a big deal, and anyway, fun!" are fine. But Moffat's entire reign seems to hang off these holes and inconsistencies. They are the only way he can get his stories to work.


 
I am so tempted to say re-arrange these words 'life / get /a', but I am far too polite.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Okay, so I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and tentatively accept that this paradox, whatever it was, changed the timeline enough that the past/future we saw where Rory died alone no longer happens, and now Amy is there with him. Okay.

So. What about the manuscript? Why can't the doctor ever see them again? Those two things don't make sense together.

And how could Liberty walk through NY, at least twice? Is NY such an un-populated place that there was literally not one single person in the city that would have noticed this big fuck off scary statue marching Godzilla-like through the streets, thus rendering it unable to move any further?


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Totally agree. If she'd have me, I certainly would!


 
*reports post*

*to greebo*


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go back before that time, leave the manuscript with a lawyer, with instructions for delivery to Amelia Williams after _X_ date. Sort of a reverse dead drop.


 
I've already covered that. If you can go back in time and get something to them, why can't he go back and wait around a few years for them to turn up? If it's only a case of time travelling to that precise time period is locked off because of the paradox or whatever, then he can just travel to a bit before or a bit after, and say hi.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> I am so tempted to say re-arrange these words 'life / get /a', but I am far too polite.


 
Wouldn't that apply to anyone arguing the toss in this thread since its inception? Or only those who say something you don't like?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2012)

I was watching classic Who at 12 year old and learned long before new who came around that it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't even follow its own internal logic. Theres no point hoping for sense. Theres just monsters and a man in a blue box that can go anywhere. Thus it is written.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've already covered that. If you can go back in time and get something to them, why can't he go back and wait around a few years for them to turn up? If it's only a case of time travelling to that precise time period is locked off because of the paradox or whatever, then he can just travel to a bit before or a bit after, and say hi.


1) He sort of does that - he goes straight away to see Amy somewhere that he can visit her

2) Wait around for ages in one place? Really? Doesn't seem that likely

3) He wouldn't want to visit them in their 80s, he doesn't like ageing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> they've been attempting to convey an important-ish part of a story-arc.


 
So she's no longer going in reverse, then? They are deliberately making her look substantially older than at her death in the library? It's a theory, I suppose.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2012)

All we need is the minutely suplexed one to come and say he didn't like it or didn't get it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> 1) He sort of does that - he goes straight away to see Amy somewhere that he can visit her
> 
> 2) Wait around for ages in one place? Really? Doesn't seem that likely
> 
> 3) He wouldn't want to visit them in their 80s, he doesn't like ageing.


 
1) Yes, but he's upset he can't see them as they are, the people they are right now. But if a manuscript can get to them, as they are now, trapped back in 1938 and after, so can he. But apparently not.

2) He's waited around for things for centuries before. He's waited around for months doing precisely fuck all even in this current series.

3) He could visit them in their mid 30s. Doesn't have to be when they are about to die.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> If he does, I hope he gives me a lend...


Do whatever you like, as long as you don't mind my reaction to it.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

you could argue for a weak time stream. the novel manuscript already exists in the time stream so dropping it off won't effect the time line.

doctor visiting will .

it's not a great argument  but as i've said the time physics is nuts anyhow


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I've already covered that. If you can go back in time and get something to them, why can't he go back and wait around a few years for them to turn up? If it's only a case of time travelling to that precise time period is locked off because of the paradox or whatever, then he can just travel to a bit before or a bit after, and say hi.


 
An object (manuscript) doesn't have the same interactive (and therefore temporal havoc-wreaking) possibilities as a person.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> you could argue for a weak time stream. the novel manuscript already exists in the time stream so dropping it off won't effect the time line.
> 
> doctor visiting will .
> 
> it's not a great argument but as i've said the time physics is nuts anyhow


 
Whatever way you look at it, you have to patch it together with spit to make it work. And I'd argue it needs even more spit than usual.

I'm not entirely dissing it, btw. I posted last night that I really enjoyed the episode. But I'm one of those terribly awkward people who is able to criticise the things they like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> So she's no longer going in reverse, then? They are deliberately making her look substantially older than at her death in the library? It's a theory, I suppose.


 
You're ignoring that her physical appearance at the library doesn't *need* to be older. They even gave a clue in yesterday's episode.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Do whatever you like, as long as you don't mind my reaction to it.


 
Why would you have a reaction to me privately watching a manga, especially one that doesn't exist?


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Wouldn't that apply to anyone arguing the toss in this thread since its inception? Or only those who say something you don't like?


 
Basically yes to the first question, and regards to the second question I would refer you to THIS POST, I just find it very funny when people take it so seriously, when it's just a bit of fun or as you described it yourself 'mindless entertainment'.

The number of people that get worked-up over the story-lines and how they fit together over the years, are likely to be something like 0.1% of those that watch it, why would Moffat or anyone else involved in producing it be that concerned about such a tiny number of people?

Especially, as they are likely to carry on watching it anyway, just so they can over scrutinise it and pick holes in it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> An object (manuscript) doesn't have the same interactive (and therefore temporal havoc-wreaking) possibilities as a person.


 
But the doctor gives it that possibility at the beginning. When he's reading the book in the park, the books existence, and its ability to be read, has history-changing capabilities. Or history-fixing, perhaps is a better way of saying it. He's effectively saying that before the book is read, it doesn't have to happen in any particular way. So the introduction of the manuscript is precisely what creates a certain timeline of events to begin with. Add to that the fact that River is going to be communicating in some way or another with Amy to ask her to write the afterward, putting in something about the doctor not travelling alone, and that adds another layer of interaction that shouldn't be possible.

Getting away from all that though, and going back to the io9 article: this habit of writing stories so that the whole episode/season is about ensuring the whole episode/season can happen is balls.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2012)

VP, seek out the 'Terrestrial Index' wich covers old Who and attempts to stitch together some meaninful sense to the whole thing. Its glorious failure should entertain you. It even tries to work in the New Adventures books and the radio plays. Then some cunt writes Lungbarrow or any of the Land of Fiction ones.

its a mess lol.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Basically yes to the first question, and regards to the second question I would refer you to THIS POST, I just find it very funny when people take it so seriously, when it's just a bit of fun or as you described it yourself 'mindless entertainment'.
> 
> The number of people that get worked-up over the story-lines and how they fit together over the years, are likely to be something like 0.1% of those that watch it, why would Moffat or anyone else involved in producing it be that concerned about such a tiny number of people?
> 
> Especially, as they are likely to carry on watching it anyway, just so they can over scrutinise it and pick holes in it.


 
I don't talk about it so Moffat will have a look and say, "omg she's right, this is where I've been going wrong all my life." 

It might be all rather alien to you, but for some people, thinking about the mechanics of episodes and the lore etc is actually part of the fun. And that includes when it all fits together nicely, and when it doesn't.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would you have a reaction to me privately watching a manga, especially one that doesn't exist?



I've often wondered, are you two both sitting on the sofa in the living room replying to each other on here, or in separate rooms?


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would you have a reaction to me privately watching a manga, especially one that doesn't exist?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> VP, seek out the 'Terrestrial Index' wich covers old Who and attempts to stitch together some meaninful sense to the whole thing. Its glorious failure should entertain you. It even tries to work in the New Adventures books and the radio plays. Then some cunt writes Lungbarrow or any of the Land of Fiction ones.
> 
> its a mess lol.


 
Oh I have no doubt. That doesn't mean I don't have my own idea of what feels like an acceptable amount of inconsistency whereby a story still works for me, and what is a frustrating amount of inconsistency where it breaks down that little bit too much. And in Moffat's case, I see it all as part and parcel of his lazy writing style.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't talk about it so Moffat will have a look and say, "omg she's right, this is where I've been going wrong all my life."
> 
> It might be all rather alien to you, but for some people, thinking about the mechanics of episodes and the lore etc is actually part of the fun. And that includes when it all fits together nicely, and when it doesn't.


 
Yeah, but that's the thing, you're wasting your time, because it doesn't work like that, as DotCom has just pointed out - it's a mess, you'll never get it all to fit together nicely.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, but that's the thing, you're wasting your time, because it doesn't work like that, as DotCom has just pointed out - it's a mess, you'll never get it all to fit together nicely.


 
I refer you to the post above.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> I've often wondered, are you two both sitting on the sofa in the living room replying to each other on here, or in separate rooms?


 
Different rooms, different computers, totally different opinions, hence herself giving me the .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


>


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Different rooms, different computers, totally different opinions, hence herself giving me the .


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> Oh I have no doubt. That doesn't mean I don't have my own idea of what feels like an acceptable amount of inconsistency whereby a story still works for me, and what is a frustrating amount of inconsistency where it breaks down that little bit too much. And in Moffat's case, I see it all as part and parcel of his lazy writing style.


 

ah I get you. I abandoned all considerations of that kind with Whoa long time ago. No what annoyss me is excessive mawkishness, crap monsters or shit companions. Long ago gave up caring about consistency =. YMMV and so on!

I think moffat excels as an ideas driven writer, but yes, hisplotting does let him down.

Recall the first Angels episode and we all creamed our underwear at the thought of st moffat delivering us unto a new dawn of unrivalled Who. Didn't quite work out that way did it? Still, he's had a good run in the main


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> I've often wondered, are you two both sitting on the sofa in the living room replying to each other on here, or in separate rooms?


Elephant's Child, the answer to your question was given to phildwyer several months ago.  You could find it if you really wanted to.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Different rooms, different computers, totally different opinions, hence herself giving me the .


Spoilers, sweetie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Spoilers, sweetie.


 
Yes dear, sorry dear.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

i'm still rating moffat above RTD


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Elephant's Child, the answer to your question was given to phildwyer several months ago. You could find it if you really wanted to.


 
You expect me to search dwyer's posts, I think not.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> You expect me to search dwyer's posts, I think not.


Get a fucking grip - anyone would think I'd asked you to go through his underwear.  After it had been worn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2012)

now I'm imagining Phildwyers skidmarks.On the sabbath day.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Get a fucking grip - anyone would think I'd asked you to go through his underwear. After it had been worn.


 
actually  that might be  better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> actually that might be better.


 
BOKE!!!


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> actually that might be better.


 
That's what I was thinking.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> That's what I was thinking.


Because it'd take less time?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go back before that time, leave the manuscript with a lawyer, with instructions for delivery to Amelia Williams after _X_ date. Sort of a reverse dead drop.


May I recommend  Sam Beckett's dad's lawyer.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2012)

thought that one was OK.  milked the statues thing a bit but was possibly the best one of the recent bunch


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 1, 2012)

it didnt make sense but, i liked it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 1, 2012)

When is the repeat? Does he have a Dalek assistant yet?


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 1, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> And how could Liberty walk through NY, at least twice? Is NY such an un-populated place that there was literally not one single person in the city that would have noticed this big fuck off scary statue marching Godzilla-like through the streets, thus rendering it unable to move any further?



She only walked once surely? (the first time was a fictionalised version of when Rory did it). But yes. That annoyed me because the whole bloody thing about the angels, the thing that makes them real-world scary for kids is that the reason you've never seen statues move is cos you, or someone, was looking at them. If liberty can stride across the bay making all that ground-shaking racket, clearly seen by hundreds if not thousands of new yorkers, then wtf? Angels can't do that. It's important!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go back before that time, leave the manuscript with a lawyer, with instructions for delivery to Amelia Williams after _X_ date. Sort of a reverse dead drop.


 
Why, when people travel through time, do they always leave their letters to their future selves/loved ones with lawyers? 

If I wanted a letter to arrive somewhere 75 years after I sent it, I'd just use Royal Mail.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 1, 2012)

Also: 





> The Statue of Liberty is made of copper 3/32in. (about 2.5mm) thick, the same as two American pennies placed together. The internal structure is comprised of cast iron and stainless steel.


Aren't the angels just made of stone?

It's (far less) important!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Also: Aren't the angels just made of stone?
> 
> It's (far less) important!


 

verdigris is oxidised copper. Sort of counts.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 1, 2012)

Isn't he the guy that wrote the theme to Blade Runner?


----------



## Santino (Oct 1, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why, when people travel through time, do they always leave their letters to their future selves/loved ones with lawyers?
> 
> If I wanted a letter to arrive somewhere 75 years after I sent it, I'd just use Royal Mail.


And what's the deal with airline food?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 1, 2012)

Santino said:


> And what's the deal with airline food?


Almost posted exactly the same thing


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 1, 2012)

This, eps 1 & 2 best so far. The others failed to make an impression on me.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 1, 2012)

I really enjoyed it, then again i dont tend to nit pick about things, although i was bemused by the statue of liberty moving, i cant belive for a second it wouldnt have been looked at.

but i really have a strong feeling that Simon Moffat is doing a sneaky and we will see Amy and Rory again, even briefly....


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 1, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> She only walked once surely? (the first time was a fictionalised version of when Rory did it). But yes. That annoyed me because the whole bloody thing about the angels, the thing that makes them real-world scary for kids is that the reason you've never seen statues move is cos you, or someone, was looking at them. If liberty can stride across the bay making all that ground-shaking racket, clearly seen by hundreds if not thousands of new yorkers, then wtf? Angels can't do that. It's important!


 
I thought the first guy who saw the liberty angel was just a set up for us, a prologue, so we knew what was going on. That he was an actual person it happened to, to show that the whole hotel was geared up for that, and to make us scared for Rory when he ended up there as well.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 1, 2012)

Nope. I don't think so - it was too similar. The death in the bed, liberty turning up. Evading the angels in the hall and running up to the roof... No reason for it to be so similar, and no reason for river to write about it. Also, the overlay of the typewriter was writing the same words, I think.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 1, 2012)

Wait, _also_: why did the liberty angel (I quite like that ) have to get so close? You've got to think she's got a bit of a reach on her 

"Dear Mr. Steven so-called Moffat... "


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 1, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> Nope. I don't think so - it was too similar. The death in the bed, liberty turning up. Evading the angels in the hall and running up to the roof... No reason for it to be so similar, and no reason for river to write about it. Also, the overlay of the typewriter was writing the same words, I think.


 
The book was about her, though, not Rory. And the PI's prologue was narrated by him. Also, if the book was effectively what happened up until the paradox changed history so it didn't, in the prologue, the guy is holding his own hand, but it's Amy who holds Rory's as he dies. The paradox hasn't happened at that point, so what is playing out should be precisely what's in the book. Also, she talks about everyone by name in the book "Rory had gone to get coffee" etc., and the guy at the beginning is called something else. And if everything that plays out in the episode is written in the manuscript, then Rory, if that was him at the beginning, dies twice in it, because his death when Amy is there, and then the young Rory running up to the roof, all that has to be in the book. We know there was a chapter called something like "Amelia's last goodbye" which could refer to old Rory dying, or to their rooftop jump, or to her saying goodbye to the doctor and River in the cemetery (probably the latter), so the events are all there in the book. It just doesn't add up.

I understand what you're saying, about it being an interpretation of what happened to Rory, but since what actually happened to him is already in the book, there's no need for that first account. It still seems to me that it was a case of the same happening to another person, in order to set the scene, set up the fear, show that it happens almost like a machine, with the angels fuelling their battery with lots of people this way, and to act as some kind of foreshadowing for what is to come, especially when we see Rory go to that building on his own later, and wander along the corridor to a room, see his name on the door - it's more impactful because we know what's coming because we've seen it happen to someone else already.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 1, 2012)

When is this repeated?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2012)

all the time on iplayer


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 1, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> When is this repeated?


 
You need to get with the asynchronous viewing paradigm, daddio. It'll keep you from asking this same question yet again.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 1, 2012)

Grrr.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 1, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> When is this repeated?


7.15-8pm, Friday BBC3


----------



## emanymton (Oct 1, 2012)

Oddly what bugged me the most was that the supper genius doctor didn't realise that it didn't matter if River had to brake her wrist or not. Amy never read anything that said River did have her wrist broke she just read out them talking about it. I am probably alone on this one though.


----------



## CNT36 (Oct 1, 2012)

No it was fucking stupid.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 1, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Oddly what bugged me the most was that the supper genius doctor didn't realise that it didn't matter if River had to brake her wrist or not. Amy never read anything that said River did have her wrist broke she just read out them talking about it. I am probably alone on this one though.


 
Introducing the idea of stuff being in the book or not in the book and a strict history/future or not, it all ends up imposing too rigid a framework that's all too easy to pick holes in. That's the main problem. You can easily handwave stuff away when it doesn't really make sense in this kind of show, and you're encouraged to do so, but you can only really do that when it's not set out to begin with as something with an internal logic that has to be stuck to. The way Moffat sets up many of his stories relies on there being a very neat, perfectly rational and logical reasoning behind why everything happened the way it did, which in the end makes it all the easier to notice when it doesn't quite make sense. If he wasn't trying to show off quite so much and be oh-so clever about it all, it wouldn't matter that it ended up being messy.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2012)

This half-season has kind of pissed me off.  Mostly because after a number of series of a general feeling of epicness, this one has just totally lost its way.  It's like they've suddenly run out of ideas and are just redoing the ideas they have already used.  Oh, we've said goodbye to Amy and Rory?  Again?  Fucking yawn -- been there, done that.  And Amy and Rory love each other do they?  Well well, who'd have thought.  

These characters should all have been left well enough alone at the natural end to their stories, which was the end of last series.  Bringing them out again just reduces the impact of their past storylines and makes them boring.

Bored, I have been.  For the first time since the start of series 2 of New Who, I have been bored.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 10, 2012)

I'd agree with that. The first half of this series has basically been about absolutely nothing. One long goodbye. The whole 'Rory doubts that Amy loves him; Amy proves that she loves him' thing has been done to death, and didn't really need going over _yet again_. Several times.

The only thing that has been vaguely interesting is this wiping of the doctor's records. But it's been alluded to in a really weird way, like it's just something that's happening, with no real purpose. I get that it sets up the 'Doctor Who?' thing from the last series, but even if we assume all this record deleting is going to become a more important part of the rest of the series (which I'm not so sure about, because didn't Moffat say he wasn't doing an arc this series?), the way it's been dropped into the episodes so far has been really...nondescript.

Not to mention the fact that, yet again, it doesn't really make sense. Even if you wipe electronic records of all mentions of the doctor, he's not wiping the minds of everyone who already knows about him. People/creatures with database-type brains fair enough, but organic brains? So as soon as all mentions of him are gone from the records, all the people/aliens who have actually encountered him or know of him because of past deeds can just write it all down again. Unless we're to think he is also flying around wiping people's actual memories, which....I question his ethics.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 10, 2012)

Among all of the squillions of people who live throughout the history of the universe, only a few actually ever met him, so whatever they say can be written off as myth.


----------



## Santino (Oct 10, 2012)

Also, even if someone writes down stuff about him, he's already wiped it from the record in the future.


----------



## binka (Oct 10, 2012)

unit seemed to remember who he was


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 10, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'd agree with that. The first half of this series has basically been about absolutely nothing. One long goodbye. The whole 'Rory doubts that Amy loves him; Amy proves that she loves him' thing has been done to death, and didn't really need going over _yet again_. Several times.
> 
> The only thing that has been vaguely interesting is this wiping of the doctor's records. But it's been alluded to in a really weird way, like it's just something that's happening, with no real purpose. I get that it sets up the 'Doctor Who?' thing from the last series, but even if we assume all this record deleting is going to become a more important part of the rest of the series (which I'm not so sure about, because didn't Moffat say he wasn't doing an arc this series?), the way it's been dropped into the episodes so far has been really...nondescript.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that, yet again, it doesn't really make sense. Even if you wipe electronic records of all mentions of the doctor, he's not wiping the minds of everyone who already knows about him. People/creatures with database-type brains fair enough, but organic brains? So as soon as all mentions of him are gone from the records, all the people/aliens who have actually encountered him or know of him because of past deeds can just write it all down again. Unless we're to think he is also flying around wiping people's actual memories, which....I question his ethics.


 
there is an argument that moffat is trying to resurrect the cartmel masterplan.   that  also  had the line  doctor.. who?  used.   but  less annolingly


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 10, 2012)

binka said:


> unit seemed to remember who he was



Brigadier, innit.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

It's just been very hard to care about this half-series, because it feels like nothing more than retreads, filler and inconsistent guff. It's like even the writers can't be arsed.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2012)

If you're dumping assistants half way through, better to keep the good episodes for later surely?  (hopefully)


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> If you're dumping assistants half way through, better to keep the good episodes for later surely? (hopefully)


Yeah, I'll accept that.  But why dump the assistant half way through?  Why not just follow tradition and pick up the new assistant in episode 1?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, I'll accept that. But why dump the assistant half way through? Why not just follow tradition and pick up the new assistant in episode 1?


Can't disagree.


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, I'll accept that. But why dump the assistant half way through? Why not just follow tradition and pick up the new assistant in episode 1?


Is that tradition?  Anyway, we did!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

At best, we saw a brief glimpse.  Not the same thing.  We were still stuck with the old assistant at the time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

saving her for the christmas episode?


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2012)

There's no reason why a new assistant should start at the beginning of a series.  And as this series is split neatly in two, she kinda will be doing so anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

belboid said:


> There's no reason why a new assistant should start at the beginning of a series. And as this series is split neatly in two, she kinda will be doing so anyway.


There is a reason.  It's precisely to stop this feeling of meaningless filler and protracted goodbye.  It's also to allow a complete character arc to develop over the course of a whole series.


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2012)

kabbes said:


> There is a reason. It's precisely to stop this feeling of meaningless filler and protracted goodbye. It's also to allow a complete character arc to develop over the course of a whole series.


It has zero to do with meaningless filler, thats just cos they hadnt got any better ideas. And its the completion of an arc, and the start of a new one. Absolutely no reason at all to tie things rigidly to happening over one series.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

It's not the completion of the arc though, that happened at the end of last series.  They said their goodbyes, everything was tied up, thank you and goodnight.  Bringing back Amy for more whacky adventures was totally unnecessary to her storyline.  They had a nice sort-of-happy-ever-after finish and that would have been just fine.  Her return is precisely why this all feels so unsatisfying.


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2012)

I disagree. It felt unsatisfying cos the middle three storie were dull, barely thought through, bits of filler. The first and last eps were great. And by doing that last story, at least we know there is no way they will be back, no temptations left open for future lazy writers.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

Bah, given the contempt the writers show for internal logic, there is no longer any option denied them.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 11, 2012)

I'm just glad Amy's gone.  Relieved.  "The One Who Wasn't Quite As Bad As Martha Jones" isn't much of an accolade.  I shall, however miss Rory.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

I liked Martha and I liked Amy.  But Amy finished her storyline last series. Now I just have a bad taste in my mouth about her.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 11, 2012)

i cant wait for the new companion, not only is she hot, i hope she is brilliant...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 5, 2012)

So hang on. I have just been on iplayer and it's just got some star whale stuff.
Can I not watch the latest episodes? 
I think I only saw the first one or two of the series, something about a girl in a Dalek and something else.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So hang on. I have just been on iplayer and it's just got some star whale stuff.
> Can I not watch the latest episodes?
> I think I only saw the first one or two of the series, something about a girl in a Dalek and something else.


iplayer doesn't work like that. it shows programmes for seven days after broadcast (sometimes they keep all the episodes in a series on there until one week after the last episode). currently they're showing the early matt smith episodes on bbc3, so that's what's on iplayer.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 5, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> iplayer doesn't work like that. it shows programmes for seven days after broadcast (sometimes they keep all the episodes in a series on there until one week after the last episode). currently they're showing the early matt smith episodes on bbc3, so that's what's on iplayer.


 
So has the current series ended? That wasn't very long. 
I saw two, then went to spain or something and did some other stuff, I can only have missed maybe three weeks. 

So how did the dalek assistant thing work out?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2012)

it was a half series - we get the rest at sometime in the future as yet unconfirmed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> it was a half series - we get the rest at sometime in the future as yet unconfirmed.


 

Christmas day episode is confirmed. Christmas day without a who episode would be so out of auntie character as Billy Mitchell exposing himself in the Queen Vic.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 5, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Christmas day episode is confirmed. Christmas day without a who episode would be so out of auntie character as Billy Mitchell exposing himself in the Queen Vic.


yesssss... but that's not a part of the series as such, is it?


----------



## Kuso (Nov 5, 2012)

they're introducing the new assistant in it afaik


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 6, 2012)

yes its the new assisitants first proper roll out, although we have already met her...


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 17, 2012)

xmas ep trailer and pics

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/d...special-the-snowmen-gets-trailer-prequel.html


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 17, 2012)

minisode?    more like second trailer but with out the annoying music


----------



## ginger_syn (Nov 18, 2012)

I will be a happy bunny on Christmas day


----------



## Kuso (Nov 18, 2012)

the trailer was on children in need last night with matt smith and the new assistant introducing it.  her saying 'its her first appearance', 'only it isn't because you were in the first episode of the new series and I killed you because you were a dalek, so you couldnt possibly be back playing the same character, could you?'

timey wimey stuff coming up

wasn't last years one set in london around the same time period too though?  suppose its 'christmassy'


----------



## Epona (Nov 18, 2012)

It is my Christmas tradition to hate Christmassy Dr Who episodes.  I love Doctor Who and have been watching for as long as I can remember (40 years) but the Christmas episodes have been utter utter shite the last few years


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 18, 2012)

Kuso said:


> wasn't last years one set in london around the same time period too though? suppose its 'christmassy'


 
it's because all christmas stories were raped  by charles dickens  when they were kids


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 18, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Christmas day episode is confirmed. Christmas day without a who episode would be so out of auntie character as Billy Mitchell exposing himself in the Queen Vic.








Pretty unlikely.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 18, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> it was a half series - we get the rest at sometime in the future as yet unconfirmed.


 
So did the dalek become an assistant?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2012)

I suspect she will become embodied somehow


----------



## Iguana (Nov 18, 2012)

Kuso said:


> wasn't last years one set in london around the same time period too though? suppose its 'christmassy'


 
Last years one was set in WW2. The last Victorian one was in 2008 with David Morrissey.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 18, 2012)

The one with Katherine Jenkins and the flying shark was Victorian-ish.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> the flying shark


 
An ever-present motif since Ecclescake flounced . . .


----------



## Balbi (Jan 23, 2013)

Restarts March 30th. Gird yerselfs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 23, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Restarts March 30th. Gird yerselfs.


 
Why is it that at the most depressing and boring time of year there's no good TV shows on, because they never restart until the spring?


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jan 24, 2013)

50th anniversary script to include ALL eleven doctors (including William Hartnell, Pat Troughton and Jon Pertwee via CGI) - http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2013/01/doctor-who-all-eleven-doctors/ 

 - according to a rumour on Wired.com


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 24, 2013)

heard that rumour the other day, and the only thing that makes me think its true, is the fact that all of the old doctors have come out and said they are definitely not in it....


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

the names Bond, Doctor Bond....apparently

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/mar/18/doctor-who-returns-james-bond


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 19, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016dy23

Trailer.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 19, 2013)

Did I see an ice warrior in that trailer?


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 19, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> Did I see an ice warrior in that trailer?


I think so.  A new, updated Ice Warrior.


----------



## Leafster (Mar 19, 2013)

Kaka Tim said:


> Did I see an ice warrior in that trailer?


I was trying to remember what they were called!


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd love the Sea Devils to return.  Torches and string vests.  What's not to like?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 19, 2013)

they have. Silurians


----------

