Doctor Who

[yoda]

Didnt hear the Ecclestone voice, Are you hearing things?

One of the 'mail box' cubes had the voice of Ecclestone. Or it sounded very like him.

[drs]

It was set out quite clearly in the plot that those were the voices of the Time Lords that the house lured to their death over time, it want Eccleson or McGann or any other previous Doctor it was just generic voices.

[Yoss]

Outstanding episode.

[Widge]

One of the 'mail box' cubes had the voice of Ecclestone. Or it sounded very like him.

Thats not possible is it, since they were all dead timelords and Ecclestone never died as the Dr there.

Or thats how I worked it out.

[yoda]

It was set out quite clearly in the plot that those were the voices of the Time Lords that the house lured to their death over time, it want Eccleson or McGann or any other previous Doctor it was just generic voices.

Thats not possible is it, since they were all dead timelords and Ecclestone never died as the Dr there.

Or thats how I worked it out.

I'm well aware of both of those points, but perhaps they just decided to lump Ecclestone's voice in there. Doesn't mean anything I know, just an observation.

[Yoss]

If there's one thing I have to credit RTD with although he Isn't as good a writer of science-fiction/fantasy that Stephen Moffat is, he at least managed to create a well rounded character with Tennants tenth Doctor. Now with Tennant like any Doctor he he had his lovers and his haters but we did get contrasting sides to his personality. The more congenial, swaggering, cocky but ultimately affable side to his nature. But that was deftly counter-balanced with his darker, more confrontational side. The righteous indignation, the moral disapproval and the steel when facing down his enemies and the contempt that any good Doctor should have!!!

Now parallel this with Smith's Doctor, yes he is confrontational to a degree and he has that similar kind of cocky bravado and the mocking tones that Tennant had. But the fact is that I don't think Matt Smith is getting to fully show his potential has a totally well rounded Doctor. Although there have been glimmers of the eleventh Doctor's darker side and the righteous moral anger that he should convey ie. The Beast Below. I don't feel as if we're seeing quite enough of it. This Isn't a criticism of Smith per say as I think he has the makings of a wonderful Doctor. It's more on Moffat who has thus far seemed resigned to making him more clown-like and lightweight. Yes, he has his little serious moments. But it just Isn't enough. This Isn't the "Oncoming Storm" the Daleks feared, the man who furiously rebuked Novice Hame for defending the use of Clones to conduct medical experiments to create new medicines or even in his quieter, more philosophical moments criticised Prof. Lazarus for inventing a machine that turned back the biological clock!!!

Even Patrick Troughton who Smith states has been his prime influence had his darker, sterner moments back in the 1960's. If we're going to have a a wholly convincing Doctor we need to see more the darker, angrier side to the man behind the affable, comedic veil!!!

ooh, no no no no no no and no, you've got thatb altogether wrong. (imho, obviously).

You're being seduced there by Smith's manner and not by his actions, which is the more important bit. Tennant showed very little darkness - maybe just briefly in The Family of Blood - instead RTD wrote him as basically a human adopting human morality and doing all the right things. Which reached its absurd height on the Sontaran episode when he had to be all nicey-nicey and go and offer them "the choice" at the end, even though it was going to lead to his own death. Smith's doctor has much more believably non-human ethics - indeed his killing off of the Silents in the opening story ("that would be lovely but it's not Christmas", or whatever it was he said) formed a direct point of contrast to the Sontaran thing.

It also helps that both the eleventh doctor and Amy have an anarchic streak. Like, say, at the start of A Time of Angels when you see the two of them sprinting out of the museum with the stolen homing box, chased by security guards. It was a completely unnecessary little touch which helped to establish both of their characters - and it wouldn't have been written for Tennant. RTD took his role as guardian of childrens' moral much too seriously.

We've also had - particularly in Amy's choice - a glimpse into the darker parts of the doctor's psyche than we ever had in the Tennant era. This week's too, to an extent.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Yoss

[Broccoli Dog]

another ood i failed to save *shrug*

[xbl]

See that episode? That one right there? That was possibly one of the finest pieces of Dr. Who since it was brought back. Just tremendous on almost every single level.

ooh, no no no no no no and no, you've got thatb altogether wrong. (imho, obviously).

....

We've also had - particularly in Amy's choice - a glimpse into the darker parts of the doctor's psyche than we ever had in the Tennant era. This week's too, to an extent.

I disagree, but again, its a subjective thing. I tend to agree with KK. Its not something that can be definitively proven, I'm still waiting for those figures from theentomologist!

[Mr. Brightside]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that episode was excellent.

[Guest]

Fantastic episode,

Did think the ending could be better, shame it couldnt have been done over 2 episode

[Yoss]

The only thing I'd change about that episode would be to take out the scene where he has that last conversation with a vision of Idris after her death. Bit cloying and unnecessary, that.

That's a pretty small detail though, I'm happy to overlook it 'cause otherwise it was right up there with the very best.

Gaiman clearly knew his Who, the tardis characterisation was fair to the history and tradition of the show, and yet similtameously added to it. Which was a difficult balance to get right, but very nicely handled. Loved it.

[port-ton]

That episode was certainly better than last week but for me was still a bit meh. I think thats because ive came to the realisation that although Moffat and his team piss all over RTD in terms of writing entertaining and classic Dr Who-esque episodes, they have nothing on him when it comes to character development. I loved Smith as the Dr and still do, but it's all getting a bit samey and it's the same routine every single week which is completely one dimensional, i'd like to see different sides to his character, something that Tennant was very good at portraying. The Amy Pond character started out well but it's now getting to the point for me where that character is bringing nothing to the show every week apart from looking good, and i can't help but feel it's the inclusion of the Rory character aswell as the writing that is holding her back. There is no need for Rory to be there, all it does is take up valuable time that could be spent with The Dr and companion bonding, and maybe then we'd see the return of the old Amy Pond rather than the big pile of nothingness that she's became.

After a strong first two episodes, i've struggled to make it through the last two episodes, the first one because it was a steaming pile of shit, and this one because of the realisation of the things i've said above.

[xbl]

I sort of realised after thinking about last weeks episode that although I liked it at first, it was really because it had pirates and a touch of Greek mythology in it, and in the cold light of day, I didn't have any desire to watch it again. This weeks episode was tremendous though, as I said, one of the best Dr. Who's I've seen, but still, I couldn't help but feel that Tennant would have handled it better. I don't know if I'm maybe blaming Matt Smith a bit much, and perhaps it is (as Port-Ton interestingly says) the writing team.

I've been saying for a while that although Moffat is a far better writer, there seems to be something just a bit missing from Dr. Who at the moment. For me, last nights episode was a rare spark, a touch of what we've been missing, and I've struggled to articulate it. Perhaps port-ton is onto something though, because his post about character development really strikes a chord. King Kebab and I have been saying similar things about Matt Smith, but maybe it isn't him. I know the fan boys will be on claiming that Tennant and RTD were the incarnation of all that is evil, but they at least managed to produce material that stirred the emotions. Moffat managed this too with his episodes, but now he is in complete charge, he doesn't seem to have that magic.

Oh, and good shout about Amy. The chat has been the same in my office about her, she's good looking, and I love the accent, but I'm kind of bored with her. I mean take the Donna character. I fucking despaired when I heard that she had been brought into the show, and originally, it was like all my worst fears were confirmed. But over the season, she got better, and her character really developed and really improved. Then when she had to regress back to her original state, it really put it into perspective just how much her character had developed. Put Amy and Rory back in the village and make them regress back to how they were though, and what would be different? Same with Tennant's Doctor. When Rose looked after his clone, you could see the difference between the two versions of that Doctor. Put the Matt Smith of episode 1 next to the Matt Smith of this week, and what is the difference in character? None. So before the fanboys launch into him, I would like to say that that was a fantastic post from Port Ton.

[Ad Lib]

they have nothing on him when it comes to character development. I loved Smith as the Dr and still do, but it's all getting a bit samey and it's the same routine every single week which is completely one dimensional, i'd like to see different sides to his character, something that Tennant was very good at portraying. The Amy Pond character started out well but it's now getting to the point for me where that character is bringing nothing to the show every week apart from looking good, and i can't help but feel it's the inclusion of the Rory character aswell as the writing that is holding her back. There is no need for Rory to be there, all it does is take up valuable time that could be spent with The Dr and companion bonding, and maybe then we'd see the return of the old Amy Pond rather than the big pile of nothingness that she's became.

After a strong first two episodes, i've struggled to make it through the last two episodes, the first one because it was a steaming pile of shit, and this one because of the realisation of the things i've said above.

Seriously?

Okay I completely disagree on several fronts. The character development in the last series and a half has been nothing short of fantastic. I was getting fed up of the faux-extremities of emotion Tenant was having thrust on him. Compare and contrast with the last few meetings of Doctor 11 and River Song, where a reserved but aloof and pro-active exterior hides a deeply troubled old man inside. Compare and contrast with the constant but SUBTLE three way tension between the Doctor, Amy and Rory. It's not so in your face as, for example, the 9-10/Rose/Micky boakworthy love-triangle.

Then there's the Amy dismissal as all looks, nothing to contribute. That's palpably absurd. The whole story crafted around her as the impossible child. The developing story arch re the (non)pregnancy is just waiting to be expanded. She's a different sort of companion from Rose, Martha and Donna. She's not just there to run about in sickening awe of the Doctor's every move or to have a predictable cabin-fever domestic with him. She's the companion who has another man; for whom despite the allure of the Doctor, Rory is what completes her... not the Doctor. Her relationship with the Doctor is one of non-subservient friendship: trusting but with reckless abandon.

Rory is absolutely pivotal to the whole arc and to explaining the DIFFERENCE between Amy and the last three companions. He's the ordinary, brave, yet in many small ways impossible man. He's the deliberate antithesis to the bewildering, inexplicable, alien, exuberant Doctor.

For me, if people think that the character development isn't there, it's because they aren't getting it. RTD and Tennant did a very good job with DW. There's no denying that. For me, what it lacked was the intellectual rigour and subtlety of what goes to the heart of the series, though. Earlier writing had character development as something quite detached from the story arch: at best characters developed in response to very obvious plot pointers. Now it's not as straightforward as that. Character is increasingly determining plot development rather than the converse, and the plot itself is a complex non-linear puzzle rather than a branched logic gate.

In short, I simply cannot see where you are coming from at all.

[theentomologist]

Seriously?

Okay I completely disagree on several fronts. The character development in the last series and a half has been nothing short of fantastic. I was getting fed up of the faux-extremities of emotion Tenant was having thrust on him. Compare and contrast with the last few meetings of Doctor 11 and River Song, where a reserved but aloof and pro-active exterior hides a deeply troubled old man inside. Compare and contrast with the constant but SUBTLE three way tension between the Doctor, Amy and Rory. It's not so in your face as, for example, the 9-10/Rose/Micky boakworthy love-triangle.

Then there's the Amy dismissal as all looks, nothing to contribute. That's palpably absurd. The whole story crafted around her as the impossible child. The developing story arch re the (non)pregnancy is just waiting to be expanded. She's a different sort of companion from Rose, Martha and Donna. She's not just there to run about in sickening awe of the Doctor's every move or to have a predictable cabin-fever domestic with him. She's the companion who has another man; for whom despite the allure of the Doctor, Rory is what completes her... not the Doctor. Her relationship with the Doctor is one of non-subservient friendship: trusting but with reckless abandon.

Rory is absolutely pivotal to the whole arc and to explaining the DIFFERENCE between Amy and the last three companions. He's the ordinary, brave, yet in many small ways impossible man. He's the deliberate antithesis to the bewildering, inexplicable, alien, exuberant Doctor.

For me, if people think that the character development isn't there, it's because they aren't getting it. RTD and Tennant did a very good job with DW. There's no denying that. For me, what it lacked was the intellectual rigour and subtlety of what goes to the heart of the series, though. Earlier writing had character development as something quite detached from the story arch: at best characters developed in response to very obvious plot pointers. Now it's not as straightforward as that. Character is increasingly determining plot development rather than the converse, and the plot itself is a complex non-linear puzzle rather than a branched logic gate.

In short, I simply cannot see where you are coming from at all.

a superb post.

[Yoss]

Yeah, everything Ad Lib said (except maybe I'm not quite so convinced about the essentiality of Rory, but that's not to say I don't like him).

[KnightswoodBear]

I loved this episode. And I also agree with Ad Lib, without having the ability to present a post like his.

If I had tried to post that it would have came out something like:

"I really like Matt Smith and think Amy is very pretty and I want to marry her".

[Yoss]

That covers it pretty well too, to be fair.

[port-ton]

Seriously?

Okay I completely disagree on several fronts. The character development in the last series and a half has been nothing short of fantastic. I was getting fed up of the faux-extremities of emotion Tenant was having thrust on him. Compare and contrast with the last few meetings of Doctor 11 and River Song, where a reserved but aloof and pro-active exterior hides a deeply troubled old man inside. Compare and contrast with the constant but SUBTLE three way tension between the Doctor, Amy and Rory. It's not so in your face as, for example, the 9-10/Rose/Micky boakworthy love-triangle.

Then there's the Amy dismissal as all looks, nothing to contribute. That's palpably absurd. The whole story crafted around her as the impossible child. The developing story arch re the (non)pregnancy is just waiting to be expanded. She's a different sort of companion from Rose, Martha and Donna. She's not just there to run about in sickening awe of the Doctor's every move or to have a predictable cabin-fever domestic with him. She's the companion who has another man; for whom despite the allure of the Doctor, Rory is what completes her... not the Doctor. Her relationship with the Doctor is one of non-subservient friendship: trusting but with reckless abandon.

Rory is absolutely pivotal to the whole arc and to explaining the DIFFERENCE between Amy and the last three companions. He's the ordinary, brave, yet in many small ways impossible man. He's the deliberate antithesis to the bewildering, inexplicable, alien, exuberant Doctor.

For me, if people think that the character development isn't there, it's because they aren't getting it. RTD and Tennant did a very good job with DW. There's no denying that. For me, what it lacked was the intellectual rigour and subtlety of what goes to the heart of the series, though. Earlier writing had character development as something quite detached from the story arch: at best characters developed in response to very obvious plot pointers. Now it's not as straightforward as that. Character is increasingly determining plot development rather than the converse, and the plot itself is a complex non-linear puzzle rather than a branched logic gate.

In short, I simply cannot see where you are coming from at all.

I admire your enthusiasm and after a long day at work my response is going to be disappointingly short by your standards and will allow you the moral victory this time

For me there is a difference between Story Arcs, Creating stories around them (i already said that Moffat was a much better story teller than RTD) etc than actual character development. I see the same Doctor who jumped onto our screens in his first episode, i see the same Amy (or perhaps even a slightly less exciting Amy) that first showed up in her house and i still see the Rory character as being the main reason in a storytelling way rather than a writing way for the lack of any progress or different sides to their personalities. He might very well be all the things you say he is, Amy might be all the things you say she is, Smith and Moffat may be all the things you say there are also but all you've done is explain what the story is and why they are there to suit the story, rather than the actual character development of any of the main characters.

I don't really agree that using the words " subtle " and " just aren't getting it " are particularly a good thing when describing a prime time saturday night family tv show. For me Doctor Who should have it's audience feeling a whole range of emotions, whereas the only emotion i've felt is happy that the writing has been so good in terms of enjoyable storylines rather than any real feeling for what any of the characters are going through, which means when a storyline is awful like last week, for the first time it showed the weakness that Moffat has in his writing and once the mask has slipped for me, it's hard to get that feeling of awe and wonderment i had for his writing and Doctor Who in general.

[xbl]

I admire your enthusiasm and after a long day at work my response is going to be disappointingly short by your standards and will allow you the moral victory this time

...

I don't really agree that using the words " subtle " and " just aren't getting it " are particularly a good thing when describing a prime time saturday night family tv show. For me Doctor Who should have it's audience feeling a whole range of emotions, whereas the only emotion i've felt is happy that the writing has been so good in terms of enjoyable storylines rather than any real feeling for what any of the characters are going through, which means when a storyline is awful like last week, for the first time it showed the weakness that Moffat has in his writing and once the mask has slipped for me, it's hard to get that feeling of awe and wonderment i had for his writing and Doctor Who in general.

Again, I can only agree with every word of that post. I watched this weeks episode again tonight, first time since the last RTD series that I've done that, it really shows what Dr. Who is missing (IMO).