Doctor Who: A Christmas Carol and 2011 Season(s?) Thread.

Summerhayes · Post by **Summerhayes** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:03 am

This has bugged me for a while- what exactly makes a super injunction different from a common-or-garden one?

Tetsuro · Post by **Tetsuro** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:57 am

I couldn't help but to notice a lot of similarities between The Rebel Flesh and The Hungry Earth.

I mean, obviously the whole concept of the Doctor suddenly finding himself standing in the middle of a two struggling factions is nothing new, but the whole general "feeling" of the episode was very similar.

Post by **Hound** » Tue May 24, 2011 3:29 pm

I don't understand a single thing you guys are talking about so I'm going to talk about how I just got the first Walking Dead tpb. I haven't read it yet but what I glanced at looked awesome!

Post by **Sades** » Tue May 24, 2011 4:11 pm

ZOMBIES

You should really read that. Cause it rocks.

There needs to be more zombies in Doctor Who.

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Tue May 24, 2011 8:23 pm

There's no real shortage of zombieish monsters in Who:

Tetsuro wrote:I couldn't help but to notice a lot of similarities between The Rebel Flesh and The Hungry Earth.

I mean, obviously the whole concept of the Doctor suddenly finding himself standing in the middle of a two struggling factions is nothing new, but the whole general "feeling" of the episode was very similar.

I was thinking the same, but at least it was much better done this time with both sides being portrayed more evenly.

Post by **Hound** » Tue May 24, 2011 9:57 pm

Sades wrote:ZOMBIES

You should really read that. Cause it rocks.

There needs to be more zombies in Doctor Who.

I'm going to... Someday... Probably... Maybe... Hopefully

Um, Zombies!

Skyquake87 · Post by **Skyquake87** » Wed May 25, 2011 8:46 am

Summerhayes wrote:This has bugged me for a while- what exactly makes a super injunction different from a common-or-garden one?

The person who's taken out the injunction can't talk about it, neither can the person whose being gagged and anyone that both parties know. More importantly, the press can't even report / mention that the super injunction exists. MPs , although they have parliamentary priviledge , can mention that they exist ( i think ) but they can't disclose whom the subjects of the injunction are, nor can they talk about the existence or otherwise of them to their consitituents. Its basically a blanket ban to prevent any embarrassing / sensitive information about private individuals being made public knowledge and discussed or disseminated.

They are disgusting things, mainly for the worrying precendent they set - its not so bad when its just nonsense like bloody footballers covering up their endless affairs, but what if they should be used by government or private companies to cover up things they'd rather we not know about, for example the lack of evidence of WMDs that lead us into Iraq.

Private Eye went to great lengths to expose Andrew Marr's SI, and quite rightly, when this was a journalist whom had asked equally intrusive questions about politicans personal lives (Gordon Brown and prescription drugs, David Blunkett and his affairs/ love child).

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:23 am

I can see situations where injunctions (super or otherwise) can and should be used, preventing papers publishing pictures of your kids, completely made up info or whatever. And I don't remotely think the sex scandals of non-politician celebrities are really in the public interest even if the public are often interested in them (if you know what I mean).

But, as far as the Giggs situation goes, no one involved comes over as anything other than a jerk. He's seemingly incapable of facing up to the consequences of his mistakes and is trying to do to Twitter the online equivalent of going round every pub in the country and starting a punch up with anyone joking about him, she's moaning about her name being dragged through the papers whilst selling her story to the papers, said papers are complaining about not being able to do celebrity title tattle rather than any of the more sinister implications in a super injunction and the Government are bending over to keep Murdoch happy with soundbites whilst not actually doing very much.

Skyquake87 · Post by **Skyquake87** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:57 am

All true, but then they get used for silly sh*t too, like Fred Goodwin using one to prevent him being termed as a 'banker' in the press.

There's also the silly situation of everyone discussing Ryan Giggs and his super injunction being, er in breach of the super injunction and effectively breaking the law. Which we are now as it's still in force! So technically, we are all breaking the law. Also, if the person whom has taken out the super injunction admits they have taken out the SI, are they then at risk of prosecution themselves by the very mention that they have taken out the SI? How do you enforce something like that when it becomes public knowledge even though no one is supposed to be discussing it? Is Judge Eady (that bastion of free speech) going to haul the entire population before the court?

Amused to see Alex Ferguson being caught on camera trying to get a journalist whom asked about Ryan Giggs banned from an upcoming press conference for a match on Friday.

Heinrad · Post by **Heinrad** » Sat May 28, 2011 7:14 pm

The Almost People

Great fun again. And what an ending!

Skyquake87 · Post by **Skyquake87** » Sat May 28, 2011 8:01 pm

I know! Poor Amy!!!! And Baby and stuff!! Woooooooooooooooooooooo!:swirly:

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:21 am

A great little two parter, which managed to make both sides pretty much equally good and bad. Who's going to be the first person online to work out which story the Tom soundbite came from? Assuming they didn't actually get him in especially to do it. Or that it wasn't Jon Culshaw. And I guess that was a Cybermat in those set photos a few months ago considering the completely gratuitous mention of them here.

And from the cliffhanger I take it Amy was pregnant back in part 1, and got swapped (by the Silence?) at some point before she told him she wasn't after all? The Doctor having been wise to it for a while at least makes him seem less of a crazy stalker man constantly secretly scanning his companions ovaries...

Oh, and they imply GangerDoc could survive, so it still might be him getting shot.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Mon May 30, 2011 7:32 pm

I loved this 2 parter. Genuinely one of the best that has been done in new Who and some nice, and not overplayed, moral ponderings which added a lot of thoughtful depth to this particular story. The only flaw in the 2 parter was the fact The flesh woman and Doctor's death while well done were slightly forced, I wasn't convinced the needed to stay behind and hodl the door when the nera indestructable TARDID was only a quick sprint away and the monster was hardly looking particularly fast. However what a Cliffhanger? It only creates many questions and I fear that my excitement will only go further after next weeks half season finale.

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:45 pm

Doctor Who and a Good Man Goes To War.

Bugger, I was so sure the soldier woman was going to regenerate into River when she died. And how annoying is it the people banging on about a River/Pond connection since The Eleventh Hour, and that River is Amy's baby since the start of the year, were right all along? At least the people saying Jenny Cockney was going to turn out to be Jenny Who were wrong.

Generally a very good episode, even if the gathering of the clans thing was recycled a bit from the end of last year (only a "good" army this time. Though oddly involving three of the same species...).

The Sillurians were handled much better this time round just by them not being complete arses (and no attempt at a politically correct name either), and I guess that PDA where Jack the Ripper turns out to be the Valeyard just got retconned. The Sontarans and the Judoon are always fun, but I could have done without Danny Boy. And didn't the Doctor destroy all that technology anyway?

Were those the Tardis corridors from a couple of weeks ago repainted?

Rack 'n Ruin · Post by **Rack 'n Ruin** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:15 pm

Enjoyed the episode, even if it was like a Star Wars KO at times. In fact, that only added to the enjoyment.

However, how the heck do headless monks pray/chant (as they did before they went all Darth Sidious on the League of Extraordinary Companions)? Perhaps I don't want to know...

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:46 pm

Rack 'n Ruin wrote: However, how the heck do headless monks pray/chant (as they did before they went all Darth Sidious on the League of Extraordinary Companions)? Perhaps I don't want to know...

The bloke playing the blue man has talked about being in episode 13 as well so we may well find out.

Skyquake87 · Post by **Skyquake87** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:17 pm

I really enjoyed a good man goes to war. As a mid season finale, it was a good 'un. i liked just being thrown into the thick of an ongoing adventure. Rory confronting the Cybermen was an excellent wee scene "Would you like me to repeat the question?"

The Headless monks were a horrifically creepy creation - I hope we get to see more of them in future episodes. And seconded on the Silurians. I really liked that character (unnamed?) operating out of Victorian London (would be a nice spin off mini-series, and some subtle hints of a sapphic relationship between servant and master - tongue lashing effect still looks too obviously CGI'd mind).

I'd like to know more about eye patch lady's people - why the Doctor is such a percieved threat to them - there were hints at things with soldier lady and stuff, but she seems to really have it in for him so I wonder what he's done. Maybe it doesn't need any further explanation than that which we got, but I'm all for new villains (I wont be crying that the Daleks have been given a rest - unlike that unhelpful berk from the Doctor Who Appreciation Society who's been quoted in the press saying he can't imagine the show without them - wasn't there something like 7 years before they appeared opposite the third Doc or something, there was nearly five between Destiny and Ressurection too...how short and stunted our memories are...).

The revelation of Amy's baby came as a pleasant suprise to me, and wasn't one that I was expecting...which probably makes me a bit dim or something, and I liked the Doctor's reaction to River's revelation.

So is it these military types of eye patch lady's that have River locked up all the time?

Summerhayes · Post by **Summerhayes** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:55 am

I enjoyed this episode quite a lot, but I thought everything wrapped itself up much too nicely- the River/ Melody stuff was so obvious, I was hoping that would all be a red herring. Oh well, good fun, and with plenty of quesions still unanswered.

And the Doctor's army got dangerously close to RTD-style back-slapping (though the fact that it actually failed to accomplish anything made it all better.)

And you wouldn't think he'd fall for the Flesh Avatar thing twice, would you?

This new anti-doctor army thing is quite exciting, though. Hopefully not everything will be revealed too quickly.

And Lesbian Lizards in Victorian London would be a superb spin-off.

Post by **inflatable dalek** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:04 pm

Summerhayes wrote: And Lesbian Lizards in Victorian London would be a superb spin-off.

That tongue would come in handy there wouldn't it?

One odd thing is that the Pirate episode was originally intended to be broadcast after this one. Did they do a reshoot at some point to stick him in here to replace some Sillurians (or who knows, the dolls from the moved Gattis episode? Speaking of whom, in the same interview Fat Blue Man also mentioned working with him on episode 13, will Danny Boy be appearing in the flesh?)? Or with the wacky out of order filming did they not start work on this until after they'd decided to swap them?

(I wont be crying that the Daleks have been given a rest - unlike that unhelpful berk from the Doctor Who Appreciation Society who's been quoted in the press saying he can't imagine the show without them - wasn't there something like 7 years before they appeared opposite the third Doc or something, there was nearly five between Destiny and Ressurection too...how short and stunted our memories are...).

Assuming it's the same bloke who was interviewed on BBC breakfast I was surprised by that as well. I can understand the more general public being a bit surprised by it as they tend to think the Daleks show up a lot more than they do (Catherine Tate thinking they were in every episode before she signed up is mildly funny but probably not far from what a lot of folks think), but fans have been pretty much sick of them turning up at least once a year since the show returned since about the 1930's New York one.

Hotdog Divebomb · Post by **Hotdog Divebomb** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:57 am

inflatable dalek wrote:Mind, you could tell it was originally conceived for the second half of the season (even if, IIRC they didn't start filming it till after they'd decided to switch the Gattis episode). The mentions of last weeks events felt a bit forced.

Well your point sort of stands, though not in the way you intended.