Heads up! Dr Who starts Saturday....

[Cunobelin]

Bernard Cornwell (Sharpe) once wrote an explanation of the process of writing a novel, an explained something how you often have to go back and rewrite earlier parts.

"I entertain," he says several times in this conversation with the Observer, stressing his relationship with his readers. "I spend my day putting doors into alleyways," he says. "In every single book, you'll find Sharpe trapped in a blind alley with no way out. His sword is broken, his gun is out of ammunition, and he's faced with 20 malevolent Frogs who want to kill him. At that point, when the game seems up, magically, a doorway appears beside him and he steps through it to safety. Now, your readers won't accept that, so you have to go back 10 chapters and establish the door in that future alleyway without the reader noticing. This is always a huge amount of work."

An interesting slant.

[MattH]

I think this series finale will see Tom Baker wake up, and the last 30 years were all a dream.

[rower40]

That was epic/splendid.  (Choose appropriate mot du jour.)

I didn't hide behind the sofa, but only because I haven't got one.

[gonzo]

Halelua, someone's remembered what Doctor who's meant to be about!

Was that a new writer tonight? I'm now quite pleased these days when I see that Stephen Moffat didn't write an episode, which is a strange reversal from his first 3 stories!

[border-rider]

No, Mark Gatiss (LoG) who's written several

Fantastic episode that

[rower40]

No, Mark Gatiss (LoG) who's written several

Confidential has just done a long bit on Gatiss'seses previous 3 episodes.

The Unquiet Dead - Ecclestone, Piper, Simon Callow as Charles Dickens, and that phwooarh Eve Myles.
The Idiot's Lantern - Tennent, Piper, Maureen Lipman
Victory of the Daleks - Smith, Gillian, and some big bloke as Churchill.  With possibly the best reference quote ever: "Broadsword Calling Danny Boy..."

[Arch]

That was epic/splendid.  (Choose appropriate mot du jour.)

I didn't hide behind the sofa, but only because I haven't got one.

Yup, that was a good one.

(click to show/hide)

I was very pleased to work out it was a Doll's House the moment Amy picked up the wooden pan

[gonzo]

No, Mark Gatiss (LoG) who's written several

Fantastic episode that

Also appears to have been responsible, in part, for Sherlock.

[BrianI]

Proper old skool Dr Who,  hiding behind sofa moments aplenty!

(click to show/hide)

Although a bit stereotypical characters in a stereotypical council multi story flats....

[woollypigs]

Spooky, funny and fecking scary right up there with any horror I have watched in my time. Pillows well and truly used today.

[David Martin]

(click to show/hide)

Although a bit stereotypical characters in a stereotypical council multi story flats....

Ex council if they have an independent landlord

[citoyen]

Re the Hitler episode:

(click to show/hide)

Also, I assume this is the last we see of Alex Kingston, since she lives backwards in time compared to the Doctor, so her introduction to him is his farewell.

But she doesn't live "backwards" in time compared to the Doctor - their timelines don't intersect in chronological order, neither backwards nor forwards. It's quite feasible that the Doctor's future timeline could intersect with hers again at any number of points between her regeneration into River Song and her death, either before or after previous intersections. The Doctor and River's timelines are tangled up like spaghetti.

We've already seen that they keep notes to prevent spoilers. If their timelines only intersected in inverse chronological order, that wouldn't be necessary. Plus they have the whole relationship thing to develop yet.

As for this week's episode, I thoroughly enjoyed it but thought they blew the ending, which - like so many recent Doctor Who stories - was all a bit deus ex machina.

d.

[Valiant]

Well my 8yo brother is refusing to sleep by himself so I guess it was good

[Kathy]

Re the Hitler episode:

(click to show/hide)

Also, I assume this is the last we see of Alex Kingston, since she lives backwards in time compared to the Doctor, so her introduction to him is his farewell.

But she doesn't live "backwards" in time compared to the Doctor - their timelines don't intersect in chronological order, neither backwards nor forwards. It's quite feasible that the Doctor's future timeline could intersect with hers again at any number of points between her regeneration into River Song and her death, either before or after previous intersections. The Doctor and River's timelines are tangled up like spaghetti.

We've already seen that they keep notes to prevent spoilers. If their timelines only intersected in inverse chronological order, that wouldn't be necessary. Plus they have the whole relationship thing to develop yet.

(click to show/hide)

When she was initially introduced, then yes, the concept of tangled timelines was there. However, in a more recent episode they changed that, and stated that River lived backwards in time and the Doctor forwards, and emphasised this by making the Doctor's first kiss of River to be her last kiss (afraid I can't remember the episode off the top of my head). But possibly we'll go back to spaghetti timelines, which would be good, since the "spoilers" would make sense again.

As for this week's episode, I thoroughly enjoyed it but thought they blew the ending, which - like so many recent Doctor Who stories - was all a bit deus ex machina.

Agreed. The dolls were frikkin' scary - or would have been, had iPlayer not been on the blink and paused to buffer every 45 seconds.  But the ending was dull.

[border-rider]

As for this week's episode, I thoroughly enjoyed it but thought they blew the ending, which - like so many recent Doctor Who stories - was all a bit deus ex machina.

Isn't Dr Who always, though, and always was ? That's part of its personality.  It grew out of kids' TV, and the whizz-bang quick-fix outta nowhere for a crisis is a key feature of that.

[Adrian]

Agreed. The dolls were frikkin' scary -

Indeed they were and I only saw it on the screen with no sound so had no idea what was going on.

[TimO]

It was an interesting episode, but not particularly one which I thought was great.

It reminded me a lot of the episode "Fear Her" with David Tennant as the Doctor in the Seconds Series of the current Doctor Who era (five years ago now! ).

(click to show/hide)

Both episodes had a young child being the focus, and involved a child alien lifeform doing things which no human child could.  The main difference was that in Fear Her, the human child and the Isolus were two distinct characters, whereas here George and the Tenza were one and the same.

[Phil]

I didn't think it was all that good.  I had high hopes of the creepy dolls after the trailer last week, but felt a bit let down by the total lack of explanation of what actually happened and all the loose ends left over at the end.  Meh.

[citoyen]

Isn't Dr Who always, though, and always was ? That's part of its personality.  It grew out of kids' TV, and the whizz-bang quick-fix outta nowhere for a crisis is a key feature of that.

Maybe, but I'm sure its solutions used to be more inventive than that. I think Ross makes a good point too - the explanation completely killed the tension.

But I'm being picky - it was a really good episode. I also agree with Ross that it was all the better for putting the Amy's baby storyline to one side.

d.

[andyoxon]

I prefer the 'self-contained' stories, rather than convolutions of the Pond family tree...  The miniao's found this episode one of the scariest - almost a hide behind the cushion job... 

[her_welshness]

I really enjoyed that episode. Loved Rory's comment 'You're trying to turn me into you Doctor'.

[andygates]

Really really good makeup.

[Steph]

Really really good makeup.

I am assuming that the doll faces came from the same hand as the scarecrows in, IIRC, Family of Blood.

[Phil]

Best episode in the series for me.  Timey wimey, but in a good way. 

[border-rider]

Tedious filler episode, for me.

It was good makeup though.