If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Will Rory get killed again? Are the Daleks going to be the classic versions, or of the My Little Dalek: Extermination is Magic design? And just Who is The Doctor? Season 7 of Doctor Who begins with Asylum of the Daleks   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 457
    More: Spiffy, Daleks, mental hospital  
•       •       •

1983 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Sep 2012 at 8:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



457 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-02 07:26:19 PM  

t3knomanser: FirstNationalBastard: Upon closer inspection, I do believe she did stealthily incorporate "Dalek bumps" into her design

Those are etheric detectors!


On a similar subject, I always wondered why Seven of Nine was the only regular Borg drone to have breasts. Did they serve a purpose? Were there nipple guns?
 
2012-09-02 07:27:12 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: HopScotchNSoda: Heyyyyyy, check out Oswin's belt. Is it just me, or do those lines of studs running down look like she incorporated her "Dalek bumps" into her self-awareness? The rectangular electronics holsters along the side are also evocative of those vertical panels above the bumps, below the dome of most Daleks.

Upon closer inspection, I do believe she did stealthily incorporate "Dalek bumps" into her design

[i6.photobucket.com image 164x148]


You think she has some more on her back as well? Because that could be....... Interesting.....
 
2012-09-02 07:29:20 PM  

Flint Ironstag: FirstNationalBastard: HopScotchNSoda: Heyyyyyy, check out Oswin's belt. Is it just me, or do those lines of studs running down look like she incorporated her "Dalek bumps" into her self-awareness? The rectangular electronics holsters along the side are also evocative of those vertical panels above the bumps, below the dome of most Daleks.

Upon closer inspection, I do believe she did stealthily incorporate "Dalek bumps" into her design

[i6.photobucket.com image 164x148]

You think she has some more on her back as well? Because that could be....... Interesting.....


For slow dancing?
 
2012-09-02 07:29:41 PM  

Flint Ironstag: FirstNationalBastard: HopScotchNSoda: Heyyyyyy, check out Oswin's belt. Is it just me, or do those lines of studs running down look like she incorporated her "Dalek bumps" into her self-awareness? The rectangular electronics holsters along the side are also evocative of those vertical panels above the bumps, below the dome of most Daleks.

Upon closer inspection, I do believe she did stealthily incorporate "Dalek bumps" into her design

[i6.photobucket.com image 164x148]

You think she has some more on her back as well? Because that could be....... Interesting.....


i6.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-02 07:36:44 PM  
One other thought. People twigged right away to Oswin's "Remember me" line, but there was another line in the show that seemed equally out of place, like it was a set up for things to come:

When the Doctor, Rory and Amy are brought before the Dalek Parliment (really, WTF?), one of them (I think Amy?) asks how they are going to survive this, and the Doctor says, "Make them remember you."

Now, by itself that line could seem basically like the Doctor is saying, "go out in a blaze of glory," but I don't think so. I think that meant something, much like Time of the Angels when the Doctor is speaking to the blinded Amy and we later find out it's his post-Pandorica self speaking. The line just didn't seem to fit quite right, and while that could be disregarded as just twitchy writing, I think Moffet is too clever not to have been dropping hints in this episode for the future. He loves doing that in the first episode so that at the end you go back and say, "oh, THAT'S what that meant."

Additionally, the light in Amy's dressing room that was blinking...looked like Morse code. Anyone got a recording of that bit that knows Morse and could try to translate? I have the feeling that was a clue, too, and not the Dalek's doing.
 
2012-09-02 07:36:45 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Flint Ironstag: FirstNationalBastard: HopScotchNSoda: Heyyyyyy, check out Oswin's belt. Is it just me, or do those lines of studs running down look like she incorporated her "Dalek bumps" into her self-awareness? The rectangular electronics holsters along the side are also evocative of those vertical panels above the bumps, below the dome of most Daleks.

Upon closer inspection, I do believe she did stealthily incorporate "Dalek bumps" into her design

[i6.photobucket.com image 164x148]

You think she has some more on her back as well? Because that could be....... Interesting.....

[i6.photobucket.com image 600x375]


You're a bad person, and you should feel bad.
 
2012-09-02 07:39:07 PM  

HopScotchNSoda: I just stumbled upon the extended "The First Question" 50th anniversary teaser trailer. Wow. Just ... awesome.


us4.memecdn.com
 
2012-09-02 07:41:30 PM  

PaulieattheTap: And the 11 of 10 on the danger scale. Some one has watched Spinal Tap.


That was just to give Matt Smith the chance to look almost directly into the camera and say "... Eleven!" right before the Doctor Who equivalent of img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-02 07:54:15 PM  
Anybody else think that in the title sequence, the font that said "Doctor Who" looked like it had Dalek bumps on it?
 
2012-09-02 08:02:54 PM  

rynthetyn: Anybody else think that in the title sequence, the font that said "Doctor Who" looked like it had Dalek bumps on it?


They're theming each episode's credits to fit the episode. Dalek episode gets Dalek-y credits.
 
2012-09-02 09:09:28 PM  
Remember there was a delay with the transporter?
 
2012-09-02 09:24:05 PM  

Flint Ironstag: milk


I think this may be a throwback to The Empty Child, also written by Moffat:

The Doctor: D'you know how long you can knock around space without happening to bump into Earth?
Rose Tyler: Five days? Or is that just when we're out of milk?
The Doctor: All the species in all the universe and it has to come out of a cow!
 
2012-09-02 09:36:09 PM  

Useless Destruction of Exergy: Flint Ironstag: milk
I think this may be a throwback to The Empty Child, also written by Moffat:
The Doctor: D'you know how long you can knock around space without happening to bump into Earth?
Rose Tyler: Five days? Or is that just when we're out of milk?
The Doctor: All the species in all the universe and it has to come out of a cow!


I think someone would like a word.
doctorwhotv.co.uk
 
2012-09-02 10:48:34 PM  

Dr. Whoof: One other thought. People twigged right away to Oswin's "Remember me" line, but there was another line in the show that seemed equally out of place, like it was a set up for things to come:

When the Doctor, Rory and Amy are brought before the Dalek Parliment (really, WTF?), one of them (I think Amy?) asks how they are going to survive this, and the Doctor says, "Make them remember you."

Now, by itself that line could seem basically like the Doctor is saying, "go out in a blaze of glory," but I don't think so. I think that meant something, much like Time of the Angels when the Doctor is speaking to the blinded Amy and we later find out it's his post-Pandorica self speaking. The line just didn't seem to fit quite right, and while that could be disregarded as just twitchy writing, I think Moffet is too clever not to have been dropping hints in this episode for the future. He loves doing that in the first episode so that at the end you go back and say, "oh, THAT'S what that meant."


I think we were discussing that line a little earlier. I find it odd just how much Moffat focuses on remembering in general, not just in this episode. Remember Rory, now that he doesn't exist because of the crack, remember your family and bring them back, remember the existence of Silence with marks on your arms, etc. And now, here we have remembering being brought into this episode at the beginning and at the end. The Doctor wants Amy to make the daleks remember her, Oswin wants the Doctor to remember her, the daleks no longer remember who the Doctor, their predator, is. Perhaps Moffat just really likes toying with peoples' minds - and what better way to do that then with their own memories. But three separate instances of the theme of memory coming up in the same episode?

And that line just seemed too out of place in the dialogue - make the daleks remember her? What good will that do? Why would he say that? The daleks tend not to forget anyway, with that hive mind memory of theirs.

Of course, it could just be a throwaway line, and Moffat is laughing his ass off while people are debating the significance of it. But that does not seem to be the likeliest of theories here.
 
2012-09-02 11:00:34 PM  
img696.imageshack.us

img28.imageshack.us


She's not completely ugly, I'll give her that.
 
2012-09-02 11:00:52 PM  

Luthien's Tempest: Dr. Whoof: One other thought. People twigged right away to Oswin's "Remember me" line, but there was another line in the show that seemed equally out of place, like it was a set up for things to come:

When the Doctor, Rory and Amy are brought before the Dalek Parliment (really, WTF?), one of them (I think Amy?) asks how they are going to survive this, and the Doctor says, "Make them remember you."

Now, by itself that line could seem basically like the Doctor is saying, "go out in a blaze of glory," but I don't think so. I think that meant something, much like Time of the Angels when the Doctor is speaking to the blinded Amy and we later find out it's his post-Pandorica self speaking. The line just didn't seem to fit quite right, and while that could be disregarded as just twitchy writing, I think Moffet is too clever not to have been dropping hints in this episode for the future. He loves doing that in the first episode so that at the end you go back and say, "oh, THAT'S what that meant."

I think we were discussing that line a little earlier. I find it odd just how much Moffat focuses on remembering in general, not just in this episode. Remember Rory, now that he doesn't exist because of the crack, remember your family and bring them back, remember the existence of Silence with marks on your arms, etc. And now, here we have remembering being brought into this episode at the beginning and at the end. The Doctor wants Amy to make the daleks remember her, Oswin wants the Doctor to remember her, the daleks no longer remember who the Doctor, their predator, is. Perhaps Moffat just really likes toying with peoples' minds - and what better way to do that then with their own memories. But three separate instances of the theme of memory coming up in the same episode?

And that line just seemed too out of place in the dialogue - make the daleks remember her? What good will that do? Why would he say that? The daleks tend not to forget anyway, with that hive mind m ...


The line might have something to do with Amy being the mother of River Song. They know who she is, and how she is not afraid to kill them. If anything happened to Amy, River would go apeshiat on them. They would be more afraid of her than the Doctor.
 
2012-09-03 12:26:10 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: I'm watching the episode again, and when we first see Oswin, the Dalek are saying "We will enter!" I don't think they're trying to get into her shell; it's the group of Daleks trying to get into the room she's chained down in.

Also, if you watch it again, look at the shape of the room Oswin lives in; I think we're seeing the inside of something we're used to seeing the outside of.


I took that scene of the Daleks screaming at her that they will enter to be a metaphorical thing, that it was the Dalek Path Web trying to connect with her mind. If they made a full connection between her mind and the network, it would destroy the protective fantasy she had created so she "boards up" the main connection to firewall herself as she figures out how to use the Path Web on her terms.
 
2012-09-03 12:51:46 AM  
So Oswin "went through a phase" (much like her actress' career).
 
2012-09-03 12:53:44 AM  

TheManofPA: HopScotchNSoda: For all of the criticisms I can make about Russell T. Davies' episode writing, he was outstanding with so many of the the big-picture aspects, and I think he struck the more-or-less perfect balance with regard to story arcing during his tenure, particularly his first three years. Why he so completely cocked up Torchwood last year, I have no idea.

I'm going to go with Starz wanting to Americanize it. Has Starz done anything right?


loyalkng.com
 
2012-09-03 01:01:09 AM  
OK, on my second viewing now, and I have some questions/beefs (besides the whole contrived stupidity of the Amy/Rory breakup/rekindling for the sake of a cheap emotional tug):

1) The force field keeping millions of insane Daleks from escaping into the universe can only be turned off from inside the asylum? That's damn near the stupidest thing I've ever heard on "Doctor Who." What farkwit designed this asylum?

2) The nano-cloud. What's the point of having that technology in the asylum, exactly? What's it's supposed to do, other than be an imminent danger to our protagonists? What's to be gained by having any organic beings that happen upon the asylum turned into Daleks? Especially since the non-insane (OK, less insane) Daleks are afraid to even go there.

Pardon my high standards for plot holes, but Moffat has brought it on himself by writing some story elements so well, and others so poorly, and inviting ridiculous levels of scrutiny by making "Doctor Who" so deliberately, maddeningly, wonderfully esoteric.
 
2012-09-03 01:03:49 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: The Rory and Amy debate...

Many of you seem to like Amy Pond, or are too blinded by ZOMG REDHEAD SQUEEEEEEE to notice, but Amy has pretty much always been a stupid, thoughtless biatch. Her actions from last night's episode are no different than, say, running off with the Doctor on her wedding day, or her usual treating Rory like shiat.

Yeah, last night's forced romance scenes were annoying, but not out of character.


The web-series gives a little back story. Pond Life
 
2012-09-03 01:11:46 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: OK, on my second viewing now, and I have some questions/beefs (besides the whole contrived stupidity of the Amy/Rory breakup/rekindling for the sake of a cheap emotional tug):

1) The force field keeping millions of insane Daleks from escaping into the universe can only be turned off from inside the asylum? That's damn near the stupidest thing I've ever heard on "Doctor Who." What farkwit designed this asylum?

2) The nano-cloud. What's the point of having that technology in the asylum, exactly? What's it's supposed to do, other than be an imminent danger to our protagonists? What's to be gained by having any organic beings that happen upon the asylum turned into Daleks? Especially since the non-insane (OK, less insane) Daleks are afraid to even go there.

Pardon my high standards for plot holes, but Moffat has brought it on himself by writing some story elements so well, and others so poorly, and inviting ridiculous levels of scrutiny by making "Doctor Who" so deliberately, maddeningly, wonderfully esoteric.


I have to agree both of those plot points were seriously WTF, especially the nano cloud. That one especially seemed to be there just to provide some unnecessary Pond drama and some extra running around. I think it would have been stronger if the story focused more tightly on the mad Daleks as a threat.
 
2012-09-03 01:13:05 AM  

HopScotchNSoda: So Oswin "went through a phase" (much like her actress' career).


Moffat seems to be continuing the RTD-era trope that everyone in the future is at least a little bit bisexual.
 
2012-09-03 01:29:26 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: OK, on my second viewing now, and I have some questions/beefs (besides the whole contrived stupidity of the Amy/Rory breakup/rekindling for the sake of a cheap emotional tug):

1) The force field keeping millions of insane Daleks from escaping into the universe can only be turned off from inside the asylum? That's damn near the stupidest thing I've ever heard on "Doctor Who." What farkwit designed this asylum?

2) The nano-cloud. What's the point of having that technology in the asylum, exactly? What's it's supposed to do, other than be an imminent danger to our protagonists? What's to be gained by having any organic beings that happen upon the asylum turned into Daleks? Especially since the non-insane (OK, less insane) Daleks are afraid to even go there.

Pardon my high standards for plot holes, but Moffat has brought it on himself by writing some story elements so well, and others so poorly, and inviting ridiculous levels of scrutiny by making "Doctor Who" so deliberately, maddeningly, wonderfully esoteric.


The place was supposed to be automated, and you'd hardly want anyone else to be able to switch off the defences from outside, so it is not unreasonable for the switch to be inside. Makes as much sense as the force field protecting the Death Star being controlled from a tiny bunker on a deserted moon.
And the nano bots could be another defense. Either deliberate or something that was sent there to be confined and went wild.

A bigger plot hole is that the Daleks have been trying to kill the Doctor forever but never managed, yet suddenly they can easily spring a trap and capture him with ease. But still don't kill him.

Also a Dalek will without hesitation self destruct to kill the Doctor but no Dalek apparently is prepared to risk their lives to go to the Asylum planet to defeat a bigger threat?
 
2012-09-03 01:32:52 AM  

Mad_Radhu: 100 Watt Walrus: OK, on my second viewing now, and I have some questions/beefs (besides the whole contrived stupidity of the Amy/Rory breakup/rekindling for the sake of a cheap emotional tug):

1) The force field keeping millions of insane Daleks from escaping into the universe can only be turned off from inside the asylum? That's damn near the stupidest thing I've ever heard on "Doctor Who." What farkwit designed this asylum?

2) The nano-cloud. What's the point of having that technology in the asylum, exactly? What's it's supposed to do, other than be an imminent danger to our protagonists? What's to be gained by having any organic beings that happen upon the asylum turned into Daleks? Especially since the non-insane (OK, less insane) Daleks are afraid to even go there.

Pardon my high standards for plot holes, but Moffat has brought it on himself by writing some story elements so well, and others so poorly, and inviting ridiculous levels of scrutiny by making "Doctor Who" so deliberately, maddeningly, wonderfully esoteric.

I have to agree both of those plot points were seriously WTF, especially the nano cloud. That one especially seemed to be there just to provide some unnecessary Pond drama and some extra running around. I think it would have been stronger if the story focused more tightly on the mad Daleks as a threat.


OK, my #2 question has been answered by further dialogue. It's not a very good answer, but it's an answer:

THE DOCTOR: "Oh, ho ho! That's clever! The nanocloud. Micro-organisms that automatically process any organic matter, living or dead, into a Dalek puppet. Anything that attacks this place, it automatically becomes part of the on-site security."

Of course, that just raises the question, why anyone would attack the asylum of the Daleks? Like I said, not a avery good answer, but an answer nonetheless.
 
2012-09-03 01:47:14 AM  

Mad_Radhu: TheManofPA: HopScotchNSoda: For all of the criticisms I can make about Russell T. Davies' episode writing, he was outstanding with so many of the the big-picture aspects, and I think he struck the more-or-less perfect balance with regard to story arcing during his tenure, particularly his first three years. Why he so completely cocked up Torchwood last year, I have no idea.

I'm going to go with Starz wanting to Americanize it. Has Starz done anything right?

[loyalkng.com image 540x300]


So who are they then? Amy, The Doctor, Rory and Mickey?
 
2012-09-03 01:58:37 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Mad_Radhu: 100 Watt Walrus: OK, on my second viewing now, and I have some questions/beefs (besides the whole contrived stupidity of the Amy/Rory breakup/rekindling for the sake of a cheap emotional tug):

1) The force field keeping millions of insane Daleks from escaping into the universe can only be turned off from inside the asylum? That's damn near the stupidest thing I've ever heard on "Doctor Who." What farkwit designed this asylum?

2) The nano-cloud. What's the point of having that technology in the asylum, exactly? What's it's supposed to do, other than be an imminent danger to our protagonists? What's to be gained by having any organic beings that happen upon the asylum turned into Daleks? Especially since the non-insane (OK, less insane) Daleks are afraid to even go there.

Pardon my high standards for plot holes, but Moffat has brought it on himself by writing some story elements so well, and others so poorly, and inviting ridiculous levels of scrutiny by making "Doctor Who" so deliberately, maddeningly, wonderfully esoteric.

I have to agree both of those plot points were seriously WTF, especially the nano cloud. That one especially seemed to be there just to provide some unnecessary Pond drama and some extra running around. I think it would have been stronger if the story focused more tightly on the mad Daleks as a threat.

OK, my #2 question has been answered by further dialogue. It's not a very good answer, but it's an answer:

THE DOCTOR: "Oh, ho ho! That's clever! The nanocloud. Micro-organisms that automatically process any organic matter, living or dead, into a Dalek puppet. Anything that attacks this place, it automatically becomes part of the on-site security."

Of course, that just raises the question, why anyone would attack the asylum of the Daleks? Like I said, not a avery good answer, but an answer nonetheless.


Attack = attempt to break the inmates out?

The force field is a little odd though. It didn't stop the Alaska from crashing, it didn't stop the gravity beams that carried down the Heroic Trio, but it stopped the Daleks from destroying the planet while it was on- I thought that made sense when I thought they planned to disintegrate the planet with a massive barrage of energy weapons, but then the sheild drops and they fire a bunch of missles?

I also felt the Amy/Rory break-up felt rather contrived. There was nothing in prior episodes that forshadowed them having this kind of issue (no, I don't count what we saw in ep 5 of Pond Life because that likewise had no prior indications). They broke up off-screen so they could get back together during the episode. If you want them to get back together in the first episode of the new series, they need to break up no later than the last episode of the prior series. As it is, they're back together, and I'd be surprised if there's any further reference to their (almost) divorce. I don't think anyone's gonna find the paperwork on the bus Rory was abducted from and turn it in. I don't think they'll even mention it again- it will come up again that Amy can't have any more children, but not that they split up over it.

And the "I gave you up so you could meet someone else and have kids", yeah, isn't that sweet and selfless of Amy, except completely not since she never smegging told him that was why she kicked him out, as evidenced by his surprise when she told him. The girl he's loved his entire life, who he spent 2000 years (awake / concious the entire time- no sleep for Autons) protecting, married her, then fought most of the Universe to get her back after she was kidnapped, this girl he is utterly devoted to, she tells him she doesn't want him anymore, kicks him out of the house, and what? Expects him to "move on" to meet some other nice girl, get married and have kids?

I guess, to her, it means she loves him as much as he loves her, but it indicates she doesn't actually know him all that well.

I do like the idea I saw someone post in a different Who thread that Rory and Amy get 'Angeled' back to the late 60s while in Manhatten, and end up finding that little urchin girl on the street, and raising her. Heck, based on the timeframe, it could even be the same Angel that got 10, Martha, and Billy Shipton.
 
2012-09-03 02:17:53 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Yes. Both. I really hope they're not answering that question.

/Still trying to decide whether to buy or "acquire" this season
//Somebody let me know if BBCa is still running the asinine "Amy Pond Show" intros
///and if iTunes is selling the unadulterated versions
////"Acquired" most previous Smith episodes, so I think I'll pony up this time
//Each time I make a slashy, I think about Karen Gillan naked
//Soon it will be Jenna-Louise Coleman


Three seasons and your panties are still in a wad over the five second Amy Pond intro? Wow.
 
2012-09-03 02:31:21 AM  

foo monkey: 100 Watt Walrus: Yes. Both. I really hope they're not answering that question.

/Still trying to decide whether to buy or "acquire" this season
//Somebody let me know if BBCa is still running the asinine "Amy Pond Show" intros
///and if iTunes is selling the unadulterated versions
////"Acquired" most previous Smith episodes, so I think I'll pony up this time
//Each time I make a slashy, I think about Karen Gillan naked
//Soon it will be Jenna-Louise Coleman

Three seasons and your panties are still in a wad over the five second Amy Pond intro? Wow.


Actually, that debuted last season, and was quite a bit more than five seconds.

But it seems to be gone now, though it should be mocked at every logical opportunity, just in case.

/NEVAR FORGET!
 
2012-09-03 02:37:46 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: ///and if iTunes is selling the unadulterated versions


I waited until Sunday so I could get it from iTunes, and it seems to be the full unadulterated BBC version. There aren't even any fades in and out for the commercial breaks, like there is on the On Demand version.
 
2012-09-03 03:08:11 AM  

Mad_Radhu: 100 Watt Walrus: ///and if iTunes is selling the unadulterated versions

I waited until Sunday so I could get it from iTunes, and it seems to be the full unadulterated BBC version. There aren't even any fades in and out for the commercial breaks, like there is on the On Demand version.


Yeah, I ended up going for the iTunes Season Pass. Thanks for answering my question though.

Not sure why you had to wait until Sunday. I downloaded it late Friday night/Saturday morning from iTunes. You're not in the US, perhaps?

FirstNationalBastard: foo monkey: 100 Watt Walrus:
...
//Somebody let me know if BBCa is still running the asinine "Amy Pond Show" intros
...
Three seasons and your panties are still in a wad over the five second Amy Pond intro? Wow.

Actually, that debuted last season, and was quite a bit more than five seconds.

But it seems to be gone now, though it should be mocked at every logical opportunity, just in case.


Exactly.

Yes, uppity pants, I tend to object strongly when the flow of my favorite show is derailed every week by additional content crowbarred into a dramatic moment. The show's cold open is designed to flow directly into the title sequence, often on a cliff-hanger moment, which works much more dramatically when followed immediately by those tense initial chords from the theme music. The "Amy Pond Show" pat-on-the-head intro for new Yankee viewers stripped those moments of their punch. They're a bastardization.

Imagine a James Bond movie in which between the tense ending of the pre-title sequence was followed by a voice-over backstory sequence for the Bond girl, before the chasing-dots gun barrel sequence. Unforgivably stupid, right? There you go.

And as noted by FNB, the "Amy Pond Show" sequence was added only to Series 6 in the US. You might want to avoid getting snarky about things where you don't have your facts straight.

/ranty this evening
 
2012-09-03 03:15:21 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Not sure why you had to wait until Sunday. I downloaded it late Friday night/Saturday morning from iTunes. You're not in the US, perhaps?


Nah, I'm in the US. Last season they didn't post the episodes until after midnight Sunday morning. I wonder if they are doing them early this year for some reason?

It was also a little weird last year when I bought a season pass for S6 Part 1, and you'd see the episode being posted shortly after midnight Sunday morning, but the season pass wouldn't let me download it until hours later when I got the email it was available for download.
 
2012-09-03 03:20:32 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Mad_Radhu: 100 Watt Walrus: ///and if iTunes is selling the unadulterated versions

I waited until Sunday so I could get it from iTunes, and it seems to be the full unadulterated BBC version. There aren't even any fades in and out for the commercial breaks, like there is on the On Demand version.

Yeah, I ended up going for the iTunes Season Pass. Thanks for answering my question though.

Not sure why you had to wait until Sunday. I downloaded it late Friday night/Saturday morning from iTunes. You're not in the US, perhaps?

FirstNationalBastard: foo monkey: 100 Watt Walrus:
...
//Somebody let me know if BBCa is still running the asinine "Amy Pond Show" intros
...
Three seasons and your panties are still in a wad over the five second Amy Pond intro? Wow.

Actually, that debuted last season, and was quite a bit more than five seconds.

But it seems to be gone now, though it should be mocked at every logical opportunity, just in case.

Exactly.

Yes, uppity pants, I tend to object strongly when the flow of my favorite show is derailed every week by additional content crowbarred into a dramatic moment. The show's cold open is designed to flow directly into the title sequence, often on a cliff-hanger moment, which works much more dramatically when followed immediately by those tense initial chords from the theme music. The "Amy Pond Show" pat-on-the-head intro for new Yankee viewers stripped those moments of their punch. They're a bastardization.

Imagine a James Bond movie in which between the tense ending of the pre-title sequence was followed by a voice-over backstory sequence for the Bond girl, before the chasing-dots gun barrel sequence. Unforgivably stupid, right? There you go.

And as noted by FNB, the "Amy Pond Show" sequence was added only to Series 6 in the US. You might want to avoid getting snarky about things where you don't have your facts straight.

/ranty this evening


Yeah, and even worse the version streaming on Netflix has it too - I went back through the series recently, and on getting series 6 all of a sudden the show thinks I've never watched before. I mean WTF?
 
2012-09-03 04:04:16 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Yeah, and even worse the version streaming on Netflix has it too - I went back through the series recently, and on getting series 6 all of a sudden the show thinks I've never watched before. I mean WTF?


I know, man. That really chapped my hide. I'm watching S6 with the girlfriend right now - I got her hooked with "Blink" about a year ago, then "The Girl in the Fireplace," then "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances," then "The Doctor's Wife" (she's a huge Gaiman fan), then we started in on Eccelston - and when we got to S6 on Netflix, I couldn't believe it.

foo monkey is going to think this justifies his "panties in a wad" statement, but I actually called Netflix to complain. I explained to the situation to the girl on the phone, pointed out that when watching on Netflix, nobody is going to start a TV show with Season 6, she agreed it was monumentally stupid, and said she's pass that up the line. Don't know what difference it will make, but everyone who care should do the same. Critical mass and all.
 
2012-09-03 04:11:12 AM  
Here's another question from my 2nd viewing: How and why does Oswin sound like Oswin, given what you find out about her at the end? What she looks like, well, we're just kinda seeing that from her POV, but the voice is something all our intrepid heroes hear.

Don't think that one necessarily needs to be answered. I'll accept "a little creative license" on that one. Just sayin'.

/BTW, I think it would be hilarious if Jenna-Louise Coleman's companion character has nothing whatsoever to do with Oswin, and nothing is ever said about it, just for the sake of laughing at all the wasted theorizing. (Not jumping in to the fray on that one.)
 
2012-09-03 04:18:11 AM  
I'll I'm gonna say, now that I'm sucked into the vortex of Dr Who nonsense, is this:

Mrs. Angelo in the 11th Hour has the same broach as River Song wears in the Big Bang.

And the have the same colored eyes.

lh3.ggpht.com

Moffatt has mentioned the 11th Hour being relevant and/or crucial and/or just hinting to Rory and Amy's departure.

That is all.

/goddammitthisisgonnaconsumesomanyhoursnowain'tit
//thanks for Netflix, though
 
2012-09-03 04:53:44 AM  

That Reilly Monster: Swordfighting_monk: I personally think that Oswin 'hacked' Amy Pond, with the nanos. Eventually, those nanos are going to rewrite Amy mentally and physically, till Oswin is reborn, with all of her memories, and personality carried over.

Would kind of....mirror the Doctor's regeneration in many ways. Amy wouldn't be entirely 'gone' as evidenced by the 'survivor' Dalek drone's memories whom the gang first met beaming down to the planet. So you would have a sort of...blend? of Amy's strong will and toughness, with Oswin's apparent genius and cuteness;)

Which fits nicely with Amy's hallucination as her mind was being overwritten. The ballerina, mirroring the music box in Oswin's imagined room. The people in formal dress greeting each other, that's something the junior entertainment director on a luxury liner would see frequently. Interesting.


I'm looking at that scene right now, and you're definitely right about Amy seeing the Daleks in that room as people from Oswin's mind or memories. That's definitely the kind of thing Moffat wouldn't do without a grander plan.
 
2012-09-03 05:05:25 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I'll I'm gonna say, now that I'm sucked into the vortex of Dr Who nonsense, is this:

Mrs. Angelo in the 11th Hour has the same broach as River Song wears in the Big Bang.

And the have the same colored eyes.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 494x286]

Moffatt has mentioned the 11th Hour being relevant and/or crucial and/or just hinting to Rory and Amy's departure.

That is all.

/goddammitthisisgonnaconsumesomanyhoursnowain'tit
//thanks for Netflix, though


Wow, dude. You've really been bitten by the bug with an arcane discovery like that. Interesting catch, if true, but there's also the possibility that it was just a re-used prop. I mean, River was in that shot from "The Big Bang" all of what? 1 second? And I doubt, if she were to be revived from the Library, that even her dotage River would be anything less than badass. Mrs. Angelo would have to be either a very old River, or a different regeneration before she even became River - a regeneration between space-suit Melody and Mels.

Not saying it can't be. It just seem to me this is more likely a case of "Doctor Who" OCD.

/I'm a sufferer myself
//The only cure, ironically, is a bad Doctor
///McCoy cured me in the '80s, emo-Tennant almost cured me again a few years ago
////But Smith and Moffat have turned cocaine into crack, and now I'm more hooked than ever
//slashies!
 
2012-09-03 05:06:10 AM  
Clarification: by "if true," I meant, "if that really is the same brooch.
 
2012-09-03 05:18:47 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: StreetlightInTheGhetto: I'll I'm gonna say, now that I'm sucked into the vortex of Dr Who nonsense, is this:

Mrs. Angelo in the 11th Hour has the same broach as River Song wears in the Big Bang.

And the have the same colored eyes.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 494x286]

Moffatt has mentioned the 11th Hour being relevant and/or crucial and/or just hinting to Rory and Amy's departure.

That is all.

/goddammitthisisgonnaconsumesomanyhoursnowain'tit
//thanks for Netflix, though

Wow, dude. You've really been bitten by the bug with an arcane discovery like that. Interesting catch, if true, but there's also the possibility that it was just a re-used prop. I mean, River was in that shot from "The Big Bang" all of what? 1 second? And I doubt, if she were to be revived from the Library, that even her dotage River would be anything less than badass. Mrs. Angelo would have to be either a very old River, or a different regeneration before she even became River - a regeneration between space-suit Melody and Mels.

Not saying it can't be. It just seem to me this is more likely a case of "Doctor Who" OCD.

/I'm a sufferer myself
//The only cure, ironically, is a bad Doctor
///McCoy cured me in the '80s, emo-Tennant almost cured me again a few years ago
////But Smith and Moffat have turned cocaine into crack, and now I'm more hooked than ever
//slashies!


mentioned it to the SO (btw, there's a Dalek in a Better Off Ted episode, completely unacknowledged, which is awesome). I couldn't reconcile that with that we apparently know when River dies... except that the SO reminded me that her consciousness was trapped in a computer in that episode. So, yeah.

I didn't notice the broach thing, but I was reading comments on some website that did. Although most of the ones there figured Angelo = Weeping Angels reference and that she was Amy somehow. So (thanks, Netflix) I realized the eye color didn't match and stumbled on the Mrs Angelo Is River theory.

And yeah, I'm screwed now. C'est la vie. What can I say, I like foreshadowing that I can (at least theoretically, even if after the fact) use to surmise the end game. Arrested Development comes to mind (albeit in an entirely different way).

/thanks, SO
//and Moffat (seriously, godDAMN, with a lesser writer I couldn't even get to this stupid over analyzing / surmising state I'm in now)
///granted, "Mel" should have been foreshadowed earlier, somehow
 
2012-09-03 05:24:03 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: /goddammitthisisgonnaconsumesomanyhoursnowain'tit
//thanks for Netflix, though

Wow, dude. You've really been bitten by the bug with an arcane discovery like that. Interesting catch, if true, but there's also the possibility that it was just a re-used prop. I mean, River was in that shot from "The Big Bang" all of what? 1 second? And I doubt, if she were to be revived from the Library, that even her dotage River would be anything less than badass. Mrs. Angelo would have to be either a very old River, or a different regeneration before she even became River - a regeneration between space-suit Melody and Mels.

Not saying it can't be. It just seem to me this is more likely a case of "Doctor Who" OCD.


Also what I was thinking was that River is not entirely Time Lord DNA. If she actually can't regenerate after the last go in the Hitler episode, maybe she does eventually age normally like a human would. That said, there's the whole problem of "she's already died". Which stuck me until the SO had to go and remind me about the end of the library episode.

/might be freaking him out a bit now
//but it's quite fun to remind him that it's all his fault
///plus, logic puzzles, as long as they make sense, are fun as hell to work out
 
2012-09-03 05:59:53 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Here's another question from my 2nd viewing: How and why does Oswin sound like Oswin, given what you find out about her at the end? What she looks like, well, we're just kinda seeing that from her POV, but the voice is something all our intrepid heroes hear.


I never thought that was odd. She wasn't relaying her voice from a microphone in the room where the Doctor found her chained up near the end. She was tapped into the hive mind (a neural interface computer network) and so simply relayed her mental voice directly, which of course sounded human.
 
2012-09-03 06:42:13 AM  
if she is a future version of the doctors companion why did she not recognise him?
 
2012-09-03 06:44:23 AM  
Also, I really hope amy pond dies.
 
2012-09-03 08:24:47 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: Like I said, not a avery good answer,


persephonemagazine.com


What Avery good answer might look like.
 
2012-09-03 10:31:58 AM  

dready zim: if she is a future version of the doctors companion why did she not recognise him?


Rule 1: The Doctor lies
Rule 1b: River lies
Rule 1c: Oswin lies? 

/I don't think she is a future version.
 
2012-09-03 10:47:33 AM  

Gunny Walker: dready zim: if she is a future version of the doctors companion why did she not recognise him?

Rule 1: The Doctor lies
Rule 1b: River lies
Rule 1c: Oswin lies? 

/I don't think she is a future version.


neither do I. I am interested to see how they introduce the `real` oswin though and explain the one we saw this episode. I just hope `alaska` does not reappear. Clone? (of course you *would* clone the smart sexy woman)
 
2012-09-03 11:07:20 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Also what I was thinking was that River is not entirely Time Lord DNA. If she actually can't regenerate after the last go in the Hitler episode, maybe she does eventually age normally like a human would. That said, there's the whole problem of "she's already died". Which stuck me until the SO had to go and remind me about the end of the library episode.


There is another possibility that was provided in "Let's Kill Hitler": River says she can reverse-age. She could well grow old and then reverse back. That aging and reversal would presumably, however, have had to happen before "Last Night" from the perspective of the oldest of her three selves.

I think that the broach was just a re-used prop. Look at how many times some locations are used. We don't presume that the hall where Rose and Ten met the Face of Boe and Lady Casandra to watch the Earth destroyed has any connection to the big hall in Pompeii, or the restaurant in Berlin where Mels/River gives the Doctor her remaining lives, or the Silurians' conference room, or the New Earth Senate chamber. We don't claim that the fortune-teller's tent in "Turn Left" is the Torchwood Three hub under Roald Dahl Plass either.
 
2012-09-03 11:24:04 AM  

dready zim: Gunny Walker: dready zim: if she is a future version of the doctors companion why did she not recognise him?
Rule 1: The Doctor lies
Rule 1b: River lies
Rule 1c: Oswin lies? 
/I don't think she is a future version.
neither do I. I am interested to see how they introduce the `real` oswin though and explain the one we saw this episode. I just hope `alaska` does not reappear. Clone? (of course you *would* clone the smart sexy woman)


I certainly hope that Oswin is not the future self of the next companion. That gag was interesting, but it is now tired, so tired. It's become a cliche joke. Most of the multi-episode companions, starting with Mel Bush, have mobius timelines with the Doctor. If you take all of the traditionally linear companions -- even including the three one-off companions who were already established non-companion characters -- there are only six traditional, linear relationships, and eight mobius relationships. It's no longer intriguing; it's a crutch.
 
2012-09-03 11:33:42 AM  

HopScotchNSoda: dready zim: Gunny Walker: dready zim: if she is a future version of the doctors companion why did she not recognise him?
Rule 1: The Doctor lies
Rule 1b: River lies
Rule 1c: Oswin lies? 
/I don't think she is a future version.
neither do I. I am interested to see how they introduce the `real` oswin though and explain the one we saw this episode. I just hope `alaska` does not reappear. Clone? (of course you *would* clone the smart sexy woman)

I certainly hope that Oswin is not the future self of the next companion. That gag was interesting, but it is now tired, so tired. It's become a cliche joke. Most of the multi-episode companions, starting with Mel Bush, have mobius timelines with the Doctor. If you take all of the traditionally linear companions -- even including the three one-off companions who were already established non-companion characters -- there are only six traditional, linear relationships, and eight mobius relationships. It's no longer intriguing; it's a crutch.


Well, since the new Companion is supposed to be from the Victorian era, maybe the reason the Doctor takes her with him is that something in her voice reminds him of poor Oswin, who wanted to see the universe, but died before she got to, so this Victorian girl who wants to see the world, he shows her the universe.
 
Displayed 50 of 457 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report