Doctor Who (2 Viewers)

[Adam Lenhardt]

This also opens up another BIG problem with the show. So the Doctor is now supposed to be this close to the Ponds when in none of his past lives he was with anyone else?

What he was saying is that this iteration of the Doctor is especially close to Amy and Rory because they were his first companions in the new body. Much like Tennant's Tenth Doctor had a handful of companions, but he always came back to Rose as first among equals because she was his first companion. One of the themes of Doctor Who is that each new Doctor has differences and personal quirks. The core of the man is the same, but it gets expressed in different ways.

 

[Jeffery_H]

What he was saying is that this iteration of the Doctor is especially close to Amy and Rory because they were his first companions in the new body. Much like Tennant's Tenth Doctor had a handful of companions, but he always came back to Rose as first among equals because she was his first companion. One of the themes of Doctor Who is that each new Doctor has differences and personal quirks. The core of the man is the same, but it gets expressed in different ways.

Yes, I know all this, as I have seen all the Doctor Who shows available and even long ago on PBS. But I'm not buying into any of this sort of nonsense as explained. The 3rd Doctor never kept coming back to Joe Grant, the 4th Doctor never returned for Sarah-Jane, etc. This was in fact a whole show that pointed this very thing out in "School Reunion", she wanted to know why he just left her and they made a point of Rose saying he never mentioned her. That is a LONG way from the writing and how we know the character to have been all this time. It's also what I mean by no continuity whatsoever now with the writing. They just make this rubbish up as they go along and change it at a whim to suit their need at the moment.
You may pass it off how ever you want to, but me personally, I'm not buying it one bit. Just plain sloppy rubbish.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Lovely send off for Amy and Rory tonight. The final scene answered a question I'd been wondering since the very first Amy/Eleventh Doctor episode.

 

[NeilO]

Lovely send off for Amy and Rory tonight. The final scene answered a question I'd been wondering since the very first Amy/Eleventh Doctor episode.

Yes, it was a nice sendoff, but I still don't understand why the Doctor can never pick them up at another point in their timeline. Maybe he can't return to a period of time in New York City, but he surely can arrive elsewhere on Earth in the time period or say some time after they were sent back and before they died.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yes, it was a nice sendoff, but I still don't understand why the Doctor can never pick them up at another point in their timeline. Maybe he can't return to a period of time in New York City, but he surely can arrive elsewhere on Earth in the time period or say some time after they were sent back and before they died.

It's because of the gravestone. Time can be rewritten, but only if you don't already know the outcome. That's why he was so adamant that Amy not read ahead in River's novel; because it would box them in. Once he saw Amy and Rory's names on the gravestone, he knew their outcome and their time line became fixed. After Amy and Rory caused a massive paradox by plunging off the building after seeing Rory's death, the Doctor couldn't risk another one.

 

[NeilO]

It's because of the gravestone. Time can be rewritten, but only if you don't already know the outcome. That's why he was so adamant that Amy not read ahead in River's novel; because it would box them in. Once he saw Amy and Rory's names on the gravestone, he knew their outcome and their time line became fixed. After Amy and Rory caused a massive paradox by plunging off the building after seeing Rory's death, the Doctor couldn't risk another one.

The gravestone is only the ending. It doesn't say how they died or even if they really were buried there. It would only be a paradox if a gravestone wasn't placed there.

 

[NeilO]

One thing that wasn't addressed in the episode - how will the Doctor tell Rory's father? (Or does Rory's father realize it is the truth because he met his son while he was visiting the US as a youth?)

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I like to think it'd be similar to Doc Brown's letter to Marty at the end of Back to the Future: Part II, when the Western Union courier shows up with a letter his office had been holding for 70 years. Rory had an entire lifetime to figure out to explain what happened, and he didn't pass away until the early nineties. Maybe an elderly neighbor shows up one afternoon in 2012 with a letter.

 

[NeilO]

I like to think it'd be similar to Doc Brown's letter to Marty at the end of Back to the Future: Part II, when the Western Union courier shows up with a letter his office had been holding for 70 years. Rory had an entire lifetime to figure out to explain what happened, and he didn't pass away until the early nineties. Maybe an elderly neighbor shows up one afternoon in 2012 with a letter.

Or the letter in Blink... That would be the way for Rory to do it, but since the Doctor did go traveling with Rory's dad he really does owe him the personal touch. Maybe they'll show us something down the road.

 

[Jeffery_H]

I didn't care for Amy and Rory sendoff episode that much at all.
First, like most of the others, this show was too rushed and needed to be a 2 part show like they did with the prior Weeping Angels show. Second, it felt too cheesy in how they wrote them out, much like the end of Rose's story. It would've been better to not seen it coming or at least have them make some sacrifice to save their daughter, River, which they could've done in shows like "The Wedding of River Song". Third, this whole "fixed" point in time plot device is being played very loose and sloppy only when they need it. If you go with the theory you can't change time once you already know the outcome, then how the hell does the Doctor go anywhere when you know certain things obviously from history. If you can travel in time, then you obviously know the outcome of certain events. Hence shows like "The Fires of Pompeii" make no sense because he knew what was going to happen, just not that he was the one responsible for an entire civilization being destroyed. That would also be a "fixed" point and they even mention it in when you see that show. He states that "some things are fixed and others are not and can be manipulated" thus changing the outcome. Then Donna wanted to know how he knew what was "fixed" and what can be changed and he said something like that was what being a Time Lord was, what can and can't be altered without causing harm to the rest of time.
It's just a plot device they use when they want something to be fixed because they write themselves into a corner when it's a show about time travel. This has changed in how they use it and what it means throughout the years and it is how they make things permanent. I'm not really fond of this and feel it's just a cheap and sloppy way of writing the scripts.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

One thing that wasn't addressed in the episode - how will the Doctor tell Rory's father? (Or does Rory's father realize it is the truth because he met his son while he was visiting the US as a youth?)

The BBC just released this lovely postscript answering this question:

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Christmas Special Prequel:

Christmas Special Trailer:

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Poster for Christmas Special:

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Jon Pertwee-era serial "Spearhead From Space" headed to Blu-Ray on July 15, 2013.
Because of industrial action at BBC TV Centre at the time, this serial was shot on location using 16mm film rather than videotape like the rest of classic "Who". Aside from the 1996 TV movie, it was the only TV "Who" shot on film. By restoring the original 16mm footage, the BBC was able to create a genuine high-definition color master for this story.

 

[JohnS]

iTunes has a free download of the Doctor Who Christmas special, "The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe" and its prequel.
It was either a mistake of a quick offer, but the Doctor Who Christmas special is no longer free.
There is still a free download of this on iTunes.
You have to go to the TV section, then to free TV episodes, then find it half way down the page and hit the free button.
But anywhere else on iTunes and they charge you $2.99

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The new TARDIS interior (beginning with this year's Christmas Special):

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/content/type/61/id/172287/width/800/height/1000
Looks very cold and sterile and 1950's science fiction-y. In some ways, it's a lot more reminiscent of the classic series TARDIS interior than anything we've had since.

What's your favorite TARDIS interior? Mine's the 1996 TV Movie TARDIS interior, by a wide margin, followed by the Series 5/6/7a TARDIS interior we had during the Amy Pond era.

 

[Jeffery_H]

I'm more into the Classic Doctor Who shows, so this works for me quite well and I really like the retro look it has. For my favorite, I liked the old style Tom Baker look for the most part, followed by the 5th Doctor. The 1996 TV movie I did like as well and thought it was a good take on both classic and modern mix. The set they had for Tennant was OK and my favorite of the new, but I really hated the Matt Smith era TARDIS design interior that began absurdly with his regeneration (it wasn't destroyed when he regenerated inside going from the 9'th to 10th Doctor).

 

[KevinGress]

I agree - I like the classic Tardis sets much better (Tom Baker/Peter Davison) so this is an improvement over what they've had. I disliked what they did with the console throughout New Who and the sets have always looked too dark to me (the previous Smith's set seemed to be better lit). Still wish it was a little brighter in there - you'd think that being able to travel across space and time, that the Doctor could spare a few hundred watts and have several incandesent light bulbs on in the control room!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

They had to go to a new TARDIS interior because "Doctor Who" production moved to dedicated space in the BBC's Roath Lock Studios. The Amy Pond-ear TARDIS interior was actually made by redressing the set for the Hub from the first three series of "Torchwood". It was absolutely massive, and moving it to the new studios wasn't possible. Steven Moffat explained what that design mentality was behind the new set: "It was mainly saying to [production designer] Michael Pickwoad, ‘What would you do with the TARDIS?’ But we had a notion because I thought we’d been getting progressively whimsical with the interior of the TARDIS. And I started to think, ‘Well, why is that? It’s not a magical place, it’s actually a machine.’ So we did say ‘machine’ and actually, potentially, as you’ll see more spectacularly later, quite a scary place sometimes. We make a lot of use of that. And it’s also a lot easier to shoot, I have to say."
This is what we have to look forward to with each new outing with the Doctor going forward :

 

[JohnS]

I'm so excited to have our new companion. New Tardis look, new story arcs...
I'm just plain excited for the new season of Doctor who.
Jenna Louise-Coleman should be an outstanding companion.
Wondering at some point if were also going to get a revised theme song again.
Or even revised opening credits.

Here is a recent interview about her Doctor Who experience.