Respect the Thing

May 17, 2010 10:50

Yeah, more Doctor Who. I've seen "Flesh and Stone" now, and I'm starting to see what all the fuss is about.

Best to be safe. )

tv, doctor who, criticism

Leave a comment

Comments 5

free_laddicals May 17 2010, 15:10:19 UTC
I rewatched every episode this weekend while waiting for Amazon to put up "Flesh & Stone" and the duck pond *definitely* caught my attention this time around, because it's just one more weird little thing the Doctor seems to get caught on. Easily explainable as regeneration weirdness the first time through, but as the oddities around Amy stack higher and higher, it takes on some added weight ( ... )

Reply


mmaresca May 17 2010, 15:18:43 UTC
I'm glad that the Crack isn't going to be just another "Bad Wolf" that's going to follow us around until the very end of the season.

What I like about this one, as opposed to earlier seasons, is this seems to be a legitimate building plot, rather than the Russell Davies method of name-dropping something randomly for 11 episodes and have it pay off in the last two. (Which worked kind of brilliantly with 'Bad Wolf' in season 1, but lacked the same punch with 'Torchwood' and 'Mister Saxon' in 2 & 3.)

Interesting point with him wearing his jacket in that little bit. I thought there was something odd about his energy there, and that being a plot point rather than just production strangeness would be good. Especially since "remember what I told you when you were seven" doesn't exactly pay off right here and now.

Reply

word_geek May 17 2010, 15:25:27 UTC
Continuing the speculation, if he's popping back into previous episodes, then it's entirely possible that he could have told her something when she was seven, and we haven't seen it yet. Popular opinion is that he's referring to his bit of dialog about "everything's going to be OK," but for all we know it's something he said offscreen. Or maybe fish custard is going to be a plot point in episode 13...who knows?

Reply

free_laddicals May 17 2010, 15:33:24 UTC
Not speculating, since I don't even know where to begin, but I want to know why we got a close up of Rory's ID badge in "The Eleventh Hour" that clearly showed an issue date of 30/11/1990. I thought that was going to end up being relevant in some way because hey, camera phones in the early '90s! But then we found out the wedding's going to be in the here and now, so 21 year old Amy isn't from some weird out-of-sync recent past... except she still could be, because her fiancee has a hospital issued ID badge that's 20 years old! That's not the kind of prop detail you screw up on without noticing, and I sure hope it's not simply Moffat and his propmasters screwing with the fans' heads just for the sake of it.

Reply

word_geek May 17 2010, 15:45:17 UTC
Actually, according to interviews, the 1990 date simply was a screw-up. Or at least Moffat said it was. I'd point you to Rory's page on the Doctor Who wiki, but the wiki is following the UK airdates, so there are spoilers for the next two episodes on there (which, y'know, feature Rory). However, Moffat has also gone on record as saying he endorses lying to the public to preserve surprises. In this case, though, I come down on the side of "just a screw-up," while simultaneously acknowledging that both you and Mr. Maresca have more experience in film and stage production than I do.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up