Heartland

Well, what do we think?

Rather good I thought!

He really needs to stop with the timey-fecking-wimey.

Oh, but it's so clever and lets you do bonkers stuff, then totally rewrite it all and pull the dramatic rug out from under people, leaving your plot rudderless and utterly unsatisfying...

F*cking with your own time stream is an excellent plot device if the consequences are so dire that it becomes counter productive, or if it serves to demonstrate the inevitability certain events (like when Eccelston takes Rose back to try and prevent her father's death over and over and she never can).

It's bloody shite when it's used as a way of saving the day and resurrecting a loveable character that had died a dramatic death just minutes ago without any kind of thoughtful script writing.

As it is, this episode seems fairly sound. The Doctor's involved himself in his own timestream without his former self's knowledge and so far it seems far from a "magic quick fix". Despite the fact they're typical nasty-looking bulb headed Aliens, The Silence are pretty damn scary and their power to erase themselves from memory adds a big chunk of menace.

I also really like River Song.

While crossing (time) streams is never advised, I don't think that the whole "timey-wimey" nonsense is going to be used to get round the whole "the Doctor is dead" dilemma.

My best bet is that the clue to the get-out clause is in the reason given for burning the Doctor's body - that was one of those little bits of dialogue that seemed to be very important to the ongoing plot (but deliberately delivered without undue attention being drawn to it). Extrapolate from that sentence of dialogue, add in a bit of cell duplication, and - I think - you have the explanation for what's going on.

But everything Moffatt writes is timey-wimey. Regardless of how he uses it, it's the fact that it's all the flaming time. Can't he just write, well, a story? Perhaps one that doesn't need to show off how clever and smug he is?

And, of course, there's also the fact of resurrecting characters at all. Where's the jeopardy or drama in death if you can just come back again?

Watched it on catch up this morning,enjoyed it but needs another watch.Then watched the "My Sarah Jane" that was on cbeebies last night.Shed a tear on the sofa.

I notice they're still sticking in fairly blatant Carry On smut in the series. The "screamer" comment had no place in a family tv show.
Otherwise was fairly interesting, the aliens were suitably grotesque, looking like deformed scrotums with eyes, Mark Sheppard is good in anything he's in, and the story is intriguing.
Would prefer Rory and River getting their own spin-off series though. They wipe the floor with the current Doctor who acts like Robin Williams on speed and his sourpuss lady friend.

DeWinter wrote:I notice they're still sticking in fairly blatant Carry On smut in the series. The "screamer" comment had no place in a family tv show.

I suggest you write a stern letter to the Daily Mail - I'm sure they're already working themselves into a repressed froth about it (probably whilst simultaneously crying and wanking).

lazarus corporation wrote:
I suggest you write a stern letter to the Daily Mail - I'm sure they're already working themselves into a repressed froth about it (probably whilst simultaneously crying and wanking).

I don't think I'm being unreasonable about it. If they want to introduce adult themes which I wouldn't mind in the slightest, put it on a bit later, and don't promote it to kids, like say "Supernatural" a far better series (or was, until the whole Heaven/Hell thing). As it's on at tea-time and promoted as a childrens show with lunchboxes and toys, then stop the unsubtle smut.

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:
I suggest you write a stern letter to the Daily Mail - I'm sure they're already working themselves into a repressed froth about it (probably whilst simultaneously crying and wanking).

I don't think I'm being unreasonable about it. If they want to introduce adult themes which I wouldn't mind in the slightest, put it on a bit later, and don't promote it to kids, like say "Supernatural" a far better series (or was, until the whole Heaven/Hell thing). As it's on at tea-time and promoted as a childrens show with lunchboxes and toys, then stop the unsubtle smut.

The line in question was a muffled comment about screaming - most kids wouldn't connect it with sex (although obviously - to adults in the audience - that was obviously the connotation).

You're making the common mistake of thinking that children process lines of dialogue using an adult's store of experience. To most children, "screaming" has no connotations with sex, so the comment (to them) is just about screaming.

I think you're over-reacting just a tad.

lazarus corporation wrote: The line in question was a muffled comment about screaming - most kids wouldn't connect it with sex (although obviously - to adults in the audience - that was obviously the connotation).

You're making the common mistake of thinking that children process lines of dialogue using an adult's store of experience. To most children, "screaming" has no connotations with sex, so the comment (to them) is just about screaming.

I think you're over-reacting just a tad.

All I said was it was unsubtle and out of place in a kids show!!

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: The line in question was a muffled comment about screaming - most kids wouldn't connect it with sex (although obviously - to adults in the audience - that was obviously the connotation).

You're making the common mistake of thinking that children process lines of dialogue using an adult's store of experience. To most children, "screaming" has no connotations with sex, so the comment (to them) is just about screaming.

I think you're over-reacting just a tad.

All I said was it was unsubtle and out of place in a kids show!!

But it's not the first time you've gone on a "Won't somebody think of the children!" riff regarding Doctor Who. I'm just saying is that it wasn't out of place, for the reasons stated.

I agree with LazCorp. A good family (note, not children's) program will often contain layers of dialogue deliberately placed to go over the heads of the children in the audience. I'd be very impressed if anyone younger than their mid teens picked up on the screamer thing, unsubtle as it was.

Yeah, I'll pitch in with Laz and Maisey, subtle writing allows you to cover a broad spectrum without offending one group or another. Simple point is - would kids be scarred by hearing that line? No? Fine.

And anything that brings the show back from the edge of Saturday-morning programming is fine by me as well.

Moffat's decision to use death and time-travel interchangeably are getting a little...trying. His constant sacrificing of Rory just seemed hamfisted, especially when we all know he's the least important character. Just another Mickey to get kicked around.

Now, we get an impressive opener for the new series, but again it's hamfisted - literally killing the Doctor does what every Doctor Who script-editor has done since the reboot. Go to the very extreme of creating drama (end of Time, end of the Universe, recycle the Daleks as even more dangerous than the last time) and then have to embarassingly step down.

As Stufarq points out, 'cloning' the Doctor as brand new will be precisely the kind of cheap step down we've endured before (does anyone really know how they fixed the last series finale?) - and that's another brick in the wall of objecting to unlimited regenerations.

DeWinter wrote:Mark Sheppard is good in anything he's in

You clearly haven't seen his X-Files appearance.

lazarus corporation wrote: But it's not the first time you've gone on a "Won't somebody think of the children!" riff regarding Doctor Who.

Don't take that tone with me, little man. I'm not your wife. I was being perfectly civil to you, so don't patronise me.

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: But it's not the first time you've gone on a "Won't somebody think of the children!" riff regarding Doctor Who.

Don't take that tone with me, little man. I'm not your wife. I was being perfectly civil to you, so don't patronise me.

There, there.

calm down, dear

Quiff Boy wrote:calm down, dear

Balls said if he had made such a remark at home his wife, Cooper, the shadow home secretary, would have clocked him one.

I love Balls

weebleswobble wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:calm down, dear

Balls said if he had made such a remark at home his wife, Cooper, the shadow home secretary, would have clocked him one.

I love Balls

strange. i heard you preferred cock...

you set 'em up, i'll knock 'em down

Heartlanders. Not taking it seriously since...forever.