|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:51 pm
It started of ok, but its the first time i've been dissapoint with a steven moffat story, but its a two parter so it should pick up next week.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Detective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:52 pm
Not as good as blink. River song annoyed me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:57 pm
I'm pretty sure Sally Sparrow had pictures of the angels in the thing she gave to the Doctor. I guess that would be them hitting continuity over the head with a lead pipe. Oh well. I've already twisted my mind around the brakes thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:09 pm
River Song still annoys me to no end, thought not bad since this was the first episode I watched. I like the touch over using to communicate with the dead even when they are already dead. They did the same in Silence in the Libary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:19 pm
SaphiraStar I'm pretty sure Sally Sparrow had pictures of the angels in the thing she gave to the Doctor. I guess that would be them hitting continuity over the head with a lead pipe. Oh well. I've already twisted my mind around the brakes thing. But the Doctor did say something about those ones being scavengers and weak...so maybe that effected their powers? Also, reminded me a bit too much of The Ring. Had to keep shutting my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:33 am
I know your all gonna ask for links to this but the internet is vast and wide.
Seem's like SM's son has a lot of input on the shows these days because on this two parter he has.
a. Named the 2nd show, Flesh and Stone.
b. said "Dad, that is the single most scariest thing I've ever seen in my life!" Causing SM to start work on bringing the Angel's back for another round in a later series.
c. Explained to SM that mum is soooooo cool that she should be in the show. SM explained that River Song is the idea of his wife but with a little extra voom in her stride. This indicates that even though her first meeting gave a hint to this episode, the Weeping Angel's may not have been a part of it.
d. Found it pretty bad when his night light started to flicker and this gave SM the idea that all source of light should have problems.
I think it is pretty obvious what is happening here and it's not bad that the show is wrote for his own son but it is highly adorable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:53 pm
Started out alright, and actually made a strong case for the Angels managing to translate into something more than just a one-shot villain which I never imagined happening. Then around the midway mark it all sort of went silly and nonsense-driven and all that good work crumbled away.
Why wouldn't Amy tell the doctor she felt weird? Why wouldn't all the statues be waiting at the entrance of the ruins to feast on whatever happened to pay them a visit? Why wouldn't the priest army as a matter of principle simply blow the crap out of all the statues in their way until they found the last one standing instead of actively getting themselves lost right in the midst of them???. And why, oh why, do they insist on trying to make the Angels scary anyway to the point that they make things just look ridiculous and contrived? Flickering torches? Seriously?
Overdone self-aggrandising Doctor finale was a bit dull, too. But, as has already been said it's a two parter. It has time to find the thread again by next week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:21 pm
ToA was the first episode this season that I really enjoyed. Except for River...again. She didn't bother me as much as before, but she still does. I didn't like how she automatically knew how to drive the TARDIS. The only way I could live with it was if River was one of the three theoretical people I have listed in my head. The Doctor's wife is not one of them. stare I am very upset over the "brake" noise. I love how the Doctor throws the TARDIS into the time vortex. It's more fun and interactive. The blue buttons were boring.
I agree with Maeko about the angel pictures. The Doctor did say that they were scavengers so I just assumed that they were too weak to use all their special tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:22 am
Am I the only fan out here who actually likes River? rofl
Is it because I'm too old to relate to Rose rofl , and I want an alter-ego on the show I can enjoy fantazising in steamy X-rated scenes with the Doctor? rofl mrgreen heart heart heart burning_eyes
The Doctor is so hot, even when he looks like he's fallen out of the Ugly Tree and hit every branch on the way down lol
*crawls back under rock*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:06 am
SaphiraStar I'm pretty sure Sally Sparrow had pictures of the angels in the thing she gave to the Doctor. I guess that would be them hitting continuity over the head with a lead pipe. Oh well. I've already twisted my mind around the brakes thing. By the time she gave the pictures to the Doctor, the Angels were frozen forever- thus unable to project themselves onto the image. /fridge logic. I think. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:14 am
But with that logic the one who came after Amy should have stopped projecting when she looked at it, given it has the same effect as Angels looking at Angels it should have just stopped working all together. I have looked at it from all angles and no matter what I find to explain it, another 500 things pop up to show how it couldn't work. We just have to accept that it makes no sense and is a sort of plot hole. Some things just can't be understood.
just like the fact that all ToA statues are old and falling apart not looking anything like Weeping Angels and you could argue that is the reason they look nothing a like, and maybe the wings fell off. But I could easily point out none of them wear the same clothing. and because 5 of them, maybe 6 all look the same it stands to reason they just look like that.
Larry blinked a few times while trying to keep the statue in place for Sally and nothing happened and no angel moved.
Julia looked at her tomb stone and didn't look at the angel attacking her as it moved towards her but when the cam panned round so we could see it behind her, it stopped still in it's tracks but why? We're not there so we should see it moving because we are just people watching a story.
I am not hating on the guy but the SM years/episodes are hard to explain away when you look at all the production errors, plot holes and character development issues at least with the RTD stuff it could be explaind away but with this I strugle so much and I can't find 1 excuse to explain it, I gave up trying after The Beast Below. SM said "I want the children in the playgrounds to be talking about the show and how great and scary it is!" So it's not really aimed at us and we're not supposed to notice the errors and all the things that can't be explained because children wouldn't. Series 5, 1 or 31 is aimed at a younger fan base. I'm not saying this is bad but I am saying we are not meant to see these problems and trying to explain away what happened to the angels in series 5 is like trying to explain waking up dead.
Don't get me wrong, I really want to explain this entire episode and all of it's problems and plot holes away so I can actualy start enjoying it without wondering if I am better off playing with the toys and making my own story up but I really have tried and don't think it is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:12 am
Yeah what about the hard core older fans who are trying to piece together what the heck is going on. That's not very nice to project it to a younger audience when the show has been going on for like 50years, you should aslo give the older fan something to piece together. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:05 pm
Ambril Tyler Smith Yeah what about the hard core older fans who are trying to piece together what the heck is going on. That's not very nice to project it to a younger audience when the show has been going on for like 50years, you should aslo give the older fan something to piece together. gonk COMPLETELY not to do with the ep, just want backstory on your Avi: Did your mamma lie to your daddy when she said your grandma was the only one in the family PG? Or is your daddy that strange creation of RTD formed by hand in jar + Donna + weirdness + possible smoking of Who Hash rofl Either way, cool Avi! And back to topic, I've been watching DW since 1983, and have seen eps of all 11 Doctors. As far as plot holes go, they are pretty universal throughout the history of the show, so I figure SM, RTD, JNT, etc. have no monopoly on WTF? I don't spend a lot of time trying to pick it apart. I judge an episode by wheter or not I like it. So--like it or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:23 pm
ThPriestess Ambril Tyler Smith Yeah what about the hard core older fans who are trying to piece together what the heck is going on. That's not very nice to project it to a younger audience when the show has been going on for like 50years, you should aslo give the older fan something to piece together. gonk COMPLETELY not to do with the ep, just want backstory on your Avi: Did your mamma lie to your daddy when she said your grandma was the only one in the family PG? Or is your daddy that strange creation of RTD formed by hand in jar + Donna + weirdness + possible smoking of Who Hash rofl Either way, cool Avi! And back to topic, I've been watching DW since 1983, and have seen eps of all 11 Doctors. As far as plot holes go, they are pretty universal throughout the history of the show, so I figure SM, RTD, JNT, etc. have no monopoly on WTF? I don't spend a lot of time trying to pick it apart. I judge an episode by wheter or not I like it. So--like it or not?Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
