End Of Time Part 2 - SPOILERS
Andrew
E
S
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
T
H
E
R
E
W
E
R
E
S
U
R
P
R
I
S
E
S
I really enjoyed Part 1 and, for the most part, I enjoyed Part 2. And
then came the "Doctor's Reward". Oh dear.
The upside first. The acting was first rate again. John Simm really
acts his socks off in the closing stages. His rage against those who
deliberately drove him mad is palpable. The repeated "Get out of the
way" line is nicely done. Again, both Tennant and Cribbens play off
each other beautifully. The scene where the Doctor says he would be
proud if Wilf were his father was moving and nicely plays off the
expectation that Wilf was something other than he seemed. Unlike some,
I even enjoyed Timothy Dalton's Rassilon - yes it was a little
over-villainous (and yes, when he obliterated the Time Lady, it did put
me in mind of a scene in Time Bandits) but it managed to be convincing
- in a sense he is as mad as the Master.
Again, the pacing was good - it moved along quickly enough to avoid us
asking too many difficult questions (except, maybe, "why didn't the
fall through the roof kill him?"). I enjoyed the Doctor's rant when he
realised that he would have to sacrifice himself for Wilf.
Melodramatic? Perhaps, I still loved it. If only it had ended when he
stepped out of the booth.
And there was no Reset button.
The last section was self-indulgent beyond words. Yes it was nice to
see the characters again, but it smacked far too much of "Hi - this is
RTD signing off and reminding you all of what a good job I've done".
Yes, the book-signing bit was nice, but the scene with Jack in the bar
with every alien in the universe was just enormously self-indulgent -
especially with the Doctor setting Jack up with Alonso. ("See - I got a
last 'gay' reference in" ). What was needed here was a good strong
script editor to take RTD aside and tell him this was too much.
When the Doctor finally regenerated it was all very exciting and the
brief look we had at Matt Smith was promising. I hope Moffatt will be
more objective about his relationship with the show than RTD has been
and will know how to let go with more dignity.
pbo...@aol.com
> brief look we had at Matt Smith was promising. I hope Moffatt will be
> more objective about his relationship with the show than RTD has been
> and will know how to let go with more dignity.
From what I've seen and heard, I worry very much the reverse. Yes, RTD
overdid his self-indulgence massively here, but for the most part he's
kept the show true to the spirit of Dr Who and credited its creators.
Everything I read from Moffatt and about his direction for the show
screams "Me! Me! Me!" Doctor Who shouldn't have returning villains -
oh, unless they're the creation of Steve Moffatt. "Every era should
have its own Doctor", his repeated mantra, smacks as code for "I'll do
what I want with the show regardless of what went before". I've never
been one to care much about continuity, but Moffatt's attitude strikes
me from the start as one of arrogant disregard for the show as a
whole. Straight away he's giving us one of his returning characters.
And that's without looking at his Who record so far, which includes
"Oh, look at me, I've heard of Mme du Pompadour and read The Time
Traveller's Wife - please praise me for how much I know!" (otherwise
known as "Girl in the Fireplace", a story with no apparent purpose
beyond showcasing Steve Moffatt) and the "Best Of Steve Moffatt"
otherwise known as "Silence in the Library".
Still, maybe he'll keep the psychic paper - he used it in his stories
after all. With all the other self-congratulation in RTD's finale, it
was conspicuous by its absence.
Phil
Andrew
I think that's a little unfair Phil. It's conceivable that "Girl In The
Fireplace" borrows from "Time Traveler's Wife", but if television
writers were banned from such borrowings there would be very very
little television indeed. As to "purpose", what "purpose" do stories
(as distinct from myths) have? Up until now Steven Moffatt has been a
"jobbing" writer on Who - it's scarcely surprising that his stories
have been self-contained. If that suggests to you that he has little
interest in continuity you may or may not be right. Either way, now
that he is at the helm he may well find that continuity is part of his
new life.
Stephen Wilson
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2010010122014516807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
Acts? Surely you mean overacts! Almost as hammy as Eric Roberts in the
TVM...
> His rage against those who deliberately drove him mad is palpable. The
> repeated "Get out of the way" line is nicely done. Again, both Tennant and
> Cribbens play off each other beautifully. The scene where the Doctor says
> he would be proud if Wilf were his father was moving and nicely plays off
> the expectation that Wilf was something other than he seemed. Unlike some,
> I even enjoyed Timothy Dalton's Rassilon - yes it was a little
> over-villainous (and yes, when he obliterated the Time Lady, it did put me
> in mind of a scene in Time Bandits) but it managed to be convincing - in a
> sense he is as mad as the Master.
He was OK. I can't think of any reason why he needed to be Rassilon though.
Seemed a gratuitous insertion of a name from the old series purely to please
the fanboys. Oh. That would be us then...
> Again, the pacing was good - it moved along quickly enough to avoid us
> asking too many difficult questions (except, maybe, "why didn't the fall
> through the roof kill him?"). I enjoyed the Doctor's rant when he
> realised that he would have to sacrifice himself for Wilf. Melodramatic?
> Perhaps, I still loved it. If only it had ended when he stepped out of the
> booth.
>
> And there was no Reset button.
>
> The last section was self-indulgent beyond words. Yes it was nice to see
> the characters again, but it smacked far too much of "Hi - this is RTD
> signing off and reminding you all of what a good job I've done". Yes, the
> book-signing bit was nice, but the scene with Jack in the bar with every
> alien in the universe was just enormously self-indulgent - especially with
> the Doctor setting Jack up with Alonso. ("See - I got a last 'gay'
> reference in" ). What was needed here was a good strong script editor to
> take RTD aside and tell him this was too much.
The bar scene was straight out of Star Wars. Even in terms of Dr Who, it's
been done before (Dragonfire). But yeah, the last section was a bit OTT, and
too much of a pat on the back.
> When the Doctor finally regenerated it was all very exciting and the brief
> look we had at Matt Smith was promising. I hope Moffatt will be more
> objective about his relationship with the show than RTD has been and will
> know how to let go with more dignity.
I think that's a problem with many project where there is no independent,
objective guy at the top. Big Finish have similar issues with some of their
output. Having said that though, what was the excuse prior to RTD? JNT
allowed some real rubbish to be transmitted, and I don't think he wrote any
of it...
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
No - I think that, given he was playing a madman, it was about right
>
>> His rage against those who deliberately drove him mad is palpable. The
>> repeated "Get out of the way" line is nicely done. Again, both Tennant and
>> Cribbens play off each other beautifully. The scene where the Doctor says
>> he would be proud if Wilf were his father was moving and nicely plays off
>> the expectation that Wilf was something other than he seemed. Unlike some,
>> I even enjoyed Timothy Dalton's Rassilon - yes it was a little
>> over-villainous (and yes, when he obliterated the Time Lady, it did put me
>> in mind of a scene in Time Bandits) but it managed to be convincing - in a
>> sense he is as mad as the Master.
>
> He was OK. I can't think of any reason why he needed to be Rassilon though.
> Seemed a gratuitous insertion of a name from the old series purely to please
> the fanboys. Oh. That would be us then...
I fear so
I don't remember anything quite so self-indulgent as this, though. It's
perhaps that that grates more than its being rubbish.
Stephen Wilson
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:58ca283f-f975-44ae...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I know what you mean. Ah well, no point trying to judge Moffatt until we've
at least seen his first year's-worth at the helm.
Of course, there are 2 other variables to consider. The first is ratings.
Will the current fans continue to watch now that Tennant has left? And will
Matt Smith inspire a new generation of fans? The second is that in the
current economic climate, will the BBC be prepared to fork out for another
series beyond 2010?
The Doctor
Let's hope we never have a blunderfest like what happened in the 1980s.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
pbo...@aol.com
That's not what I mean. For a start it's pretty much a direct lift
from the original source material, but more to the point his change of
setting - to Prerevolutionary France with Reinette as the love
interest - appears to be nothing more than a vanity exercise. It
serves no story purpose whatever for the love interest character to
share the name of a real person, not least because the Reinette with
which we're presented bears no relation to the historical character.
She could as easily have been a fictional character (in France or
elswhere) for story purposes.
When we've seen Dickens, or Queen Victoria, or Agatha Christie, or any
other 'insert historical personage here' character in RTD-era Who,
they *are* recognisably the said character - and are usually in the
story for the now-tired irony of placing them in a situation that
reflects their own work, or in the queen's case because she's an
important figure who's an obvious target for a monster wanting to take
over the world. The one exception is Mme du Pompadour - no attempt was
made to relate her to any events in that character's life or to
connect the story to her in any meaningful way (the clockwork androids
would have worked as well with any other named individual), and the
choice of a moderately obscure character seems hard to explain as
anything other than Moffatt wanting to show off by avoiding an 'easy
option' - showing off that's all the more galling considering how much
he gets wrong. Namedropping people you know nothing about to give the
illusion of knowledge is the sort of self-aggrandising vanity we see
from people like Aggy; why assume it has a different motive when
Moffatt does it?
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
Ratings for the last four years broadly match those of season 1 - that
suggests to me that the majority of viewers are Who fans rather than
Tennant-watchers, and so will probably stick with it as long as it's
still fun. The question is how many were turned off permanently by End
of Time Part Two...
And will
> Matt Smith inspire a new generation of fans? The second is that in the
> current economic climate, will the BBC be prepared to fork out for another
> series beyond 2010?
Why not? It's a very profitable show to them - a big export and a
consistent (so far) ratings-grabber.
Phil
Soze
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4cab95f5-5601-45b2...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> Ratings for the last four years broadly match those of season 1 - that
> suggests to me that the majority of viewers are Who fans rather than
> Tennant-watchers, and so will probably stick with it as long as it's
> still fun. The question is how many were turned off permanently by End
> of Time Part Two...
Very few I expect. You must remember that your opinion won`t necesarily be
reflected by the masses...the AI for eps 1 was 87 and I`d be very surprised
if eps 2 turns out to be much less. Reviews were generally very strong...
`The Times has a minute by minute description of the story which it says is
a great entrance and a great exit and has a look forward to theMoffat years
while The Mail has a big photo feature on the episode. The Guardian
describes the outgoing production team as masters. The Sun hated the episode
calling it an embarrassing spectacle of overacting.
The Herald thought the story was funny and sad, scary and uplifting,
threatening and comforting while The Telegraph felt that David Tennant said
farewell to the series in thrilling yet emotional style.
Online, Den of Geek says the episode was an 80 minute exercise in just how
much David Tennant is going to be missed and Airlock Alphasays the real
heart of the episode was the interaction between Bernard Cribbins and
Tennant, with both actors able to turn even the smallest piece of dialogue
into something spectacular. SFX gives the episode five stars calling it a
great finale with very clever writing, and incredibly sad yet resonant final
words.`
and fan reaction on forums is, for the most part, extremely positive. Almost
2,500 people have voted now on GB and 60% have given it either a 9 or 10/10.
You can say what you like about the whys and wherefores of this, call them
impressionable fanboys or brain dead morons...either way they *liked* it.
I`d be very surprised if ratings differ much at all for S5...at least
initially. How Smith and Moffat`s era shape up could see an eventual dip but
I suspect things will just carry on as before.
Stephen Wilson
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4cab95f5-5601-45b2...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Of course, there are 2 other variables to consider. The first is ratings.
>> Will the current fans continue to watch now that Tennant has left?
>
> Ratings for the last four years broadly match those of season 1 - that
> suggests to me that the majority of viewers are Who fans rather than
> Tennant-watchers, and so will probably stick with it as long as it's
> still fun.
We can't take such things for granted. Look what happened during Colin
Baker's era...
> The question is how many were turned off permanently by End
> of Time Part Two...
>
> And will
>> Matt Smith inspire a new generation of fans? The second is that in the
>> current economic climate, will the BBC be prepared to fork out for
>> another
>> series beyond 2010?
>
> Why not? It's a very profitable show to them - a big export and a
> consistent (so far) ratings-grabber.
Because large organisations such as the BBC don't function that way. I
expect they operate from one financial year to the next. The part of the
organisation that profits from any show is different to the part that is
expected to provide a budget for the next. Dr Who is resource hungry, and
although it does OK in the ratings, it doesn't even touch far cheaper shows
such as the soaps and some of the more popular reality shows.
pbo...@aol.com
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4cab95f5-5601-45b2...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The question is how many were turned off permanently by End
> > of Time Part Two...
>
> > And will
> >> Matt Smith inspire a new generation of fans? The second is that in the
> >> current economic climate, will the BBC be prepared to fork out for
> >> another
> >> series beyond 2010?
>
> > Why not? It's a very profitable show to them - a big export and a
> > consistent (so far) ratings-grabber.
>
> Because large organisations such as the BBC don't function that way. I
> expect they operate from one financial year to the next. The part of the
> organisation that profits from any show is different to the part that is
> expected to provide a budget for the next. Dr Who is resource hungry, and
> although it does OK in the ratings, it doesn't even touch far cheaper shows
> such as the soaps and some of the more popular reality shows.
It's not just about ratings in this day and age, though, if it ever
was - Dr Who gives the BBC huge publicity, far more than any of their
soaps and most of their reality shows. And as a regional production
it's not competing directly with the soaps etc. filmed in London.
Also, don't estimate the value of the export market - the Natural
History Unit is, by a long way, the BBC's most expensive in terms of
film production. Its ratings consign most of its products to BBC2, and
even the high-profile annual Attenborough series on BBC1 will never
match soap ratings. Yet there's no way the BBC is going to stop making
them - Attenborough is one of their biggest assets, and the NHU is the
BBC's single greatest earner of both export revenue and international
recognition.
Phil
The Doctor
The Doctor
eusebius
The amount of people who knew, or more 'appositely', cared about
Reinette or how she was depicted on screen, is a very low demographic
indeed. Madame de Pompadour is an obscure historical figure except for
pre-revolutionary fanboys, or the French. Not many really care whether
she was an 'accurate depiction' in Girl in the Fireplace. The point
was, it was a good story and she was a useful prop (as indeed may have
been the source material you cite) for Moffatt's imagination, which is
far superior to Davies'.
>
> When we've seen Dickens, or Queen Victoria, or Agatha Christie, or any
> other 'insert historical personage here' character in RTD-era Who,
> they *are* recognisably the said character -
Yes, they were recognizably the said caricature. Well, to tell you the
truth, I don't know about Agatha Christie, but then I am not all that
interested in 3rd rate 'mystery' fiction. You could have had generic
characters replace all real historical figures in DW without violence
to the story.
The man Shakespeare is virtually unknown except for a few snippets of
info, so all depictions of him tend to be rather 2 dimensional, just
as the who one was.
> and are usually in the
> story for the now-tired irony of placing them in a situation that
> reflects their own work, or in the queen's case because she's an
> important figure who's an obvious target for a monster wanting to take
> over the world. The one exception is Mme du Pompadour - no attempt was
> made to relate her to any events in that character's life or to
> connect the story to her in any meaningful way (the clockwork androids
> would have worked as well with any other named individual), and the
> choice of a moderately obscure character seems hard to explain as
> anything other than Moffatt wanting to show off by avoiding an 'easy
> option' - showing off that's all the more galling considering how much
> he gets wrong. Namedropping people you know nothing about to give the
> illusion of knowledge is the sort of self-aggrandising vanity we see
> from people like Aggy; why assume it has a different motive when
> Moffatt does it?
>
> Phil-
Nah she's just a story prop like all the other 2 dimensional pseudo-
historical who figures. Actually I think the best 'animations' of said
personages was in the early historicals. But why bother to use the
events of the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Obscure event surely, the
writer self-aggrandizing blah blah
Moffatt should have named that ship the "Bill Clinton" and we could
have seen him not having sex with that woman. That would have kept all
the sad whining fanboys happy.
pbo...@aol.com
Which is exactly the point I'm making. Including her wasn't done for
the viewers, it was just a sop to Moffatt's own vanity - look, here's
this historical figure you proles have never heard of. Isn't it
wonderful I know about her? We get pseudointellectuals here trying
exactly the same tripe - it's an easy attitude to recognise. The fact
that Moffatt got most of his facts about her wrong isn't a problem for
the story, but it does demonstrate that this isn't someone writing a
story in this setting because it's one that appeals to them and that
they know about - it's pure sophistry aimed at trying to con viewers
into thinking he knows more about a period than he does, a period he
picked simply by virtue of being obscure.
Whereas by contrast Queen Victoria is a well-known character with the
viewers, was presented recognisably *and* in a way that made her,
specifically, relevant to the plot, rather than a random fictional
character with a historical character's name.
Not many really care whether
> she was an 'accurate depiction' in Girl in the Fireplace. The point
> was, it was a good story
I have to say I disagree with this. It could have been a good story
but, historical character or not, the Reinette we were presented with
was completely devoid of personality, a rather critical failing iin a
character-driven love story centred around her. The script didn't much
help either.
and she was a useful prop (as indeed may have
> been the source material you cite) for Moffatt's imagination, which is
> far superior to Davies'.
Is it, though? Moffatt's told good stories - but mostly minor variants
on the same story, told over and over. Sally Sparrow was just River
Song from the opposite perspective, and she was just the Time
Traveller's Wife all over again, bringing us back to Girl in the
Fireplace. It might be unfair to say RTD's given us more variety - he
has, after all, written more episodes, and his finales are always the
same story. Plus, given a choice between the same 'consequences of
relationship with a time traveller' story told ad infinitum and an End
Of The World Fiery Special Effects Apocalypse of Doom story told ad
infinitum, I'd probably prefer the former (although it would be harder
to redo with new effects each year). Still, having had so few stories
to write and selecting them from such very restricted source material
does not bode well for Moffatt as a more prolific writer on the show -
Paul Cornell has only had two scripts, and managed to make them
distinctly different. And I'd take Midnight over any of Moffatt's
efforts, even his first and best (which, rewatching recently, while
still great for atmosphere doesn't seem to have held up on repeated
viewing as well as, say, Dalek).
> > When we've seen Dickens, or Queen Victoria, or Agatha Christie, or any
> > other 'insert historical personage here' character in RTD-era Who,
> > they *are* recognisably the said character -
>
> Yes, they were recognizably the said caricature. Well, to tell you the
> truth, I don't know about Agatha Christie, but then I am not all that
> interested in 3rd rate 'mystery' fiction. You could have had generic
> characters replace all real historical figures in DW without violence
> to the story.
You could tell broadly the same story - yet the one story in which RTD
was directly responsible for writing the historical insert (Tooth &
Claw) is the one where this is most difficult. The werewolf's plan
relied on taking control of a powerful country at a time when it
controlled much of the world (and being a British show that more or
less mandated Victorian Britain), hence the need for the monarch. The
diamond and the story of Victoria carrying it around are historically
accurate (in fact the most accurate representation of a historical
character in modern Who) - both of which RTD incorporated into the
story resolution.
> The man Shakespeare is virtually unknown except for a few snippets of
> info, so all depictions of him tend to be rather 2 dimensional, just
> as the who one was.
All the 'literature' episodes are passable at best - the only reason
the historical characters are there is to say "look, how ironic,
something in their work resembles our adventure" - which was only
funny the first time. None of them have any direct relevance to the
stories themselves.
> > and are usually in the
> > story for the now-tired irony of placing them in a situation that
> > reflects their own work, or in the queen's case because she's an
> > important figure who's an obvious target for a monster wanting to take
> > over the world. The one exception is Mme du Pompadour - no attempt was
> > made to relate her to any events in that character's life or to
> > connect the story to her in any meaningful way (the clockwork androids
> > would have worked as well with any other named individual), and the
> > choice of a moderately obscure character seems hard to explain as
> > anything other than Moffatt wanting to show off by avoiding an 'easy
> > option' - showing off that's all the more galling considering how much
> > he gets wrong. Namedropping people you know nothing about to give the
> > illusion of knowledge is the sort of self-aggrandising vanity we see
> > from people like Aggy; why assume it has a different motive when
> > Moffatt does it?
>
> > Phil-
>
> Nah she's just a story prop like all the other 2 dimensional pseudo-
> historical who figures. Actually I think the best 'animations' of said
> personages was in the early historicals. But why bother to use the
> events of the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Obscure event surely, the
> writer self-aggrandizing blah blah
Possibly, possibly not - I never saw that story. Using an obscure
event as an educational tool, to teach people about the event itself,
is a worthy goal if done with an eye to historical observance. The
problem with interpreting the Moffatt story this way is that (a) the
historical character involved is entirely divorced from her real-world
context, and (b) the history presented is inaccurate at even the most
basic level - it's hard to conceive anyone who's researched the
character, as they undoutedly would if writing an attempt at an
educational 'historical', making these kinds of mistake.
I like the idea of Who doing historicals; I said when it was broadcast
I felt Tooth & Claw was exactly the sort of thing Who should do more
often - nice adventurous monster story that actively ties sometimes
obscure historical events (such as Victoria's trip with the diamond)
into the narrative, and that pays attention to historical accuracy -
admittedly the way that link was made was the weakest part of the
episode. RTD even fit in a comment about humans being 70% water for
the kids (and did so again in Waters of Mars - either for any who
missed it, or more likely because it's the only bit of accurate
science he actually knows. It's certainly about the only one he's ever
put into his show).
RTD's had more than his share of screw-ups - I've been more scathing
than anyone about End of Time. But the silliness and excess that have
permeated, let's face it, fewer than half a dozen stories over the
last five years shouldn't be used an excuse for the anti-RTD crowd to
demonise his time at the helm and hail Stephen Moffatt as the saviour
of Dr Who.
Moffatt may well turn out to be a good producer; RTD was in most ways
that define a producer's job - creating publicity, ensuring commercial
and critical success, making good and popular casting decisions,
defining his characters - an excellent producer, but he's also well-
known for many of the flaws I see in Moffatt's work and approach in
Who to date. He's very formula-driven in his storytelling, with his
infamous overblown finales. While I think he's struck a good balance
in pushing Dr Who for the sake of Dr Who rather than for the glory of
RTD (look at all his returning vilains from other eras, those things
Mr Moffatt doesn't want intruding into his own egofest), his
Confidential interviews and the self-indulgence of things like this
last episode pretty strongly indicate an unhealthy level of ego-
stoking. Many of the holes in his storytelling that come from trying
to create lots of suspenseful bits with little thought how to put them
together are as large as or larger than those in Moffatt's stories,
and neither of them seems to have a talent for writing decent endings.
Both are much stronger on characters and atmosphere than on either
coherent storytelling or scientific plausibility.
In short, I don't see that Moffatt's likely to be all that different
from RTD - yes, I am alarmed by the proprietorial way his interviews
and actions suggest he plans to treat Dr Who as his own personal
project, in a way as I say I don't feel RTD ever did. But my main
point is that I see no reason at this stage to presuppose that Moffatt
will automatically be better, or indeed worse, than RTD; from the only
filmed evidence we have, the trailer, I see little reason to expect
him to be better.
Phil
Andrew
I think you're being unfair here, Phil in not recognising how stories
often start in the heads of writers. My best guess? Moffat had either
been reading about Madame de Pompadour, or had visited a chateau in
France associated with her or something of the kind, and the name just
stuck in his head. Put it together with an idea about "time gates" and
you're on your way.
>
> Not many really care whether
>> she was an 'accurate depiction' in Girl in the Fireplace. The point
>> was, it was a good story
>
> I have to say I disagree with this. It could have been a good story
> but, historical character or not, the Reinette we were presented with
> was completely devoid of personality, a rather critical failing iin a
> character-driven love story centred around her. The script didn't much
> help either.
>
> and she was a useful prop (as indeed may have
>> been the source material you cite) for Moffatt's imagination, which is
>> far superior to Davies'.
>
> Is it, though? Moffatt's told good stories - but mostly minor variants
> on the same story, told over and over. Sally Sparrow was just River
> Song from the opposite perspective, and she was just the Time
> Traveller's Wife all over again, bringing us back to Girl in the
> Fireplace.
Sorry, that's being wholly unfair.It would be true to say that these
stories share the same theme of differing perspectives of time coming
into contact with each other, but that's scarcely surprising in a show
where time travel plays a significant role. Sally Sparrow was like
River Song how? Exactly?
solar penguin
pbo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Is it, though? Moffatt's told good stories - but mostly minor variants
> on the same story, told over and over. Sally Sparrow was just River
> Song from the opposite perspective, and she was just the Time
> Traveller's Wife all over again, bringing us back to Girl in the
> Fireplace.
To be fair to Moffat, don't forget that his Decalog short story
"Continuity Errors" explored the concept of a woman experiencing the
Doctor's time travel tricks years before The Time Traveller's Wife was
ever written. The Curse Of Fatal Death also had non-linear time
travel gimmicks and a contrived love interest for the Doctor.
These ideas would probably have reappeared in Moffat's canon episodes
anyway, despite The Time Traveller's Wife also using them, since
they've clearly always been of great interest to him.
AlanSailsbury
>
>
> Let's hope we never have a blunderfest like what happened in the 1980s.
> --
Yes the entire JNT era was a horrible mistake. Good you finally see
that!
The Doctor
AlanSailsbury <alansa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Moreso Powell giving JN-T full authority over DW.
THERE is the mistake!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Born 29 Jan 1969 Redhill,Surrey,England UK