S5E7 Amy's Choice

Agamemnon

unread,

May 15, 2010, 3:34:11 PM5/15/10

to

After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back again this
week with a proper story reminiscent of The Mind Robber crossed with some
Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but mostly Patrick Troughton
in style, albeit compromised in places by Murry Gold's inappropriate music.

Amy's bump did not look realistic and didn't move realistically either. The
centre of gravity and the mode of vibration was all wrong and gave the
impression the bump was way too light.

It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which was
supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in the TARDIS.
Ok, so we had the whole country snowed off in spring last year and in the
early part of this year too which is probably when it was filmed.

The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected from
the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the Doctor
or anyone else dreaming either. Another example of bad modern writing where
the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene by scene without
having any conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending which
could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in the story
having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made up that they had
after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't even be bothered to go
back through the script to place clues to it either, like how difficult it
that to do with a word processor. Well at least it had a proper ending with
all the threads resolved unlike last week, and no mention of Amy's crack.

Matt Smith and Karen Gillan both put on good performances as did the
supporting cast.

Over half way through the series now and it feels like real Doctor Who the
way it used to be back in the classic era. Well done Steve Moffat.

10/10

pbo...@aol.com

unread,

May 15, 2010, 3:50:22 PM5/15/10

to

On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected from
> the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the Doctor
> or anyone else dreaming either.

You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.

Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.

Another example of bad modern writing where
> the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene by scene without
> having any conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
> completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending which
> could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in the story
> having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made up that they had
> after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't even be bothered to go
> back through the script to place clues to it either, like how difficult it
> that to do with a word processor.

Nothing so complex. Dallas did "It was all a dream" in the '80s, and
it's become a byword for cliched cop-out endings ever since. I give
credit for Nye for trying to insert it here in a clever way - it just
didn't work because of the way he did it (all the danger is in the
dream, the dream was always going to end whatever the characters did
or didn't do, so they woke up and everything was back to normal, never
having been in either physical or psychological danger of any kind).

Well at least it had a proper ending with
> all the threads resolved unlike last week, and no mention of Amy's crack.

What was left unresolved last week, unless you mean the surviving, and
completely irrelevant, 'brothers' in the canal?

Phil

solar penguin

unread,

May 15, 2010, 3:57:04 PM5/15/10

to

Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

> After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back
> again this week with a proper story

I wouldn't call any it's-all-a-dream plot a "proper story". Just the
opposite.

> reminiscent of The Mind Robber
> crossed with some Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but
> mostly Patrick Troughton in style, albeit compromised in places by
> Murry Gold's inappropriate music.

Eh? When did Pertwee do any "dream"-style or surreal stories?

Apart from The Mind Robber, the most obvious similarities were The
Celestial Toymake (a figure who is seemingly all-powerful in his own
domain challenges the Doctor and his companions to play deadly games)
and the Valeyard (mysterious evil figure who turns out to be an
embodiment of the Doctor's own dark side).

> It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which
> was supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in
> the TARDIS. Ok, so we had the whole country snowed off in spring last
> year and in the early part of this year too which is probably when it
> was filmed.

Maybe the appearing/disappearing snow was supposed to be another clue
that it was a dream. Or maybe not.

Of course, _that's_ where your Pertwee similarities come in. Freak
weather conditions at Dungeness! ;)

>
> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I
> expected from the start. Both were dreams

The same as _everyone_ suspected. All a bit too predictable.

> Another example of bad modern writing where the writer just makes it
> up as they are going along scene by scene without having any
> conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
> completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending
> which could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in
> the story having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made
> up that they had after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't
> even be bothered to go back through the script to place clues to it
> either, like how difficult it that to do with a word processor.

It's not often I agree with you, but yes, the plotting was terrible like
most modern writing. If an earlier story had seen them land on the
planet of psychic pollen, it might've just about worked.

>
> 10/10

After that long, breathless rant about how badly-written it was, you're
still giving it 10/10!?!

Are you serious?

Agamemnon

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:00:13 PM5/15/10

to

<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40739b1f-e49c-431a...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

> On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected
>> from
>> the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
>> but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
>> whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
>> you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the
>> Doctor
>> or anyone else dreaming either.
>
> You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
> plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
> take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
> simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.
>
> Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
> to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
> was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.

It could have been the Black Guardian or the Trickster.

>
> Another example of bad modern writing where
>> the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene by scene
>> without
>> having any conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
>> completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending which
>> could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in the story
>> having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made up that they
>> had
>> after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't even be bothered to
>> go
>> back through the script to place clues to it either, like how difficult
>> it
>> that to do with a word processor.
>
> Nothing so complex. Dallas did "It was all a dream" in the '80s, and
> it's become a byword for cliched cop-out endings ever since. I give
> credit for Nye for trying to insert it here in a clever way - it just
> didn't work because of the way he did it (all the danger is in the
> dream, the dream was always going to end whatever the characters did
> or didn't do, so they woke up and everything was back to normal, never
> having been in either physical or psychological danger of any kind).

Nope. They would have kept thinking the dream was the real world and without
any food their bodies would have starved to death.

>
> Well at least it had a proper ending with
>> all the threads resolved unlike last week, and no mention of Amy's crack.
>
> What was left unresolved last week, unless you mean the surviving, and
> completely irrelevant, 'brothers' in the canal?

You mean the surviving and completely relevant fish men in the canal and the
completely pointless attempt at suicide of their mother.

>
> Phil
>

Agamemnon

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:07:56 PM5/15/10

to

"solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:hsmuan$ke0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back
>> again this week with a proper story
>
> I wouldn't call any it's-all-a-dream plot a "proper story". Just the
> opposite.
>
>> reminiscent of The Mind Robber
>> crossed with some Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but
>> mostly Patrick Troughton in style, albeit compromised in places by
>> Murry Gold's inappropriate music.
>
> Eh? When did Pertwee do any "dream"-style or surreal stories?

He did lots of stories set in country villages and the buy eye monster was
reminiscent of Pertwee monsters, like the Alpha Centuri and the Nestene.

>
> Apart from The Mind Robber, the most obvious similarities were The
> Celestial Toymake (a figure who is seemingly all-powerful in his own
> domain challenges the Doctor and his companions to play deadly games) and
> the Valeyard (mysterious evil figure who turns out to be an embodiment of
> the Doctor's own dark side).

Edge of Destruction?

There's nothing I completely dislike about it.

pbo...@aol.com

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:16:52 PM5/15/10

to

On 15 May, 21:00, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message

>
> news:40739b1f-e49c-431a...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected
> >> from
> >> the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> >> but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> >> whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> >> you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the
> >> Doctor
> >> or anyone else dreaming either.
>
> > You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
> > plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
> > take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
> > simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.
>
> > Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
> > to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
> > was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.
>
> It could have been the Black Guardian or the Trickster.

I briefly entertained the Trickster as a possibility, but there's no
reason for him to be described as harbouring a special hatred of the
Doctor either. The Black Guardian isn't something that's going to be
revived as an off-the-cuff reveal when it's intended as a hook for an
audience, many of whom have never heard of the Black Guardian, what
his identity is.

Phil

pbo...@aol.com

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:18:48 PM5/15/10

to

On 15 May, 21:07, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote in message

I'm not sure you're using rating systems in the same way as the rest
of the world...

Phil

solar penguin

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:23:35 PM5/15/10

to

Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:40739b1f-e49c-431a...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>

>> Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
>> to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the
>> audience was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the
>> Doctor.
>
> It could have been the Black Guardian or the Trickster.
>

The Trickster wouldn't be familiar to anyone who doesn't follow the
SJAs, and the Black Guardian wouldn't be familiar to anyone who doesn't
know the classic series.

Soze

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:31:00 PM5/15/10

to

"solar penguin" <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:hsmuan$ke0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>

> Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back
>> again this week with a proper story
>
> I wouldn't call any it's-all-a-dream plot a "proper story". Just the
> opposite.
>
>> reminiscent of The Mind Robber
>> crossed with some Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but
>> mostly Patrick Troughton in style, albeit compromised in places by
>> Murry Gold's inappropriate music.
>
> Eh? When did Pertwee do any "dream"-style or surreal stories?

I seem to remember the final 2 episodes of The Time Monster to be pretty
surreal. Although I try my best not to remember them at all.

pbo...@aol.com

unread,

May 15, 2010, 4:34:12 PM5/15/10

to

On 15 May, 21:31, "Soze" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote in message

Is that even a real serial name?

I'm surprised "Aliens of Death" (Rory's suggestion) never was actually
used in the old days...

Phil

AlfyDoor

unread,

May 15, 2010, 7:06:39 PM5/15/10

to

<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f9b27945-32d7-45a9...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

>Phil

Aggy marks out of 10 are out of infinity.

No, I never got the hang of it either...

The Doctor

unread,

May 15, 2010, 7:15:59 PM5/15/10

to

In article <iZednc3Zor-panPW...@eclipse.net.uk>,

Good on you Ag!
--
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.facebook.com/dyadallee
In him with nothing but insults resides no wisdom. -unknown

The Doctor

unread,

May 15, 2010, 7:23:05 PM5/15/10

to

In article <hsmuan$ke0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Here comes the debate.

The Doctor

unread,

May 15, 2010, 7:25:46 PM5/15/10

to

In article <_qydnd5CT8CBYnPW...@eclipse.net.uk>,

I cannot wait for SP's rebuttal.

The Doctor

unread,

May 15, 2010, 7:26:34 PM5/15/10

to

In article <f9b27945-32d7-45a9...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

pbo...@aol.com <pbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 15 May, 21:07, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hsmuan$ke0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>

>> > It's not often I agree with you, but yes, the plotting was terrible lik=
>e
>> > most modern writing. =A0If an earlier story had seen them land on the p=

>lanet
>> > of psychic pollen, it might've just about worked.
>>
>> >> 10/10
>>
>> > After that long, breathless rant about how badly-written it was, you're
>> > still giving it 10/10!?!
>>
>> > Are you serious?
>>
>> There's nothing I completely dislike about it.
>
>I'm not sure you're using rating systems in the same way as the rest
>of the world...
>
>Phil

Why? What is your rebuttal?

The Doctor

unread,

May 15, 2010, 7:27:06 PM5/15/10

to

In article <_NFHn.43131$lS.2...@newsfe21.ams2>,

They are out of 10.

argento32

unread,

May 15, 2010, 10:01:35 PM5/15/10

to

On May 15, 6:23 pm, "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message

Maybe we are looking at the start of themodern version of the Valyard.

TedKord

unread,

May 15, 2010, 11:25:42 PM5/15/10

to

Well, without getting into how it compares to old school Who, or any
of that, it was overall an enjoyable episode. Had a few misfires, but
they were extremely minor in the DW scheme of things.

I do continue to enjoy Smith And Gillan. And this is coming from
someone who was convinced Matt Smith would be a total failure. (Based
on early pictures, and that douchebag haircut - I know, shallow
reasons)

Ross

unread,

May 15, 2010, 11:51:18 PM5/15/10

to

On May 15, 3:57 pm, "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back
> > again this week with a proper story
>
> I wouldn't call any it's-all-a-dream plot a "proper story". Just the
> opposite.

I think it's an abuse to call it an "All just a dream plot" -- an All
Just A Dream plot is one where the fact that it was a dream is the big
reveal at the end -- with this one, the fact that it's a dream is
known both to us *and* to the characters from the end of the
(inordinately long) pre-titles sequence.

The problem with "all just a dream" plots is that they end by undoing
themselves, essentially giving the audience the finger on the whole
idea of this story leading to anything, and that's not the case here,
because even though it takes place inside a dream world, it's still a
*shared* world, where the characters' actions still count for
something. An All Just A Dream story ends with the characters no
different than where they started -- this one ends with the Doctor
finding a new awareness of his dark side, and with Amy making her
"choice" by declaring her love for Rory

>
> Apart from The Mind Robber, the most obvious similarities were The
> Celestial Toymake (a figure who is seemingly all-powerful in his own
> domain challenges the Doctor and his companions to play deadly games)
> and the Valeyard (mysterious evil figure who turns out to be an
> embodiment of the Doctor's own dark side).

Mhm. I briefly suspected that the Dream Lord might have been the
Toymaker.

>
> > It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which
> > was supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in
> > the TARDIS. Ok, so we had the whole country snowed off in spring last
> > year and in the early part of this year too which is probably when it
> > was filmed.
>
> Maybe the appearing/disappearing snow was supposed to be another clue
> that it was a dream. Or maybe not.
>

I took it to be analogous to the birdsong: hear birdsong in the
freezing TARDIS, see snow in the springtime village

>
>
> > The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I
> > expected from the start. Both were dreams
>
> The same as _everyone_ suspected. All a bit too predictable.

That was unfortunate. I think they really wanted *us* to assume all
along that the freezing TARDIS was real and be surprised when it
turned out to be a dream as well. Stargate SG-1 beat them to it by
quite a few years.

It was pretty much the first time they cut back to the TARDIS that my
wife said "I bet they're both dreams." I concurred, but what I was
hoping for was that it would turn out that *neither* was a dream.

>
> > Another example of bad modern writing where the writer just makes it
> > up as they are going along scene by scene without having any
> > conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
> > completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending
> > which could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in
> > the story having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made
> > up that they had after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't
> > even be bothered to go back through the script to place clues to it
> > either, like how difficult it that to do with a word processor.
>
> It's not often I agree with you, but yes, the plotting was terrible like
> most modern writing. If an earlier story had seen them land on the
> planet of psychic pollen, it might've just about worked.

I'm not inclined to agree with this specific complaint: you can't
really simultaneously complain that the ending comes out of nowhere
*and* that the ending is so telegraphed that Western Union's
shareholders are having orgasms.

>
> > 10/10
>
> After that long, breathless rant about how badly-written it was, you're
> still giving it 10/10!?!
>
> Are you serious?

And yet, I bet if RTD'd had a credit on it, we'd be at 0/10.

Me, I think the big failing of this episode was pretty much the same
as last week. Perfectly servicable plot, but the elements of the story
just don't gel well. You've got five storytelling elements here:
setting, plot, acting, characters, theme, and each of them
individually is pretty much okay, but taken as a whole, it's just not
soup.

Also, I'm starting to think that the awesomeness I saw in Matt Smith's
portrayal back in The Eleventh Hour may have just been a fluke.
Pretty much since then, he's been getting increasingly awkward.
There's an ever-growing dichotomy between the way he carries himself
and the way the writers are taking the character. Previously, he'd
been pretty good in what I'm calling his "absent minded professor"
mode, but when he switches over to "awkward and fumbly about
interpersonal relationships" mode, he's downright painful to watch --
Tennant was good with Manic, and Smith has thus far been good with
*quiet* intensity, but the writers keep forcing him into "manic" mode,
and in manic-mode, Smith is frankly pretty terrible. They'd do well
to heed Pregnant-Amy and *stop running around so much*.

I will say this: the episodes penned by Moffatt have been yards and
yards better than the ones not by him -- very much the opposite of the
RTD era. There's no question in my mind of Moffat's skill as a writer,
but I think he may need a little more help in the role of producer.

pbo...@aol.com

unread,

May 16, 2010, 4:18:56 AM5/16/10

to

On 16 May, 04:51, Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:57 pm, "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > > After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back
> > > again this week with a proper story
>
> > I wouldn't call any it's-all-a-dream plot a "proper story". Just the
> > opposite.
>
> I think it's an abuse to call it an "All just a dream plot" -- an All
> Just A Dream plot is one where the fact that it was a dream is the big
> reveal at the end -- with this one, the fact that it's a dream is
> known both to us *and* to the characters from the end of the
> (inordinately long) pre-titles sequence.
>
> The problem with "all just a dream" plots is that they end by undoing
> themselves, essentially giving the audience the finger on the whole
> idea of this story leading to anything, and that's not the case here,
> because even though it takes place inside a dream world, it's still a
> *shared* world, where the characters' actions still count for
> something.

No - the characters could have died at any time, or crashed into the
star instead of blowing up the TARDIS, and would still have woken safe
and sound in the real world.

An All Just A Dream story ends with the characters no
> different than where they started -- this one ends with the Doctor
> finding a new awareness of his dark side,

Only insofar as his dark side appears to consist entirely of being
jealous of Rory.

Phil

solar penguin

unread,

May 16, 2010, 7:43:00 AM5/16/10

to

argento32 <aaron...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, good point. I'd already mentioned the similarity with the Valeyard
in another post. But I like your idea that this is a way of bringing
him back properly. (Of all the villains that no-one ever expected to
return...!)

marc_CH

unread,

May 16, 2010, 9:36:33 AM5/16/10

to

Agamemnon wrote:

> Amy's bump did not look realistic and didn't move realistically either.

> It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which was

> supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in the
> TARDIS.

> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected
> from the start.

> Another example of bad modern

> writing where the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene
> by scene without having any conception of any kind of story outline

> 10/10

How can you give it 10/10 after this rant?

--
marc

"Wrong. The anus was made to shit, not to fuck. Now if someone decided
to fuck their guitar instead of using it to play music, that would be
immoral." -- Aggy

The Doctor

unread,

May 16, 2010, 9:50:06 AM5/16/10

to

In article <85aan1...@mid.individual.net>,

marc_CH <ma...@crumhorn.org> wrote:
>Agamemnon wrote:
>
>> Amy's bump did not look realistic and didn't move realistically either.
>
>> It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which was
>> supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in the
>> TARDIS.
>
>> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected
>> from the start.
>
> > Another example of bad modern
>> writing where the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene
>> by scene without having any conception of any kind of story outline
>
>> 10/10
>
>How can you give it 10/10 after this rant?
>

REad his review.

TB

unread,

Nov 23, 2015, 12:18:23 PM11/23/15

to

On Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 1:18:56 AM UTC-7, pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> On 16 May, 04:51, Ross <rrasz...@trenchcoatsoft.com> wrote:
> > On May 15, 3:57 pm, "solar penguin" <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agamemnon <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > > > After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back
> > > > again this week with a proper story
> >
> > > I wouldn't call any it's-all-a-dream plot a "proper story". Just the
> > > opposite.
> >
> > I think it's an abuse to call it an "All just a dream plot" -- an All
> > Just A Dream plot is one where the fact that it was a dream is the big
> > reveal at the end -- with this one, the fact that it's a dream is
> > known both to us *and* to the characters from the end of the
> > (inordinately long) pre-titles sequence.
> >
> > The problem with "all just a dream" plots is that they end by undoing
> > themselves, essentially giving the audience the finger on the whole
> > idea of this story leading to anything, and that's not the case here,
> > because even though it takes place inside a dream world, it's still a
> > *shared* world, where the characters' actions still count for
> > something.
>
> No - the characters could have died at any time, or crashed into the
> star instead of blowing up the TARDIS, and would still have woken safe
> and sound in the real world.

But they didn't KNOW that BOTH realities were dreams, so they couldn't take the risk.

Tim Bruening

unread,

Jan 10, 2017, 1:43:52 AM1/10/17

to

Who would die of old age in due course.

Tim Bruening

unread,

Jan 11, 2017, 9:28:51 PM1/11/17

to

Great animal moments: The birds that tweeted whenever our heroes changed realities.

Tim Bruening

unread,

Jan 11, 2017, 9:31:53 PM1/11/17

to

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:50:22 PM UTC-7, pbo...@aol.com wrote:

> On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected from
> > the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> > but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> > whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> > you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the Doctor
> > or anyone else dreaming either.
>
> You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
> plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
> take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
> simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.

What would you have done with it?

>
> Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
> to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
> was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.

Why not use Davros?

Tim Bruening

unread,

Jan 11, 2017, 9:42:52 PM1/11/17

to

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 1:00:13 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:40739b1f-e49c-431a...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

> > On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected
> >> from
> >> the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> >> but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> >> whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> >> you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the
> >> Doctor
> >> or anyone else dreaming either.
> >
> > You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
> > plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
> > take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
> > simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.
> >
> > Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
> > to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
> > was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.
>

> It could have been the Black Guardian or the Trickster.
>
> >

> > Another example of bad modern writing where
> >> the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene by scene
> >> without
> >> having any conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
> >> completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending which
> >> could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in the story
> >> having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made up that they
> >> had
> >> after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't even be bothered to
> >> go
> >> back through the script to place clues to it either, like how difficult
> >> it
> >> that to do with a word processor.
> >
> > Nothing so complex. Dallas did "It was all a dream" in the '80s, and
> > it's become a byword for cliched cop-out endings ever since. I give
> > credit for Nye for trying to insert it here in a clever way - it just
> > didn't work because of the way he did it (all the danger is in the
> > dream, the dream was always going to end whatever the characters did
> > or didn't do, so they woke up and everything was back to normal, never
> > having been in either physical or psychological danger of any kind).
>

> Nope. They would have kept thinking the dream was the real world and without
> any food their bodies would have starved to death.
>
> >

> > Well at least it had a proper ending with
> >> all the threads resolved unlike last week, and no mention of Amy's crack.
> >
> > What was left unresolved last week, unless you mean the surviving, and
> > completely irrelevant, 'brothers' in the canal?
>

> You mean the surviving and completely relevant fish men in the canal and the
> completely pointless attempt at suicide of their mother.

I assumed that the suicide attempt had been successful!

The Doctor

unread,

Jan 12, 2017, 8:49:39 AM1/12/17

to

In article <f2c6ea41-1ef8-4862...@googlegroups.com>,

Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Great animal moments: The birds that tweeted whenever our heroes changed
>realities.

Charming.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthdate 29 Jan 1969 Redhill Surrey England

The Doctor

unread,

Jan 12, 2017, 8:50:09 AM1/12/17

to

In article <d9a6dd7e-fffe-472e...@googlegroups.com>,

Obsessed as usual.

The Doctor

unread,

Jan 12, 2017, 8:50:32 AM1/12/17

to

In article <c3d908b0-b2f5-422e...@googlegroups.com>,

Correct.

Tim Bruening

unread,

Jan 14, 2017, 1:32:56 PM1/14/17

to

When Rory and Amy were in the village dream, did they remember boinking each other silly?

The Doctor

unread,

Jan 14, 2017, 5:37:36 PM1/14/17

to

In article <8f07cb2b-173c-46c7...@googlegroups.com>,

Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>When Rory and Amy were in the village dream, did they remember boinking
>each other silly?

No.

Tim Bruening

unread,

Jan 14, 2017, 6:28:49 PM1/14/17

to

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <8f07cb2b-173c-46c7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Tim Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >When Rory and Amy were in the village dream, did they remember boinking
> >each other silly?
>
> No.

Would that make them suspicious that they are dreaming?

The Doctor

unread,

Jan 14, 2017, 6:42:50 PM1/14/17

to

In article <185426d8-0f69-42cb...@googlegroups.com>,

Maybe.

Tim Bruening

unread,

Apr 12, 2017, 1:03:14 PM4/12/17

to

Animals: A crow, several geese, and birds singing when ever the Doctor et al switched realities.

Timothy Bruening

unread,

Feb 27, 2018, 4:40:04 PM2/27/18

to

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:34:11 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:
> After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back again this

> week with a proper story reminiscent of The Mind Robber crossed with some
> Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but mostly Patrick Troughton
> in style, albeit compromised in places by Murry Gold's inappropriate music.
>
> Amy's bump did not look realistic and didn't move realistically either. The
> centre of gravity and the mode of vibration was all wrong and gave the
> impression the bump was way too light.

A hint that its a dream?

Timothy Bruening

unread,

Mar 26, 2018, 7:37:47 AM3/26/18

to

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:34:11 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:

> The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected from
> the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the Doctor

> or anyone else dreaming either. Another example of bad modern writing where

> the writer just makes it up as they are going along scene by scene without
> having any conception of any kind of story outline, and then bolts on a
> completely unexpected (from what has already been revealed) ending which
> could be anything whatsoever and explains it away by someone in the story
> having some kind of foreknowledge that the author just made up that they had
> after the revelation had bean revelled and couldn't even be bothered to go
> back through the script to place clues to it either, like how difficult it
> that to do with a word processor.

Said clues must have been cut for time.

unread,

Aug 21, 2018, 3:44:04 PM8/21/18

to

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 7:53:57 AM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <0bb090b6-b23e-48e5...@googlegroups.com>,
> Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:50:22 PM UTC-7, pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> >> > The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected from
> >> > the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> >> > but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> >> > whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> >> > you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the Doctor
> >> > or anyone else dreaming either.
> >>
> >> You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
> >> plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
> >> take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
> >> simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.
> >>
> >> Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
> >> to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
> >> was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.
> >
> >Why not use the Mara as the Dream Lord, as it was a master of inhabiting
> >the subconscious!
>
> In a way, it was.

I don't remember the Mara in Amy's Choice.

The Doctor

unread,

Aug 21, 2018, 4:44:28 PM8/21/18

to

In article <2e2795e4-0b69-4c09...@googlegroups.com>,

Dreamspace.

Timothy Bruening

unread,

Nov 27, 2018, 10:16:43 PM11/27/18

to

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:50:22 PM UTC-7, pbo...@aol.com wrote:
> On 15 May, 20:34, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > The conclusion at the end of the story went more or less as I expected from
> > the start. Both were dreams and one was Rory's and the other the Doctor's
> > but until the Doctor revealed out of nothing and without any clues
> > whatsoever that the dreams were caused by psychic pollen there was no way
> > you could figure out for sure that the Dream Lord was created by the Doctor
> > or anyone else dreaming either.
>
> You've obviously never seen any of the other shows that use this as a
> plot - I actually found it rather annoying that Nye had the sense to
> take a strong and, for Who, unconventional premise, and yet
> simultaneously failed to do anything original with it.
>
> Besides which, it was pretty obvious that the Dream Lord wasn't going
> to turn out to be, say, the Master, but had to be someone the audience
> was familiar with - making it fairly clear it was the Doctor.

Why not use the Rani, or the Black Guardian, or the Celestial Toymaker?

Timothy Bruening

unread,

Nov 27, 2018, 10:19:32 PM11/27/18

to

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 1:00:13 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:
> <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:40739b1f-e49c-431a...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

> >

> > What was left unresolved last week, unless you mean the surviving, and
> > completely irrelevant, 'brothers' in the canal?
>
> You mean the surviving and completely relevant fish men in the canal and the
> completely pointless attempt at suicide of their mother.

How can the fishmen breed without any fishwomen?

The Doctor

unread,

Nov 27, 2018, 10:36:37 PM11/27/18

unread,

Dec 23, 2018, 8:02:08 AM12/23/18

to

In article <38f44333-8b77-423d...@googlegroups.com>,

A better choice if Chibnall did not assault P & J Baker!

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism

Timothy Bruening

unread,

Dec 23, 2018, 11:19:15 AM12/23/18

to

When did he assault those people? What weapons, if any, did he use? Did he face any charges?

stephen.w...@gmail.com

unread,

Daniel60

unread,

Dec 24, 2018, 3:58:04 AM12/24/18

to

The Doctor wrote on 24/12/2018 10:04 AM:
> In article <11fe8a8b-50f7-44c9...@googlegroups.com>,
> Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 2:23:17 PM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <888ff172-a8cd-4133...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> <stephen.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tim typed:
>>>>>> A better choice if Chibnall did not assault P & J Baker!
>>>>>
>>>>> When did he assault those people? What weapons, if any, did he use?
>>>> Did he face any charges?
>>>>
>>>> He didn't, Tim. It's just another one of Yads' warped fantasies.
>>>
>>> Youtube has the proof.
>>
>> Please post link.
>
> n Youtube type in the Search term Chibnall 1986.
>

Which brings up fourteen possibilities, idiot. Which one??

--
Daniel

Daniel60

unread,

Dec 24, 2018, 3:59:43 AM12/24/18

to

The Doctor wrote on 24/12/2018 10:05 AM:
> In article <812d03ad-5eaf-46c7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 2:23:17 PM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <888ff172-a8cd-4133...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> <stephen.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Tim typed:
>>>>>> A better choice if Chibnall did not assault P & J Baker!
>>>>>
>>>>> When did he assault those people? What weapons, if any, did he use?
>>>> Did he face any charges?
>>>>
>>>> He didn't, Tim. It's just another one of Yads' warped fantasies.
>>>
>>> Youtube has the proof.
>>
>> On what date did it happen? What weapon(s) did he use? (Fists?
>> Cricket bat? Golf club? Rock? Pipe? Knife? Frying pan? Gun? Small
>> Weeping Angel? Sonic screwdriver?).
>
> Look up Chibnall 1986 while on Youtube!
>

Gee Whiz!! Three posts, each stating the same basic information, idiot..
Wacko for the post count!!

--
Daniel

The Doctor

unread,

Dec 24, 2018, 9:34:10 AM12/24/18

to

In article <8635017c-cd23-4af0...@googlegroups.com>,

Stephen Wilson lies as usual.

The Doctor

unread,

Dec 24, 2018, 9:35:32 AM12/24/18

to

In article <pvq72p$61h$2...@dont-email.me>,

Choose any one with Chinball wearing a stupid yellow tie.

unread,

Dec 26, 2018, 8:45:31 AM12/26/18

to

Daniel typed:

>>>>>>>>> A better choice if Chibnall did not assault P & J Baker!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When did he assault those people? What weapons, if any, did he use?
>>>>>>> Did he face any charges?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He didn't, Tim. It's just another one of Yads' warped fantasies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Youtube has the proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> On what date did it happen? What weapon(s) did he use? (Fists?
>>>>> Cricket bat? Golf club? Rock? Pipe? Knife? Frying pan? Gun? Small
>>>>> Weeping Angel? Sonic screwdriver?).
>>>>
>>>> Look up Chibnall 1986 while on Youtube!
>>>>
>>> Gee Whiz!! Three posts, each stating the same basic information, idiot..
>>> Wacko for the post count!!
>>
>> Well someone did not get the message the first time.
>>
>Oh!! Who was that, idiot??

The idiot doesn't get the message first time. Or second. Or third. Or ever...

roac...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 26, 2018, 9:19:38 AM12/26/18

to

i hope you guys don't feel that way about mee. :-(((((

unread,

Dec 26, 2018, 10:12:09 AM12/26/18

to

i don't know...b/c i don't deserve it...b/c i'm not good enough...i'm not rich or famous...i'm not a celebrity...i'm not a successful superstar or bigwig or anything...a pillar in the community...like you say...i'm nothing.

%

unread,

Dec 26, 2018, 10:16:58 AM12/26/18

to

they don't know that

unread,

Dec 29, 2018, 4:56:30 AM12/29/18

to

> Same open air episode.

Timothy Bruening

unread,

Dec 31, 2018, 6:29:58 PM12/31/18

to

Village reality: Our heroes being chased by alien occupied old folks. Why doesn't the Doctor try to call in UNIT? If the situation were real, it would warrant calling in UNIT!

unread,

Jan 29, 2019, 12:37:34 PM1/29/19

to

S5E7. S5E07. S05E7. S05E07.

On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:34:11 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:
> After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back again this
> week with a proper story reminiscent of The Mind Robber crossed with some
> Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but mostly Patrick Troughton
> in style, albeit compromised in places by Murry Gold's inappropriate music.
>
> Amy's bump did not look realistic and didn't move realistically either. The
> centre of gravity and the mode of vibration was all wrong and gave the
> impression the bump was way too light.
>
> It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which was
> supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in the TARDIS.
> Ok, so we had the whole country snowed off in spring last year and in the
> early part of this year too which is probably when it was filmed.

Leading people to wonder "Where is Global Warming when you need it?"?

stephen.w...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 29, 2019, 12:53:34 PM1/29/19

to

Tim typed:

>> It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which was
>> supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in the TARDIS.
>> Ok, so we had the whole country snowed off in spring last year and in the
>> early part of this year too which is probably when it was filmed.
>
>Leading people to wonder "Where is Global Warming when you need it?"?

Are you as dozy as your president? Global warming isn't all about places being nice and sunny. Global warming means weather patterns changing around the globe.

The Doctor

unread,

Jan 29, 2019, 3:57:26 PM1/29/19

to

In article <24ee447f-a6de-4431...@googlegroups.com>,

Cool day today eh?

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism

Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England, UK

Daniel60

unread,

Jan 30, 2019, 6:31:51 AM1/30/19

to

The Doctor wrote on 30/01/2019 7:57 AM:
> In article <24ee447f-a6de-4431...@googlegroups.com>,
> Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> S5E7. S5E07. S05E7. S05E07.
>>
>> On Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:34:11 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:
>>> After last week's loosely linked set pieces Doctor Who comes back again this
>>> week with a proper story reminiscent of The Mind Robber crossed with some
>>> Jon Pertwee and early Tom Baker Earth episodes, but mostly Patrick Troughton
>>> in style, albeit compromised in places by Murry Gold's inappropriate music.
>>>
>>> Amy's bump did not look realistic and didn't move realistically either. The
>>> centre of gravity and the mode of vibration was all wrong and gave the
>>> impression the bump was way too light.
>>>
>>> It also looked like it was snowing during most of the episode which was
>>> supposed to be set in spring, and I don't mean the parts set in the TARDIS.
>>> Ok, so we had the whole country snowed off in spring last year and in the
>>> early part of this year too which is probably when it was filmed.
>>
>> Leading people to wonder "Where is Global Warming when you need it?"?
>
> Cool day today eh?
>

No!! Got to 35.3 C here, today! Hey, look, Tim, one of those reversible
number thingees!!

--
Daniel

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 5:38:40 PM3/1/19

to

So no need for a coat.

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 1, 2019, 6:45:10 PM3/1/19

to

In article <14514b01-7c25-4b9c...@googlegroups.com>,

But you can cok!!

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism

Be charitable before wealth makes thee covetous. -Sir Thomas Browne

Daniel60

unread,

Mar 2, 2019, 5:06:42 AM3/2/19

to

The Doctor wrote on 2/03/2019 10:45 AM:
> In article <14514b01-7c25-4b9c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Timothy Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:49:54 AM UTC-8, The Doctor
>> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <d3458bb6-41e5-4489...@googlegroups.com>, Timothy
>>> Bruening <tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 3:31:51 AM UTC-8, Daniel60
>>>> wrote:

<Snip>

>>>>> No!! Got to 35.3 C here, today! Hey, look, Tim, one of those
>>>>> reversible number thingees!!
>>>>
>>>> Adelaide got to 123 recently!
>>>
>>> That is hot!!
>>
>> So no need for a coat.
>
> But you can cok!!
>

So Tim cam WHAT, idiot??

--
Daniel