[QUOTE=leontodd;37886421]It should have ended like this... They go to get in the tardis, Rory is no where to be found and they go and look for him. Then Amy sees the grave and looks at the angel, blinks and disappears. Then the doctor gets pissed, that music plays as the camera pans out while the doctor cries in the tardis alone.[/QUOTE]
hnnngh feels
Kind of surprised they never re-used "The Life and Death of Amy Pond"
They used it at a load of other unrelated points in the series, but why not the part that would make more sense?
Even the name could apply more to this than when it was actually played.
Just thought I would mention, while I can be bothered, Doctor Who really does have one of the most interesting fanbases across the world and is unmatched in the world of television. Approaching 49 years worth of viewership, still speculating away at future plot lines, scrutinising every detail, seeing patterns which aren't there, debating favourite Doctors, companions and showrunners...
Sure, it can get petty. There are disagreements and arguments on occasion. But that's what keeps it going. There's such a vast range of people watching this show, with so many different opinions. From those who were there when Hartnell locked Ian and Barbara in the TARDIS, to those whose first real experience of Doctor Who may have been a large picture of Christopher Eccelston on a town centre poster in 2005. But we are a lively bunch and it would be awful if it ever stopped, or if we started agreeing on everything. Where would be the fun in that?
Specifically, thanks to you guys for never failing to keep me entertained on my daily visits. Even Zethiwag. Now, continue with your lives... and episode five critique.
[QUOTE=Grizz;37887421]Just thought I would mention, while I can be bothered, Doctor Who really does have one of the most interesting fanbases across the world and is unmatched in the world of television. Approaching 49 years worth of viewership, still speculating away at future plot lines, scrutinising every detail, seeing patterns which aren't there, debating favourite Doctors, companions and showrunners...
Sure, it can get petty. There are disagreements and arguments on occasion. But that's what keeps it going. There's such a vast range of people watching this show, with so many different opinions. From those who were there when Hartnell locked Ian and Barbara in the TARDIS, to those whose first real experience of Doctor Who may have been a large picture of Christopher Eccelston on a town centre poster in 2005. But we are a lively bunch and it would be awful if it ever stopped, or if we started agreeing on everything. Where would be the fun in that?
Specifically, thanks to you guys for never failing to keep me entertained on my daily visits. Even Zethiwag. Now, continue with your lives... and episode five critique.[/QUOTE]
...yes!
[QUOTE=Grizz;37887421]Just thought I would mention, while I can be bothered, Doctor Who really does have one of the most interesting fanbases across the world and is unmatched in the world of television. Approaching 49 years worth of viewership, still speculating away at future plot lines, scrutinising every detail, seeing patterns which aren't there, debating favourite Doctors, companions and showrunners...
Sure, it can get petty. There are disagreements and arguments on occasion. But that's what keeps it going. There's such a vast range of people watching this show, with so many different opinions. From those who were there when Hartnell locked Ian and Barbara in the TARDIS, to those whose first real experience of Doctor Who may have been a large picture of Christopher Eccelston on a town centre poster in 2005. But we are a lively bunch and it would be awful if it ever stopped, or if we started agreeing on everything. Where would be the fun in that?
Specifically, thanks to you guys for never failing to keep me entertained on my daily visits. Even Zethiwag. Now, continue with your lives... and episode five critique.[/QUOTE]
Eh. Doctor Who communities are mostly angry shits. But I've always liked this thread. It's the only reason I even come back to Facepunch after being here so many years. I remember we used to have a chat room set up so we could get to know eachother a bit better outside Who but the main problem was we weren't all online at the same time and some got to know others better. It's a shame we didn't have somewhere we could post in a thread-like fashion and browse all the replies like a forum. But it would take a lot of setting up.
Do we still have that Steam group? I started adding people on Google+ last year but somebody said something totally mean to one of my friends which was uncalled for and I think then tried to add them to their circles. Which was weird as shit. Continued to be a dick like they were posting on a thread and not a social networking site. I got rid of Google+ after. Can't remember who it was but it was stupid and made me wary of the whole thing (blending online friends with social networking). [URL=https://twitter.com/Dan2593]I think a few of you follow me on Twitter and that's cool and I don't mind people doing that so I can follow them back[/url]. But it'd be still nice to have a way of getting to know eachother.
I remember once the thread was threatened with closure and bans because we spent 2 or 3 months just chatting about life.
[editline]2nd October 2012[/editline]
Actually could somebody maybe set up a little free forum thing. Nothing special. Just a place for us to basically use a single thread for off-topic shit :wink:
A steam chat would totally work better. And would be fun. I'm sure we're all the same brand of weird.
[QUOTE=Dan2593;37887683]Actually could somebody maybe set up a little free forum thing. Nothing special. Just a place for us to basically use a single thread for off-topic shit :wink:[/QUOTE]
no
Yeah but not everybody in the world has steam and old messages don't remain so we miss out if we're not on. The thread format works really well. Anything where the messages are still there to view really.
there is a steam chat and noone uses it
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37887882]no[/QUOTE]
Your posts today have been dead special and nice babe
why don't we all just add each other on facebook, then we could talk whenever
as a typical sixth form student i'm always on facebook, naturally. unless facebook is too personal for you guys.
have mine and add me if you want [URL]http://www.facebook.com/Asrue2[/URL]
[QUOTE=Grizz;37887421]Just thought I would mention, while I can be bothered, Doctor Who really does have one of the most interesting fanbases across the world and is unmatched in the world of television. Approaching 49 years worth of viewership, still speculating away at future plot lines, scrutinising every detail, seeing patterns which aren't there, debating favourite Doctors, companions and showrunners...[/QUOTE]
Tom Baker was "my" Doctor.
New Who is brilliant though. The reboot if the franchise has been handled so well until recently. Hopefully it won't continue to go downhill
[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;37887958]why don't we all just add each other on facebook, then we could talk whenever
as a typical sixth form student i'm always on facebook, naturally. unless facebook is too personal for you guys.
have mine and add me if you want [URL]http://www.facebook.com/Asrue2[/URL][/QUOTE]
Too personal.
Tinychat? I know the music section has one.
[QUOTE=Dan2593;37887683]Can't remember who it was but it was stupid and made me wary of the whole thing (blending online friends with social networking).[/QUOTE]
Surprised I never got that with my Facebook, especially since my OL friends are mostly Encyclopedia Dramatica and GNAA.
What is the generally agreed best episode?
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;37889142]What is the generally agreed best episode?[/QUOTE]
Of nuwho, probably blink, it's become synonymous with doctor who as much as the daleks and cybermen are. Either that or the episode where everyone in the world wished the doctor back to life and it happened. That episode was perfect.
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
I still don't like rtd.
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
[url]http://tinychat.com/facepunchwhovians[/url]
[QUOTE=jaykray;37889176]everyone in the world wished the doctor back to life and it happened. That episode was perfect.
[/QUOTE]
I only now get the sudden realization that this episode was the probable inspiration for all the facebook "like this post if you hate cancer" bullshit.
How anti-climactic
[QUOTE=verynicelady;37888979]Tom Baker was "my" Doctor.
New Who is brilliant though. The reboot if the franchise has been handled so well until recently. Hopefully it won't continue to go downhill[/QUOTE]
Downhill? The ratings and reviews for this series are Matt Smiths highest and on par with Tennants series 4.
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
The Power of Three Final Ratings
Overnight the episode scored 5.49 million viewers.
over 2 million recorded the episode and watched it within a week of airing bringing it to 7.67 million.
300,000 people watched the repeat bringing it to 7.97 million
Over a million caught the episode on iPlayer bringing it to 9 million.
Power of Three Final rating is about 9 million. That's a 2 million improvement on David Tennants final ratings for his highest Episode 4.
It's the same story all series.
About 7 million people would watch David Tennant's episode as they aired. Maybe about half a million would record and iPlayer in total. Basically over a third of viewers for Matt Smith view the episode on catch-up.
Why? Simple. People aren't just flicking on to Doctor Who half way through and trying to watch it anymore. They don't want to miss 5 minutes and would rather catch the whole thing later when they can relax and follow the whole plot. Also the majority of people who watch Who were kids 7/8 years ago. Now they're students. Students don't have TV licences. Most of Doctor Who's audience can't watch it live and have to wait for iPlayer. Most the people I know and on Twitter catch it later than night or the next few days when they're free.
Power of Three is about a million drop on last week- but it was Freshers. Most will be catching up now.
But Power of Three getting 9 million and the episode before that getting 10 million in total is higher than Tennant ever got on a non-opener or special.
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
After Smith started there was a very slight drop. Now it's just getting bigger and bigger as people warm to him, tune in again as they expect him to go within two years and he's still here, and every year another family will decide to tune in for the first time. Specially after major cast changes as it's a good place to catch on.
I think she's talking about the plot holes everyone is seemingly to argue about.
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
Ratings are great, though. Good to see.
Yeah I started this plothole debate but it technically isn't a plot hole. Everything is explained. But explained awfully with new silly rules. We just have to accept it and move on. This happens with time travel fiction all the time, specially running this long.
I'm glad they retconned the paradox laws from the Eccleston series. Having a race of pterodactyls attack every time a time paradox occurs made much less sense than having it cancel out as it does now.
However, it seems silly that the paradox worked so conveniently for them. It seems that if Moffat can find a way to force a paradox he can immediately use it as endgame.
I don't understand how the paradox killed the Angels and sent everybody to the graveyard. Since when did paradoxes just equal explosions that target bad things.
Yeah, exactly, why does a paradox suddenly mean that all the angels never existed
I mean if Rory saw the moment of his death, then changed it, he's rewriting the future, which isn't a paradox, it's been done before by Tennant when he saved that woman's life in the Waters of Mars.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;37895121]I'm glad they retconned the paradox laws from the Eccleston series. Having a race of pterodactyls attack every time a time paradox occurs made much less sense than having it cancel out as it does now.
However, it seems silly that the paradox worked so conveniently for them. It seems that if Moffat can find a way to force a paradox he can immediately use it as endgame.[/QUOTE]
Admittedly yes; whilst the concept of time having an "immune response" was an interesting one, but it meant that drastic time changes would have hideous apocalyptic consequences. If the "Reapers" only pursued Pete and Rose, since they were the cause of the paradox, it'd probably have worked out better, with a bit more subtlety and a theme of being hunted. I'd also imagine the Reapers to be like shadowy cloaks worn by the tendrils of an "eldritch horror" kind of entity, seeking to set time right by killing whatever caused the paradox.
Instead of the Lovecraftian horrors flying around and devouring everything in sight, they'd be stalking the shadows, hunting down Pete and Rose until the two are cornered in an alleyway, and Pete decides to sacrifice himself to re-stabilize the status quo, though it'd probably mean that instead of him dying from a car crash, he was stabbed in an alleyway by some dark-clothed psychopath.
But even with that particular reiteration of the Reapers, how they'd fit into later paradox-related episodes would be a tricky task. Maybe the time of Pete's death was of great significance to Rose, potentially what developed her character, since growing up with two parents is likely a pretty different upbringing than being raised by a single mother, and perhaps coupled with weak space-time (yes that old chestnut) the act of saving Pete would put a massive strain on time's ability to rewrite itself, hence the Reapers.
Also in regards to the Angels paradox, it did seem all too convenient, though does the factor of the Lone Survivor Angel water down the convenience of it all, since there is still a heavy price paid with a great loss?
The paradox doesn't mean that the Angels never existed, the paradox was poison to them and it killed them all off. Obviously, somehow this brought them both back to life.
I suppose it's a paradox since it's predestination. Rory saw himself die and jumped off a building to prevent that happening. But since he died then, he couldn't possibly have been sent in time to die an old man, which means that Rory would have had no reason to jump off a building and thus would have been sent back in time, turning into that old man that caused him to jump off.
Get it?
Waters of Mars is different, since it doesn't involve time travel, it just involves changing the future.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Jenna-Louise_Coleman.jpg[/IMG]
Jennas Wikipedia picture. Bet she loves that.
yeah theres so many better pictures of her
and they use that one
[QUOTE=Dan2593;37895674][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Jenna-Louise_Coleman.jpg[/IMG]
Jennas Wikipedia picture. Bet she loves that.[/QUOTE]
In the last few days I've really fallen under this girl's spell, even this picture seems cute to me. I really wanna see how she plays the companion.
Saw you guys talking about knowing each other more, we've still got the FP Doctor Who tinychat:
[url]http://tinychat.com/fpdw[/url]
Was good getting to know everyone last year, should do it more often!
I'm currently working nightshift at a post production company with little but my iphone for company, so come on tinychat and entertain me!
[editline]3rd October 2012[/editline]
add this to the op
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
