I'm hoping it's something to do with Latimer anyway. While Smith has shown a few Doctor like traits , it would be a little too simplistic for him to simply switch them on when required. Of course Martha may come up with something 'Doctor like' she has been travelling long enough with him to know how things work
i think it will be somthing to do with Latimer as well. Mayeb he opens the watch and thee family smell it and latch onto him or something. There is something freaky about the Latimer boy as well. Those future flashes are really weird.
My only gripe was - why leave the pocket watch lying around so that anyone could nick it?!
Roll on next week!:D
The Doc did not realise the significance of it - it was just his watch. And no doubt he did when anyone else would do with their pocketwatch - put it on a table, sideboard or mantlepiece.
In the preview for part two, we see the Doctor holding a baby. It made me wonder if he will, in fact, spend a lot more time with his new girlfriend and produce a son/ daughter? As this half-human half-timelord would be born in 1914, when we arrive at the present day, he would be grown up, but not necessarily aged at the human rate. Could this character be who the Face of Bo was referring to when he told the Doctor that he was not alone? Furthermore, could this character be Mr Saxon.... the Doctor's son?
The Doc did not realise the significance of it - it was just his watch. And no doubt he did when anyone else would do with their pocketwatch - put it on a table, sideboard or mantlepiece.
Yes, I know that - but Martha knew its significance. So why didn`t she keep it on chain around her neck or something?
Anyhoo..........overall it was still an excellent episode.:)
Really good episode I thought. I have a continuity theory. If The Doc marries Matron, and they have kids, can we speculate these kids would be Susan's parents alllowing RTD to tie up an original series question about Susan's origin in the William Hartnell years? It would certainly be in keeping with the time frame? Any takers? No? Just me?
Really good episode I thought. I have a continuity theory. If The Doc marries Matron, and they have kids, can we speculate these kids would be Susan's parents alllowing RTD to tie up an original series question about Susan's origin in the William Hartnell years? It would certainly be in keeping with the time frame? Any takers? No? Just me?
Loved this episode! Much as i like the 'new' format, it's the first time since the show came back it's had the feel of old school Doctor Who for me. Really really good. Looking forward to next week so much
WOW, look at the poll, its taking off for this episode.
Just three small things I didn't like,
Martha moaning about the Doctor falling in love with a human that wasn't her.
Another mention of Rose.
The doctor kissing (borderline for me this one)
Really good episode I thought. I have a continuity theory. If The Doc marries Matron, and they have kids, can we speculate these kids would be Susan's parents alllowing RTD to tie up an original series question about Susan's origin in the William Hartnell years? It would certainly be in keeping with the time frame? Any takers? No? Just me?
Unlikely.
The First Doctor would have had to pick up a baby Susan in the 1940/1950's, somehow recognise this totally human baby (no Timelord DNA as her Grandfather was John Smith not the Doctor) as his Grandaughter and take her to Gallifrey (where humans were not allowed) to grow up.
I suppose it could be argued that Susan being human could have been a reason she and the Doctor had to leave Gallifrey though.
As to the theory that Latimer is a young Jack Harkness, this page suggests otherwise.
No it's Colin Baker.
Somebody on 'Outpost Gallifrey' has posted the sketches from the book that match up perfectly with the features of the faces of old Doctor Who publicity photos which have been mirror reversed.
Strangely, it's the features of the Hartnell image which don't match up. The pose in the sketch does match up with the Hartnell pose from the publicity photo, but the facial features are well out, and it's as though it's another actor completely.
Somebody might be mistaken in thinking that they may have an actor lined up to play Hartnell in some future episode in a future series. Because that's not Hartnell's face. He didn't have really fat cheeks like that.
I wasn't aware of the OG posting, but did wonder while watching the episode whether the Baker featured in the drawing was Tom or Colin.
However, I have to agree that I didn't recognise the top-right face as Hartnell's - I assumed that it was an (equally inaccurate) rendition of Chris Eccleston, which would sort of make sense - all the other faces shown being the Doctor's most recent (or most recently televised!) incarnations.
Did anyone notice that when the girl with the balloon was walking along, the music that was playing was the same style music from the Sylvestor McCoy Doctor Who series Remembrance of the Daleks, also when the girl appeared.
Yes, I know that - but Martha knew its significance. So why didn`t she keep it on chain around her neck or something?
Exactly. Dosey mare.
Anyhoo..........overall it was still an excellent episode.:)
I agree - it was certainly the best episode so far for me and the scarecrow monsters were a very nice touch. They'd have freaked me out when I was little.
Firstly it makes no sense for people to say that the little boy is Captain Jack Harkness as it was established in series 1 that CJH originates from the 51st century
Secondly unless you come up with some complicated slowing down of age theory the doctors "baby" can't be Saxon as he is only about 40 whereas he would have to be in his 90's to have been born in 1913
Thirdly when Martha replies to the boy "not now tim" she is doing so in 1913 not the future so there is nothing odd about it.
WOW, look at the poll, its taking off for this episode.
Just three small things I didn't like,
Martha moaning about the Doctor falling in love with a human that wasn't her.
I didn't mind that. It would be a bit gut wrenching if you were in love with someone and had to watch them going all gooey over someone else.
Another mention of Rose.
Yes. Could've done without that. She was a lot prettier in that sketch though...
Comments
i think it will be somthing to do with Latimer as well. Mayeb he opens the watch and thee family smell it and latch onto him or something. There is something freaky about the Latimer boy as well. Those future flashes are really weird.
mm know what you mean...made quite an impression in the story..
Yes, I know that - but Martha knew its significance. So why didn`t she keep it on chain around her neck or something?
Anyhoo..........overall it was still an excellent episode.:)
A mere servant girl having a rather nice looking pocket watch? What better way to bring more interest to it?
Good idea
She could have worn it under her clothes, kept it in her pocket. Kept it locked in a box. Kept it safe in the Tardis.
It was just a minor thing that irked me at the time, but it didn`t really detract from the overall excellence of the episode.:)
Perhaps, it needed to be in close proximity to the Doctor, or start to loose his essence?
It's called plot development ;~}
Just three small things I didn't like,
Martha moaning about the Doctor falling in love with a human that wasn't her.
Another mention of Rose.
The doctor kissing (borderline for me this one)
Here is the synopsis of the book if anyone wants to see how next weeks epiosde may turnout.
Unlikely.
The First Doctor would have had to pick up a baby Susan in the 1940/1950's, somehow recognise this totally human baby (no Timelord DNA as her Grandfather was John Smith not the Doctor) as his Grandaughter and take her to Gallifrey (where humans were not allowed) to grow up.
I suppose it could be argued that Susan being human could have been a reason she and the Doctor had to leave Gallifrey though.
As to the theory that Latimer is a young Jack Harkness, this page suggests otherwise.
http://www.gavinbarkerassociates.co.uk/actors/jack-montgomery.htm
I wasn't aware of the OG posting, but did wonder while watching the episode whether the Baker featured in the drawing was Tom or Colin.
However, I have to agree that I didn't recognise the top-right face as Hartnell's - I assumed that it was an (equally inaccurate) rendition of Chris Eccleston, which would sort of make sense - all the other faces shown being the Doctor's most recent (or most recently televised!) incarnations.
Poor reasoning, thats like saying it was David Tennant.
I agree - it was certainly the best episode so far for me and the scarecrow monsters were a very nice touch. They'd have freaked me out when I was little.
Secondly unless you come up with some complicated slowing down of age theory the doctors "baby" can't be Saxon as he is only about 40 whereas he would have to be in his 90's to have been born in 1913
Thirdly when Martha replies to the boy "not now tim" she is doing so in 1913 not the future so there is nothing odd about it.
She could've kept it hidden then no-one would ever have known.
Of course, if she had then it wouldn't have been stolen and we wouldn't have this episode.
Not poor reasoning at all. The point is that John Smith and The Doctor might have the same body but they're not the same person.
I didn't mind that on this occasion.