well ... it started well , had some good humor and tension , but there was very little story and not much happened , it just fizzled out .
some good spooky bits , but mostly disappointing .
I don't know what it is about Gatiss , whenever he talks about stuff he's right on the money , but his actual stories are always lacking .
Amy and Rory - ok , I know its a given that characters in
series will conveniently forget about stuff not germane to the plot , but it's like the bggest elephant in the room ever - she's just had a baby , it's been kidnapped , she should be going berserk trying to find her !
Amy and Rory - ok , I know its a given that characters in
series will conveniently forget about stuff not germane to the plot , but it's like the bggest elephant in the room ever - she's just had a baby , it's been kidnapped , she should be going berserk trying to find her !
Er, how exactly? She's already found her, remember? She knows what happened to her. She knows the kid grew up without her finding her. She knows that trying to alter that would be futile as it's already happened. And she knows that Melody, as River, is fine. It was all sorted out last week.
The scene in the kitchen when The Doctor explains just exactly who he really is to the Dad. 'I'm not just a professional, I'm The Doctor' and the whole speech that follows shows Matt Smith in all his glory. This is Matt Smith's Doctor. This is the The Doctor that shone in series 5 that the show runner has mostly chosen to ignore in series 6.
Scenes like that are pure RTD -era.That moment when, even as life long viewers, for a few seconds we are told exactly why we should be in awe at The Doctor, by The Doctor himself.
Eccleston and Tennant were given dialogue and moments like this regularly, Matt Smith rarely. Still, as long a Amy/Rory/River Song and the arc are sorted who cares what The Doctor does eh? For all The Doctors been worth in series 6 so far he might has well just stayed in the Tardis with his feet up giving directions to Amy, Rory and River via a walkie talkie.
At least we saw The Doctor being The Doctor in this episode.
Great stuff, and a stunning performance from Matt Smith.
I still think Matt does not have quite as much gravitas to his performances as say Ecclestone. BUT I had expected he would have developed this by series 6, if he had been allowed.
I liked his performance last night very much. It was quirky, charming, and yes centre stage. Really I don't know why Moffat has shoe-horned himself and his ridiculous "story" and grandiose arc ideas into Dr Who. I wish he'd just go away and let the Doctor breathe and live and be Doctory all over the Universe, including council estates, sleepy market towns, planets made of diamonds, passing space ships and the end of the universe. And yes, with daleks. (Now and then.)
As it is generally accepted that this episode was supposed to have been shown earlier this series, hence no references to what took place in LKH, I am wondering what was the point in switching the episodes around in the first place. Does anyone know why? It dosen't make sense to me as it has given rise to some (albeit minor) continuity issues.
Really I don't know why Moffat has shoe-horned himself and his ridiculous "story" and grandiose arc ideas into Dr Who.
Because he's the principal writer and if he didn't 'shoehorn' his stories in, you'd have 45 minutes of Matt Smith reading the paper every Saturday, which might not be enought to keep the attention of the several million people who rather like what Moffat's doing.
You're right there was some classic 11th Doctor stuff in there, but odd that you think it doesn't happen that much because IMO there have been a lot of moments where this Doctor has shown he's unpredctable and can switch from bumbling to menacing to manic in a heartbeat, which can stop the conversation dead (or take it in another direction entirely) or make the others wary of him for a second or simply reminds them he's not an ordinary bloke.
Oh I dare say you are right, and there are at least a few Matt Smith gems in each episode, but as with this episode Matt Smith, for me, shines when the character of The Doctor isn't bogged down in the series 'arc' or is taking a backseat, I rarely get the feeling that The Doctor is in charge but is just a background character. I would loved to see Matt Smith in a series that has the diversity of an RTD series, by diversity I mean complete change in tone and style in all depts. As a viewer that has long lost all interest in everything involving the multi series arc, the only highlight is Matt Smith and the odd good stand alone arc free episode. I've no doubt if you are enjoying the arc then there will be far more Matt Smith moments but for these, for me, are soured by not caring a jot about the situation The Doctor is in.
Er, how exactly? She's already found her, remember? She knows what happened to her. She knows the kid grew up without her finding her. She knows that trying to alter that would be futile as it's already happened. And she knows that Melody, as River, is fine. It was all sorted out last week.
when does she say this ?
I mean that would be a devastating moment , a mother realising -and more weirdly - believing that she won't see her child for many years , that would be a big scene .
no , she would be desperate to be with her child .
but if its as you described then it's just ridiculous , that would be an unbelievable way to resolve that story .
Paradise Towers was not a bad story. I think it gets a lot of undeserved criticisim.
The relief of "finally no mention of river song" - She has only appeared in 4 out of the 9 episodes so far this series hardly overkill considering she is a major plot point. Also it could be argued that TIA & DOTM were more heavily focussed on the Doctors story.
Also I find it quite insulting to state SM has held Matt Smith back. He has been consistant in the role since he took over and ultimately all the story arcs come back to him being the main focus. I mentioned earlier that in my opinion Matt Smiths performance propelled this episode from Average to Good. That is not really a compliment to Night Terrors.
i think the ratings are good and timeshift will mean it will overtake red or black. to be honest red or black was not that great and i suspect viewers will drop off towards end of week. glad strictly is the lead in next week. that averages 10 million, so a very strong chance of high overnights next week...;)
I mean that would be a devastating moment , a mother realising -and more weirdly - believing that she won't see her child for many years , that would be a big scene .
no , she would be desperate to be with her child .
but if its as you described then it's just ridiculous , that would be an unbelievable way to resolve that story .
Did you not watch last weeks? After being taken to the orphange and spending years there, young Melody ended up in New York, as seen in Day of the Moon, and then eventually regenerated into Mels, who grew up in Leadworth as little Amy's best friend, whom she eventually paradoxcally named the baby after without realizing they were the same person (which is why the Doctor said "you named your daughter after your daughter"). It was resolved. It was all there, spelled out in last week's episode. The story is over. What did you think happened?
. BUT I had expected he would have developed this by series 6, if he had been allowed.
I liked his performance last night very much. It was quirky, charming, and yes centre stage. Really I don't know why Moffat has shoe-horned himself and his ridiculous "story" and grandiose arc ideas into Dr Who. I wish he'd just go away and let the Doctor breathe
Again I waffle on and someone puts it into a few lines.
I genuinely feel Matt Smith has been let down greatly by Moffat's arc vision of series 6. One of my biggest disappointments with series 6 has been, apart from 2 episodes, just at how little The Doctor has progressed beyond the story arc. IMO there has been one excellent stand alone (The Doctor Wife) and one good standalone (Night Terrors) and in both,the character at the forefront? The Doctor.
I mean that would be a devastating moment , a mother realising -and more weirdly - believing that she won't see her child for many years , that would be a big scene .
no , she would be desperate to be with her child .
but if its as you described then it's just ridiculous , that would be an unbelievable way to resolve that story .
I think a lot of people are forgetting that despite not raising there daughter in a conventional way they grew up with her and were part of those "Rites of Passage" moments from toddler to adult.
I am looking at this as though there has been no major loss.
I mean that would be a devastating moment , a mother realising -and more weirdly - believing that she won't see her child for many years , that would be a big scene .
no , she would be desperate to be with her child .
but if its as you described then it's just ridiculous , that would be an unbelievable way to resolve that story .
This was all clearly dealt with in LKH with the Mels plot. They can't raise Melody without causing a whole bunch of paradoxes.
I still think Matt does not have quite as much gravitas to his performances as say Ecclestone. BUT I had expected he would have developed this by series 6, if he had been allowed.
I liked his performance last night very much. It was quirky, charming, and yes centre stage. Really I don't know why Moffat has shoe-horned himself and his ridiculous "story" and grandiose arc ideas into Dr Who. I wish he'd just go away and let the Doctor breathe and live and be Doctory all over the Universe, including council estates, sleepy market towns, planets made of diamonds, passing space ships and the end of the universe. And yes, with daleks. (Now and then.)
I think that Matt Smith has really grown into the role. I was one of those who moaned about him being too young to play the Doctor when he was first picked, and I must say I really did not think he was all that great in series 5, but he has been outstanding in series 6. He now embodies the Doctor for me, which I never thought I would say.
As for the story Arc, I usually enjoy these arcs, but I feel that this year's River Song arc has just taken over too much. I love the character of River Song, but it's all about her this year, to the detriment of the Doctor, imo. Stephen Moffat plans next year to be more "stand alone" in it's content and I am really looking forward to seeing what he does with that.
Did you not watch last weeks? After being taken to the orphange and spending years there, young Melody ended up in New York, as seen in Day of the Moon, and then eventually regenerated into Mels, who grew up in Leadworth as little Amy's best friend, whom she eventually paradoxcally named the baby after without realizing they were the same person (which is why the Doctor said "you named your daughter after your daughter"). It was resolved. It was all there, spelled out in last week's episode. The story is over. What did you think happened?
Indeed, it was quite clear. Last week Amy *did* find Melody as a young child, and brought her up for twenty years, by being her responsible best friend.
She's lived through Melody's life save for a brief bit in New York and the orphanage at the beginning, and after she's given the Doctor her regenerations, by which time she's a full grown adult.
Matt Smiths performance propelled this episode from Average to Good. That is not really a compliment to Night Terrors.
Completely agree, but that is what a good Doctor does isn't it?, it is what the character of The Doctor and the actors that have played him do with an 'average' episode, they take it up a gear. Where I do disagree is, whilst taking into account the many episodes since 'An Unearthly Child', that an 'average' episode isn't really a bad complement in my eyes. And in the context of series 6 my own personal opinion is that 'Night Terrors' is an above average episode, made even better by Matt Smith.:)
It could have been realy good but I think there wasn't enough time spent in the dollshouse building the tension. Useless stuff between the landlord and Danny Mays - kind of just stretched the episode out a bit further.
If the Doctor and Danny Mays has come to the cuckoo conclusion a bit earlier and been pulled into the closet within the first 15 minutes it would have been a lot better I think. Good idea, the direction helped I just think there wasn't enough meat on the story so it got stretched over the 45 minutes.
I think I might try and avoid teasers and set pictures with episodes like this later on. I had seen too much of the dolls. If I had little idea of what was coming it would have been better.
Did you not watch last weeks? After being taken to the orphange and spending years there, young Melody ended up in New York, as seen in Day of the Moon, and then eventually regenerated into Mels, who grew up in Leadworth as little Amy's best friend, whom she eventually paradoxcally named the baby after without realizing they were the same person (which is why the Doctor said "you named your daughter after your daughter"). It was resolved. It was all there, spelled out in last week's episode. The story is over. What did you think happened?
if that's the resolution its dreadful .
I don't know what happens , but I strongly suspect that there's a lot more to it than that .
also you said :
She knows the kid grew up without her finding her.
Indeed, it was quite clear. Last week Amy *did* find Melody as a young child, and brought her up for twenty years, by being her responsible best friend.
She's lived through Melody's life save for a brief bit in New York and the orphanage at the beginning, and after she's given the Doctor her regenerations, by which time she's a full grown adult.
Phazer
I have to disagree. I don't think the matter of Amy and Rory losing their newborn daughter is resolved at all. There is no way you can equate being someone's best friend for 20 years with bringing up your own child. For Amy, she lost her baby, and I don't think she will be happy until she gets her baby back.
At the orphanage, my take on what the Doctor said was that River had to be left on her own, to make her own way for now. He did not say that it was the end of the matter. Amy and Rory have never said that they have given up looking for Melody. Their best friend is a Timelord, with a Time Machine - and Amy herself has said on more than one occasion that "time can be rewritten", so I, for one, think this matter is far from being over.
If what you say is true, then that would make Amy and Rory out to be heartless creatures, and I don't think that is the case. I hope not, anyway. :
Completely agree, but that is what a good Doctor does isn't it?, it is what the character of The Doctor and the actors that have played him do with an 'average' episode, they take it up a gear. Where I do disagree is, whilst taking into account the many episodes since 'An Unearthly Child', that an 'average' episode isn't really a bad complement in my eyes. And in the context of series 6 my own personal opinion is that 'Night Terrors' is an above average episode, made even better by Matt Smith.:)
You are right but the problem for me is that because the show is so fantastic and in my opinion goes from strength to strength the bar is being continually raised. Therefore what I rank as average now may have been an excellent a few years ago
I was wondering, as I've never lived in rented flats, is it still normal (post-Rachman that is) for an old-fashioned landlord complete with growling dog to own and live in a block that size? I would think all blocks are either local authority or housing association these days. Or maybe i'm just getting it all wrong. Not that it's particularly important, it just struck me as a bit of an anachronism.
It is rare for private landlords to live on site. Turning up and expecting access to a property without agreeing an appointment with a tenant is illegal, which it not to say that it doesn't happen. These days the main problem with private landlords is not too much contact but too little. Some people don't even know who their landlord really is and are left trying to persuade some dodgy agency to sort out problems. Of course agencies are classic middle men, they get paid by both sides and do as little work for it as they can get away with.
Having said all that, the thing about anachronisms is that they happen more than drama acknowledges. A very common mistake made in drama is to make everything bang up to date for the time it is set. I am thinking of the episodes of Poirot set in the late 1920s where everything is glittering Art Deco or International Style. That might have been what was on show in the Ideal Homes Exhibition of the time but very few people would have had it in their homes and even those who did would not have had it consistently throughout.
It is the same with people. At any given time there will be lots of people who have attitudes and behaviours harking back to the recent past rather than keeping up with the latest ideas. Not everybody who wears an old t-shirt is being consciously "retro". A landlord who hasn't noticed that this is the 21st century yet? Not common, but I am sure some exist.
I have to disagree. I don't think the matter of Amy and Rory losing their newborn daughter is resolved at all. There is no way you can equate being someone's best friend for 20 years with bringing up your own child. For Amy, she lost her baby, and I don't think she will be happy until she gets her baby back.
At the orphanage, my take on what the Doctor said was that River had to be left on her own, to make her own way for now. He did not say that it was the end of the matter. Amy and Rory have never said that they have given up looking for Melody. Their best friend is a Timelord, with a Time Machine - and Amy herself has said on more than one occasion that "time can be rewritten", so I, for one, think this matter is far from being over.
If what you say is true, then that would make Amy and Rory out to be heartless creatures, and I don't think that is the case. I hope not, anyway. :
I think you'll be disappointed. Amy and Rory are never going to get baby back. She's now well on the way to becoming River Song and Melody lost her power to regenerate in order to deal with her death to save Ten. I can't see the need now to find her as a baby. Amy & Rory are not heartless creatures and it was hardly a normal pregnancy. Rory didn't even know he was going to be a father.
Comments
some good spooky bits , but mostly disappointing .
I don't know what it is about Gatiss , whenever he talks about stuff he's right on the money , but his actual stories are always lacking .
Amy and Rory - ok , I know its a given that characters in
series will conveniently forget about stuff not germane to the plot , but it's like the bggest elephant in the room ever - she's just had a baby , it's been kidnapped , she should be going berserk trying to find her !
Er, how exactly? She's already found her, remember? She knows what happened to her. She knows the kid grew up without her finding her. She knows that trying to alter that would be futile as it's already happened. And she knows that Melody, as River, is fine. It was all sorted out last week.
I still think Matt does not have quite as much gravitas to his performances as say Ecclestone. BUT I had expected he would have developed this by series 6, if he had been allowed.
I liked his performance last night very much. It was quirky, charming, and yes centre stage. Really I don't know why Moffat has shoe-horned himself and his ridiculous "story" and grandiose arc ideas into Dr Who. I wish he'd just go away and let the Doctor breathe and live and be Doctory all over the Universe, including council estates, sleepy market towns, planets made of diamonds, passing space ships and the end of the universe. And yes, with daleks. (Now and then.)
I seem to recall it was to do with having a "lighter" episode tonally in the first half of the series.
Because he's the principal writer and if he didn't 'shoehorn' his stories in, you'd have 45 minutes of Matt Smith reading the paper every Saturday, which might not be enought to keep the attention of the several million people who rather like what Moffat's doing.
Oh I dare say you are right, and there are at least a few Matt Smith gems in each episode, but as with this episode Matt Smith, for me, shines when the character of The Doctor isn't bogged down in the series 'arc' or is taking a backseat, I rarely get the feeling that The Doctor is in charge but is just a background character. I would loved to see Matt Smith in a series that has the diversity of an RTD series, by diversity I mean complete change in tone and style in all depts. As a viewer that has long lost all interest in everything involving the multi series arc, the only highlight is Matt Smith and the odd good stand alone arc free episode. I've no doubt if you are enjoying the arc then there will be far more Matt Smith moments but for these, for me, are soured by not caring a jot about the situation The Doctor is in.
when does she say this ?
I mean that would be a devastating moment , a mother realising -and more weirdly - believing that she won't see her child for many years , that would be a big scene .
no , she would be desperate to be with her child .
but if its as you described then it's just ridiculous , that would be an unbelievable way to resolve that story .
The relief of "finally no mention of river song" - She has only appeared in 4 out of the 9 episodes so far this series hardly overkill considering she is a major plot point. Also it could be argued that TIA & DOTM were more heavily focussed on the Doctors story.
Also I find it quite insulting to state SM has held Matt Smith back. He has been consistant in the role since he took over and ultimately all the story arcs come back to him being the main focus. I mentioned earlier that in my opinion Matt Smiths performance propelled this episode from Average to Good. That is not really a compliment to Night Terrors.
Did you not watch last weeks? After being taken to the orphange and spending years there, young Melody ended up in New York, as seen in Day of the Moon, and then eventually regenerated into Mels, who grew up in Leadworth as little Amy's best friend, whom she eventually paradoxcally named the baby after without realizing they were the same person (which is why the Doctor said "you named your daughter after your daughter"). It was resolved. It was all there, spelled out in last week's episode. The story is over. What did you think happened?
Again I waffle on and someone puts it into a few lines.
I genuinely feel Matt Smith has been let down greatly by Moffat's arc vision of series 6. One of my biggest disappointments with series 6 has been, apart from 2 episodes, just at how little The Doctor has progressed beyond the story arc. IMO there has been one excellent stand alone (The Doctor Wife) and one good standalone (Night Terrors) and in both,the character at the forefront? The Doctor.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that despite not raising there daughter in a conventional way they grew up with her and were part of those "Rites of Passage" moments from toddler to adult.
I am looking at this as though there has been no major loss.
This was all clearly dealt with in LKH with the Mels plot. They can't raise Melody without causing a whole bunch of paradoxes.
I think that Matt Smith has really grown into the role. I was one of those who moaned about him being too young to play the Doctor when he was first picked, and I must say I really did not think he was all that great in series 5, but he has been outstanding in series 6. He now embodies the Doctor for me, which I never thought I would say.
As for the story Arc, I usually enjoy these arcs, but I feel that this year's River Song arc has just taken over too much. I love the character of River Song, but it's all about her this year, to the detriment of the Doctor, imo. Stephen Moffat plans next year to be more "stand alone" in it's content and I am really looking forward to seeing what he does with that.
Indeed, it was quite clear. Last week Amy *did* find Melody as a young child, and brought her up for twenty years, by being her responsible best friend.
She's lived through Melody's life save for a brief bit in New York and the orphanage at the beginning, and after she's given the Doctor her regenerations, by which time she's a full grown adult.
Phazer
Completely agree, but that is what a good Doctor does isn't it?, it is what the character of The Doctor and the actors that have played him do with an 'average' episode, they take it up a gear. Where I do disagree is, whilst taking into account the many episodes since 'An Unearthly Child', that an 'average' episode isn't really a bad complement in my eyes. And in the context of series 6 my own personal opinion is that 'Night Terrors' is an above average episode, made even better by Matt Smith.:)
It could have been realy good but I think there wasn't enough time spent in the dollshouse building the tension. Useless stuff between the landlord and Danny Mays - kind of just stretched the episode out a bit further.
If the Doctor and Danny Mays has come to the cuckoo conclusion a bit earlier and been pulled into the closet within the first 15 minutes it would have been a lot better I think. Good idea, the direction helped I just think there wasn't enough meat on the story so it got stretched over the 45 minutes.
I think I might try and avoid teasers and set pictures with episodes like this later on. I had seen too much of the dolls. If I had little idea of what was coming it would have been better.
if that's the resolution its dreadful .
I don't know what happens , but I strongly suspect that there's a lot more to it than that .
also you said :
what proof is there of that ?
I have to disagree. I don't think the matter of Amy and Rory losing their newborn daughter is resolved at all. There is no way you can equate being someone's best friend for 20 years with bringing up your own child. For Amy, she lost her baby, and I don't think she will be happy until she gets her baby back.
At the orphanage, my take on what the Doctor said was that River had to be left on her own, to make her own way for now. He did not say that it was the end of the matter. Amy and Rory have never said that they have given up looking for Melody. Their best friend is a Timelord, with a Time Machine - and Amy herself has said on more than one occasion that "time can be rewritten", so I, for one, think this matter is far from being over.
If what you say is true, then that would make Amy and Rory out to be heartless creatures, and I don't think that is the case. I hope not, anyway.
You are right but the problem for me is that because the show is so fantastic and in my opinion goes from strength to strength the bar is being continually raised. Therefore what I rank as average now may have been an excellent a few years ago
well this is dr. who , they did re-create the universe last year !
besides - what paradoxes ? they could still find her raise her and at some point she goes off and does the stuff we've already seen .
Huh??
Well no because she would then essentially just be Melody Pond and never become River Song.
No River Song would mean the Dr would be killed in the silence of the library 2 parter.
This would mean no Dr landed in Amelias back garden. Meaning she never ended up in the Tardis and conceived Melody Pond in the Tardis.
In fact look at turn left. There would probably be no universe left....
It is rare for private landlords to live on site. Turning up and expecting access to a property without agreeing an appointment with a tenant is illegal, which it not to say that it doesn't happen. These days the main problem with private landlords is not too much contact but too little. Some people don't even know who their landlord really is and are left trying to persuade some dodgy agency to sort out problems. Of course agencies are classic middle men, they get paid by both sides and do as little work for it as they can get away with.
Having said all that, the thing about anachronisms is that they happen more than drama acknowledges. A very common mistake made in drama is to make everything bang up to date for the time it is set. I am thinking of the episodes of Poirot set in the late 1920s where everything is glittering Art Deco or International Style. That might have been what was on show in the Ideal Homes Exhibition of the time but very few people would have had it in their homes and even those who did would not have had it consistently throughout.
It is the same with people. At any given time there will be lots of people who have attitudes and behaviours harking back to the recent past rather than keeping up with the latest ideas. Not everybody who wears an old t-shirt is being consciously "retro". A landlord who hasn't noticed that this is the 21st century yet? Not common, but I am sure some exist.
I think you'll be disappointed. Amy and Rory are never going to get baby back. She's now well on the way to becoming River Song and Melody lost her power to regenerate in order to deal with her death to save Ten. I can't see the need now to find her as a baby. Amy & Rory are not heartless creatures and it was hardly a normal pregnancy. Rory didn't even know he was going to be a father.