Ahhhh so that explains why after the fail attempt of knocking out Sally (shame about that;)), they decide to stick to their old ways with their other victims!:D
Heh, not saying it was perfect, but there was kind of a logic there.
'Blink' is pretty tightly-plotted - sure, there are a few bits that don't quite work - e.g.
1) What happens when the lightbulb fails? And why did no-one think of that?
2) If 'any living creature' can freeze the angels, they'd never move at all as there's bound to be an insect/mouse/whatever looking at them at any given time...
3) Are we really to believe that the Doctor would have carried Sally's bulging dossier around with him at all times?
4) How did the TARDIS get from the police station to the cellar of the old mansion?
But none of that really matters...if the episode had a weakness, I'd say it was more a lack of depth over anything else.
Heh, not saying it was perfect, but there was kind of a logic there.
'Blink' is pretty tightly-plotted - sure, there are a few bits that don't quite work - e.g.
1) What happens when the lightbulb fails? And why did no-one think of that?
2) If 'any living creature' can freeze the angels, they'd never move at all as there's bound to be an insect/mouse/whatever looking at them at any given time...
3) Are we really to believe that the Doctor would have carried Sally's bulging dossier around with him at all times?
4) How did the TARDIS get from the police station to the cellar of the old mansion?
But none of that really matters...if the episode had a weakness, I'd say it was more a lack of depth over anything else.
Regards,
Cypher
I do really wish that I can one day get back to that point again when I watch it in the future sometime. I just wish I could get that nagging voice of that FM out of my head.
I agree with the lack of depth though, and that would have remained a weakeness of the story for me too, no matter what else was said about it by others.
FWIW I liked Blink immensely, and I also enjoyed Midnight: The difference for me between the two is that I found Blink suspenseful and exciting whereas Midnight was disturbing.
Blink is what I expect of Doctor Who... family TV entertainment; Midnight is what I expect of Sci-Fi writers like Heinlein or Cooper... thought provoking and believable.
I do think it is a credit to RTD and his team to make Midnight, but I don't think it had any more layers or depth than Blink, and I don't think Blink has any better characters in it that Midnight does.
Heh, not saying it was perfect, but there was kind of a logic there.
'Blink' is pretty tightly-plotted - sure, there are a few bits that don't quite work - e.g.
1) What happens when the lightbulb fails? And why did no-one think of that?
Perhaps they'll get Henry van Statten to fill the cellar with cement.
2) If 'any living creature' can freeze the angels, they'd never move at all as there's bound to be an insect/mouse/whatever looking at them at any given time...
Perhaps they'll get him to fill the cellar with ants.
3) Are we really to believe that the Doctor would have carried Sally's bulging dossier around with him at all times?
Nope, just when he went to 1969. :cool:
4) How did the TARDIS get from the police station to the cellar of the old mansion?
The angels flew it there with their wings whilst, erm, carefully avoiding the gaze of any flying insects...:o
But the REAL plothole is actually... *clears throat*
Sure you can't kill a statue... but can't you smash it to bits with a cricket bat??
2) If 'any living creature' can freeze the angels, they'd never move at all as there's bound to be an insect/mouse/whatever looking at them at any given time...
I actually thought that was a fairly big and obvious one. I thought it should have been explained away with a reference to sentience on the part of the onlooker.
The part that can't be explained away, and is thus best left ignored, is that fact that not blinking is impossible. I'm sure I'm not the only one who, while watching Blink, tries to alternate winks during the pertinent sections - and fails miserably after a few seconds. Possibly it could be done successfully with practice, but the chance of two people both successfully not blinking is effectively zero.
Girl In The Fireplace had the Doctor completely out of character, given the previous episode of School Reunion, where he showed that he had difficulties with relationships with companions, he chose to forge a relationship with someone who he knew was going to die very young.
What sells The Girl in the Fireplace to me is that it ends with the Doctor leaving the ship having no idea why the ship is so fixated on Madame de Pompadour above all others.
Then the camera view pulls back and reveals the ship's name to the viewers, and for once we know more than the Doctor. A very nice piece of telly.
I actually thought that was a fairly big and obvious one. I thought it should have been explained away with a reference to sentience on the part of the onlooker.
The part that can't be explained away, and is thus best left ignored, is that fact that not blinking is impossible. I'm sure I'm not the only one who, while watching Blink, tries to alternate winks during the pertinent sections - and fails miserably after a few seconds. Possibly it could be done successfully with practice, but the chance of two people both successfully not blinking is effectively zero.
I considered this problem myself. I reconciled it in my own head, that the Weeping Angels are only effected by being looked at by humans, or creatures that understand what statues are. People feel fear at their appearance, because people can understand the image of them and statues can be creepy at the best of times. Animals don't fear them because they don't comprehend what they are.
Maybe a bit of a tangent here, but I didn't want to start a new thread given it is a similar theme.
I've been trawling through a lot of Sylvester McCoy era dvds of late and it struck me that New Who has more in common with that era of classic who than I realised before.
The appearance of comedians and other celebrities
The development of the companion in more detail. The relationship between Ace and the Doctor was beginning to be developed quite strongly in the last season. From watching the extras, the development of Ace would have been very similar to how the modern companions are placed against the Doctor. I don't mean being in love with him, but in terms of status.
The Earth based stories feel a lot like some of those in new Who.
It actually makes the leap from old to new Who less jarring.
I actually really enjoyed the Black Guardian trilogy. Mawdryn Undead and Enlightenment are probably two of my fave Peter Davison stories. I even don't mind Terminus. I agree that Caves was great, but I've never quite got why it was seen as the classic it was.
As for Genesis of the Daleks, it's a great story and I'd probably put it up there as one of my faves - although I prefer Ark in Space. City of Death was just silly. Talons of Weng Chiang was great though.
Definitely agree about Mawdryn Undead and Enlightenment, I love them both. I still think Mawdryn Undead would have worked better if they'd have used Ian Chesterton rather than the Brigadier (I believe it was originally planned that William Russell reprise his role as Ian, who several years after parting company with the First Doctor, was now a teacher at the public school where Turlough was a pupil - but apparently, William Russell was unavailable, so it was decided that the teacher would instead be a now ex-Unit Lethbridge-Stewart), although it was still a thoroughly enjoyable tale.
Yes, City of Death was very silly, but it was a Douglas Adams type silliness, which is mainly what I love about it. I also like the great rapport in this story between the Fourth Doctor and Romana (although as the soon to be married Tom Baker and Lalla Ward were very much enamoured of each other at the time that great rapport is quite understandable). My feelings about City of Death are perfectly summed up by Paul Cornell, Keith Topping and Martin Day in the 1995 Doctor Who Discontinuity Guide:-
"Exquisite .. Absolutely exquisite. Witty, happy, plotted so hard that you can sing it, this is as gorgeous as 'This Old Heart of Mine' sung by the Isley Brothers outside your window on a spring morning while Emma Thompson gently massages your feet with aromatic oils. It's a pity that the rest of Doctor Who exists to make this story part of the bigger continuity, because it deserves to stand alone. Just when you think it can't get any better, John bloody Cleese appears."
Perhaps they'll get Henry van Statten to fill the cellar with cement. ;)Perhaps they'll get him to fill the cellar with ants. :DNope, just when he went to 1969. :cool:The angels flew it there with their wings whilst, erm, carefully avoiding the gaze of any flying insects...:o
But the REAL plothole is actually... *clears throat*
Sure you can't kill a statue... but can't you smash it to bits with a cricket bat??
Or give them a shove!!!!! But I guess hitting them with a cricket bat would be more fun:D
I actually thought that was a fairly big and obvious one. I thought it should have been explained away with a reference to sentience on the part of the onlooker.
The part that can't be explained away, and is thus best left ignored, is that fact that not blinking is impossible. I'm sure I'm not the only one who, while watching Blink, tries to alternate winks during the pertinent sections - and fails miserably after a few seconds. Possibly it could be done successfully with practice, but the chance of two people both successfully not blinking is effectively zero.
If you do manage to no blink yourself, then there is a chance you'll notice Larry blinking at one point when he is trying not too! Oh well!!:D
What sells The Girl in the Fireplace to me is that it ends with the Doctor leaving the ship having no idea why the ship is so fixated on Madame de Pompadour above all others.
Then the camera view pulls back and reveals the ship's name to the viewers, and for once we know more than the Doctor. A very nice piece of telly.
That is definitely my favourite thing about that story....it is more tragic than the letter that Reinette writes to the Doctor.
Maybe a bit of a tangent here, but I didn't want to start a new thread given it is a similar theme.
I've been trawling through a lot of Sylvester McCoy era dvds of late and it struck me that New Who has more in common with that era of classic who than I realised before.
The appearance of comedians and other celebrities
The development of the companion in more detail. The relationship between Ace and the Doctor was beginning to be developed quite strongly in the last season. From watching the extras, the development of Ace would have been very similar to how the modern companions are placed against the Doctor. I don't mean being in love with him, but in terms of status.
The Earth based stories feel a lot like some of those in new Who.
It actually makes the leap from old to new Who less jarring.
I think that probably more or less goes to show that if the series hadn't been cancelled, we may have still pretty much got what we got in the new series anyway eventually....SoI don't think RTD and co changed the show dramatically as some people feel....just evolved it....
I considered this problem myself. I reconciled it in my own head, that the Weeping Angels are only effected by being looked at by humans, or creatures that understand what statues are. People feel fear at their appearance, because people can understand the image of them and statues can be creepy at the best of times. Animals don't fear them because they don't comprehend what they are.
A perfectly sound explanation - and one I wish they'd stuck in, although shorter. (No offense meant, it would just be a lot of exposition to get through in dialogue).
I think that probably more or less goes to show that if the series hadn't been cancelled, we may have still pretty much got what we got in the new series anyway eventually....SoI don't think RTD and co changed the show dramatically as some people feel....just evolved it....
Or "intelligent designed" it, given that a number of evolutionary steps were skipped. I think though, the hiatus was needed (didn't have to be 16 years, mind you) to refresh it and not have people think "Oh god, is that thing still on?) After all, the original 1963-89 run is one of the longest in TV history (barring soaps) and 1963-2010 is just insane.
I remember loving The Chase as a youngster in the sixties, and then rushing out to get it on video in the nineties, only to find to my amazement that I found it a chore to re-watch.
Planet of the Daleks was one of my Pertwee stories. I particularly liked the idea of Terry Nation bringing back the Thals for the first time since his original Daleks story. I remember thinking at the time how good it was to see them again.
Of course, Nation brought the Thals back for the third and final time in Genesis of the Daleks, but seemed to make them a lot less pleasant (although these Thals were supposed to be the warlike ancestors of the later "pacifist" ones), which is possibly one of the reasons I don't share the enthusiasm for Genesis that so many other Classic Who fans have.
I'm not keen on Genesis of the Daleks either. In my case it was because I was brought up on the Dalek Chronicles and Genesis broke cannon – ok I know that the books/comics etc. aren't cannon and the TV series takes precedence, but try telling that to a 10 year old. As far I was concerned Dalek Chronicles came out first, that was the 'true' story. Never liked Davros too for the same reason.
I'm not keen on Genesis of the Daleks either. In my case it was because I was brought up on the Dalek Chronicles and Genesis broke cannon – ok I know that the books/comics etc. aren't cannon and the TV series takes precedence, but try telling that to a 10 year old. As far I was concerned Dalek Chronicles came out first, that was the 'true' story. Never liked Davros too for the same reason.
As far as I'm concerned, only the comics aren't canon because they don't try to adhere to what's established elsewhere. But if any comic story should have been, it would have been the Dalek Chronicles, I agree. Then again, Terry Nation wrote Genesis and he was the Daleks' creator, while David Whitaker wrote much of the Dalek strip despite Nation being credited, so maybe el Tel still has the better claim...
A perfectly sound explanation - and one I wish they'd stuck in, although shorter. (No offense meant, it would just be a lot of exposition to get through in dialogue).
Or "intelligent designed" it, given that a number of evolutionary steps were skipped. I think though, the hiatus was needed (didn't have to be 16 years, mind you) to refresh it and not have people think "Oh god, is that thing still on?) After all, the original 1963-89 run is one of the longest in TV history (barring soaps) and 1963-2010 is just insane.
Ah, but you have to read it out loud very quickly as if you are the Doctor saying it, but drowned out by over booming music from Murray Gold so the audience will be hard pushed to get the explanation anyway, and have to re-watch the scene.
I think though, the hiatus was needed (didn't have to be 16 years, mind you) to refresh it and not have people think "Oh god, is that thing still on?) After all, the original 1963-89 run is one of the longest in TV history (barring soaps) and 1963-2010 is just insane.
Tell that to the guy who plays Ken Barlow in Coronation Street. He's been on TV since 1960.
Soaps are a different genre, which is why I specified non-soap in my post. There are, or were until the last year or so, American soaps going back to the 1930s, having started on radio and moving to TV in the 1950s.
In non-soaps, Doctor Who's original run is exceptional, with only a few shows even close, while a continuous 1963-2010 run would be completely unprecedented.
A perfectly sound explanation - and one I wish they'd stuck in, although shorter. (No offense meant, it would just be a lot of exposition to get through in dialogue).
Or "intelligent designed" it, given that a number of evolutionary steps were skipped. I think though, the hiatus was needed (didn't have to be 16 years, mind you) to refresh it and not have people think "Oh god, is that thing still on?) After all, the original 1963-89 run is one of the longest in TV history (barring soaps) and 1963-2010 is just insane.
Yes in the end the Hiatus was good for the show definitely. I do hope that they do continue with the gap year thing too....especailly at a time when maybe like this year there are huge changes taking place production wise....and keeping the show fresh.
The only good thing about Fear Her was the very beginning with the Doctor parking the TARDIS facing the wrong way, emerging and saying "ah!" and then re-parking it the right way!
And the "this is a council axe, from a council van, smashing up a council road" guy was funny I guess...
The idea that an alien could be that tiny was an interesting one too, just badly executed.
My problem with both Fear Her and The Idiot's Lantern is that they suffered because they were moved forward because of the loss of the Stephen Fry episodes.
Fear Her was supposed to have been made in series/season three. Both of them had good ideas at the core but neither were as developed as they should have been.
Soaps are a different genre, which is why I specified non-soap in my post. There are, or were until the last year or so, American soaps going back to the 1930s, having started on radio and moving to TV in the 1950s.
In non-soaps, Doctor Who's original run is exceptional, with only a few shows even close, while a continuous 1963-2010 run would be completely unprecedented.
I wasn't trying to contradict your point. I was just writing a funny line in response to tingramretro's post.
Tell that to the guy who plays Ken Barlow in Coronation Street. He's been on TV since 1960.
And there's also Last of the Summer Wine, that's now been running for 37 years plus and the legend that is Peter Sallis has been in it from the start.
Then there's The Sky at Night which has been running for something like 52 years with the same presenter.
Blue Peter's been running for a gazillion years (give or take ).
And now the Simpsons is on it's 22nd year.
In it's genre (whatever that might be), Doctor Who's original run was pretty impressive but it's been eclipsed by a number of other shows for longevity. That takes nothing away from the series though, 26 years still makes it the worlds longest running Sci-Fi show and I doubt that will ever be beaten as TV has changed a lot in recent years and anything about 6 or 7 years old is consider to be a veteran show.
Comments
Heh, not saying it was perfect, but there was kind of a logic there.
'Blink' is pretty tightly-plotted - sure, there are a few bits that don't quite work - e.g.
1) What happens when the lightbulb fails? And why did no-one think of that?
2) If 'any living creature' can freeze the angels, they'd never move at all as there's bound to be an insect/mouse/whatever looking at them at any given time...
3) Are we really to believe that the Doctor would have carried Sally's bulging dossier around with him at all times?
4) How did the TARDIS get from the police station to the cellar of the old mansion?
But none of that really matters...if the episode had a weakness, I'd say it was more a lack of depth over anything else.
Regards,
Cypher
I do really wish that I can one day get back to that point again when I watch it in the future sometime. I just wish I could get that nagging voice of that FM out of my head.
I agree with the lack of depth though, and that would have remained a weakeness of the story for me too, no matter what else was said about it by others.
Blink is what I expect of Doctor Who... family TV entertainment; Midnight is what I expect of Sci-Fi writers like Heinlein or Cooper... thought provoking and believable.
I do think it is a credit to RTD and his team to make Midnight, but I don't think it had any more layers or depth than Blink, and I don't think Blink has any better characters in it that Midnight does.
But that's just me....
D
But the REAL plothole is actually... *clears throat*
Sure you can't kill a statue... but can't you smash it to bits with a cricket bat??
I actually thought that was a fairly big and obvious one. I thought it should have been explained away with a reference to sentience on the part of the onlooker.
The part that can't be explained away, and is thus best left ignored, is that fact that not blinking is impossible. I'm sure I'm not the only one who, while watching Blink, tries to alternate winks during the pertinent sections - and fails miserably after a few seconds. Possibly it could be done successfully with practice, but the chance of two people both successfully not blinking is effectively zero.
Then the camera view pulls back and reveals the ship's name to the viewers, and for once we know more than the Doctor. A very nice piece of telly.
I considered this problem myself. I reconciled it in my own head, that the Weeping Angels are only effected by being looked at by humans, or creatures that understand what statues are. People feel fear at their appearance, because people can understand the image of them and statues can be creepy at the best of times. Animals don't fear them because they don't comprehend what they are.
I've been trawling through a lot of Sylvester McCoy era dvds of late and it struck me that New Who has more in common with that era of classic who than I realised before.
The appearance of comedians and other celebrities
The development of the companion in more detail. The relationship between Ace and the Doctor was beginning to be developed quite strongly in the last season. From watching the extras, the development of Ace would have been very similar to how the modern companions are placed against the Doctor. I don't mean being in love with him, but in terms of status.
The Earth based stories feel a lot like some of those in new Who.
It actually makes the leap from old to new Who less jarring.
Definitely agree about Mawdryn Undead and Enlightenment, I love them both. I still think Mawdryn Undead would have worked better if they'd have used Ian Chesterton rather than the Brigadier (I believe it was originally planned that William Russell reprise his role as Ian, who several years after parting company with the First Doctor, was now a teacher at the public school where Turlough was a pupil - but apparently, William Russell was unavailable, so it was decided that the teacher would instead be a now ex-Unit Lethbridge-Stewart), although it was still a thoroughly enjoyable tale.
Yes, City of Death was very silly, but it was a Douglas Adams type silliness, which is mainly what I love about it. I also like the great rapport in this story between the Fourth Doctor and Romana (although as the soon to be married Tom Baker and Lalla Ward were very much enamoured of each other at the time that great rapport is quite understandable). My feelings about City of Death are perfectly summed up by Paul Cornell, Keith Topping and Martin Day in the 1995 Doctor Who Discontinuity Guide:-
"Exquisite .. Absolutely exquisite. Witty, happy, plotted so hard that you can sing it, this is as gorgeous as 'This Old Heart of Mine' sung by the Isley Brothers outside your window on a spring morning while Emma Thompson gently massages your feet with aromatic oils. It's a pity that the rest of Doctor Who exists to make this story part of the bigger continuity, because it deserves to stand alone. Just when you think it can't get any better, John bloody Cleese appears."
Or give them a shove!!!!! But I guess hitting them with a cricket bat would be more fun:D
If you do manage to no blink yourself, then there is a chance you'll notice Larry blinking at one point when he is trying not too! Oh well!!:D
That is definitely my favourite thing about that story....it is more tragic than the letter that Reinette writes to the Doctor.
I think that probably more or less goes to show that if the series hadn't been cancelled, we may have still pretty much got what we got in the new series anyway eventually....SoI don't think RTD and co changed the show dramatically as some people feel....just evolved it....
A perfectly sound explanation - and one I wish they'd stuck in, although shorter. (No offense meant, it would just be a lot of exposition to get through in dialogue).
Or "intelligent designed" it, given that a number of evolutionary steps were skipped. I think though, the hiatus was needed (didn't have to be 16 years, mind you) to refresh it and not have people think "Oh god, is that thing still on?) After all, the original 1963-89 run is one of the longest in TV history (barring soaps) and 1963-2010 is just insane.
I'm not keen on Genesis of the Daleks either. In my case it was because I was brought up on the Dalek Chronicles and Genesis broke cannon – ok I know that the books/comics etc. aren't cannon and the TV series takes precedence, but try telling that to a 10 year old. As far I was concerned Dalek Chronicles came out first, that was the 'true' story. Never liked Davros too for the same reason.
Ah, but you have to read it out loud very quickly as if you are the Doctor saying it, but drowned out by over booming music from Murray Gold so the audience will be hard pushed to get the explanation anyway, and have to re-watch the scene.
Tell that to the guy who plays Ken Barlow in Coronation Street. He's been on TV since 1960.
And without a regeneration!
Soaps are a different genre, which is why I specified non-soap in my post. There are, or were until the last year or so, American soaps going back to the 1930s, having started on radio and moving to TV in the 1950s.
In non-soaps, Doctor Who's original run is exceptional, with only a few shows even close, while a continuous 1963-2010 run would be completely unprecedented.
Yay! Was beginning to think I was the only one
Yes in the end the Hiatus was good for the show definitely. I do hope that they do continue with the gap year thing too....especailly at a time when maybe like this year there are huge changes taking place production wise....and keeping the show fresh.
I like Fear her too!!!!:)
And the "this is a council axe, from a council van, smashing up a council road" guy was funny I guess...
The idea that an alien could be that tiny was an interesting one too, just badly executed.
Fear Her was supposed to have been made in series/season three. Both of them had good ideas at the core but neither were as developed as they should have been.
I wasn't trying to contradict your point. I was just writing a funny line in response to tingramretro's post.
And there's also Last of the Summer Wine, that's now been running for 37 years plus and the legend that is Peter Sallis has been in it from the start.
Then there's The Sky at Night which has been running for something like 52 years with the same presenter.
Blue Peter's been running for a gazillion years (give or take
And now the Simpsons is on it's 22nd year.
In it's genre (whatever that might be), Doctor Who's original run was pretty impressive but it's been eclipsed by a number of other shows for longevity. That takes nothing away from the series though, 26 years still makes it the worlds longest running Sci-Fi show and I doubt that will ever be beaten as TV has changed a lot in recent years and anything about 6 or 7 years old is consider to be a veteran show.