Continuing on with the SM Star Wars/Star Trek plundering thoughts that have been wandering around: if Amy's quote in the Daily Heil is correct, it directly steals from/pays homage to Data's conversation with the Borg Queen in "First Contact"...I know several children whose enjoyment of the entire film was spoiled by the assault on their morals that that particular scene contained and have never ever watched Star Trek again in any of its forms, opting instead for "Heartbeat" or perhaps "Larkrise to Candleford" if they're a little older.

The childre in my house will not be subjected to such things. I'll tell them that the BBC has moved Dr Who to 7.25 pm (which they will easily believe, because the scheduling of Dr Who has been abysmal). I will watch Dr Who myself before my children watch it, and just end the show 5 minutes earlier. I urge all other parents to do exactly the same

Surely the actual show tonight won't show this kissing and larking about stuff. Surely we need a MASSIVE DOG of Graham Norton to pop up to cover the screen at exactly the right time...

(See I knew I shouldn't have complained last week )

In all seriousness (yeah, sorry, bringing the mood down and all that) this is an attitude that I wish those who complain would actually adopt. Doctor Who has always been a show that skirts the border of what is appropriate for kids, usually very successfully indeed, but if you have ANY doubts then pre-watch it and then let your kids watch it. A friend of mine has a five year old that loves the show but he'd never dream of letting her watch it without checking it first as some stuff can be very very scary (last week's Angel from the TV was a classic example) and he wants to judge it for himself. Personal responsibility folks, it's a crazy idea but it just might work!

What is this? Torchwood?!

NO, if it was Torchwood, Dr would be kissing Rory...

No, no, no: we all are well aware that The Doctor never featured in Torchwood and therefore as an analogy this is completely flawed...

...as for parental responsibility towards what children do and don't watch: oh how I laughed at the concept. I remember my parents speaking about parental responsibility in the 1970's but in the 21st Century the responsibility is to complain that teachers, television, alcohol and cigarette manufacturers, the police and pretty much everyone else are not doing a good enough job of looking after their children...after all, as parents, they are far too busy to do anything on this front themselves.

Mind you: as ever I would like to thank the Daily Heil for publishing frame by frame images of the disgusting scene in order for children to enjoy at their leisure at a later date
Last edited by JohnFlawbod : 01-05-2010 at 12:24

Even that would be preferable to what I suspect will offend our eyeballs.

The sheer incongruity of it is what bothers me:


Utterly ridiculous. Never mind Norton. At this rate Moffat is in serious danger of ruining his own episode without anyone else's help.

What is all this about, anyway?

Ridiculous? Really? Because it's actually a real, recognized clinical condition.

Edit - Oops, sorry, forgot the link:http://tiny.cc/v5ouc

Have no children to think of, unable to think of my pets, because I haven't got any of those either - I could clutch my pearls instead if that's a viable option.

As I see it, this is a scene which maybe takes 30-45 seconds.
Also the Doctor holds of Amy AND sees that this might ruin the history of the universe, so it an important scene

Also of course for all the men who wanted to see a bit more up the mini-skirts of Amy, including me - YEP

Hmmm - so if someone had said to you that TBB contained a big silver fish thing with a whole country (more or less) stuck on it prior to your viewing of the context of this you would have reached your own conclusions negatively or positively then? Honestly - you and the Daily Heil have an awful lot in common if you're going to shriek to prejudgement in this ridiculous fashion. By all means complain after you have seen the episode, but why talk about context and through around phrases like "Utterly ridiculous" when you have no idea what the context is?

Because even the scenario sticks in my craw. Imagine the end of Seeds of Doom. The Dr turns to SJS and says 'that was close' and SJS says 'yeah, right, now let's have sex'. It's preposterous and totally unnecessary. Everyone I've mentioned tonight's scene to has said 'oh no, FFS!'.

That's because you are making up your own (crude) context of it helped by that Daily Fail article. I think the scene will be seen as less 'daring' once we see the proper context

yes lol


Chances are the usual suspects who tend to say that about Rose and Martha, won't about this...because a few of them have never had a problem with the Girl in the Fireplace, or River in Silence in the Library....they often are quick to say that the Doctor shouldn't be seen as sexual creature....but say that in those two cases (river/reinetter) it works....



That is what I've said before too...there is not much in Amy, excpet for the fact that she wears a short skirt, that harks back to the classic series...Donna's relationship was more in tune with the classic series than Amy's....



I agree...



Not fact at all.....if anything TEH was a mix of RTD and Moff's style...things Moff had already used in many of his stories already, with the whole world being at threat scenario similar to RTD's style. The Beast Below, was very much in RTD's story telling style...with poilitical subtext....which Moff hasn't done since the Empty Child...and even that one was about sexual politics...while RTD's tends to be about general politics. The Victory of the Daleks was a shopping list type of story that RTD used to give to writers like Helen Raynor, and the Time of the Angels...is Blink and The Silance in the Library with extra twists.....


So nope, not that far from the RTD era at all. The things that hark back to the classic series are the exterior of the Tardis, and the way Matt's Doctor is....but that is about it. And yes if Moff wanted to write Time of the Angels during RTD era...it would have happend, because RTD didn't control what went into Moff's scripts as much he did with other writers....Moff had the ideas and he asked if he could do that...and RTD would most likely say yes, blind-folded.



Very well put....I agree it fits with her crazy character...


Well not many compliants so far on here.....

Again, see my above post, it's not preposterous, it's supported by real psychological reactions to tragedy / disaster, fits Amy's character and makes sense within the context of the story. If you personally don't like it and don't think it fits within Doctor Who then fine, that's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it, but please don't pretend there's nothing in the real world to support it and it comes out of left field with no warning as it's clearly setup that Amy

^^^This!

I couldn't care less about the real life psychological verisimilitude of Amy wanting to rummage in the Dr's pants having fought off the Angels. It just doesn't happen to fit within Dr Who. It's a TV programme. It doesn't have to slavishly obey real-life scenarios. The fact Amy just wants


makes it even worse, IMO. Is she the village bike of Leadworth that everyone's had a ride on?

The 'context' of Dr Who is that it's a sci-fi/fantasy programme put out in the early evening with a popular audience of a lot of young children. Dr Who should remain Dr Who, not try and turn itself into Hollyoaks. If Moffat can't create storylines that don't involve such nonsense that I'm going to have serious second thoughts about his suitability as the programme's show runner. In the 60s, 70s and 80s we had companion after companion that didn't want to screw the Doctor and now since it's been reintroduced 3 out of 4 of them do. Don't try and tell me that it's necessary as it simply isn't.

Everything seems to be a 'recognised clinical condition' nowadays. If you can't resist the urge to shag anything that moves, you're a sex addict or have self esteem issues. If a kid is continually disruptive at school, they're hyperactive or have attention deficit disorder. If you can't pass the sweet counter in Tesco without nicking something, you're a kleptomaniac. Isn't it wonderful that society has invented so many unassailable excuses for bad behaviour?

Crap give me the number for Tiger Woods Doctors in america quick before I have a self esteem attack and "Dance" with the first person I see in a club*



PS Yes I was taking the michael about any sex addiction.

Ah, I see, you're projecting so hard we could point you at the wall and use you to show off powerpoint presentations, got it.

Doctor Who has ALWAYS reflected the times around it and if it pretended that it was still the 80's it'd fail in a season. Fact is sex is now utterly integrated into our world, kids are FAR more comfortable and switched on to the concept than they were when I was growing up and TV needs to acknowledge and adapt to this to stay relevant. Frankly I'd have said that the scene under discussion is actually less shocking in real terms than... oh, let's say Peri's introduction? Or Leela's outfit?

Should there be full on sex scenes in Doctor Who? No, that's ridiculous. Should there be acknowledgment that good looking gentlemen who radiate power and confidence tend to be attractive to members of the opposite sex? Hell yes provided it is done in a way that doesn't leave parents with too many awkward questions to answer which every single thing I've read from the Daily Fail article would indicate it covers nicely.

I mean, and call me crazy here, explaining to your child why someone would kiss the Doctor might actually be a good way of introducing them to the concept. Again, it all comes down to taking responsibility for what your children watch and making a decision on what's appropriate for them. But I've gotta say I hope Moffat never ever listens to the vocal minority because they clearly don't have the first clue about how to make a successful TV show in 2010 and would kill it off faster than a Weeping Angel in a blacked out room.

Exactly which part of 'Amy wants to screw the Doc the night before her wedding' makes it an integral ingredient of 'a successful TV show'?



The idea that you need to have every frigging companion leching and lusting after the Doctor is just dumb. And it has nothing to do with whether this is 1979 or 2010. Rose, Martha and now Amy. That's THREE out of the FOUR female companions since the start of the rebooted franchise. And it's not just dumb. It's stale. People like me will roll their eyes and think 'how predictable'.

Anyone else finding themselves wishing that Donna was still the comanion? just a mate and not wanting to mate??

**sigh**

Yeah, me. And did it harm series 4 at all, not having her wanting to fondle the Doctor's privates at the first opportunity? NO, it did not.