Remember that light flare as the Doctor was trying to convince Amy to let him out of being tied to the car - could it have been a copy of the crack opening and closing, because of the choice Amy made there?

Haven't found a post on this particular thing yet...

I took it to be something to do with the atraxi's sun blocking scheme.

it was very odd....struck me straight away!!!

could be acrack,,,has anyone noticed whether the shape of it is similar or not?

Yes, I am really intrigued about this. I know some people have suggested it's just down to screen flare, and means nothhing, but I think it's too obvious to not be something, the way it suddenly appears and then goes.

Didn't they say in that episodes confidential both the slowmo and the flare were for the effect of Amy finally starting to believe?

Could have just made that up of course

I'm pretty sure it's just a stylised bit of lens flare... but I'd love to be proved wrong! It's certainly one of many things that didn't add up in that episode!

It is to do with the slow motion and light flare. They even said as much in DWC. That they got a weird effect that looked sort of spiritual.

I hope it does have something to do with the plot, otherwise it's just there and looks completely ridiculous.

I don't think it does look ridiculous. It looks beautiful and adds to the moment when things slow down for Amy. It sort of makes a connection to The Doctor. They decided to leave it in for that reason.

I didn't think it looked ridiculous. I thought it was quite stylish and dramatc.

Would be nice if it turned out to be a key driving point of the story which we had all missed. After all, there's meant to be something in ep.1 that gives the game away ...

Gotta love fans! Nothing can be there for thematic or artistic reasons!

... or by mistake!

I'm sure Moffat will be berated for not explaining it by the end of the series, when there is nothing to be explained.

If Moffat can provide me with a thematic and artistic reason for the red-eye that usually ruins the photos I take of friends and family I would be very grateful..

Perhaps they really do have red eyes? The camera isn't fooled by the perception filters they have placed on themselves, so the true colour comes through...

Like!

Was that a joke??

If not then: *FACEPALM*

Was what bit a joke, it being an accident or it being deliberate? When I saw it I thought, whoa..terrible lens flare, why did they leave that in, because that's exactly what it looked like...didn't look like a deliberate special effect, looked like lens flare.

Moffat I believe made some statement to the effect that it was deliberate and was supposed to represent some etheral connection being made between Amy and the Doctor, but down to personal choice as to whether you believe that or not, unless it's one of those things that suddenly become relevant in the finale.

At the moment of the lens flare (34:30 on the iplayer) the back of amy's head and the doctors face are briefly bathed in orange/yellow light. I think the lens flare is a result of this light source being introduced, and I think the light source is supposed to be both an unintentional side affect of the atraxi's attempts to block out the sun, and simultaneously symbolic of Amy's developing trust in the doctor. It can be both things at once.

Throughout the series the crack has been indicated by white or electric blue light. Whilst the lens flare is blue, the glowing light that created it above the doctor and amys head is orange so as far as I'm concerned it is not related to the crack.

Have to say I agree that there is nothing to explain - however I could be wrong but I would be suprised.

Was what a joke?

Just a bit of post prod mucking about. Tardis blue flowing from the Doctor's half of the screen to Amy's. Not actuallly really there, just hammering home that they've clicked. Didn't look in any way accidental. Part of Moffat's desire for the series to feel "fairy tale". Artistic licence, not a scifi element.

Not to my taste - I prefer these things left to the actors to convey. Using their faces. I remember in Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo makes a sudden grab for the ring from Frodo. They overlaid an "evil bilbo" rubber/cgi face for a split second to emphasise that his desire for the ring has got the better of him for a moment. Looked a bit silly and the pity is that Ian Holm was perfectly capable of making his own face go all evil for a moment. (Jackson's desire for a "made you jump" moment overcame him I feel.). He made a similar mistake in King Kong with the use of slow-mo in the "billy elliot overhears they're going to skull island" moment. Distracting post prod trickery. But here the blue light was just a moment and didn't make me wince, just a bit "laying it on with a trowel". Anyhoo neither Jackson nor Moffat phone me for my opinion on these things and that's probably for the best....

Also, not doing it would have saved us from a "how does this fit with the arc"? chat as well. So, Moffat - save our sanity and just leave the actors to act this stuff! (joke! chat away, folks!)

But they do cos that's the colour of the retina, innit?

Does it matter , mind you I analyzed the dr's behviour in "doomsday" so It does matter really ax:

It was a fairytale-esq moment of realisation - per. The Moff.