I think the references to Rose were just and needed in the episode. It draws references to last season which is often beneficial in helping people to understand.

I remember when the Doctor regenerated into Tennant and references were made to Series 1 so that people knew the Doctor was still the same person as CE, just a different face.

Although we have the same Doctor as Series two, It's still good to make references to the series to show that they follow on from each other in time but also that the Doctor is still the same person although he has a different assistant. He still cares for Rose etc.

Yes, the play itself is lost, but there are records of it having been performed.


That is correct for Shakespeare's version, but a version of Hamlet, written by Thomas Kyd, had already been performed and published long before Shakespeare's (it's often referred to as the 'ur-Hamlet'). So the play's name has nothing to do with that of Shakespeare's son. It's a misconception to think that Shakespeare sat around thinking up ideas for plays - most of his plays were taken from previously published sources.


Well no, he might not have been in every single performance (although we know that he took parts in his plays), but it is far more likely that he would have been on stage than waiting in the wings to bound on and take a bow as the 'author'.

I do realise that there is always going to be a fair amount of artistic licence, but these moments do tend to jar when you know a bit about the subject (and no, I'm not claiming to be an expert). But still, if it gets people finding out more about the life and work of our greatest playwright, then that's all to the good!
Last edited by Chris Davies : 08-04-2007 at 11:11

Is it me or does it seem like some regular FMs are creating double memberships?

It's a shame some people are determined to pick apart every second of the show and not able to just sit back and enjoy. It's not a history lesson, it's not a documentary, it's not some military drama set against a sci-fi backdrop...it's DR Who...FUN.

Last nights show was almost old school Dr Who in terms of script but with first class visuals.
Last edited by CAMERA OBSCURA : 08-04-2007 at 11:24

Oh wow, thanks for that Alrightmate, I didn't know it was such an established technique! Perhaps they shouldn't be harping on about it as so marvellous on "confidential" then! I remember one of them saying that they were having some long camera "swoops" which would pan over the non existent crowd.
I still think its amazing because a director must have such a vision of what it's going to look like in the end, and editing it all together must be a nightmare.

I haven't checked the whole thread Alrightmate so sorry if you have already posted this, but what did you think of the episode? *EDIT* Sorry, found your posts above stupid me
Last edited by solgang : 08-04-2007 at 11:17

But would it really have been Prince Ludwig in disguise?

i think i must be the only one who hated it.

the 'jokes' were TERRIBLE - 'modern' shakespeare jokes were done much better by tom stoppard in 'shakespeare in love' sorry

the make up on the witches was dreadful, as though someone had just stuck a cheap mask on them, the acting was bad (the witches in general and shakespeares gurning face when possessed) and the whole 'realeasing the others of the species into the world' was done err 2 episodes ago in runaway bride!!

Well now we know where the three witches of Mcbeth idea came from?

Hope they didn't blow all the budget on last nights episode as theres a long way to go in the series!

Excellent first contribution Tony Bear!! Bet it took ages to type that review

Constructive comments Tony such as why you went Zzzzzzzzzz might warrant more interest but there again you already provoked a response

Welcome to the cult Forum

Yes, I agree, I felt it was geared towards children. Found my attention drifting a couple of times, particularly at the end when it was supposed to be really exciting.

That's true - what was it that The Doctor said about Rose when he and Martha were lying on the bed? I missed it.

I read last year that David Tennant had commented that The Doctor and Rose's relationship would be like Steed and Mrs Peel's in The Avengers, but in my opinion it turned out to be nowhere near as subtle. I think if they were to try that approach with Martha it could work really well.

I have a question to do with the ending where Queen Elizabeth comes into the Globe. When you go back in time you can change the future like in Back to the Future...but the Doctor hasn't gone back in time to meet Elizabeth yet. So, yes, he WILL go back in time, and he WILL meet Elizabeth in the past BUT it hasn't happened yet. So the world is still in its previous state before the Doctor has met Elizabeth.

I hope I make sense, I'm a bit confused!

I didn't see anything to do with in yesterdays epi. Did anyone else?

Minor pedantry: Enlightenment was a Davison story, not a Baker one!

I'm a high school nyingy, and you're my favourite flavour

I think it might start like when Rose and Sarah Jane Smith met...only instead of lauiging and becoming friends, they would keep going and perhaps even start to fight

And what is to say it is the same play as was performed that night? We know Queen Elizabeth came to see Shapespeare after the performaces and wanted to see it again - how could Shakespeare really disappoint the Queen? He would perhaps have to show her a different play - after all, it was said she never really came to see his plays, so he could have out on another one to please here - perhaps further adding to the present day speculation that 'Love's Labour's Won' was an alternative name for a play we already know.


Just making it all fit together

No, because it is likely that the Doctor meeting Elizabeth I is a natural part of the hsitory which created the future that Martha knows.

Where it appears the future can be changed in if you were to travel back and try to do things which you know did not happen - like killing your Grandfather.

So, in last nigths episode, the Doctor had to save the day - the world wasnot destroyed at that point in time - he had to act to help stop everything - he was obviously meant to be there and do that. Otherwise something would happen which wasn't supposed to happena nd thus change the future.

Assuming exists in present day earth, and isn't a time traveller of any sort (as IF!), it's probably apt that there was no mention of him last night. I think that the story arc references in seasons 1 & 2 were temporally appropriate, given their nature.

Enola nyingy, you should have stayed at home yesterday
Last edited by nyingy : 08-04-2007 at 12:38

usually the TARDIS put the doctor where he needs to be, to correct any misplacement in the time line.

But i must admit i loved this episode, loved the HP reference, i thought that was a bit of a tease when DT said he's read the seventh book and he cried...

looking forward to next week's

Perhaps if you looked at Doctor Who as entertainment instead of an historical drama or documentary (which it is not), you would actually enjoy it?

As far as I know, it does not purport to be a drama with a close eye for detail in order to make it a totally exact representation of the period, neither (as mentioned by another poster) is it supposed to be a history lesson or programme (watch Time Team for that sort of thing).
Last edited by mossy2103 : 08-04-2007 at 12:44

I only caught one bit and that was when one of the doctor's heart stopped beating. He hit it and it stopped beating again. WTF? Talk about taking the mickey out of the whole thing!

Very good.

Best post of the thread.

Is that not a life-saving/emergency first-aid technique to restart a heart?

Also DW can never be accurate historical drama by simple virtue of the fact that the Doc is involved in all these historical events.

If however any viewer does wish to further explore the issues raised there are plenty of sources of material available , some of which are admittedly about as accurate as a DW script.

I think you're missing the point that these three aliens are supposed to have inspired the stereotype in the first place. If they had been purple blobs with three eyes then Shakespeare would have later described his witches as such, and our culture today would have countless images of witches as purple blobs with three eyes.
Explained in the episode - they're ancient powerful aliens trying to free the rest of their species from where they've been trapped and create "a new empire" on Earth. Their science is based around the manipulation of words and the effect they have on people's minds. They've chosen Shakespeare as he is the world's greatest wordsmith, and the shape of the theatre has been designed to their specifications so as to magnify the psychic effects of the words spoken there.
Why do you even need an answer to that? It just happens to be their name. It could be something to do with eating carrion if you want to get technical about it.
See above. Shakespeare was using their own science against them by speaking words which created the right effect or influence on the minds of the audience, thus creating psychic energy directed against the Carrionites.
Presumably a side-effect of the "spell" spoken by Shakespeare.

Thankyou, nyingy.

At least we didn't see Matha's family