[thebill-king]

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.

[Chris Davies]

Originally Posted by jamesp26

Nothing is really known about the play as far as i know? I've looked at 2 sources that tell me only that it is a lost play and that for many years it was believed to be an alternate name for another play."

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

Originally Posted by jamesp26

Hamlet is beleived to have been first performed in 1600, a year after this episode. It seems to fit in quite nicely with Shakespeare saying he wanted to write other things at the end and mentioning 'Hamnet'. I can't comment on the Sonnets but you have to appreciate that the chronology Shakespeare's life is always argued about and historians don't know enough to give exact details. IMHO, thats wnough to give the writers a bit of artistic license."

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.

Originally Posted by jamesp26

Is it widely known that he performed at everyone of his plays? Then you must be some amazing historian!"

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!

[CAMERA OBSCURA]

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.

[solgang]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

That's actually a very old technique.
I remember a programme showing how it was done from an old black and white film from the 1920s or 1930s I think. I believe it was a film about the great Chicago fire of 1897.

Pretty much the same technique, Just use different film of the same group of people several times and paste the different film sequences into one main film sequence of the location in different places to make it appear like a lot of people at the scene.
No CGI needed.

Although here in Doctor Who it was different in that the camera was moving if I remember correctly.

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

[Fizzbin]

Originally Posted by elpaw

I would have loved her to be played by Miranda Richardson.

(Would have also been another HP reference)

But would it really have been Prince Ludwig in disguise?

[PJ68]

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!!

[posh watch]

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!

[stevenalis]

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

[Chiaroscuro]

Originally Posted by eggshell

Slightly more geared to the kids this one although it would be nice and scary for them !!!

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.

Using a Harry Potter spell to see off the baddies, only in Dr Who !!!

Martha is a nicer person than Rose so she's not half as annoying although to be fair thats the way the Rose character was written. She was set up as somebody who got too carried away with the whole "thrill " aspect of being with the doctor and paid the price in the end.

Martha is altogether a more balanced person and its good to see her and the Doctor play off each other.

I don't have a problem with the Doctor going on about Rose (within reason) as I think thats far more realistic than forgetting her after one episode.

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

Not sure Rose is going to come back, I think this is about the Doctor eventually coming to appreciate Martha more. Although hopefully the luvvy dovey aspects won't surface again...one companion was enough !!!

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.

[taj500]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

They've even clarified that Doctor Who follows the same time travel rules as the film 'Back to the Future'. Which is going to make things a lot simpler to understand in the future.

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!

[cuppy_girl_17]

I didn't see anything to do with

Spoiler

Saxon

in yesterdays epi. Did anyone else?

[nyingy]

Originally Posted by Dave1979

This is the second time the Eternals (from Tom Baker story "Enlightment") have been mentioned in the new series (the ones who banished the Carronites) and RTD mentioned them as been involved in a time war in the 2006 Dr Who Annual.

Maybe they will turn up proper at some point?

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

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

[Evil Eye]

Originally Posted by Old Man 43

Can you imagine the bitch fight if Rose and Martha ever met.

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

[Evil Eye]

Originally Posted by Chris Davies

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

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

[Evil Eye]

Originally Posted by tj23

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!

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.

[nyingy]

Originally Posted by cuppy_girl_17

I didn't see anything to do with

Spoiler

Saxon

in yesterdays epi. Did anyone else?

Assuming

Spoiler

Mr Saxon

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

[lukieboi82]

quoted by evil eye
So, in last nights 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

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

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Chris Davies

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!

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).

[Tele addict]

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!

[Chiaroscuro]

Originally Posted by Histeria

1) The doc has had dozens of companions - some of whom have died nasty deaths. This one gets stuck somewhere nice with her family and lives happily ever after, and he harps on about her? Just sticks the craw a touch. Hrmph.

2) He did not love her.

*stick fingers in ears* Nonononononno. Not listening. Lalala.

</headsand>

One of these was an uber-genuis. The other was Martha.

Very good.

Best post of the thread.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Tele addict

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!

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

[Dangerman]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

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).

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.

[Mansun]

Originally Posted by Chris Davies

Where to start? Well, those witches were just embarrassing - here was a chance to do something innovative with the old stereotype, but instead they just raided a primary school dressing up box.

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.

What are the carrionites and what were they doing there?

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 are they called carrionites?

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.

How are they vanquished by Shakespeare reciting a few lines of poorly written poetry that would have embarrassed William Rees McGonagall?

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.

Why were the three 'leaders' trapped in their crystal rather than being sucked into the vortex?

Presumably a side-effect of the "spell" spoken by Shakespeare.

[cuppy_girl_17]

Originally Posted by nyingy

Assuming

Spoiler

Mr Saxon

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

Thankyou, nyingy.

[elpaw]

At least we didn't see Matha's family