Discussion:
S5E6 Vampires of Venice
(too old to reply)
Agamemnon
2010-05-08 20:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From the plot revelations in this episode and the ones earlier it looks like
Steve Moffat is deliberately copying RTDs first season, but much, much
better.

RTD The Time Lords have been destroyed in a Time War with the Daleks and
this has had a catastrophic impact on the whole universe with diverse alien
races being wiped out too or turned into refugees. Voila, The Unquiet Dead.

SM The Time Lords have been destroyed in a Time War and the result of this
is a crack in the whole universe with diverse alien races being wiped out
too or turned into refugees. Voila, Vampires of Venice.

RTD We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, Vampires of Venice.

SM We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, The Beast Below.

RTD The Doctor has just regenerated, comes to earth, saves it from an alien
about to destroy it and finds a new assistant. Voila, Rose

SM The Doctor has just regenerated, comes to earth, saves it from an alien
about to destroy it and finds a new assistant. Voila, The Eleventh Hour

Obviously you could probably point out other similar examples from the
original series which would lead you to claim that the two new series are no
different but both the RTD and SM series have something else in common
linking them together.

I have concluded that both RTD and Steve Moffat are being forced to use a
Doctor Who Style Manual written by John Nathan Turner on the orders of
Michael Grade in order to appease Mary Whitehouse and the show's critics.

1) MW/MG The Doctor always subliminally convinces his assistants and
other people to sacrifice themselves for him. This is not a good example for
children.
JNT We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. Adric.
RTD We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. River Song, Donna (Turn Left).
SM We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake.

2) MW/MG The Doctor isn't human and shows no humanity. This is not a good
example for children.
JNT The Doctor must show more emotion. We'll make him show more
anger with the villain. But what if the villain isn't on screen. Ah, the
Doctor can show anger at his assistant too. Obviously he wants her to be the
best and if she doesn't live up to his expectation then he can shout at her.
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
RTD We'll make the Doctor show more anger, and if his assistant
isn't good enough he can be angry with her as well.
SM We'll make the Doctor him show more anger, both with the villain
and his assistant.

3) MG Doctor Who must be modernised.
JNT Make the assistant modern slang which the Doctor has no problem
understanding
Eric Sewell Make the show more American in style and introduce US
slang of course
RTD Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
SM Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style

4) MG The Doctor is too serious.
JNT Get the Doctor to play the spoons and clown around
Eric Sewell Make the Master camper than ever so the Doctor can play
it down
RTD Get the Doctor to do a shoe dance and clown around
SM Make the Doctor think he's Captain Jack Sparrow

5) MG Doctor Who must appeal to and portray ordinary people
JNT Give the Doctor a juvenile delinquent for his assistant
Eric Sewell Give the Doctor a teenage gang member to look out for
RTD Make Doctor Who into a soap opera. Give his assistant a
boyfriend and a family.
SM Give the Doctor's assistant a boyfriend, friends and relatives

6) MG The Doctor always gets it on with the rules of alien planets but he
never behaves like that with the leaders of Earth.
JNT The Doctor gets it on with the Queen
RTD The Doctor gets it on with the Queen, in fact several of her
SM The Doctor gets it on with the Queen

and so on and so forth.

Now lets get down to today's story.

It felt to me like it had been written and filmed as a two parter and half
the material had been cut out to make it shorter, with it jumping from one
scene to a different one without any explanation of what happened in between
and how the people got to know what they knew or to be where they were. For
example, the Doctor pops out of a wedding cake. What happened to the story
about how he got in it? In the next scene Rory (Amy's boyfriend, if that
isn't his name) is right inside the TARDIS. How did he get there? Where was
it parked? And after that they all end up bumping into trouble all over the
place with no proper explanation of how they got there. This is not story
telling. It's set piece after set piece and for this reason Vampire of
Venice his is the weakest story of the season so far.

Knowing that, why did they choose a scene from the weakest story of the
season to promote the series on the Jonathan Ross show, and not only that,
they also chose the weakest scene in the whole story and series so far, the
Johnny Depp impersonation in the cellar, and made some cuts to it which made
it look even worse. Um and how can houses built on water have cellars, won't
they be flooded all the time?

The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one
basket. Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
mirror at him? And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?

9/10
solar penguin
2010-05-08 21:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
RTD We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
Eh? What? Pardon? Sorry? I could've sworn Vampires of Venice was
set in Venice, not on a space station. And what does RTD have to do
with it?
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Agamemnon
2010-05-08 21:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
RTD We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
I mean The Long Game
Post by solar penguin
Eh? What? Pardon? Sorry? I could've sworn Vampires of Venice was
set in Venice, not on a space station. And what does RTD have to do
with it?
It wasn't even an RTD story.
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
solar penguin
2010-05-08 22:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
No. Saward can be blamed for a lot of things, but not the TVM.

It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
any combination of them.
The Doctor
2010-05-08 22:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
No. Saward can be blamed for a lot of things, but not the TVM.
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
any combination of them.
Correct SP.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
UK Time for a Common Sense change vote Liberal Democrat / Alliance
Agamemnon
2010-05-08 22:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
No. Saward can be blamed for a lot of things, but not the TVM.
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was Eric
Saward
Post by solar penguin
any combination of them.
The Doctor
2010-05-08 22:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
No. Saward can be blamed for a lot of things, but not the TVM.
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was Eric
Saward
Post by solar penguin
any combination of them.
Sounds like a line from State of Decay.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
UK Time for a Common Sense change vote Liberal Democrat / Alliance
Agamemnon
2010-05-08 22:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
No. Saward can be blamed for a lot of things, but not the TVM.
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was Eric
Saward
Post by solar penguin
any combination of them.
Sounds like a line from State of Decay.
Consonantal shift you mean.

Segal > Sewell > Sawell > Eric Saward
The Doctor
2010-05-08 22:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Who's he? The TVM was created by Matthew Jacobs and Peter Ware.
Eric Saward I mean. I thought he was the one behind the TVM.
No. Saward can be blamed for a lot of things, but not the TVM.
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was Eric
Saward
Post by solar penguin
any combination of them.
Sounds like a line from State of Decay.
Consonantal shift you mean.
Segal > Sewell > Sawell > Eric Saward
Exactly ; you got the point.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
UK Time for a Common Sense change vote Liberal Democrat / Alliance
marc_CH
2010-05-08 23:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was Eric
Saward
This would be the same Aggy who once said he was never wrong about
anything, would it?
--
marc

"Wrong. The anus was made to shit, not to fuck. Now if someone decided
to fuck their guitar instead of using it to play music, that would be
immoral." -- Aggy
The Doctor
2010-05-08 23:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marc_CH
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
It was produced by Peter Ware, written by Matthew Jacobs, script-
edited by Jessica Clothier and executive-produced (is that even a
verb?) by Philip David Segal, Alex Beaton and Jo Wright. Pick and mix
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was Eric
Saward
This would be the same Aggy who once said he was never wrong about
anything, would it?
Please do not start a flame war.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.facebook.com/dyadallee
UK Time for a Common Sense change vote Liberal Democrat / Alliance
solar penguin
2010-05-09 17:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by marc_CH
Post by Agamemnon
Ah, Segal. That's it. I took his name for Sewell and thought he was
Eric Saward
This would be the same Aggy who once said he was never wrong about
anything, would it?
In the words of Samuel Goldwyn - "I'm willing to admit that I may not
always be right, but I am never wrong."
Tim Bruening
2017-02-27 16:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
At the end of the episode, the fish lady leader commits suicide by jumping into male fish infested waters with her perception filter set on "human". Why can't she just assume fish vampire form and mate with the males? She looks young enough to still be fertile.
Tim Bruening
2018-01-16 22:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
roach
2018-01-16 22:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
Venus' Prick?
The Doctor
2018-01-16 22:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Daniel60
2018-01-17 13:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
--
Daniel

The three Ages of Man ....

1. Man believes in Santa Claus!!
2. Man does not believe in Santa Claus!!
3. Man IS Santa Clause!!
The Doctor
2018-01-17 15:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
Post by Daniel60
--
Daniel
The three Ages of Man ....
1. Man believes in Santa Claus!!
2. Man does not believe in Santa Claus!!
3. Man IS Santa Clause!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Tim Bruening
2018-01-17 15:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice
The Doctor
2018-01-17 23:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice
I know. Does Dan?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Tim Bruening
2018-01-18 05:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice
I know. Does Dan?
He will as soon as he reads my link!
Daniel60
2018-01-18 11:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice
I know. Does Dan?
He will as soon as he reads my link!
Didn't need it, Tim, but thanks!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-01-18 12:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice
I know. Does Dan?
He will as soon as he reads my link!
We shall see.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Daniel60
2018-01-18 11:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
I'm guessing "The Merchant of Venice" was "The Merchant of Venice".

Am I wrong, idiot??
--
Daniel
The Doctor
2018-01-18 12:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Daniel60
Post by Tim Bruening
Was the title derived from "The Merchant of Venice"?
No.
How do you know this, idiot??
What was the Merchant of Venice?
I'm guessing "The Merchant of Venice" was "The Merchant of Venice".
Am I wrong, idiot??
Carry on.
Post by Daniel60
--
Daniel
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Timothy Bruening
2018-04-29 02:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The Doctor
2018-04-29 14:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Our envy of others devours us most of all. -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Timothy Bruening
2018-04-29 21:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
The Doctor
2018-04-29 22:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Our envy of others devours us most of all. -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Timothy Bruening
2018-04-29 22:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
The Doctor
2018-04-29 23:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Our envy of others devours us most of all. -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-16 03:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear in near future!
The Doctor
2018-05-16 13:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
Daniel60
2018-05-16 14:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
"No", WHAT, idiot?? "No, that *didn't* imply that Earth's water would
disappear in near future!"??
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-16 17:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
Combined sentence: "But lots of water outside Venice, for very little time.". This would imply that Earth's water would disappear shortly.
The Doctor
2018-05-16 21:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
Combined sentence: "But lots of water outside Venice, for very little
time.". This would imply that Earth's water would disappear shortly.
The are trying to sink Venice.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Mistakes are the portals of discovery. -James Joyce
Daniel60
2018-05-17 08:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
Combined sentence: "But lots of water outside Venice, for very little
time.". This would imply that Earth's water would disappear shortly.
The are trying to sink Venice.
Who were trying to sink Venice, idiot??
--
Daniel
Timothy Bruening
2018-05-17 12:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
Combined sentence: "But lots of water outside Venice, for very little
time.". This would imply that Earth's water would disappear shortly.
The are trying to sink Venice.
Who were trying to sink Venice, idiot??
Fish vampires.
The Doctor
2018-05-17 13:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
Combined sentence: "But lots of water outside Venice, for very little
time.". This would imply that Earth's water would disappear shortly.
The are trying to sink Venice.
Who were trying to sink Venice, idiot??
Fish vampires.
Those creatures.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
He will live ill who does not know how to die well. -Seneca
Daniel60
2018-05-17 13:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Daniel60
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Post by The Doctor
Post by Timothy Bruening
Why did Venice have to sink to save aliens?
The villians were all water breathers!
But lots of water outside Venice!
For very little time.
Aliens come to steal our water?
Or drown some people.
I said "But lots of water outside Venice!". You responded "For very
little time.". To me, that implied that Earth's water would disappear
in near future!
No.
Combined sentence: "But lots of water outside Venice, for very little
time.". This would imply that Earth's water would disappear shortly.
The are trying to sink Venice.
Who were trying to sink Venice, idiot??
Fish vampires.
Really!! Why??
--
Daniel
Phil Bowles
2010-05-08 22:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
From the plot revelations in this episode and the ones earlier it looks like
Steve Moffat is deliberately copying RTDs first season, but much, much
better.
First? It's very similar to the plot strand in season 4, and handled
about as well for the most part - it even has the same basic premise
that a planet's been 'lost' and the survivors are causing havoc on
Earth as they try to rebuild their race (my first thought was Fires of
Pompeii). The main difference is that Moffatt seems to be aiming for a
story arc that actually progresses over the course of the year, rather
than one that just drops hints for twelve episodes and then something
happens. The final scene of this episode was well-done in arc terms.

However, having said that, Moffatt himself seems to have been much
clumsier in handling the story arc in his stories - he has the same
tired cliches that the villains always know what the Doctor doesn't
when they have no conceivable reason to, random unsubtle insertions of
key catchphrases like "Pandorica" and blatant images of cracks showing
up everywhere. Not surprising, perhaps, as Whithouse has more
experience with arc-driven storytelling than Moffatt as far as I know.
Post by Agamemnon
SM The Time Lords have been destroyed in a Time War and the result of this
is a crack in the whole universe with diverse alien races being wiped out
too or turned into refugees. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
We don't yet know what caused the cracks - it's likely to be something
to do with Amy directly (so, more similar to Donna's 'coincidences' or
Rose's Bad Wolf references), not the Time War.
Post by Agamemnon
RTD We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
Voila, Eleventh Hour - the only similarity between Smith & Jones and
Vampires of Venice is that there are alien vampires.
Post by Agamemnon
I have concluded that both RTD and Steve Moffat are being forced to use a
Doctor Who Style Manual written by John Nathan Turner on the orders of
Michael Grade in order to appease Mary Whitehouse and the show's critics.
That's a stretch - Moffatt's using RTD storytelling devices and plots
because the RTD formula was extremely popular. '80s Who was not.
Post by Agamemnon
1)    MW/MG The Doctor always subliminally convinces his assistants and
other people to sacrifice themselves for him. This is not a good example for
children.
        JNT We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. Adric.
        RTD We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. River Song, Donna (Turn Left).
        SM We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake.
It's not an original plot device to Dr Who in any era, and it's made
obvious so that the kids will get it. I thought it was done rather
well here - better than in Journey's End. My only qualm is that Rory
was the wrong character to deliver that speech at the time, simply
because he doesn't know the Doctor well enough and is working from all
of one example.
Post by Agamemnon
2)    MW/MG The Doctor isn't human and shows no humanity. This is not a good
example for children.
        JNT The Doctor must show more emotion. We'll make him show more
anger with the villain. But what if the villain isn't on screen. Ah, the
Doctor can show anger at his assistant too. Obviously he wants her to be the
best and if she doesn't live up to his expectation then he can shout at her.
        Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
        RTD We'll make the Doctor show more anger, and if his assistant
isn't good enough he can be angry with her as well.
        SM We'll make the Doctor him show more anger, both with the villain
and his assistant.
Another standard of drama - giving characters feelings the cast can
relate to. It was present in older Who as well - Tom Baker's character
sometimes got angry. Characters in Who past tended to show less
emotion generally than they do now, both because social convention at
the time was to be less overtly expressive and because the characters
simply weren't very well-drawn or well-played for the most part.
Post by Agamemnon
3)    MG Doctor Who must be modernised.
        JNT Make the assistant modern slang which the Doctor has no problem
understanding
        Eric Sewell Make the show more American in style and introduce US
slang of course
        RTD Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
        SM Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
Rather oddly, in SM's own Smith stories he tends to use slag which is
at least 20 years out of fashion.
Post by Agamemnon
4)    MG The Doctor is too serious.
        JNT Get the Doctor to play the spoons and clown around
        Eric Sewell Make the Master camper than ever so the Doctor can play
it down
        RTD Get the Doctor to do a shoe dance and clown around
        SM Make the Doctor think he's Captain Jack Sparrow
Just be thankful he didn't get his wish to dress him as Jack too. But
have you seen Smith in the Confidentials? He comes across as being
naturally rather camp, very tactile and with a habit of waving his
hands all over the place - he just brings that to his character. I
suspect that's what Moffatt meant by feeling he was exactly right for
the part he wanted for the Doctor.
Post by Agamemnon
5)    MG Doctor Who must appeal to and portray ordinary people
        JNT Give the Doctor a juvenile delinquent for his assistant
        Eric Sewell Give the Doctor a teenage gang member to look out for
        RTD Make Doctor Who into a soap opera. Give his assistant a
boyfriend and a family.
        SM Give the Doctor's assistant a boyfriend, friends and relatives
And make her a juvenile delinquent...
Post by Agamemnon
Now lets get down to today's story.
It felt to me like it had been written and filmed as a two parter and half
the material had been cut out to make it shorter, with it jumping from one
scene to a different one without any explanation of what happened in between
and how the people got to know what they knew or to be where they were.
Hmm? No, didn't get any sense of that at all - the story moved
naturally from each location to each other (save for the scenes
immediately before and after the title sequence).

For
Post by Agamemnon
example, the Doctor pops out of a wedding cake. What happened to the story
about how he got in it?
Aggy, it was done for laughs. If we'd been treated to an extended
buildup where the Doctor was planning to cakecrash Rory's party, it
wouldn't have been funny. We don't need to know or care how he
exchanged himself for the striptease.

In the next scene Rory (Amy's boyfriend, if that
Post by Agamemnon
isn't his name) is right inside the TARDIS. How did he get there?
Walked? There are lots of scenes in different episodes where the
characters are shown being in the TARDIS without having walked there -
and lots of episodes where time has moved on between the pre- and post-
title scenes.

Again, the pre-title scene was a joke scene - it existed only to set
up Rory's jealousy later in the story, and it ended at exactly the
right moment to avoid getting embarrassing as the Doctor tried to talk
his way out of the situation he'd put himself in.

Where was
Post by Agamemnon
it parked? And after that they all end up bumping into trouble all over the
place with no proper explanation of how they got there. This is not story
telling. It's set piece after set piece and for this reason Vampire of
Venice his is the weakest story of the season so far.
Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story? The last two weeks have given us random set piece
one after the other for no purpose other than landing the characters
into trouble - this is the one instalment so far (at least since
Eleventh Hour) with a coherent, consistent plot that leads from one
scene to another for the sake of progressing the story rather than
just ramping up the tension. Most of the action takes place within and
immediately around Rosanna's house for reasons given in the narrative,
where running into trouble is quite likely..
Post by Agamemnon
Knowing that, why did they choose a scene from the weakest story of the
season to promote the series on the Jonathan Ross show, and not only that,
they also chose the weakest scene in the whole story and series so far,
I was going to mention that - in context it's still a fairly weak
scene, but it works better now we know more of Smith's character. It
wasn't as silly as the swordfight or the hands-over-mouth scene,
though.
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one
basket.
It was set up - Whithouse knows how to write a sensible narrative,
laying hints about what's coming up throughout the early part of the
story, and introducing little that's extraneous to the plot. He was a
boatbuilder and took the explosives from his work, because he was
planning to use them to blow up the school - a plan the Doctor
boycotted.

Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
Post by Agamemnon
mirror at him?
Ever tried focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass? It was
already established they were harmed by sunlight - yes, this happened
absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.

And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.

Phil
Agamemnon
2010-05-09 04:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
From the plot revelations in this episode and the ones earlier it looks like
Steve Moffat is deliberately copying RTDs first season, but much, much
better.
First? It's very similar to the plot strand in season 4, and handled
about as well for the most part - it even has the same basic premise
that a planet's been 'lost' and the survivors are causing havoc on
Earth as they try to rebuild their race (my first thought was Fires of
Pompeii). The main difference is that Moffatt seems to be aiming for a
story arc that actually progresses over the course of the year, rather
than one that just drops hints for twelve episodes and then something
happens. The final scene of this episode was well-done in arc terms.

However, having said that, Moffatt himself seems to have been much
clumsier in handling the story arc in his stories - he has the same
tired cliches that the villains always know what the Doctor doesn't
when they have no conceivable reason to, random unsubtle insertions of
key catchphrases like "Pandorica" and blatant images of cracks showing
up everywhere. Not surprising, perhaps, as Whithouse has more
experience with arc-driven storytelling than Moffatt as far as I know.
Post by Agamemnon
SM The Time Lords have been destroyed in a Time War and the result of this
is a crack in the whole universe with diverse alien races being wiped out
too or turned into refugees. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
<<<We don't yet know what caused the cracks - it's likely to be something
to do with Amy directly (so, more similar to Donna's 'coincidences' or
Rose's Bad Wolf references), not the Time War.>>>

Hence RTD season 1 like I said.
Post by Agamemnon
RTD We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
I meant The Long Game

<<<Voila, Eleventh Hour - the only similarity between Smith & Jones and
Vampires of Venice is that there are alien vampires.>>>
Post by Agamemnon
I have concluded that both RTD and Steve Moffat are being forced to use a
Doctor Who Style Manual written by John Nathan Turner on the orders of
Michael Grade in order to appease Mary Whitehouse and the show's critics.
<<<That's a stretch - Moffatt's using RTD storytelling devices and plots
because the RTD formula was extremely popular. '80s Who was not.>>>

The RTD formula is straight from JNT's copy book, but done properly.
Post by Agamemnon
1) MW/MG The Doctor always subliminally convinces his assistants and
other people to sacrifice themselves for him. This is not a good example for
children.
JNT We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. Adric.
RTD We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. River Song, Donna (Turn Left).
SM We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake.
<<<It's not an original plot device to Dr Who in any era, and it's made
obvious so that the kids will get it. I thought it was done rather
well here - better than in Journey's End. My only qualm is that Rory
was the wrong character to deliver that speech at the time, simply
because he doesn't know the Doctor well enough and is working from all
of one example.>>>

Which is why I think there's a missing episode that was cut from between
Flesh and Stone and Vampires of Venise which was probably written as a two
parter
Post by Agamemnon
2) MW/MG The Doctor isn't human and shows no humanity. This is not a good
example for children.
JNT The Doctor must show more emotion. We'll make him show more
anger with the villain. But what if the villain isn't on screen. Ah, the
Doctor can show anger at his assistant too. Obviously he wants her to be the
best and if she doesn't live up to his expectation then he can shout at her.
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
Philip David Segal I meant. Got him mixed up with Eric Saward.
Post by Agamemnon
RTD We'll make the Doctor show more anger, and if his assistant
isn't good enough he can be angry with her as well.
SM We'll make the Doctor him show more anger, both with the villain
and his assistant.
<<<Another standard of drama - giving characters feelings the cast can
relate to. It was present in older Who as well - Tom Baker's character
sometimes got angry. Characters in Who past tended to show less
emotion generally than they do now, both because social convention at
the time was to be less overtly expressive and because the characters
simply weren't very well-drawn or well-played for the most part.>>>
Post by Agamemnon
3) MG Doctor Who must be modernised.
JNT Make the assistant modern slang which the Doctor has no problem
understanding
Eric Sewell Make the show more American in style and introduce US
slang of course
RTD Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
SM Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
<<<Rather oddly, in SM's own Smith stories he tends to use slag which is
at least 20 years out of fashion.>>>

All the more reason for not using it at all or if he has to use it, let it
be at least 100 years out of date or let him get it muddled up like Tom
Baker used to do with mixed metaphors.
Post by Agamemnon
4) MG The Doctor is too serious.
JNT Get the Doctor to play the spoons and clown around
Eric Sewell Make the Master camper than ever so the Doctor can play
it down
RTD Get the Doctor to do a shoe dance and clown around
SM Make the Doctor think he's Captain Jack Sparrow
<<<Just be thankful he didn't get his wish to dress him as Jack too. But
have you seen Smith in the Confidentials? He comes across as being
naturally rather camp, very tactile and with a habit of waving his
hands all over the place - he just brings that to his character. I
suspect that's what Moffatt meant by feeling he was exactly right for
the part he wanted for the Doctor.>>>

Talking about the Confidential. Who was supposed to be the Narrator this
week. It sounded like it was written for Whitehouse to narrate since it was
all first person. What went wrong?
Post by Agamemnon
5) MG Doctor Who must appeal to and portray ordinary people
JNT Give the Doctor a juvenile delinquent for his assistant
Eric Sewell Give the Doctor a teenage gang member to look out for
RTD Make Doctor Who into a soap opera. Give his assistant a
boyfriend and a family.
SM Give the Doctor's assistant a boyfriend, friends and relatives
<<<And make her a juvenile delinquent...>>>

More or less, same as Rose too.
Post by Agamemnon
Now lets get down to today's story.
It felt to me like it had been written and filmed as a two parter and half
the material had been cut out to make it shorter, with it jumping from one
scene to a different one without any explanation of what happened in between
and how the people got to know what they knew or to be where they were.
<<<Hmm? No, didn't get any sense of that at all - the story moved
naturally from each location to each other (save for the scenes
immediately before and after the title sequence).>>>

Nope. It kept jumping like all the linking material had been cut out, just
like it was from Whitehouse's previous story School Reunion.

For
Post by Agamemnon
example, the Doctor pops out of a wedding cake. What happened to the story
about how he got in it?
<<<Aggy, it was done for laughs. If we'd been treated to an extended>>>

Whitehouse can't do humour. That is easily seen from Being Human. The only
gag that made me laugh out loud was when the Doctor pulled out his massive
light wand and made a reference to penis size compared to Rory's who took
out a wand the size of a pea.

<<<buildup where the Doctor was planning to cakecrash Rory's party, it
wouldn't have been funny. We don't need to know or care how he
exchanged himself for the striptease.>>>

It would have been funnier because I was already expecting the Doctor to pop
out of the cake, and wishing he wouldn't because it was too obvious. If the
build up was covered then the humour would have come from the anticipation
of the expression on Rory's face.

Whitehouse can't do humour like I said before. Aristophanes always built up
his gags which obviously were going to happen from the basis of his previous
plays.

In the next scene Rory (Amy's boyfriend, if that
Post by Agamemnon
isn't his name) is right inside the TARDIS. How did he get there?
<<<Walked? There are lots of scenes in different episodes where the
characters are shown being in the TARDIS without having walked there -
and lots of episodes where time has moved on between the pre- and post-
title scenes.>>>

Walked or dragged?

<<<Again, the pre-title scene was a joke scene - it existed only to set
up Rory's jealousy later in the story, and it ended at exactly the
right moment to avoid getting embarrassing as the Doctor tried to talk
his way out of the situation he'd put himself in.>>>

Where was
Post by Agamemnon
it parked? And after that they all end up bumping into trouble all over the
place with no proper explanation of how they got there. This is not story
telling. It's set piece after set piece and for this reason Vampire of
Venice his is the weakest story of the season so far.
<<<Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story? The last two weeks have given us random set piece>>>

It was a good story. Gattis should have been the one writing this story too.
Whitehouse didn't get the period dialogue right either.

<<<one after the other for no purpose other than landing the characters
into trouble - this is the one instalment so far (at least since
Eleventh Hour) with a coherent, consistent plot that leads from one
scene to another for the sake of progressing the story rather than
just ramping up the tension.>>>

Nope. It's the other way round. All the previous episodes had coherent,
consistent plots baring the resolution of The Beast Below, but this story
was a series of loosely linked set pieces. The wedding cake, the light wand,
the mirror screen, the sword fight, the tower climb.

<<< Most of the action takes place within and
immediately around Rosanna's house for reasons given in the narrative,
where running into trouble is quite likely..>>>

Most of the action takes place off screen. That's why it's a series of set
pieces.
Post by Agamemnon
Knowing that, why did they choose a scene from the weakest story of the
season to promote the series on the Jonathan Ross show, and not only that,
they also chose the weakest scene in the whole story and series so far,
<<<I was going to mention that - in context it's still a fairly weak
scene, but it works better now we know more of Smith's character. It
wasn't as silly as the swordfight or the hands-over-mouth scene,
though.>>>

It works better now because the version on the Jonathan Ross show had the
plot sections cut from it. But it still doesn't work all that well. There is
no reason why Matt Smith should have gone into Johnny Depp mode, mirror,
vampires, vampires, mirror, funny jumping around to the exit by Smith. On
top of that the explanation about how the vampires reflection couldn't be
seen was should have come in the middle of that scene during he Johnny Depp
stuff and not in a later unconnected scene.

The sword fight was much more credible and I had no problem with it.
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one
basket.
<<<It was set up - Whithouse knows how to write a sensible narrative,>>>

No he doesn't. Being Human is full proof of that.

<<<laying hints about what's coming up throughout the early part of the
story, and introducing little that's extraneous to the plot. He was a>>>

Oh, you mean like the Doctor jumping out of the wedding cake, which was
obvious from the moment you saw the wedding cake, which would have been
better if it was Amy as a kissagram and the Doctor popping up a few seconds
later beside her, which could have been done if they spent more time on the
build up.

<<<boatbuilder and took the explosives from his work, because he was
planning to use them to blow up the school - a plan the Doctor
boycotted.>>>

What were explosives doing in a boatyard. You don't need explosives to build
ships.

Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
Post by Agamemnon
mirror at him?
<<<Ever tried focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass? It was>>>

Yes?

<<<already established they were harmed by sunlight - yes, this happened>>>

But not to that extent, and he showed no ill effects during the sword fight.

<<<absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.>>>

No it was not. I even though Amy could have was focusing the crack at one
point because it was much too powerful for a compact mirror.

And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
<<<Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.>>>

Yes it is. They could have risen up and continued with her plan. And why
couldn't she have used herself to mother replacement babies? Even if she was
infertile, it would have been easier for her to make minor changes to her
own DNA than completely rewriting the human genome to make them into fishy
people. If she could do that then she could make male into fishy people too
so the plot hole need not have existed.
solar penguin
2010-05-09 05:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
<<<Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story?>>>
It was a good story. Gattis should have been the one writing this story too.
Gatiss _did_ write this story, back in season 1 when it was The Unquiet
Dead.

Think about it -- a trip to the past (Victorian Cardiff/Renaissance
Venice) where alien refugees (the Gelth/the fish-insect things) whose
planet was destroyed by weird extra-dimensional stuff (the Time War/the
cracks and the silence) are mistaken for supernatural entities from
folklore (ghosts/vampires) before being killed in an explosion caused by
someone whose name begins with the letter G (Gwynneth/Guido).

If you really want to complain about this episode, Aggy, I'm surprised
you missed such an obvious target!
Agamemnon
2010-05-09 05:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
<<<Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story?>>>
It was a good story. Gattis should have been the one writing this story too.
Gatiss _did_ write this story, back in season 1 when it was The Unquiet
Dead.
Think about it -- a trip to the past (Victorian Cardiff/Renaissance
Venice) where alien refugees (the Gelth/the fish-insect things) whose
planet was destroyed by weird extra-dimensional stuff (the Time War/the
cracks and the silence) are mistaken for supernatural entities from
folklore (ghosts/vampires) before being killed in an explosion caused by
someone whose name begins with the letter G (Gwynneth/Guido).
If you really want to complain about this episode, Aggy, I'm surprised you
missed such an obvious target!
I didn't miss it out. It was already covered by my general statement about
the Time War and I've already said the same thing in previous reviews.
Moffat is copying RTD's first season.
solar penguin
2010-05-09 06:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Gattis should have been the one writing this
story too.
Gatiss _did_ write this story, back in season 1 when it was The
Unquiet Dead.
*snip*
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
If you really want to complain about this episode, Aggy, I'm
surprised you missed such an obvious target!
I didn't miss it out. It was already covered by my general statement
about the Time War and I've already said the same thing in previous
reviews. Moffat is copying RTD's first season.
Yes, but only made a very, very vague mention of the similarities and
missed out a lot of important details (like the refugees resembling
creatures from folklore). You really could've made a lot more of this,
instead of just rambling on for ages about JNT and the TVM, etc.
p***@aol.com
2010-05-09 10:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
<<<Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story?>>>
It was a good story. Gattis should have been the one writing this story too.
Gatiss _did_ write this story, back in season 1 when it was The Unquiet
Dead.
Then again, didn't you once claim Midnight was a rewrite of The
Unquiet Dead as well?
Post by solar penguin
Think about it -- a trip to the past (Victorian Cardiff/Renaissance
Venice)
Wasn't the Doctor actually aiming for Renaissance Venice when he hit
Cardiff?

Phil
solar penguin
2010-05-09 13:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
Gattis should have been the one writing this
story too.
Gatiss _did_ write this story, back in season 1 when it was The Unquiet
Dead.
Then again, didn't you once claim Midnight was a rewrite of The
Unquiet Dead as well?
Not that I recall. My theory about Midnight is that there was no
alien, and everything was caused by the woman who repeated things
(sorry, can't remember her name) having latent psychic telepathic/
telekinetic powers that only manifested during great stress, which she
didn't fully know about and so couldn't control. (And that was also
the real reason her girlfriend had dumped her before the story
started.)

That's the exact opposite of Unquiet Dead, where there really were
aliens. If I did say they were similar, then I've no idea what I was
thinking at the time.
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by solar penguin
Think about it -- a trip to the past (Victorian Cardiff/Renaissance
Venice)
Wasn't the Doctor actually aiming for Renaissance Venice when he hit
Cardiff?
Good point.
solar penguin
2010-05-09 13:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by p***@aol.com
Then again, didn't you once claim Midnight was a rewrite of The
Unquiet Dead as well?
Not that I recall.
Update: I've just Googled it and you're right. I did say that. I'd
totally forgotten that. Shows how hard I've tried to block Season 4
from my memory that I don't even remember my own theories about it!
p***@aol.com
2010-05-09 09:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
Now lets get down to today's story.
It felt to me like it had been written and filmed as a two parter and half
the material had been cut out to make it shorter, with it jumping from one
scene to a different one without any explanation of what happened in between
and how the people got to know what they knew or to be where they were.
<<<Hmm? No, didn't get any sense of that at all - the story moved
naturally from each location to each other (save for the scenes
immediately before and after the title sequence).>>>
Nope. It kept jumping like all the linking material had been cut out, just
like it was from Whitehouse's previous story School Reunion.
A criticism of that story I don't understand either - I don't recall
any jumping around in School Reunion. The only plot flaw I keep coming
back to in that story that would have benefited from an additional
scene is "What caused the school to explode?", since the Krillitane
oil never had that effect earlier in the story.
Post by Agamemnon
 For
Post by Agamemnon
example, the Doctor pops out of a wedding cake. What happened to the story
about how he got in it?
<<<Aggy, it was done for laughs. If we'd been treated to an extended>>>
Whitehouse can't do humour. That is easily seen from Being Human.
That often very funny Being Human, you mean?

The only
Post by Agamemnon
gag that made me laugh out loud was when the Doctor pulled out his massive
light wand and made a reference to penis size compared to Rory's who took
out a wand the size of a pea.
Trust you to appreciate the subtler styles of comedy.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<buildup where the Doctor was planning to cakecrash Rory's party, it
wouldn't have been funny. We don't need to know or care how he
exchanged himself for the striptease.>>>
It would have been funnier because I was already expecting the Doctor to pop
out of the cake, and wishing he wouldn't because it was too obvious. If the
build up was covered then the humour would have come from the anticipation
of the expression on Rory's face.
But you've already pointed out we knew the Doctor was going to emerge
from the cake - why weren't you already anticipating the expression on
Rory's face? Since we already knew who was in the cake, how would
elaborating on how he got there have made it any funnier? Also, bear
in mind that Who is first and foremost for kids - who may not have
seen a cake comedy scene before, and may not realise *anyone* is meant
to emerge from it.
Post by Agamemnon
 Where was
Post by Agamemnon
it parked? And after that they all end up bumping into trouble all over the
place with no proper explanation of how they got there. This is not story
telling. It's set piece after set piece and for this reason Vampire of
Venice his is the weakest story of the season so far.
<<<Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story? The last two weeks have given us random set piece>>>
It was a good story. Gattis should have been the one writing this story too.
Please no. Please never let Gatiss near a Dr Who script again.
Post by Agamemnon
Whitehouse didn't get the period dialogue right either.
You're right - they should all have been speaking Italian. Much better
this than the stitled fake olde-worlde of Girl in the Fireplace, which
just raises the question "If the TARDIS translates foreign languages
into the language of the companions, why does it translate French into
supposedly period-appropriate English rather than the English of the
TARDIS occupants?"
Post by Agamemnon
<<<one after the other for no purpose other than landing the characters
into trouble - this is the one instalment so far (at least since
Eleventh Hour) with a coherent, consistent plot that leads from one
scene to another for the sake of progressing the story rather than
just ramping up the tension.>>>
Nope. It's the other way round. All the previous episodes had coherent,
consistent plots baring the resolution of The Beast Below,
Oh yes? So, tell me again, these Weeping Angels who were needing an
energy source inside the ship - why were they leaving the ship to hunt
the Doctor and co. again? Oh yes, just for the sake of throwing angels
at the characters for atmospheric purposes and sod the plot. Why did
they need to communicate with the Doctor, other than to make use of a
plot-irrelevant creepy idea about Angel Bob?

but this story
Post by Agamemnon
was a series of loosely linked set pieces. The wedding cake,
Joke opener scene that set up the involvement of Rory in the story.

the light wand,

They'd just come out of a tunnel (we even saw them come out of it, so
you can't claim it was unconnected) and their torch had gone out -
followed quite logically from the scenes immediately before.
Post by Agamemnon
the mirror screen, the sword fight, the tower climb.
All of these followed directly from scenes which immediately preceded
them, and where we actually saw the characters moving from A to B. Is
the issue not that these were unconnected, but that various diverse
things happened during them rather than just being a lot of the same
(like almost the entirety of Time of Angels, say)? Since all of these
things tied into the plot, it's hard to argue that they were disparate
set pieces.
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
Knowing that, why did they choose a scene from the weakest story of the
season to promote the series on the Jonathan Ross show, and not only that,
they also chose the weakest scene in the whole story and series so far,
<<<I was going to mention that - in context it's still a fairly weak
scene, but it works better now we know more of Smith's character. It
wasn't as silly as the swordfight or the hands-over-mouth scene,
though.>>>
It works better now because the version on the Jonathan Ross show had the
plot sections cut from it. But it still doesn't work all that well. There is
no reason why Matt Smith should have gone into Johnny Depp mode,
I think he was in Matt Smith mode. Watching him on Confidential, I get
the strong impression that his character is rather more similar to his
personality than, say, Tennant's character was.

mirror,
Post by Agamemnon
vampires, vampires, mirror, funny jumping around to the exit by Smith.
Yes, he rotates two or three times too often.

On
Post by Agamemnon
top of that the explanation about how the vampires reflection couldn't be
seen was should have come in the middle of that scene during he Johnny Depp
stuff and not in a later unconnected scene.
No it wouldn't. The girls in that scene were there to be creepy, not
to explain away plot points. It would have spoiled the atmosphere for
the Doctor to get into an extended dialogue with them - the Q&A scene
with Rosanna was a much better device for that.
Post by Agamemnon
The sword fight was much more credible and I had no problem with it.
It was done well (but hardly credible - Francesco was clearly a better
swordsman than Rory was a, ahem, broomman, so why did he let Rory
parry all his blows?) - it was just such a tired slapstick cliche.
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one
basket.
<<<It was set up - Whithouse knows how to write a sensible narrative,>>>
No he doesn't. Being Human is full proof of that.
Being Human is proof that he does.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<laying hints about what's coming up throughout the early part of the
story, and introducing little that's extraneous to the plot. He was a>>>
Oh, you mean like the Doctor jumping out of the wedding cake, which was
obvious from the moment you saw the wedding cake, which would have been
better if it was Amy as a kissagram and the Doctor popping up a few seconds
later beside her, which could have been done if they spent more time on the
build up.
The Doctor wanted to catch Rory alone - he was hardly going to bring
Amy to talk behind her back, was he?
Post by Agamemnon
<<<boatbuilder and took the explosives from his work, because he was
planning to use them to blow up the school - a plan the Doctor
boycotted.>>>
What were explosives doing in a boatyard. You don't need explosives to build
ships.
Shipyards are used to refit and equip ships as well as to build them -
and someone pointed out that the character actually named the shipyard
as one that was historically used to build and supply Venetian
warships.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.>>>
No it was not. I even though Amy could have was focusing the crack at one
point because it was much too powerful for a compact mirror.
The ending to Tooth and Claw was massively exaggerated as well, but
likewise it was built up in advance and worked to essentially correct
principles (same principle, more or less, as this) - it worked on a
plot level if not a plausibility level, so it's readily understandable
what she was doing. Your mistake was to expect, despite decades of
experience to the contrary, that a Dr Who resolution would be
scientifically accurate, not just dramatically accurate.
Post by Agamemnon
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
<<<Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.>>>
Yes it is. They could have risen up and continued with her plan. And why
couldn't she have used herself to mother replacement babies? Even if she was
infertile, it would have been easier for her to make minor changes to her
own DNA than completely rewriting the human genome to make them into fishy
people. If she could do that then she could make male into fishy people too
so the plot hole need not have existed.
None of that is terribly important. The plan could have been something
else, I fully agree - but that doesn't change the fact that the plot
as written tells the story it's chosen to tell well and more-or-less
consistently (yes, aside from the 'sometimes they die, sometimes they
don't care' response to sunlight), bringing the plan to a natural
conclusion. As to why the males couldn't carry on the plan, if
Francesco (vampire boy) was anything to go by the females are the
brains of the outfit (though the vampire girls may give the lie to
that). With the Doctor having sabotaged their technology, and without
any remaining females, they may not have had the ability to continue.

Phil
Agamemnon
2010-05-10 23:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
Now lets get down to today's story.
It felt to me like it had been written and filmed as a two parter and half
the material had been cut out to make it shorter, with it jumping from one
scene to a different one without any explanation of what happened in between
and how the people got to know what they knew or to be where they were.
<<<Hmm? No, didn't get any sense of that at all - the story moved
naturally from each location to each other (save for the scenes
immediately before and after the title sequence).>>>
Nope. It kept jumping like all the linking material had been cut out, just
like it was from Whitehouse's previous story School Reunion.
<<<A criticism of that story I don't understand either - I don't recall
any jumping around in School Reunion. The only plot flaw I keep coming
back to in that story that would have benefited from an additional
scene is "What caused the school to explode?", since the Krillitane
oil never had that effect earlier in the story.>>>

They cut out linking scenes from School Reunion and I think one of them
concerned the Krillitane oil.
Post by Agamemnon
For
Post by Agamemnon
example, the Doctor pops out of a wedding cake. What happened to the story
about how he got in it?
<<<Aggy, it was done for laughs. If we'd been treated to an extended>>>
Whitehouse can't do humour. That is easily seen from Being Human.
<<<That often very funny Being Human, you mean?>>>

No.

The only
Post by Agamemnon
gag that made me laugh out loud was when the Doctor pulled out his massive
light wand and made a reference to penis size compared to Rory's who took
out a wand the size of a pea.
<<<Trust you to appreciate the subtler styles of comedy.>>>
Post by Agamemnon
<<<buildup where the Doctor was planning to cakecrash Rory's party, it
wouldn't have been funny. We don't need to know or care how he
exchanged himself for the striptease.>>>
It would have been funnier because I was already expecting the Doctor to pop
out of the cake, and wishing he wouldn't because it was too obvious. If the
build up was covered then the humour would have come from the anticipation
of the expression on Rory's face.
<<<But you've already pointed out we knew the Doctor was going to emerge
from the cake - why weren't you already anticipating the expression on
Rory's face? Since we already knew who was in the cake, how would
elaborating on how he got there have made it any funnier? Also, bear>>>

Because that is not how you do comedy. Comedy is like magic. The idea is to
deceive the audience to not expect what they would normally expect, since
the comedy is in seeing the unexpected, which they can't do if they think
the Doctor is going to emerge from the cake. So you do that by showing Amy
emerging from the cake first (and probably also do some scenes showing her
getting in it) and then that takes the idea of the Doctor coming out of the
cake out of the audiences mind, then the moment that happens, the Doctor
pops up beside her. Cue big laugh.

<<<in mind that Who is first and foremost for kids - who may not have
seen a cake comedy scene before, and may not realise *anyone* is meant
to emerge from it.>>>

It wouldn't have worked on kids for that reason. They would have thought it
was normal. My way of doing it would have worked with everyone.
Post by Agamemnon
Where was
Post by Agamemnon
it parked? And after that they all end up bumping into trouble all over the
place with no proper explanation of how they got there. This is not story
telling. It's set piece after set piece and for this reason Vampire of
Venice his is the weakest story of the season so far.
<<<Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story? The last two weeks have given us random set piece>>>
It was a good story. Gattis should have been the one writing this story too.
<<<Please no. Please never let Gatiss near a Dr Who script again.>>>

Bring him on. Vampires of Venice even copied his climb up the transmitter
scene from The Idiotic Lantern.
Post by Agamemnon
Whitehouse didn't get the period dialogue right either.
<<<You're right - they should all have been speaking Italian. Much better
this than the stitled fake olde-worlde of Girl in the Fireplace, which
just raises the question "If the TARDIS translates foreign languages
into the language of the companions, why does it translate French into
supposedly period-appropriate English rather than the English of the
TARDIS occupants?">>>

Because Moffat can write period dialogue and Whitehouse can't.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<one after the other for no purpose other than landing the characters
into trouble - this is the one instalment so far (at least since
Eleventh Hour) with a coherent, consistent plot that leads from one
scene to another for the sake of progressing the story rather than
just ramping up the tension.>>>
Nope. It's the other way round. All the previous episodes had coherent,
consistent plots baring the resolution of The Beast Below,
<<<Oh yes? So, tell me again, these Weeping Angels who were needing an
energy source inside the ship - why were they leaving the ship to hunt
the Doctor and co. again? Oh yes, just for the sake of throwing angels>>>

Because they were a threat.

<<<at the characters for atmospheric purposes and sod the plot. Why did
they need to communicate with the Doctor, other than to make use of a
plot-irrelevant creepy idea about Angel Bob?>>>

To scare him into making a mistake.

but this story
Post by Agamemnon
was a series of loosely linked set pieces. The wedding cake,
<<<Joke opener scene that set up the involvement of Rory in the story.

<<the light wand,>>

<<<They'd just come out of a tunnel (we even saw them come out of it, so
you can't claim it was unconnected) and their torch had gone out -
followed quite logically from the scenes immediately before.>>>

Loosely linked. It was done just for the gag.
Post by Agamemnon
the mirror screen, the sword fight, the tower climb.
<<<All of these followed directly from scenes which immediately preceded
them, and where we actually saw the characters moving from A to B. Is
the issue not that these were unconnected, but that various diverse
things happened during them rather than just being a lot of the same
(like almost the entirety of Time of Angels, say)? Since all of these
things tied into the plot, it's hard to argue that they were disparate
set pieces.>>>

The problem is that there were a lot of diverse things happening between
them which were missed out.
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
Knowing that, why did they choose a scene from the weakest story of the
season to promote the series on the Jonathan Ross show, and not only that,
they also chose the weakest scene in the whole story and series so far,
<<<I was going to mention that - in context it's still a fairly weak
scene, but it works better now we know more of Smith's character. It
wasn't as silly as the swordfight or the hands-over-mouth scene,
though.>>>
It works better now because the version on the Jonathan Ross show had the
plot sections cut from it. But it still doesn't work all that well. There is
no reason why Matt Smith should have gone into Johnny Depp mode,
<<<I think he was in Matt Smith mode. Watching him on Confidential, I get
the strong impression that his character is rather more similar to his
personality than, say, Tennant's character was.>>>

mirror,
Post by Agamemnon
vampires, vampires, mirror, funny jumping around to the exit by Smith.
<<<Yes, he rotates two or three times too often.>>>

On
Post by Agamemnon
top of that the explanation about how the vampires reflection couldn't be
seen was should have come in the middle of that scene during he Johnny Depp
stuff and not in a later unconnected scene.
<<<No it wouldn't. The girls in that scene were there to be creepy, not
to explain away plot points. It would have spoiled the atmosphere for>>>

The Doctor was there to explain the plot point but didn't until later.

<<<the Doctor to get into an extended dialogue with them - the Q&A scene
with Rosanna was a much better device for that.>>>

It was only one short line.
Post by Agamemnon
The sword fight was much more credible and I had no problem with it.
<<<It was done well (but hardly credible - Francesco was clearly a better
swordsman than Rory was a, ahem, broomman, so why did he let Rory
parry all his blows?) - it was just such a tired slapstick cliche.>>>

To make him shit himself before killing him.
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one
basket.
<<<It was set up - Whithouse knows how to write a sensible narrative,>>>
No he doesn't. Being Human is full proof of that.
<<<Being Human is proof that he does.>>>

not.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<laying hints about what's coming up throughout the early part of the
story, and introducing little that's extraneous to the plot. He was a>>>
Oh, you mean like the Doctor jumping out of the wedding cake, which was
obvious from the moment you saw the wedding cake, which would have been
better if it was Amy as a kissagram and the Doctor popping up a few seconds
later beside her, which could have been done if they spent more time on the
build up.
<<<The Doctor wanted to catch Rory alone - he was hardly going to bring
Amy to talk behind her back, was he?>>>

He wanted to take Rory on a vacation with Amy. He wanted them together. That
would have filled in some of the missing material of how they all ended up
together in the TARDIS.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<boatbuilder and took the explosives from his work, because he was
planning to use them to blow up the school - a plan the Doctor
boycotted.>>>
What were explosives doing in a boatyard. You don't need explosives to build
ships.
<<<Shipyards are used to refit and equip ships as well as to build them -
and someone pointed out that the character actually named the shipyard
as one that was historically used to build and supply Venetian
warships.>>>

Water and explosives don't mix. The explosives would have been kept inland.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.>>>
No it was not. I even though Amy could have was focusing the crack at one
point because it was much too powerful for a compact mirror.
<<<The ending to Tooth and Claw was massively exaggerated as well, but
likewise it was built up in advance and worked to essentially correct
principles (same principle, more or less, as this) - it worked on a
plot level if not a plausibility level, so it's readily understandable
what she was doing. Your mistake was to expect, despite decades of
experience to the contrary, that a Dr Who resolution would be
scientifically accurate, not just dramatically accurate.>>>
Post by Agamemnon
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
<<<Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.>>>
Yes it is. They could have risen up and continued with her plan. And why
couldn't she have used herself to mother replacement babies? Even if she was
infertile, it would have been easier for her to make minor changes to her
own DNA than completely rewriting the human genome to make them into fishy
people. If she could do that then she could make male into fishy people too
so the plot hole need not have existed.
<<<None of that is terribly important. The plan could have been something
else, I fully agree - but that doesn't change the fact that the plot
as written tells the story it's chosen to tell well and more-or-less
consistently (yes, aside from the 'sometimes they die, sometimes they
don't care' response to sunlight), bringing the plan to a natural
conclusion. As to why the males couldn't carry on the plan, if
Francesco (vampire boy) was anything to go by the females are the
brains of the outfit (though the vampire girls may give the lie to
that). With the Doctor having sabotaged their technology, and without
any remaining females, they may not have had the ability to continue.>>>

So why was that explanation left out then? How do we know all of their
technology was sabotaged and not just the stuff in the tower and in the
chair. The story was left unresolved. That's the big problem with modern
drama. Writers who can't resolve what they've written because it's all a
series of set pieces.
solar penguin
2010-05-12 09:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<<<I don't recall any jumping around in School Reunion. The only plot
flaw I keep coming
back to in that story that would have benefited from an additional
scene is "What caused the school to explode?", since the Krillitane
oil never had that effect earlier in the story.>>>
They cut out linking scenes from School Reunion and I think one of
them concerned the Krillitane oil.
Interesting. When School Reunion was first broadcast I felt there was
something about the Krilitane oil explosion that didn't make sense. I
don't remember exactly what the problem was, but when I posted it here,
everyone was like "No, no it's all perfectly explained. You just didn't
watch it properly."

Now it turns out I was right all along!
Monsieur Tabernac
2010-05-12 11:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 May 2010 10:54:12 +0100, "solar penguin"
Post by solar penguin
<<<I don't recall any jumping around in School Reunion. The only plot
flaw I keep coming
back to in that story that would have benefited from an additional
scene is "What caused the school to explode?", since the Krillitane
oil never had that effect earlier in the story.>>>
They cut out linking scenes from School Reunion and I think one of
them concerned the Krillitane oil.
Interesting. When School Reunion was first broadcast I felt there was
something about the Krilitane oil explosion that didn't make sense. I
don't remember exactly what the problem was, but when I posted it here,
everyone was like "No, no it's all perfectly explained. You just didn't
watch it properly."
Now it turns out I was right all along!
I'd be a little wary of your sources in this one.
solar penguin
2010-05-12 12:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Monsieur Tabernac
On Wed, 12 May 2010 10:54:12 +0100, "solar penguin"
Post by solar penguin
<<<I don't recall any jumping around in School Reunion. The only
plot flaw I keep coming
back to in that story that would have benefited from an additional
scene is "What caused the school to explode?", since the Krillitane
oil never had that effect earlier in the story.>>>
They cut out linking scenes from School Reunion and I think one of
them concerned the Krillitane oil.
Interesting. When School Reunion was first broadcast I felt there was
something about the Krilitane oil explosion that didn't make sense. I
don't remember exactly what the problem was, but when I posted it
here, everyone was like "No, no it's all perfectly explained. You
just didn't watch it properly."
Now it turns out I was right all along!
I'd be a little wary of your sources in this one.
Wel,, Phill and Aggy usually disagree on everything. It must mean
someting that both they seem to agree on this point.
Ross
2010-05-09 05:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil Bowles
Post by Agamemnon
mirror at him?
Ever tried focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass? It was
already established they were harmed by sunlight - yes, this happened
absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.
It helps to remember that a pocket compact often has a magnifying
mirror (Not always, but they're not uncommon)
Post by Phil Bowles
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.
I'm not 100% sure where I got this idea, but my impression was that
the fish-men in the canal were juveniles, and were basically dependent
on mom for their survival. That would explain a lot, but, as I said,
I'm not at all sure where I got the idea.
Agamemnon
2010-05-09 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil Bowles
Post by Agamemnon
mirror at him?
Ever tried focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass? It was
already established they were harmed by sunlight - yes, this happened
absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.
<<<It helps to remember that a pocket compact often has a magnifying
mirror (Not always, but they're not uncommon)>>>

Which just happens to be the right focal length to focus a tiny spot of
light directly on the vampire? Like a tiny extra 100 square centimetres of
focused daylight is going to kill the vampire when having it's entire body
covered by daylight isn't?
Post by Phil Bowles
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.
<<<I'm not 100% sure where I got this idea, but my impression was that
the fish-men in the canal were juveniles, and were basically dependent
on mom for their survival. That would explain a lot, but, as I said,
I'm not at all sure where I got the idea.>>>

They were old enough to have girlfriends and make babies.
solar penguin
2010-05-09 06:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
<<<It helps to remember that a pocket compact often has a magnifying
mirror (Not always, but they're not uncommon)>>>
Which just happens to be the right focal length to focus a tiny spot
of light directly on the vampire? Like a tiny extra 100 square
centimetres of focused daylight is going to kill the vampire when
having it's entire body covered by daylight isn't?
To be fair, in most vampire stories, it's only _direct_ sunlight that
kills them but they can survive just fine in ambient daylight. No, it
doesn't make sense, but then nothing about vampires ever makes any kind
of sense at all, something this story was mercilessly sending up.

The real problem is how Amy managed to find any sunlight at all when
Venice was being covered by cloud from the tower.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<I'm not 100% sure where I got this idea, but my impression was that
the fish-men in the canal were juveniles, and were basically dependent
on mom for their survival. That would explain a lot, but, as I said,
I'm not at all sure where I got the idea.>>>
They were old enough to have girlfriends and make babies.
Were they? Then why weren't their girlfriends already down there with
them making babies, instead of wandering around in nightgowns and veils?
Maybe the boys weren't quite mature enough yet.
Agamemnon
2010-05-09 06:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
<<<It helps to remember that a pocket compact often has a magnifying
mirror (Not always, but they're not uncommon)>>>
Which just happens to be the right focal length to focus a tiny spot
of light directly on the vampire? Like a tiny extra 100 square
centimetres of focused daylight is going to kill the vampire when
having it's entire body covered by daylight isn't?
To be fair, in most vampire stories, it's only _direct_ sunlight that
kills them but they can survive just fine in ambient daylight. No, it
doesn't make sense, but then nothing about vampires ever makes any kind of
sense at all, something this story was mercilessly sending up.
The real problem is how Amy managed to find any sunlight at all when
Venice was being covered by cloud from the tower.
Post by Agamemnon
<<<I'm not 100% sure where I got this idea, but my impression was that
the fish-men in the canal were juveniles, and were basically dependent
on mom for their survival. That would explain a lot, but, as I said,
I'm not at all sure where I got the idea.>>>
They were old enough to have girlfriends and make babies.
Were they? Then why weren't their girlfriends already down there with
them making babies, instead of wandering around in nightgowns and veils?
Maybe the boys weren't quite mature enough yet.
The whole point of the plot in destroying Venice was that the were.
Ross
2010-05-09 15:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by Phil Bowles
Post by Agamemnon
mirror at him?
Ever tried focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass? It was
already established they were harmed by sunlight - yes, this happened
absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.
<<<It helps to remember that a pocket compact often has a magnifying
mirror (Not always, but they're not uncommon)>>>
Which just happens to be the right focal length to focus a tiny spot of
light directly on the vampire? Like a tiny extra 100 square centimetres of
focused daylight is going to kill the vampire when having it's entire body
covered by daylight isn't?
Post by Phil Bowles
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.
<<<I'm not 100% sure where I got this idea, but my impression was that
the fish-men in the canal were juveniles, and were basically dependent
on mom for their survival.  That would explain a lot, but, as I said,
I'm not at all sure where I got the idea.>>>
They were old enough to have girlfriends and make babies.
Well, no, because they were still in the build-up to that phase of the
plan. All we know is that they *would be* in the near future (The one
who was up on dry land with mom excepted, of course).
john smith
2010-05-11 17:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
From the plot revelations in this episode and the ones earlier it looks like
Steve Moffat is deliberately copying RTDs first season, but much, much
better.
First? It's very similar to the plot strand in season 4, and handled
about as well for the most part - it even has the same basic premise
that a planet's been 'lost' and the survivors are causing havoc on
Earth as they try to rebuild their race (my first thought was Fires of
Pompeii). The main difference is that Moffatt seems to be aiming for a
story arc that actually progresses over the course of the year, rather
than one that just drops hints for twelve episodes and then something
happens. The final scene of this episode was well-done in arc terms.

However, having said that, Moffatt himself seems to have been much
clumsier in handling the story arc in his stories - he has the same
tired cliches that the villains always know what the Doctor doesn't
when they have no conceivable reason to, random unsubtle insertions of
key catchphrases like "Pandorica" and blatant images of cracks showing
up everywhere. Not surprising, perhaps, as Whithouse has more
experience with arc-driven storytelling than Moffatt as far as I know.
Post by Agamemnon
SM The Time Lords have been destroyed in a Time War and the result of this
is a crack in the whole universe with diverse alien races being wiped out
too or turned into refugees. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
We don't yet know what caused the cracks - it's likely to be something
to do with Amy directly (so, more similar to Donna's 'coincidences' or
Rose's Bad Wolf references), not the Time War.
Post by Agamemnon
RTD We need to set an episode on a space station with an alien lurking
inside. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
Voila, Eleventh Hour - the only similarity between Smith & Jones and
Vampires of Venice is that there are alien vampires.
Post by Agamemnon
I have concluded that both RTD and Steve Moffat are being forced to use a
Doctor Who Style Manual written by John Nathan Turner on the orders of
Michael Grade in order to appease Mary Whitehouse and the show's critics.
That's a stretch - Moffatt's using RTD storytelling devices and plots
because the RTD formula was extremely popular. '80s Who was not.
Post by Agamemnon
1) MW/MG The Doctor always subliminally convinces his assistants and
other people to sacrifice themselves for him. This is not a good example for
children.
JNT We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. Adric.
RTD We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake. River Song, Donna (Turn Left).
SM We'll address the problem of subliminally by making this
completely obvious and having someone such as the main villain or the
assistant challenge the Doctor on this at least once in every season or get
themselves killed for his sake.
It's not an original plot device to Dr Who in any era, and it's made
obvious so that the kids will get it. I thought it was done rather
well here - better than in Journey's End. My only qualm is that Rory
was the wrong character to deliver that speech at the time, simply
because he doesn't know the Doctor well enough and is working from all
of one example.
Post by Agamemnon
2) MW/MG The Doctor isn't human and shows no humanity. This is not a good
example for children.
JNT The Doctor must show more emotion. We'll make him show more
anger with the villain. But what if the villain isn't on screen. Ah, the
Doctor can show anger at his assistant too. Obviously he wants her to be the
best and if she doesn't live up to his expectation then he can shout at her.
Eric Sewell We'll make the Doctor half human in the TVM
RTD We'll make the Doctor show more anger, and if his assistant
isn't good enough he can be angry with her as well.
SM We'll make the Doctor him show more anger, both with the villain
and his assistant.
Another standard of drama - giving characters feelings the cast can
relate to. It was present in older Who as well - Tom Baker's character
sometimes got angry. Characters in Who past tended to show less
emotion generally than they do now, both because social convention at
the time was to be less overtly expressive and because the characters
simply weren't very well-drawn or well-played for the most part.
Post by Agamemnon
3) MG Doctor Who must be modernised.
JNT Make the assistant modern slang which the Doctor has no problem
understanding
Eric Sewell Make the show more American in style and introduce US
slang of course
RTD Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
SM Make the Doctor use modern slang and the show more American in
style
Rather oddly, in SM's own Smith stories he tends to use slag which is
at least 20 years out of fashion.
Post by Agamemnon
4) MG The Doctor is too serious.
JNT Get the Doctor to play the spoons and clown around
Eric Sewell Make the Master camper than ever so the Doctor can play
it down
RTD Get the Doctor to do a shoe dance and clown around
SM Make the Doctor think he's Captain Jack Sparrow
Just be thankful he didn't get his wish to dress him as Jack too. But
have you seen Smith in the Confidentials? He comes across as being
naturally rather camp, very tactile and with a habit of waving his
hands all over the place - he just brings that to his character. I
suspect that's what Moffatt meant by feeling he was exactly right for
the part he wanted for the Doctor.
Post by Agamemnon
5) MG Doctor Who must appeal to and portray ordinary people
JNT Give the Doctor a juvenile delinquent for his assistant
Eric Sewell Give the Doctor a teenage gang member to look out for
RTD Make Doctor Who into a soap opera. Give his assistant a
boyfriend and a family.
SM Give the Doctor's assistant a boyfriend, friends and relatives
And make her a juvenile delinquent...
Post by Agamemnon
Now lets get down to today's story.
It felt to me like it had been written and filmed as a two parter and half
the material had been cut out to make it shorter, with it jumping from one
scene to a different one without any explanation of what happened in between
and how the people got to know what they knew or to be where they were.
Hmm? No, didn't get any sense of that at all - the story moved
naturally from each location to each other (save for the scenes
immediately before and after the title sequence).

For
Post by Agamemnon
example, the Doctor pops out of a wedding cake. What happened to the story
about how he got in it?
Aggy, it was done for laughs. If we'd been treated to an extended
buildup where the Doctor was planning to cakecrash Rory's party, it
wouldn't have been funny. We don't need to know or care how he
exchanged himself for the striptease.

In the next scene Rory (Amy's boyfriend, if that
Post by Agamemnon
isn't his name) is right inside the TARDIS. How did he get there?
Walked? There are lots of scenes in different episodes where the
characters are shown being in the TARDIS without having walked there -
and lots of episodes where time has moved on between the pre- and post-
title scenes.

Again, the pre-title scene was a joke scene - it existed only to set
up Rory's jealousy later in the story, and it ended at exactly the
right moment to avoid getting embarrassing as the Doctor tried to talk
his way out of the situation he'd put himself in.

Where was
Post by Agamemnon
it parked? And after that they all end up bumping into trouble all over the
place with no proper explanation of how they got there. This is not story
telling. It's set piece after set piece and for this reason Vampire of
Venice his is the weakest story of the season so far.
Are you still in the alternate universe where Victory of the Daleks
was a good story? The last two weeks have given us random set piece
one after the other for no purpose other than landing the characters
into trouble - this is the one instalment so far (at least since
Eleventh Hour) with a coherent, consistent plot that leads from one
scene to another for the sake of progressing the story rather than
just ramping up the tension. Most of the action takes place within and
immediately around Rosanna's house for reasons given in the narrative,
where running into trouble is quite likely..
Post by Agamemnon
Knowing that, why did they choose a scene from the weakest story of the
season to promote the series on the Jonathan Ross show, and not only that,
they also chose the weakest scene in the whole story and series so far,
I was going to mention that - in context it's still a fairly weak
scene, but it works better now we know more of Smith's character. It
wasn't as silly as the swordfight or the hands-over-mouth scene,
though.
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one
basket.
It was set up - Whithouse knows how to write a sensible narrative,
laying hints about what's coming up throughout the early part of the
story, and introducing little that's extraneous to the plot. He was a
boatbuilder and took the explosives from his work, because he was
planning to use them to blow up the school - a plan the Doctor
boycotted.

Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
Post by Agamemnon
mirror at him?
Ever tried focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass? It was
already established they were harmed by sunlight - yes, this happened
absurdly quickly and was a bit over the top, but it was
straightforward enough to follow in plot terms. Again, another thing
that had been set up earlier in the script.

And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.

Phil



It was all extremely poor, and the plot - what little there was of it -
seemed lifted from an Alan Moore "Swamp Thing" comic from the '80s... which,
even at the time, was considerably more imaginative and sophisticated than
"Vampires in Venice"...
Ross
2010-05-11 19:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phil Bowles
Post by Agamemnon
SM The Time Lords have been destroyed in a Time War and the result of this
is a crack in the whole universe with diverse alien races being wiped out
too or turned into refugees. Voila, Vampires of Venice.
We don't yet know what caused the cracks - it's likely to be something
to do with Amy directly (so, more similar to Donna's 'coincidences' or
Rose's Bad Wolf references), not the Time War.
In fact, the one thing we can say with some certainty is that the
cracks *aren't* the result of the Time War or of the events of The End
of the World (at least, not directly), because the most concrete fact
we have right now is that the event which causes them will take place
on June 26, 2010, a date which doesn't figure into anything we've been
shown so far.
p***@aol.com
2010-05-11 22:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.
Phil
It was all extremely poor, and the plot - what little there was of it -
seemed lifted from an Alan Moore "Swamp Thing" comic from the '80s... which,
even at the time, was considerably more imaginative and sophisticated than
"Vampires in Venice"...
John, how long have you been watching Dr Who again? Originality of
concept is not one of its noted selling points, and nor is plot
sophistication. The plot was simple, but for a refreshing change of
pace given the last half-dozen instalments, was *well-told* - major
plot events foreshadowed, events leading one from the other for story
reasons rather than dragged there by the necessity of jumping to the
next monster reveal. And more than that it happened to be funny - with
the advantage of pretty sets to boot.

Phil
john smith
2010-05-11 23:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Agamemnon
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.
Phil
It was all extremely poor, and the plot - what little there was of it -
seemed lifted from an Alan Moore "Swamp Thing" comic from the '80s... which,
even at the time, was considerably more imaginative and sophisticated than
"Vampires in Venice"...
John, how long have you been watching Dr Who again? Originality of
concept is not one of its noted selling points,
That doesn't mean it *can't* be!




and nor is plot
Post by p***@aol.com
sophistication.
Ditto.



The plot was simple, but for a refreshing change of
Post by p***@aol.com
pace given the last half-dozen instalments, was *well-told* - major
plot events foreshadowed, events leading one from the other for story
reasons rather than dragged there by the necessity of jumping to the
next monster reveal.
It was linear, plodding, dull, and totally inconsequential. Not at all what
I was expecting from Toby Whithouse.
Post by p***@aol.com
And more than that it happened to be funny -
Mildly amusing in places, yes. That didn't make up for its overall
dullness...




with
Post by p***@aol.com
the advantage of pretty sets to boot.
Too many shots of chickens too!
Post by p***@aol.com
Phil
p***@aol.com
2010-05-12 11:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by john smith
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Agamemnon
And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
Tabernac suggested the silence finished them off. I don't think that's
it - I think the Doctor was seeing the silence through a crack, just
as the fish did, it hadn't actually got to Earth yet. The intent in
the story was that the males were basically useless by themselves;
Rosanna's plan was, after all, to find them females. There were no
more females, so the males weren't capable of sustaining the species.
Whether they then died off or not isn't terribly important for story
purposes.
Phil
It was all extremely poor, and the plot - what little there was of it -
seemed lifted from an Alan Moore "Swamp Thing" comic from the '80s... which,
even at the time, was considerably more imaginative and sophisticated than
"Vampires in Venice"...
John, how long have you been watching Dr Who again? Originality of
concept is not one of its noted selling points,
That doesn't mean it *can't* be!
No, and it looks rather as though next week will give us a more
original instalment. But it's somewhat unfair to criticise a Dr Who
episode for being, basically, Dr Who.
Post by john smith
and nor is plot
Post by p***@aol.com
sophistication.
Ditto.
Ditto back...
Post by john smith
The plot was simple, but for a refreshing change of
Post by p***@aol.com
pace given the last half-dozen instalments, was *well-told* - major
plot events foreshadowed, events leading one from the other for story
reasons rather than dragged there by the necessity of jumping to the
next monster reveal.
It was linear,
Exactly!

plodding, dull, and totally inconsequential.

You'd have preferred another "Oh no, the whole of reality is in
peril!" story?
Post by john smith
with
Post by p***@aol.com
the advantage of pretty sets to boot.
Too many shots of chickens too!
Wonder if the Doctor picked one up so he could settle his bet with
Casanova?

Phil
Tim Bruening
2017-01-30 06:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, May 8, 2010 at 1:22:51 PM UTC-7, Agamemnon wrote:

And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
Post by Agamemnon
herself for no reason. Where did all the other fish men go? Are they still
all swimming under Venice?
I assumed that she was merely committing suicide by fish.

The fish males would have died of old age by now.
Tim Bruening
2017-02-27 16:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Animal moments: Chickens and fish vampires.
Tim Bruening
2018-01-16 22:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one e
basket. Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
mirror at him? And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
herself for no reason.
She was committing suicide.
The Doctor
2018-01-16 22:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one e
basket. Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
mirror at him? And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
herself for no reason.
She was committing suicide.
Or was she?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Tim Bruening
2018-01-16 22:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs into one e
basket. Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
mirror at him? And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
herself for no reason.
She was committing suicide.
Or was she?
The fish thought she was dinner.
The Doctor
2018-01-16 23:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Agamemnon
The ending wasn't very convincing either. Whatshername's father sacrifices
himself to blow up the fishy people. Like he conveniently has all those
explosives lying around and the aliens chose to put all their eggs
into one e
Post by The Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Post by Agamemnon
basket. Amy somehow inexplicable kills the fishy alien by pointing her
mirror at him? And then the fish lady jumps into the water and sacrifices
herself for no reason.
She was committing suicide.
Or was she?
The fish thought she was dinner.
The pyrhaanas you mean.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Birthday 29 Jan 1969 BOrn Redhill,Surrey,England , UK!
Loading...