[Use Of Weapons]

Snark away. I was slightly disappointed by this episode, for pretty much all the reasons you cite. But also because I got the cubes strategy so early on that the denoument felt anticlimactic, and there was no tension. But the character moments were great. I'll disagree about the selfishness of the Ponds -- I don't think it was selfish, I think it was pragmatic. The choice is posed, and in the end they make the choice we want them to make. It's clearly a setup for making the same choice over and again come the end of the season.

[QuickTidal]

Use Of Weapons, on 23 September 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

But the character moments were great. I'll disagree about the selfishness of the Ponds -- I don't think it was selfish, I think it was pragmatic. The choice is posed, and in the end they make the choice we want them to make. It's clearly a setup for making the same choice over and again come the end of the season.

Fair enough, and a good point. Entirely possible. Though making the same choice again in ANGELS seems incongruous with the decision at the end of this ep to travel with him again.

Either way, yes the smaller character moments are far and away the best bits of THE POWER OF THREE. I agree.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

River is in the next one? Fuck yeah.

[Cyphon]

Did anyone else think that over a year that the cubes would actually move out of people's houses? No utility to them, so out they would go. Bit of a plot flaw there for my mind.

[QuickTidal]

Good point indeed. they weren't like ipods or anything...I'd have chucked mine.

[Use Of Weapons]

That was why they were so _perfectly_ cube-shaped -- so that people would keep them around as pieces of art.

[Primateus]

I especially liked the part where the doctor interrupts the party to take the Ponds a famous restaurent back in time promising that they'd be back to the party without anyone noticing they were gone. Three weeks later, from the doctors and the ponds perspective, they return to continue the same party they left three weeks ago.

It's one of those things that REALLY underscores that this is a timetravel show.

[QuickTidal]

FACT: In the Series 5 Ep THE HUNGRY EARTH (the 1st of the Silurian two-parter) when they arrive in Wales in 2020 (ten years from 2010), Amy sees an elderly couple across the valley waving at them. They are informed by the Doctor that this is future Amy and Rory "reliving past glories", and though thrilled by the prospect Amy sluffs it off to get to the matter at hand.

FACT: In THE POWER OF THREE, we are explicitly told that Amy and Rory have been together ten years.

FACT: In the end of THE DAY OF THE MOON we see a very young River Song in an alleyway in 1969 New York City regenerating from some unseen wounds.

FACT: The next episode THE ANGELS IN MANHATTAN has Amy, Rory, the Doctor (and River) in modern day New York City, dealing with the Weeping Angels (who love to send people back in time to drink up the time energy this produces).

THEORY: Amy and Rory are about to be sent back in time from modern New York City to 1969 and will therefore be able to actually raise their daughter River (at least partially) and would be in their 70's by 2020, and might then go to see themselves at one of their earth-visited places from their past adventures? Either way this kind of indicates that neither will die in this Saturday's ep.

What think we?

[Primateus]

It seems a bit anti-climatic if you ask me. Besides, unless he decides to just leave them there I don't think the doctor would just say "Oh well, can't be helped" He'd go back and get them.

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 27 September 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

It seems a bit anti-climatic if you ask me. Besides, unless he decides to just leave them there I don't think the doctor would just say "Oh well, can't be helped" He'd go back and get them.

Indeed. Moffat has also said that to pull ANGELS IN MANHATTAN off he had to hearken back to a specific moment in the past. I'm thinking something in THE 11TH HOUR, but who knows. But perhaps Rory's incorrect dated hospital badge from the 11TH HOUR will finally be explained?

My guess is if they end up back in time it will be them WISHING to remain there, not "being left" there. The chance to raise their own daughter would be strong incentive.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 27 September 2012 - 05:42 PM

[Coco with marshmallows]

Primateus, on 26 September 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

I especially liked the part where the doctor interrupts the party to take the Ponds a famous restaurent back in time promising that they'd be back to the party without anyone noticing they were gone. Three weeks later, from the doctors and the ponds perspective, they return to continue the same party they left three weeks ago.

It's one of those things that REALLY underscores that this is a timetravel show.

An excellent point, and it also points to the amount of stuff that happens 'off screen' in Doctor Who these days.

In the old show (pre revival) the show was deliberately one leading into another, with no gaps.

The new Who is much more flexible, with passing references to dozens of things that have happened off screen (for instance pretty much the Doctor's entire conversation with River in the diner in the last series, Tennant's Doctor's reference to looking for Charlemagne, etc)

Leaves much more room for an "expanded canon".

Even last weeks episode - Rory and Amy say they "think" it's been about 10 years since they met the Doctor, though they've only spent a year or two of that time at home - which leaves a hell of a lot of time offscreen adventuring round the universe.

[Princess]

Well that was a nice wrap-up to this companion story! Let's hope that, when the Doctor regenerates next it'll be in this form:


Nah, but the episode was sad. There were some random plotholes and at certain points it felt like they were doing things for the sake of the story, without having any real reasons, but hey! That's Doctor Who for you.

[QuickTidal]

Liked it a lot, but seeing as I don't care much for Amy & Rory I was more emotional to the Doctor's reaction. Good ep all round though and SCADS better than last weeks ep.

[Primateus]

Primateus, on 27 September 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

It seems a bit anti-climatic if you ask me. Besides, unless he decides to just leave them there I don't think the doctor would just say "Oh well, can't be helped" He'd go back and get them.

Well, that answers that then.

[QuickTidal]

Another point I heard someone say is "If it's because New York is so time cracked that he can't go back for Amy And Rory, why don't they just move to another city or place so he can go get them there?"

Other than a few rather glaring points like that which I thought about afterwards, I enjoyed.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, the ending made no sense whatsoever and would have been, for me, more effective if they'd decided that they're going to stop now because eventually, one or both of them is actually going to die for keeps this time, so they're going to duck out. It's not even as if such a resolution hadn't been foreshadowed.

It hit good notes emotionally though. Probably my favourite/most affecting character exit since Rose.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 30 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Yeah, the ending made no sense whatsoever and would have been, for me, more effective if they'd decided that they're going to stop now because eventually, one or both of them is actually going to die for keeps this time, so they're going to duck out. It's not even as if such a resolution hadn't been foreshadowed.

It hit good notes emotionally though. Probably my favourite/most affecting character exit since Rose.

What about Donna? Her exit has to be the saddest in the show's history.

But yeah, I agree with your first point about why they should have stopped.

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 30 September 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Another point I heard someone say is "If it's because New York is so time cracked that he can't go back for Amy And Rory, why don't they just move to another city or place so he can go get them there?"

Other than a few rather glaring points like that which I thought about afterwards, I enjoyed.

That is true, I was thinking that myself when I saw it. If it is so cracked up in time, why don't the doctor just park outside the city and take a taxi? Or why don't they just leave the city? I'll argue that this isn't just a plothole, it's a huge big fucking catastrophic and downright idiotic mistake by the writer.

Other than that, pretty damn good episode though.

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 30 September 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

I'll argue that this isn't just a plothole, it's a huge big fucking catastrophic and downright idiotic mistake by the writer.

Agree. For a person like me who can allow most plotholes in DW to slide for entertainment's sake, this one was just silly and glaringly obvious as a hole. So much so that it took away from the emotional impact of that scene for me.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 30 September 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

What about Donna? Her exit has to be the saddest in the show's history.

I think that one was ruined for me by RTD promising that this time she's really really going to die honest (after the Rose-is-going-to-die-in-battle debacle) and then pulling a fast one anyway that was even less convincing than Rose's. But still, I prefer the season 2 ending because the whole thing was better presented imo - their last conversation killed me. It's funny how when Billie Piper was signed up it was seen as a gimmick coz she was a teen-popper with no acting history but she sold it all so well.

Also this was made more effective for the fact that the show has been building up to it emotionally for some time.