|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 12, 2008 18:45:45 GMT
Comments??
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 12, 2008 18:47:56 GMT
it was OK I suppose...I still get the feeling of it being rushed instead of carried over 3 or 4 25 minute episodes
It got on my nerves a bit where they made the son out to be like a modern teenager.
Was that Mad Maya ..?
Blimey the credits rolled about 100 MPH
where the mother superior thing suddenly shouted 'SISTERS'
me and Geoff suddenly spontaneously combusted together with 'There were never such devoted sisters' lol
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 12, 2008 19:00:13 GMT
LOL! I forgot it was even on.
I doubt they will ever change that. TV bosses think no one has an attention span. Yet kids were attending conventions long before this started, loving the original. If scenes are short, no character or real plot development, everything rushed instead then it won't be remembered.
Patsy
|
|
Peter
Cellarman
Posts: 276
|
Post by Peter on Apr 12, 2008 19:51:48 GMT
Instantly forgettable. Have themnot talk properly, some cockney and even the use of "lovely jublee" was almost enough to make me turn off, instean i went to make my evening supper.
The only good thing is the moment between the Doctor and Donna as they were about to push the lever, everything there and till the end was okay. The rest was dribble, padding episode. Why o why must every 2nd episode every series be a history one?
I'm still waiting on those alien planets. (Not a space station/spacestation orbiting Earth or aliens on Earth or barren rock orbiting a black hole.) Ood next week though, but i would hold my breath there on anything remotely resembling an alien planet, let's hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 12, 2008 21:41:44 GMT
How are you getting on with the old series?
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 12, 2008 22:35:55 GMT
mInd you I seem to remember Tom Baker having a similar dilemma about finally destroying the Daleks by touching 2 wires together and wether the power to destroy a race should be down to him...
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 12, 2008 22:39:22 GMT
You mean they pinched again from the best?
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 12, 2008 22:43:56 GMT
Not Half ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 12, 2008 23:53:01 GMT
Why not just repeat those and be done with it?
Did you read Bernard Cribbins on Teletext? How that man's gone down in my estimation for calling David Tennant 'The Guv'nor'. Most of the Doctors say it's Patrick Troughton because it could have failed if people didn't take to him. But most of the fans say it's Tom. I also got annoyed with that piece where it kept referring to Peter Cushing's as a Time Lord when he bloody well wasn't.
Patsy
|
|
Peter
Cellarman
Posts: 276
|
Post by Peter on Apr 13, 2008 10:39:06 GMT
How are you getting on with the old series? Patsy Well UK drama stopped showing them so I thought, then at least a month or more later I realised it was at 5.00pm, though I've no idea what series or whether it's old at new. Plus I'm at work at that time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lane Kent on Apr 13, 2008 13:57:38 GMT
Did anyone else notice the reference to Rose's return? I suppose we are going to have this in every episode until she returns. What is the point. Those who are interested or want to know know she is coming back, those who don't wan to know or don't care don't know and don't need to know until it happens. So why do the prophets have to say "she will return", which coupled with last week's sighting of Rose was obvious that's who it was referring to as it was a throwaway comment directed solely at the Doctor.
At least Rose didn't show up in Pompeii. At least I don't think she did?
Always been interested in Pompeii since the exhibition came to England when I was about 6 years old (showing my age now). So I was quite interested in this episode for the first 20 minutes and it did hold my attention, then suddenly from nowhere I found my mind wondering and myself easily distracted. Perhaps Nick is right another rushed story that didn't have the time to craft itself. By the end I realised I had the gist but probably did miss important stuff but it didn't really matter.
Catherine Tate was still tolerable but she is slipping back into her annoying self slowly but surely. as she wasn't tolerable as she was last week.
Sorry I can't be positive. I do think the idea for this story was good, and as I say for the first 20 or so minutes I was quite addicted. Unlike last week where I found the beginning the weakest.
I think overall I enjoyed last week's episode more. I think I will give the Ood a miss as I hated their last episodes.
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 13, 2008 14:00:37 GMT
That's a shame, Peter. They do like messing people about.
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 13, 2008 14:05:13 GMT
One of my favourite historicals is The Aztecs. It's creaky and clunky because of being the 60s but you get real story development. Barbara wants to change history despite the Doctor telling her she can't. We all know the Aztecs were wiped out. The Doctor has a little accidental romantic moment with the elderly Cameca. If it was done these days it would be full-blown snogging and you wouldn't care about the characters or their fate.
Patsy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2008 5:07:14 GMT
Didn't enjoy it as much as the first episode.
Indeed it was, and for those with long memories - did anyone else spot Tracey Childs as the mother? (played the daughter in Howard's Way many moons ago)
|
|
|
|
Post by eithne on Apr 14, 2008 20:45:02 GMT
I didn't enjoy it as much either and found my attention wandering. I flicked over a few times as well. The idea of a story set in Pompeii is brilliant and there really is enough drama in the idea of an entire city being wiped out in one go to merit it being the centre of the story, rather than stupid CGI monsters in the middle of the volcano. It was like the Shakespeare episode last time, the plot was good enough to leave out the CGI creatures. Its plainly for Christmas toy market reasons that they put in the CGI creatures I think.
But as for the other CGI bits with the eruption and the ash it was brilliant. Why couldn't that be the core point of the story rather than all these stupid creatures.
Oh and I completely agree about the "Lovely Jubley" thing which had me wincing as I heard it!
|
|
|
|
Post by sootycat on Apr 15, 2008 11:35:45 GMT
The thing that stuck in my mind was the passing comment of TK.Maximus. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by eileengrimshaw on Apr 15, 2008 20:34:18 GMT
It was all a bit poor wasn't it? I quite enjoyed the bit at the beginning when The Doctor thought that he was in Rome & he said that he'd been there before but that the fire was nothing to do with him (ref: Season Two's "The Romans") and the son was rather tasty to look at, but beyond that it was all a bit crap. You have to be really careful when you're trying to mix sci-fi with historical elements & I felt that this one just didn't gel very well together at all. The stuff with the Sybilline cult came across like a third rate rip off of the Sisterhood of Karn from "The Brain of Morbius" and as for the "creatures in the volcano".....well, let's just say don't get me started on those. Very weak & not something I'd be in a hurry to see again (unless I'm eager to drool over aforementioned son again!!!)  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 15, 2008 20:43:21 GMT
The Romans was historically inaccurate in the main but a bloody good romp. And of course the fire was the Doctor's fault. He accidentally set the plans for the new Rome on fire with his glasses which gave Nero the idea. Age must be taking its toll on the poor Doc. LOL!
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 15, 2008 22:25:27 GMT
I seem to recall he was indirectly responsible for the great fire of London too...the Galifreyan is a liability !!
|
|
|
|
Post by RitaLittlewood on Apr 15, 2008 22:49:06 GMT
LOL! A menace to the very fabric of space and time. Then he tells others not to interfere. That's what you get when you're so many hundred years old. I like it in Invasion of Time when Borusa sees the paper about the Titanic sinking the Doctor says he had nothing to do with it. LOL!
Patsy
|
|
|
|
Post by Lane Kent on Apr 17, 2008 23:40:52 GMT
You are right about the monsters Eithne, they weren't needed. It was at that point my mind started to wonder. There was enough for a story in the setting itself but they had to give us some monster in the fire and people turning to stone. I never fully grasped what was going on there as that is the point my mind was really wondering.
|
|
;D