|
Linquel
Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 729
|
 Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
|
| [Quote by: Mohan]I did like the references to J.K. Rowling and my wife burst out loud laughing with the "57 academics just punched their fists up into the air" comment--that was pretty funny stuff. |
|
I got a kick out of the Harry Potter bits and laughed at the Back to the Future bit, but I didn't get the 57 academics thing. Can anyone explain it?
Overall, I enjoyed this one pretty much. I thought the guy playing Shakespeare did a top-notch job. I think I'll give it a 4 out of 5 when the survey goes up. |
|
I'm going "Full Circle" and putting my avatar back to what it was when I first joined. :)
|
|
|
| |
merlin_mccarley
Registered: 07/30/06
Posts: 733
|
| Sunday, April 08 2007 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
|
[Quote by: Linquel] | [Quote by: Mohan]I did like the references to J.K. Rowling and my wife burst out loud laughing with the "57 academics just punched their fists up into the air" comment--that was pretty funny stuff. |
|
I got a kick out of the Harry Potter bits and laughed at the Back to the Future bit, but I didn't get the 57 academics thing. Can anyone explain it?
Overall, I enjoyed this one pretty much. I thought the guy playing Shakespeare did a top-notch job. I think I'll give it a 4 out of 5 when the survey goes up. |
|
This is in refrence to Shakespeare's implied bisexuality. Sonnet 57, Sonet 18 and others are believed to be (by Shakespeare academians) adressed to a man. |
|
I'm a Time Traveler, I point and laugh at archaeologist.
|
|
|
| |
zaphod08
Registered: 11/14/06
Posts: 12
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 12:30 AM EDT |
|
| I just glad that in this day and age, Americans no longer have to wait years to watch Doctor Who. I thought this week's ep was fantastic. Go RTD |
|
|
|
|
| |
DarthSkeptical
Registered: 03/11/06
Posts: 1129
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
|
| Good scheduling decision to make this the 14th David Tennant story . . . |
|
"I think of myself as ambitious in casting terms, and I know that Bonnie [Langford] has the potential to make the part totally unirritating . . ." — JNT, 1986
|
|
|
| |
moshdaddy
Registered: 04/16/06
Posts: 17
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
|
| Thought this was okay...seemed like a re-tread of the unquiet dead. i did like the stuff on the bed where he referenced Rose. character work was solid and the best part.... |
|
|
|
|
| |
DarthSkeptical
Registered: 03/11/06
Posts: 1129
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
|
| How was it a retread of TUD? |
|
"I think of myself as ambitious in casting terms, and I know that Bonnie [Langford] has the potential to make the part totally unirritating . . ." — JNT, 1986
|
|
|
| |
capricorn1
Registered: 04/19/06
Posts: 395
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 04:39 AM EDT |
|
[Quote by: Mawdryn]...
It was great to see the Globe Theater featured in the episode. For those who don't know, it's a extremely detailed reproduction of the original Globe Theater. |
|
Sorry, but just to be very pedantic, as it's a building in the UK it is actually called the Globe Theatre 
For some reason people stateside put the r and e the wrong way round in words like theatre and centre as well as missing the u from colour and favour! My US based colleagues at work never tire of me pointing these spelling mistakes out to them!
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
merlin_mccarley
Registered: 07/30/06
Posts: 733
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
|
[Quote by: capricorn1] [Quote by: Mawdryn]...
It was great to see the Globe Theater featured in the episode. For those who don't know, it's a extremely detailed reproduction of the original Globe Theater. |
|
Sorry, but just to be very pedantic, as it's a building in the UK it is actually called the Globe Theatre
For some reason people stateside put the r and e the wrong way round in words like theatre and centre as well as missing the u from colour and favour! My US based colleagues at work never tire of me pointing these spelling mistakes out to them!
|
|
As to the more artistic (and corect IMHO) speling of Theatre, I agree entirely. It is used stateside, mostly by folk that are fimiliar with the term Proscenium. Those who understand will of course need no explaniation, for those who do not (to quote Jerry Louis  ) no explination will suffice . |
|
I'm a Time Traveler, I point and laugh at archaeologist.
|
|
|
| |
seanhuxter
Registered: 08/27/05
Posts: 825
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 06:28 AM EDT |
|
| [Quote by: DarthSkeptical] How was it a retread of TUD? |
|
Oh, come on. How is it NOT?
1) Take the new female companion back to the past to meet a famous author
2) While there, meet the author
3) Suddenly mystical archetype, or so it seems, appear, frightening a stagefull of audience members
4) Turns out said mystical archetype is an alien trying to get through a portal into Earth to take it over
5) Something happens and the aliens get through.
6) The Doctor, new companion, and the author, cause the aliens to be trapped by closing off the portal.
7) Literary references to the author's work, jokes about same.
8) Now... what variables shall we switch?
a) Shakespeare/Dickens
b) Ghosts/Witches
c) Alien name
d) Method of opening the portal
e) ... etc.
Mark Gattiss should have been given a co-writing credit for this one.
-M- |
|
One solid hope is worth a cartload of uncertainties.
|
|
|
| |
Linquel
Registered: 03/22/06
Posts: 729
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
|
| [Quote by: merlin_mccarley] This is in refrence to Shakespeare's implied bisexuality. Sonnet 57, Sonet 18 and others are believed to be (by Shakespeare academians) adressed to a man. |
|
Thanks. I didn't know that. So the number 57 in "57 academics" is only referencing Sonnet 57? The only Shakespeare info I know is that myth that he wrote the King James bible.  |
|
I'm going "Full Circle" and putting my avatar back to what it was when I first joined. :)
|
|
|
| |
DarthSkeptical
Registered: 03/11/06
Posts: 1129
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
|
[Quote by: seanhuxter] | [Quote by: DarthSkeptical] How was it a retread of TUD? |
| Oh, come on. How is it NOT?
|
| But then you could just as easily say that TUD was a retread of "The Visitation" which was a retread of "Masque of Mandragora" which was a retread of "The Daemons". It's a long-established conceit of Doctor Who that he encounters and gives rational explanation for things which have historically been considered "mythical monsters", and that that explanation generally involves revealing that the monsters were in fact aliens.
As I see it, the similarities are superficial. I think it's much fairer to say that it is the latest example of an archetype, the pseudo-historical, than that is just a redux of TUD. To imply the latter greatly minimizes the novel elements of each story, and misrepresents their separate development paths. TSC much more clearly adapts Roberts' own "A Groatsworth of Wit" than it copies TUD.
Fine, the two episodes do center on historical British authors who get involved with the Doctor on adventures which involve aliens. Other than that one sentence summary, though, the shows are quite different, not in the least because TSC is revolves around two genuine historical mysteries (the disappearance of Love's Labours Won and the unusual architecture of the Globe) rather than an entirely fictional use of the guest star. Though welcome enough, Dickens was quite superfluous to his plot (the story could just as easily worked were he not there, and all his lines modified and given to the undertaker), whereas you absolutely cannot divorce Shakespeare from the "Code". Indeed, "Code" sneaks in two other genuine historical figures (Peter Street and Elizabeth I), locking us, I think, much more firmly in to its historical setting than TUD. TUD, by contrast, introduced a fictional concept, the Rift, still reverberating in the RTD "Whoniverse". It's early days yet, but I doubt that TSC will have as long-reaching an impact on Doctor Who as "Unquiet".
"Code" attempts to explain something real and specific about Shakespeare, whereas the best you can say about TUD is that it mentions the fact that "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" was unfinished because Dickens died before completing it.
In other words,"Unquiet" was about what history could do for Doctor Who; "Code" was much more about what Doctor Who could do for history. |
|
"I think of myself as ambitious in casting terms, and I know that Bonnie [Langford] has the potential to make the part totally unirritating . . ." — JNT, 1986
|
|
|
| |
gwensdad2003
Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 104
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
|
I've been watching the Potter fansites and the episode has been mentioned the biggest ones. (still no news from JK Rowling's site-maybe 30 years from now THAT will be the famous author that gets visited)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
atomic99
Registered: 03/02/06
Posts: 76
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
|
Did anyone get a good look at the tattoo on Martha's right arm?
I'm curious if it is a butterfly?
As in Bradbury's "the butterfly effect" mentioned at the beginning of this episode.
Could this be a set up for this year's "bad wolf" or am I reading too much into it?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
DarthSkeptical
Registered: 03/11/06
Posts: 1129
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
|
[Quote by: atomic99] Did anyone get a good look at the tattoo on Martha's right arm?
I'm curious if it is a butterfly?
As in Bradbury's "the butterfly effect" mentioned at the beginning of this episode.
Could this be a set up for this year's "bad wolf" or am I reading too much into it?
|
| | I think you might be reading too much into it. It's a real tattoo that Freema has, not one the makeup department put onto Martha. Course, that's not to say it couldn't be worked into a script, because they certainly haven't filmed around it. |
|
"I think of myself as ambitious in casting terms, and I know that Bonnie [Langford] has the potential to make the part totally unirritating . . ." — JNT, 1986
|
|
|
| |
Daktaer
Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 4
|
| Monday, April 09 2007 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
|
I watched the episode yesterday - It was very well done as far as performances, lighting, camera work, etc. However, I wasn't blown away by the story. It wasn't bad, per se, but it didn't grab me either. There were some nice bits and touches - Martha is doing quite well, and she's pretty observant and seems to be applying bits and pieces of sci-fi and literature to her travels, and making good points. Shakespear was played very well, also, and David Tennent is doing a great job.
However, overall, the episode was not my favorite. The ending ... well, I'll just leave it at I wasn't overly impressed with the villians, nor was I impressed with the grand finale at the theatre. I just get the feeling that they are taking the easy way out as far as the plots go. Just my opinion. When I watch it back a second time, maybe I'll like it better.
As another comment, I can see a time in the not too distant relative future when The Doctor and Martha are probably going to square off about his little comments about Rose - as I think Martha is going to get the feeling the Doctor is constantly comparing her with Rose. It ain't gonna be pretty.
Anyway, that's my 2 shillings worth.
DKR |
|
"First things first? But not necessarily in that order." - The Doctor
|
|
|
| |
