The Gallifreyan Embassy
Home of the Doctor Who podcast DOCTOR WHO: PODSHOCK
Advertising | Donate | Feedback | New Website | Podshock | Shop | Forum | Media Gallery | Web Resources | Polls
 Gallifreyan Embassy 3.0  
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Live Show Reviewing the 2014 Series Scheduled for Sunday, Nov 30
  • Peter Capaldi Being Interviewed by Craig Ferguson in 2009 [VIDEO]
  • Doctor Who Christmas Special 2014 Preview from BBC Children in Need
  • Doctor Who: Podshock 318 - 'Death in Heaven' Reviewed
  • Doctor Who Christmas Special 2014 Promo "Trailer" Video
  • How do you rate Doctor Who: Death in Heaven? (5=Fantastic)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Live Show Reviewing 'Death in Heaven' Scheduled for Sunday, Nov 09
  • Doctor Who: Podshock 317 - 'Dark Water' Reviewed
  • How do you rate Doctor Who: Dark Water? (5=Fantastic)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Live Show Reviewing 'Dark Water' Scheduled for Sunday, Nov 02

  •  Topics  
    Home
    Doctor Who News (188/0)
    DW: Podshock (201/0)
    DW Reviews (33/0)
    Torchwood (15/0)
    Sarah Jane Adven... (13/0)
    General News (29/0)
    Embassy News (19/0)
    Editorials (5/0)
    Alien Tech (2/0)

     Extra! Extra!  

    Become a Podshock Supporting Subscriber


     Randomizer  
    With Tom Baker
    With Tom Baker
    Browse Album

     User Functions  
    :

    :


    Lost your password?

     Support Podshock  

    This site and our podcast are free to use and listen to respectively. Though there are costs involved in maintaining and producing both. If you like, please make a donation to help offset these costs and to help ensure that we can continue to bring you both. Thank you so much.

    You can make a one time donation of any amount you like using the above "Donate" button. If you rather make an annual recurring donation of $25 (that is less than 50 cents a week), use the "Subscribe" button below.

    Save big on toys & collectibles at Entertainment Earth! CLICK HERE for Doctor Who, Star Wars, Buffy, Ozzy, Spider-Man, & more!


     Events  
    There are no upcoming events

     Audible UK  

    Dr Who Audio Downloads from audible.co.uk


     DWNY  
    DWNY

     Ads by Google  

     Older Stories  
    Wednesday 06-May
  • In Russell/Moffat We Trust Shirts and More (1)

  • Tuesday 05-May
  • Join Us for Our Second Second Life Meet Up (3)

  • Friday 01-May
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 147 (0)

  • Wednesday 29-Apr
  • Sonic Newsdriver for the Week of the 27th of April 2009 (0)

  • Saturday 25-Apr
  • Who Party 14 Toronto Doctor Who Convention (0)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 146 (1)

  • Thursday 23-Apr
  • Sonic Newsdriver and Hoo on Who for the Week of the 20 April 2009 (0)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 145 (4)

  • Wednesday 15-Apr
  • Three New Producers Announced (0)

  • Saturday 11-Apr
  • Planet Of The Dead Canadian air date confirmed (0)

  • Tuesday 07-Apr
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Recognized as Best Podcast (1)
  • Sonic Newsdriver for the Week of the 5th of April 2009 (0)

  • Wednesday 01-Apr
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 144 (5)

  • Friday 20-Mar
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 143 (3)
  • Hitchhiker's Guide to British Sci-Fi - Episode 3 (1)

  •  Notice  

    Doctor Who and the TARDIS are owned and trademarked by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The Gallifreyan Embassy and the Doctor Who: Podshock podcast are not connected to the BBC in any way. No infringement is intended.



     

     
     Home »  The David Tennant Era »  S3-EP2 - The Shakespeare Code
    Prev Topic Next Next Topic Printable Version
    S3-EP2 - The Shakespeare Code Views: 3826
     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. :)
      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     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.
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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

      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     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
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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....

      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     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
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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 Wink

    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!

    Mr. Green Mr. Green

      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     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 Wink

    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!

    Mr. Green Mr. Green


    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 Rolling Eyes ) no explination will suffice Wink .

    I'm a Time Traveler, I point and laugh at archaeologist.
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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.
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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. Big Grin

    I'm going "Full Circle" and putting my avatar back to what it was when I first joined. :)
      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     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
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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)

      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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?



      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     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
      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     

     
    Topic Legend:
    Normal Topic Normal Topic
    Locked Topic Locked Topic
    Sticky Topic Sticky Topic
    New Post New Post
    Sticky Topic W/ New Post Sticky Topic W/ New Post
    Locked Topic W/ New Post Locked Topic W/ New Post
    Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic
    You may not post messages
    Full HTML is allowed
    Words are censored