Page Summary
nuttyxander.livejournal.com - (no subject)
midnightmelody.livejournal.com - (no subject)
blackbeltbarbie.livejournal.com - (no subject)
swisstone.livejournal.com - (no subject)
iainjclark.livejournal.com - (no subject)
ajr.livejournal.com - (no subject)
palatinate.livejournal.com - (no subject)
johnnyeponymous.livejournal.com - What good is it?
ex-susumu64.livejournal.com - (no subject)
twic.myopenid.com - (no subject)
- (Anonymous) - (no subject)
abigail-n.livejournal.com - (no subject)
lamentables.livejournal.com - (no subject)
Style Credit
- Base style: Brittle by
- Theme: Rust by
Page generated Jun. 29th, 2025 09:08 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:22 pm (UTC)Actually, I think I quite like some of the things the episode was trying to do. But the execution was a bit, er, hysterical and muddled.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:27 pm (UTC)Also, why did The Doctor make snow? And did he really believe that the Annoying Bride could 'be magnificent'?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 09:33 pm (UTC)The Glass Half-Full Option
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:37 pm (UTC)I like that they didn't ignore Rose, but it did feel rushed. And a little more panto then usual.
My Dad and I where talking earlier about how it pissed us off that every Christmas film seems to end with snow, so we laughed at the snow at the end.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:59 pm (UTC)Your lack of arbitrary judgement displeases me.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 09:02 pm (UTC)Well, more consistently annoying than usual, at least. Which may or may not have been deliberate, since I don't usually find his mannerisms that annoying, and here I virtually cheered both times he got slapped.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 09:23 pm (UTC)On the other hand, I'd been drinking rather a lot of wine.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 10:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 12:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 12:57 am (UTC)But maybe it's just me.
I haven't voted, because I'm utterly undecided. As you say, it was better than Torchwood, but generally that means it was merely more pleasant than rectal surgery preformed with a shovel.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 10:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-25 11:33 pm (UTC)I agree it was a bit panto but I didn't mind that. Whilst RTD has a track record that's a bit left-field superficially, when it comes to Dr Who he's very traditional - from the start he's been careful to protect the "institution". And Christmas specials are a Beeb tradition going back decades - not only in variety but special episodes of drama series, often with added humour.
We're not a typical audience so I think occasionally it's worth us reminding ourselves that the BBC sees Dr Who as not only an institution but "classic family entertainment" and I think it probably worked well for the core audience they have in mind. Indeed, as a cultural observer I find it fascinating to watch the game that's being played out with the mass audience as the BBC team tries to be original yet always carries its historical baggage of approach and style around with it. To escape that fully I think it usually needs a totally original show with no history and often on a lesser network (X-Files, B5 ...).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 11:01 am (UTC)Alternatively, a revival of a traditional show with an established reputation for being a bit more serious - that is, Quatermass.
This is my masterplan to save British TV SF: new Quatermass. On BBC 4 to begin with, to give it room to grow into something solid (excellent point about lesser networks,
-- tom
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 11:04 am (UTC)This is probably one of the most sensible things I've seen written about Doctor Who around here since they resurrected it :-)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:What good is it?
Date: 2006-12-26 12:26 am (UTC)What good is it having UK folks on my FList if there's no spoilerage goin' on on the Who front?
Chris
Re: What good is it?
Date: 2006-12-26 12:31 am (UTC)Also killer robot Santas.
Re: What good is it?
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 08:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 09:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:TORCHWOOD FACT!
From:Re: TORCHWOOD FACT!
From:Re: TORCHWOOD FACT!
From:Re: TORCHWOOD FACT!
From:Re: TORCHWOOD FACT!
From:Re: TORCHWOOD FACT!
From:no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 10:20 am (UTC)Thus, i voted GOOD on this episode because (a) my mum thought is was funny and (b) there were several strikingly gratuitous down-wet-cleavage shots of a well-supported Catherine Tate, which is relevant to my interests.
Brief laundry list of what was BAD:
-- tom
no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 01:27 pm (UTC)Sparkymark
no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-26 08:46 pm (UTC)(That's a GOOD, in case I wasn't being clear.)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-27 07:42 pm (UTC)