Did anyone watch Doctor Who last night?

[khashka]

Father's Day by Paul Cornell?

I cried like a baby.

Just watched it again and was wondering what you guys' thoughts were.


The last line: "Peter Alan Tyler. My Dad. The most wonderful man in the world. Died 7th of November, 1987" still chokes me up.




Khash.

[bridgit]

1. we dvr'd it but haven't watched just yet...

[Deja Q]

2. Well, if effort had been applied to the sci-fi angle, I'd have loved it.

But we have Reapers who can't get past old things, yet they devour the Doctor and avoid Rose - who, as the Reapers invaded to devour the Doctor, was about to touch her younger self and as such cause annihilation.

Why didn't the Reapers go after Rose instead?

And why did the Doctor take Rose back to the event twice? (which is really stupid, yet he's the one foaming and frothing and pinning all the blame on Rose, which makes no sense as he knows humanity pretty well by that point...)

It's otherwise an emotional masterpieece. I just have problems with some of the logic.

But then, as previous stories not written by the producer had been changed at his behest, and knowing how the producer writes his own stories, I dare say the problems in this story can be attibuted to the producer and not writer Paul Cornell - who has written competent stuff in the past...

[khashka]

4. I'll take this point by point.

>But we have Reapers who can't get past old things,

Because the older a thing is, the longer it existed before the wound. And thus has more reality.

>yet they devour the Doctor and avoid Rose - who, as the Reapers invaded to devour the Doctor, was about to touch her younger self and as such cause annihilation.


She touches the baby first, thus letting the Reapers into the church. But that was not her fault! The baby was thrust into her hands! And the Dr. miscalculated. He made everyone get behind him so he would be first in line. "I'm the oldest thing here!" Thinking he'd be safe. Not so.

>And why did the Doctor take Rose back to the event twice? (which is really stupid, yet he's the one foaming and frothing and pinning all the blame on Rose, which makes no sense as he knows humanity pretty well by that point...)

Because he believes in her. Believes all she wants is to comfort her dad as he dies. But like she says: "I can't do this." And she can't. Another miscalculation. Watch the argument scene again (where he berates her because he made a mistake with her and she manipulated him into this.)

>It's otherwise an emotional masterpieece. I just have problems with some of the logic.

The logic actually does work. But it's Paul's logic and he doesn't always explain everything.


The only big problem I had was why doesn't Mickey get eaten? Everyone else in the playground did! Why not him? And how come Jackie suddenly realizes Rose is her daughter? After spending the whole episode believing Rose is Peter's latest bit on the side? Those were the only logical breakdowns I found.


Thanks for coming back :) While watching it I kept thinking I wanted to talk to you about it. But you were taking time off and weren't gonna be here when I needed you, damn it! So, I'm glad you're back :)


Khash.

[Deja Q]

5. Dang, you're good!

I'm going to rewatch the story...

You will love what they show next week... :D


:hug: :pals:

And I'm glad you're still around too! :)

I'll always be around, in one form or another.

[khashka]

6. Wait! Next week is Empty Child, right?

Written by Steven Moffat and introducing Captain Jack! I can't wait!


Khash.

[supernova]

3. I dvr'd last week's and this week's

and haven't watched them yet. I was out of town. I'll probably watch them this evening.