The Big Moff and 'Who''s Golden Rules

 I'm not sure what Sydney Newman (you know, the guy who basically invented 'Doctor Who') would think of the title of season 7's finale episode. Being dead there don't seem to be  many options left but turning over in his grave, even though, he may wait and save that for another occasion, like when someone will turn the Doctor into a woman (*shudder*). But teasing to reveal the biggest mystery in the Whoniverse comes actually pretty close to that. Well, we know Moffat is not *really* up to it. After all, this series is called 'Doctor Who' for a reason,and I'm pretty sure Moffat is aware of that too.You simply cannot go and break 'Who's golden rules at your will.

Sadly, it's almost as if Moffat's big goal was to try how far he can go interfering with those aforementioned rules without actually breaking them: he made the Doctor marrying River, he even killed him, and know he's trying to reveal the one secret which nobody really wants to know. Well, we know it's much ado about nothing, as Moffat has a record on not keeping his promises, but even teasing things like this should be forbidden. If you add something to that part of 'Who's legacy then it becomes to stay forever, just like that odd 13-lives rule (which is there for a really important reason, so I'm not complaining). And as much as I love most of Moffat's episodes, I'm not sure if I want him to have this much power. Because if you're messing with the Doctor's past you're craving your own ideas into stone, and future main editors will have to stick to them, no matter if they like it or not, or if it's worth it. 

On the other side, this is something which would have happened at one point in the future anyway. And I can come up with much worse scriptwriters than Moffat who could have had a go at it (I'm glad RTD didn't). So we can deal with it know, and settle things forever. And let's hope that Moffat has a brilliant solution to deal with this very obvious red herring, i.e. without causing too much damage.

Resurrecting the Ice Warriors

Is anyone familiar with Alien, the sci-fi horror film? This week's episode felt a lot like that, only without the really creepy chest-bursting alien life-form, and the cat. But everything else was pretty much the same: the ridiculously bigger on the inside submarine, the Ice Warrior killing crew members and you didn't know who's next... Thinking about it, IMHO it felt almost as if it had been something written for 'Torchwood' and not 'Doctor Who'.

Leaving the rather scary side of it behind and looking only at its science-fictional qualities, I have to say, that 'Cold War' is one of the most old school sci-fi episodes I've seen for ages. And this is a compliment. Because back then stories did not rely on CGI but an excellent plot with a lot of (necessary) explanations and almost no plot-holes (which is not exactly true about the old series, but good sci-fi in general). And that is exactly what Mark Gatiss offered us this week. In fact, I can't remember the last 'Who' episode whose plot  did not have a lot in common with with the famous Swiss cheese. Gatiss even took the time to explain why the Doctor could not use the TARDIS as a means of escape. And it's great that he used something form the classic stories (the Hostile Action Displacement System, HADS) to do so.

What I do not get, though, is why the fact that the Professor turns up singing Ultrafox's Vienna stops the Soviets blowing up the world (again). But this is only a minor remark. Everything else is more than just plausible, the Professor finding a creature while drilling for oil on the North pole, the reason why he is there in the first place, the way it comes alive, the Ice Warrior's emotional reaction after spending thousands of years in hibernation. Besides, I love the pun created by using the Cold War as the background for the episode in which the Ice Warriors get some sort of resurrected. This is something only 'Doctor Who' allows you to do.

Thousand Little Secrets

Something the fan girl in me has been wanting to write about for quite a while now is 'Broadchurch'. Yes, it has David Tennant in it, and yes, it's all about crime, and an interesting case, which is a great combination if you're me. And, as the biggest advantage of all, there are (hopefully) no vampires involved. Watching TV has been tough in the past 3 years if you're not into blood-sucking creatures...

Sadly enough, these 4 elements do not automatically add up to a great mini-series by themselves. It also takes a great plot, showing how the interesting case is solved. And this is the point in which 'Broadchurch' fails the audience, which is interesting when you're looking at Chris Chibnall's background. After all, he's a regular on 'Law & Order: UK' (something I've never watched so far, as I have to admit) so one might expect that he knows how to write a crime-related storyline. Then there are his various 'Doctor Who'* contributions, which were usually less spectacular in my humble opinion, with 'Dinosaurs on a Spaceship' being the one big exception...

One thing about crime series is that most writers fail at creating non-stereotype characters, and luckily Chibnall does not fall into this convenient trap. His characters seem to live real lives, all of them. Every resident and non-resident of Broadchurch has a proper background story and it's great to see someone putting this much effort into it°.

And this is also not my actual objection. The only thing, the really only thing Chibnall gets wrong is the police. Unfortunately he makes a big beginner's mistakes, namely, that the crime-related plot of 'Broadchurch' is boring and predictable.

You want proof? First of all, from episode 1 onwards it's so obvious that Danny's dad didn't kill his own son. You only need to put some thinking into it and you'll understand that the reason why he is behaving strangely and not answering the police's questions properly is because he cheated on his wife. And only by looking at the people living in Broadchurch you know whom he slept with, after all, there are not that many attractive, young-ish, single women around there (and single is an important criterion as then you do not need to go into how their mistake is threatening her marriage as well, something you do not want to deal with in an 8 part long story). But the police doesn't reveal this till episode 3.

The next suspects are Jack the newsagent, and Paul Coats the vicar. Well, when we see Jack burning the pictures of Danny and him you know that it wasn't Jack. He's no fool, so it's likely that he'd have burnt them before the whole fuss started happening. Besides, he is the one who gives Danny's mobile to the police. I mean, if it had been him, being familiar with the sea, he could have certainly come up with a nice salty, wet spot on the sea ground where (beside the fish) nobody would have ever found it again.

And the vicar? It's a TV drama, and nobody wants to offend the church. Additionally, it would be far too obvious. And as a good script-writer you're shunning the obvious. So, in a few days we'll watch the last but least episode of this 8-parter and so far the police has only eliminated those people about whom we already have been knowing several episodes ago that they were obviously not responsible for Danny's death. 

Yes, pacing might be an issue here. And that's something crime series (or any other series in general) should never have a problem with. I'm not complaining about them not solving the case faster. But they could have focused on some  more likely people. Like the guy who is constantly complaining about the bad effect the case has on the village's reputation. As a scriptwriter you could get a good story out of that.

Or Susan Wright. Why was noone, no-one looking into her background right after the police found out that she obviously lied to them about Mark. I mean people tend to remember phoning a plumber. After all, it takes a major event to trigger that.

And why are people not focusing on the postman who had an argument with Danny? And even though he denies the whole thing, why didn't they ask if there were any colleagues filling in for him during that time? It's a question people would expect the police to tackle. Or why did it took this long to learn about Danny going paint-balling? What else do they not know about, then? It's not like this would have been kept a secret.Or the money they found in Danny's bedroom? Or Nigle, even though I'm not sure if he'd done it. Chibnball obviously wants us to think that, but he's a pretty bad liar, so I'm not sure. Besides, why should he have killed his mate's son? They seem to be pretty close friends...

In my humble opinion, none of these people mentioned in this post murdered Danny (they might have influenced things, but in the end, I don't think they made their hands dirty). Nevertheless, all of them would have been adequate suspects to investigate and to make an 8 hour long crime mystery appear less boring. Now, one might argue that the borderline boring storyline (as far as the actual inspection is concerned) is part of the reason why the series feels so real. Plus, Chibnall is trying to compensate the slow paceing by adding several sub-plots to the story; like Alec not wanting the police to find out about his illness, the way the news agency is (and is not) involved into Jack's death, the way Mark's family is coping with the new situation and the baby, not to mentioning the whole drug-stuff about Dean (and Chloe?), and then there's Tom and his laptop... and so on. It's almost as if their purpose were some sort of distraction. In the end of the day, it all comes down to appearances. It's a whole village trying to keep their little secrets.

Then again these sub-plots give us inevitably more information on people's backgrounds, which makes things even more real. Well, that and the amazing acting. Talking about it, Olivia Colman and David Tennant are great. The frictions between them add a new (and the only interesting) side to the otherwise rather boring investigation so far. But maybe that's the point. Maybe Chibnall didn't want to write a well investigated crime story. Unfortunately, generally they are those which get all the attention... Besides, if you're good, you can even make a badly investigated crime story appear interesting.
____________

* You can't write a 'Broadchurch'-review without mentioning 'Doctor Who', can you, although I guess usually it's not because of Chibnall. 

 ° Just compare the characters of any the major crime series to this (except Navy CIS, maybe, they're paying a lot of attention to that too). Chibnall manages to reveal more about his characters in 6 episodes, than 'Criminal Minds' or 'The Mentalist' managed to tell us about their main and less main characters in several seasons.

We Don't Walk Away...

... the Golden Rule(s) of 'Who' revisited.

The first out-of-time/space adventure of the new companion is usually some kind of a bummer*. And this might  have been one of the numerous reasons why many people wasn't expecting much from "The Rings of Akhaten" in the first palce. With stakes this modestly set, it managed to live up to exceptions. Sadly, flawless CGI is simply not enough for a great episode, it takes a good plot too, and one may be tempted to suspect that with an almost 5o year old history of writing sci-fi 'Doctor Who' has already leaned this lesson. 

Of course, not everything about the latest episode is bad. It's great to be shown Clara's background story, and to have all those blank spots filled out, more or less. Ironically, with every detail we learn about her childhood, Clara's other versions (and their deaths') are becoming more and more impossible. And that's exactly the Big Moff's agenda, I suppose. 

At the same time it's some sort of difficult to ignore a giant plot hole of Cross' debut story: Why exactly was the Doctor's knowledge and more than just long-ish life experience not enough for Grandfather? Yes, I know that nice catch about the most important leaf in human history; it's standing for the infinite number of Clara's mum's un-lived adventures, and all the chances and possibilities never taken. But then we have the Doctor who "can see what is, what was, what could be, what must not" (as he explained to Donna in "The Fires of Pompeii") which is infinite too... and which even includes the never taken adventures of Mrs Oswald in a way. So why is that infinite infinity not enough? It's not as if there'd be a mathematical difference, you know.

Apart from that, it's odd how the Doctor manages to get away with not introducing himself to Clara properly again. It's almost as if she had a crash course about the Doctor: him being an alien, Gallifrey, the Time War, ect., ect. She gets the whole package, but she doesn't question it. She may be the first companion who doesn't make him deal with his past. Her emotional involvement wouldn't be less if he were reciting the periodic table. Strangely, this creates the impression as if she already knew, and maybe the impossible girl does. And maybe that's what the TARDIS senses when she refuses to let Clara (and Merry) enter...

Oh, and am I the only one who isn't that sure that *nothing* has changed while Clara was away saving the people of Akhaten?
_____

*No rule without exception. I LOVE "The Shakespeare Code" and Donna's trip to Pompeii was also not too bad. But still, neither "The End of the World" (Rose), nor "The Beast Below" (Amy) belong to many people's personal highlights. In fact, in my humble opinion, "The Beast Below" may be the worst story which sadly wears Moffat's personal markings.

Matt Smith's Guardian Interview

The dear 'Guardian' asked Matt Smith a few questions and here is the result for us to 'enjoy'. But do not get too excited about it, there aren't any 'game-changing' revelations or anything similar to it. Still, it wouldn't be a typical 'Guardian' interview, if they wouldn't ask him some unusual questions, like, what's his favourite word (snuggle), his most overused ones (classic, safe and sick) or whom he'd invite to a dinner party. And other trivial stuff.

All of Time And Space Outside These Doors....

Oh yes, that's proper 'Who' at its best, and all it takes is a dangerously well organised villain (the Great Intelligence, the one who was also responsible for the deadly Snowmen form last Christmas episode, we remember) and a couple of new mysteries for the Doctor to focus on: who is Clara Oswin, or how is the great Intelligence and she connected with each other? Who was the woman from the shop who knows the TARDIS' phone number? River? Is the Doctor's future self manipulating his past/future and 'making' Clara bump into him, somehow. At least Moffat promises us to find out within this season.

Talking about the new companion... Do you know her most important quality which makes her the perfect companion for the Doctor? He's already seen her dying. Twice. And he suspects that there isn't much he can do about it. So it doesn't matter if she has some fun with him before she ends up in a Dalek and/or a Victorian coffin. Moreover, it's really great to see the Doctor inviting her on board the TARDIS and she turning him down. Well, I guess in *real* life that would be people's natural reaction, it's just that the Doctor and real life aren't really acquainted with each other.Then again, Moffat is the best when it comes to making the least realistic or even logical things appearing real. Where else could you see a girl not being utterly shocked by meeting a *proper* alien. I loved the Doctor's reaction, though 'Yes I am. Are you OK with that?'

Actually, it were the innumerable small moments between the two of them which makes the whole story perfect and adds some real life feeling to it; like the Doctor leaving the jammie-dodgers for her, him hinting at her Victorian past/(future?), well, at least now we sort-of know where her excellent hacking-skills ('Asylumn of the Daleks') come from, or the last minutes in which she asks him to ask her tomorrow again to travel with him, because she'll may say yes then (and we and the Doctor know she will). And when was the last time the Doctor actually received a proper phone-call via the Police Box phone? Or that he heard the 'bells' of 'Saint John' ringing? And we have already a few loose ends which asks to be tied up some time in the future. E.g. what was that leaf thing all about? And why doesn't she want to talk about it?

Sure, there was some sort of a sub-plot going on with those spoonheads which served the Great Intelligence as a tool to 'feed' on healthy, human minds, for whatever reason... And his servants/employees used the wi-fi to do all this, which is some sort of spooky (especially as since a few minutes a new wi-fi spot has kept appearing in my wi-fi list: ALIEN lol) But all this simply demonstrates the Big Moff's magnificence; I guess there aren't many screenwriters who'd use such an elaborately crafted plot  as the background-story to introduce the new companion. The story could have lived up to any standards which poor Russel T Davies set up for 'Who's finales. 

What I don't get is what 'the Doctor saving the plane' scene was about. After all, it didn't really add anything to the story; it simply allowed Moffat to cheat and get done with the the Doctor introducing himself to the new companion, which is part of the actual ritual. And Clara didn't seem too shocked by this new information, either that or she simply couldn't be more shocked as she was in a then still just about to crashing plane. So maybe there wasn't exactly enough time for the information to sink in.

All in all, 'The Bells of Saint John' was a great opener and next week Clara will be on her first alien planet, visiting a place which she certainly won't find in her book. Maybe we'll get an appropriate reaction to the Doctor *really* being an alien then.

Moffat Talks 'Who'

Every year, just before 'Doctor Who' becomes part of our weekends again, the Big Moff gathers his subjects working in the media and gives an interview. Or vice versa. This year's most interesting read comes from Collider. And sadly, it features the general dull 'Jenna-Louise Coleman'-questions (what do you like about her, why did she get the job -  because she's terrific AND a great actress, just in case you wondered ect., ect.) but also some more interesting ones. And no, I'm not referring to Moffat's most favourite episode; seriously, he is the showrunner of 'Who'. He is paid for saying that the next one's the best!

Nevertheless, Moffat is also offered the chance to talk about more interesting stuff, like why he thinks that the Doctor, and the show, needs an excellent companion, or how he manages to come up with the idea for his genuinely creepy monsters, what he thinks of purely historical adventures and his initial idea of bringing back the ice warriors, and so on. Of course he has to say also a few words on 'Doctor Who's 5o-year anniversary, and its function, plus, the cherry on the cake is that tongue-tied Moffat promises to reveal Clara's secret within the next 8 episodes. Which is great news. Somehow I'm starting to tire of far stretched story-archs. River's sub-plot has become complex enough to follow. So, all in all, it's certainly worth reading that somewhat long-ish interview.

I Never Know Why, I Only Know Who....

Take some deadly snowmen, an old-ish very Scrooge-like gentleman, the TARDIS parked on a cloud, a girl who looks just like Clara Oswin, Strax, risen from the dead, and a hint of Christmas. These seems to have been the basic ingredients for this year's Christmas-treat 'The Snowmen'.

And do you know what I loved most about it? That after a few minutes you
forget that it's set at Christmas. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Christmas specials are bad in general, it's just that 'Doctor Who' is not really famous for delivering great Christmas episodes. Yes, I know, last year's 'Christmas Carol' was not bad either (come on, flying fish!), and I really love 'The Runaway Bride' (Cathrine Tate vs. giant spider), but the episodes we get for Christmas have either nothing or not much to do with the general storyline, or they are so story-driven that without some previous knowledge it's not easy to understand what's or why it's going on.

But this year things were different. Because although  'The Snowmen' may be kind-a important for season 7's second part, the storyline itself was pretty straight forward. And in addition Moffat also offered some highlights for us hardcore-fans: in this episode we didn't only have the chance to meet the new companion for the first (well, second) time (oh, and she's great), but we also have a new TARDIS interior (a bit too retro-stylish if you ask me) and a new opening theme, about which I haven't made up my mind yet... on the one hand it's great that they've made it a bit shorter, but I'm not sure about the new pinkish touch they added to the time vortex. Well, we'll get used to it; it's not as if we had another option.

Still, if I had to chose one thing I love about 'The Snowmen' then it's the clever, clever plot with all those even more clever side-remarks (I just say one word: Pond). Sure, I should give a few minus points for involving Sherlock Holmes in at least 2 possible ways (Strax, the Lizard Lady and her wife mimicking the idea behind Sir Doyle's stories, and the Doctor's personal interpretation of the famous fictional detective, which, however, was almost so bad that it's possible to forgive that second blunder). Plus, I'm not too sure what the Big Moff wanted to achieve when coming up with the idea of 'the worm'. Am I the only one who had to think of it being a Men In Black copycat-action? And these were by far not the only 'genres' of which Moffat borrowed a few elements. The invisible staircase and the TARDIS parked on a cloud would have perfectly fitted into any Tim Burton film; and I can't help but LOVE the fairy-tale-y touch it gives the whole episode.

Another thing which has been going on for a while now, but on which I haven't commented yet, is the way Steven Moffat has been writing the Doctor.  That Matt Smith is great as the Doctor is not a matter of discussion any more. The 11th Doctor is an expert in breaking hearts, his own, and ours. But he does not seem to be the absolute centre of the stories any more; sure, he still his, but only at second glance. At first glance, 'The Snowmen' is the story of Clara whose death helped fighting the snowmen. This time the Doctor isn't able to save her, it isn't even him who saves London/mankind/Earth in the end.

Nevertheless, maybe herein lies the most brilliant element of the episode, namely,  the method with which Moffat tries to seduce the audience to watch the new season. Just as last season, we have again the notion that whatever we saw cannot be true as no-one can die twice* (right, Rory can; but then again he was once a Roman plastic Centurio and the universe seems to have acquired a special set of laws for him). Or do you remember the first time we met River? Moffat does not tire of re-using the same old story-telling trick. Only that  the whole thing seems to be a bit more elaborated#. At least this time the mysterious 'she' becomes his full-time companion so we won't need to wait several months and years to find out more about her. It seems at least Moffat got what he wanted for Christmas: I can't wait to find out more about her.
_________

*'The Impossible Astronaut'

# Or am I the only one who is a bit disappointed what Moffat made of River's story. I'm not saying that I don't admire him for it, I just can't help feeling that it lost its sparkling towards the end, something which cannot be saved by an overly complex storyline.

Vulture's Moffat Interview

In a few days the incredibly long waiting for the next Doctor Who episode will be over. And, as every year, the happy occasion is preceded by interviews. The first (interesting) one is done by Vulture with the Big Moff, who talks about everything Who (what to expect form the next season's episode, the new companion, his opinion on a possible Who movie, and why he doesn't think that the show is too complex) as well as a bit about Sherlock.

But if you hope to read about real spoilers, than do not be disappointed, Moffat sticks to his old habit.

A Tear-y But Not Unhappy Ending

It's good that Shakespeare didn't know about the (im)possibility of timetravell, otherwise, 'The Angels Take Manhattan' is pretty close to what his Romeo and Juliet would have looked like, and, it would have also made about as much sense.

But let's start with the praising. It is needless to say that if you were not touched to tears by this telematic masterpiece, then you should take care because you may be made of a material which might come in handy for the Weeping Angels. What worked with the Statue of Liberty, might work with you as well. Even though, to be fair, Moffat failed to tick off every emotional scene possible of his to do list, after all, after promising to take care of the Ponds last week, the Doctor has yet to tell Mr. Williams the sad news, namely, that he is never going to see his son and daughter-in-law again*. Except if the Doctor gives him a lift, even though I guess that this idea was dismissed for obvious drama-lessening (and not science-fictional) reasons.

Now, back to this season's mid-season final, which is, among other things, an homage to Rory's two main abilities, namely, waiting and dying. Here he got to do it (sometimes) even simultaneously: he was waiting for his death. Besides, he made sure that nobody will ever die more often in a single episode.

On a more serious level, the plot displayed one of the reasons why Moffat would win any script-writing competition over RTD, he made clear that he is not taking things too seriously. Only the Mighy Moff can come up with the idea to include several jokes into what would be Romeo's and Juliet's dying scene in Shakespeare's equivalent (the moment where Rory realises that he has to jump off the building) without ruining the moment. First, he makes Rory claim that the Statue of Liberty got impatient waiting for him visiting, and secondly, he, the Big Rory Pond cannot jump off the wall. I love him, well Moffat, for that scene alone, and then the following dialogue in which Amy persuades him not to jump without her is the cherry on the top. Actually, those few minutes are maybe the best written and acted moments in Who. Give Darvill an Oscar, you know what, give both guys, or even better, all three of them, one of those shiny statues...

Still, as with many of Moffat's twisted storylines, there seems to be a label on it: For Enjoying Only. As soon as you start to think about it, its magic magically disappears. And I'm serious, do not even start asking the question how it should be possible. I'm not sure if Moffat knows, even though he will certainly say otherwise. Like, maybe most importantly, since when has the Doctor not been able to visit, explore, mess with, or even drink tea with a fixed point in time if it serves a purpose. Or is there something terribly important I have been missing since 'The Wedding of River Song'? Well, yes, we all know that it is a rule, but especially Matt Smith's (BTW, again fabulously acted) Doctor is proving not to be too picky about that specific law. The risk of blowing up whole NY seems to be a risk the guy from that other season (who faked his own death, erased his timeline and created a fracture in the space-time-continuum which was big enough to allow dinosaurs to roaming the streets of London, and Dickens giving a live interview on BBC Breakfast) would have taken...

This ties in with the 'Oh my dear, it is written in a book, and you know what's worse, I've already read it' rule. Knowing someone's future does not create a fixed point in time either, well, it kind of does because Moffat says so, but why did that not apply for the Doctor dying at Lake Silencio? (OK, I know, time itself fell, has fallen, falls (?) for the Doctor's Teselecta-trick, but how stupid can time really be?).

Not to mention a few other, seemingly rather minor things. Right, I can just about believe that almost nobody in NY is aware of the fact that the statues are moving, but someone has to notice that the Statue of Liberty has gone for a walk...

Sadly, it is because of such (at times unnecessarily) missing backup-stories that the plot feels a bit hasty, as if Moffat would have been too busy to give it a second thought. Do not get me wrong, I still, think this is the best farwell episode I've ever seen, nevertheless, I cannot help but have the feeling that with a bit more effort he could have got it all right, and not just 95% of it.

But anyway, it seems we have to take such small discontinuity errors (or the pseudo-physical universal and everything overriding rule of 'because Moffat says so') for granted, otherwise, we would have never got into the delight of the Pond's heartbreaking farewell which is on the best way of becoming a memorial of Doctor Who's core message (never be alone) and provides the two of them all in all a tear-y but not completely unhappy ending.

*EDIT: Oh, I see they have taken care of that. Still, I think it should have been the Doctor's job to deliver the message, even though, I have to admit, this way it was almost more heartbreaking.

Dinosaurs on a Spaceship

Even though this may seem to be the most obvious set up for a usual Doctor Who episode I guess there are not many people who can write an episode about dinosaurs on a spaceship with the story making sense and including about as much humour as if it were written by the legendary Douglas Adams. Admittedly, the story has certain flaws: most significantly, I am not sure if I like that the Doctor decides to kill Solomon. Sure, that space-trader is a real baddy, after all he committed genocide to get hold of the Silurans' 'bounty' but does that make his death more acceptable? The obvious answer is yes, even though the Doctor would have been able to come up with a different, less deadly punishment, as that is what he seems to be famous for (e.g. 'Human Nature', 'School Reunion', come on, in 'Daleks in Manhattan' he was even willing to negotiate with the Daleks!)

But otherwise, loved the Dinosaurs, loved Rory's dad, loved the golf balls. And if there wouldn't have been the short scene between Amy and the Doctor ('You'll be there till the end of me. - Or vice versa') this could have been the most enjoyably shallow episode of all time. This way, it is the most enjoyably shallow episode including a short scene which tries to add some depth to it by dealing with the topic which the Doctor has been avoiding ever since a companion set foot into his TARDIS.

So all in all, 'Dinosaurs on a Spaceship' is an episode which promised to be fun, and it seems that was also the thing on which Chibnall was focusing, even though a few historians may be less fond of his answer to the lack of records referring to queen Nefertiti (Nefy's) later years... But never mind the historians.

Remember...

Now, that was what I call an almost 5o minute long teaser for season 7. Even though I'm not too sure about the soon-gonna-be-the-new-comapion's name: Oswin Oswald. Seriously? And, doesn't the whole thing seem to be familiar: the Doctor witnessing the death of a future companion, even though technically this time it does not necessarily need to be the future death of a future companion... besides, the Doctor does not seem to know. Or is it just me who thinks that there is something haunting about Oswin's final words 'Run you clever boy and remember'. Admittedly, there is a tiny possibility that this is the way how she will die after all. Nevertheless, let's not forget the one and only lesson we should have learnt from season 6, namely, not to take anything for granted, especially when it comes to story archs crafted by the Mighty Moff.

Talking about story archs. Is the Doctor fighting the Dalek's masterplan of turning everybody into Dalek-protptypes what this year's season is going to be about? Could be. And I have the feeling that the Dalek's not remembering their archenemy may have also some other additional, yet unexplored consequences than them chanting the two words for which this series has been famous...

However, the episode also operates on a different level. The fact that the Doctor is some sort of responsible for the Ponds almost breaking up gives an interesting touch to the story, just as the constant misinterpretations of eggs-termin-ate (which may be syntactically a perfect Japanese sentence BTW). Not to mention the sad irony of a 'I'm human'-chanting Dalek-human (or human Dalek, after all?) who indirectly becomes the reason why the Doctor manages to escape his future most likely cause of death (i.e. death by Dalek) ones more.

The only slight downside I can think of is the lack of one-liners, something Moffat is famous for. Then again, the primary purpose of 'The Asylum of the Daleks' seems to have been to present a mouthwatering appetiser of season 7's remaining episodes, and it certainly did not fail to accomplish that.

The Big Moff at his Best...

...so far.

It shouldn't be hard to notice that this time it was the Big Moff's pen which brought 'Time of the Angels' to paper.

I have to say I don't know whether he has planned this all along (good, I guess it is safe to say we know he hasn't) but this was a great combination of Moffat's best creations, River Song and the Weeping Angels. Additionally, Moffat lives up to our expectations by writing a great story with an awesome cliffhanger. Fans can't wish for more, can they? (Hold on a sec, whichsing for more is our  number one privilege, so yes we can...)

Anyway, I guess I don't need to point out that IMHO this was very likely the best proper episode so far. I like the way River is teasing (and at the same time not-teasing) him about his future. Plus, whatever she has told him when they were , it was surely not very romantic and the Doctor seem to have reasons not to trust her with his life, unlike her, as she isn't missing a chance to point this out. Further, she says she has pictures of all his faces and although we don't really know how far that really goes, we have good old Doctor Who school-book reasons to assume that all in all there can't be more than 3 portraits of the Doctor in that diary.

BTW, I think this was the first time the Doctor has bit a companion of him. I hope Timelords aren't venomous (lol).

Ok, I bet that it's not only me who want to find out what that incredibly stupid and dangerous idea is going to be...

Moffat's Choice

Up to now I have done a great job in not taking part in the 'oh my dear, one of the main characters is going to die in the season opener! Let's write a post about it' -frenzy. Actually, the reason for my lacking enthusiasm is that with Moffat having killed each of the main characters at least once last year it's hard to take him seriously. Moreover we have various other reasons to think that whoever is going to die will not stay dead for long. Maybe the most obvious one is that all three of them have been spotted filming for future episodes. So, the only reasonable possibility of why this could get us excited is that we also know that 'The Impossible Astronaut' 2 parter has a number of flash-forwards. And if the season opener started with the actual finale (don't ask me which one as there seem to be 2 this year) things could get more complicated than they seem to be now. But that is not very likely, for what we can assume that is not what was on Moffat's mind when writing this season's opener.

So, with having told you why not to take the whole thing too seriously, let the speculations begin.
Rory is maybe the first candidate who comes to ones mind when talking about this topic. Still, I don't think that Moffat is going to kill Rory again. I mean, how often can you get rid of him and bring him back before fans start complaining about it. That's why he seems to be out of question.

While Amy isn't. Although it might be bad for the ratings, for what I'm not sure whether Moffat is brave enough to kill her...

In my humble opinion the most likely option is River. And I know that she is supposed to die in The Library. But that's the joke. After all, that is the only thing we are not expecting. Fans would be genuinely shocked. However, with Moffat bringing her back anyway it would not even interfere with canon. Not as if Moffat needed to care about this stuff.

The only character whose death I'm not really taking into account is the Doctor's. It is just not very likely. And I bet it's hard to write a season with having killed the main character in the first episode. Well, Moffat says his choice will make people go 'What the hell?', however, I think that would be a too big bit to swallow.

But no matter whom Moffat chooses to die, maybe the most interesting part of the story is how he is going to bring him or her back again.

The Doctor Meets The Chocolate Factory...

And the question whether Doctor Who is appropriate entrainment for children is settled till the next episode.