Rate and Discuss 3.10: Blink

[duncan]

WOW, what brilliant Doctor Who.

The best part was the light going on and off and the Statues moving ever closer. My daughter has never gripped my arm so hard! And, she has only just got used to going into shops like BHS after seeing the Autons in Rose, and Mr Moffat has now planted the idea in her head that she cant blink in front of any statue in the world.

[Philipnet]

I liked this one.

It seems that we are in the middle (at the end?) of a run of Doctor Who episodes that aren't quintessentially Doctor Who; but are, at the same time.

What struck me about tonight's episode was that it wasn't the Doctor, in fact it had nothing to do with the Doctor, but with Sally Sparrow; an ordinary person who isn't even a companion.

I found the Weeping Angels scary; I won't want to see any statues hiding their eyes from now on!

[Jason Thompson]

What was Sally doing in that house?

Is that important? What were all the other people who disappeared doing driving up to it? In 45 minutes of screen time you don't have the luxury of explaining everything. Only last week, Mr McCow, you were defending the total lack of information about where the Family Of Blood came from in Human Nature/The Family Of Blood as an unimportant bit of exposition. Now you're nitpicking over a similar lack of information?

I really liked the subplot with Shipton, but the whole thing could have been edited out without really affecting the plot. All he does is say 'Look at the list that you already have!'

Er, no. It was Shipton who put the messages on the DVDs in the first place. Kind of important, plotwise, I'd say.

Lots and lots of technobabble too,

What? Where? The Dcotor's machine was a timey-wimey detector that 'goes ding when there's stuff'. The nearest thing to technobabble I noticed was the stuff about the Angels being quantum locked, but even that made sense.

Personally, I loved that episode. It kept me interested the whole time, and was very well played. I loved hw all the time paradoxes linked up. And who cares if it did have one scene that was ripped off from somewhere else? Doesn't everything do that at some point? If the idea is good why not re-use it?

Good stuff. Possibly the best of the series so far, I think.

[Jim]

I have given it a 9. Loved it. Carey Mulligan was v. good, have not seen much of her in other stuff, but she is one to watch. A lot of it was about as creepy as Dr Who gets, the statues a weird mix of beautiful and sinister. I thought the scenes with old billy were lovely and I enjoyed the modern dvd/easter egg stuff that was thrown into the mix. It was as polished as we have come to expect this season and as ever moffat gets that all important "hook" that makes his episodes memorable.

Another treat!

[Si Hunt]

I thought it was superb! I loved the slowly-revealed plot, and the way the Doctor communicated with Sally. The statues were just brilliantly chilling, and the device of them moving around when you arn't looking at them is very original. Add in the lack of any bananas and dancing, and you get a genuinely great and unsmug Steven Moffatt script!

Of course, there were a few problems if you thought about the plot too hard. For one thing, the whole thing rests on a paradox, which is never a good thing. Sally only gives the Doctor a transcript of her side of the conversation because she knows he needs it, and she only knows he needs it because they have already had the conversation.

Also, why didn't the Angels steal the TARDIS the moment Sally and her mate went inside it? They still seemed to be stuck there, even though no-one was looking at them. Also I got that different statues took people back to different time streams, but why was this? What determined the time stream? And, granted, the policeman didn't contact Sally (or, presumably his younger self!) before his deathday because the Doctor had told him to, but surely her friend would have?

Still, these were little things which made you think, rather than gaping flaws. They didn't ruin it for me - I thought it was a great little story, and the Statues were quite the most wonderful and original monster for a long time.

I don't get the problem over the homage to 'Back to the Future' either - Gary Sparrow (coincidence?) did the same thing in the last episode of "Goodnight Sweetheart" and no-one minded then. It's not the first time Doctor Who has homaged a scene from a classic sci-fi movie, is it?

9/10!

Si.

[Si Hunt]

Actually, there's a few more things I've thought of that I wonder if anyone can answer:

- Why did the statues attack Sally's friend in the first scene, and Sally and her friend near the end, but not attack Sally when she visited the house in between? What made them attack? They wern't confined to the grounds of the house (because we saw them appear briefly on the cathedral) so why wern't they zipping round the town sending people back in time constantly? If you think about it, the implied threat of all the statues near the end is meaningless, unless you accept that a statue might occasionally attack someone. So what makes it decide to?

- How did the TARDIS key come to be dangling from that statue so Sally could snatch it? (and why didn't the statue absorb her then?)

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

And, granted, the policeman didn't contact Sally (or, presumably his younger self!) before his deathday because the Doctor had told him to, but surely her friend would have?

Her friend died in 1987, according to the headstone, when Sally would have been too young to understand any of it.

[Andrew Curnow]

I didn't have any problem with the alleged-rip off of Back to The Future. Partly, because I was too busy thinking how very much like his father David Cant is; but mainly, because with my anorak firmly done up I was more inclined to think the idea had been stolen from part 4 of "Battlefield" rather than some film I've only ever seen once.

[Matthew T]

Didn't get to see this last night, was at work, but I'm looking forward to seeing it tonight - sounds like my type of episode from everyone's comments!

[Logo Polish]

I've got some sympathy with Rob McCow and Si Hart here, as it did strike me as an episode easier to admire than enjoy. There was little I could really criticise it for, but it didn't leave me with any particular desire to ever rewatch it.

Miles' review was quite interesting, and I'm inclined to agree with him about Moffat's writing actually, although I think some of his points are a bit overstated (eg I don't think the Nightingale character was quite such a stereotype as Lawrence believes, and in any case, unlike Elton, he wasn't the focal character, just support, so he's not going to have the same depth anyway) but not necessarily entirely invalid. I often find LM rather an irritating essayist but I thought this was more lucid and better argued than his usual standard.

[SiHart]

I forgot to mention last night that I do actually like Stephen Moffat's other work, Coupling in particular, but his Who really confuses me. I just don't know what to make of it. I agree with Iain about the Miles' review- he quite lucidly put into words what I've never been able to express about his episodes. There's just something not quite there for me. Obviously this isn't something most people have a problem with. I'd be very worried if he took control of the series. But that's probably just me.

I'm glad everyone else enjoyed it. It just wasn't for me. Steve actually quite enjoyed the episode, but I keep putting doubts into his head! He did the same thing to me after The Girl in the Fireplace last year. I suppose when you live together and discuss these things quite in depth together it's bound to happen.

Si xx

[Rob McCow]

Only last week, Mr McCow, you were defending the total lack of information about where the Family Of Blood came from in Human Nature/The Family Of Blood as an unimportant bit of exposition. Now you're nitpicking over a similar lack of information?

Only last week, Mr Jason T Thompson, you were attacking the lack of information about where the Family of Blood came from as unimportant - this week you're prepared to totally overlook a similar lack of information! It's precisely because people were making comments like that about FoB that I made similar ones about Blink!

I think it's more important to know character motivation than their background (at least where the background is irrelevant). For a random example, in Doomsday we see Mickey Smith again and we know he's working to stop the Cybermen. It doesn't matter so much if he's been to Milton Keynes in the meantime. I want to know why a character is behaving in the way they are, more than what planet they've just been to.

I quite enjoyed Blink, but I just can't get my head around why everyone is raving about this episode. It was about as good as 42, which I liked as well, but lots of other people slated. Buh?

I don't get the problem over the homage to 'Back to the Future' either - Gary Sparrow (coincidence?) did the same thing in the last episode of "Goodnight Sweetheart" and no-one minded then. It's not the first time Doctor Who has homaged a scene from a classic sci-fi movie, is it?

There was no problem for me, really. It's just interesting that it's very similar. I'm sure there are other examples of similar scenes in other sci-fi time paradox books too.

[Logo Polish]

Just referring back to Si's post just now, while TGITF is probably still my favourite New Series ep so far (or one of them at least), I think it's a fair point that it's more successful as a Sci-fi time paradox jeopardy thing than a story actually about Madame du Pompadour.

[Lord President]

Fabulous!

Marvellous!

Excellent!

Superb!

Wonderful!

Scary!

Moving!

Mysterious!

Funny!

Just a few words I would use to describe yet another stellar script from Steven Moffat, beautifully executed by the geniuses at BBC Wales!

Sally Sparrow (as has been previously mentioned) would make a stunning companion!

The story looked into the problems and fun that can be had with time travel with a level of intelligence that is rare in TV Sci-fi. Cath ending up in 1920 and never making it back to her own time, and Billy having to wait 38 years to tell his story are ideas that rarely occur. Normally, The Doctor would find a way to get everyone back.

I loved the idea of the DVD Easter-eggs, and will be looking forward to finding the hidden easter-eggs on the DVD release of this episode!

9/10 - A big surprise, considering the quality of the preceding episodes.

[Jon Masters]

It's just me this week, isn't it? Ah well. You can't like everything!

Si xx

Typical you get a new avatar and someone tries to muscle in on it

Don't worry Si I know how it feels when you don't like something about DW. Something you do like will always come along.

I gave this 9/10, which is very painful given how much I don't like Stephen Moffatt. A plot-monkey like me is always going to love stories like this, and despite the hoary 'letter from the past' I thought the interlinking of the information was done very well (it could have been even better if Old Billy had phoned before Sally met young Billy, in a Time Lash kind of way). In general, the Angels were a well thought out monster too (except for what I talk about later). And OMG there was a smattering of science in there too !!

I disagree about the emotional stuff there was just about the right amount for me. The Billy stuff was pitched just right (given she had only had a twenty minute conversation with him), and surprisingly I liked the ending. For once someone who has fallen in love with the idea of the Doctor and dreams of being whisked away comes to her senses and realises she's better off with Larry.

I knocked a point off for the plot holes, some of which have already been mentioned. He should have said it needed intelligent creatures to watch the angels, otherwise any insects in the room would keep them immobile permanently. The mirror thing would work too even better if its one way so you can keep an eye on them while you position the mirrors. In fact, I thought Sally was going to use mirrors or cameras to solve the problem. The bit with the key I took to be the Angels using Sally to find the TARDIS (which the police had already removed) once she and Larry knew the truth at the end they needed to be eliminated. The other missing people I thought were just victims of the Angels needing to feed, rather than deliberate.

I also don't think it deserved a fear factor of 5.5 on that scale the old gothic classics would need to be in double figures.

Oh, and why did everyone told not to blink start staring instead ? Winking with alternate eyes will keep them moist so you don't need to blink anyway. Alarm your friends and family by trying it today it works !!

[Larry]

any one else expecting the bloke at the door who brougfht Sally the letter was actually going to say he'd been sent by Harold Saxon.

[Jason Thompson]

Only last week, Mr Jason T Thompson, you were attacking the lack of information about where the Family of Blood came from as unimportant - this week you're prepared to totally overlook a similar lack of information!

I'm not seeing the similarity in this case.

My criticism of the lack of information in Human nature was that we were not privy to a series of events that led the Doctor to take a seriously drastic course of action. What was so bad about what was going on that he had to stop being a Time Lord? Where the Family came from is not important, but what they were doing before the episode started was because it directly impacted the plot, and the plot in this case centred around a course of action chosen by the central character for reasons unexplained.

In Blink, the plot centred around a series of circumstances that happened to Sally Sparrow after she entered the house. Why she chose to enter the house makes no difference. She could have been working for the council surveying the property, part of a police investigation into the disappearances, or breaking in randomly for no good reason apart from getting her kicks. What's important in the story is what happens once she's in the house. Everything that happens in the episode after that stems from stuff we see happening to her, while in Human Nature it all stemmed from something we never saw.

[Jason Thompson]

I knocked a point off for the plot holes, some of which have already been mentioned. He should have said it needed intelligent creatures to watch the angels, otherwise any insects in the room would keep them immobile permanently.

I'm not sure I'd call that a problem. Are there enough insects to keep them fixed in place permanently?

The mirror thing would work too even better if its one way so you can keep an eye on them while you position the mirrors.

As fun as it might be to overthink this, the simple point is that at the time Sally was informed of how to keep them immobilised she didn't happen to have a mirror, nor was she in a position to pop down to B&Q to get one for each statue and hope that she could catch each one before it got her so she could set up the mirror.

[WhiteCrow]

The story looked into the problems and fun that can be had with time travel with a level of intelligence that is rare in TV Sci-fi. Cath ending up in 1920 and never making it back to her own time, and Billy having to wait 38 years to tell his story are ideas that rarely occur. Normally, The Doctor would find a way to get everyone back.

The thing I found quite engaging was there was no reason to rescue Cathy or Billy. Both travelled back in time, but accepted it and made a life for themselves.

That was what was interesting because in the "One Year Later" it was obvious Sally wasn't moving on and making a life for herself, and it took the chance encounter with the Doctor to kick start her life.

Oh and there's a lot of talk about Back to the Future. But what about Billy? "I'm a cop who just woke up in the 70s, is this real, am I in a coma ..." !

[Jon Masters]

I'm not sure I'd call that a problem. Are there enough insects to keep them fixed in place permanently?

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a single fly in that conservatory or room that Ms Nightingale was in, yet the statue got all the way in and touched her. Given their almost 360 degree vision and the rules we were told, shouldn't have happened.

As fun as it might be to overthink this, the simple point is that at the time Sally was informed of how to keep them immobilised she didn't happen to have a mirror, nor was she in a position to pop down to B&Q to get one for each statue and hope that she could catch each one before it got her so she could set up the mirror.

I wasn't thinking so much of this rather than logically extending what we're told to how you might deal with one if you knew one was after you or if you were hunting them down

I have to pick holes, otherwise I might do the unthinkable and give Mr Moffatt a 10

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I don't enjoy not liking Doctor Who, but this episode just didn't do anything for me at all. It's the first time the new series has been like this for me.
Si xx

Bloody hell, count yourself lucky then. At least, for you, not enjoying the new episodes is the exception rather than the rule

[Zbigniev Hamson]

No one's mentioned what would seem to be the biggest plot hole of them all...

"They're all looking at each other so they can never move again... unless someone ever turns off the light in the cellar. The otherwise pitch-black cellar. The otherwise pitch-black cellar in the abandoned house that shouldn't really have a working electricity supply anyway."

[Jason Thompson]

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a single fly in that conservatory or room that Ms Nightingale was in, yet the statue got all the way in and touched her. Given their almost 360 degree vision and the rules we were told, shouldn't have happened.

In the time Sally blinked, the statues got from the church over the road to the sides of the window she was standing by. Given how fast they are supposed to be, the fact that it seemed to take so long for a statue to get into the house might be explained by flies and insects. Early on in the episode a statue stands immobile reaching out to Sally behind her. Why was it immobile while the only human in the room was not looking at it? A fly, perhaps?

[Dave Tudor]

No one's mentioned what would seem to be the biggest plot hole of them all...

"They're all looking at each other so they can never move again... unless someone ever turns off the light in the cellar. The otherwise pitch-black cellar. The otherwise pitch-black cellar in the abandoned house that shouldn't really have a working electricity supply anyway."

But wasn't it mentioned earlier on that once they looked at each other, that they would be frozen forever?

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I took that to mean that if two (or more) were looking at each other then they would keep each other frozen just because of how they work, not because of anything extra. Put something inbetween them (like a police box) or turn out the lights (as they were doing anyway) and they'd be able to move again.