Review: Doctor Who – The Waters of Mars

Best nu-Who ever?

The Waters of Mars

In the UK: Sunday 15th November, 7pm, BBC1/BBC HD
In the US: Saturday 19th December, 9 pm ET/PT, BBC America

Best nu-Who episode ever.

Probably.

Spoilers lurking ahead under the surface.

Okay, it might not be absolutely the best nu-Who ep (let’s not start that fight), but it’s definitely up there near the top of the list. The episode was essentially two things: a “base under siege” episode crossed with a philosophical musing and character development for the Doctor.

Base Under Siege
This is, like, a Doctor Who technical term. “Base Under Siege” is, as it says on the tin, everyone in a base, the baddies are trying to get in, the goodies are trying to stop them and getting picked off one at a claustrophobic time, and there’s a lot of running up and down corridors trying to escape. It was pretty much every single story of the Patrick Troughton era (there was even a template set up for it by Cyberman creator and series script editor Gerry Davis) but it’s cropped up more or less every season since.

Why? Because it allows you to be creepy and scare little children, which is a good thing.

On the whole, though, this was the lesser of the true strands, although it was certainly no slouch. Not a huge amount happens in the base under siege plot – but then nothing usually does in these plots, beyond horror build-up, moments of horror pay-off, then return to build-up again. Some of the secondary characters could have done with a tad more development to make us care for them, but most of the characters were well served and went off in slightly tear-jerky ways.

While we had Graeme Harper at 90% strength, doing some wonderful close-up work with David Tennant and Lindsay Duncan and creating a very dark scary environment for the show, those running scenes undermined the tension, as did Murray Gold – although he managed to stay in the background most of the time. The sets looked a little flat and cheap (in HD anyway), as did the monster crusting effect, and there were a few moments, such as the Doctor and Duncan on a rocket-propelled robot, that undermined the tension still further.

The infectious water monster was a little inexplicable, was ultimately The Thing (John Carpenter remake), and was a bit dumb to say the least, but nevertheless was very creepy, especially in its ability to break in through various impregnable areas. Again, Waters of Mars was The Thing in its conclusion, as well, but I love The Thing, so I’m not fussed.

But as “Bases Under Siege” go, this was the one of the best I’ve seen for a while. There was real tension, thanks to some good scripting by Phil Ford and Rusty, particularly because we know what’s going to happen from the beginning: everyone’s going to die, even if there was a get-out clause.

Ultimately, though, this wasn’t really what the story was about.

Time Lord becomes god and regrets it
As Rusty predicted, this is the story in which we find out why it’s a good idea that the Doctor has a companion: if he doesn’t, absolute power goes to his head and he thinks he’s above the laws of the universe. We had a similar situation in Fires of Pompeii, but this time we had no Donna to turn the Doctor away from the dark side, and he goes overboard.

For most of the story, though, this just looked like another story of the Doctor’s sad lot in life, thanks to all that responsibility heaped on his shoulders. I was enjoying that. David Tennant was doing some fabulous work, as was Lindsay Duncan. We saw the Doctor being very unheroic, and walking away from a barney.

It was great.

Then for a terrible moment, once he starts to go back and fix things in a very obvious, easy sort of way, I thought Rusty and Phil Ford had ruined everything. Emotional, survivor-guilt laden episode thrown away in favour of the crowd-pleasing option.

But then our hero goes massively over the top and decides he’s god, saves everyone, says screw it to the web of time and says he’s going to keep on doing more of the same. Brilliant. Our hero crosses over to the dark side, because he’s had enough of everyone dying.

Loved it.

Then, better still, everyone goes running off in fear at what the Doctor has become, and Lindsay Duncan kills herself because she understands the true nature of responsibility. Doctor realises he’s crossed the line, sees the time lines change in his own mind, and wonders if it’s time to die now. With an Ood turning up because Logopolis’s ‘Watcher’ couldn’t make it, we’re clearly going into even darker areas for The End of Time, areas that might even be more fantasy and metaphysical than sci-fi. The Doctor’s death approaches and he appears to have a different relationship with it than we do.

So very good, very dark, and very enjoyable in many ways. “Base Under Siege” could have been a bit more tense, and there were a few moments that didn’t make sense, but it was excellent work nonetheless. It’s certainly up there with Turn Left.

Don’t you think he’s looking tired?
One thing I will say though – heretic that I am – is that whether it was the lack of companion or the slight retread of previous themes, Tennant’s Doctor is starting to feel old. For most of the show, the character wasn’t doing anything new. There wasn’t much we hadn’t seen before from this Doctor until the end, and what we saw then was a step too far and what was clearly the beginning of the end.

Maybe it really is time for Matt Smith and Steven Moffat to offer us a new character and a new slant on the series, before DT does a Tombo and outstays his welcome, excellent though he is. With Waters of Mars the last pre-regeneration story of DT, it’s a great swansong from Doc number 10.




  • I thought it was bloody wonderful. Stuart Ian Burns (pretty much one of my fav writers on Behind the Sofa) perfectly captured my feelings about the episode.
    I’m just trying not to feel irked that I will be sunning myself in NZ when the specials air and will have to wait til new year (and nearly the DVD release date) to catch up. because i so wanted to be part of the national reaction to the finale(s).
    *sigh* Life could be worse…

  • bob

    They have the internet in NZ. Just fyi.
    It’s a good episode and very enjoyable with a wonderful dark turn. But I felt it a little too easily resolved- I would have loved to see god-like Doctor for a little longer. Perhaps actually seeing some consequences would have been good! And also I feel like I am just counting the minutes until Matt Smith now…
    I thought it kind of great that Phil Ford shared the writing credit. He’s done brilliant work on Sarah Jane. I thought the most recent Mona Lisa story to be very well written. Some of the lines were hysterical. Shame the actress playing Mona Lisa wasn’t very good.

  • Hannibal

    I’m sorry, but I’m glad the Russell T. Davies era is ending. This was another obvious and, up until the last fifteen minutes, boring piece of seen it all before Who. The sentiment was overdone. The plot was creaking. The script was infantile. From the heights of Blink to this rubbish. Time for a change.

  • HI bob – I do know the internet works in NZ hee hee: but I’ll be at m-i-l’s, with the slowest internet connection in existence (YouTube is a painful pixelated site) and a computer I fear would faint at the thought of *cough* accessing UK broadcasts before time. Grr, but I’ll just have to come late to the party of comments in the New Year.

  • bob

    “the slowest internet connection in existence”
    Ouch. You have my sympathy.

  • I thought it was great. And it certainly kept me awake till the wee small hours…
    The scenes between Lindsey Duncan and David Tennant when he told her about her granddaughter as “consolation” and when he told her she has to die, were superb. As was his face, walking away, listening to the others die. I could well believe him saying, sod it, I’m going to break the rules.
    I also thought the ending with Adelaide was superb, and a lovely mirror to the ending of Voyage of the Damned, when we had snow, a grateful rescuee, schmaltz and the Doctor being told he shouldn’t choose who lives or dies because that would make him a monster. Here we had snow, terrified rescuees, and the darkness of seeing just what a monster it made him.
    My one quibble – I could believe in him saying, that’s it I’ll do this again, and being glad he’d rescued someone as special as Adelaide. But, I couldn’t buy him referring to the others as the “little people”.
    It’s also a bit of shame the specials have been so drawn out, because if we’d had this after The Next Doctor, and Planet of the Dead, we’d have really felt the impact of his decision not to take on another companion. As it was, I had to think, Oh yes, he chose to be on his own, and wasn’t that the wrong thing to do…
    Still minor stuff. This was great. I can’t wait/but am very sad about the final two parter…
    Virginia
    PS I get the point about Donna and Fires of Pompeii, but didn’t she persuade him to break the rules there by rescuing people they shouldn’t? (Though in The Runaway Bride, she does say he needs a companion, because someone needs to make him stop…)

  • stu-n

    I really enjoyed it, but a friend says she saw the ending as an example of ‘RTD’s hatred of strong women’. Just thought I’d throw that comment out there, to this blog’s audience of women writers: what do you think of the fate of female characters in Rusty episodes, vs. Moff ones?

  • Stu-n – think your mate may have a point about re Rusty and strong women. Hated what he did to Rose in the last series, hates the way he always demonises the mothers. Loved this for having an older companion so very shocked by the ending. But in a way she was morally stronger then the Doc, so does that cancel out Rusty’s hatred? Did actually think they were all a bit ungrateful to be rescued(-: And why was it ok to rescue people from Pompeii, but not to rescue Adelaide?
    I really loved this episode – though I found the beginning a tad slow and was getting really frustrated with the doctor doing nothing. So thought it was fabulous when he came back and liked the twist that he still couldn’t save her, and loved the megalomania bit – he was taunted by Antony Head with being god in School Reunion, and it was great to see him actually crossing the line, even though I was thinking simultaneously shit I Can’t Hate the Doctor. Very dark, and kids suitably terrified. Youngest actually went behind the sofa, which was very satisfying.
    Can’t wait for the finale, as presumably the doc has really screwed time now and all sorts of fun things could happen. But please, oh please, don’t let Rusty ruin the end…
    Rob think you may be right about DT but wonder if it’s cos we all know he’s going? Also without a companion to spark off properly he looks a bit lost. I thought Lindsay Duncan was fantastic though.

  • stu-n

    The Pompeii family were ‘little people’…
    Rusty’s record isn’t good, TBH. Rose: shafted. Martha: mentally tortured. Donna: no head explosion, but her painfully-won identity erased; Kylie: drifting through space, barely a consciousness; Adelaide: dumped in an impossible position. And that’s before you look at the minor characters.
    Moff’s women have come out of it better, so far: Nancy got her son back, Reinette died, but it was a natural death and didn’t result from anything the Doctor did, Sally Sparrow got a happy ending. River Song’s ending was a bit sour, but three out of four isn’t bad.

  • George

    Best episode in ages (or has it just been ages?) loved the ‘dark’ Dr at the end. I was surprised how down beat it was and thought it was all the better for it. All that power and a whole universe to roam. Roll on Xmas really… as for Sally Sparrow.. don’t get me started.
    Also re-watched the trailer for the next special… ICAN’TWAITARRRGH.COM/HURRYUP!

  • bob

    “what do you think of the fate of female characters in Rusty episodes, vs. Moff ones?”
    I think they are both great at writing female characters and RTD is particularly good for writing for middle aged actresses. I think they both enjoy writing the high drama, high stakes of Doctor Who and put all their characters through ordeals to test their strength regardless of their sex. It is just that the companion pretty much has to be female since the Doctor is male and the companion also has to take a lot of the pressure being one of only two leads.
    “River Song’s ending was a bit sour, but three out of four isn’t bad.”
    River Song’s ending was horrendous because it was depicted as a happy one. At least RTD never pretended to write a happy end for Donna*. Being digitised and written into a computer program with fake children- gah! And then pretty much abandoned unless we are to believe that the future Doctor goes there for a bit of cybersex with an entity whose free will is questionable…
    I er… don’t like what happened with River Song.
    * I can’t remember now whether Rose ended happy or not. Ah, the many iterations of the Bad Wolf Bay scene in Journey’s End… I have actually forgotten which one was the actual filmed/broadcast version now though I suspect it was her being happy to contrast with Donna’s fate. Have I mentioned that I recommend the RTD book, The Writer’s Tale?

  • Marie

    Sombre, sombre, sombre. Which is a good thing. Just watched it and feeling rather shellshocked. I will review properly, in due course (hopefully tomorrow.)

  • Electric Dragon

    Things fall apart. The centre cannot hold. And a Doctor used to being at the centre of things finds himself at the edge, on the brink. The Tenth D. has always had a slightly bipolar personality, shifting between gravitas and manic energy, but here it seems even more stark than usual – a fatalistic acceptance of tragedy shifting into a desperation that he can prevent it from happening. Paralleling that is his own impending doom, which hangs over him like a black cloud, (even when he tries to deny that too, with three knocks, “That’s all you get!”)
    A bit slow to start, and too many of the subsidiary crew remained flat characters (one of the great things about Midnight was how most of the passengers got some character moments.) But the “Time Lord Victorious” bit sent shivers down my spine. Who are you, Doctor? What have you become? Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first send mad. And the Doctor is not a god.

  • Anna

    Dark Doctor is amazing, and I want him to stay. So long chipper Ten, let’s get dark. It’s utterly thrilling. Tennant’s face conveys so much that the more tortured the Doctor gets the better.
    Overall though, this was far from my favourite nu-Who ep… the monsters did nothing for me, and for all RTD’s ability to make you care about characters in the blink of an eye, I didn’t really care about the crew. But still, Duncan was a delight as expected, and I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed its bleak turn. Just not a favourite in its entirety.
    On hating women – I’ll stand up for RTD just a little in that it’s clear Donna’s story isn’t over yet; Rose’s ending was *meant* to be ambivalent and Jackie Tyler is a bloody brilliant mother character… (though I know not everyone will agree with me there 😉 )

  • I’d like to stand up for RTD on women. I agree that Donna’s mum is foul and Martha’s is a bit of a pain (though you do understand her a bit more when you realise she thinks she is helping Martha), but Jackie really develops as a character and I love her. Particularly because she is not above teasing the Doctor.
    Re the fate of companions. I thought Rose’s first departure was brilliant, so poignant, and should have been left there. The second didn’t work for me, but I agree with Anna, it was bittersweet and she did sort of get what she wanted. I was furious at the way RTD made Martha fall in love with the Doctor, because I felt it detracted from the strong character she was in Smith and Jones. But, when she left, she did it on her terms, and I for one was cheering. What woman hasn’t been in that position? I was pleased she realised she was as good as he was and deserved better. As for Donna, think she’s a great character & her story a really good one. Very painful, but true, in that being with the Doctor has difficult consequences (as Martha warned her). And if you think RTD mean, look at what’s happened to others in the past – Sarah Jane was left unceremoniously nowhere near Croydon, Tegan got cross and the doc went off without her, I’m sure there are loads more. So I think it isn’t the writer being horrid to women, more that there has to be a very good reason for a companion to leave, otherwise none of them would, they’d all stay forever…
    And I agree with the person who said River Song’s ending sucked…

  • Marley

    Er, feeble I thought. I like dark (nu-Who could do with more of it), but while Russell T Davies consistently strives to achieve a sense of the epic and the tragic, what he generally achieves is a sense of sentimentality and rushed, unconvincing story telling.
    It’s a generic base-under-siege tale which tries to inject some gravitas via the Doctor’s random assertion that Adelaide’s death is crucial to the whole history of the universe. Ever. Although in Davies’ 21st century human-centric view, all Adelaide’s death really guarantees is that humans make it out there to the stars a little earlier than they might otherwise. Big freaky deal and not worth anyone dying for.
    The only interesting element is the idea, brought in very late, of what the Doctor might become if he believed Davies’ hype of godhead.
    The trailers for the finales look like more of the usual tosh we get at season end. ‘The End of Time’. Really? Really the end of Time? I suspect not.
    I’ll miss Tennant, but roll on Moffat. Hopefully we’ll get some more genuinely interesting science fiction writing, and perhaps less of Davies’ horribly narrow-minded obsession with 21st century Britain.

  • SK

    Oh, finally! Someone else who saw that the whole ‘you have to die because I SAY SO!’ thing was arbitrary and generally undermined the whole drama!
    I was beginning to think I was the only one with, you know, eyes.

  • Almost everything in Who is arbitrary. Why can’t he mess with the Aztecs or anything else in an historical story? Why is there a magic red button that can destroy every single Dalek in the universe? Why can he reverse the polarity of the neutron flow? Why can’t he meet his past selves except in times of dire trouble? Why can’t he take his companions to Gallifrey?
    Because the Doctor knows stuff that we don’t.
    Even if someone had argued with him on the spot, what would have happened?
    “Why do I have to die?”
    “Because something terrible will happen.”
    “Who says?”
    “I do.”
    “And you know how?”
    “I just do.”
    “Well, you’re wrong.”
    “No, I’m not.”
    “Yes, you are.”
    “No, I’m not.”
    “Yes, you are.”
    “Oh, well now you put it that way, let’s go.”
    Of course, simply because the Doctor says something is true, doesn’t mean it is true. He can be mistaken, too, as he was in this case. But if everyone were right at the beginning, where would the drama be?

  • SK

    I’ve been going through this on a mailing list which is a far better venue than a comments thread, and even then it’s fairly painful, so I’ll just say: some things are arbitrary but that’s BAD (eg, the ‘magic red button’) and for the dramatic crux it’s better to have something non-arbitrary.
    People still talk about the ‘Genesis of the Daleks’ wire scene because it avoids the wibbly abstract paradox issue, or relying on arbitrary ‘laws of time, but instead poses basically a real, hard, question (‘if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler, given that the consequences might be bad as well as good?’) — I doubt they’ll be talking about ‘fixed points in time’ in the same way in thirty-five years.

  • “for the dramatic crux it’s better to have something non-arbitrary”
    It’s not really the crux though. The crux is two things:
    1) whether the Doctor can actually walk away from something. Can a truly heroic character avoid doing something heroic if it means it’ll have some bad side-effects.
    2) whether the end justifies the means.
    Interestingly, the “end justifies the means” is usually referred to in the context of doing evil to effect a good result. Here though the dilemma is whether to do good if it produces an evil result, and it’s shown that that’s not the case either.
    “I doubt they’ll be talking about ‘fixed points in time’ in the same way in thirty-five years.”
    Depends what you think of Fires of Pompeii, really. It was established there. Is something arbitrary once it’s already been established in a previous episode?

  • SK

    But it is part of the crux. Both those things you identify rely on there being some reason why he shouldn’t save them — some ‘bad side-effects’ or some ‘evil result’. But what these bad side-effects are or what that evil result might be is not convincingly shown.
    The crux is basically forcing the Doctor to choose between obeying the Laws of Time, and rescuing people. But rescuing people is a clear and obvious good, while the ‘Laws of Time’ are abstract and arbitrary and the kind of thing the Doctor breaks all the time anyway. So it’s rather a one-sided dilemma, and means that rather than a big wrestle with his conscience leading to a momentous character shift (which is how Tennant plays it) the Doctor’s walking away seems more like a petulant child playing by the rules of game that he’s just made up.
    It was just as arbitrary in ‘Fires of Pompeii’, so yes, it is still arbitrary, but at least ‘Fires of Pompeii’, for all its faults, did something more interesting: it forced the Doctor (who had been happy to stand by while everyone died) into the position where he actively had to make the volcano erupt and kill everyone, which is a rather more interesting dramatic crux because it says to the character ‘okay, that thing you didn’t like but were willing to just let happen? How about if it’s YOU doing it for the greater good? That a bit more of a wrench now, eh?’

  • “But it is part of the crux. Both those things you identify rely on there being some reason why he shouldn’t save them — some ‘bad side-effects’ or some ‘evil result’. But what these bad side-effects are or what that evil result might be is not convincingly shown.”
    We take it as red, generally, that when the Doctor looks a bit terrified, then bad things will happen. We’ve already had Father’s Day show what happens when one law of time set up by the Time Lords gets broken. Isn’t it kind of in the same area by implication?
    The effects of the Blinovitch Limitation Effect weren’t explained for a decade. Why Adric couldn’t be saved at the end of Earthshock isn’t explained without it and then only implicitly. Yet it takes until Mawdryn Undead for the explanation to turn up. Doesn’t mean Earthshock or the ending of Earthshock was bad.
    Who’s to say (apart from Rusty and co until December 25th) that the Ood turning up at the end following the Doc’s cock-up (a la The Watcher in Logopolis – we got the Cloister Bell later didn’t we, or was that in the End of Time trailer?) isn’t the herald of the universal disaster that’s still to come?

  • bob

    “But rescuing people is a clear and obvious good, while the ‘Laws of Time’ are abstract and arbitrary and the kind of thing the Doctor breaks all the time anyway.”
    For what it’s worth, I was convinced of the wrongness in messing with time. For me, the choice between saving people and keeping the timelines the same wasn’t at all clear cut (well, except that he could have saved them but taken them somewhere far from 21st century Earth and hence done both but nevermind). Actually I think I agree with the line Adeleide took- a good future is worth a sacrifice.
    As an aside, I am not sure why the Dalek, intent on destroying reality, would spare Adeleide.

  • SK

    Generally we don’t have to take it as read that when the Doctor looks a bit terrified bad things will happen, though: there’s generally some suggestion as to what those bad things might be, like a monster rampaging around the place or some mysteriously dead bodies.
    The Blinovitch Limitation Effect was a throwaway line when it first appeared, so it’s hardly surprising it wasn’t explained (indeed, that was the joke: the Doctor says ‘oh that can’t happen because of the B.L.E.’ as if Jo knows what he’s talking about). And in ‘Earthshock’ (or rather, ‘time-Flight’, which is where the ‘can’t we go back for Adric’ discussion is) it’s again not a major dramatic crux and swept under the carpet as quickly as possible — which is the best thing to do with these kind of wibbly time-travel things, sweep them under the carpet and get on with a real story with real jeopardy (that’s how the old series played it, most of the time) because if you look at them too hard — as for example when you make them the focus of an episode — it becomes all too obvious that they are just arbitrary made-up rules.
    It’s the same as how you don’t do an episode about how the Doctor can’t stop the holocaust. There’s simply no dramatically satisfactory answer to that question (the novel which tried to address it only succeeded in proving that) so the best thing to do is just accept that your audience realise that would be in bad taste and move on.
    The problem with the Ood at the end is that if it is foreshadowing universal disaster then it looks fearfully like that disaster will be another one of the Davies era’s no-logical-causality ‘this is what’s happening now, we know it doesn’t follow on from the last scene, but just accept it because Murray Gold is playing strings at you.’

  • “The Blinovitch Limitation Effect was a throwaway line when it first appeared, so it’s hardly surprising it wasn’t explained (indeed, that was the joke: the Doctor says ‘oh that can’t happen because of the B.L.E.’ as if Jo knows what he’s talking about)”
    Not exactly. It was throwaway, but it was designed to plug a gap. Jo asks the Doctor why, if they cock up, they can’t just go back in time again and fix their balls-up as well. The Doctor says ‘Ah, that’s because of the BLE,’ Jo asks ‘What’s that?’ and before the Doctor can say, he’s interrupted.
    That’s bigger handwaving that “fixed points in time” by miles and it was jokey and we accepted it, just as we accepted the first Doctor’s “but you’ve discovered television, haven’t you?” explanation for why the TARDIS is bigger on the inside than the outside.
    Without timey-wimey things, there wouldn’t have been Day of the Daleks, Mawdryn Undead, Remembrance of the Daleks, Blink, et al. Mawdryn Undead wouldn’t have happened at all without an arbitrary made-up Timey Wimey rule. Ditto Father’s Day – what happens when paradoxes happen as a result of time travel? Big beasties pop up, that’s what. Who says? We do.
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with arbitrary rules in your entirely made up universe, any more than there’s anything wrong with having your vampires not show up in mirrors, your werewolves allergic to silver, et al. It’s your universe. Do you really need to explain exactly why your vampire hero can’t go out into the daylight? Do you need to explain the photons and how they react with the dead cells in vampire skin, creating an exothermic reaction? Or can we simply assume that because the vampire says it will be bad, it’ll be bad?
    Fixed point in time could be explained by numerous bits of quantum mechanics if you really, really wanted (interference with the troughs in overlapping universal quantum wave functions simply causes them to go out of phase, creating destructive interfere that sums over histories to zero; if all of history is only here because we are the observers who observe the past and resolves the wave functions, interference with the observers at a fixed point causes all of the past to be rewritten as well, causing wave functions to no longer collapse).
    But “bad, bad things, like the stuff we saw in Father’s Day, Logopolis, et al” but worse were the general implication and I’m happy with that. It’s implied, it’s not spelt out, but that’s okay. Maybe it will be one day, maybe it won’t be. It’s a Macguffin as bad as Notorious’s uranium but I’m willing to go with it, at least.

  • Anonymous

    FWIW, I’m on the same wavelength as SK: you can’t tell a good sci-fi story without a bit of arm-waving, but you need to be careful where you put it, and in this episode a very weak bit got put right at front-centre with the whole emotional weight of the piece hanging from it.
    It’s not really about logic – none of Who works if you start thinking about that too deeply – but for me at least it musn’t feel so utterly arbitrary and trivial in its consequences.
    The powers and vulnerabilities of vampires, werewolves and the like are equally arbitrary, but they have the weight of many years of storytelling behind them and for the purposes of creating drama they are as convincing as everyday things like gravity, taxes and tooth decay.
    The dodgy time travelling logic of Blink didn’t matter, because the prime power of that came from the very simple, very chilling idea that maybe statues move when you’re not looking. And maybe they’re out to get you.
    This was just a naked plot device: “it’s important that you die, so that I can experience powerlessness and then the consequences of ignoring the rules”. And of course so that he can become a tragic hero who must eventually die because he can go on no more. Yada, yada, yada. 😉

  • Marie

    It’s taken me for fricking ever but I finally reviewed it –
    http://womanwhotalkedtoomuch.blogspot.com/2009/11/doctor-who-waters-of-mars-children-in.html

  • Blimey, a lot of heat is getting expended on this post isn’t it? Not quite ‘great blonde elevator’ comment thread length but darn substantial. I like your last reply to SK btw Rob. Well put.

  • MediumRob

    “Blimey, a lot of heat is getting expended on this post isn’t it? Not quite ‘great blonde elevator’ comment thread length but darn substantial. I like your last reply to SK btw Rob. Well put.”
    Well, thank you. Maybe we should have a “which 10 made-up laws of time would you like to share an elevator with?” meme.
    Well done everybody else too. This one had legs.

  • “Of course, simply because the Doctor says something is true, doesn’t mean it is true. He can be mistaken, too, as he was in this case.”
    I’ve long held the belief that the Doctor also lies when it suits his purpose. His age was changed with the reboot and if we demand adherence to other details from the past, something like that has to be addressed in some way. Therefore, he lied about his age.
    Same goes for other things, like travel between dimensions to the parallel worlds, etc.
    (Finally saw this episode last night, and loved it. But like Bob, I also thought that “he could have saved them but taken them somewhere far from 21st century Earth”. He was just too caught up in his hubris to realize there were other options.)
    Off to fix my crux capacitor!

  • Also just wanted to add that with all of the TV blogs out there that I read, it’s rare when I follow the comment threads as well. The Medium Is Not Enough is one of those exceptions. Not that I could ever claim to know you folks, but I look forward to reading the thoughts of all these familiar names as much as I do the posts by Rob which inspire those comments.
    And today, having seen the episode just last night, this has been one of the most interesting discussions I’ve read; pretty heady stuff!

  • Pingback: The Medium is Not Enough TV blog()

  • Pingback: The Medium is Not Enough TV blog()