Jump to content

5-5: "Flesh And Stone" 2010.05.01 (recap)


  • Please log in to reply

281 replies to this topic

#271

Scribbly

Scribbly

    Couch Potato

Posted May 24, 2010 @ 11:12 AM

So if some kid asked me what happened, I'd be like, "No idea. But wasn't it awesome?"


I mean, I major in a hard science, and most of the time I have to suspend my understanding of how things work because A. the amount of junk science would drive you crazy and B. It's just more fun to accept something and move on.
  • 0

#272

karra

karra

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 8, 2010 @ 11:42 AM

If the angels have been erased from time, re: what happens when you're absorbed by the cracks/light/field, does that mean the events of Blink never happened?
  • 0

#273

rowan sjet

rowan sjet

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 8, 2010 @ 12:05 PM

Different Angels karra. And I think time adapts so everything flows down the same route, regardless of what's been removed, though the writers haven't made this clear (yet). It's kind of a similar situation to when Connor was erased from everyone's minds in the tv series Angel. None of them really changed at all, even though Connor's existence played a huge role in shaping their lives for 2 years, and we never really learned how things went down from their point of view.

Speaking of, I've seen the question posed about why the clerics weren't replaced by other clerics when the originals got gobbled up by the crack. The problem with that is, wouldn't the new clerics have also gone over to check out the crack and disappeared?

Who were the clerics at the end?

They were just another bunch of clerics that presumably were around to secure the area and retrieve River Song. They never went into the caverns and so didn't get killed by the Angels or wiped from existence.

Edited by rowan sjet, Jun 8, 2010 @ 1:02 PM.

  • 0

#274

karra

karra

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 8, 2010 @ 12:19 PM

Who were the clerics at the end? I feel like I blinked and missed something there. Were they the original clerics that died, but were brought back when the angels fell into the crack? If that's so, what caused the crash? Or is it another 'it happened anyway, but no explanation'?
  • 0

#275

Paramitch

Paramitch

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 6:27 PM

Kaffyr: After being incredibly (and increasingly) disappointed with The Beast Below and sort of pallidly amused by Victory of the Daleks, I am back to being really happy with the show. Time of the Angels and Flesh and Stone are what I so enjoy about the show when it's good; frightening, mind-bending, awe-inspiring shows with characters I care about.

Kaffyr, you are a genius and I love every single thing you posted about this episode. I also agree with you completely on the Angels--I enjoyed Blink, but kind of as a novelty, and the Angels scared me in that, but they scared the pure wits out of me here. I was crouching on the couch watching this and I am a pretty tough scare. For me, these angels were much much scarier than before. And I didn't mind discrepancies because we were seeing them 'at war,' so to speak, both wounded and dying as well as desperate and empowered in a new way. I loved it.

Coalhouse, I feel the same way--for me, these two episodes beautifully brought Eleven into believable focus for me. I now absolutely love him--his oddness, the rudeness, the unexpected gentleness, the old/young thing Smith does so (spookily) well. Love him (thank goodness, I'm so relieved). And this brings up something that has been occurring to me with each ensuing episode thus far in 5: That this Doctor is positively haphazard about his companion's safety. He seems so blase about her safety in weird ways--it's a very new dynamic for me with the Doctor. He always seems to be leaving Amy alone, sending her off, etc.

Last Time Lord: Why does The Doctor hate Rory so much?


Because Rory is this season's Mickey? ;-)

I still adore River Song, and like her new grayscale quality (although it doesn't really worry me--either she doesn't really 'kill' the Doctor, or she does so at his express command and then loyally takes the fall when of course he's not really dead etc... but we'll see!). I loved her interactions with Amy as well, and oddly, I found Eleven very sexy with her, like in that last lean-in where he told her the Pandoricum was a fairy tale. I also really liked Father Octavian as a character, and thought his death scene was incredibly affecting and well-written. I bought that he couldn't move and there was little way to solve it -- he as all wrapped up in stone fingers and the situation was heartbreaking. His final words with the Doctor were among the most beautiful I've seen in these situations on the show. And to echo a poster far above, I also appreciated this episode's treatment of faith. I'm an atheist, myself, but I was honestly really surprised that it didn't all end with the Doctor raging at them about the damage faith (or faith ill-placed) can do.

And you guys are so brilliant because I totally missed the jacket discrepancy in the Doctor's return to Amy, I was too lost in how absolutely sweet the scene was. But it was absolutely amazing to realize that yes, something else was absolutely going on there. Last but not least, I loved the image of Amy in her flowing red shirt (like a capelet), stumbling through the eerie forest from the weeping angels. I'm a sucker for fairytale motifs and this was beautiful.

McKinley: Angel Bob: "Because you haven't noticed yet, sir. The Doctor on the TARDIS hasn't noticed."

Then they see the crack. I remember thinking the first time I watched that scene, "What does he mean, 'The Doctor on the TARDIS'?" But I dismissed it, thinking I mis-heard the line.


BRILLIANT catch. Whether "in" or "on," to me it's definitely possible that he is referring to both now-Doctor (jacketless) and TARDIS-Doctor (with jacket).

Scribbly: I don't like it when people are made super-special-secret people (Rose, Donna)


This seems to be a common refrain, but I don't understand it. Isn't it far more likely, not that Rose or Donna or Amy turn out to be suddenly, magically, important... but that their exposure to the Doctor helped them to discover their own specialness for themselves, while also directly making them targets? Rose made herself special because she would not abandon the Doctor, so became the Bad Wolf. Donna was special because of her choices--she would never have been in her position if she had turned right. Same with many companions. Jack is special because of Rose's attempts to save him.

I don't know--I like the way it all falls together. It seems to be a side effect of exposure to the Doctor, to discover what you're truly capable of. So I don't mind their super specialness because it's one of the weird side effects of adventures in the TARDIS. The Ood sing of Donna not because she was a magical temp, but specifically because of her actions and choices with the Doctor.
  • 0

#276

darkestboy

darkestboy

    Stalker

Posted Apr 14, 2011 @ 9:00 AM

Rewatched this episode last night and I found River's comments about being a complicated thing because she's travelled in space interesting because Amy would be the same as well.
  • 0

#277

teflonwoman

teflonwoman

    Just Tuned In

Posted Apr 24, 2011 @ 2:25 PM

Well I'm a year behind, so of course all of you already know the answers to all of these puzzles, but just in case there's somebody else out there who's also a year behind:
Appreciated what Marq DeCarabas said about Chekov's gravity: good point.
Also what Promethia said about Eleven being a teacher... also about implementation.

Now, timey-wimey: In Victory to the Daleks, the Doctor was all, "Why don't you remember the Daleks??" And we were all, "How on earth (or elsewhere?) does she already know that he doesn't let people call him sir? Wtf?" But now I'm thinking: If she doesn't remember things she's supposed to, is it really so weird that she does remember things she isn't supposed to?
  • 0

#278

Uberlisa

Uberlisa

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2011 @ 2:54 PM

Then they see the crack. I remember thinking the first time I watched that scene, "What does he mean, 'The Doctor on the TARDIS'?" But I dismissed it, thinking I mis-heard the line.

BRILLIANT catch. Whether "in" or "on," to me it's definitely possible that he is referring to both now-Doctor (jacketless) and TARDIS-Doctor (with jacket).


That is a great catch. They've used a similiar phrase in other eps: So&so and The Doctor in the TARDIS.

When I heard it here, I didn't give it a second thought.....Of course, I didn't notice the jacket/no jacket, either. Heh.
  • 0

#279

LilJen

LilJen

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 16, 2011 @ 7:41 PM

Is it too much to hope that River kills Handy?

What? You want to see Crying Rose AGAIN?? :)

This made me laugh because, seriously, Moffat and Co., stop mentioning the fairy tale thing.

Perhaps Mr Moffat has been indulging in a few seasons of The Bachelor(ette)!

Edited by LilJen, Jul 16, 2011 @ 7:45 PM.

  • 0

#280

BDArizona

BDArizona

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 16, 2013 @ 2:54 AM

From a long-assed time ago:

I've shown "Blink" to a few people as their first episode of Doctor Who and they've all been terrified by it. I don't think this episode even compares. All the things that were super-creepy about the Angels, the weird silence and only moving when you couldn't see them - it was so awesome. What does this episode do? Takes away the two most frightening things about the angels.

I actually saw these episodes before I saw "Blink". So, when I saw this two-parter, I thought it was awesome. Then, I saw "Blink", and thought these were shit. Complete and utter shit for this very reason. It was Moffat saying, "What should I write about. Oh, remember when I made these cool monsters? Why don't I bring them back?!" But he didn't care what was originally said about them, or even what was originally interesting about them. He just wanted to say, "Ooooh, angels!" I just can't watch these episodes again without hating what he did to the original concept.
  • 0

#281

elle

elle

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 2, 2013 @ 11:44 PM

 

But he didn't care what was originally said about them, or even what was originally interesting about them. He just wanted to say, "Ooooh, angels!" I just can't watch these episodes again without hating what he did to the original concept. 

I had a question about why the angels in the later episodes no longer had to cover their eyes, hence the "weeping angels".  From this comment, I see that the differences between all the angels we see (3 episodes?) was not addressed.


  • 0

#282

wayne67

wayne67

    Video Archivist

Posted Dec 17, 2013 @ 4:03 AM

  From this comment, I see that the differences between all the angels we see (3 episodes?) was not addressed.

 

 

I dont think this series lately is overly concerned about continuity or logic of the villains they introduce to the show. A lot of the episodes are better when you suspend disbelief and critical thinking so you can just enjoy the ride. 


  • 1