**Spoilers** Series 7, Episode 1 - "Asylum of the Daleks"

Basq

jasonb wrote: »

By the way, I see Sky's Episode Guide had Saturday's episode as 1 of 5. From what I've read, episode 5 is Rory & Amy's last episode. Is there a break in episodes then, or is episode 6 on the next week? How many episodes are there in this season?

J.

5 episodes over the next few weeks.... then the Christmas Special on Christmas Day (duh!).. and the remaining 8 episodes in 2013 (presumably from Easter 2013).

jasonb

Bugger, I'd no idea the season was split in two! Or is the season only 5 episodes long, and next year a new season?

Thanks...

J.

DirtyBollox

jasonb wrote: »

Bugger, I'd no idea the season was split in two! Or is the season only 5 episodes long, and next year a new season?

Thanks...

J.

The Doctor Who official Twitter account announced in March 2012 that it was planned that six episodes will be shown in 2012, including a Christmas Special, to be followed by eight in 2013.[72] In July 2012, Smith stated that it would start in August,[73] but Moffat later confirmed it was September.[11] Part of the reason the show was moved to the autumn was because Moffat felt the darker nights suited the atmosphere of the programme, as well as the classic series originally airing in the autumn.[74] He stated that the decision to split the series up originally came from the BBC, but he was open to anything that "shakes [the series] up" and that by making the audience wait would make it seem like an "event piece".[31]

from the Wiki

Doctor DooM

jasonb wrote: »

Bugger, I'd no idea the season was split in two! Or is the season only 5 episodes long, and next year a new season?

Thanks...

J.

They're splitting the season.

I would say they're being rather strategic about this as we've got to starting talking 50th anniversary then, and there's been rumblings of something special coming our way. As the anniversary occurs in November next year, Moffat is probably being creative with his budget in order to do something good for it.

It's actually a damn good time to be a fan.

(Wanna 3/4 doctors plzkthnxbai)

wes

Excellent episode, and didn't see the Oswin reveal coming. I knew something was up, but didn't cope the twist at the end there.

GSPfan

Just want to clarify one thing that popped up a few times in this thread regarding the Daleks.
I think some people are confusing changing the timeline, and changing the Dalek collective memory. Everything still happened, its just that the Daleks cannot remember it.

Aoifums

GSPfan wrote: »

Did you all notice Oswins finals words. She tells the doctor to remember her. Then she says to herself "run you clever boy, and remember". But she looks at the camera as she says remember. Its like a subtle way of telling the audience to remember her cause she'll be back.

I only noticed it when rewatching that today. I squeaked and nearly fell off the couch

Dalek prison camps? I don't understand that. Since when have the Daleks kept prisoners? Seems kinda pointless imho.

aoshea83

Twist at the end :eek:

/comment

ríomhaire

I ****ING MISSED IT. FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

Manach

Aoifums wrote: »

Dalek prison camps? I don't understand that. Since when have the Daleks kept prisoners? Seems kinda pointless imho.

It did seem a bit odd. It might be explained by the Daleks new found appreciation of hatred=beauty, where the despair of a prisoner camp = holiday resort for them.

BaconZombie

Have a look on a non-white background. Selecting "Evil" theme on the bottom left works.

Footy101

Not a bad episode, but not amazing either. Oswin character could be good in the future tho. The new Doctor is excellent at playing the dark/angry character, wish there were more episodes to get those sides of him across. Stories and production have taken a nose-dive since the departure of Tennant and obviously budget cuts over the past few years haven't helped. Pity.

old hippy

I wish they could have explored the asylum more. I like the episode but are sleepy Daleks that terrifying? :P

Tzar Chasm

well, is a cave full of slumbering psychopatic Bears terrifying? it is if you're the muppet who wakes them

TheIrishGrover

Well, the daleks currently cannot remember The Doctor but who'se to say what happens when she returns. Assuming that she returns from earlier in her timeline and she doesn't end up being a dalek then the wipe will not have occurred. Wibbly wobbly.

Das Kitty

Footy101 wrote: »

Stories and production have taken a nose-dive since the departure of Tennant and obviously budget cuts over the past few years haven't helped. Pity.

Are we watching the same programme? :pac:

old hippy wrote: »

I wish they could have explored the asylum more. I like the episode but are sleepy Daleks that terrifying? :P

I suppose they can only pack so much into the episode, but yeah, the asylum was really interesting.

The Doctor is obviously terrified of the Daleks (even if they don't have their egg whisks attached). My personal theory is that they killed his kids/grandkids. (Going on that ruined room in the prequel where there is the sound of children laughing.)

I was thinking about Amy's hallucination of the Daleks being people and the little ballerina girl. At first I thought that it was yer one at the start's daughter. But now I'm thinking it's Amy and Rory's child that never was. The way Amy is drawn to her.

TheIrishGrover

Das Kitty wrote: »

......I was thinking about Amy's hallucination of the Daleks being people and the little ballerina girl. At first I thought that it was yer one at the start's daughter. But now I'm thinking it's Amy and Rory's child that never was. The way Amy is drawn to her.

I thought it was Amelia Pond. I haven't rewatched the episode so the girl might not have been her at all. Unless they cured Amy in the TARDIS I'm assuming that the conversion of Amy was going to be the overall arc of the episode. And I'm assuming everything in that hallucination was there for a reason. I may be completely wrong as I only watched it once....... while trying to update someone who'd never watched before what was going on (I won't call them a newbie as, since I'm only a follower since doctor 9 I consider myself a newbie)

connemara man

I really enjoyed it but it was missing the endgame. most episodes usually have an inkling of an end game ie the cracks in space, that small thread that ties all the random events together and focuses them on one point the place. I either didn't see it or it wasn't there

pixelburp

Aoifums wrote: »

I only noticed it when rewatching that today. I squeaked and nearly fell off the couch

Dalek prison camps? I don't understand that. Since when have the Daleks kept prisoners? Seems kinda pointless imho.

Well since forever really; many stories in the Old Series would feature slave to the daleks of some form or another. Daleks may like extermination as a life choice, but they still need slave labour to build all those giant statues of themselves.

Tzar Chasm

Was thinking that me self, watched 'the stolen earth earlier today and couldn't help wonder how an amorphous blob species without thumbs built all those spaceships

GSPfan

connemara man wrote: »

I really enjoyed it but it was missing the endgame. most episodes usually have an inkling of an end game ie the cracks in space, that small thread that ties all the random events together and focuses them on one point the place. I either didn't see it or it wasn't there

Oswin Oswald was your endgame. She is the overall story arch to this series. Its just not as in your face as a crack!

Wing126

Got a nice chuckle out of this.

Sleepy

I quite like the idea of a companion that's so tragically doomed, particularly if, as Das Kitty pointed out she turned out to be the Doctor's "daughter".

Have never felt so old in my life as seeing people being surprised at the BBC's lack of ads! And I'm only 32!

pixelburp

It's not the Doctor's Daughter. I will stake my many fortunes on this; as much as people might like it to be (why, I don't know), that character is well & truly lost in the mists of RTD-time.

Raphael

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not the Doctor's Daughter. I will stake my many fortunes on this; as much as people might like it to be (why, I don't know), that character is well & truly lost in the mists of RTD-time.

A) RTD had nothing to do with that episode other than an exec producer credit
Her living at the end was Moffats idea, in the original script she stayed dead.

pixelburp

Raphael wrote: »

A) RTD had nothing to do with that episode other than an exec producer credit
Her living at the end was Moffats idea, in the original script she stayed dead.

Never said he did, but it was an episode from his era. And I'm aware Moffat suggested that she stay alive, but that's not proof of anything other than the fact Moffat was obviously the only one who realised that killing her off was not only a waste, but made no sense if she was supposed to be a timelord. If anything, she has been jettisoned from the mythology, and completely forgotten in the series. Thank god.

Das Kitty

Not that daughter (I really tried to come up with some line about having a child with your own hand, but I'm so very tired). A new one.

Jessibelle

The thing that struck me about the episode, more so on a second watching is the emphasis on memory. 11 says to Amy in the parliament that she has to 'make the daleks remember her', and then she sees all the inner daleks, (the 'memories' of who they were?), Rory has to remember what makes his marriage work, and then the Oswin breaking the 4th wall 'Remember you clever boy'. I know it might be stretching it a bit, but it put me in mind so much of the cracks story line where it was so so important that they all remembered, that it made me wonder if the cracks are having some influence on the final Pond story line?

Ridley

The touching of the robe stuff is a bit much for me, but it would be nice if the episode had as much depth as this guy's interpretation.

Tzar Chasm

The bit about pacifist Daleks make a surprising amount of sense, I too found it a bi odd that the ones in intensive care were unarmed, and the forcefield only being operable from the planet, a logical theory on the nanites would be that the dalek empire created them in an attempt to re-dalekify the inhabitants of the planet.
Tldr
Daleks find beauty in hatred and violence so surely their version of dangerous insanity would be pacifism

MrVestek

There was a line in this that I noticed on both viewings.

At one point Oswin says 'No idea, haven't met you before'. The way in which she says it seems very suspicious to me... like they have already met but she hasn't exactly revealed who she really is yet.

Personally I hope it's Jenny although I remember fan theory mooting her existence in the last two series too. It wouldn't make sense to have had Jenny be ressurected and then not use her for anything else ever.

Also we have no idea what timeframe the episode takes place in so it could easilly be within Jenny's lifetime and is certainly after the time war so it is very far into The Doctor's timeline.

Just a thought...

The Master

Watch this episode a few times now and like it less and less each time sadly.

It just felt like a "set up" episode, Introduce Oswald and pad a story around it.



It's Ok Doctor, they've never heard of You/Time Lords/Time War/TARDIS etc..

EDIT: just to complete the cycle.
As Oswald is a female character She must be The Rani/Romana/Jenny/Susan/Sally Sparrow/Rose/Martha.....

Doctor DooM

The Master wrote: »

EDIT: just to complete the cycle.
As Oswald is a female character She must be The Rani/Romana/Jenny/Susan/Sally Sparrow/Rose/Martha.....

Obviously, she's Amy.

The Master

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Obviously, she's Amy.

Who is in fact River song and Hamlet's grandson is Shakespeare's grandfather and he himself is the ghost of his own father

old hippy

I seem to recall that it was hinted many years ago that the Doctor and Merlin were one and the same...

Raphael

pixelburp wrote: »

Never said he did, but it was an episode from his era. And I'm aware Moffat suggested that she stay alive, but that's not proof of anything other than the fact Moffat was obviously the only one who realised that killing her off was not only a waste, but made no sense if she was supposed to be a timelord. If anything, she has been jettisoned from the mythology, and completely forgotten in the series. Thank god.

But so were Blink and Silence in the Library. Or the Impossible Planet, not written by Moffat. Yet the Angels, River, and the Ood have all been around post-RTD.

If Moffat thought killing her was a waste, wouldn't it be just as much of one, if not more to just forget about her and pretend she never existed? And by my understanding (which I'll happily admit as possibly wrong) doesn't being genetically Gallifreyan not neccessarily make you a Time-Lord/able to regenerate?

All being said, I don;t think Oswin is Jenny. But I doubt we've seen the last of her.

Doctor DooM

Raphael wrote: »

And by my understanding (which I'll happily admit as possibly wrong) doesn't being genetically Gallifreyan not neccessarily make you a Time-Lord/able to regenerate?

On this side topic, this is a popular theory, and the odd time it's alluded to, but I don't think we can say it's definite.

However, we HAVE seen 2 "untrained" characters regenerate now (Jenny and River) so even if it is the case, it appears anyone even a little Time Lordish around the ears can regenerate.

BaconZombie

Das Kitty

That blog (Paint Doktah Who) is so hit and miss, but sometimes it's genius.

ríomhaire

Ok only just got around to seeing it. I enjoyed it overall but it just seems that Moffat isn't the same Moffat that wrote the Doctor Dances any more. His plots used to be so coherent with nary a pointless detail. Everything would come together at the end and everything introduced fit in in some way. In this is seemed like there were so many needless plot points shoved in (Why do Daleks suddenly have a parliament? Why is Skaro back if it only featured for one minute? etc.). He's been getting like that since at least Flesh and Stone. It's like he's picked up a bit of Russel T. Davis syndrome. I also don't like how he trivialises Amy and Rory's relationship by having them bloody divorcing at the start of the episode (and the reason given is that Amy has never heard of adoption) and have them fixed up perfectly again forty minutes later. Really really bugged me that.


Overall I did enjoy it though.

ixoy wrote: »

What are the spoiler rules this year? Lots of people talking about the new companion - I've been able to keep myself totally locked away but it seems I'm being spoilt in this thread itself. I didn't even know who had been cast.

Yeah this happened to me too. I had no idea that anything was supposed to be up with a new companion and I waltz on the internet expecting to discuss one particular episode and see everyone saying this unspoilered. Here and on Reddit.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

On this side topic, this is a popular theory, and the odd time it's alluded to, but I don't think we can say it's definite.

However, we HAVE seen 2 "untrained" characters regenerate now (Jenny and River) so even if it is the case, it appears anyone even a little Time Lordish around the ears can regenerate.

Jenny regenerated? I figured the terraforming/lifeseeding equipment brought her back to life. She doesn't change in appearance at all and it used the same special effect as the terraforming thing.

Wing126

The Doctor Who video games that are out are canon. They explain parts of the story that Moffat didn't include in the TV show, like why the Daleks are back in full strength.

Das Kitty

ríomhaire wrote: »

I also don't like how he trivialises Amy and Rory's relationship by having them bloody divorcing at the start of the episode (and the reason given is that Amy has never heard of adoption)

No.

Fertility struggles are the furthest thing from trivial. It's lonely, terrifying and soul destroying. Adoption is not a fix, adoption can be just as difficult. I've seen it tear even the strongest marriages to shreds, and lets face it, the Ponds were never the best communicators.

I liked the resolution, tbh. I liked that Rory acted like an insecure plank, dropped the mister perfect act for once. I liked that the who loves who more thing was addressed and dealt with. They were left on an equal footing at the end. So IMO it wasn't for nothing, it developed the characters.

OU812

At least the feckin Daleks didn't fly.

InisMor

Is the "actress" who played Oswin really the replacement for Karen Gillan?

Mother of the Divine!!!

I know I shouldn't judge her based on the crap dialogue written by another, but are my Doctor Who days numbered?

It was bad enough Gillan and Darvell (did he have much choice, I wonder?) are shuffling off, but to have the next companion constantly talking about the Doctor's chin will just do my head in.

Nearly as bad a character as that River Song wan!!! The only positive is that the very sight of her doesn't churn the stomach like that auld one.

I assume the actress will be playing an ancestor or the like of Oswin.

Here is hoping that it is some kind of bluff but cover up a plotless and that Rory and Amy are not leaving - at least not getting killed anyway.

Doctor DooM

Das Kitty wrote: »

No.

Fertility struggles are the furthest thing from trivial. It's lonely, terrifying and soul destroying. Adoption is not a fix, adoption can be just as difficult. I've seen it tear even the strongest marriages to shreds, and lets face it, the Ponds were never the best communicators.

I liked the resolution, tbh. I liked that Rory acted like an insecure plank, dropped the mister perfect act for once. I liked that the who loves who more thing was addressed and dealt with. They were left on an equal footing at the end. So IMO it wasn't for nothing, it developed the characters.

Not to trivialise the real world heartache of the situation, but this series is set in a universe where someone cloned off a daughter of the Doctor from a sample of blood.

Admittedly, we have to ignore these things sometimes for the sake of narrative

old hippy

InisMor wrote: »

Is the "actress" who played Oswin really the replacement for Karen Gillan?

Mother of the Divine!!!

I know I shouldn't judge her based on the crap dialogue written by another, but are my Doctor Who days numbered?

It was bad enough Gillan and Darvell (did he have much choice, I wonder?) are shuffling off, but to have the next companion constantly talking about the Doctor's chin will just do my head in.

Nearly as bad a character as that River Song wan!!! The only positive is that the very sight of her doesn't churn the stomach like that auld one.

I assume the actress will be playing an ancestor or the like of Oswin.

Here is hoping that it is some kind of bluff but cover up a plotless and that Rory and Amy are not leaving - at least not getting killed anyway.

What a horrible way to describe a great and beautiful actress

ríomhaire

Das Kitty wrote: »

No.

Fertility struggles are the furthest thing from trivial. It's lonely, terrifying and soul destroying. Adoption is not a fix, adoption can be just as difficult. I've seen it tear even the strongest marriages to shreds, and lets face it, the Ponds were never the best communicators.

I liked the resolution, tbh. I liked that Rory acted like an insecure plank, dropped the mister perfect act for once. I liked that the who loves who more thing was addressed and dealt with. They were left on an equal footing at the end. So IMO it wasn't for nothing, it developed the characters.

Sorry I misspoke and threw in the adoption line out of annoyance (I was ironically, also trivializing their relationship by letting my annoyance make me say stupid things). I don't think he was trivializing it because fertility problems are trivial. I think he was trivializing it for introducing the problem and solution in one episode. A marriage breaking down should be a big story in these people's lives, not relegated to 40 minutes of screen time. They were in such a bad way that they were getting a divorce after being married for years at this point and the Doctor fixes it without even being in the same room as them. I think he was trivializing it because it presents that there is an easy solution to massive marital problems, thus making the problems seem petty and unimportant (and of course the problem isn't just infertility it's also lack of communication).

Das Kitty

ríomhaire wrote: »

Sorry I misspoke and threw in the adoption line out of annoyance (I was ironically, also trivializing their relationship by letting my annoyance make me say stupid things). I don't think he was trivializing it because fertility problems are trivial. I think he was trivializing it for introducing the problem and solution in one episode. A marriage breaking down should be a big story in these people's lives, not relegated to 40 minutes of screen time. They were in such a bad way that they were getting a divorce after being married for years at this point and the Doctor fixes it without even being in the same room as them. I think he was trivializing it because it presents that there is an easy solution to massive marital problems, thus making the problems seem petty and unimportant (and of course the problem isn't just infertility it's also lack of communication).

In a way I agree, but in another bigger way I don't want the programme to be a soap opera.

The problem was 100% the lack of communication, which is why I personally didn't think it was outside the realms of possibility for Space Gandalf to get the two of them talking.

I doubt it's 100% resolved, I'd say we'll see more on the subject before they leave.

Mr.Saturn

Was the bare-Dalek in the parliament meant to be Caan, The Emperor or some other random naked-Dalek?

jasonb

I'm not sure, but I think the Doctor called him Caan?

J.