Active Users:1276 Time:23/06/2026 03:52:32 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I'm glad we got so much of The Master - John Sim is a pretty wonderful actor. (some slight spoilers) snoopcester Send a noteboard - 27/12/2009 03:11:27 PM
... So, the master played a rather big role. Tennant's doctor was a bit wussy, but I suppose that is better than "invincible"... I really really get annoyed with Donna, her gramps is better, though. I don't know about the cactus people...


Yeah, Donna is seriously annoying. Bernard Cribbins is awesome though.
The cactus people are just meh.
The Doctor going from supreme to super wimpy is annoying me - they brought it in too quickly and have got rid of it even faster.

as for the megahumungous spoiler thing in the end and the narrator... I was a bit surprised, actually. I wonder how they will kill them all off. Looks to be an interesting episode the first with both the on screen stuff and this.


I'm guessing they will make whatever the Doctor has to do to end what the Master did lock them safely away again.

Anyone else's first impressions? I wanted to keep the OP relatively spoiler free, but feel free to spoil it if you want to.


I liked it.
*MySmiley*

Robert Graves "There is no money in poetry, but then there is no poetry in money, either."

Henning Mankell "We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win"
Reply to message
so... Doctor Who? jh - 27/12/2009 10:36:29 AM 579 Views
I'm glad we got so much of The Master - John Sim is a pretty wonderful actor. (some slight spoilers) snoopcester - 27/12/2009 03:11:27 PM 475 Views
I do enjoy John Simm *spoilers* Camilla - 28/12/2009 01:11:09 PM 619 Views
A good first part *spoilers* Mark - 28/12/2009 02:23:56 PM 541 Views
Ooooh. Camilla - 28/12/2009 06:01:22 PM 461 Views
I liked it. The Shrike - 28/12/2009 03:49:41 PM 439 Views
Technically, you're wrong about that. Tom - 28/12/2009 07:44:35 PM 571 Views
Re: Technically, you're wrong about that. Camilla - 29/12/2009 01:35:17 PM 440 Views
Supposedly they are humanoid. I always took that to mean The Shrike - 29/12/2009 01:59:27 PM 560 Views
Timelords are also humanoid Camilla - 29/12/2009 02:34:32 PM 429 Views
But they have two hearts. Different evolutionary ladder. The Shrike - 29/12/2009 05:16:46 PM 443 Views
For all we know the daleks have three. Camilla - 29/12/2009 05:50:15 PM 457 Views
Unless explicitly stated, we assume the simplest explanation - one heart. And human(oid). The Shrike - 29/12/2009 08:11:06 PM 413 Views
I always thought it was more a function of the series' budget restrictions. Tom - 29/12/2009 03:26:37 PM 475 Views
No, that was Leela. Tom - 29/12/2009 02:01:23 PM 553 Views
I knew it was one of them Camilla - 29/12/2009 02:16:48 PM 397 Views
Wikipedia swallows less time than the Weeping Angels, though. *NM* Tom - 29/12/2009 03:24:09 PM 218 Views
This is true Camilla - 29/12/2009 03:40:15 PM 456 Views
Umm, technically, you're wrong about that. Michael - 29/12/2009 05:37:10 PM 465 Views
Mnonono Camilla - 29/12/2009 05:51:10 PM 453 Views
Ok inside the dome. Michael - 29/12/2009 06:03:37 PM 442 Views
Re: Ok inside the dome. Camilla - 29/12/2009 06:06:04 PM 455 Views
Forced evolution is still evolution, yes. Tom - 29/12/2009 06:46:48 PM 431 Views
No, I'm not. Tom - 29/12/2009 06:47:30 PM 518 Views
It's the order things occured in wherein lies your error. Michael - 30/12/2009 09:23:10 AM 435 Views
I enjoyed it enormously. Michael - 29/12/2009 05:42:38 PM 494 Views
Interesting idea Mark - 30/12/2009 07:54:31 PM 535 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes