The Almost People

I did not see that ending coming. So, how long has Amy not been Amy? I would guess it has to have been since episode onme of this series, when eyepatch woman first appeared....

Great ending, but the episode was a disappointing conclusion to a decent set-up, dull and with syrupy RTDisms poured on. Yawn, is it over yet?

tony ingram wrote:I did not see that ending coming.

I did - somebody texted me about it before I'd watched the episode.

Lucy McGough wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I did not see that ending coming.

I did - somebody texted me about it before I'd watched the episode.

Oops...

So - Whovians! Surprised that 'Amy' wasn't 'Amy'? Come on - she's in hospital with Mrs Nick Fury! And what are your thoughts on the upcoming birth of Amy's "Embryo Dalek" - oops!
Not a bad episode overall - I have to say it IS getting better...

I really didn't see that coming. It makes sense of the eyepatch woman's appearances and of the Doctor's interest in the flesh technology, but I wasn't expecting it at all. I doubt the baby is a Dalek, but there's definitely something not right, there...

Was that the "game changing cliffhanger"? Will we now have to wait months to find out what happens or is it on next week?

It's on next week. Last episode until the Autumn.

Ah right, that must mean an even gamer changinger cliffhanger is coming up! I must say "one of the main characters wasn't really in the show for the whole series so far" will be hard to top.

I think we're about to get an answer to a question a number of people have been asking, and it'll prove a bit of a surprise. Still waters run deep.

after the first episode where i was unsure about what i thought until i watched it a second time, this time i got into the story first time, and loved it again.

I enjoyed this two-parter the most of this season's (First half) offerings! The morality questions posed were very interesting! A pity I thought that `Ganger` Sarah became a `monster` in the second part-but seemingly this was very much the writers insistance as disclosed in the `confidential`

Two characters stood out! `Sarah Smart` who'se `ganger` was so affected she turned from a rational parson to a true monster in all senses of the word. Then there was Raquel Caddidy's `Miranda Cleave` who started out hard bitten & ruthless (Her `human` self certainly was) but who as both `ganger` and human graduated to a far more humane character- whose `ganger` self sacrificed to save others! Very engrossing stuff indeed!

Matt Smith and Raquel Cassidy worked together before in 2007's `Party Animals`

It was certainly thought provoking-was the Doctor right to allow the dead engineer's family to believe his ganger was actually 'Daddy'? That's a pretty big lie, but told for all the right reasons. How important is truth, anyway...?

Yes! I hadn't though of that aspect Tony! I think Those two episodes raised more issues than most Dr Who episodes in a long time. For me, these were the best Dr Who eps I have enjoyed since the "Impossible Planet" (The one that introduced the `Ood`) brace a few years back!

I think with the possible exception of Curse of the Black Spot, this latest run of episodes have all been pretty strong. Though the ganger two parter and The Doctor's Wife were definitely the highlights of the series so far.

For me the best two `guests` acting wise have been Suranne Jones and Raquel Cassidy. I thought they really helped their respective episodes! Sarah Smart started great, but I thought she was hindered by the character `devolving` into a typical Dr Who monster which just didn't suit he I felt!

I agree, that was a shame. In fact, the whole devolving into a giant spider thing was pretty unnecessary. Unfortunately, there seems to be a feeling at the doctor Who office these days that huge CGI monsters are a vital component of every series...

Yes! I think that was the only aspect of the episode that let it down a bit! but as I recall in the `Confidential` after that episode- the writer did concieve the `spider thing` and was very `up` for it bieng in the episode!

Sarah's character just becoming psychopathic would have worked better for me and given the actress more scope! But still a superb episode though!

I's a shame they got her to play that part, in a way-I've always thought Sarah Smart would make a good companion. Though no doubt they'd say she's too old, being in her thirties...

I think the opening 2parter and AGMGTW are my faves of the season thus far, though the only one I really disliked is that awful pirate one.

The other problem with TAP is that there seems to be no explanation for why, of all the gangers, Smart's character - "a sweet kid" - was the one - and the only one - to go crazy.

I think it was kind of implied that the ganger's had a shared consciousness of some sort as part of the Flesh, and that she was acting as the Flesh's avatar. Or something...

It wasn't very clear, admittedly.

How come killing Ganger Amy was okay?

Lucy McGough wrote:How come killing Ganger Amy was okay?

Because nobody was killed. The gangers at the factory were independent entities with minds of their own thanks to the effects of the storm, but the Amy ganger wasn't-it was just a flesh avatar which the real Amy's mind was animating by remote control (though she didn't realize it, believing she was actually with the Doctor all the time). It dissolved when the Doctor switched off the link that connected it to Amy and she became aware of her true surroundings, that's all. Nobody died.

The story should have made that clearer. I was confused and thought that the Doctor had melted her

Thanks for explaining the Amy `Avatar` bit Tony! I just couldn't figure that one at all! Why bieng in the Tardis `humanised` the two gangers but no `Amy` Unfortunatly, many Dr eps these days in my case really need viewing a few times for me to catch on.

If anyone wants to catch Matt Smith and Raquel (Foreman `Cleaves`) working superbly previous to Dr Who- try the DVD release of `Party Animals` its a sort of less hyperactive version of "The Thick of It" with about %99 less swearing, and is drama based!

They did kind of clear it up in AGMGTW.

alanultron5 wrote:Thanks for explaining the Amy `Avatar` bit Tony! I just couldn't figure that one at all! Why bieng in the Tardis `humanised` the two gangers but no `Amy` Unfortunatly, many Dr eps these days in my case really need viewing a few times for me to catch on.

I think you do have to watch it in a different way these daysit seems to require a bit more focus than it did under RTD, and yes, it rewards multiple viewings.

It just needed a couple of lines added to the dialogue to explain it. Rory could ask in accents of horror, "Doctor, why did you kill her?" and the Doctor could explain. Wouldn't take more than 30 seconds. They could have cut out the freaky bit with the eyes on the wall to make room.

Sometimes I get the impression that the show's so bowled over by its own cleverness that it doesn't care about actually explaining anything to the casual viewer. In that respect it reminds me of books by certain brilliant academics who use their radiance to blind rather than illuminate.

Thing is, an explanation after the event would have ruined the shock ending-it had to be fast and cut straight to Amy in the hospital. I think the fact that she clearly 'woke up' in the sickbay after the ganger melted was explanation enough, really. I got it, anyway.

I didn't get it, maybe because the two episodes had been going on and on about how Gangers were people too.

Did the episodes explain how Sarah/Jenny got hold of the spare `Jenny` (I hope I got the character name right!) the one she `killed` to make Rory believe `she` was human. I ask because she couldn't create more `gangers` via the machine-not bieng truly human herself. How did the `second` one come about?

Why couldn't she create another copy using the machine? Presumably, she was a close enough copy herself that the machine would read her as Jen..

But aren't the originals then supposed to be hooked up for it to be able to walk around? It was only a fluke that created the independant gangers, after all...

And, again, they cleared up the ganger Amy in AGMGTW for anyone who was listening.

If ganger Jen was able to transform into anything she wanted, I guess she had an unprecedented level of control over the flesh and could animate her other self without needing the machines?

Reaching now, Tony.

codywillis1 wrote:And, again, they cleared up the ganger Amy in AGMGTW for anyone who was listening.

I was listening - I just didn't care

I mean, it's all getting a bit silly. I just want a story with a beginning, a middle and an end. Preferably in that order.

Lucy McGough wrote:

codywillis1 wrote:And, again, they cleared up the ganger Amy in AGMGTW for anyone who was listening.

I was listening - I just didn't care

I mean, it's all getting a bit silly. I just want a story with a beginning, a middle and an end. Preferably in that order.

You are getting a story with a beginning, a middle and an end. The only difference is, these days that story lasts at least 13 episodes and is divided into several smaller subsections.

I get irritated with always being promised a really interesting story next time I tune in. It's like going on a date with a beautiful woman who always says she'll kiss you tomorrow.*





*Simile chosen to fit childish masculine audience **

**And by 'childish masculine audience' I mostly mean Glenn

Lucy McGough wrote:I get irritated with always being promised a really interesting story next time I tune in. It's like going on a date with a beautiful woman who always says she'll kiss you tomorrow.*

Steven's stuff not doing it for you, then?

*Simile chosen to fit childish masculine audience **

**And by 'childish masculine audience' I mostly mean Glenn

You're learning...

tony ingram wrote:Steven's stuff not doing it for you, then?

Not really, no. Which is odd, because I thought it would. I thought that 'The Empty Child' was wonderful, and last year's season was fantastic. But this year... maybe it's just me, but I haven't enjoyed it.

tony ingram wrote:You're learning...

You forgot to call me 'Grasshopper'

I really liked last year, but so far I think this year has been much better all the same-I just like long, interconnected story arcs.

I prefer last year but this season still s***s all over RTD's second year.

Still no clue as to when it returns, but only ten days now 'til Torchwood: Miracle Day...

Yes, I'm looking forward to that. It sounds really good, and 'Children of Earth' was excellent. Mr Capaldi should've got a Bafta for that.

I'm still annoyed the Americans, Australians and Canadians all get to see it a week before us, though...

Such is life. Most of the time we get stuff before they do.

Lucy McGough wrote:Such is life. Most of the time we get stuff before they do.

Well, yeah.

But it's our show...

Very naive, that Tony. You sound like a football supporter - "It's OUR team". It's not. Doctor Who has little to do with the fans. It doesn't belong to you and never will. If the fans have so much say, why was it not on TV for 18 years (or however long it was)? Naa. It's very much THEIRS!!!

GBF wrote:Very naive, that Tony. You sound like a football supporter - "It's OUR team". It's not. Doctor Who has little to do with the fans. It doesn't belong to you and never will. If the fans have so much say, why was it not on TV for 18 years (or however long it was)? Naa. It's very much THEIRS!!!

You miss the point-by 'our', I mean Torchwood's a British show, a BBC show. And yet we have to wait until a week after the rest of English speaking world to see it, despite the fact that Canada and Australia put nothing into it, simply because an American channel co-funded this series. That seems a little unfair, to me.

tony ingram wrote:an American channel co-funded this series

Money talks. And that's the sort of cynical thing you usually say