29.10: Blink

Not really. Modern Day Who is so much different from old Who. I can remember watching some of the 6 episode stories as a kid, and I was frightened. There was a time when Old Who used to be on after the Six O'Clock news. Can't remember who the Doctor was, but the story was some alines down in an old cave/mine, and the Doctor didn't seem to know who he was - those episodes scared me.

I have to say that some of the Torchwood episodes got me jumping, too.

I guess you're probably right about the young 'uns these days - I risk patronising here, but the majority of young 'uns won't understand a lot of it, and since they won't have been subjected to the more adult films and whatnot, that are scarier, they will find Dr. Who scary.
 
Oh, gods, that angel's face, that angel's face is EVIL! Man, that is some scary stuff, I expected it to be there ("You're not looking at the statue anymore"..."neither are you..." dum dum dum) But I didn't expect it to look like that!

Definitely agree, for a lack-of-main-characters episode, it certainly is very good!
 
I loved this episode. The concept was so original, and the conversation across 38 years via dvd was brilliant. So many good bits and the witty script kept me gripped the whol way through. I was particularly impressed with the flickering bulb when Sally was trying to get into the Tardis, and the angels kept getting closer and closer. As scary aliens go, the angels will take some beating. Remember........dont blink ;-)

A fantastically original and well written script
 
i liked this episode. it was good. i like it when they're supernatural ish, or sad, or macabre or something like this and last weeks, something tragic. i don't like them when they're monsters so much, or other rambled stuff. and personally i think that it's better when russell t davies isn't writing them.

i am sure the concept has been done, or at least, something about those angels, but i can't remember what.
 
I'm sure that I've read somewhere that it was loosely based on a story from the 2006 Annual.
 
I'm sure that I've read somewhere that it was loosely based on a story from the 2006 Annual.

Yes.
The BBC Doctor Who website presents said short story, with the introduction: "We present Steven Moffat's short story - originally published in the 2006 Doctor Who Annual - upon which Blink is based."
 
Seems like I'm out of step with everyone on this one. I thought it was one of the worst episodes since RTD took over the franchise. I just found the whole thing boring and the statues not at all scary. I can imagine that 5 year olds would be hiding behind the sofa, though.
 
Ooh, I've just started watching this episode and the statues are so weird! They remind of the hedges in The Shining (the book...they left them out in the film which was such a mistake!)...they keep moving, getting closer and closer...but you never seen them move. And those blank eyes are creepy! It's like what I said last week with The Family...you don't have to have huge and twisted monsters and aliens to scare people!

I was kind of reminded of the dead sea beastie (A manatee, iirc) in the Australian eco-horror 'Long Weekend' which keeps getting closer to the camp every time somebody isn't looking.
 
I agree it was a great little episode.

Sally would make a great assistant.

It was adapted from a story Moffat had in one of the Annuals, but I think he is certainly the best writer on Nu-Who as his episodes have all rocked. (P.s He has also written the Jekyll series with James Nesbitt that is on soon)

Empty Child/Doctor Dances - The one with the kids in Gasmasks
The Girl in the Fireplace
Blink

He has been signed up to do a 2 parter in season 4 so Woot!!

Unfortunatly the next 3 episodes are written by RTD so will probably suck. (Return of Cpt Jack, Derek Jacodi and John Simms possibly being "The Master")
 
Moffatt also cut his teeth on the four-season "Coupling", so certainly knows how to write clever human interaction, humour and so on.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the dance, eh? chance! That's you, that is, naming earlier episodes. Anyway, I'll see what he has to throw at us, though I'm sure we're in for lots of running, sonic screw-drivers, and more one-liners than a Sun headline writer's convention.

And the Doctor is so, so sorry.
 
Seems like I'm out of step with everyone on this one. I thought it was one of the worst episodes since RTD took over the franchise. I just found the whole thing boring and the statues not at all scary. I can imagine that 5 year olds would be hiding behind the sofa, though.

No problems with having different views here. I agree about the kids though: is there anything worse than a monster which moves whilst you're not looking, but stands still when you do? Because you know you have to look away eventually. Very clever idea I thought. I even used to play that game, I'm sure we all did. Odeon are even using it in their in-house advertising...
 
i just don't remember the empty child one! what happened there?
i love the idea of things moving when you don't look. it's very faerie mythology, the idea of things being there, being different, when you see them and when you don't
 
tho im not sure why doc who and martha didn't age like the policeman. or why they didnt move forward through time. and i wonder how long time felt for them. they were stuck in the 60s, did it feel like 40 years until the girl sent the tardis back, or not?
 
tho im not sure why doc who and martha didn't age like the policeman. or why they didnt move forward through time. and i wonder how long time felt for them. they were stuck in the 60s, did it feel like 40 years until the girl sent the tardis back, or not?
Well, I would begin to answer that, but....
I liked the whole 'Back to the Future 3' ideas that were used - delivering the letter, leaving clues through time etc. It also explains, in some fashion (wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey), the concept of non-linear time in the Doctors adventures, which seems to have confused some people who write in to Teletext and the like asking questions regarding paradoxes, apparently having fried their brains trying to figure out why cause can sometimes come after effect.
I'm loath to answer this as I'm not sure that I want to get into another debate like the thread on the Father's Day paradox. It fries my brain too!

I think it safe to conclude that the Doctor and Martha were stuck in the Sixties experiencing Linear Time just like everyone else, but that the DVD given to Sally to put in the TARDIS would have intructions to send it back to whatever precise moment in time that the Doctor required to escape.

Kathy Nightingale and Billy Shipton, and whoever else the Weeping Angels took (they feeded on this energy, so chances are it explains all missing persons) did not have a TARDIS to rescue them, and were forever stuck in the past.
 
but they couldn't make dvds in the 60s. the policeman guy said he got into video, then into dvd, right? so how could martha and the doc be on a dvd, made later, if they hadn't gone through time normally? and if they had, why hadn't they aged?
 
The Doctor said he was filming his message in the 60s, I think...so perhaps Billy kept the recording until DVDs were invented and he could put into on them...just like her kept Sally's number all those years to 'phone her at the right time...
 
If the policeman was sent back to 1969, why didnt he just find himself and tell himself not to go near those angels in the car park to avoid be zapped back to the 60's???
 
But then he wouldn't be sent back in time and wouldn't be able to warn himself warn himself, thus he would get grabbed by the angel in the future and get sent back, in which case he could warn himself and not get grabbed, but then he wouldn't be there to warn himself and then...

Man, time travelling is awkward! :D
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
REBerg Technology 5
L Doctor Who 7

Similar threads


Back
Top