I don't think anyone really liked this. Whilst I thought it was better than the giant space-spider one from 2006, it still managed to feel completely unsatisfying. I agree with your analysis about it feeling "small" in scale; one of those things I couldn't put my finger on at the time but you seem to have identified it for me.

I'm sure everyone's bored with endless analysis of "what's right and wrong with New Who" but it's major problems still seem to stem from an over-reliance on special effects and writers who'd rather rip-off something else than create something original. "Voyage of the Damned" was a mish-mash of Douglas Adams-type "comedy" sci-fi scenario and disaster movie "danger" and managed as a result to feel a bit uneven.

It's depressing that by 2008 we're actually looking to "The Christmas Invasion" as some sort of pinnacle of Christmas Who.

I thought more or less similar things to the review. I agree the "Titanic" looked poor especially after all the hype (hipe?) it was given. I thought the death where a bit over done to be sad. It was like the writers decided to do a "how many characters can we kill off game", know what I mean?

Finaly, while I feel I should have been saddened by Kylie's death (her character name is too dumb to even type!) - I wasn't. The scene tried too hard to be dramatic, and thus was laughable. I don't care. If you drove a forklift into a pit of fire (or whatever it was), you WOULDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET OUT WHILE FALLING. And she just looked really pants, waving and (silently) screaming in slow motion. Like she was at the operea or somethig.

> 1. Richard from Keeping Up Appearances. He's just effortlessly brilliant.

Pity about his DWM interview, then...

> Any function I can imagine a robot jaw serving would probably be served better by something other than a jaw.

A big metal fanny.

I admit I also thought 'FUCKING. FUCK FUCK FUCK.' upon first watching Voyage of the Damned but after seeing it 3 times now I actually like it quite a lot. I'd give it 3.5/5 stars. Even the worst line Russell T Davies has ever written which is Foon after her husband dies saying 'he doesn't want anything, he's DEAD!' or whatever it is, it's still alright if you take it with a pinch of salt.

I totally disagree with the opinion that the effects were crap. Maybe they don't match up to Razor but FFS they still did a great job. You're expecting way too much wanting them to have decent Titanic replica interior sets. The CG Titanic exterior shots were excellent IMO.

The effects shots in themselves were well rendered etc, it's just the actual design and the choice of shots that I took issue with. And why is it asking too much for them to film scenes on the Titanic somewhere that looks at least a little bit impressive?

> hype (hipe?)

Got it right the first time :)

> (her character name is too dumb to even type!)

I think it was a good name, wasted on that character to be honest. Why the hell did they bother coming up with an anagram of TARDIS for her? There were loads of interesting ideas thrown up by fans about what this ASTRID could end up being, and it ended up just Kylie being a bit of a waitress and doing a Ripley impression before falling into a pit. And allowing us to witness yet *another* use for the sonic screwdriver when she was turned into space semen or whatever that stuff was called, before being blown dustily into the rafts of space.

> after seeing it 3 times now I actually like it quite a lot.

Yes - with repetition comes an appreciation of the rhythm/content of a work and a subsequent lowering of one's critical faculties. It doesn't mean the work is any better though - you've just become attuned to its logic. For this very reason it's hard to stay objective when working on a project for any length of time - a break is needed or an outside eye to make you see it fresh. Otherwise you end up focusing on details nobody else will notice on one viewing, and missing genuinely important aspects required for essential storytelling. I find this phenomenon interesting in the McCoy Doctor's "Ghost Light", because it adds to the mystery and it all adds up, but it just feels infuriatingly lazy when it occurs in new Who. There's so much I don't like about this Christmas Special and they're all pretty much summed up in the review above. I'm going to lose interest in new Who pretty sharpist unless it develops a more mature edge, dispensing with this "sexed-up" tone and pace. There are a few episodes that hit the spot for me (the Human Nature double-ep for example), and I just want more of them basically. There's no evidence that these are less appealing to "teh kids" as far as I'm aware, either.

I don't think it's unfair to wish RTD away from the project now, as he's done a great job of resurrecting Who but I'm beginning to worry he's going to destroy the integrity of the whole thing if he stays much longer. Any ideas who should take over? And who would be an ideal new Doctor or Master? Somebody suggested Simon Munnery as the Doc and Kevin Eldon as the Master on another forum! This would be teh best things EVAR. Next favourite for the Doctor remains Bill Nighy for me.

> with repetition comes an appreciation of the rhythm/content of a work and a subsequent lowering of one's critical faculties.

That pretty much sums up every sexual relationship I've had...

I wish people would stop saying 'Bill Nighy for the Doctor'. He's far too well known for people to buy him as the Doctor and not as 'Bill Nighy playing the Doctor'. He's also too old, I'm sorry to say. It's difficult enough these days to buy Tennant in the role as anything other than 'David Tennant as the Doctor' as he's so high profile.

Other horrible choices would be James Nesbitt, Alan Davies, Stephen Fry, anyone who's ever been in stuff like Casualty, Holby, Bill etc, Robson Green (lol), Will Mellor (you know, Gaz from Two Pints of Lager...), Will Young, Craig Charles, Norman Lovett, Hattie Hayridge, Malcolm McDowall (hang on...he'd be fantastic, but better as the Master or someone equally despicable), Russell Brand (we all know what he'd be doing with the sonic screwdriver), Simon Cowell, Simon Schama.

Richard Herring as the next Doctor. You know it makes sense.

What about Richard E Grant? I think he would be great. He has weird thumbs.

> He's also too old, I'm sorry to say.

What?! Since when? Just because Tennant's Doctor said in the recent Children in Need Special that he learnt from Davison's one that being young is great, and the regeneration of the Master involved some deliberate emphasis on becoming youthful, it doesn't mean the Doctor and Master can't both be 40+ years old again in the future, does it? Did I miss something? Regeneration doesn't always mean "to become younger"... it might in the RTD mould but that can fuck off to be perfectly honest. After the (at that time) very-young-for-the-part Davison, JNT deliberately sought an older, more cantankerous character to take his place for the contrast. That this ended up also being cluttered with a clown costume shouldn't discount the fact that an older Doctor could be great, although it might take a few more regenerations for people to accept this possibility. I don't get how Bill Nighy would be too old, anyway. I can't imagine him taking it in the direction of a doddery retro-Hartnell Grandfather figure. He'd be quite dashing and actiony, but in moderation and a really mature way. It's a great idea! Explain yourself!

> He's far too well known for people to buy him as the Doctor

To whom? Many other Doctor actors were hardly unknown when they took the role, in particular Paul McGann, whose characterisation was the only good thing about that TV film. Also: Davison was "that one on All Creatures Great And Small", and McCoy was doing stuff on children's TV (arguably then being the most famous of the lot to the target audience), but I don't believe this has ever ended up being a real problem. As long as the actor becomes the part, which Nighy would. God, imagine it! Bill Nighy for the Doctor!

> I wish people would stop saying 'Bill Nighy for the Doctor'.

See above.

> What about Richard E Grant?

He did that Children in Need one with Rowan Atkinson and he's been popularly mooted for Real Doctor since Paul McGann played it. Funny how the two evoke each other since Withnail and I. But I agree, he'd make a good, serious and enigmatic Doctor, not too young. He actually *is* the Ninth Doctor in some audio adventures, but on screen he'd be great.

> Richard Herring as the next Doctor. You know it makes sense.

I'm still thinking Munnery would take this territory better. It would be a mumbling Doctor with a limited acting range, but loads of witticisms and nuanced facial reactions to his own absurd observations. The louder actiony stuff would need to be the territory of his companions and the Kevin Eldon Master, allowing a very serene and introspective performance from Munnery. The balance between Munnery and Eldon would be PERFECT. Munnery would have to take a great part in writing the scripts himself, of course. Richard Herring would be too jumpy about on sofas for me, which might be good a few regenerations down the line, but not enough of a break from Tennant at this time.

How can we get anything like this kind of thing to happen? Stewart Lee as script editor would get the right doors open!

> Richard Herring would be too jumpy about on sofas for me, which might be good a few regenerations down the line, but not enough of a break from Tennant at this time.

This, by the way, is available for quoting when someone needs to get stuck into getting my obituary done.

>He'd be quite dashing and actiony, but in moderation and a really mature way.

You mean, like Jon Pertwee's Doctor?

There's no reason why there can't be a 40+ Doctor but Nighy is definitely too old for what the show is now. Older Doctors were great at the time but now the BBC just wouldn't want it. Tennant is a tad young, or at least he was when he first started. Eccleston (40/41 I think when he did it) was perfect age wise.

>>He'd be quite dashing and actiony, but in moderation and a really mature way.

>You mean, like Jon Pertwee's Doctor?

The description matches and Pertwee did all these things well in my book. In fact Pertwee was (is) certainly one of my favourite Doctors for being so very sober. But Nighy's characterisation wouldn't necessarily be "like Jon Pertwee's Doctor" in any other way. Certainly not so that he would be criticised for bringing nothing new to the role.

>There's no reason why there can't be a 40+ Doctor but Nighy is definitely too old for what the show is now.

I think the rub we have is that all the things that you think make the show "what it is now" are probably the exact same things which I hate and find dispensable. Let's see: constant excuses to get companions kissing; episodes structured so that endings are rushed and problems are normally solved by "magic" or an inexplicably enlightened Doctor at the very last minute; the hallmarks of soap opera relationships guiding all character interactions. These are trademarks of RTD and are completely unnecessary, and these are the things I'm complaining about. Outside of this, a new script editor will (hopefully) show that the epic nature of new Who, as well as the genuinely good moments of humour and suspense evident in occasional episodes, can be retained without all the bollocks that has been lumped in with it by RTD. I don't have a problem with Tennant as the Doctor - he just needs better scripts and episodes, but I think if you genuinely believe that Nighy would be incompatible with "what the show is now", then we fundamentally disagree with what the good elements of current Who are!

>>>He'd be quite dashing and actiony, but in moderation and a really mature way.

>>You mean, like Jon Pertwee's Doctor?

>The description matches and Pertwee did all these things well in my book. In fact Pertwee was (is) certainly one of my favourite Doctors for being so very sober. But Nighy's characterisation wouldn't necessarily be "like Jon Pertwee's Doctor" in any other way. Certainly not so that he would be criticised for bringing nothing new to the role.

I meant it in a good way; I quite like Pertwee's Doctor as well ^_^ .

I enjoyed the first in the new series of Torchwood last night....anyone else?

All future Doctors should resemble David Tennant as much as possible. Richard Hammond next, please.

> I enjoyed the first in the new series of Torchwood last night....anyone else?

Didn't see it. Please explain how it was better than the first series.

Not fast enough. BONG!

>I enjoyed the first in the new series of Torchwood last night....anyone else?

I liked it too, which was good considering the first series was such a monumental disappointment. Still some problems but compared to most of S1 it was wonderful.

>Didn't see it. Please explain how it was better than the first series.

Well, the writing was better and the whole "feel" of the thing was the way it should have been in the first place - ie *not* "Doctor Who" but more childish only with swearing and shagging. The "adult" stuff was actually toned-down to not-that-much-more-than-Who although, as I said, the whole "feel" was more grown-up.

Spike out of Buffy (James Marsters or something like that) was also fun as an evil version of Captain Jack.

One thing I did like was that when Torchwood showed-up at a routine police thing (ie a man who'd been murdered) they actually bothered explaining why they were there. Series one was jam-packed with stupid plot holes and things that didn't make sense. Most of that was sorted out this time around.

It was also more confidently set in the "Whoniverse" - it opened with a fish-headed alien driving a car around Cardiff and there was the distinct impression that people were aware aliens were around. Hopefully less of the "oh, these aliens are just mass-hysteria is that a rubber mask!!?!1" crap we had the first time around.

There are still problems: the characterisation is still a bit weak (athough that might get better) and there's still the occasional dip in the quality of the writing but compared to series one it's a big improvement. I just hope it keeps it up for the whole series and there isn't a "Random Shoes Part 2" or equivalent.

> all the things that you think make the show "what it is now" are probably the exact same things which I hate and find dispensable.

Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

> such a monumental disappointment

In some people's eyes. Come, that is...

I fucking loved the first episode 'Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang'. Did exactly what the first episode needed to do. People complaining about the lack of a decent plot don't have a clue. The heavyweight episodes are to come. James Marsters was a great guest star, how fantastic is it that he turns up again later (that's not a spoiler, it was in the fucking 'coming soon' trailer). The characters were actually likeable.

> I enjoyed the first in the new series of Torchwood last night....anyone else?

A very positive start. Bit of a cheat nicking both the actor AND the character of Spike, but at least the whole thing was FUN. A decent start.

I'm getting irritated by the vast quantity of Jack history that's going undisclosed - but this, at least, gave signs that some of this might be explored.

I think we're gonna know pretty much everything important about him by the end of this season. I'm actually hoping he turns out NOT to be the Face of Boe. IMO Jack's character arc should revolve around him wanting to lose his crazy immortality. I thought that's what they were trying to suggest in the first series with him standing on roofs and sitting in exhaust fume-filled cars!

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

> Which is why your opinion on the matter is about as much use as a life jacket on the Moon.

If you even remotely think I deserved a response like that then you completely misread the meaning of my posts. I was showing how our positions are different, that's all, and thereby suggesting that we needn't argue over them. I said nothing that could be interpreted as meaning your opinions are worthless.

Sorry sorry sorry about the multiple posts. Wireless network problems made me think I had no connection whenever I clicked "post".

A septuple posting - is that a world record?