Good show.

I have a question though – are wishes for the 2012 season misplaced?

Series 7 will broadcast over 2012-2013 and will therefore cover the 50th year of Doctor Who, but the actual 50th birthday won't be until November 2013.

Unless things have gone hideously wrong with the show and it's on hiatus (still have that fear) then the 50th birthday will actually come midway through season 8, which would make it a more appropriate place for any multi Doctor specials than season 7 (much in the same way you hold a birthday party on the birthday, not the year leading up to it).

I think this is why Steven Moffat is happy for season 7 to be a arc-light series – he doesn't hve to tie anything into the birthday this series. It's the 2013-14 season we will see it all in.

Which is all quite upsetting to me as I'd love a live action covering Doctors 8 through 11 and an animation with all 11 (providing good enough impersinators can be found).

And I totally won't mind losing to it!

Chris

http://www.tin-dog.co.uk

Love 2MTL but, ugh, could not disagree with you more on this one.

(Jacobi is pronounced Jack-O-Bee.)

When I rewatch Boomtown, it's usually because I want to revisit the Doctor/Rose/Jack dynamics, like the scene where the four of them stride into the Government Building with Jack describing the situation and the strategy, and the Doctor having a little fuss about who's in charge. But before I get there, I have to sit through so much Slitheen drivel, and I'm quickly wondering why I turned on this crap again.

Thanks for this throwback review!

I was sort of hoping you all had gotten more deeply into the hosting side of things in terms of technical issues and cost. I half suspect that's part of why vlogging is easier for some younger producers – YouTube can give you the cow for free – but yeah, this is great! Thanks for putting it out here for those of us who missed the panel.

I find it ironic that people are talking about the audio quality, or more concisely, the interference. The panel itself discussed that if the content is interesting enough, people don't mind the poor quality.

I think that is especially true in the case of the audio from this panel.

Slightly annoying yes, but when it was so interesting to listen to, people don't care.

Also funny that when your mate from the 555 (??) podcast talked about not listening to podcasts and staring out a train window, I was listening this podcast whilst staring out a train window.

Well done again all. Loving the coverage from Gally in all its forms.

I think you've really set up a straw man here, and I'm unsure why.

We've already seen how this new scenario pans out in the series five weeping-angels two parter. The identity of the good man who River Song had killed was still being kept a mystery to the viewer then, but River's minder knew it was the now supposedly dead Doctor, a dead-timelord-walking, who was assisting them.

Make of that what you will, but it does seem to make sense in the general ethos of the programme. Once a current incarnation of the Doctor is gone, he can continue to have adventures on audio or book form, but he seldom reappears in the television timeline.

For the inhabitants of the television Doctor Who reality, it's like Matt Smith has gone the same way as David Tennant or Tom Baker, but has not been replaced.

It's the flip-side of series five. Instead of them knowing what was being kept hidden from us the viewer, now we know and they are in the dark.

The inherent logic of the Doctor Who universe remains as it was.

Now those were just my own feelings. As far as the public at large or fandom is concerned I think it's done and decided that the pair are already ingrained in that pantheon of great companions regardless of what the future holds.

But there was considerable plot lifting from E Nesbit's Five Children and It.

While having the same main characters at their heart, both film and tv series exist perfectly well alongside each other without any conflict or clashes.

So despite what Steven Moffat says about a Doctor Who movie only being made by the current production team with the current Doctor, there's the example of Sherlock Holmes to show that an independently produced film could work.

I'm very skeptical of this particular inspiration, and I appreciate hearing you articulate some good concerns.

I admire how seemingly sanguine you are about the prospect of any future Doctor Who movie breaking with the continuity (oft-convoluted though it may be, as you rightly pointo out) in place since 1963. While I agree that fidelity to the character and concept are most important, renewal (literally!) is at the core of "Doctor Who"; and RTD showed how the show can be "transformed" without sacrificing that "pedigree" long-time fans value (and short-time fans — I've only been aboard the TARDIS since last year, but I would hate to see all that tossed out: here's a shameless plug for my gut reaction at http://thescifichristian.com/2011/11/david-yates-hears-a-who-movie-news/.)

Let's hypothesize that, for whatever reason, "the fall of the Eleventh" at Trenzalore turns out to be the end of the TV series. How hard would it be, really, for a future movie to pick up with the 12th or even a later Doctor, leaving backstory from the eleven we've known intact but unexplored?

I suppose persnickety folks (like yours truly, it turns out) could always "retcon" the continuity we know if Yates (or whomever makes the film) really does make a clean break with the past. But I guess I now have some sympathy for Trek fans who said, "If J.J. Abrams just wants to make a fast-paced, shoot-em-up space opera, why can't he invent his own universe?" If Yates just wants to tell his own story about a time traveling alien, well, nothing in that idea is exclusive to Doctor Who. Why let him have the built-in audience that comes with the brand name if he really wants to do his own thing?

Anyway, thanks, as always, for your thoughts!

Gee I wish you were around during the run of Babylon 5. I would have started listened to podcast back then,if they existed.

I fail to see how it is a costly show to produce.

My little boys love seeing how Dr Who is made, it gives them a sense of reality about the fantasy of the whole thing. Its a joy to see the actors behind the scenes.

The BBC waste their money all the time on utter nothing shows. And I mean it, I dont just say this just cause I dont watch them but because they simply appeal to the lowest common denominator.

You said "Dont blame them for the fact they cant afford to keep our favourite programmes on?" They are the ONLY ones who want to have TV License. Most of the UK do not want it and havent for a very long time and they continue to ignore this.

If they are having money issues, they need to get modern and offer BBC Three (the channel DWC is on) and Four as additional channels that need to be paid for. A lot people have cable now and pay for their channels, so BBC should just use their sister channels within those packages.

Nowadys, we arent bothered about having no adverts, its nice, but I would rather sit through adverts than pay £12 every month just to watch one or two shows a week. iPlayers, downloads and DVD releases happening quickly means people can easily enjoy the show sans adverts if it bothers them that much.

Now with internet and iPlayer, their policies are even thinner on the ground, so I cannot support their reasons for cutting popular shows and keep their hundreds of awful junk on and I still have to pay £12 a month.

Reposting from whoblr.tumblr.com, here's my followup to the great comments folks have shared on this one.

Up until The Blood Line, I was able to put aside my general distaste for RTD's American pop vision of Torchwood. However, the reveal of Rex's immortality was not only predictable, it was vexatious. A quick review of The Parting of the Ways confirms my recollection that Jack's 'immortality' is a gift of the heart of the TARDIS/time vortex as it possesses Rose – the same exposure that is purported to be responsible for the creation of the Time Lords as a race. Therefore, it should be impossible, short of exposure to the vortex itself, for Rex or anyone else to inherit Jack's immortality.

The continuity chasm of the Jack/Rex arc and the unpolished handling of the story as a whole leaves me in the camp of lamenting the lack of a fourth Torchwood season.

I miss the days when the Doctor roamed the universe relentlessly doing the right thing. I miss the Doctor who consistently inspired his friends – and by extension the audience – to be better people day in and day out. Who, on an ugly planet full of petty people, with no hint of glory or grandstanding, gave his life for Peri, a companion he had only just met and wasn’t even sure he liked yet. There are flashes of this in the recent series – LKH being an especially good example where a dying Doctor spends his every last breath trying to redeem River Song and thereby save both her and her parents. But still, the overall trend seems to be downward. I hope this is a temporary character arc. I, too, miss my hero.

1. The Doctor makes a terrible, accidental mistake (in trying to fix Amy's terrible, accidental mistake).

2. He misleads Amy and Rory about whether two Amys can exist in the TARDIS at the same time. (Who canon is divided on this question. We'll assume he's not lying and that it is incredibly dangerous if not actually impossible.) From what I recall of the circumstances, telling the truth at this stage would mean not rescuing young Amy at all. More humane?

3. He prevents old Amy from boarding the TARDIS. From (2) we're assuming this is not by choice but by necessity.

4. He forces Rory to choose which version of Amy to save. Not very nice, but at least he does leave the decision in the hands of (old) Amy and her husband. The alternative (again, given 2) is that he makes the decision and Rory just has to accept that, from his point of view (but maybe not from a Time Lord's), the Doctor has just cloned and killed his wife. More humane for the Doctor to do it?

5. Suppose (2) were false and there really were some way for the Doctor to save both of them. (Remember, if he leaves one of them alone in the facility he not only has to find that one again after dropping the first one off, but also has to come back the instant after he leaves or else the problem repeats. And his steering wasn't so hot the first time. So the only way this works is if they really can coexist on the TARDIS.) Old Amy claims she won't stick around — she'll go be sword-wielding River's Mom somewhere out in the cosmos. And she gets to think every day about Rory being married to some version of her that's not her. More humane? Maybe. Definitely not happy. Old Amy realizes this, and that's why she doesn't let Rory open the door.

One fascinating thing about this episode is how deeply it explores perspective and relativity: not just the difference between Amy's timestream and the Doctor's/Rory's, but also the difference between human perspectives on time and a Time Lord's. The Doctor has created a point of view that feels it will "die," but in fact he's changing history by rescuing Amy and that point of view presumably has never existed. I'm not sure whether the author saw it that way — logically old Amy should have vanished as soon as it was certain that young Amy had been rescued. But to even countenance the idea that old Amy could have zipped off to explore the universe on her own, you have to assume this isn't a paradox and that old Amy can exist even when young Amy has been rescued. I can see where a Time Lord might recognize this, perceive these as two points in a timeline, where a human might just see two people, one old, one young. If we're to take seriously the idea of time travel at all, we have to grapple with this contradiction, and this was a great framework to do it.

So I guess you don't actually have to come up with a humane solution here to still be angry that the writer backed everyone into a corner where there really isn't one (which I think makes for excellent storytelling, even if it makes hero worship more difficult). If you can, though, I'd like to hear it. I have a (purely speculative and unspoiled) feeling we'll see this situation again in a different form later on, and you might find it more palatable then.

It's supposed to make you uncomfortable but in the end it fits in to the Doctor's character arc this season. In a way it harkens back to the original Hero's Journey of the (William Hartnell) Doctor in season numero uno. Don't worry, he will be a hero again. But first the question of What is a Hero? (the oldest question?) needs to be answered.

In Utopia, Jack accuses the Doctor of being ‘time-prejudice’ without realizing it. He cannot come to terms with an anomaly like Jack, just because of the way he sees time and space. In a similar vain, killing-off old Amy does not cause him much grief, since once the TARDIS leaves that godforsaken amusement park planet, time is rewritten and she literally never existed. Problem solved. The same goes for his impartiality in Cold Blood, when the timecrack swallows Rory’s body. ‘Out of time, out of mind’ seems to be a valid Time lord rule.

The Doctor can understand Rory’s woe, but he cannot feel the same guilt and pain over leaving old Amy. Being humane requires being human, which the Doctor is not. Doesn’t mean he can’t be compassionate and loving, but only within the restrains of his own, time lord perception of the world.

Thanks Chip, for this episode. I always appreciate thoughtful dissent from the crowd and yours is usually thought provoking.

I think, though, that your reaction, like my dismay at Amy-Then's demise and the Doctor's irresponsibile and, as you say, inhumane behavior, do actually fit into the arc of this season. Isn't such behavior the very kind of thing that River is warning him about in "A Good Man Goes to War"? "Look at what you've become!" I agree with you: in this episode, the Doctor is not kind, is not trustworthy. Perhaps not even good. But I trust that, when all is said and done, he will rise again from "how far he's fallen." Have faith!

As always, yours continues to be some of the most incisive and compelling Who commentary on the Web. (Largely because, I suspect, you have the self-discipline to keep it short, unlike my ramblings above!) Thank you and please keep up the outstanding work!

Doctor: "that is not how I travel"
Rory: "Then I do NOT want to travel with you!"
————
Doctor: "it's your choice'
Rory: "This isn't fair. You're turning me into you."
————
I think those two lines from Rory lead us to a place where we will see the departure of Rory and Amy as main companions, as well as hint at the underlying theme of the entire of series 6. That being:

Yes, the Doctor lies, but more disturbingly, the Doctor always has, and in a darker way these days, the Doctor plays God.

- Great show as always Chip! Take care!

Matt Murdick

From the Two Streams facility (which is really just a huge TARDIS metaphor), to the Handbots (who are themselves "doctors", and just as blind—literally and figuratively—as the Doctor himself can be), to Rory's angry statement "You're turning me into you," MacRae is elaborating on Moffat's theme that there is a high price to pay for life with the Doctor.

In my review—which I'd love you to read—I say that Old Amy is a representation of what life with the Doctor would do to someone who stayed with him too long: the people he screws up (as he said in "Let's Kill Hitler,") and the people he turns into weapons (as Davros accused him in "Journey's End"). Something your recording made me realize is that we can view the Doctor's willingness to "undo" Old Amy's life as an attempt to erase these mistakes, and to purge himself of the guilt of what he has done to his companions, and what he is continuing to do to this couple.

It is indeed dark, and troubling, and perhaps your point is that you think it's too dark and mature for Doctor Who. But I give Moffat and Co. a lot of credit for going there: he's making room to allow this 900-year-old character to actually grow, and–though I could be wrong–I think the payoff is going to be worth it.

Sorry to ramble so long, but your recording provoked a response. My review is here, if you're interested; I'd love to hear your thoughts: http://unaffiliatedcritic.com/2011/09/doctor-who-s6e10/.

But Chip. I seem to remember you once defending him. Is this no longer going to be now?

Really great insight! Might have to do a rewatch of the episode with this in mind.

On a story level, if Mels had been in the series earlier wouldn't she have put her plan against the Doctor into action at that moment? Fate has kept them apart up until the cornfield, or else Mels wouldn't have been born.

On a strategic level, it could in part be a reaction to all the speculation that Doctor Who attracts. How to write Doctor Who in the internet age and still keep surprises.

On a practical level, I suspect Steven Moffat had not thought about Mels until he sat down to write the next episode following A Good Man Goes To War. If Steven Moffat was George Lucas, he would go back to the Eleventh Hour and re-release it with a CGI Mels inserted into Leadworth. Thankfully, Steven Moffat is not George Lucas.

By comparison, look how much time Russell T Davies spent on trying to shoehorn Rose back into the show after Billie Piper left, even to the point of giving her a second farewell! I think Moffat is just as entitled to telling River stories, especially since she's obviously more important to the Doctor — on a number of levels — than Rose ever was.

I just wanted to comment on your complaint that Moffat is 'not playing fair' with us, in that he makes it impossible for us as viewers to have a stab at working out what's going on in terms of the big story-arc.

I'd question whether it's really necessary for us as viewers to be able to work out what's going on, to form our own theories about the story that's being told. I realise that a lot of fans in the community (not least bloggers and podcasters) do gain some enjoyment from theorising and making up their own story (And then later gloating that they got it right!) but I'm not sure that's the way I want to enjoy the series.

For me (and perhaps it's only me) I'd rather let Moffat tell the story. I enjoy the way he does it – it's bonkers and unpredictable and complex and I like that. For me, guessing and theorising almost acts as a (dare I say it?) self-made spoiler! You're spoiling it for yourself by guessing the big reveal well before it happens. I'd rather let it happen and think, "Wow, that's clever! … it's completely crackers, but it's clever!"

Figured I'd throw my 2 pence (or 2 cents to you, Sir) into the bucket. That's just how I see it. Keep up the good job!

I do have a comment on your point about the viewers not being able to solve the mystery on their own, that Moffat's not playing fair. In the mystery genre books which are designed so that the readers can solve the murder are called "fair play" mysteries. These ruled the mystery genre before WWII, but as time went on became a smaller and smaller portion of the mystery market. Nowadays they are pretty rare. Thus, Moffat's storytelling (in that regard) is in keeping with how the majority of mysteries are now written, you're not supposed to be able to figure it out yourself.

Thanks for your short podcasts, because of the format, and your clear opinions yours is always one of the first Doctor Who podcasts I listen to.

My fave scene from this episode was when he went into the Tardis and wanted a voice avatar, rejected himself and old allies from the past series with Tennant and was bittersweet when he saw Amelia Pond. That was beautiful to me, and reminded me of the Dr from series 5.
Great pod cast. Thanks and keep them coming.

Immortal Sins was a total throwback to classic Torchwood. It has all the elements we came to love about the first couple seasons of Torchwood, things that I think most people may not have realized they were missing. While Miracle Day and Children of Earth are these epic, sprawling, world-changing stories, this episode is in many ways small and self-contained. It's a personal story for Jack, the same way Captain Jack Harkness was, or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.

It's Jack being Jack, facing the consequences of his love life, saving the world in secret, dealing with his immortality in an almost matter-of-fact way, and yes, acting Doctorish like he used to, with that sexy, confident, carefree charisma he lost after Torchwood fell. It's definitely understandable that his personality would change after losing his lover, his family, his home, and the career he's spent more than a century building, all in the span of a week. I won't fault the show for that. It's just that Immortal Sins feels so nostalgic, you can't help but crave the simple halcyon days of the eating pizza in the hub, the close friendships, Jack being happy and in love, and the feeling that no matter what the problem was, Torchwood would find a way to make it better, and even if they couldn't, they would help each other deal with the aftermath. I love Miracle Day, but part of me really wishes there were more episodes like this throughout the season.

One of these days I should go through the DVDs and make a list of every reference there's ever been to Jack's sex life… oh, surely someone's already beaten me to that!

I will not watch "Children of Earth", ever. I can't handle the constant drumbeat of child endangerment or just how far Jack's expediency takes him without a balance of humor and silliness and character interaction. But I'm not going to say it was bad television. Because I know that's not accurate. It's a powerful story, a powerful statement. But it's not to my tastes. Much of Season 1 was.

(And while Mötley Crüe has never been to my tastes, I will state that I admire that a guy can play drums upside down.)

I agree with a great deal of what Lynne had to say about the first series of "Torchwood". There were low points as the writers, actors, and production team found their footing. There were also high points: "Ghost in the Machine" giving us a sense that there were things that would get under Owen's façade; hints of Jack's expediency in "Small Worlds", building toward a solid series conclusion with "Captain Jack Harkness" and "End of Days".

Just because you think it's bad does not make it so. It means you personally didn't like it. Next time justify the opinion with some details as to why you didn't like it instead of waxing poetic about childhood tastes and how you grew out of them.

Couple with that the charm and wit which was present in the the first 2 series has dissaperaed and we are left with a mess of confused genres which seem to be trying to hard to be to many things and fails atall of them.The humour is cliched from the gay air steward jokes to the butch biker who turns out to be gay.How many times have we seen that before.
I also feel the charactors are not as well defined and more predictable.I never felt CJ and Gwen were the stars of TW it was the ensemble playing which held my interest and it is apparent in MD that they are not intersting enough to hold the show together.Added to that much of if it seems to be recycled from the first 3 seasons and other shows.The idea of camps is has been pretty well covered before in other shows including DW and unlike the reviewer I have yet to have an emotional reaction to any of the episodes.
The Oswald Danes storyline is not plausible and just leaves me gob smacked at its simplicity.
So although i do not rate COE as highly as many reviewers at least it held my interest. MD is just a mess of genres,styles and repetitive themes.I only stay with it because it is TW and part of me wants to believe it will regain some of its old magic.
Love the comments about linear and divergent-it really helps me to understand why i often feel in the minority when it comes to COE.Also the comparisons between CJ/Ianto and Gwen/RHYS made sense.This was a great podcast and a good analysis of the 4 seasons.Very refreshing in its outlook as it goes beyond alot of what is actually being written about TW at the moment.

"Contractually, the broadcasters in other territories can transmit from the next day onwards but being as close to the transmission in the US is not the only factor in the scheduling decision. We have identified what we think is the best slot for BBC One viewers and have also ensured that it's within a week of transmission in the US."

- http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/content/response/res_torchwoodscheduling

Reading between the lines, what "We have identified what we think is the best slot" means is that the BBC is trying to boost its damaged ego by exerting some semblance of control over when it goes out. Showing it the next day, would be in the interest of fans and the programme, but would also highlight that the BBC was subordinate to Starz. Keeping everyone waiting allows the BBC management to feel they are still in charge, even if for all other reasons the decision makes no sense. It's the "best slot" for them, not anyone else.

Not sure if you've heard about the Babble On project @ geekplanetonline.com – but they're recording with JMS on July 14 – and are taking questions for Joe.

You've probably done oodles of conventions with JMS and other B5 folks – something we miss out bigtime here on New Zealand.

Anyway, love the Podcast, espeically the clarity you bring to it. Like the time dialtion editions as well – good to listen to on the road while driving!

Cheers
Phil
worf359, NZ

By the way, I think that Moffat also resolves some of the issues of his puzzle-box approach by expanding the Who universe to include new characters we immediately like and are curious about (e.g., Madame Vastra and Jenny, and the alien warrior-nurse).

And so, I say let's just relax and enjoy the show.

MILD SPECULATION: while Rory Williams is little known to the other characters in the Who universe, the Last Centurion has been known and admired for thousands of years. This may be one of the reasons that the Doctor asked Rory to dress in the costume again in "A Good Man Goes to War," and this may become important in future episodes.

“Yes. It does.”

(Long pause. Eventually, the Doctor shrugs.)

“Oh well. Anyway, things to do. There’s something interesting going on in Metatraxiad-4C9, so -”

“Doctor, you don’t understand! I… I’m Amy’s daughter.”

(Shorter pause.)

“And?”

“What do you mean, ‘and’? I’m Amy’s daughter.”

“Yes, but how does that change anything?”

“What?”

“You’re exactly the same character you were a few minutes ago. Not even a very interesting character, to be honest. And let’s face it, since you’re a time-traveller who’s intimately connected with my adventures and yet who traditionally refuses to reveal her origins, it’s not much of a shocker. So does your parentage actually make the slightest bit of difference?”

(NOTE FROM 2MTL: Turns out this is a cut-and-paste from Lawrence Miles's frequently-expurgated blog at http://beasthouse-lm2.blogspot.com/.)

As always, you put out a gread podcast. I don't know how much work you have to put in to keep them so short and to the point (who was it who wrote, "I would've written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time?"), but I do appreciate it!

If nothing else, it's given the spin-off media an even more important part in the overall story as the primary place to find these characters in a "monster of the week" setting. Even more than ever, the television is at the tip of a very high narrative iceberg.

1) Would this be a debate if I was in the UK rather than Canada? Surely nobody would get miffed at someone who's just seen it on BBC One in the UK.

2) The ability to block hash tags in twitter is widespread and simple where available. The "offending" tweet included the #doctorwho hash tag, which many prefer to block to avoid spoilers or speculation, so the option was there to simply not see the tweet by filtering/blocking that tag.

I'm done with this subject now.

(BTW Chip, keep up the good work in getting fandom debates out there… open debate is a good thing.)

But yes, I quite liked "The Rebel Flesh". I found it superior to every other Smith Era episode. It wasn't perfect or even excellent, but it had no romance, no River Song, and was not fantasy or fantastical but science fiction, which I prefer.

How did you manage to sneak inside Davies head to pull this one out? Or did you perform an Inception? The world needs to know!

I thought this episode was rubbish. Certainly the worst since the beginning of the Moff's era. Maybe the worst since 2005.

As far as the cuts to the commercial breaks, they were terrible and I don't understand how or why this happened. With such an important and well promoted premier you'd think they would have done a better job with it's presentation.

Let me second the nomination of "The Clone Wars" as a US show that can appeal to both adults and kids. We are one of those "cool dork" families that watch it together faithfully every weekend! My wife and I enjoy discussing how the episodes do or don't fit into the established "Star Wars" lore of our youth — and we're not above enjoying the space battle and light saber action along with our 9-year-old son! As for our 9-year-old daughter, she's a big Ashoka Tano fan. Often, when she gets out of her bath, she'll drape a towel over her head like a cloak and announce, "I a Jedi!"

• For the first time ever in 14 years together and 12 years of marriage my wife set down to watch Doctor Who with me!

• My wife looked at me and said even if she was not living with me she still would have known about the premier due solely to BBCA’s exemplary work in promoting the show!

Doctor Who has to continue to bring in new fans. If only the hard core fans are catered to the show could not support its self. Steven Moffat recently said it takes about one million pounds to produce and episode of Doctor Who. With the BBC only supplying about seven hundred thousand pounds the extra money has to come from merchandizing and co-production deals. The USA is a huge untapped market for Doctor Who and every attempt needs to be made to reach it. My wife said she appreciated the short sequence before the credits to help on board her with the series.

In the week heading up to the premier BBCA also took some other measures to onboard potential new fans. In iTunes all the DW new series seasons were on sale and season 5 was made available for Netflix streaming.

So just to sum up:

“BBC America you did an exceptional job and thank you for all your hard work!”

They should wait until the scene actually ends and THEN cut to commercials.

My wife and I talked about the "kid-friendly" factor of Moffat-Who, and we really think that the show has become too scary for many young kids. We don't have our own children yet, but I'm looking forward to passing on the Doctor Who virus, but I would be highly uncomfortable starting a young one on Moffat's era. I think this is one area that RTD excelled in. It was almost always kid-friendly.

I do think, however, that the distinction between "commercial" and "publicity" material is a fine line. When I hear the phrase "limited commerical interruption," I equate that, as I bet most viewers do, with "limited interruption." I have no objection to BBC America selling audiences here in the US hard on the show; but I think it could have been more artfully done. In fact, BBC America *has* done it more artfully in the past — just last year, in fact, for the premiere of "The Eleventh Hour"; and again for "A Christmas Carol." The breaks included both ads and "Insider" material, but came far less frequently than every nine minutes!

Take the scenes with Amy dressed as a police woman and Rory dressed as a Roman legionary from the latest Christmas Special. If I was shown these and the Comic Relief sketches without having seen either of them before and asked to say which was from a genuine Dr Who episode and which was for Comic Relief, without question I would have said the scenes from the Christmas Special.

I'll definitely follow the link to read Racheline's paper. Thank you for both the interview and the link.

But this is *my* opinion, one colored by my own experiences as a woman in the world who has been the brunt of these conversations and the mother of daughters who I hope never will. The most disturbing thing has been, as you said, not that the opinions exist (because, let's face it, four people locked in in a room discussing Doctor Who are going to have at least eight wildly diverging opinions on anything) but that they were shut down so quickly, thoughtlessly and, in some cases, cruelly. "It's been done in the past so it's okay now" "Clearly you don't *get* it" "Where's your sense of humor?" "It's just a comedy skit for pete's sake" are not, in my opinion, adequate excuses for discounting someone's (a LOT of someones) discomfort.