I have to say I loved the episode, it really showed Moffat's genius for writing his characters into a corner and then getting them out of it, playing to the strengths of both the Doctor and his companion. Also, Matt Smith is becoming more and more endearing.

I aree that it wasn't as flash-bang as last weeks but it shows a relatively high standard still. If thats as bad as it gets, it'll never plumb the same depths as RTD at his crapest. The characters are growing and becoming more interesting (? or at least as I know more I find myself unable to turn away). But I find myself agreeing with this post by a friend:

You know what? I watched it again (because I literally have nothing else to do) and I liked it much more. Lots of things made sense (as they would) second time around. But I couldn't help noticing how horribly lit/shot/edited it was. The camera was frequently not pointing where you wanted it to be and the pacing was all over the shop. (They also used a cut that jumped across the Doctor's eyeline, creating a weird shift of position, at least once.) So I'm still mentally giving Mr Moffat and the cast a free pass - though Matt Smith's intonations are troublingly similar to Sylvester McCoy's - but I'm aiming a suspicious stare at the production team.

I thought it was good. Having to follow David Tennant you can forgive the production team for allowing Smith an episode or two to set out his stall and develop his character. Plus I think the strong companion role challenging a rather irate doctor was a fantastic bit of writing, it served to not only flip the story line instantly but showed us exactly what she is about in a split second and also sets up their relationship nicely without the audience having to endure weeks of crappy scripts...

I thought this second episode was much weaker than the first.

The first had great strengths. Amy was – admittedly – a walking metaphor (standing in for every Dr. Who fan, captivated by a glimpse of the Tardis in their youth) but it worked quite well as both metaphor and straight story. The Doctor’s ‘back in five minutes’ disappearance informed, sustained and altered Amy’s life and – as it turned out – all but guaranteed she would become his companion. Not a time-travel paradox, per se, but along the right lines.

It was also, surely, one of the best scripts/reasons for introducing a Dr. Who companion (as opposed to the usual, ‘erm, you’re life looks boring /and/or/ all your family are dead // I’m a time traveller // want to see my Tardis?’).

The only down-side for me – in the first episode – was the ‘I am Dr. Who – conquering of aliens/defender of earth’ bombast at the end. This happened a lot in Davies’ stories (I think?) and it’s a shame it’s continuing. There was no need for it in the script – the aliens had departed – and it just looked like the Doctor was boasting about the size of his sonic screwdriver. The Doctor has always been egotistic but I’ve always found this grandstanding unconvincing in the modern series (although maybe it’s just because I am fond of Tom Baker).

Back to the second episode – erm, what went right here? The scene of floating outside the Tardis was pretty nifty in various ways. The Doctor and Amy were well portrayed. But that was about it. The design? Weird. There was no logic to the look of the spaceship UK. Retro phones and monster carnival clowns (why?) – silver-jubilee street-party bunting – was there some satirical point about retro culture or living in the past? If so, it was totally lost in the edit. [Spoiler alert] The malicious treatment of the space whoosit – never really explained why/how that should happen in the first place, given it was keen to help them after years of torture. The election booth – ok, that was a bit of satire but there was nothing else to hold onto there – nothing about the society around it and the consequences, to give it bite – and why *was* it a ‘police-state’ if everyone voted to forget?

For me, the whole thing appeared cobbled together too loosely, too many ideas with no underlying reality established to ground the story or draw in the viewer. Did anyone watching care about the Queen or her decisions? The revelation that she *was* the Queen – well, we knew absolutely nothing about her in the first place, so who was bothered? There was nothing and no-one to empathise with; it was all too hurried; the space setting both rather generic and confusing.

Fortunately, it seems we are expecting Daleks. So I’ll probably keep watching, along with the rest of universe.

re the seventies graphics of the thing, it made me smile, because it reminded me of the info bits out of hitchhiker's guide tv series. I only learned the other week that Douglas Adams played a major part in DW back in the day, after hearing a BBC radio program about it. Thought the wireframe graphic might be a nod to that. Seems to have gone from iPlayer, look out for it in the future "Douglas & The Doctor".

Emma, I thought exactly the same things, actually. That's what the graphic reminded me of, which subconsciously made it the setup for a gag - but since it was supposed to be heart-wrenching and all pathos-y it seem like a bad misstep. (Downloaded that R4 show too. Had no idea Douglas Adams had been head scripwriter of Doctor Who but it made me want to get hold of a copy of, um, whatever that cool-sounding episode was called.)

"[I] was really impressed with all the clever ideas the story contained and how nicely they came together. Except those good points came across much more strongly from listening to the cast and Mr. Moffat talk about it than from watching the episode."
All writers should bear this in mind. Without the fallback of a 'confidential' follow-up show to explain our clever ideas, we must always make clear what we mean within our stories!