Doctor Who Christmas Special.

I thought this episode was very fun watch. Although as far as Christmas specials go, I have to say I loved last years more. But it was still fun.

Marge(the Mother) was very fun. When she meets those three people in the forest... well don't want to spoil it for anyone. But it was hillarious. Also she was just fun to watch. I Just love how she seems to not be phased by ANYTHING that has just happened to her.

The kids were also fun. The way the Son replied to his dad when asked where his Mom was going, was just... I dunno. It was funny.

Though I have to say.

If the begining happened in any other show I would have been very annoyed by it. I mean come on. But then I realize... Yup. This is definitely Doctor Who. lol

Both endings were also great. By both endings I mean the ending of the Arwells(I think thats their last name) and them spending Christmas as a family and the ending with the Doctor returning Amy and Rory.

When I watched the Doctor knock on the door I realized something. Amy and Rory have become his family. And not just because he married River Song(just now remembered that Amy and Rory are in laws now.) But his other Companions, while being extremely close to them. They were either love interests or more great friends.

But with Amy and Rory it just somehow feels different. For the first time in... well who knows how long... the Doctor finally seems to have found a family.

But then maybe not.

But loved the ending.

My thoughts...

1. Cute. Very cute. But apart from a few one-liners and the ending with the Ponds, there was very little substance.

2. Like Nancy, Madge is a mother, and like Nancy, everything Madge does is for her children. Moffat does a great job writing mothers—except the most important mother of the show, Amy Pond. Madge wanted her kids safe during the war, so she carried a gun. But it’s never explained what her reasoning is for deciding to carry the gun—fear of more familial death, perhaps?—further than “I love my kids and there’s a war on.” I can explain away the gun, however; it’s driving the Star Wars-esqe station on legs thing that is just wayyy too inconceivable. Yes, most mothers would do ANYTHING for their children, but she goes from being reasonably confounded by the tech to DRIVING the damn thing. Sorry, that was textbook Mary Sue. AND THEN she takes the whole forest inside her head because she’s got lady bits and has given birth, so while I appreciate the nod to feminists, it doesn’t make much sense since Cyril is able to wear the crown without going apeshit like the Doctor—who went apeshit because males are too weak to touch it.

3. By the way, I didn’t like the male/female divide. It was supposed to highlight women as strong, but what it did was uphold the gender binary by equating sex with gender and womanhood with motherhood. Not all females want to have children. And having/making that choice is what makes us strong, not the sex organs that allow us to give birth.

4. The father should have stayed dead—not because I don’t appreciate a happy story, but because I appreciate a good story. Madge didn’t need her husband to come back to life—she needed to appreciate the time they shared and their love but also move on and grow from the experience of being a widow and a single mother. It’s just another example of Moffat’s inability to kill off characters permanently (unless it is a natural death). With Rory it became a joke and lost all emotional impact. Amy died and was restored—so it meant very little. River died when we first met her, and while that might cause the Doctor a bit of angst, it’s not like he has to watch her die again. She’ll always be alive for him, especially considering that she’s living a false sort of life in the Library computer. Killing off characters is something that HURTS, but it’s the sort of hurt that is needed sometimes.

So, I liked it, but I probably won’t be watching it again.

The father was never actually dead.... but more on that later.


There are somethings the writers/director can leave up to the viewer to figure out. As you pointed out. There was a war going on and the mother wanted her children safe. So she got a gun. This is all easily understandable and can be understood through common sense. We did not need to have a scene where it explains it as we can figure that by ourselves.

A director/writer does not need to hold the audiences hand for everything. They are going to assume their audience is intelligent and should treat them that way. In some cases such a scene would be great. But in something like a Doctor Who special it would feel out of place. The justification you gave is not only reasonable, it happens all the time. People tend to own guns for protection.

As for the walker platform... robot... uh.. thing? Yeah her driving it is a bit unrealistic. But So is flying sharks and mountains that sway in a breeze. Both very real occurences within the Whoniverse. While we actually see the shark, we only hear the Doctor speak of the mountains fondly.

Real World Logic and Doctor Who should rarely be put together. Whats important is the Whoniverse Logic... which is quite frankly all over the place. Was in Mary Sue? Maybe. But it didn't look like she was working it perfectly either. It appeared to be sort of stumbling along.

Assuming 1 person can pilot the thing... which apparently it can... and the species that created/atleast piloting, were similar to humans... then its not a giant leap to assume another human, who has no real experience, can pilot it to some degree. She'd just need a general idea of the movements.

But of course. the Doctor himself could so easily be protrayed as a Gary Stu. I'd personally argue differently but its a very thin line.

As for the womanhood=motherhood or whatever.

No. I actually don't think it was anything more then a setup to a Mothership Joke. I just don't see it as any of this actually trying to send a message that women are strong and what not.

That whole bit was just the setup of a joke with the Doctor delivering the punchline. Maybe it was unintentional message and that could be a problem in of itself.

But I just don't see it either way. But then. I think I rarely actually see this to begin with in just about any show or book or movie. Unless I am intentionally looking for it. My mind blocks out such things because I already know that womanhood does not equal motherhood and gender isn't the same as sex. I know woman can be strong.

Though I have to admit. It is annoying that some people precieve any weak female character to be some message that all woman are weak. No... that just means that particular person, who just so happens to be a female, is weak.

Big difference.

One could argue that the reason Cyril wasn't effected was by the simple fact that he wasn't fully conscious, if at all. If I remember correctly he was just sitting there kind of in a zombie like state. It wasn't until the Tree People actually touched him did he speak. But even so, the Tree People may have just blocked that out.

As for why the Sister couldn't... well... nevermind.

The father was never actually dead. Now before the end, we never learned what happened to him. It wasn't until the very end did we see the rest of that scene. What we had to go on was just Madge's words. I don't remember a scene where she learns of her husbands death or more importantly the circumstances. It was a red herring.

If they were flying over an ocean and they vanished. It be assumed they crashed into the ocean. If they crashed into the ocean chances are they would have assumed he died along with everyone else. But I guess we never learn where he was flying at all.

But we never see his body and we never see him die. We are left to assume he is dead and we are told by the mother he is dead. But that doesn't mean he was ever actually dead.

The husband always saw that light and he always followed it. We just never saw it the first time we saw that scene.

He was drawn to that time and that location. Thats what happened in the first scene. He was pulled out of time thanks to the mother and the telepathic ship and he arrived at the house, just as they did.

I'd also argue that its not needed for characters to die. What is important is that the writer/director creates the illusion that characters can die. It gives that sense of danger whenever a character comes up against something.

But the problem with Doctor Who, and not so much with Moffat, is that companions rarely die in the series. A few have in the past, but it doesn't happen often.

Its not a problem with Moffat, but rather the series itself. Its the way the series has been created and setup. Main Characters in a show like Doctor Who rarely die. No matter what danger they face or what end of the world scenario plays out, they will always win out in the end and live. Well almost always.

But if you are not talking about Main Characters... then well characters die all the time. This hasn't changed at all. In the first episode we meet River Song, almost her entire crew is killed off. Plenty of characters die off in both the Davies era and the Moffat era.

But the problem with this is that we don't care. Neither would we have actually cared if the husband lived or not. Its a depressing thought... but he wasn't an important character to most viewers. He was nothing more then the other characters who die in the series.

Death might be a bit of a joke in general in Doctor Who, what with the Doctor having survived death so many times... its to be expected.