Previous Entry | Next Entry

Doctor Who - "Blink"

  • Jun. 9th, 2007 at 7:57 PM
TV
Almost flawless.

Steven Moffat's episodes to date have been so highly rated I was beginning to think that my expectations were impossibly high and doomed to disappointment, especially when I realised that this is the season's 'Love & Monsters'/'The Long Game' Doctor-lite episode. I was wrong. If you're going to give David Tennant and Freema Agyeman a week off *this* is the way to do it. This episode just goes to show that a great concept and great writing can make the (partial) absence of your regular cast into a virtue. I'm sure some will dislike it simply for being so light on the regular characters--effectively an anthology short story--but for me the execution makes this an almost complete success and a very strong follow-up to a very strong two-parter. While it focuses on supporting characters it retains all the genre-bending imagination that makes Doctor Who such a flexible format for a series (albeit one that's not always fully exploited).

There are so many lovely games played with time in this episode, all deeply implausible and yet somehow giving the impression of intricate clockwork precision. The device of the Doctor's foreknowledge is one packed to the brim with sense-of-wonder, even if it's just a particularly clever spin on the old Bill & Ted "remember to leave the key under the plant pot" shtick. The way that it comes together from the point of view of Sally Sparrow, the outsider, only adds to the air of mystery and wonder, and yet by the end of the episode we have a very clear idea of what went on. We're allowed to peek behind the curtain without spoiling our enjoyment of the illusion. No doubt (like elements of Moffat's 'The Girl in the Fireplace') the premise will soon be shown to be full of holes, but crucially that's not the impression left during the episode. (Of course, in reality the Doctor couldn't possibly have received such an accurate transcript that he knew how long to pause between his responses, but he's a Time Lord so I'll cut him some slack.) Coming hot on the heels of Paul Cornell's two-parter this episode has the (perhaps inadvertent) quality of cementing the Doctor's Machiavellian characteristics.

The aliens, with their quantum nature, are a second inventive high concept--which seems generous given that several episodes this season haven't had any. Here the script pulls off that perfect Lovecraftian trick of blending mythology and horror with the veneer of Science Fiction to create a sense of Deep Time and ancient horror. They're a fantastically atmospheric creation, and the scenes in which they move in a staccato series of frozen poses are really scary, in a way that TV seldom is. They're scary in their very concept, evoking a shiver of dread rather than just the usual fear of being eaten. I find myself referencing Sapphire and Steel too often when talking about horror-SF, but this is exactly the kind of imaginative corner-of-the-eye horror that was the stock in trade of that series.

The other great strength of the episode is that the supporting characters are written and played so sympathetically. By the end of the episode it's hard to escape the feeling that Sally would make a great companion so likeable is she, but Kathy and Ben are no less well-rounded despite far less screen time. The script has compassion for their plight, and finds the beauty as well as the tragedy in their lives. It's these character moments, never caricatured, and never forced, that really make the story come alive.

My main criticism of this episode is that the logic of the aliens' movement is almost impossible to render accurately when staging a scene with actors and so there are a few hiccups in when the statues move and when they don't towards the end. Also you'd think the pair would have hit upon the idea that they take it in turns to blink, which would have helped (as long as they kept all the statues in the same field of vision). And lastly the Scary Statues Montage at the end feels a tad bolted-on: the idea has already wormed its way into your subconscious by this stage and the epilogue is superfluous. These minor niggles aside, this is an excellent episode.


Comments

( 45 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]sharp_blue wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 07:50 pm (UTC)
I'd love to see a sequel from the Doctor's perspective next season. If they could somehow make that just as clever and creepy it could push the whole thing to perfection, and perhaps Sally could end up being a companion after all.
[info]snowking wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 07:55 pm (UTC)
it's just a particularly clever spin on the old Bill & Ted "remember to leave the key under the plant pot" shtick.

Every week, I long for the Doctor to defeat his enemies with a trashcan.

And lastly the Scary Statues Montage at the end feels a tad bolted-on

Purely there to torment and haunt children (and create the next generation of Who writers). APPROVED.
[info]white_hart wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 08:00 pm (UTC)
Every week, I long for the Doctor to defeat his enemies with a trashcan.

Perhaps he should just convince the Daleks to mate with the trashcan and invent the garbage disposal?

It's been far too long since I last watched Bill & Ted...
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 08:02 pm (UTC)
the Doctor to defeat his enemies with a trashcan.

You're reminding me of the burping Auton Wheelie Bin in 'Rose' and it's not doing my brain any good. Except in highlighting just how much better this episode is in comparison.

torment and haunt children

Hurray! Always a valid goal when writing Doctor Who.
[info]icundell wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 08:18 pm (UTC)
Sally would make a great companion, so likeable is she,

Plus looking disconcertingly like Jo Grant.


*Feels very very old**
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 08:23 pm (UTC)
Hmm. A bit. She reminded me strongly of Claudia Brown (played by Lucy Brown) from Primeval.
[info]icundell wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 09:10 am (UTC)
Yeah I can see that too.

And back to the episode: anything that spices Rosencratz and Guilderstern with Back to the Future will always get my vote. Not as emotionally potent as GiTF but a thoroughly well thought out piece of work (mindful of Whedon's First Law), very well cast and played by all.
[info]gashinryu wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 08:37 pm (UTC)
It was an excellent episode. You already referenced that old time travel classic (*g*) Bill & Ted, but staying with the time travel, I also enjoyed the "end of Back To The Future Part 2" scene with the letter (at one point I thought it was going to include the "we had bets in the office on whether you would actually be here" line). :-)
[info]tinimaus wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2007 08:44 pm (UTC)
So touching - again.
[info]ajp wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 05:01 pm (UTC)
I'm far too tired to write anything at all; but I have to scribble something here. In short, this was another amazing episode. Was it better than last week? Maybe. Did it beat everything in the first two seasons hands down? You bet.

Also – next week looks like a Torchwood cross-back. I've no idea how that will work...
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 06:00 pm (UTC)
I'm assuming that, somehow, it'll pick up from the Doctor's fly-by at the end of the Torchwood finale (where Jack hears the Tardis and goes haring off.)
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 07:33 pm (UTC)
Me too. The real question, of course, is whether the show can rehabilitate Jack's character, because after a season of his criminal ineptitude and breathtaking self-absorption on Torchwood, my only reason for cheering at his return is the faint hope that the Doctor will give him the thwaping he so richly deserves.
[info]ajp wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 07:53 pm (UTC)
Yeah; but can it do that without referencing Torchwood? Can you leave the end of Torchwood hanging: or do you need to pickup from where it finished? Bearing in mind that one part of the show's core demographic won't (shouldn't) have seen Torchwood, and one (probably smaller, but more vocal) part will and will want a continuation: it's a somewhat difficult square peg and round hole. I suspect a recap of the salient parts of "End of Days" (albeit with simplification)...
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 07:40 pm (UTC)
I said this after "The Girl in the Fireplace", but why is Steven Moffat the only Who writer willing to write non-linear stories? It's a show about time travel, for crying out loud.

It's been my opinion for a while that one of Who's strongest points is its one-off characters. The writers have a real knack of making people leap off the screen. Interestingly, the main characters don't always come off as well (see my complaints about Martha all season). Sally Sparrow is indeed fantastic, to the extent that I'm actually a little sorry that the episode ended with her relinquishing her obsession with the Doctor and embracing domesticity. At the very least, I would have liked an indication that she was going to have more adventures.

As for the plot, I'm sure it'll fall apart in my head soon enough, but right now the only question I have is who threw the rock?
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 08:09 pm (UTC)
And also, why did the angels have the TARDIS key and why did they let Sally take it?
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 09:24 pm (UTC)
who threw the rock?

Very good question - must be either a random unrelated event or a weeping angel engaged in ridiculously mundane breaking and entering. But how did the Doctor know? Unless it's a paradox, and he wrote it because he read that he wrote it.

why did the angels have the TARDIS key

This one I'm less bothered about, since we never learn the entire sequence of events that stranded the Doctor in 1969. It seems likely that at some point he was "got" by the Angels, and that in the course of that he lost the Tardis key and they ended up with it.

why did they let Sally take it?

To be fair they were frozen at the time.

[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 05:12 am (UTC)
Unless it's a paradox, and he wrote it because he read that he wrote it.

That's been my assumption. In fact, I'm assuming that all of the Doctor's actions in this story, including getting sent to 1969, are part of a paradox. My guess would be that as soon as he reviewed the documents in Sally's folder, he took the TARDIS to the mansion. Otherwise, how could he be certain to have the folder with him?

(The only problem with this reading, of course, is that it makes the Doctor look not so much clever as good at following directions.)

But that still doesn't answer my questions about the rock or the TARDIS. It makes no sense for the angels to call attention to themselves, and unless the police picked up the TARDIS the very instant that the Doctor and Martha disappeared, there would have been some period during which the angels had both the TARDIS and the key. Also, if they could follow Sally into public, where hundreds of eyes could be on them at any given moment, why didn't they follow the TARDIS to the storage area in the first place, and use the key there and then?
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 07:32 am (UTC)
I think the logic of the episode has trouble hanging together at certain points under scrutiny. :-)

It's possible that the Angels had only just found the key, rather than having had it in their possession since the Doctor got vanished.
[info]icundell wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 09:14 am (UTC)
I think the logic of the episode has trouble hanging together at certain points under scrutiny.,/i>

True. To which the correct response is: So what?
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 01:01 pm (UTC)
Well, quite. It hangs together well enough to tell its story as you watch it, and then some.

(Although it would be even nicer if it was also watertight in every major story element).
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 02:12 pm (UTC)
I think that, when it comes to time travel stories, my expectations of logic and consistency tend to be more rigorous than they usually are. You're right, though, that the episode is fantastic in spite of the plot holes.
[info]icundell wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 04:16 pm (UTC)
It hangs together much more than well enough. There are things we aren't told, true, but this is partly because they are not even remotely important, but more significantly because we are seeing things from Sally's POV, pretty much through a letterbox. She doesn't know - or need to know - how the Angels got the key to fulfil her part in the story. And nor do we to appreciate the story.
[info]fba wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 09:44 pm (UTC)
It's a show about time travel, for crying out loud.

But it isn't. Its a Science/Fantasy/Adventure show where time travel is a plot contrivance.

Non-linear storytelling would get very dull if overused (and tbh non-linearity is one of my main gripes with Heroes - if you need spider diagrams to keep the plot strands straight it is probably overcomplicated).
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 05:14 am (UTC)
Non-linear storytelling would get very dull if overused

True enough, but it's even close to being overused right now. And anyway, 'very dull' seems like an apt description of the third season, Cornell and Moffat's entries notwithstanding.
[info]fba wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 09:21 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure what you got from S1 that you aren't getting now. I suspect it may be that the novelty of 'genre' TV that isn't from the US has worn off. It is also possible that Tennant is playing it too Doctorish for your taste (as Ecclestone's portrayal of a wounded 'lonely god' was more fractured and while The Doctor was at the core it only really appeared in flashes).

IMO this has been the most consistent season of the current incarnation of the show. Even the least sucessful (Daleks In Manhatten/Evolution of the Daleks, Gridlock and 42) have been better than really rather excreable Slytheen episodes and The Long Game from S1 and Cornell and Moffat's stories are the best they have done (in Cornell's case by a country mile).
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 09:38 pm (UTC)
I agree that this has been the most consistent season to date, although until these last three episodes it was frustratingly lacking in standout episodes. If we'd had something of this quality earlier in the year it would have created a more balanced season and the series would have felt more comfortable with a real slam-dunk of an episode under its belt.

Overall, though, the third season has lacked the lurching extremes of tone that marred the first two seasons. While I love large portions of the first season1, mainly thanks to Christopher Eccleston's excellence, the tone of the season is wildly uneven. It's marred by cartoonish comedy that makes it feel like bad Kid's TV at times. The early episodes - Rose and the Slitheen two-parter, are the worst examples when the revival was still feeling its way to a degree. Season 2 had the same problem but confined it to small chunks of self-parody in otherwise good episodes. New Earth is the only out-and-out clunker of the year, and even that's redeemed to an extent by the Face of Boe.

1When I catch bits of Season 1 on TV I must confess to an immense nostalgic fondness even though it only aired two years ago.
[info]fba wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 09:49 pm (UTC)
Its strange that, for example, Rose's bet in Tooth and Claw came very close to ruining it while the Shakespearian banter between Will and The Doctor just added to the fun of The Shakespeare Code. I'm sure that says something quite profound about the differences between S2 and S3 but I'm not sure what it is...
[info]coalescent wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 08:43 am (UTC)
I'm sure that says something quite profound about the differences between S2 and S3 but I'm not sure what it is...

Martha >> Rose.
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 12:52 pm (UTC)
Unless you like your TV characters to have a personality.

My brother made an absolutely brilliant observation after watching HN/TFoB: Martha doesn't make mistakes. Rose screwed up quite often, usually because of her limited experience and frame of reference. It was a way of reminding us that she was human and had an existence outside the Doctor. Martha has yet to demonstrate the independence necessary to screw up.
[info]coalescent wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 01:19 pm (UTC)
Rose didn't screw up becaue of limited experience and frame of reference. She screwed up largely because the plot required her to, and ended up looking moronic because of it. Martha, refreshingly, is allowed to use her brain.
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 02:00 pm (UTC)
Rose didn't screw up becaue of limited experience and frame of reference. She screwed up largely because the plot required her to

I don't think that's true. In "The Unquiet Dead", Rose is chewed out by the Doctor for opposing the plan to let the aliens use dead bodies as hosts (she's right that it's a bad idea, but not for the reasons she offers). She's not stupid, just locked into a set of standards and taboos that most of us can sympathize with. In "Dalek", Rose mistakes Adam's lust for power and fame for her own desire to see the universe, and gets the Doctor to offer him a position he doesn't deserve. She's not stupid, just inexperienced. In "Father's Day", Rose very nearly destroys the universe, not because she's stupid but because she's human.

But regardless of whether Rose's mistakes originated from the character or the necessities of plot, surely you'll agree that Martha's complete lack of screw-ups, whatever the reason, is dehumanizing.

Martha, refreshingly, is allowed to use her brain.

1. And very little else.
2. Whereas Rose wasn't?
[info]coalescent wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 02:07 pm (UTC)
(she's right that it's a bad idea, but not for the reasons she offers)

And this is not acting as a tool of the plot because ...?

Rose's objections in "The Unquiet Dead" are idiotic. A six-year-old could have read Adam better than Rose did. And you really don't want to get me started on the stupidity of "Father's Day".

surely you'll agree that Martha's complete lack of screw-ups, whatever the reason, is dehumanizing.

No, because I find competent people to be just as human as incompetent ones. And, usually, more interesting to watch on tv.

2. Whereas Rose wasn't?

Correct.
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 03:48 pm (UTC)
And this is not acting as a tool of the plot because ...?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Rose's objections are visceral and emotional (which is not the same thing as idiotic - how comfortable would you be with the bodies of your loved ones running around, animated by aliens?), but they have no bearing on the plot.

I find competent people to be just as human as incompetent ones

'Competent' isn't the same thing as 'never makes any mistakes.'

2. Whereas Rose wasn't?

Correct.


Hmmm. "The Parting of the Ways", "The Christmas Invasion", "New Earth", "The Idiot's Lantern", "The Satan Pit", "Fear Her", and "Army of Ghosts".
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 05:29 pm (UTC)
There seems to be a significant potion of the audience who found Rose to be both stupid and incompetent. While I sometimes found her annoying, mostly in Season 2, I never thought of her that way. She's the archetype of the person in whom the Doctor sees potential: intelligent, resilient, resourceful. While she may be emotional and lacking in formal education (although do we know this for sure?) she's not the stereotypical chav that she's often made out to be.

Martha is possibly a person I'd like and relate to better in real life but that doesn't make her a better character. While much pay is made of her medical training I'm struggling to see these signs of great intelligence or competence that set her apart from Rose. If anything I'd say they're about equal in problem solving, and Martha is not even noticeably less emotional than Rose most weeks.
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 05:30 pm (UTC)
potion portion

pay play
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 07:28 pm (UTC)
lacking in formal education (although do we know this for sure?)

At the beginning of the restaurant scene in "Rose", she laments being talked into quitting school by a guy. Later on in the episode, she says that she's got 'no A-levels.'

much pay is made of her medical training

As I've said elsewhere, the frequent references to Martha's medical training annoy me because they only serve to draw attention to the fact that she has effectively abandoned it. Being a med school dropout isn't something to crow about.
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 07:55 pm (UTC)
She's probably assuming that the Doctor can just drop her back the week after she left. And we all know how that one goes.

(Assuming she's thinking at all.)
[info]coalescent wrote:
Jun. 13th, 2007 10:02 am (UTC)
1. I'd probably be a bit disconcerted, but basically fine with it. My loved ones would be dead, after all.

2. The bodies being possessed in "The Unquiet Dead" aren't Rose's loved ones.

3. Rose's reactions don't come across as being a natural part of her character. The come across as the writer wanting someone to be shocked so that he can create a false moral dilemma and the audience can have someone to be shocked on their behalf.

4. And "never makes any mistakes" is not the same thing as "hasn't made any major screwups in ten episodes."

5. I don't care enough about the first two seasons of new Who to have detailed recaps of all those episodes in my head, I'm afraid. I don't remember Rose acting particularly smart in any of the episodes you list, however. I do remember her acting particularly dumb in her reactions to the Ood.

6. Moreover, it's telling that Martha's signature moments -- the ones the writers use to say "this character is not Rose" -- have revolved around clear thinking and problem solving. Her reactions on being transported to the moon in "Smith and Jones", for instance, or sitting the Doctor down and making him talk to her at the end of "Gridlock" -- both great scenes that would never have happened with Rose on the show.

7. In very general terms, Martha comes across as an adult and Rose comes across as a child.
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 13th, 2007 05:53 pm (UTC)
We seem to be going around in circles re: "The Unquiet Dead". My original point was that Rose's failure to divest herself of her human-centric point of view and her ingrained taboos, especially so early in her relationship with the Doctor, is understandable, and not necessarily indicative of a lack of intelligence. If I've understood you correctly, you think that reacting strongly to the notion of alien-animated corpses is not a reasonable and potentially universal response, and therefore implicitly not organic to the character. Given that the episode's attempts to disconcert and even frighten the audience hinge on the notion that an animated corpse is unnatural and disgusting, I think it's safe to say that, at the very least, the writers disagree with you.

"never makes any mistakes" is not the same thing as "hasn't made any major screwups in ten episodes."

True enough, but I can't remember a single minor mistake that Martha has made in those ten episodes.

I don't remember Rose acting particularly smart in any of the episodes you list

"The Parting of the Ways" - Rose works out the meaning of Bad Wolf and figures out how to return to the Doctor
"The Christmas Invasion" - Rose finds a way to bring the Doctor out of his coma so that he can save her and her family
"New Earth" - Rose has the presence of mind to pick up a weapon when Cassandra kidnaps her (flimsy, I admit, but it does go against a cliché)
"The Idiot's Lantern" - Rose makes the connection between the faceless people and the new televisions, and tracks down the source of the epidemic (admittedly, she then confronts the TV salesman alone and gets herself facewiped. This is one instance in which I would agree that Rose is made stupid for the sake of the plot)
"The Satan Pit" - Rose organizes the crew and gets them off the planet
"Fear Her" - Rose finds the alien spaceship and frees the Doctor
"Army of Ghosts" - Rose figures out that the Daleks need a time traveler to open the Genesis Ark

it's telling that Martha's signature moments...

I wouldn't call either of those moments signature moments, although I do agree that the writers frequently feel the need to bash us over the head with how smart (for 'smart', read 'educated') Martha is. Frankly, I don't think she had any signature moments until "Human Nature."

In very general terms, Martha comes across as an adult and Rose comes across as a child.

Martha has put her entire life on hold for the sake of the chance to spend time with a person who barely even notices her existence. That's something an adult might do, but isn't a sign of maturity.
[info]coalescent wrote:
Jun. 14th, 2007 09:43 am (UTC)
OK, first of all: apologies for the tone of this thread. My initial comments were posted when I was annoyed at something else, and that seems to have carried through to sounding annoyed with you.

Second of all, I still disagree with you about almost everything.

Third: on "The Unquiet Dead", I think finding reanimated corpses icky is perfectly understandable. I think objecting to the idea of aliens taking refuge in corpses on the grounds that it's icky is idiotic and childish. There probably are plenty of real people who would react that way; I think they're idiotic and childish, too.

List of examples: eh. Most of those either feel like plot-imposed inspiration (particularly "The Parting of the Ways" -- but then, I think that's one of the worst episodes new Who has yet produced), or actions that are so blindingly obvious they say nothing about Rose except that she has a pulse and isn't walking around with her eyes closed. "The Satan Pit" is a fair point; I'd forgotten about that. But that's probably because it was buried under the mass of self-absorption that was the Doctor and Rose's relationship in season two.

Martha has put her entire life on hold for the sake of the chance to spend time with a person who barely even notices her existence.

That's an interesting interpretation of the text. She knows full well her crush is unrequited. I'd say Martha's put her life on hold for the sake of the chance to travel through time and space. I'd do the same thing.
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 16th, 2007 07:02 am (UTC)
My initial comments were posted when I was annoyed at something else

That's OK. I sort of figured.

I still disagree with you about almost everything

Yeah, I figured that too.

I think objecting to the idea of aliens taking refuge in corpses on the grounds that it's icky is idiotic and childish.

Once again, we are talking about an immediate, visceral reaction. By the time the Doctor has everything set up, Rose is on board (except for trying to make sure that Gwyneth isn't being pressured into doing something she doesn't want to do).

List of examples: eh. Most of those either feel like plot-imposed inspiration ... or actions that are so blindingly obvious they say nothing about Rose

OK, hang on: your original assertion is that we never see Rose using her brain. I offered a list of counter-examples. The question of whether or not these examples make Rose look smarter than Martha is beside the point - what's important is that she solves problems using reasoning and deduction. I'm also not clear what you mean by 'plot-imposed'. Why is it a demonstration of her intelligence when Martha uses her brain, but something inorganic to the character when Rose does it?

I'd say Martha's put her life on hold for the sake of the chance to travel through time and space.

At the beginning of the season? Maybe. I'll grant you that in "The Shakespeare Code" Martha is at least as interested in her surroundings as she is in the Doctor. But I can't think of an example since then - by the time we reach HN/TFoB, Martha is traveling with the Doctor in order to be around him. Now, granted, Rose made the same transition, but it wasn't as pronounced and took a hell of a lot longer to happen.
[info]abigail_n wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2007 12:45 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure what you got from S1 that you aren't getting now

I'm not entirely certain myself. I'm not engaged by any of the stories - the plots aren't interesting (which might have something to do with the novelty wearing off, although another way of putting it is that the show is repeating itself), and although the supporting and guest characters are sometimes appealing (Tallulah and Laszlo very nearly made the Dalek two-parter worth watching), I don't like either the Doctor or Martha. But I can't point to anything specific that the first season (and even, in spots, the second) did right that's gone missing.
[info]veggiesu wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2007 09:46 pm (UTC)
Yes, it really was rather good wasn't it? The creepy statues concept will be terrifying children for years to come :-)
[info]majuran wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 02:25 pm (UTC)
Excellent stuff :D

Anyone else reminded of Boo? Just me then?"
[info]iainjclark wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2007 05:11 pm (UTC)
Just you. :-) Mario has not been a big part of my life. I know it's wrong, but there it is.
( 45 comments — Leave a comment )