It’s interesting how two people can see such different things in the same series. Where you saw “poor dialogue”, I saw inspired dialogue; where you saw Gwen becoming “two dimensional”, I saw her character given depth (loved her little speech to Jack in the car about how much she loved Torchwood); where you saw a vacuous ending, I saw an intriguing conclusion.

As for Jack losing his charm… I thought that happened a long time ago. Jack was a great character in Doctor Who, as a comedic side-kick… but for me, he never really worked as a leading man; and the extra baggage they gave him for Torchwood never quite worked for me. So, something we do agree on is killing off of the best characters… my two favourites were killed off in season 2. But even without them, the plot, the dialogue and everything else about the series got better.

It’s because people can have such different opinions that I’ve always felt they should make up their own minds rather than being swayed by reviews. I love reviewing DVDs. I love putting my opinions out there. But I also love the fact that there are opinions different to my own out there as well.

Criticism, in a review, is a matter of opinion. I watch something and then I give my opinion through my review. Whether or not it is unfounded is also a matter of opinion. We obviously have differing opinions… and that’s fine. Differing opinions make for a more interesting world.

Paul Cornell’s comments about alleged plot contradictions are not lies… they are his opinions. As it happens, I agree with his opinions. Having met him, I can say that he’s also a really nice person (who seems quite content with other people having opinions different to his own) and does not deserve to be called a liar. I know you feel strongly about your own opinions… but you need to allow others to have their own opinions.

Doctor Who is just a tv show. Admittedly it is a damn fine tv show (and my personal all–time favourite), but a tv show none-the-less. There ARE contradictions, as there are in any long-running tv show. Solutions to those contradictions can be found, often through supposition and invention, if you choose to find them. But those solutions are often not what the makers had in mind. But that’s okay… fans have often found much pleasure in examining the minutiae of their favourite program.

As for the new series (a continuation in my opinion, not a remake or a ‘whoremake’)… it has inconsistencies just like the original. And fans are finding solutions to its inconsistencies as easily as you find solutions for the original’s.

As he always does Bidmead fills the story with little details, little touches that show this is a lovingly crafted piece of work. To begin with he brings up one of the practical problems of time travel. The Time Lords set a limit on how far they dare explore into thier universes future. After all, if they see something they cannot tolerate, tough. It is the future, it will happen. That’s a relativistic universe for you. So we get a great well thought out plot element and perfect continuity (the Doctor always endorses relativity) all in a neat package.

The Tractators are a highly original enemy. A true alien rather than another case of rather convienient convergent evolution. Had they been more inventive with thier ability to manipulate gravity they could have been Time Lords themselves. Being able to distort spacetime enough to reconfigure the damaged TARDIS confirms they have the power to build thier own time capsules. As with the classic egocentric villain the Gravis is beaten by his own lack of creative or investigative vigour and an excessive thirst for power.

This is very much Doctor Who at its best. A reminder that this is a serious science fiction series with an adult audience, but also a lesser juvenile following to boot. See more