(no subject)
Jan. 31st, 2008 09:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficSo, last night's Torchwood? Not bad. Not bad at all. And I'm not just saying that because of the snogging, though that certainly didn't hurt.
A few points:
-Apparently, every guest star on Torchwood has to get laid, and if the character doesn't have a boy/girlfriend, they get to sleep with one of the main characters. Also, hello pity fuck.
-So Jack hasn't been with Torchwood since 1918. Interesting.
-Torchwood has always been as morally exigent as it is now.
-Did Ianto kind of sort of maybe make an oblique reference to Canary Wharf? I think he did! Woo continuity. Of course, he could've just been talking about Suzie.
This episode managed to be about an ethical dilemma and not tick me off, mainly, I think, because the decision to put this poor guy in limbo hell was not made by our characters. They're dealing with the consequence of a really questionable ethical choice, but they didn't make it, so it's more palatable.
Also, for anyone who spent the episode thinking, "that guy looks familiar," the actor who played Tommy is the brother of the guy who plays Neville Longbottom.
As for THAT SCENE, yes, it was incredibly pat. That was Ianto fishing for reassurance and Jack saying the thing that will get him laid, which makes it a little harder for me to believe he was being sincere, and Jack didn't actually reveal anything about himself, but. At least it was a scene that addressed one of the billion issues with that relationship. And then there was kissing. My only real problem was last season the Torchwood people had no idea Jack was from the future, right? So when did Jack tell them? Presumably after "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," but there wasn't actually a scene where he tells anyone he's a time agent from the 51st century and that seems like kind of an oversight.
So basically, as long as Torchwood avoids telling stories about suicide bombers and babies being hit by cars or really any storyline involving Gwen I'm fine with it.
A few points:
-Apparently, every guest star on Torchwood has to get laid, and if the character doesn't have a boy/girlfriend, they get to sleep with one of the main characters. Also, hello pity fuck.
-So Jack hasn't been with Torchwood since 1918. Interesting.
-Torchwood has always been as morally exigent as it is now.
-Did Ianto kind of sort of maybe make an oblique reference to Canary Wharf? I think he did! Woo continuity. Of course, he could've just been talking about Suzie.
This episode managed to be about an ethical dilemma and not tick me off, mainly, I think, because the decision to put this poor guy in limbo hell was not made by our characters. They're dealing with the consequence of a really questionable ethical choice, but they didn't make it, so it's more palatable.
Also, for anyone who spent the episode thinking, "that guy looks familiar," the actor who played Tommy is the brother of the guy who plays Neville Longbottom.
As for THAT SCENE, yes, it was incredibly pat. That was Ianto fishing for reassurance and Jack saying the thing that will get him laid, which makes it a little harder for me to believe he was being sincere, and Jack didn't actually reveal anything about himself, but. At least it was a scene that addressed one of the billion issues with that relationship. And then there was kissing. My only real problem was last season the Torchwood people had no idea Jack was from the future, right? So when did Jack tell them? Presumably after "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," but there wasn't actually a scene where he tells anyone he's a time agent from the 51st century and that seems like kind of an oversight.
So basically, as long as Torchwood avoids telling stories about suicide bombers and babies being hit by cars or really any storyline involving Gwen I'm fine with it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 01:18 am (UTC)