Note the lazy Spielbergian open-mouthed, wide-eyed gaze rendering the characters passively receptive, and reflecting the same in their ideal audience. Cardiff Buffy is sadly aping The Master.

For the real McCoy, click here:
http://www.annachen.co.uk/ gallery/annajamesmarsters.htm

BTW, Torchwood is set in this universe. CJH mentioned Torchwood 1 in London, also the Cybermen, the Christmas Invasion – these only happened in the Doctor’s universe.

This is a post watershed show, there is scope for the central characters to be devious and amoral.

But yeah, I agree: during the Eccleston series of Who everyone* was complaining that the Doctor seemed to be entirely passive, and was never involved in plot resolutions…

…which turned out to be kinda the point.

*Well, not everyone.

I think this is the case. The Dr Who series telegraphed all the big plot lines from well in advance. I think Davies is too good a writer/producer to allow something as sloppy as this without good reason.

The other line which has already come up twice is “the 21st century is when it all changes – we have to be ready”

Incidentally – which universe is this set in – the Doctor’s or the one Rose ended up in? Could be significant.

So far the pattern seems to be that a) the Torchwood team have moral compasses that are spinning wildly; b) Gwen is already getting corrupted by it all (look at the shooting range scene); c) Jack isn’t nearly as concerned about these missteps as he should be (I mean, he screams at Owen while he’s threatening someone with a knife, but he doesn’t seem bothered once it’s all over), preusmably because he’s too busy standing on rooves and anghsting.

The show has an upsettingly large number of flaws – the tone is inconsistent, it sometimes looks cheap, there’s a lot of stuff thrown in there for the “hey, cool!” factor…

…but I trust the moral grey area stuff to be going somewhere. In fact I suspect it’s what the show is going to be all about.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t mean to suggest that characters like these are incapable of moral reflection on their actions – just that they act first and reflect when the consequences come around.

then you’ve limited the roles they can play – mostly to junkies and rent boys.

And kids. Imagine applying your ethical standards to the Famous Five, or the characters in Malcolm in the Middle – or the characters in Buffy, come to that. Torchwood isn’t about defending the earth against aliens – it’s about being young, naive and sexually active, and defending Cardiff against aliens. It’s a kids’ drama with added sex and death – very like Buffy, really (remember all the stuff about the Scoobies). It’s nowhere near as good as Buffy, I hasten to add, but it’s early days yet.

I’m not suggesting that Davies’ handling of that scene and the issue was anything other than a terribly misjudged joke but it still leaves a nasty taste. Also, I think that sloppiness is indicative of the writing as a whole. Phil, you waxed lyrical about Davies’ ability with dialogue (and I agree, in general, wholeheartedly) but then you didn’t cite any examples from Torchwood itself.

There was, as a friend pointed out to me after I’d written my bit, another date rape allusion in episode one when Jack spikes the drink of the female copper (sorry, her name escapes me) – with what was effectively Rohypnol.

Of course, Mickey Finns have been a staple of espionage fiction for ages but, again, I thought the issue was mishandled – these are paranoid times. I could go on but I wonder if all of us have given the show more analysis (and time) that it truly deserves.

Rapist first: he’s right. If the spray really makes whatisname irresistable, then it’s no better than a date rape drug. Having sex with someone who hasn’t or can’t give consent is rape. You can watch a wildlife film of young lions optimisitically chasing antelope – and you’d have two of Davies’ trinity, but that’s not how the antelope see it.

And, yes, office theives. My reading of the scene at the end where they handed the things back was that Barrowman had declared some kind of amnesty. They didn’t just sneak them back into work, they had to show that they’d returned them. If they were supposed to be experimenting: sorry, that’s not how scientists do things. The experiments in CSI are all about rigour.

If you’re going to write about characters ‘without foresight or moral reflection’ then you’ve limited the roles they can play – mostly to junkies and rent boys. The Rodney King assailants excepted, most people in the police have plenty of both.

I think your second last paragraph is very good but the only sense of adult it describes is the euphemism for porn sense. I don’t think the camera work is beautiful, BTW, the best term I can come up with is ‘pretentious journeyman’.