I'd say that the story was about selfishness versus sacrifice. And how we'll justify or turn a blind eye to all sorts of things as necessary evils until they affect us personally. They could have called the 456 the NIMBY. The PM was the most extreme example, but there's a lot of "That's a shame, but it's not my problem" running through the whole thing.

So if Jack saves millions by killing some crazy, miserable old man nobody cares about -- or some other child, with no connection to the characters -- I think that undercuts the story significantly. It's not a sacrifice if it doesn't cost anything.

So if Jack saves millions by killing some crazy, miserable old man nobody cares about -- or some other child, with no connection to the characters -- I think that undercuts the story significantly. It's not a sacrifice if it doesn't cost anything.

::hugs Strega's spicy brains::

And yes Le Nubian, I agree that Jack's actions earlier were those of a complete bastard when he sacrificed those 12 children and justified it as "a good deal". But I think one of the points was that he was trying to change and then confronted with unimaginable circumstances. And again I think part of the point was the change in emotional impact of the two choices. He betrayed 12 children to their death to save millions of people the first time, but they were strangers, and he did not seem to really care. But still they needed a cure and would not have received one if they did not trade the children back in 1965. And still emotionally I don't think we are left with any doubt that 1965 Jack is being a complete bastard. This second time he destroys one child to save tens of millions. And emotionally we see the dilemma. I think one of the points of this is to make us emotionally complicit in the same thing we condemned earlier.

your previous post was regarding his emotions: which seems pretty in the pits in "Exit Wounds."

I was talking about his emotions in respect to himself and his actions, though, not independent of them.

From that panel report above:

3.42pm: "As you're such a big musicals person, will there ever be a musical episode of Torchwood?" someone from the floor asks.

"I can answer on behalf on Russell. No" Says Barrowman.

"The thing is, when Buffy did that episode ..." says Russell T "You just can't beat that."

Strega,

but I cared about that miserable old man, a lot more than Jack's grandson. I was really upset for him and what was done to him in 1965 and his loss of sanity going forward. He was sacrificed, he could have just done so with more meaning.

Perhaps my negative reaction to the storyline in CoE comes from the feeling that CoE was lecturing the viewers about evil and its banality. This is not a unique message, nor anything I am personally a stranger to. This is Hurricane Katrina and any number of other things we could name across the world. There are ways to fight its everyday appearance and not just feel helpless when confronted. Too many victims in CoE and not enough fighters.

I'm going to chill out and lurk on the CoE discussion because I get the feeling that many of you are patronizing me because I feel differently about CoE (didn't really like it) than those of you who liked it and I don't want to rain on your parade (further).

I don't need plot elements explained to me or writers' intent. I really and truly understand what the writers were trying to convey with CoE - I still don't like the 5-part series as much as many of you did. I am not interested in convincing any of you to share my opinion, but I think counter viewpoints should be expressed from time to time.

Counter opinions are always good, I think. I apologize if I got a little carried away with storyteller glee. So rarely do you see writers, regardless of medium, making choices like this and it just thrilled me to my absolute core. I definitely get that it's not going to be everyone's cuppa, but I definitely didn't mean to come across as patronizing in any way, so again, if I did, I apologize.

Steven Moffat, on the filming of the first episode with the 11th Doctor, on Monday July 20th:

"And here's me, with the job I wanted since I was seven – 40 years to here! If I could go back in time and tell that little boy that one day all this would happen, he'd scream, call for his mum and I'd be talking to you now from a prison cell in 1969. So probably best not then.

"Matt and Karen are going to be incredible, and Doctor Who is going to come alive on Saturday nights in a whole new way – and, best of all, somewhere out there a seven-year-old is going to see them, fall in love and start making a 40-year plan..."

My understanding was that both Martha and Mickey were supposed to be joining Torchwood, but that (a) the BBC changed the order from "series" to "five-day special" and that (b) the actors were otherwise engaged.

Now I wonder what that series would have been like, and whether Ianto would still be alive after it.

I didn't really enjoy CoE very much, but recognised the quality, particularly of the acting. Big, big props to Peter Capaldi for playing another edgy civil servant and managing to make him different from Malcom Tucker, and to Susan Brown as Bridget, who didn't even seem to be acting, she just was a middle-aged government PA.

I can't blame RTD for giving it his all, though. If he hadn't, Torchwood would have been cancelled, and he seems to take his responsibilities as the employer of half of Cardiff very seriously. And I can sympathise that he ends up going overboard on the dark after DW and SJA.